1. i
CORRELATION OF STUDENTS’ SELF-EFFICACY
AND ENGLISH SPEAKING SKILL
SYIFA NAUVAL MUFTIA
Indonesia University of Education
e-mail: snauval@gmail.com
PUPUNG PURNAWARMAN
Indonesia University of Education
e-mail: purnawarman@upi.edu
MUHAMMAD HANDI GUNAWAN
Indonesia University of Education
e-mail: handi_gunawan@upi.edu
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study is to find out the correlation of students’ self-efficacy
and students’ speaking skill. This study involved sixty students of eighth grade in
a junior high school in Cimahi. In this study, the data were gathered in two ways:
questionnaire and speaking test. The analysis of the data was done within the
theoretical frameworks of self-efficacy by Bandura (1982) and the speaking
assessment criteria used to score the students’ speaking skill was the combination
of IELTS and SQA (Scottish Qualification Association) speaking assessment
criteria. The students’ self-efficacy score and speaking test score were computed
by using Pearson Product Moment Correlation formula. The findings indicated
that 5 students (8.20%) had very high self-efficacy and 13 students (21.31%) had
high self-efficacy in speaking skill. Almost half of the participants (42.62%) had
medium self-efficacy belief in their speaking skill. Meanwhile, there were 14
students (22.96%) who had low self-efficacy and 3 students (4.92%) who had
very low self-efficacy in speaking skill. The test had covered the components
defined by Harris (1969) in the form of the IELTS-SQA speaking assessment
criteria. In addition, the correlation coefficient between the students’ self-efficacy
score and speaking test score was 0,65. It indicated that the correlation was strong
and positive. This study brought to a close that the correlation between self-
efficacy and speaking skill is, the higher the self-efficacy level the higher the
speaking skill as well, and vice versa.
Keywords: Self-efficacy, speaking skill, speaking assessment, correlational study.

2. 2
INTRODUCTION
Speaking is arguably used for
education and business field. Someone’s
mastery of language can also be seen from
the speaking ability. Despite the decades
of teaching and learning English at
schools, the English competence of
Indonesian graduates is considered low.
There are several hypotheses reasons why
most of Indonesia failed to have the ability
to speak English well. One of them is
because of the position of the English
language is placed as a foreign language
and not as a second language. As a result
of it, for most Indonesians, English is not
actively used in daily interactions or in
academic settings.
Due to the lack of practice of the
English language, has caused their
confidence becomes lower when required
to communicate in English in real life. And
as is known, to communicate with a
foreign language self-confidence is very
important. In the study of psychology,
especially cognitive psychology, self-
esteem is often called self-efficacy which
Bandura (1997) defined it as the “beliefs in
one’s capabilities to organize and execute
the courses of action required to produce
given attainments”.
Especially in terms of speaking,
self-efficacy is an essential factor since
speaking is a productive skill that
challenges students’ capability to perform
a task. The key to communication is the
ability to communicate or speak with other
people. Speaking is carried out in a real-
time which demands learner’s abilities to
plan, process and produce the language.
This poses as a difficult task for students
attempting to master speaking skills,
especially EFL learners.
Based on the explanation above,
this study is purposed to find out students’
self-efficacy level in speaking English and
to figure out how their self-efficacy level
correlates with their speaking skill.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy refers to the beliefs
that someone has about his capability to do
something specific, and those beliefs will
lead him to endeavor his desired
performance. Bandura (1997) defines self-
efficacy as "the beliefs in one's capabilities
to organize and execute the courses of
action required to produce given
attainments". For instance, in the field of
English as foreign language, self-efficacy
is not measured by one's score in English
subject but rather the beliefs that he holds
regarding his specific ability in speaking
English or in other skills.
Since Bandura's study on self-
efficacy in 1982, several studies have
shown a positive correlation between high
self-efficacy beliefs and a successful
performance. The beliefs that individual
holds about his capability could influence
his efforts and actions, therefore, self-
belief serves as an excellent predictor of
future performances (Bandura, 1997).
Self-belief is hypothesized to affect
individual choice regarding to the
activities, effort, persistence, and
achievement (Bandura, 1994), as well as
determine how people feel, think, motivate
themselves, and behave.
Within one's self-efficacy are
dimensions that have implications on a
person's performance. Bandura (1997: 42)
divides the self-efficacy into three
dimensions, namely the Magnitude/Level,
Generality, and Strength. Magnitude/Level
Dimension refers to the degree of
difficulty which an individual believe to be
able to cope. While the Generality
dimension is a variation in situations
where individuals feel confident to be able
to do something. And lastly, the Strength
dimension. This dimension relates to the
strength of a person's self-efficacy when
dealing with the demands of a task or a
problem.

