Thesis - Aliffiana Mulya Habibah (17202244019)

SPEAKING PROBLEMS AND FACTORS AFFECTING SPEAKING
PERFORMANCE DURING “LANGUAGE TIME” IN AN ISLAMIC

BOARDING SCHOOL
A Thesis
Submitted as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Attainment of

the Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan in English Language Education
Written by:
Aliffiana Mulya Habibah
17202244019
ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF LANGUAGES AND ARTS
YOGYAKARTA STATE UNIVERSITY
2022
i
APPROVAL SHEET

PERFORMANCE DURING “LANGUAGE TIME” IN AN ISLAMIC BOARDING
SCHOOL
A Thesis
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Attainment of Bachelor

Education Degree (S.Pd) in English Education
by:

17202244019
Approved on May 19, 2022
Supervisor,
Anita Triastuti, S.Pd., M.A., Ph.D.
NIP. 197412052003122001
ii
RATIFICATION SHEET

BOARDING SCHOOL
A Thesis
Written By
17202244019
Accepted by the Board of Examiners of Faculty of Languages and Arts,

State University of Yogyakarta on June 2022 and declared to have fulfilled the
requirements for attainment of Sarjana Pendidikan in English Language
Education Study Program
Board of Examiners
Position Signature
Chairperson : __________
Secretary : __________
Main Examiner : __________
Yogyakarta, June, 2022

Faculty of Languages and Arts
State University of Yogyakarta
Dean,
Dr. Sri Harti Widyastuti, M.Hum.

NIP. 196210081988032001
iii
SURAT PERNYATAAN
Yang bertanda tangan di bawah ini, saya:
Nama : Aliffiana Mulya Habibah
NIM : 17202244019
Program Studi : Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris
Fakultas : Bahasa dan Seni
Judul Skripsi : Speaking Problems and Factors Affecting Students’
Speaking Performance During “Language Time” in an
Islamic Boarding School
menyatakan bahwa karya ilmiah ini adalah hasil pekerjaan saya sendiri dan
sepanjang sepengetahuan saya karya ilmiah ini tidak berisi materi yang ditulis
oleh orang lain, kecuali pada bagian-bagian tertentu yang saya ambil sebagai
acuan atau kutipan dengan mengikuti tata cara dan etika penulisan karya ilmiah
yang lazim. Apabila ternyata terbukti bahwa pernyataan ini tidak benar
sepenuhnya menjadi tanggung jawab saya.
Yogyakarta, 19 Mei 2022
Penulis,
iv
DEDICATION
I humbly dedicate this thesis to my parents, my siblings, and myself
v
MOTTO
“We are never old to learn something new”
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Alhamdulilllahirabbil’alamin, all praises go to Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala,

the Almighty who always gives me His blessings to enlighten my path through
His endless mercies and guidance, with which I could complete this
undergraduate thesis writing. I would like to express my gratitude to:
1. Ms. Anita Triastuti, S.Pd., M.A., Ph.D. as my supervisor who have given
me priceless and precious guidance, time, and patience in supervising me to
complete this undergraduate thesis writing
2. Ms. Dyah Setyowati Ciptaningrum, S.Pd., M.Ed., Ed.D. as my academic
supervisor, Mr. Nur Hidayanto Pancoro Setyo Putro, S.Pd., M.Pd., Ph.D. as
my Kaprodi, and all lecturers and staffs of English Education Department
for their guidance and valuable knowledge during my study
3. Ms. Siti Fathonah Wijayanti, S.Pd., English teacher of PPTQ SMAIT Ibnu
Abbas Klaten who has helped the writer in collecting the data even during
pandemic situation
4. My parents, Mr. Teguh Mulyanto and Mrs. Noer Poedji Hastoeti and my
sister and brother who endlessly have been prayed and supported the writer
5. All my friends in English Department Class C-O, UKMF Al-Huda, and
UKMF LIMLARTS for every amazing time, friendship, and unforgettable
memories
6. Fathiya Ihsani, Husnaya Madani, Nabila Khoirunisa, and Salma Hanifah,
who have shared all laughter, tears, and inside jokes and who have
supported each other unconditionally
7. Muthohiroh Layli Yusufi, my supportive junior, who has helped me a lot
during the process
8. Mbak Febi Nurul Fitriani, S.Pd. who has unpredictably become the writer’s
virtual and real friend and has shared many things with the writer
9. All the writer’s colleague who cannot be mentioned one by one
10. And myself as the writer who has struggled to finish this undergraduate
thesis
Finally, I am aware that this thesis is still far from being perfect. Therefore,
constructive critics, comments and suggestions related to this thesis are kindly
welcomed and highly appreciated.
Yogyakarta, May 19, 2022
vii
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPROVAL SHEET...............................................................................................ii
RATIFICATION SHEET.......................................................................................iii
SURAT PERNYATAAN.......................................................................................iv
DEDICATION.........................................................................................................v
MOTTO..................................................................................................................vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENT.......................................................................................vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS.....................................................................................viii
LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................x
LIST OF FIGURE.................................................................................................xi
ABSTRACT...........................................................................................................xii
CHAPTER I.............................................................................................................1
A. Background of the Study...............................................................................1
B. Identification of the Problem........................................................................4
C. Limitation of the Problem.............................................................................5
D. Formulation of the Problem..........................................................................5
E. Objective of the Study...................................................................................6
F. Significances of the Study.............................................................................6
CHAPTER II............................................................................................................8
A. Theoretical Description.................................................................................8
1. The Nature of Speaking.............................................................................8
2. Speaking Problems..................................................................................14
3. Factors Affecting Speaking Skill............................................................18
B. Review of Related Studies..........................................................................21
C. Conceptual Framework...............................................................................23
CHAPTER III........................................................................................................26
A. Study Design...............................................................................................26
B. Research Setting..........................................................................................27
C. Population and Sample................................................................................27
D. Research Instrument....................................................................................28
E. Validity and Reliability...............................................................................29
ix
F. Data Collection and Analysis......................................................................32
CHAPTER IV........................................................................................................34
A. Research Findings.......................................................................................34
1. The Results of Student’s Questionnaire..................................................34
2. Interview Results.....................................................................................42
B. Discussion...................................................................................................45
CHAPTER V..........................................................................................................51
A. Conclusions.................................................................................................51
B. Suggestions.................................................................................................53
1. To the English Teacher............................................................................53
2. To the Boarding Teachers.......................................................................53
3. To Other Researchers..............................................................................53
REFERENCES.......................................................................................................54
APPENDIX A........................................................................................................62
APPENDIX B........................................................................................................65
APPENDIX C........................................................................................................71
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Valid Items of Speaking Problems..........................................................30
Table 2: Valid Items of Speaking Factors..............................................................30
Table 3: Reliability Statistics.................................................................................31
Table 4: Rate Score of a Likert-Scale....................................................................33
Table 5: Percentages and frequencies of students selecting each item of the five
alternatives for items of speaking problems related to inhibition..........................36
alternatives for items of speaking problems related to nothing to say...................37
alternatives for items of speaking problems related to low participation..............38
alternatives for items of speaking problems related to mother-tongue use............38
alternatives for items of speaking problems related to linguistic...........................39
alternatives for items of speaking factors related to age........................................40
alternatives for items of speaking factors related to aural medium.......................41
alternatives for items of speaking factors related to sociocultural.........................41
alternatives for items of speaking factors related to affectional factors................42
xi
xii
LIST OF FIGURE
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework..........................................................................25
xiii
BOARDING SCHOOL

