Perceived Self-Efficacy of Speaking Skills among English as a Second Language (ESL) Technical College Students
Faridatul Mastura Mohamed Khatib1*, Noorhafizah Rubaai1, Rosheela Muhammad Thangaveloo1
1 General Studies Department, Politeknik Merlimau, Merlimau, Malaysia
*Corresponding Author: faridatul@pmm.edu.my Accepted: 15 February 2021 | Published: 1 March 2021
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Abstract: This study proposed to identify level of perceived self-efficacy among technical college students with regard to ability to speak in English. Factors contribute to perceive self- efficacy among technical college students with regard to ability to speak in English were also identified. This study also used conceptual framework adapted from Hairuzila et al. (2011) and Mikulecky (1996) on self-efficacy. 181 semester 5 students from Politeknik Merlimau, Melaka engineering course were chosen as respondents using simple random sampling. Research was conducted using a questionnaire; design by Hairuzila and Subarna (2007) which was adapted from Bandura’s (1997) and Mikulecky et al.’s (1996) to access the speaking self-efficacy of the students on three construct: ability, activity perception and aspiration. A pilot test was carried out to 30 semester 5 students in order to find the reliability of the questionnaire. The overall Cronbach’s alpha value is. 0.915. Finally, the quantitative data were analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) version 20.
Keywords: self-efficacy, technical college, speaking
_________________________________________________________________________
1. Introduction
Students are naturally reluctant to use a language they are not comfortable in, especially in the presence of native speakers or their peers. When a foreign learner speaks English, they are usually being judged. With the complicated grammar that English has, it is difficult to say things without making a few mistakes. Many students do not like to make mistakes. In western philosophy, people are praised for learning from mistakes but in eastern philosophy it’s often the opposite. “Perfection is the goal, and no one can ever perfect a language”. Many students who are brilliant in subjects such as math or science which have written laws that are easily understandable can struggle with English. Likewise, sometimes the students who do not study but are very sociable during class can be quite good at English because they are willing to speak.
Malaysian students would have at least gone through eleven years of English language learning in schools. They have been exposed to the language for quite some time which supposedly, by the end of the eleventh year they should be able to use English language. However, the reality showed that some the students still cannot apply the language in their daily life. This is supported by the statistic of the Ministry of Higher Learning Institution where most of the students especially Polytechnic students did not achieve the target set by the Ministry where almost 30% from 132,000 students of polytechnic, community colleges and public universities have achieved low bands in Malaysia University English Test (MUET) in 2006 with 5.7% - Band 1, 23% - Band 2.
The English language is of utmost importance in the academic and professional life of engineering students. Pendergrass, Kowalczyk, Dowd, and Laoulache (2001) point out that English is an essential tool in the engineering learning and, therefore, the integration of English into engineering, science and Math courses is an effective way to improve the performance of engineering students in oral and written communication. It can be clearly seen how important English Language in technical field.
However, Al-Tamimi and Shuib (2008) said that the engineering students have been described as low-competent in the English language. The students faced a lot of difficulties in using the language and as a result of their poor performance in English, most of the graduates have been rejected when they apply for work. Although students are required to use English Language in classroom, most of them seemed to be lack of interest in using the language.
2. Literature Review
2.1 Self-efficacy in speaking
The key in communication is the ability to communicate or to speak to other people that is including speaking skills. Speaking is a productive oral skill that consist of generating organized oral expressions to deliver. Moreover, speaking is carried out in a real-time.
Therefore, learner’s abilities to plan, process and produce the language are challenged greatly.
English has widely used as the leading means for communication internationally. It serve as language that can be understood by two people from two different cultures. Hence, it is vital for technical college students to be able to speak the language and master it. In this competitive job world, multinational companies used English as communication medium among the workers. Therefore, if students want to be part of globalization, they must be able to speak in English. They must possessed high confidence in communicating in English in order to secure their employability.
An individual’s level of skill in accomplishing a given task is by measuring their level of perceived self-efficacy. According to Bandura (1997), perceived self-efficacy refers to “a judgment of one’s ability to organize and execute given types of performances”. He further explained that “the influence of perceived self-efficacy directly mediates the integration and application of existing skills”. Hence, self-efficacy plays a significant role in foreseeing human performance in several areas of human work.