3. 3
Self-Efficacy in Academic Context
The concept of self-efficacy is not
only known in psychological context but it
is also well known as useful prediction in
academic fields (Spicer, 2004;
Zimmerman, 2000). Academic self-
efficacy refers to students' confidence in
their ability to carry out such academic
tasks (Zajacova, Lynch, & Espenshade,
2005). It can be seen from a finding that
self-efficacy has emerged as a highly
effective predictor of students' learning
results (Zimmerman, 2000).
Besides, according to Spicer
(2004), there are three distinct ways how
self-efficacy affects students' learning.
Firstly, students with higher levels of self-
efficacy art' more likely to set themselves
higher goals and persevere to meet those
goals. Whereas, students with lower self-
efficacy may set lower goals and
furthermore, avoid the task becomes
difficult. Second, self-efficacy beliefs also
affect students when the students hold a
low sense of self-efficacy to achieve a
task, they may give up easily. In the
opposite, students who believe they are
capable will participate more readily
(Schunk, 1996). Third, self-efficacy will
influence students' logic. A student with
low self-efficacy may believe a task is
harder than it actually is, and it leads to a
reduction of effort and persistence. High
self-efficacy on the other hand can create
feelings of serenity when approaching
difficult tasks (Pajares, 1996), and leading
students to apply themselves further.
Therefore, students with high levels of
self-efficacy are expected to be able to set
and pursue challenging goals and are more
likely to apply rigorous effort, seek out
new solutions and persevere whenever
they face difficulties in learning English as
foreign language.
The Influence of Self-Efficacy in
Speaking English
One of the most consistent findings
thus far is that self-efficacy for the target
language in general appears to be
positively associated with achievement as
described by course grades in the target
language (Wang, Spencer, & Xing, 2009).
Interestingly, self-efficacy in particular
domains of language learning was
significantly related to proficiency in those
domains reading and listening proficiency
(Rahimi & Abedini, 2009). Furthermore, a
study, which was conducted by Dodds
(2011) about the correlation between self-
efficacy beliefs and the language
performance among Chinese immigrant
newcomers in Canada, proved that there
was a significant positive correlation
between English-speaking self-efficacy
beliefs and English speaking performance
among the participants.
Surprisingly, Rahemi (2000)
revealed in her study about "self-efficacy
in English and Iranian senior high school
majoring in humanities", that the Iranian
students who learn English as a foreign
language usually had a very low English
self-efficacy. The significant point
between this study and Rahemi's study is
that the participants in this study are also
junior high school students who learn
English as a foreign language. Therefore,
this study can take the advantages of
Rahemi's study for supporting the findings.
Speaking
Speaking can be easily defined as a
productive skill or communication skill.
Brown (2001) defines speaking as an
interactive process of constructing
meaning that involves producing and
receiving and processing information.
Saville-Troike (2006) explains that
speaking in social context involves
knowing not only the vocabulary,
phonology, and other aspects of linguistic
structure, but also when to speak, what to
say to whom, and how to say it
appropriately.
As proverb says ‘practice makes
perfect’. Therefore, students must practice
to speak English as often as possible so
that they are able to speak English fluently
and accurately. A part of that, to speak

4. 4
English, we have to know some important
component. The component is what aspect
influencing how well people speak
English. Supported by Harmer (2001) and
Thornbury (2007), the component of
speaking skill according to Harris (1969),
which covers grammar, vocabulary,
pronunciation, and fluency.
a) Pronunciation: Nation and Newton
(2009) argued that pronunciation
includes the articulation of
individual sounds, stress, and
intonation. Stress and intonation
play the most important role in
pronunciation. Brown (2001)
believed that the stress-timed
rhythm of spoken English and its
intonation patterns convey
important message.
b) Grammar: In general, the grammar
of spoken sentences is simpler and
less strictly constructed than the
grammar of written sentences
(Leech and Svartvik, 1979).
Halliday (2004) believed that
people should start to explore its
grammar in functional terms: that
is, from the standpoint of how it
creates and expressess meaning.
c) Vocabulary: The role of vocabulary
in spoken language could be as a
function word. According to
Saville-Troike (2006), the most
frequently used words in spoken
English include interjections yeah,
oh; contractions it’s, that’s; and
verb expressing personal opinion or
feeling know, like, think. Those
words are highly functional in
speaking to help the speaker
expressing the statement.
d) Fluency: In many communicative
language courses, be an initial goal
in language teaching (Brown,
2001). Fluency deals with the
speaker’s flow in speaking and the
nature of the language. In order to
speak fluently, the speaker needs
some range of things, as stated by
Pinter (2006), such as what is
appropriate to say in certain
situations, how to manage
conversations, and how to interrupt
and offer the speaker’s own
contributions.