17202244019
ABSTRACT
This study aimed to describe speaking problems and factors affecting
students’ speaking performance during “language time” in an Islamic boarding
school. This study also looked at the possible solutions to overcome speaking
problems among Islamic boarding school students during “language time”
program.
Twenty-nine students of grade XII were asked to complete the
questionnaire items of speaking problems and speaking factors. An interview with
an English teacher was also conducted to complement the data gained from the
questionnaire. The study was a triangulated survey with method triangulation.
Descriptive analysis was provided to interpret the data attained from the
questionnaire and a script transcription was used to provide the data collected
from the interview.
The results showed that Islamic boarding school students encountered
speaking problems: a) inhibition b) nothing to say c) low participation d) mother-
tongue use e) linguistic-related problems. The factors that affected students’
speaking skills were aural medium and sociocultural factors. The solutions for
speaking problems in “language time” were forming a startup team to set the
curriculum and enriching exposure to English for students with structured
activities such as watching a movie.
Keywords: speaking problems, speaking factors, speaking skills, language time,
Islamic boarding school
xiv
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1. Background of the Study
Islamic boarding schools, usually called pesantren, have been known as one
of the oldest education systems in Indonesia (Bin-Tahir et al., 2017). Islamic
boarding schools are Islamic-based school which apply and/or combine two
curricula, national curriculum and Islamic curriculum in their teaching and
learning activities (Habibi et al., 2018). However, as technology and
communication have been developed rapidly, it leads Islamic boarding schools to
fulfill needs of facing an enormous challenge to adapt in this global digital era.
This issue encourages Islamic boarding schools to improve students’ ability in
communicating in foreign languages. Islamic boarding schools emphasize Islamic
values and science in its teaching by using Arabic and English as languages of
instruction, other than Indonesian and local languages, in the learning activity and
daily communication among students and teachers (Bin-Tahir et al., 2017).
Therefore, Islamic boarding schools manage a language program activity in which
students have to use the instructed language in their daily life —it is usually
known as “language time”. The duration is various depending on the boarding
school’s policy itself. Some boarding schools assign it as a full-time activity for
24 hours, and the others only do it for several hours. Penalty is imposed for
students who do not obey the rules appointed in language time and it is adjusted to
the level of violation committed. Islamic boarding schools expect language time
can build a habit for students to practice their speaking skill.
1
English aside Arabic is a compulsory language to be spoken in a language
time program which is managed by Islamic boarding school. Islamic boarding
school, especially the one adopting a modern system, is one of the institutions that
uses English as a communication tool (Latif, 2019). Islamic boarding schools
project a language time program not without any reason. Most nations speak
English for international communication. According to Kachru and Smith (2008),
all the nations have been paying serious attention to the necessity of preparing
their citizens to survive and be competitive in this global era with the expansion of
knowledge in order to get accomplishment and prosperity. It leads them to
improve their English skills in order to have an ability of a good performance in
multinational fields. Another reason Islamic boarding schools emphasize speaking
English in their environment is that language time is expected to help students to
improve their language proficiency, enrich their vocabulary knowledge, and
improve their grammar and writing skills. Students will be able to tell their ideas,
stories, opinions, speeches, talks, requests, and other various forms of
communication through speaking. Therefore, the opportunities to get expanded
scholarships and jobs will open up to them. By facilitating students to improve
their language skills, especially in speaking through a language time program,
Islamic boarding schools expect that students will be bringing outside values they
achieve during studying in the boarding school to the global audiences.
Language time program in Islamic boarding schools provides a good
opportunity for students to practice in group. They may have partners to talk to.
Many studies state activities in speaking should be incorporated in a collective
2
group work (Oradee, 2012). Students practice speaking better in group as it,
which should be universally taught, is a complicated skill (Celce-Muria, 2001).
Practicing speaking English in community will lead students to enhance their skill
through the real experience. The researcher thinks language program which is
held by Islamic boarding schools is potential to develop students’ speaking skills.
Students can apply theories they get from the learning activities in the classroom.
The program facilitates students to practice speaking in group. Though several
students may not be doing it for 24 hours, they can practice it for specific purpose
specifically in daily use. It will stimulate habituation among students.
Speaking skill in some ways is supposed to be the most difficult to acquire
considering speech production sub-skills such as vocabulary retrieval,
grammatical patterns choice, and sociocultural competence, that the learners
require to achieve (Celce-Muria & Olshtain, 2000). Recent studies have been
exploring how speaking problems influence students’ speaking skill. Gan (2013)
investigated students’ perceived difficulties related to linguistic shortage, oral
language processes, conversational and presentation skills, and affective aspect in
two Chinese populations’ EFL learning context. A study by Hamad (2013)
revealed how mother-tongue, affective factors, instructors, students, curriculum
and textbooks, and English learning negatively affect students’ speaking skill. The
concern of speaking anxiety has impacted several aspects in learners’ speaking
skill. According to Hu et al. (2021), students’ foreign language (FL) anxiety was
found to be negatively associated to their FL achievement. Studies also revealed
that FL proficiency (J.-M. Dewaele & MacIntyre, 2014; Pyun et al., 2014) and FL
3
fluency (Zabihi et al., 2021) have been influenced by speaking anxiety. In
addition, FL speaking anxiety is also discovered to be inversely correlated with
students’ WTC (Denies et al., 2015; J. Dewaele et al., 2017; Khajavy et al., 2014).
However, previous research in this field has been seemed to be limited to in-
classroom context but less on speaking practice routine in daily use context as
what a language program in Islamic boarding school is. Although a language
program in Islamic boarding school has been existed for long time, still less study
has paid attention at the topic. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to investigate
speaking problems and factors affecting students’ skill in the context of a
language time program. Furthermore, this study will try to discover another
problem and factor which are possibly to be found and how those concerns affect
students’ performance during language time.
2. Identification of the Problem
It is inevitable that speaking English during language time program is vividly
challenging for Islamic boarding school students since English is not their native
language. In the reality, there are some problems found on the implementation of
the activity. Based on the brief observation done by the researcher, violation by
students was discovered during the activity. Several students speak in Indonesian
instead of English when they do not know and because of it they should get
punishment from mahkamah lughoh (language court). Sometimes, when they
need to discuss something important and urgent whereas the topic is specifically
contextual, they tend to communicate in a written form, for example through a
4
letter or writing the message in the book. Another problem may occur during
language time is the interaction among students is less-active rather than usual.
Students seem to talk-less when it comes to speak during language time. They
choose to keep it until the activity is done. At the end, unexpectedly, the
communication during language time is as not interactive as it was expected.
From the above explanation, language time is established to accustom
themselves to speak English. The problems found during language time indicate
students may find difficulties when speaking English. It encourages the researcher
to investigate what problems the students have when they have to speak English
during the activity of language time and the factors affecting their speaking
performance. Therefore, the upcoming research aims to investigate students’
problems in speaking English during language time and the factors affecting
students speaking performance.
3. Limitation of the Problem
In reference to the background of the problem and the identification of the
problem, the research will be limited on speaking performance in language time
context. The study is focused on investigating students’ attitude towards language
time rather than in-class speaking activity.
4. Formulation of the Problem
Based on the limitation of the problem, the research problem can be
formulated as follows:
5
1. What problems do the students encounter and factors affect their speaking
performance during “language time”?
2. What are the solutions to overcome students’ speaking problems during
“language time”?
5. Objective of the Study
The objectives from the conducted study are:
1. To describe students’ speaking problems and factors affecting students
speaking performance during “language time”
2. To describe the solutions to overcome students speaking problems during
“language time”
6. Significances of the Study
The result of the study is expected to give theoretical and practical assets for
the following parties.
1. Theoretically, the research gives referential literature contribution in
delivering general knowledge of students’ speaking problems and factors
affecting their speaking performance specifically during language time.
2. Practically, the research gives benefits for:
a. The researcher, she can develop her knowledge and skill in analyzing
students’ difficulties in speaking English
b. English teachers, the research can provide informative advice in
providing English materials based on students’ need and difficulties
6
explained on the thesis
c. Students, the results of the study may help them to be more aware of
accuracy and accuracy in speaking English. The result is also expected to
encourage them to improve their vocabulary enrichment, grammar
knowledge, and the speaking skill itself.
d. Other researchers, the study can be a reference for other researchers who
are going to do research in the similar field. It can also provide them
general knowledge of how to analyze students’ difficulties in speaking
English.
7
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED THEORIES
A. Theoretical Description
7. The Nature of Speaking
Speaking is categorized as a productive skill of language. Cameron
(2001) states speaking is classified as a productive skill of language since
people use it to actively convey their message so that other people can
understand the message clearly. A speaker needs to consider other
language aspects to convey the message precisely and accurately.
According to Brown (2001), the involvement of other language aspects is
necessary in teaching language. The important goals in speaking are
pursuing accuracy and fluency in speaking performance. Therefore,
students are supposed to be focus on the phonology, grammar, and
discourse elements in every spoken output they make.
According to Brown (2007), speaking is an interactive activity
which involves producing, receiving, and processing speech sounds as the
main instrument to construct meaning. Pronunciation is inevitable to be
apart from speaking activity. To convey the message clearly, people need
to pronounce in an accurate way. Harmer (2007) argues students need to
make themselves able pronouncing phonemes in the correct way, using
8
appropriate stress and intonation patterns, and speaking in connected
speech if they want to be able speak English fluently.
According to Thornbury (2005), speaking is an interactive process
and there is a necessity in speaking turn management within it. The
speaker needs to make sure themselves actively participating in the
activity. To create an interactive communication, there should be
coherence among both speakers.
In sum, speaking skill could be defined as a productive oral
language skill which involves several aspects such as the ability of
arranging systematic verbal utterance, the ability of producing, receiving,
and processing and speech sounds with organs of speech, speaking turn
management to deliver messages interactively.
a. Types of Speaking
There are several types of speaking classification. Based on the
number of speakers, speaking is divided into monologue and dialogue.
Monologue is delivered only by one person meanwhile dialogue includes
two participants. Delivering speech and reporting are two kinds of
monologue. Dialogue is considerably more interactive than monologue
since there will be negotiation and speaking turn among speakers.
In addition, Nunan (1993) divides speaking according to the
functions of speaking into three types; transactional, interpersonal, and
expressive language. Transactional speaking happens when someone
9
offers goods or service to their customer. Meanwhile interpersonal
speaking purpose is to socialize. It could be both personal and formal
conversations. Expressive language purpose is to convey our thoughts and
feelings through words, sentences, gestures, or sign.
Furthermore, Brown (2004) classifies speaking performance into
four types; imitative, intensive, responsive, interactive and extensive.
Imitative focus on the speaker’s ability to imitate a word, a phrase or
perhaps a sentence. Intensive speaking is one step beyond imitative in
which it includes the designed speaking performance to practice the
pronunciation and grammatical aspect of language. Responsive speaking
refers to a kind of short conversations with slightly limited level such as
greeting and small talk, simple question and answer, comment, and request
and suchlike. Interactive speaking is a complex interaction which
comprises multiple participants and/or conversations. Extensive speaking
requires students to give speeches, oral presentation, or tell stories in
which preparation is necessary and interaction is generally ruled out.
b. Micro and Macro Skills
Speaking skill includes micro and macro skills within. According to
Brown (2004), micro-skills consist of 1) modifying English phonemes and
allophonic variants 2) producing chunk of different length language 3)
producing English stress patterns, words in unstressed and stressed
positions, rhythmic structure, and intonation contours 4) reducing words
10
and phrases forms 5) using lexical units in an adequate number in order to
achieve pragmatic purposes 6) producing speeches in different rates of
delivery 7) monitoring one’s oral production and using various strategic
devices —pauses, fillers, backtracking, self-correction—to enhance the
clarity of the message 8) implementing the use of word classes (e.g. noun,
verb, etc.), systems (e.g. tense, agreement, pluralization), pattern, word
order, rules, and elliptical forms 9) producing speech in proper phrases,
pause groups, breath groups, and sentence constituents (natural
constituent) 10) expressing a particular meaning in different grammatical
forms 11) using cohesive device in spoken discourse.
Furthermore, macro-skills include 1) achieving communicative
functions according to participants, situations, and goals properly 2) using
sociolinguistic features (e.g. styles, registers, implicature, pragmatic
conventions, conversation rules, etc.) in an appropriate way 3) conveying
links and connections among events and communicating the relations as
focal and peripheral ideas, events and feelings, new and given information,
generalization, and exemplification 4) conveying non-verbal signs (e.g.
body language, gestures, facial features, etc.) along with verbal language
5) developing and using speaking strategies such as emphasizing key
words, providing a context in interpreting the meaning of a word,
paraphrasing, appealing for help, and accurately assessing how good your
interlocutor understanding you.
c. Speaking Proficiency Components
11
Language proficiency is a multidimensional modality which consists
of various labels and domains (Carrasquillo, 1994). Hymes in Shumin
(2002) also states that L2 learners need to know not only the linguistic
knowledge but also the ways of interacting with others with a proper
context in order to being culturally acceptable. His theory of
communicative competence includes the knowledge of the interaction of
grammatical aspects, psycholinguistic, sociolinguistic, and probabilistic
language components. In the line with Hyme’s theory, Canale & Swain
(1980) urge that communicative competence consists of grammatical
competence, discourse competence, sociolinguistic competence, and
strategic competence.
1. Grammatical Competence
Grammatical competence is the ability in improving a set of
grammatical skills such as grammar (morphology, syntax), vocabulary,
and mechanics which its term refers to basic sound of letters and syllables,
pronunciation of words, intonation and stress (Scarcella & Oxford, 1992).
In spite of conveying meaning, EFL learners need to know the knowledge
of how words are segmented into various sounds and how sentences are
stressed in particular ways (Shumin, 2002). Thus, grammatical