Several studies have shown that self-efficacy play a role in human performance. Wong (2005) found that pre-service teachers who had higher self-efficacy showed more frequent use of language learning strategies than those pre-service teachers who had low self-efficacy. In an investigation of the relationship between English grade and self-efficacy, Mahyuddin, et al.
(2006) found that there was a positive relationship between self-efficacy and academic performance in English language. Dodds (2011) research showed that there was significant positive correlation between English-speaking self-efficacy beliefs and English speaking performance among participants. It is stated that the participants who had strong beliefs in their abilities to carrying out some speaking tasks were later able to perform those tasks to a high degree. In addition, students who had high self-efficacy have ability to organize and select good environment to support them in activating self-efficacy (Amwazir, Perpisa and Ikhsan, 2013).
Students are able to create beneficial environments to exercise some control and having strong sense of self-efficacy by selecting environment that suit their ability.
Meanwhile, a study conducted by Hairuzila and Sivapalan (2007) found that students have high levels of self-efficacy regarding their ability to speak in English. They conducted a study in a Malaysian private university where 169 senior-year engineering students were asked to complete a set of questionnaire. Their study also revealed that students who are highly confident in their ability performed better than those with low self-efficacy. This suggests that if students have greater self-efficacy, they would be more likely to perceive speaking as useful when compared with those with lower self-efficacy.
2.2 Effects of self-efficacy on Aptitude, Ability and Aspiration
Perceived self-efficacy plays an important part in prophesying human performance in several areas of human effort. Bandura (1994) states that strong personal efficacy beliefs boost learner’s motivation and performance. Contrariwise, low efficacy beliefs are characterized by low aspiration and weak commitment to goals. These individuals are more likely to become frustrated when they encounter difficult tasks and see these tasks as personal threats to be avoided rather than challenges to be mastered.
In addition, individuals who expect success in a particular enterprise anticipate successful outcomes. Students self-confident in their academic skills expect high grades in exams and expect the quality of their work to obtain benefits. The contradictory is also real of those who absence such confidence. Students who distrust themselves in academic ability predict low marks before they initiate an exam. The predictable results of these make-believe performances will be differently anticipated: continued good results and academic attainment for the former, reduced possibilities and academic failure for the latter. Study done by Ida Sariani and Harwati (2012), on polytechnic students in Malaysian setting found that students’ are afraid of being evaluated by their friends, teachers and people closed to them. The students were also found anxious when they were asked to speak individually in front of others. This may reflect the activities done in the classroom where students were asked to have individual presentation (Ida Sariani and Harwati 2012).
Research show that learners’ self-efficacy influences their motivation to learn (Pajares 2003, Schunk 1991). Research also indicates that self-efficacy beliefs affect the attributions learners make in gain success and failure in the task given to them. Students with diverse levels of self- efficacy make different attributions for their success and failure in learning second language.
Hsieh and Schallert (2008) conducted a study on self-efficacy and attributions. 500 undergraduate students learning foreign language such as Spanish, French and German in the USA were examined. The study found that students who attributed their failure to lack of effort as manageable attribution had advanced self-efficacy than learners who did not attribute their failure to work.
Another study conducted by Hsieh and Kang (2010), on 192 ninth-grade English learners in South Korea found that the ESL learners with high level levels of self-efficacy make more inner and peculiar attributions than low efficacious learners and also among unsuccessful learners. While high efficacious ones make more personal control attributions than those with low level of self-efficacy. Therefore, it can be said that self-efficacy plays an important role in determine learners’ motivation. When they believed on their ability to perform tasks given, the outcome will be better.
2.3 Need of speaking English among technical college students
In order to succeed in their field of engineering, the technical students require communication skills to enhance their technical knowledge and being able to do well in their job
(Srigayathridevi & Thamaraiselvi 2006). Study shows that engineering graduates who does not have good communication skills are not able to fulfil basic requirements of organizations (Mehta & Mehta 2007).