Besides, Harmer (2001) expresses two
main categories of speaking aspects
namely accuracy and fluency. Firstly,
accuracy covers the language features,
such as the correct use of vocabulary,
grammar, and pronunciation. Secondly,
Thornbury (2007) describes fluency as a
condition when pausing is rarely
happening, since frequent pausing is a sign
of a struggling speaker no matter how
accurate the words are.
Assessing Speaking
In order that speaking be tested in
conditions that covers, at least, the two
most important aspects of speaking:
accuracy and fluency, thus in this study the
researcher chooses question and answer to
be tested to students, which adapted from
one of the task of TOEIC Speaking Test.
The purpose of choosing TOEIC as the
speaking test is based on ETS’s argument
that TOEIC speaking and writing tests are
valid assessments of a person’s ability to
speak and write in English (ETS, 2012).
Besides that, the TOEIC speaking test
tasks are organized to support a claim that
the test taker can generate language
intelligible to native and proficient non-
native English speakers (Trew, 2010).
The task used in this research was
only composed of 1 task. Throughout the
task, the test taker is asked four questions
about a topic. The questions are presented
below.

5. 5
Questions 1-4: Respond to questions
Directions: In this the test, you will
answer four questions. For each question,
begin responding immediately after you
finish listening to the question. No
preparation time is provided. You will
have 10 seconds to respond to Questions 1,
2, and 3, and 30 seconds to respond to
Question 4. (Total time 1”)
Topic: Describe your hobby.
Question 1: What’s your hobby?
Question 2: Do you do it often?
Question 3: Why do you like it?
Question 4: Tell about how you usually
do your hobby.
Adapted from ETS (2012)
Criteria of Assessing Speaking
The speaking assessment criteria
that will be used in this research is the
combination of SQA (Scottish
Qualification Association) Speaking
Criteria for Modern Languages for level
Intermediate 1, which assess
schools students for learners from age 3 to
18 and IELTS speaking assessment
criteria. The consideration of choosing the
speaking assessment criteria is supported
by Luoma’s argument (2004) that the
scales must always be related to the
purpose of the test and the definition of the
construct to be assessed. The assessment
highlights the important parts of speaking
such as fluency and coherence, lexical
resource or vocabulary, grammar and
accuracy, and pronunciation. The
researcher found the similarities from each
criteria then put the criteria together on the
same band, those are: fluency, lexical
resource or vocabulary, grammar and
accuracy, and pronunciation.These criteria
are chosen because they cover the need of
the production of speaking ability, while
the other criteria are necessarily omitted.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This study applied Quantitative-
correlational embracing descriptive
research, since this research is aimed to
describe variables, which are self-efficacy
and speaking skill; and to examine
relationships between the two variables. A
quantitative analysis was considered
appropriate to count and interpret the data
from the questionnaire and the speaking
test.
The research question was aimed to
find the correlation of the students’ self-
efficacy in speaking English with their
speaking skill. The eighth grade students
of a junior high school in Cimahi were
selected as sample of this study, with 60
students in total. Questionnaire was chosen
as the first instrument to find out the self-
efficacy level of 60 participants. A close-
ended questionnaire adapted from
Bandura’s “Children's Perceived
Academic Self-Efficacy” (Bandura,
Pastorelli, Caprara, Barbaranelli, Rola, &
Rozsa, 2001) was employed in this study.
There were 15 questions adapted, which
were very task-specific, included in the
questionnaire related to students’ academic
achievement. A five Likert scale was
applied on it, ranged from 1 (Very Poor) to
5 (Very Good). The results were analyzed
by using SPSS 20.0 in order to check the
validity and reliability of the data. An
ordinal category formula was also applied
to determine students’ self-efficacy level.
The second variable of the research
question was aimed to find students’
speaking skill level. One of the ways to
identify the factors is by conducting an
oral test. The test questions used in this
research was from TOEIC speaking test.
The speaking test was conducted by asking
students using TOEIC sample questions to
gain students’ speaking proficiency level.
The students’ answers were scored based
on the criteria of speaking assessment by
the combination of SQA and IELTS. The
speaking assessment criteria included
fluency and coherence, lexical resource,

6. 6
grammatical range and accuracy, and
pronunciation.
The scores from the questionnaire
and test mentioned were produced by
using Pearson Product Moment
Correlation formula to see the correlation
between the scores, whether the correlation
was positive or negative.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Finding of Students’ Self-Efficacy
Levels in Speaking English
In response to the first research
variable which is self-efficacy, the data
from the questionnaire of 60 participants
on self-efficacy in speaking English were
statistically calculated and processed by
using ordinal category formula. The data
was presented in a set of table below.
Table Error! No text of specified style in
document.1. The descriptive statistic of
students' self-efficacy in speaking English
questionnaire score
N Mean Min Max Std.
Dev.