competence empowers students to use and comprehend the English-
language structures precisely and undoubtingly which contributes to their
fluency.
12
2. Discourse Competence
In addition to grammatical competence, learners also need to develop
discourse competence which is concerned with intersectional relationship.
Whether formal or informal discourse, the application of cohesion and
coherence plays an important role of holding the communication
eloquently. In communication, both language production and
comprehension involve one’s ability to perceive and process expanses of
discourse and to formulate meaning representations from references in
previous and following sentences. Thus in order to be an effective speaker,
someone should acquire a wide repertoire of structures and discourse
markers to express idea, show relationships of time, and specify cause,
effect, and emphasis (Scarcella & Oxford, 1992). With these students can
manage talk turn-taking.
3. Sociolinguistic Competence
According to Brown (2007), adult EFL learners must have to acquire
stylistic adaptability in favor of being able to encode and decode the
discourse around them correctly. This is because knowledge of language
itself is insufficient to prepare learners for communicating in the target
language effectively and appropriately. They require competence which
includes knowledge of what the target language users socially and
culturally expect. Thus, they must obtain the rules and norms concerning
the appropriate timing and realization of speech acts. Comprehension of
13
sociolinguistic knowledge will lead the students to acknowledge
themselves of the appropriate comments, the way of asking questions
during conversation, and the proper nonverbal responses according to the
talk purpose.
4. Strategic Competence
Brown (2000) defines strategic competence as the way learners
manipulate language in order to meet the communicative purpose. Simply
it is the ability to make up for imperfect knowledge of linguistic,
sociolinguistic, and discourse rules (Berns, 1991). Accordance with
speaking, strategic competence mentions to the ability of knowing the
proper timing and situation to take the floor, keep a conversation going
and terminate it, and clear up communication breakdown as well as
comprehension problems.
8. Speaking Problems
Celce-Muria & Olshtain (2000) identify that speaking could be
considered as the most challenging skill to acquire by way of it is
necessary to the command of speech production sub-skills such as
vocabulary retrieval, choice of grammatical patterns, and sociocultural
competence. Ur (1996) mentions inhibition, nothing to say, low
participation, and mother-tongue use as problems that students may occur
in English classroom.
a. Inhibition
14
Sigmund Freud (in Arbiser & Schneider, 2013) explains inhibition
as an expression that limits an ego function which can be caused by
various factors. In a field of language learning, inhibition is condition
when the students feel afraid of making mistakes, worry about the
attention, and lose their faces which prevents students to perform their
language performance (Ur, 1999). Ur (1999) also argues that inhibition
occurs when the students need to say something.
Previous studies have been identifying inhibition in the field of
EFL classroom. A study by Darcy et al. (2014) examined the contribution
of attention control and inhibition skill to phonological processing of
sixteen L1-Spanish/L1-English learners along with eighteen L1-English/l-
2 Spanish learners. The results reveal that more efficient attention control
and inhibitory skill augment learners’ skill in processing the input of L2
phonological items and may lead to more precise L2 perception and
production. Besides, inhibition causes cognitive and behavioral respond
restriction on the learners and it makes them feel uneasy to convey what
they are going to talk about (Abedini & Chalak, 2017; Fatima, 2019).
Inhibition limit speaking ability and deterioration.
b. Nothing to Say
The another speaking problem that students often complain is they
have no idea what to say and there is no motivation they have to express
their ideas and feelings. Baker & Westrup (2003) state it may demand
students to say something or to respond someone in a foreign language
15
because of the little number of vocabularies they have, little ideas to say,
or the ignorance of grammar usage. To be able speak fluently and
communicatively, learners need to be familiar with the content domain
knowledge which is brought into the discourse (Carrell, 1987). Therefore,
content familiarity plays an important role in oral language. Some findings
reveal content familiarity has been discovered to be positively associated
with L2 production (Bui, 2014; Bui & Zeping, 2018; Lambert &
Robinson, 2014; Qiu, 2019). Thus, it can be inversely deduced that
learners could have nothing to say when they are not familiar with the
topic of the discourse.
c. Low Participation
Language learning is substantially optimal when the language
learners actively participate in interactive communication in which many
input, output, and opportunities are well-given (Gass, 2003; Krashen,
1982; Long, 1996; Schmidt, 1992; Swain, 1985; Vygotsky, 1978).
Learners’ willingness-to-communicate (WTC) is essential for
communication to provide active participation in which higher levels of
WTC will contribute to more confident performance (MacIntyre et al.,
1998; Sato, 2020; Yashima, 2002). In EFL context, in which there is not
enough exposure and an actual need of communicating in the target
language of English in a daily basis, WTC plays a significant role for
learning. The important roles of WTC for EFL learning are setting
communication, generating input, and involving in speaking (Macintyre,
16
2007). Therefore, when the students are lack of WTC, it could cause low
participation of them to involve in speaking classroom.
d. Mother-Tongue Use
In the realm, most all students come from the same area. It signs
that they closely talk in the same mother-tongue. When students share the
same mother-tongue, they tend to use it more often because talking in
mother-tongue is a natural thing to do. Carrasquillo (1994) states that
shared ideas and values create the cultures and social organizations bonded
in a community and are expressed in a similar language. Some studies
have explored how mother-tongue use affects foreign language learning.
Findings by Mede et al. (2014) reveals when the negative transfer of
mother tongue interference occurs, there is a high possibility of cross-
linguistic in second language acquisition which may cause some errors.
Manrique (2013) argues the most frequent types of interference between
mother-tongue and target language are grammatical errors and
mispronunciation.
e. Linguistic Problems
Insufficient linguistic knowledge has been recognized as a factor
that hampering learners’ speaking skill. One cognitive perspective by
Bygate (1998) and Levelt (1989) highlights psycholinguistic processes
such as planning what to say, retrieving vocabulary and grammar patterns,
and articulating and pronouncing the words as a set to investigating second
17
or foreign language speaking. This psychological approach indicates that
the speech production processes of foreign learners in some ways may
resemble, or are different, from the native speakers. This perspective infers
that if the speech production should be smooth, the necessary of automatic
underlying processes of speech production would be a demanding task for
second or foreign language learners.
9. Factors Affecting Speaking Skill
Figuring out factors which affect speaking skill is necessary to
analyze and overcome students’ difficulties. According to Shumin (2002),
there are some factors affecting EFL adult learners’ oral communication
that should be considered as developing learners’ speaking skill, those are;
age or maturational constraints, aural, sociocultural factors, and affective
factors.
a. Age or Maturational Constraints
Age is one of the most influential determinants affecting the
interactive behavior among EFL learners and influencing the success or
failure in foreign language learning. Krashen et al. (1982) state that
learners who learn a second language since childhood through native
exposure acquire higher proficiency rather than the ones who begin in
adult. Oyama's study (1976) also reveal that many adult EFL learners fail
achieving nativelike proficiency. Their learning progress tends to be
stagnant at a certain level which this condition is usually called as
“fossilization”, a phenomenon of permanent stoppage of second language
18
development. This indicates that the aging process is one of influential
factors that may limit adult learners’ capability to utter the language with
nativelike pronunciation (Scarcella & Oxford, 1992). Even they have the
ability to pronounce words and sentences with a good pronunciation,
problems related to stress, intonation, and other phonological nuances still
probably cause misleading and convince in communication breakdown.
Shumin (2002) argues that adults do not tend to have the innate ability in
acquiring a second language compared with children.
b. Aural Medium
Speaking skill cannot be apart from listening skill. Those skills are
related to each other. To have a good speaking skill, students should have
a good listening skill. Doff (1998) states learners will develop their
speaking skill as one they enhance their listening skill. Listening precedes
speaking and it strengthen the process itself (Shumin, 2002). Generally,
when two or more people interacting, the one speaks and the others listen.
Shumin (2002) argues that every person takes a set of double roles for
being speaker and listener. As stated by Mendelsohn & Rubin (1995),
during the listening process, learners must comprehend the information
and preserve it in their memory, then follow it by integrating what comes
after, and continually consider their understanding of what they hear with
the prior knowledge and received information. A person could not give a
proper response if they do not understand what the speaker is saying.
Therefore, speaking is closely related to listening as a unity which the
19
rules of language are internalized. Some spoken language features such as
loosely organized syntaxes, fillers use, incomplete arrangements of
sentence undeniably hamper EFL learners’ conceptual knowledge and
influence their ability.
c. Sociocultural Factors
Numerous amounts of cultural characteristic of a language plays
an enormous role in L2 or foreign language learning. Dimitracopoulou
(1991) argues in a pragmatic view, language is claimed as a social act as a
linguistic communication arises in the framework of organized
interpersonal exchange which is socially regulated. This is in line with
what Carrasquillo (1994) regarding to a language expressing shared values
and beliefs which create traditions and social cultures that bind the
community. Bygate (1998) argues oral second language development is
socially situated as most human development does and to learn a language
learners need to be socially motivated and cognitively managed. Someone
must know how the society using the language in the social context
therefore they would be able to communicate, socialize, and getting
involved in the interaction. As Berns (1991) says, each language has its
rules of usage which may lead speakers to consider to what, when, to what
degree of the language they should give to their interlocutors. In
consequence, nonnative speaker may encounter the difficulty to choose the
appropriate expression used in a certain condition. Moreover, oral
communication consists of a very powerful nonverbal message which
20
sometimes contradicts with the verbal language. Because of the
unfamiliarity of the nonverbal communication, EFL learners usually do
not recognize how to respond to it. For instance, when a Chinese learner
heard “let’s have a lunch together sometimes”, he immediately responds
proposing a fixed date without noticing indifferent facial expression. After
that he would be puzzled when his interlocutor left without giving an
expected answer. It indicates that sociocultural affects the oral
communication.
d. Affective Factors
Learners’ affective side is probably one of the most important thing
which influences students’ success or failure in language learning (Oxford,
1990). According to Shumin (2002), emotions, self-esteem, empathy,
anxiety, attitude, and motivations are the affectional factors influencing
EFL learners’ speaking ability. Brown (2007) asserts foreign language
learning is a complicated task that may risking lead to human-anxiety
which relates to the feelings of uneasiness, frustration, low self-esteem,
and hesitation. Speaking a foreign language publicly moreover in front of
native speakers may provoke anxiety. Sometimes extreme anxiety arises
when the learners get tied tongue and losing words unexpectedly which it
may lead to discouragement and a general sense of failure. Unlike
children, adults are more tendentious to consider how people judge
themselves. They are very circumspect about making mistake for what
21
they are saying, being judging for making errors as ignorance, and “losing
their face” in front of public. Obviously, the feelings of afraid of making
mistakes, being judged, and “losing face” are the reasons of the inability of
EFL adult learners to speak English without anxiety.
B. Review of Related Studies
Gan (2013) in the study of Understanding English speaking difficulties: an
investigation of two Chinese populations investigated the speaking difficulties
that university students from Hong Kong and mainland China encounter from
the various perspectives. Both Hong Kong and mainland China students have
linguistic obstacles. Most students tend to make grammatical errors, produce
elaborate language with complex structure, and experience a problem in
pronunciation. Related to speech processing, the study reported that students
mainly experience thinking in Chinese while they have to speak in English. It
means they tend to compose their thoughts in Chinese before translating it to
English. They also tend to avoid using difficult and words and structures and to
experience overwhelming when talking with the teacher. In addition, students
have concerns on delivering presentation, discussing, and having small talks
and jokes. These problems are in relation to academic and conversational
speaking issues. The findings also reveal that speaking can be anxiety-
provoking for the students. They experience anxiety when speaking English,
worry about their grammar, and their language ability tend to cause inhibition
in speaking English.
Zabihi et al. (2021) examined how willingness-to-communicate (WTC),
22
classroom English anxiety, behavioral inhibition, and behavioral action predict
students’ perceived L2 speech fluency. WTC positively predicts students’ L2
proficiency. Simply put, this would mean when the learners are more willing to
communicate, they would perform more fluent speaking. Findings also reveal
that classroom English anxiety negatively associated with learners’ L2
proficiency. If learners are in higher anxiety, they may utter the message in
halting or faltering way thus they would be considered as less fluent. To put
together, these findings propose that when the anxiety level is higher, they tend
to be less-willing to communicate and could perceive less-fluent speaking.
Behavioral inhibition and action did not be found to predict L2 proficiency.
Therefore, students’ WTC and anxiety are considerably influential on
predicting L2 proficiency.
Tsang (2019) investigated the effects of narrow listening on ESL learners’
pronunciation and fluency. Ninety-five of ESL students in Hong Kong who
were participated in this experimental study were randomly separated into three
different groups: (A) a group of students with narrow listening task with
latitude which students could choose their own materials; (B) a group of
students who were given narrow listening without latitude; (C) a control group
without narrow listening. Overall findings showed that group A and group B
with narrow listening tasks reported to considerably improve in pronunciation
and fluency in reading aloud, free production, and performing a dialogue better
than group C which had no narrow listening task. This study approved that
aural medium positively affects students’ speaking skill. These findings were
23
corroborated with Shumin's (2002) theory of speaking factors by aural
medium.
C. Conceptual Framework
Speaking has been considered as a daunting and complicated task for
learners. As Celce-Muria & Olshtain (2000) mention, speaking skill is
considerably difficult in some ways because the learners require to achieve a
command of production speech sub-skills such as a grammatical patterns
choice, vocabulary retrieval, and sociocultural competence. This study is
primarily concerned with Islamic boarding school students’ speaking practice
in the language time program. The students’ voice in this research is to
describe the problems and factors that affect their speaking skill during the
language time. Thus, the students’ speaking problems and factors that affect
their speaking skill in the language time program is the selected issue on this
research.
Students will have different speaking problems and affecting factors
regarding to the context and situation. Ur (1996) highlights that some possible
problems in getting learners to talk are inhibition, low participation, nothing to
say, and mother-tongue use. In addition, linguistic problems are also
highlighted to affect speaking skills (Bygate, 1998; Levelt, 1989). Meanwhile
Shumin (2002) suggests that age, aural medium, socio-culture, and affective
factors affect learners’ speaking skill development. This research will rely on
those theories in discovering speaking problems and factor affecting Islamic
boarding school students in the language time program.
24
25
Speaking as a difficult and complicated skill
to acquire (Celce-Muria & Olshtain, 2000)
Speaking problems (Bygate, Speaking factors (Shumin,