One of the biggest difficulties for the second language learners is the lack of confident in using the target language. They tend to be very reticent when it comes to communicating or expressing their thoughts and ideas in the target language. This scenario is true of Malaysia polytechnic students’ where their employers have voiced their concerns that these polytechnic graduates have abundant problems in interactive commendably at work despite having excellent technical knowledge in their areas. Based on data collected from Malaysia polytechnic graduates through the Graduate Tracer Studies (2004 to 2008) confirmed the concerned expressed by the employers when the respondents pointed that they lack of skills to write and converse in English. Patil, Nair and Codner (2008) study on industry’s perceptions of engineering graduates reported that there was a competency gap between their expectation and graduates’ competencies at the workplace. This problem is mainly palpable in students taking engineering courses in Malaysian polytechnics. Seat and Lord (1999) highlights the fact that technical students need to learn learning and interacting skills as part of their education.
This includes in soft skills modules which cover learning styles, improved learning in groups, and socialization for working with others and interpersonal.
3. Research Methodology
This study used questionnaire in order to identify students’ level of perceived self-efficacy in speaking English and factors that influence their self-efficacy level. It used a Likert five-point scale. The data collected were analysed using IBM SPSS 20.0.
The necessary data were collected using a 24-item questionnaire on self-efficacy, designed by Hairuzila et al. (2011), which was adapted from Bandura (1990) and Mikulecky et al. (1996).
All questions in the questionnaire were formulated with adaptation to the questions from the previous studies. The questions were adapted due to two factors which to make them suitable for use in Malaysian setting and to make sure only relevant questions related to this research are selected.
In order to guarantee the validity of the questionnaire, a pilot test was conducted to 30 semester 5 students who completed all Communicative English modules. Cronbach’s alpha was used to determine the internal reliability of the survey instrument which consist of twenty-three items.
Hair, Anderson, Tatham and Black (1998) state that the generally decided upon lower limit for Cronbach’s alpha is .70. Based on this criterion, the first construct which is Aptitude was found to be reliable with 0.856. The second construct (Ability) was also found to be reliable with an alpha level of 0.845. The final construct which is Aspiration was found to be reliable with alpha level of 0.888. The overall alpha level for all three construct was 0.915. Therefore, the questionnaire and each of the three construct were considered highly reliable.
Table 3.1: The result of reliability test of students’ self-efficacy in speaking English
Variable Croncach’s Alpha Criteria
Students’ self-efficacy in speaking English
0.915 0.70 Reliable
4. Findings
Research question 1: What is the level of perceived self-efficacy of technical college students regarding their ability to communicate in English?
Table 4.1 Frequency and mean of aptitude
Item Strongly
agree (%)
Agree (%)
Neutral (%)
Disagree (%)
Strongly disagree
(%)
Mean
1. I do a good job of participating in class discussion conducted fully in English.
28.7 43.6 28.3 3.9 2.02
2. I am good at learning speaking skills.
20.4 54.7 21.0 3.9 2.08
3. I have no problem learning speaking skills.
24.9 49.2 18.2 7.7 2.09
4. I do not have any problem speaking in English when I should.
21.0 44.8 23.2 10.5 0.6 2.25
5. I can motivate myself to speak in English.
13.2 55.2 27.6 3.3 0.6 2.23
6. I can speak fully in English well with my Malay lecturers
14.4 44.2 32.0 7.7 1.7 2.38
7. I am good at
communicating with the lecturers.
10.5 55.2 23.8 8.8 1.7 2.36
8. I can learn and use new English words in my conversation easily.
20.4 39.8 32.0 7.2 0.6 2.28
9. I am able to keep speaking in English even when my friends tease me.
16.0 50.8 29.3 2.2 1.7 2.23
10. When I decide to say something in English, I go ahead and do it.
22.1 47.0 27.1 3.9 2.13
11. It is not difficult for me to concentrate while speaking in English with others.
24.3 41.4 26.0 8.3 2.18
Table 4.1 shows frequency and mean score for aptitude. Aptitude refers to students’ beliefs on the nature of their ability and what they do to speak in English. The findings indicated that 28.7% and 43.6% of students are strongly agree and agree that they do a good job of participating in class discussion conducted fully in English (Item 1). Next, the findings show that 24.9% (Strongly agree) and 49.2% (Agree) of respondents have no problem learning speaking skills (Item 3). This is followed by Item 11, “It is not difficult for me to concentrate while speaking in English with others” where 24.3% of respondents were strongly agreed and 41.4% were agreed with the statement.