Self-
efficacy
Valid N
(listwise)
60 42.00 105.00 -14.61 14.05
60
Table 4.1 shows that the mean
score of the students' self-efficacy on
speaking English is 74.67, and the
standard deviation is 14.05. Meanwhile,
the minimum score gathered from the
questionnaire falls in 42, and the
maximum score is 105. These data were
further processed by using the ordinal
category formula. All participants were
categorized into their own level based on
the five levels of self-efficacy, namely
very high, high, medium, low, and very
low. The finding showed that the self-
efficacy level of the participants in five
levels of self-efficacy in speaking English
was quite moderate.
Table 2. Students' self-efficacy levels in
speaking English
No Classification
Scoring
Range
Count %
1
Very High
Self-Efficacy
X ≥ 95.71 5 8.20%
2
High Self-
Efficacy
81.70 ≤
X ≤ 95.74
13 21.31%
3
Medium Self-
Efficacy
67.65 ≤ X
≤ 81.70
27 42.62%
4
Low Self-
Efficacy
53.60 ≤X
≤ 67.65
14 22.96%
5
Very Low
Self- Efficacy
X < 53.60 3 4.92%
Total 60 100%
The table describes the percentages
of the students' self-efficacy in speaking
English of eighth grader in a junior high
school. There were 5 students (8.20%)
who had very high self-efficacy level and
13 students (21.31%) who had high self-
efficacy level in speaking English. 26
students (42.62%) had medium self-
efficacy level in speaking English.
Meanwhile, there were 14 students
(22.96%) who had low self-efficacy level
and 3 students (4.92%) who had very low
self-efficacy level in speaking English.
Finding of Speaking Test Result
The speaking test was administered
to see the students’ speaking proficiency
level. The test was composed of 4
questions. During giving score to the
participants, the researcher was
accompanied by two other judges from the
school English teachers. Each question
was scored by using IELTS-SQA
Speaking Assessment criteria.
The tasks of the test were dealing
with the students’ ability in responding the
questions. Mostly the students scored 3
and 1 on those tasks. On question 1 and 2,
the students obtained the score of 3. It
means that the responses were full and
relevant to the questions. For the
information, question 1 and 2 asked about
the students’ general information which
was the hobby of students. Question 3
asked about the intensity of students in
doing their hobby. While question 4 asked

7. 7
about how they usually do it. On the
contrary, most of the students scored 1 on
task 5. It means that the students’
responses did not answer the question
effectively. On question 6, the students
were asked to describe their hobby.
Mostly, the students only responded by
mentioning their hobby rather that
describing it. Each response from each
questions have been transcribed and scored
by using IELTS-SQA Speaking
Assessment criteria. Five bands and five
criteria were used to measure the students’
speaking skill. There are four criteria
which are assessed in the IELTS-SQA
speaking assessment criteria, such as,
fluency and coherence, lexical resource,
grammatical range and accuracy, and
pronunciation.
The score is obtained from the
division of the total score. The score from
each criteria are summed up to get the total
score. After that, the total score is divided
by 4 to obtain the final score of the
students’ speaking test. Most of the
students obtain the score of 3 for their
speaking test.
Table 3. Distribution of Respondents of
Speaking Skill Level
No. Interval Category amount %
1. 85% <score ≤ 100% Very high 12 20
2. 69% <score ≤ 84% High 11 18
3. 53% <score ≤ 68% Moderate 21 35
4. 37% <score ≤ 52% Low 9 15
5. Scores ≤ 20% ≤ 36% Very low 7 12
Total 60 100%
Finding of Correlation of Students’ Self-
Efficacy and Speaking Skill
From the relationship or correlation
between the students’ self-efficacy in
speaking English score and the students’
speaking test score, the implication of the
speaking test is able to be identified. In the
meantime, the example of students’ self-
efficacy in speaking English score and the
example of students’ speaking test score
are presented in the table below.
Table 4. Students’ Tests Scores
St
d.
Self-
Effica
cy
Score
(𝔁)
Speaki
ng
Test
Score
(𝒚)
St
d.
Self-
Effica
cy
Score
(𝔁)
Speaki
ng
Test
Score
(𝒚)
1 3 3 6 5 5
2 5 4 7 4 5
3 5 5 8 5 5
4 5 5 9 5 5
5 5 5 10 4 3
Each score of the tests was
calculated to find the correlation between
the score of the two tests by using Pearson
Product Moment Correlation formula. The
formula adapted from Susanti (2010), is as
follows.
𝑟 =
∑ 𝑥 𝑖 𝑦𝑖
√∑ 𝑥 𝑖2 . √∑ 𝑦𝑖2
Where,
𝑟 is correlation coefficient
𝑥 𝑖 is the score of 𝓍 (self-efficacy score)
minus the mean of 𝓍 score
𝑦𝑖 is the score of 𝑦 (speaking test
score) minus the mean of 𝑦 score
The formula above was then
applied to the students’ speaking test
score. The calculation result is presented
below.