1998; Ur, 1996) 2002)
Age or
maturational
Inhibition constraints
Aural medium
Nothing to say
Sociocultural
Low participation factors
Affectional
Mother-tongue factors
use
Linguistic
problems
26
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework
27
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHOD
A. Study Design
The research was categorized as survey research. According to Creswell
(2014), survey provides numeric data of trends, opinions, or attitudes of a
population by studying a sample of that population. The purpose of conducting
survey research is to generalize the data from a sample to a population to draw
some inferences about some characteristics, trends, opinions, or attitudes
(Creswell, 2014). Survey was chosen to determine students’ individual opinions
towards speaking problems they have in “language time” and the factors affecting
their performance. It also helped the researcher to identify students’ beliefs and
perceptions of the problems and factors which may affect the implementation of
“language time” and the speaking enhancement they supposed to acquire.
As mentioned that the research was set as a triangulated-survey, the researcher
used method-triangulation. Triangulation is a method of combining data, methods,
researchers, or theories (Cohen et al., 2007). Rowley (2002) describes compared
to other methodologies, one of triangulation strengths is it allows the researcher to
collect data from multiple sources. Triangulation helps the researcher to use
different evidence to validate the similar findings. In this study, after gaining the
data from students through questionnaire, the researcher needed to do an interview
with the teacher to clarify the data regarding to speaking problems, factor
affecting students’ skill and finding the solution. Interview results complimented
28
data from the questionnaire.
B. Research Setting
The research took place in an Islamic boarding school located in Klaten, Jawa
Tengah. The education level is equal to senior high school. The boarding school
consisted of female students only. There were 360 students attending the school
with the specification 120 students for each level which each level is divided into
four groups (two groups of natural science and two groups of social science).
Language time is held from 3.00 pm. To 7.30 pm. Students are supposed to
practice English during the program. There will be a punishment for one who
breaks the rules.
The research was designed as a cross-sectional survey. As Creswell (2012)
stated, cross-sectional survey is the common type of survey which allows the
researcher to collect the data in one-point time so that it will be efficient in the
term of time. The data was collected only in one-point time. It was conducted in
December 2021. The research was held for one week.
C. Population and Sample
The population of the research were 120 students XII grade and English
teachers in an Islamic boarding school in Klaten in senior high school level. A
convenience sampling was chosen to determine the sample. Creswell (2012)
explains convenience technique sampling is a sampling procedure which allows
the researcher to choose the sample from the easiest encountered sources. The
29
sample was taken from 29 students and an English teacher.
D. Research Instrument
Questionnaire
Questionnaire is a written-form list of questions designed to investigate a
particular issue. Wilson & McLean (1994) in Cohen et al. (2007) describe
questionnaire is an advantageous instrument generally used for survey collecting
data purpose which provides structured, often numerical, data and is easy to be
distributed to the samples. The researcher will develop the questionnaire based on
several references from previous studies. The questionnaire consisted of 18 items
regarding to speaking problems encountered during “language time” and 7 items
related to factors affecting students’ speaking performance.
Questionnaire was in a close-ended form. A close-ended questionnaire allows
researcher to get a limited number of answers and leaves no room additional
information out of the options. It required the respondents to answer the questions
relating to the research topic by choosing the answers provided in the
questionnaire. All statements were on a Likert-scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree), 2 (disagree), 3 (neutral), 4 (agree), 5 (strongly agree).
Interview
As Fraenkel et al. (2012) explain, interview is an important way to check the
accuracy and clarify the data gained from the previous respondents. The results
from the interview are also often used to compare or contrast the previous data. In
30
this research, a semi-structured interview was done to the English teacher who
was teaching in the school. The researcher clarified whether there was any
correlation between students’ speaking performance during “language time” with
students’ performance in in-class speaking during learning activities. Furthermore,
based on the interview, the researcher could discover the solutions to overcome
the problems toward students’ speaking performance.
E. Validity and Reliability
According to Johnson & Christensen (2014), validity and reliability are
essential to determine the quality of the data attained from the research. To be
highly valid and reliable, it will be depending on the instrument used to collect the
data. The higher quality of the instrument is, the more valid and reliable the data
will be.
Validity
Meadows (2003) explains validity is how accurate the questionnaire measures
the items included to gain the data. To test the validity, the researcher used
Pearson Product Moment Correlation in SPSS. The test was done by correlating
each item’s score with the total score. When the items’ score is significantly
related to total score, it indicates the data is valid. The instrument is considerably
valid if it contains the score as follows:
1. If Sig. (2-tailed) score < 0.05 and Pearson Correlation score is positive, the
items are valid
2. If Sig. (2-tailed) score < 0.05 and Pearson Correlation score is negative,
31
the items are invalid
3. If Sig. (2-tailed) score > 0.05, the items are invalid
The validity test was taken to measure whether the items are valid to be used
or not. According to the results shown in the table which is attached in appendix
A, there were one invalid item for speaking problems questionnaire and eight
items for speaking factors questionnaire. Therefore, there were 25 valid items that
can be used to collect the data and the rest invalid items were deleted.
No. Item of Speaking Problems Number of Question Item
1. Inhibition 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
2. Nothing to Say 9, 10, 11, 12
3. Low Participation 13, 14
4. Mother-tongue Use 15
5. Linguistic Problems 16, 17, 18
Table 1: Valid Items of Speaking Problems
No. Item of Speaking Problems Number of Question Item
1. Age or Maturational Constraints 1, 2
2. Aural Medium 3,4,5
3. Sociocultural Factors 6
4. Affective Factors 7
32
Table 2: Valid Items of Speaking Factors
Reliability
After determining the data research is valid or invalid, the reliability test was
done to indicate that instrument was reliable and considerably good to collect the
data. Reliability is how sufficient the questionnaire items can be reproduced to
collect the data (Meadows, 2003). Reliable instruments will not be tendentious
directing the respondents to choose certain answer. Reliability test was done using
Cronbach’s Alpha in SPSS. As stated by Johnson & Christensen (2014), the
instrument is considerably high reliable if contained the Cronbach’s Alpha score
as follows:
1. Cronbach’s Alpha > 0.90 = very high reliable
2. Cronbach’s Alpha 0.70 – 0.90 = high reliable
3. Cronbach’s Alpha 0.50 – 0.70 = quite high reliable
4. Cronbach’s Alpha < 0.50 = low reliable
The table below shows the reliability score for the whole questionnaire items. The
reliability score of the questionnaire was ,906. Therefore, the questionnaire was
considered very highly reliable to be used as the instrument.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's N of Items
Alpha
,906 25
Table 3: Reliability Statistics
33
F. Data Collection and Analysis
Before being administered, the writer translated the questionnaires into Bahasa
Indonesia. The questionnaire then was distributed to 29 samples. The writer gave
the instructions to teacher —who accompanied the students, and the students
themselves how they were supposed to answer each question addressed in the
questionnaire. The answers were recorded in a printed-form questionnaire.
After distributing the questionnaire and getting the answer from the
respondents, the researcher conducted an interview section with the English
teacher. In the interview, the researcher asked some questions related to speaking
problems and the factors and the correlation with the learning activity in the
classroom and the solutions.
Descriptive analysis was provided to interpret the statistics data attained from
the questionnaire and the data gained from the interview. All data collected from
the questionnaire was analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS). Descriptive statistics in terms of percentages and frequencies was
included to examine how regularly students encountered the difficulties and how
much the factors affect students speaking performance. The results of the
questionnaire were presented through a Likert-scale by Likert (1932) with this
following score
Scale Agreement Mean Range Level of Problem
34
5 Strongly Agree 4.50-5.00 Very High
4 Agree 3.50-4.49 High
3 Neutral 2.50-3.49 Moderate
2 Disagree 1.50-2.49 Low
1 Strongly Disagree 0.50-1.49 Very Low
Table 4: Rate Score of a Likert-Scale
For analyzing data from the interview section, the researcher wrote a script-
transcription based on the interview. Then it was matched with the data obtained
from the questionnaire. After all, it was analyzed and interpreted in paragraphs.
35
CHAPTER IV
THE RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
A. Research Findings
As the study is meant to discuss speaking problems and factors
affecting students’ speaking performance during “language time”, a close-
ended questionnaire was used to collect the data of students’ perceptions
towards speaking problems and factors affecting speaking practice in
“language time”. The questionnaire consists of 26 questions to identify
speaking problems and factors. An interview section was also held with the
English teacher to complement the data gained from the questionnaire.
1. The Results of Student’s Questionnaire
Provided tables below summarize the study participants’ responses to
18 questionnaire items of speaking problems students encountered during
“language time” and 7 questionnaire items related to factor affecting students’
speaking skill. Numbers of frequency will be recorded by code FR and the
percentage will be referred by code PER. Frequency and percentage are used
to record the numbers of participants choosing Strongly Disagree, Disagree,
Neutral, Agree, and Strongly Agree option. Only combined percentages of
Agree and Strongly Agree are reported below for the identification of the
extent of speaking problems encountered by students during “language time”
and the ease of analysis.
36
1.1 Students’ Responses to Items Related to Speaking Problems
a. Inhibition
Table 5 shown below apparently indicates a tendency from participants
to be inhibited during language time. There is a tendency of students show
less-courage when they must speak English in “language time”. It finds out
that students might be afraid of punishment and critic. For example, 58,6% of
the students or half of the participants reported that they were afraid of being
punished by “language court” (item 4); 41,4% of the students feared of being
laughed or criticized (item 8). These results are further corroborated by the
responses made by the participants to the item I am afraid of making mistakes
and it keeps me away from speaking which 34,5% of the students agreed to
the statement (item 1). In addition, students appeared to be less confident of
their skills. According to the questionnaire results, 51,7% of the students felt
unconfident when they found others talking English well (item 5); 48,3% of
the students also appeared to feel embarrassed about their pronunciation and
accent (item 2). It was also reported that speaking English in “language time”
might cause them to feel anxious (item 1; 34,5% of the students).
Strongly
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
Disagree
FR PER FR PER FR PER FR PER FR PER
1. I am afraid of making mistakes and it keeps me away from speaking