On the other hand, only 10.5% of respondents were strongly agree that they are good at communicating with the lecturers. While 55.2% of respondents agreed that they are good at communicating with the lecturers (Item 7). 13.2% and 55.2% of respondents were strongly agree and agree respectively that they can motivate themselves to speak in English (Item 5).
For Item 6, 14.4% of the respondents were strongly agree that they can speak fully in English well with their Malay lecturers.
From Table 4.1, Item 1, “I do a good job of participating in class discussion conducted fully in English” exhibits the lowest mean score (2.02). This shows that students have high self-efficacy in taking part in class discussion that is conducted fully in English. The students also have high self-efficacy at learning speaking skills. This can be seen from the mean score (2.08) for Item 2 which is “I am good at learning speaking skills”. Meanwhile, Item 3 shows that students have no problem learning speaking skills (mean=2.09).
On the other hand, Item 6, “I can speak fully in English well with my Malay lecturers” and Item 7, “I am good at communicating with the lecturers” show high mean score, compared to other items, with 2.38 and 2.36 respectively. Both items are related to ability to communicate in English with their lecturer. Students might have low self-efficacy when communicate with their lecturers probably because they afraid the lecturers will highlight their mistakes during the conversation.
Table 4.2: Frequency and mean of ability
Item Strongly
agree (%)
Agree (%)
Neutral (%)
Disagree (%)
Strongly disagree
(%)
Mean
12. I enjoy having group discussion in class when they are done fully in English.
18.2 58.6 16.6 6.6 2.11
13. I do not find oral presentation hard to do.
18.8 46.4 28.2 6.1 0.6 2.23
14. I enjoy communicating with others in English.
21.0 47.0 27.1 5.0 2.16
15. I enjoy speaking in English with anybody.
24.3 46.4 24.9 4.4 2.09
16. Doing individual oral presentations in class is enjoyable.
31.5 38.5 23.8 6.6 2.05
17. Doing group presentations in class is enjoyable.
21.5 59.7 17.7 1.1 1.99
18. Working on group oral presentation is enjoyable.
29.8 52.5 12.2 5.5 1.93
Table 4.2 denotes the frequency and mean of ability. In great detail, all of the sample students agreed that they have positive attitudes towards the activities conducted to enhance their ability in oral communication. The activities not only focused on individual activities but also group activities. This includes oral presentation and group discussion.
Findings indicated that 31.5% of respondents have positive attitude towards doing oral presentations in class (Item 16). They also enjoyed working on oral presentation with 29.8%
(Strongly agree) and 52.5% (Agree), respectively (Item 18). Meanwhile, 18.2% (Strongly agree) and 58.6% (Agree) of respondents enjoyed having group discussion in class when they are done fully in English (Item 12). It was also found that 18.8% (Strongly agree) and 46.4%
(Agree) of respondents do not find oral presentation hard to do.
From the table, it was also revealed that, “Working on group oral presentation is enjoyable”
has the lowest mean value which is 1.93 (Item 18). This is followed by students’ belief that
“Doing group presentations in class is enjoyable” (Item 17=1.99). Based on these two items, it seems that students enjoy doing group presentation compared to others activities which have higher mean scores.
Table 4.3 Frequency and mean of aspiration
Item Strongly
agree (%)
Agree (%)
Neutral (%)
Disagree (%)
Strongly disagree
(%)
Mean
19. One of my main goals is to be much better at speaking in English by next year.
33.7 53.6 12.7 1.79
20. Speaking well in English is one of my main goals in life.
43.1 40.3 14.4 2.2 1.75
21. I can speak English well when there are others who encourage me.
19.3 53.0 23.2 4.4 2.12
22. I would like to be a fluent speaker so that I will be confident myself.
27.1 43.1 27.1 2.8 2.05
23. I would like to be a fluent speaker so that I will be respected by my friends.
29.3 40.3 24.9 5.5 2.06
24. I would like to speak good English just like other students who are good speakers.
35.9 43.6 15.5 4.4 0.6 1.90
Table 4.3 exhibits the frequency and mean value for aspiration. Aspiration refers to students’
desire to be someone who could communicate well in English. The findings indicated that 43.1% (Strongly agree) and 40.3% (Agree) of respondents listed speaking well in English is one of their main goals in life. It was also reported that 35.9% of respondents strongly agreed that they would like to speak good English just like other students who are good speakers.