Table 5. Correlation Test Result
From the correlation table above,
the obtained correlation coefficient is
+0.650. To give the interpretation of the
correlation coefficient, Sugiyono (2013)
Speaking
Skill
Self-
efficacy
Speaking Skill
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
1
60
.650**
.000
86
Self-Efficacy
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
.650**
.000
86
1
86

8. 8
provides a table as an orientation to see the
strength of a correlation coefficient.
Table 6. Sugiyono’s Relationship Level of
Correlation Coefficient
Coefficient Interval Relationship Level
0,00 – 0,199 Very low
0,20 – 0,399 Low
0,40 – 0,599 Moderate
0,60 – 0,799 Strong
0,80 – 1,000 Very strong
The result using Pearson Product
Moment Correlation showed there was a
positive and significant relationship
between students’ self-efficacy and
students' speaking skill. It is based on the
value of the correlation coefficient of +
0.650 and a significance level of 0.000
(p<0.05), where the relationship between
students’ self-efficacy and their speaking
skill is included in the strong category.
The positive result indicates the direction
of the relationship of students’ self-
efficacy and students’ speaking skill has a
positive direction, ie, the higher the student
self-efficacy level, the higher his/her
speaking skill as well. Conversely, the
lower the self-efficacy level that the
student has, the lower the attained
speaking skill will be.
DISCUSSION
Discussion of Students’ Self Efficacy
Score
Based on the finding, the table 1
had described the distribution of students'
self-efficacy levels in speaking English.
The discussion starts from the medium
level of self-efficacy, since almost half of
the students fell in that level. These
students with medium self-efficacy did not
have courage to speak English as big as the
5 students with very high self-efficacy, and
other 13 students with high self-efficacy.
The students' scores in medium level
mostly laid between 67.7 to 81.7. In this
case, the average students have a tendency
to believe in their speaking skill. The
students who have self-efficacy in the
category might mean that students tend to
be quite sure on their abilities, especially
speaking, felt confident of being able to
accomplish English speaking tasks well,
and be able to respond to different
situations.
According to Bandura's theory of
self-efficacy, the students who have
medium self-efficacy tend to choose the
safest way according to them. For
example, if they are not sure in their
capabilities to approach difficult tasks,
they tend to refuse the task. However, if it
is an obligation, they will finish the task,
but do not put high expectation on it.
There were five students (8.20%)
who had very high self-efficacy and 15
students (21.31%) who had high self-
efficacy level. It is a good indication of
self-efficacy towards the English subject,
especially for speaking skill. As the
previous study by Dodds (2011) found
that, the participants who had strong
beliefs in their abilities to perform certain
speaking tasks were subsequently able to
perform those tasks to a high degree. In
addition, people with high belief in their
capabilities approach difficult tasks as
challenges (Spicer, 2004).
However, there are some students
who belong to the low self-efficacy
category. This shows that there are still
some students who have not been able to
believe in their abilities and has not been
able to make plans for the future.
A strong belief in the individual
will encourage the individual to achieve its
objectives. In this stage, the students are
capable enough to face the obstacles that
get in the majors a favorite with business
and durability themselves that they have
and quite committed to the tasks and the
consequences will be faced later.
Furthermore, high self-efficacy
students also lace the difficult and
challenging tasks more readily
(Zimmerman, 2000). As they set the
challenging goals, they maintain strong
commitment to themselves and the goals,
sustaining their efforts if failure happens

9. 9
and quickly recover their sense of efficacy
towards the goals after failures. They
believe the failure is caused by deficient
knowledge and skills, which push them to
learn more.
Meanwhile, the number of students
with very low self-efficacy level in
speaking English was not as many as the
other levels, since there were only 3
students (4.92%) who had score under
53.6. Even so, there were 14 (22.9)
students who had low self-efficacy level in
speaking English. In line with the previous
study conducted by Rahemi (2000) about
“self-efficacy in English and Iranian senior
high school majoring in humanities”, the
significant point was that the Iranian
students who learned English as a foreign
language usually had a low English self-
efficacy. In accordance with the theory,
students with low-level self-efficacy
usually stay away from difficult tasks and
see it as personal threats, since they doubt
their capabilities to fulfill a task (Dodds,
2011). Moreover, when students hold a
low sense of self-efficacy for achieving a
task, they may give up easily (Spicer,
2004). These students often times focus on
the obstacles and commonly have low
aspirations, motivation, and weak
commitment to the goals they choose to
pursue. Thus, the low aspiration may result
in disappointing academic performances
(Margolis & McCabe, 2006). So, in short,
every student has his or her own level of
self-efficacy in speaking English.