2 6,9 9 31 8 27,6 10 34,5 0 0
2. I feel embarrassed about my pronunciation and accent

2 6,9 5 17,2 8 27,6 12 41,4 2 6,9
3. I am always anxious during “language time”
1 3,4 8 27,6 11 37,9 6 20,7 3 10,3
37
4. I am afraid of being punished by “mahkamah lughoh”
1 3,4 4 13,8 4 13,8 14 48,3 3 10,3
5. When I hear others talking English well I lose my confidence
1 3,4 6 20,7 7 24,1 11 37,9 4 13,8
6. I am a shy person and I prefer to talk little either in Bahasa Indonesia and English
4 13,8 9 31 12 41,4 3 10,3 1 3,4
7. I expect myself too much which keeps me away from speaking
2 6,9 14 48,3 6 20,7 6 20,7 1 3,4
8. I am afraid of being laughed or criticized
2 6,9 7 24,1 8 27,6 8 27,6 4 13,8
alternatives for items of speaking problems related to inhibition
b. Nothing to Say
The participants’ responses to items related to nothing to say problems
reveal they apparently have concerned on having a particular discourse which
this concern is related to content familiarity. For example, 44,8% of the
participants reported lack of knowledge to talk freely. This means that there is
a possibility of students might know little especially things in English term
which limits them to talk freely (item 11). It is corroborated with I do not
know what to talk about item where 34,4% of the students responded that they
usually did not know what to talk about (item 9). The concerns that students
have cause them being able to answer a question only rather than to extend
the conversation. The responses show 31% of the students tend to be able
only on answering a question (item 12). In addition, students might have a
problem of losing concentration when they must speak in English. There are
38
48,2% of the students lose their concentration due to many things to be
focused on (item 10). In conclusion, there is a tendency of students to have
limited knowledge and lose concentration which limit them to talk
spontaneously.
Strongly
Disagree
9. I do not know what to talk about
1 3,4 8 27,6 10 34,5 7 24,1 3 10,3
10. I lose concentration when I start talking because of too many things to be focused on
3 10,3 4 13,8 8 27,6 9 31 5 17,2
11. I am not knowledgeable enough so that I could talk freely
2 6,9 5 17,2 9 31 8 27,6 5 17,2
12. I can only answer questions rather being able to talk freely
1 3,4 4 13,8 5 17,2 5 17,2 4 13,8
alternatives for items of speaking problems related to nothing to say
c. Low Participation
Low participation concerns in language time are shown in I am not
really into “language time” especially when it comes to “English hours” item
and I prefer to wait “language time” to end to talk freely with my friends item.
Surprisingly, there are two contradictory statements come from students’
feedbacks. For example, only 17,2% of the students who disagree that speaking
English during language time is less interesting (item 13). Oppositely, there are
more than a half of respondents or 72,4% of the students prefer to wait
language time to end to talk freely (item 14). It can be considered that students
39
seem interest with language time but only some of them who have been
participating actively. This concern indicates that even though language time is
considerably interesting for the students, but they still show the low
participation in it.
Strongly
Disagree
13. I am not really into language time especially when it comes to “English hours”
4 13,8 12 41,4 8 27,6 3 10,3 2 6,9
14. I prefer to wait “language time” to end to talk freely with my friends
0 0 2 6,9 6 20,7 8 27,6 13 44,8
alternatives for items of speaking problems related to low participation
d. Mother-tongue Use
Students’ responses show that there is a tendency of mother-tongue to
influence students’ speaking skill. According to the report, 72,4% of the total
respondents agree that they are more willing to talk in “pondok-style” English
(item 15). It means that English that students usually use is “the modified”
English which is the expressions, the contexts, and the vocabularies are
uncommon in standard English. This concern may hinder students to speak
eloquently.
Strongly
Disagree
15. I prefer to talk in “pondok-style” English rather than the standard English
40
0 0 2 6,9 6 20,7 8 27,6 13 44,8
alternatives for items of speaking problems related to mother-tongue use
e. Linguistic-related Problems
Students commonly are found to concern speaking problems related to
linguistic. For example, 55,2% of the students agree that English grammar
rules are considerably overwhelming so that they encounter difficulty to
speak fluently (item 16). In addition, lack of vocabulary has been the main
problem which is encountered by 69% of the students (item 17). Limited
vocabularies restrict their speaking skill. Further, 55,1% of the students agree
that they have lack knowledge of pronunciation (item 18). From the collected
responses, most students tend to encounter linguistic-related speaking
problems.
Strongly
Disagree
16. English grammar rules make me overwhelmed
0 0 4 13,8 9 31 12 41,4 4 13,8
17. I don’t have enough vocabulary knowledge to express myself
0 0 2 6,9 7 24,1 14 48,3 6 20,7
18. I don’t have enough pronunciation knowledge
0 0 6 20,7 7 24,1 13 44,8 3 10,3
alternatives for items of speaking problems related to linguistic
1.2 Students’ Responses to Items Related to Speaking Factors
Furthermore, the questionnaire also identified the factors influencing
41
students’ speaking performance. Tables shown below summarize students’
responses towards questionnaire items related to speaking factors that
influence their speaking skills.
a. Age or Maturational Constraints
Students reported that age or maturational constraint is not a significant
factor affecting their speaking skills. For example, only 31% of the
participants who is not familiar with English when they were little (item 1). It
is comparably not higher than the number of students who is disagree. In
addition, 44,8% of the students agree that they start to speak English in high
school meanwhile 51,7% of them disagree. The feedbacks indicate that
almost half of the respondents have known and spoken English since they are
little
Strongly
Disagree
1. I was not familiar with English when I was a child

0 0 10 34,5 10 34,5 6 20,7 3 10,3
2. I start to speak English in high school

4 13,8 11 37,9 1 3,4 12 41,4 1 3,4
alternatives for items of speaking factors related to age
b. Aural Medium
Factors related to aural medium are found to be significantly influential
on students’ speaking skills. For example, 58,6% of the students rarely listen
to English audios from native speakers (item 3). They have limited access and
42
exposure of authentic English which may concern their speaking skills. In
addition, students tend to listen to English only for academic purposes only
such as listening test. The data shows 34,5% of the students agree to the item
I listen to English only for academic purposes such as listening test (item 4).
Moreover, listening to English is considerably difficult for the students since
English is not their mother-tongue and only limited exposure that they have to
access English audios. There are 58,6% of the respondents agree to the item
Listening to English by native speaker sounds considerably difficult for me
(item 5). Respondents’ feedback reported that aural medium factors
commonly concern students.
Strongly
Disagree
3. I rarely listen to English audios by native speakers

2 6,9 6 20,7 4 13,8 9 31 8 27,6
4. I listen to English for academic purposes only such as listening test

5 17,2 4 13,8 10 34,5 6 20,7 4 13,8
5. Listening to English by native speaker sounds considerably difficult for me

1 3,4 2 6,9 5 17,2 9 31 8 27,6
alternatives for items of speaking factors related to aural medium
c. Sociocultural Factor
Sociocultural factor considerably concerns students’ speaking skill. The
results show that 58,6% of total students come from families who are not
speaking English (item 6). The findings point out that speaking English is
uncommon among their families and environment.
43
Strongly
Disagree
6. Only a few or even no one from my family who is speaking English

3 10,3 4 13,8 5 17,2 9 31 8 27,6
alternatives for items of speaking factors related to sociocultural
d. Affectional Factor
Affectional factor considerably negatively affects students’ speaking
skill. The data reveals that only 10,3% of the students who agree that
speaking English is boring (item 7). It is corroborated with the result of item I
am not really into language time when it comes to “English hour” (item 13)
in the questionnaire of speaking problems.
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

Disagree
7. Speaking English is considerably boring for me

8 27,6 10 34,5 8 27,6 1 3,4 2 6,9
alternatives for items of speaking factors related to affectional factors
2. Interview Results
Interview aimed to find out the more contextual problems and
complement the data gained from the questionnaire. There are some results
regarding to speaking problems and factors found after conducting the
interview with the English teacher.
According to teacher’s responses, being less confident and lack of
vocabulary are two main problems students usually encounter in speaking
44
classroom activity. Students commonly feel inhibited as to several reasons.
Afraid of being laughed by classmates is the factor creating inhibition among
students related to affective aspect and afraid of making mistakes in terms of
pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary is related to linguistic factor. Another
problem is lack of vocabulary. Lack of vocabulary limits them to speak
eloquently. Insufficient exposures of English specifically by native speakers
has limited the students to enhance their speaking skills. Limited access to
technology device is a main factor causing to this concern. On the other hand,
printed media and resources is rarely found in the boarding. However, when
teacher allocates time for students to prepare the performance in the speaking
classroom, students tend to perform confidently. They could explore any
expressions and vocabulary when they have more time for preparing.
Students are also usually enthusiast when they are asked to do speaking
performances such as role play, speech, mini debate, etc. Unfortunately,
speaking classroom is limited considered to the time allocation and materials
conducted by the curriculum.
Some findings regarding problems found in the implementation of
language time point out from the interview. Based on teacher’s perspective,
there are some points which are considerably ineffective for the “language
time”. Students still completely involve in regulating “language time” from
arranging the curriculum, preparing the materials, controlling the operation,
even teaching the materials needed for “language time”. The authorized
students who operating and controlling “language time” will be burdened
45
since they also must attend the school and boarding activities such as
memorizing Quran (tahfidz), cleaning picket, or Pesantren classroom. In
addition, the problem appears when there is no standard set for “language
time” administrator students. Occasionally, students gave a wrong instruction
and it leaded to misunderstanding among other students. Consequently,
students need a standard of understanding the expression and language.
Further the problem comes from the students generally is unnatural usage of
English. It is common among Islamic boarding school that they usually speak
English as only “it sounds English at least” without paying attention at the
context of the language itself. It is usually known as “Pondok English”. For
instance, when a person wants his/her friend buying a snack for them, they
might use the word “entrust” which means “titip”. They might say “I want to
entrust a snack” instead of “Can you buy me a snack?” which the usage of
word “entrust” here is incorrect for the context of asking a help. Meanwhile,
native speakers commonly use “entrust” for something crucial, big, and
important. Therefore, the expression “I want to entrust a snack” used by the
students is unnatural according to how native speakers use the language.
Besides, students tend to speak English as how they speak Indonesian, for
example they like to use “yes” in the end of sentence which they mean it
refers to “ya” in Indonesian such as “bentar, ya”. Here English teacher plays
a role as a language consultant for language-authorized students to give
instructions how to use the language in an appropriate context. In addition,
standard English which students usually used in speaking classroom has not
46
been applied completely in speaking practice during “language time” as both
has different natures. Even it is also difficult to several students who perform
excellent in speaking English to speak native-like. They are afraid of being
laughed and teased by their friends.
Teacher offers some suggestions to improve “language time” program.
Teacher said the boarding teachers and English teacher is going to form a
startup team to build a collaboration in monitoring “language time”.
Controlling the program requires the involvement from teachers, both English
teacher and boarding teachers. Therefore, the authorized students who
manage language programs in the boarding will be able to set the standard of
language understanding and proficiency. It will also help them to give a
correct instruction to other students so that misunderstanding and
misconception of language use can be minimized. To facilitate language
resources and enrich students’ vocabulary, it is possible to manage a watching
movie program with structured worksheets. Students can be asked to find new
vocabularies and expressions found in the movie.
In conclusion, “language program” is a good start for students to
enhance their English-speaking skills with a better regulation and
implementation.
B. Discussion
The study set out to investigate speaking problems and factors affecting
Islamic boarding school students’ speaking skill in language time program.
Students’ attitudes toward speaking problems they might encounter and
47
factors that is considerably influencing their speaking were sought. In
addition, teacher’s opinions were asked to complement the data gained from
questionnaires. The study reported that students have speaking problems
related to inhibition, nothing to say, low participation, mother-tongue use, and
linguistic problems. Meanwhile only aural medium and sociocultural factors
significantly influence students’ speaking skills. Additional exposure of
English sound through structured tasks from movies and controlling from
English and boarding teachers are proposed as solutions to overcome
speaking problems with language time contexts. The results will be discussed
in depth below by answering the research questions.
Question 1: What Are Speaking Problems among Students in
Language Time?
Overall, the students commonly encounter inhibition when they must
speak English during language time. In terms of language learning, a
condition where being afraid of making mistakes, worrying the attention, and
losing the face or shy can occur as a result of inhibition (Ur, 1999). The study
shows that most students feel inhibited when they must speak English in
language time. Most students feel afraid of being punished by mahkamah
lughoh (a language court) as they are afraid of making mistakes and anxious.
Losing confident is another major problem among students specifically when
they heard others speak English well. Being laughed or criticized is also
found to be a problem that students encounter in language time. They also
feel embarrassed of their pronunciation and accent which inhibits them to
48
speak. These results support Ur’s (1999) theory.
Nothing to say also becomes a problem that commonly occurs during
language time. Being unfamiliar with the content which is brought into the
discourse concerns the students (Carrell, 1987). Lack of knowledge limits
them to talk freely in the conversation. Thus, they tend to be able only on
answering the question instead of extending the discussion. Some students do
not know what to talk about due to this concern. In addition, losing
concentration when other is speaking English also becomes another problem
that is raising in language time. When students lose their focus, they tend to
encounter the difficulty to talk easily.
Students also less active participate in language time. Even though they
are regarded to be interested in the program, however only a little who
actively participate in speaking. Most of them prefer to wait the program ends
to speak Indonesian with their friends. Language time tends to be suboptimal
due to less participation. Meanwhile students better perform their speaking
skills when they are given time to prepare like in the classroom. These results
support Gass (2003); Krashen (1982); Long (1996); Schmidt (1992); Swain
(1985); and Vygotsky (1978) who state that language learning is optimal
when learners can actively participate and get enough input, output, and
opportunity.
Another problem that students have in speaking is mother-tongue use.
Most students prefer to talk in “pondok-style” English. It means students
speak English as they speak Indonesian in terms of grammar or expressions.
49
As interview results reveal, sometimes they use vocabulary contextually
wrong. For example, when they want their friend to buy them snack, many of
them use “I entrust a snack” instead of “Buy me a snack, please”. The word
“entrust” is inappropriately used because this word is used in more important
contexts to tell something is very crucial. Meanwhile students translate “Aku
titip beliin jajan dong” too literal and it causes a mistranslation. These
findings support Mede et al. (2014) that mother-tongue interference causes a
possibility of cross-linguistic errors.
Most students report to have linguistic-related problems. Speaking a
foreign language is considerably a demanding task since psycholinguistic
process involves planning what to say, retrieving grammar patterns and
vocabulary, and pronouncing and articulating words (Bygate, 1998; Levelt,
1989). The majority have limited vocabulary to express which restrict them to
speak with various expressions. It also causes a difficulty in elaborating a
discussion as they have very limited vocabularies. Grammar rules also make
them overwhelmed because it pushes them to consider what rule they should
use which it can confuse them. In addition, students also experience to have
difficulty in pronouncing words. It confirms Gan's (2013) finding that two
populations of Chinese students experience a problem in pronunciation. It
illustrates that EFL students commonly have a problem in pronouncing words
since English words pronunciation may differ from their native languages.
Question 2: What Are Factors That Affect Students’ Speaking
Skill?
50
Aural medium related to listening aspects. Listening plays a crucial role
in speaking practice since it precedes and strengthen the process itself
(Shumin, 2002). Students report to rarely listen to English audios by native
speakers. Lack of exposure becomes the main reason of this concern since
students live in a dormitory with limited access as stated by the teacher in
interview. Continuously, students have trouble in listening to native speakers
who is speaking English. In addition, some students only have listening
practice for academic purposes. Meanwhile a study by Tsang (2019) reveals
that listening practice could predict learners’ speaking skill and has a positive
correlation to speaking. Thus, listening factors affect speaking problems that
students have in language time.
Another factor that affecting students’ speaking skill is sociocultural
factor. Many students come from families who are not speaking English as
their first language. This finding highlights that speaking English is
considerably uncommon in their environment. It also points limited exposure
and opportunity that students have to improve their speaking skills. There is a
possibility that language time is one possible opportunity to intensively
practice students’ speaking skill. As human developmental does, second or
foreign language development requires to be socially motivated and
cognitively managed (Bygate, 1998).
Results for age or maturational constraint and affective factors are not
significant. It means neither age nor affectional factors predict speaking
factors affecting students’ speaking skill in language time. As stated in
51
literature review, adult people considerably do not acquire a language better
than who is innate with native exposures (Krashen et al., 1982). However,
only a few students who is familiar with English only in their teenage or adult
ages. In addition, affective factors such as motivation, anxiety, and emotion
(Shumin, 2002) are considered to affect speaking skills. Meanwhile many
students do not find any negative emotions toward speaking English in
language time. Thus, further researchers need to explore other questionnaire
items which can measure how students perceive a language in terms of age
and the more various emotions towards speaking English.
Question 3: What Are the Solutions to Overcome Students’
Speaking Problems?
Furthermore, there are several ways to improve the implementation of
“language time” program. To monitoring and controlling the operation of
“language time”, authorized students, English teacher, and boarding teachers
could form a startup team. The team will involve them to arrange curriculum
for students, standardize authorized students who will give a vocabulary
enrichment, and supervising “language time” procedure. To provide students
with aural resources, students could watch movies with structured worksheet
for a period.
52
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
A. Conclusions
The findings elaborated in Chapter IV show students still encounter
several problems when they require to speak English during “language time”
program. The most common problem is mother-tongue use. In the context of
“language time”, students use expressions which sounds like Indonesian. The
next problem is they have almost nothing to say. Students are likely to answer
a question than to start a dialogue. The other problem is linguistics-related
problems. There are several problems linked to linguistics aspects such as
lack of vocabulary, being overwhelmed in understanding and using grammar,
53
and lack of pronunciation. According to the interview results, there are other
problems found during “language time” regarding the management of the
program. Students still totally involve in regulating the program, from
arranging curriculum and materials, controlling the students, until conducting
a program for vocabulary enrichment purposes. It will be a burden for
authorized students since they also have to attend the school and join other
boarding programs. No standard set for authorized students also leads to
misunderstanding and misconception of language expressions among
students.
The problems appear in “language time” program could not be
separated from several aspects affecting students’ speaking performance. The
most leading factor is aural medium. The lack of aural medium resources and
materials leads to linguistics-related problems. Another factor affecting
students’ speaking skill is age or maturational constraints. Most students start
to speak English in high school. This factor is still relevant with another
factor, sociocultural-related factor. Majorly students come from a family who