Discussion of Students’ Speaking Skill
Test
Fluency is one of the greatest
challenges for all language learners
(Pinter, 2006). It means that to speak
fluently, the language learners have to
think and speak at the same time. Students
who obtained the score of 1 on fluency, the
student performed long pauses before most
words. Generally, when the student was
stating his opinion, he always overthought
and, as a result, lots of fillers are produced
during the speech. Likewise, most of the
students obtained the score of 2 on
fluency. It describes that the students were
speaking with long pauses. The speech
was so halting and fragmented. It could be
identified from the use of fillers during
their speech. Sometimes, the statement
was left unfinished. For that matter,
students preferred to give simple
responses. This might be due to the
students’ limited ability to link simple
sentence. On the contrary with other
students, students who obtained the score
of 3 in fluency and coherence performed a
quite fluent speech. The students still used
some speech fillers as pauses and did a lot
of self-correction and repetition.
On the lexical resource criterion or
vocabulary mastery, students who obtained
the score of 1 used simple vocabulary and
insufficient for even the simplest
conversation. The other students who
obtained the score of 2, can be interpreted
that the students were able to talk about
familiar topic in the simple statement. As a
result, their statement could only cover the
basic meaning of what they were saying.
On the other hand, the errors in word
choice were frequently made. As with
most of the students obtained the score of
3, it means that the students were able to
manage the talk about their hobby but with
the limited range of vocabulary. Students
were also successful in paraphrasing what
they were saying. Even so in some cases,
their paraphrasing attempt was
unsuccessful.
The third criterion was
grammatical and accuracy. This criterion
dealt with the students’ mastery in using a
proper language structure while speaking.
Students who obtained the score of 1 on
grammar and accuracy, they often
produced some basic sentences but with
numerous errors. They also relied on the
stock phrase or the memorised
expressions. Meanwhile, students who got
the score of 2 on grammar and accuracy,
could be defined that the students were
able to produce basic sentences with
frequent errors which might lead to

10. 10
misunderstanding. Mostly, the students got
the score of 3 on grammatical and
accuracy. It means that the students’
production on basic sentence form were
reasonably accurate. The use of more
complex sentence structures was limited
and contain constant errors which
influenced students’ comprehension and
prevented communication. As with most
students who obtained the score of 4, was
able to produce both simple and complex
sentence forms, though some frequent
mistakes were made in producing the
complex sentence. Finally, students who
obtained the score of 4, they were able to
produce error-free sentences which could
lead to a minimum misunderstanding
between the speakers.
The last characteristic of IELTS-
SQA speaking assessment criterion was
pronunciation. Brown (2001) argued that
pronunciation was a key to gaining full
communicative competence. Students who
got the score of 1 on pronunciation was
often unintelligible or hardly to
understand. It was due to the frequent
mispronunciation which could cause some
difficulties for the listener. The other
students who obtained the score of 2 in
pronunciation in general could be
understood, but some mispronunciation
might reduce the clarity of meaning the
students were trying to convey. Otherwise
the rest of students gained the score of 3
on pronunciation. They showed some
effective use of pronunciation which could
help them conveyed the meaning of what
they were saying. The listener might find
some difficulties because the students’
good ability in pronuncing words was not
sustained. Some mispronunciation on
individual words could reduce the clarity
of meaning at times.
Therefore, from the explanation
above, it could be concluded that the score
in speaking test was slightly different
among the students. The score was range
from 3 to 4. Nevertheless, most of the
students gained the score of 3 in the
speaking test while the other students
obtained the score of 2 and 4.
Discussion of the Correlation of
Students’ Self-Efficacy Score and
Students’ Speaking Test Score
The result of the correlation
coefficient of the students’ self-efficacy in
speaking English score and the students’
speaking test score (0.65) showed a
positive and strong correlation. It means
that if the score of self-efficacy is high,
then the speaking test score tends to
belong in high level as well. Conversely,
the lower the student’s self-efficacy score
has, the lower the attained speaking skill
will be. This is in line with the argument
by Tanner (2012) that in the positive
correlation, when the value of one variable
goes up, the other goes also. This
argument is also supported by Kranzler
and Moursund (1999) that a positive
correlation coefficient indicates that those
individuals who scored high on one
variable also tended to score high on the
other. The positive and strong correlation
between the self-efficacy score and the
speaking test score could be assumed that
the tests provided evidence of validity.
Fulcher (2010) argued that this aspect of
external validity is criterion-related
evidence which shows the scores on two
measures are highly correlated. It means
that both the self-efficacy in speaking
English score and the speaking test were
valid.
CONCLUSIONS
The aims of this study were to find
out the correlation of students’ self-
efficacy and their speaking skill. The
findings and discussions have elaborated
the data related to the study.