does not speak English as their main language. Students require to struggle to
familiarize themselves with English expressions.
There are several solutions offered to improve students’ speaking
performance and the “language time” program itself. It requires to form a
startup team involving authorized students, English teacher, and boarding
teachers. Therefore, it will be easier to set standard and minimize language
misleading among students. The other solution is a watching movie activity
54
with a worksheet. The activity aims to enrich students’ vocabulary,
expression, and they be able to learn how grammar is used in spoken
language.
Language time which is conducted by Islamic boarding schools is a
prospect program for developing students’ speaking skills. Islamic boarding
schools have been paying a serious attention at language time program as
they prepare the students for having practical skills specifically in speaking
English. However, there is an inevitable consequence of students’ challenge
in practicing speaking during language time which caused by both internal
and external factors. An improvement in the implementation, monitoring, and
controlling is necessary to optimize the benefits of language time. Therefore,
it requires active participation and synergy from all parties; English teacher,
boarding teacher, and students, to achieve the goals.
B. Suggestions
1. To the English Teacher
It is important for English teacher to guide students and give suggestions
related to language use. English teacher can be a consultant for students to
suggest and correct if there is any misused of language expressions. Teacher
can also arrange the watching movie activity and the worksheet for students’
exercise.
2. To the Boarding Teachers
The boarding teachers may help authorized students in controlling “language
55
time” program. The boarding teacher may acknowledge themselves with
daily English expressions so that they can help students in preparing materials
for enrichment program. Since the usage of technology device is limited in
the boarding, the boarding teachers may provide several printed resources and
materials so that students still can get exposures from the printed media.
3. To Other Researchers
For other researchers who are interested in the similar field study, the
researcher recommends to observe and investigate the implementation in
another boarding school’s language program holistically since different
schools may have different nature and regulations. This study may be used as
one of the references for conducting a study related to speaking problems and
factors affecting students’ speaking performance during “language time”
program.
REFERENCES
Abedini, F., & Chalak, A. (2017). Investigating the Inhibitive Factors in the
Speaking of Iranian EFL Learners. Journal of Applied Linguistics and
Language Research, 4(6), 82–97.
Arbiser, S., & Schneider, J. (2013). On Freud’s "Inhibitions, Symptoms and
Anxiety. Karnac Book.
Baker, J., & Westrup, H. (2003). Essential speaking skills: A handbook for
English language teachers. VSO.
Berns, M. (1991). Contexts of competence: Social and cultural considerations in
56
communicative language teaching. Plenum Press.
Bin-Tahir, S. Z., Atmowardoyo, H., Dollah, S., & Rinantanti, Y. (2017).
Multilingual learning program: pesantren students’ perceptions of the
multilingual simultaneous-sequential model. JELE (Journal of English
Language and Education), 3(2), 44. https://doi.org/10.26486/jele.v3i2.292
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. 4thEd.
Pearson Education.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by Principles An Interactive Approach to
Language Pedagogy. In Teaching by Principles An Interactive Approach to
Language Pedagogy (p. 491). Longman.
Brown, H. D. (2004). Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practices.
Longman.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Principle of Language Teaching and Learning 5th edition
(5th ed.). Pearson Education, Inc.
Bui, G. (2014). Task readiness: Theoretical framework and empirical evidence
from topic Familiarity, strategic Planning, and proficiency levels. In In P.
Skehan (Ed.), Investigating a processing perspective on task performance
(pp. 63–93). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Bui, G., & Zeping, H. (2018). L2 fluency as influenced by content familiarity and
planning : Performance , measurement , and pedagogy. Language Teaching
Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816656650
Bygate, M. (1998). Theoretical Perspectives on Speaking. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 18, 20–42. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190500003469
57
Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching Language to Young Learners. Cambridge
University Press.
Canale, M. A., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical Bases of Communicative
Approaches to Second Language Teaching and Testing. Applied Linguistics,
1, 1–47. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/I.1.1
Carrasquillo, A. L. (1994). Teaching English as A Second Language: A resource
guide. Routledge.
Carrell, P. L. (1987). Content and Formal Schemata in ESL Reading. TESOL
Quarterly, 21(3), 461–481.
Celce-Muria, M. (2001). Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language
(3rd Edition). Heinle&Heinle.
http://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume5/ej20/ej20r4/7/
Celce-Muria, M., & Olshtain, E. (2000). Discourse and context in language
teaching : a guide for language teachers. Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education.
Routledge.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and
Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (4th ed.). Pearson.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed
Methods Approaches (4th Editio). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Darcy, I., Mora, J. C., & Daidone, D. (2014). Attention Control and Inhibition
Influence Phonological Development in a Second Language. Concordia
Working Papers in Applied Linguistics, 5.
58
Denies, K., Yashima, T., & Janssen, R. (2015). Classroom Versus Societal
Willingness to Communicate : Investigating French as a Second Language in
Flanders. Modern Language Journal, 99(4), 718–739.
https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12276
Dewaele, J.-M., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2014). The two faces of Janus ? Anxiety and
enjoyment in the foreign language classroom. Studies in Second Language
Learning and Teaching, 4(2), 237–274.
https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2014.4.2.5
Dewaele, J., Witney, J., & Dewaele, L. (2017). Foreign language enjoyment and
anxiety : The effect of teacher and learner variables. Language Teaching
Research, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168817692161
Dimitracopoulou, I. (1991). Conversational competence and social development.
Cambridge University Press.
Doff, A. (1998). Teach English: A training Course for Teacher. Cambridge
University Press.
Fatima, S. (2019). The negative consequences of inhibition on EFL learners’
speaking performance The case of first year LMD EFL students in the
English division – Biskra University. University Mohamed Kheider of
Biskra.
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to Design and
Evaluate Research in Education (8th Editio). McGraw-Hill.
Gan, Z. (2013). Understanding English speaking difﬁculties: an investigation of
two Chinese populations. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
59
Development, 34(October 2014), 37–41.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2013.768622
Gass, S. M. (2003). Input and interaction. In Doughty, C., & M.H. Long (Eds.). In
The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224–255). Blackwell.
Habibi, A., Mukminin, A., Najwan, J., Sofwan, M., Haswindy, S., Marzulina, L.,
Sirozi, M., & Harto, K. (2018). Investigating EFL Classroom management in
pesantren: A case study. Qualitative Report, 23(9), 2105–2123.
Hamad, M. M. (2013). Factors Negatively Affect Speaking Skills at Saudi
Colleges for Girls in the South. English Language Teaching, 6(12), 87–97.
https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n12p87
Harmer, J. (2007). The Practice of English Language Teaching with DVD (4th
Edition) (Longman Handbooks for Language Teachers) (p. 448). Pearson
Longman ELT.
Hu, X., Zhang, X., & Mcgeown, S. (2021). Foreign language anxiety and
achievement : A study of primary school students learning English in China.
Language Teaching Research, 00(0), 1–22.
https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211032332
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. (2014). Educational research: Quantitative,
qualitative, and mixed approaches (5th Editio). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Kachru, Y., & Smith, L. E. (2008). Cultures, contexts, and world englishes.
Routledge.
Khajavy, G. H., Fatemi, H., Ghonsooly, B., & Choi, C. W. (2014). Willingness to
Communicate in English : A Microsystem Model in the Iranian EFL
60
Classroom Context. TESOL Quarterly, 0(0), 1–27.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.204
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition.
Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. D., Long, M., & Scarcella, R. (1982). Age, rate, and eventual
attainment in second language acquisition. Newbury House.
Lambert, C., & Robinson, P. (2014). Learning to Perform Narrative Task: A
Semester Long Study of Task Sequencing Effects. In in Baralt, M. and
Gilabert, R. and Robinson, P. (ed) Task Sequencing and Instructed Second
Language Learning (pp. 208–230). Bloomberry.
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/79355
Latif, H. A. (2019). Needs Analysis of English for Specific Purposes on Islamic
Boarding School Students. 3(2), 136–144.
https://doi.org/10.29408/veles.v3i2.1568.g930
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. MIT Press.
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. The Science
Press.
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language
acquisition. In Ritchie, W., & T. Bhatia (Eds.). In Handbook of second
language acquisition (pp. 413–468). Academic Press.
Macintyre, P. D. (2007). Willingness to Communicate in the Second Language :
Understanding the Decision to Speak as a Volitional Process. Modern
Language Journal, 91(4), 564–576.
61
MacIntyre, P. D., Clément, R., Dӧrnyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1998).
Conceptualizing Willingness to Communicate in a L2 : A Situational Model
of L2 Confidence and Affiliation. Modern Language Journal, 82, 545–562.
Manrique, C. M. R. (2013). Mother Tongue Interference with Foreign Language:
A Case Study about A2 Oral Production in a Colombian Public University.
Meadows, K. A. (2003). So you want to do research question. British Journal of
Community Nursing, 8(12), 562–571.
https://doi.org/10.12968/bjcn.2003.8.9.11572
Mede, E., Tutal, C., & Ayaz, D. (2014). The effects of language transfer in
Turkish EFL learners. ELT Research Journal, 3(2), 70–83.
Mendelsohn, D. J., & Rubin, J. (1995). A Guide for the Teaching of Second
Language Listening. Dominie Press.
Nunan, D. (1993). Introducing Discourse Analysis. Penguin English.
Oradee, T. (2012). Developing speaking skills using three communicative
activities (discussion, problem-solving, and role- play). International
Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 2(6), 532–533.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should
Know. Newbury House Publishers.
Oyama, S. (1976). A sensitive period for the acquisition of a nonnative
phonological system. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research.
Pyun, D. O., Kim, J. S., Cho, H. Y., & Lee, J. H. (2014). Impact of affective
variables on Korean as a foreign language learners ’ oral achievement.
System, 47, 53–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.09.017
62
Qiu, X. (2019). Functions of oral monologic tasks : Effects of topic familiarity on
L2 speaking performance. Language Teaching Research.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819829021
Rowley, J. (2002). Using Case Studies in Research. Management Research News,
25(1), 16–27. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/01409170210782990
Sato, R. (2020). Fluctuations in an EFL teacher ’ s willingness to communicate in
an English-medium lesson : an observational case study in Japan. Innovation
in Language Learning and Teaching, 13(0), 105–117.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2017.1375506
Scarcella, R., & Oxford, R. L. (1992). The tapestry of language learning: The
individual in the communicative classroom. Heinle&Heinle.
Schmidt, R. (1992). Psychological mechanisms underlying second language
fluency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14(4), 357–385.
Shumin, K. (2002). Factors to Consider: Developing Adult EFL Students’
Speaking Abilities, edited by Jack C. Richards and Willy A. Renandya (J. C.
Richards & W. A. Renandya (eds.)). Cambridge University Press.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some rules of comprehensible
input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S., & C.
Madden (Eds.). In Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253).
Newbury House.
Thornbury, S. (2005). How to Teach Speaking (p. 191). Pearson Education, Inc.
Tsang, A. (2019). Effects of narrow listening on ESL learners ’ pronunciation and
fluency : An ‘ MP3 flood ’ programme turning mundane homework into an
63
engaging hobby. Language Teaching Research, 1–21.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819894487
Ur, P. (1996). A course in Language Teaching. Practice and Theory. Cambridge
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0346-251x(97)84229-7
Ur, P. (1999). A Course in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological
processes. Harvard University Press.
Wilson, N., & McLean, S. I. (1994). Questionnaire Design: A Practical
Introduction. University of Ulster Press.
Yashima, T. (2002). Willingness to Communicate in a Second Language : The
Japanese EFL Context. Modern Language Journal, 86, 54–66.
Zabihi, R., Ghominejad, S., & Ahmadian, M. J. (2021). Can willingness to
communicate , communication in English anxiety , behavioural inhibition
and behavioural action predict perceived L2 fluency ? Language Teaching
Research, 24. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211044071
64
APPENDIX A:
RECORD OF VALIDITY TEST
65
66
67
APPENDIX B:
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS AND INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT
68
No. Interview Questions
1. Apa masalah yang sering ditemui ketika santri praktek berbicara Bahasa
Inggris di dalam kelas?
2. Apakah santri biasa merasa malu ketika berbicara di dalam kelas?
3. Berapa banyak kesempatan yang dimiliki santri untuk praktek berbicara