This paper has given an account of
the investigation on the correlation
between students' self-efficacy in speaking
English and their speaking skill. The aims
of this research were to figure out: (1) the
levels of self-efficacy that the students

11. 11
belong to; and (2) the levels of speaking
skill that the students belong to.
For the first investigation, the
finding has shown that, from 60
participants, 5 students (8.20%) had very
high self-efficacy level and 13 students
(21.31%) had high self-efficacy level in
speaking English. Almost half of the
students (42.62%) or 26 students had
medium self-efficacy level in speaking
English. Meanwhile, there were 14
students (22.95%) who had low self-
efficacy and 3 students (4.92%) who had
very low self-efficacy in speaking English.
For the second investigation, it was
found that the implementation of the
speaking test had been covered the
components of speaking as stated by
Harris (1969) in the form of the IELTS-
SQA speaking assessment criteria.
Regarding the result of speaking test, it
showed that the speaking skill level of
students were at the scale of 3 to 5. Most
students obtained the score of 3. From the
result, it could be stated that the students’
proficiency level was adequate and the
students were able to communicate
successfully.
The implication of the speaking
test was based on the computation of the
correlation coefficient between the
students’ self-efficacy in speaking English
and their speaking test score, it was found
that the correlation was 0,65. It indicated
that the correlation was strong and
positive.
Therefore, this study showed that
students’ self-efficacy does has a strong
correlation with students’ speaking skill. It
means that if the score of self-efficacy is
high, then the speaking test score tends to
belong in high level as well. Conversely,
the lower the student’s self-efficacy score
has, the lower the attained speaking skill
will be.
REFERENCES
Azwar, S. (2012). Penyusunan Skala
Psikologis. Yogyakarta : Pustaka
Pelajar
Bandura, A. (1982). Social foundations of
thought and action: A social
cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy.
Encyclopedia of Human Behavior,
Vol. 4, pp. 71-81. New York:
AcademicPress. Available at:
http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/Ban
Ency.html
Bandura, Albert. 1997. Self-Efficacy: The
Exercise of Control. New York: W.
H. Freeman and company
Bandura, A., Pastorelli, C., Caprara, G. V.,
Barbaranelli, C., Rola, J., & Rozsa,
S. (2001). The structure of children’s
perceived self-Efficacy: A cross-
national study. The European
Journal of Psychological
Assessment, Vol. 17, Issue 2, pp. 87–
97. Available at: www.
uky.edu/~eushe2/Bandura/Bandura2
001EJPA.pdf
Bong, M. (1997). Generality of scademic
self-efficacy judgments: Evidence of
hierarchical relations. Journal of
Educational Psychology, Vol. 89,
No. 4, 696-709. Available at
http://bmri.korea.ac.kr/file/board_dat
a/ publications/1277275418_1.pdf
Brown, H. (2001). Teaching by principles:
An interactive approach to language
pedagogy. New York: Longman
Carter, R., & Nunan, D. (2001). The
Cambridge guide to teaching
English to speakers of other
languages. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press

12. 12
Creswell, J.W. (2006). Educational
research: Planning, conducting and
evaluating quantitative and
qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education
Inc.
Dodds, J. (2011). The correlation between
self-efficacy beliefs, language
performance, and integration
amongst Chinese immigrant
newcomers. Unpublished
dissertation. Available at
www.hamline.edu/WorkArea/Downl
oadAsset.aspx?id=2147516352
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the
language learner: Individual
differences in second language
acquisition. New Jersey London:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Douglas, D. (2010). Understanding
language testing. London: Hodder
Education
ETS. (2012). Examinee handbook:
Speaking and writing. Retrieved
from
https://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/TO
EIC/pdf/TOEIC_Speaking_and_Writ
ing_Examinee_Handbook.pdf&sa=U
&ved=0CBIQFjABahUKEwjEsIPh
mf3HAhXGVI4KHVHFAeA&usg=
AFQjCNFsr3vxOq85ZfPXu6Qr7gZ
7jtnC1Q
Fulcher, G. (2010). Practical language
testing. London: Hodder Education
Halliday, M. (2004). An introduction to
functional grammar. London:
Arnold
Harris, D. (1969). Testing English as a
second language. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company
Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English
language teaching. London:
Longman
Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language
teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
Hsieh, P. P., & Kuang, H. (2010).
Attribution and self-efficacy and
their interrelationship in the Korean
EFL context language learning, Vol.
60 (3), 606–627. Available at:
www.mcser.org/journal/index.php/je
sr/article/download/.../1004
IELTS. (2012). Guide for teachers.
Retrieved from: www.ielts.org
Kranzler, G., & Moursund, J. (1999).
Statistics for the terrified. New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Lado, R. (1961). Language testing:
Instruction and use of foreign
language tests. London: Longman
Lane, J., Lane, A., & Kyprianou, A.
(2004). Self-efficacy, self-esteem
and their impact on academic
performance. Social Behaviour and
Personality, 32, 247–256. Available
at:
https://webspace.utexas.edu/neffk/pu
bs/scandself-efficacy.pdf
Leech, G.& Svartvik, J. (1975). A
communicative grammar of English.
London: Longman
Luoma, S. (2004). Assessing speaking.
Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press
Margolis, H., & McCabe, P. P. (2006).
Improving self-efficacy and
motivation: What to do, what to say.

13. 13
Available at:
http://serc.carleton.edu/20538.
Nation, I.& Newton, J. (2009). Teaching
ESL/EFL listening and speaking.
New York: Routledge
Pajares, F. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs,
motivation, and achievement in
writing: A review of the literature.
Atlanta, Georgia, USA: Taylor &
Francis. Available at:
www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/Pajar
es2003RWQ.pdf
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in
academic settings. Review of
Educational Research, Vol. 66, 543-
578. Available at:
www.breakthroughcollaborative.org/
.../bt-research-brief-non-academic-
factors.pdf
Pinter, A. (2006). Teaching young
language learners. Oxford: Oxford
University Press
Rahemi, J. (2000). English self-efficacy:
Links to English as foreign language
achievement. Available at
http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/aljarf/Docu
ments/English%20Language%20Tea
ching%20Conference%20-
%20Iran%202008/Jamileh%20Rahe
mi.pdf
Rahimi , A., & Abedini , A. (2009). The
interface between EFL learners’
self-efficacy concerning listening
comprehension and listening
proficiency. Available at:
www.novitasroyal.org/Vol_3_1/rahi
mi_abedini.pdf
Raoofi, S., Tan, B. H., & Chan, W. (2012).
Self-efficacy in second/foreign
language learning contexts. English
Language Teaching, Vol. 5, No. 11.
Available at
http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index
.php/elt/article/download/20515/134
85
Saville-Troike, M. (2006). Introducing
second language acquisition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press
Schunk. D. H., & Meece, J. L. (2005).
Self-efficacy development in
adolescences. Information Age
Publishing. Available at
http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares
/03SchunkMeeceAdoEd5.pdf
Schunk, D. H. (2003). Self-efficacy for
reading and writing: Influence of
modeling, goal setting and self-
evaluation. Reading and Writing
Quarterly: Overcoming Learning
Difficulties, 19(2), 159–172.
Available at:
http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/f/d_sch
unk_self_2003.pdf
Schunk, D. H. (1996). Self-efficacy and
academic motivation. Educational
Psychology, vol 26, 207-231.
http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/f/d_sch
unk_self_1991.pdf
SQA Speaking Criteria for Modern
Languages (2013)
Sugiyono. (2013). Statistika untuk
penelitian. Bandung: Alfabeta
Susanti, M. (2010). Statistik deskriptif dan
induktif. Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu
Tanner, D. (2012). Using statistics to make
educational decisions. California:
SAGE

14. 14
Thonbury, S. (2007). How to teach
speaking. Pearson: Longman.
TOEIC Examinee Handbook-Speaking &
Writing (2012)
Trew, G. (2010). Tactics for TOEIC®:
Speaking and writing tests. Oxford:
Oxford University Press
Underhill, N. (1987). Testing spoken
language: A handbook of oral
testing techniques. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press
Van der Bijl, J. J., & Shortridge-Baggett,
L. M. (2002). The theory and
measurement of the self-efficacy
construct. In E. A. Lentz & L. M.
Shortridge-Baggett (Eds.),Self-
efficacy in nursing: Research and
measurement perspectives (pp. 9-
28). New York: Springer. Retrieved
from http://books.google.com/books
?id=J6ujWyh_4_gC
Wang, J., Spencer, K., & Xing, M. (2009).
Metacognitive beliefs and strategies
in learning Chinese as a foreign
language system. Available at:
http://www.hull.ac.uk/php/edskas/art
icles/SYS2008.pdf
Zajacova, A., Lynch, S. M., &
Espenshade, T. J. (2005). Self-
efficacy, stress, and academic
success in college. Research in
Higher Education, Vol. 46, No 6.
Available at
http://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/S
elf%20Efficacy%20and%20Stress%
20Zajacova%20Lynch%20Espensha
de%20Sept%202005.pdf
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-Efficacy:
An essential motive to learn.
Contemporary Educational
Psychology, Vol. 25, 82–91.
Available at:
http://www.researchgate.net/publicat
ion/222529322_SelfEfficacy_An_Es
sential_Motive_to_Learn/file/e0b495
23cb10ed47c2.pdf

15. 15