Bahasa Inggris di kelas?
4. Bagaimana partisipasi santri dalam praktek berbicara Bahasa Inggris

ketika berada di dalam kelas?
5. Apakah sulit untuk menyiapkan santri di dalam kelas? Apa faktor-faktor

yang mempengaruhi kemampuan speaking santri?
6. Apa pendapat Anda mengenai “Jam Bahasa” yang dimiliki santri di

dalam asrama?
7. Menurut Anda, apakah performa santri ketika praktek berbicara Bahasa

Inggris di dalam kelas mempengaruhi performa santri saat “Jam
Bahasa”?
8. Menurut Anda, bagaimana kondisi dan yang lingkungan yang ideal bagi
santri untuk mempraktekkan kemampuan bicara Bahasa Inggris
mereka?
9. Apakah solusi yang dapat diterapkan untuk mengatasi masalah-masalah

yang dialami oleh santri ketika praktek berbicara Bahasa Inggris?
10. Apa ekspektasi Anda terkait pengembangan kemampuan speaking

santri?
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
69
INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT
R : Researcher
ET : English Teacher
R : Masalah apa yang biasanya dihadapi santri ketika praktek speaking di

konteks kegiatan belajar mengajar di kelas?
ET : Ya, jadi masalahnya yang saya identifikasi dari santri-santri jaman awal
saya mengajar kan dari tahun 2015 sampai sekarang 2021 itu; pertama, soal
confidence. Jadi, mereka itu ngga percaya diri, takut berbuat salah. Kenapa
mereka ngga confidence, itu karena takut berbuat salah, takut diketawain
temennya, takut dianggap bodoh, kayak gitu-gitu. Terutama dalam speaking itu
kan ada pronunciation ya, kalau mereka pronouncing-nya salah, itu takut gitu,
nanti kalau temennya liat gimana, itu jadi ga pede. Terus takut juga kalua
grammarnya salah. Yang kedua, mereka ngerasa belum punya banyak vocab yang
cukup. Mungkin ada yang pengen ngomong tapi gatau mulainya dari mana karena
kendala vocab, kurang exposure. Jadi, confidence dan kurang vocab itu ya dua
masalah utama yang dialami santri.
R : Pertanyaan kedua, ketika santri memiliki kesempatan untuk berbicara,

untuk praktek speaking di depan kelas, misal diminta untuk perform speech atau
dialogue, apakah mereka cenderung malu atau banyak yang pede (percaya diri)?
ET : Kalau untuk konteks santri di sini ya, kalau yang saya lihat, banyak yang
pede sebenernya. Misal nih, saya di kelas berusaha untuk ngobrol pakai Bahasa
Inggris, mereka diberi pertanyaan atau diajak ngobrol itu masih banyak yang
malu, diem. Tetapi ketika mereka diberi waktu lebih untuk mempersiapkan, kayak
kelas 10 kemaren saya minta untuk membuat dialog, ternyata resultnya bagus
banget, dialognya bisa panjang, dan ekspresinya kaya. Cuma memang ada santri
yang punya kecenderungan untuk malu, karena ngerasa belum bisa, ngerasa vocab
belum cukup, ya memang harus dipahami kalau santri itu beda-beda, karena
kurang exposure. Karena masih kelas 10 gapapa saya bolehkan bawa contekan
karena speaking kalau harus hafal dialog, santri terbebani. Akhirnya saya
70
bolehkan bawa kertas, asalkan tetap maintaining eye contact dan engaging the
conversation. Overall, anak sebenernya kalau dikasih kesempatan untuk prepare,
hasilnya bagus-bagus. Dan kalau dibikin presentasi, untuk konteks di pesantren
sini, Alhamdulillah lebih banyak santri yang pede.
R : Untuk kesempatan yang dimiliki santri untuk praktek speaking itu

seberapa banyak?
ET : Menurut saya pribadi, di jam Bahasa Inggris yang terbatas, itu belum
banyak. Bahasa Inggris wajib itu cuma dua jam pelajaran, cakupan materinya
banyak. Untuk kelas 12, saya fokuskan ke berpikir kritis seperti analytical reading
karena fokusnya untuk masuk perguruan tinggi. Untuk speaking sendiri, saya
ngerasa hanya bisa dimasukkan ke beberapa topik yang bisa dibikin project kayak
news presenting, self-introduction. Jujur saya sendiri ngerasa masih kurang.
Padahal menurut saya kalua diberi waktu lebih dikit lagi, kemampuan santri bisa
lebih berkembang. Dan juga kita terkendala di jumlah guru.
R : Untuk partisipasi santri, seperti yang dijelaskan tadi, santri jika diberi
kesempatan untuk prepare, partisipasi santri bagus, seperti itu?
ET : Iya, benar, santri ketika diberi kesempatan untuk prepare, semua

berpartisipasi. Ketika ada pengambilan nilai speaking dan santri ada yang sakit,
saya beri waktu susulan supaya dia juga memiliki kesempatan untuk praktek.
R : Lalu alhamdulillah pertanyaan selanjutnya sebetulnya juga sudah

terjawab, apakah susah untuk mengondisikan santri?
ET : Iya itu tadi ya, dikasih alokasi persiapan lebih dulu.
R : Menurut Miss Sifa sendiri, bagaimana jam Bahasa yang dilaksanakan di

asrama, mungkin dari pengamatan Miss Sifa, pelaksanaannya seperti apa?
ET : Sejujurnya saya ngerasa bersalah karena belum sepenuhnya terlibat,

Cuma sekarang sudah ada rintisan untuk membentuk badan bahasa. Karena
selama ini personil yang dilibatkan masih santri semua. Menurut saya kelemahan
dengan system jam bahasa di sini itu belum ada standar yang sama di bagian
71
bahasa. Kalau yang sudah dilakukan selama ini, untuk antisipasi, santri biasanya
mengkonsultasikan konten ke saya. Terus yang saya liat, santri itu masih ada
kecenderungan “yang penting ngomong Inggris”. Kayak misal masih ada yang
pake kata “entrust” untuk titip minta belikan jajan padahal konteks “entrust” itu
kan sebenernya dipakai untuk sesuatu yang sangat penting, ya. Jadi, masih banyak
santri yang menerjemahkan leterlek daripada melihat konteks. Menurut saya, yang
seperti ini itu ngga cuma di Ibbas aja ya, santri di pondok-pondok lain pun juga
sama. Istilahnya mereka punya “bahasanya anak pondok” seperti itu. Jadi untuk
memperbaiki ini memang dibutuhkan kerja sama dari berbagai pihak, ngga bisa
kalau personilnya hanya melibatkan santri. Butuh peran dari ustadz-ustadzah yang
di pondok juga. Saya kan mengampu English debate club, saya pernah ngobrol-
ngobrol sama mereka, “coba kalian itu jadi pioneer waktu jam bahasa gimana
speaking yang benar” tapi ya itu, bahkan mereka yang kemampuannya lebih
bagus aja susah untuk transforming karena temennya yang lain malah komen
“kamu ngomong apa sih”. Menurut saya masih kurang efektif. Tetapi sekarang
sudah diwacanakan “Duta Bahasa” yang diharapkan mampu menjadi pioneer tapi
untuk teknisnya masih didiskusikan.
R : Pertanyaan selanjutnya, apakah performa santri di dalam kelas apakah

mempengaruhi performa santri saat jam bahasa?
ET : Kalau yang saya lihat ngga terlalu berpengaruh karena naturenya beda.
Ketika di dalam kelas kan ada tuntutan untuk speaking secara proper, tetapi ketika
sudah masuk ke percakapan sehari-hari goalnya mereka yang penting temannya
paham gitu aja, bahkan anak-anak yang fluent mau ngga mau simplify
ekspresinya.
R : Menurut Miss Sifa, kondisi dan lingkungan yang ideal untuk santri
praktek speaking itu yang seperti apa?
ET : Kalau saya melihat yang ideal itu yang penting suportif, sih. Suportif itu
maksudnya semua civitas yang ada di situ ngga ngerasa malu untuk belajar
Bahasa Inggris. Ngga ada label atau stigma “sok Inggris”. Terus lingkungan yang
72
ideal itu yang memberi kesempatan untuk praktek. Sebenernya pondok udah
bagus ya ngasih kesempatan pekan Bahasa Inggris, pecan Bahasa Arab. Cuma
yang perlu dibenahi itu implementasi dan exposure-nya. Karena di pondok kan
akses gadget kan dibatasi ya, berarti ketika ada pengajaran konten, berarti
diusahakan jangan ada misleading. Lingkungan yang ideal itu yang ngasih
kesempatan dan exposure yang cukup.
R : Kira-kira solusi apa yang bisa diimplementasikan untuk mengatasi

masalah-masalah berkaitan speaking di jam Bahasa?
ET : Sekarang mau dibentuk “Tim Rintisan” yang menyusun kurikulum, lalu

“Duta Bahasa” untuk menyampaikan ke teman-teman bagaimana speaking yang
proper. Terus bisa juga dengan diadakan kegiatan nobar dengan tugas terstruktur
untuk mempelajari grammar gimana implementasinya.
R : Yang terakhir, apa harapan Miss Sifa untuk perkembangan kemampuan

speaking santri?
ET : Harapan saya ke depannya ketika lulus dari sini, mereka punya

kemampuan speaking yang cukup, sehingga kelak mereka berani menyampaikan
gagasan-gagasan yang mereka punya, karena santri Ibbas itu kan sebenernya
kreatif-kreatif, pinter-pinter, ya. Cuma ya ini proses yang panjang, ngga bisa jika
hanya mengandalkan guru Bahasa Inggris saja, tetapi juga membutuhkan kerja
sama dari pihak kesantrian dan sebagainya, seperti itu.
73
APPENDIX C:
PERMISSION LETTER
74
75

Thesis - Aliffiana Mulya Habibah (17202244019)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thesis - Aliffiana Mulya Habibah (17202244019)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPEAKING PROBLEMS AND FACTORS AFFECTING SPEAKING

PERFORMANCE DURING “LANGUAGE TIME” IN AN ISLAMIC

Submitted as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Attainment of

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

SPEAKING PROBLEMS AND FACTORS AFFECTING SPEAKING

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Attainment of Bachelor

Aliffiana Mulya Habibah

Approved on May 19, 2022

Anita Triastuti, S.Pd., M.A., Ph.D.

SPEAKING PROBLEMS AND FACTORS AFFECTING SPEAKING

Accepted by the Board of Examiners of Faculty of Languages and Arts,

Main Examiner : __________

Yogyakarta, June, 2022

Dr. Sri Harti Widyastuti, M.Hum.

Yang bertanda tangan di bawah ini, saya:

Nama : Aliffiana Mulya Habibah

Program Studi : Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris

Fakultas : Bahasa dan Seni

Judul Skripsi : Speaking Problems and Factors Affecting Students’

Speaking Performance During “Language Time” in an

Islamic Boarding School

sepenuhnya menjadi tanggung jawab saya.

Yogyakarta, 19 Mei 2022

Aliffiana Mulya Habibah

I humbly dedicate this thesis to my parents, my siblings, and myself

“We are never old to learn something new”

Alhamdulilllahirabbil’alamin, all praises go to Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala,

Yogyakarta, May 19, 2022

Table 1: Valid Items of Speaking Problems..........................................................30

Table 2: Valid Items of Speaking Factors..............................................................30

Table 3: Reliability Statistics.................................................................................31

Table 4: Rate Score of a Likert-Scale....................................................................33

alternatives for items of speaking problems related to inhibition..........................36

alternatives for items of speaking problems related to nothing to say...................37

alternatives for items of speaking problems related to low participation..............38

alternatives for items of speaking problems related to mother-tongue use............38

alternatives for items of speaking problems related to linguistic...........................39

alternatives for items of speaking factors related to age........................................40

alternatives for items of speaking factors related to aural medium.......................41

alternatives for items of speaking factors related to sociocultural.........................41

alternatives for items of speaking factors related to affectional factors................42

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework..........................................................................25

Aliffiana Mulya Habibah

1. Background of the Study

of the oldest education systems in Indonesia (Bin-Tahir et al., 2017). Islamic

curricula, national curriculum and Islamic curriculum in their teaching and

learning activities (Habibi et al., 2018). However, as technology and

communication have been developed rapidly, it leads Islamic boarding schools to

This issue encourages Islamic boarding schools to improve students’ ability in

communicating in foreign languages. Islamic boarding schools emphasize Islamic

daily communication among students and teachers (Bin-Tahir et al., 2017).

Therefore, Islamic boarding schools manage a language program activity in which

known as “language time”. The duration is various depending on the boarding

can build a habit for students to practice their speaking skill.

time program which is managed by Islamic boarding school. Islamic boarding

uses English as a communication tool (Latif, 2019). Islamic boarding schools

English for international communication. According to Kachru and Smith (2008),

knowledge in order to get accomplishment and prosperity. It leads them to

improve their English skills in order to have an ability of a good performance in

multinational fields. Another reason Islamic boarding schools emphasize speaking

English in their environment is that language time is expected to help students to

improve their language proficiency, enrich their vocabulary knowledge, and