33.7% (Strongly agree) and 53.6% (Agree) of respondents reported that one of their main goals is to be much better at speaking in English by next year.
From Table 4.3, Item 20, “Speaking well in English is one of my main goals in life” shows the lowest mean score which is 1.75. This shows that students have high self-efficacy belief towards ability to speak in English. This is followed by Item 19, “One of my main goals is to be much better at speaking in English by next year” with mean value of 1.79. These two items show that the technical college students are inspired to speak in English by setting their goal.
Next, students show that they just want to be like their friends who are good speaker. This can be seen from mean score in Item 24, “I would like to speak good English just like other students who are good speakers” (1.90). This infer that peer influence play important role to one’s self- efficacy. Meanwhile, Item 21, “I can speak English well when there are others who encourage me” shows the highest mean score (2.12).
Research Question 2: What is the most influential factor affecting students' perceived self-efficacy?
In order to investigate the most influential factor affecting students’ perceived self-efficacy in ability to speak in English, the researcher used linear regression analysis by comparing the three factors which are aptitude, ability and aspiration to dependent variable of the study
namely self-efficacy. Capital R is the multiple correlation coefficient that explains how strong the independent variables are related to dependent variable. The higher the R value, the stronger independent variable (IV) affects dependent variable (DV).
Table 4.4 Regression analysis between variables
Variables R R2 Percentage
Aptitude 0.425 0.180 18.0%
Ability 0.336 0.113 11.3%
Aspiration 0.381 0.145 14.5%
Table 4.4 shows the R and R2 value obtained from the regression analysis of the three factors towards the dependent variable. The highest R value is 0.425, which represents the degree of relationship between two variables namely aptitude and self-efficacy. It indicates a moderate degree of correlation. The highest R2 value is 0.180. It indicates how much of the dependent variable, “self-efficacy”, can be explained by the independent variable, “aptitude”. The finding shows that 18% of self-efficacy was explained by aptitude.
5. Discussion and Conclusion
In terms of aptitude, the findings (Refer Table 4.1) showed that more than half of respondents agreed that they do a good job of participating in class discussion conducted fully in English.
This is probably because the group discussion are conducted in group and students are familiar with their friends. Having friends who are also the same proficient with them make them feel confident to speak in English. This is supported by Raofi, Tan and Chan (2012) who reported that students should be provided with opportunities to observe their friends do tasks successfully. This will help to boost confident and positive beliefs about themselves. It was also found out that the respondents have no problem learning speaking skill. The findings of this study also indicated that it is not difficult for them to concentrate while speaking English with others. These findings complement the findings by Schunk (2003) where individuals’
beliefs in their aptitudes to perform a task determine the efforts and commitment they employ for the task.
On the other hand, the findings revealed that only small amount of the students are good at communicating with the lecturers. The finding of this current study is in line with the study done by Ida Sariani and Harwati (2012), on polytechnic students in Malaysian setting. It was found that students’ are afraid of speaking in front of the lecturers because they afraid that the lecturer will correcting their mistakes in front of the class. From the findings, it can be clearly seen that students are afraid of being evaluated by their friends, teachers and people closed to them. The students were also found anxious when they were asked to speak individually in front of others. This may reflect the activities done in the classroom where students were asked to have individual presentation (Ida Sariani and Harwati 2012). Apart from that, some students agree that they can speak fully in English well with their Malay lecturers. This probably the majority of the English lecturers in this polytechnic are Malay and students feel comfortable to speak with them. This finding is consistent with previous study by Bandura (1986) where positive feedback and encouragement from the teachers can enhance students’ self-efficacy.
Moreover, the findings reported that the students can motivate themselves to speak in English.
With regards to the ability, the results (Refer Table 4.2) indicated that the respondents have positive attitude towards activities conducted in English. Students who have high self-efficacy will encounter challenge as somewhat to be learned and grasped. This finding is supported by study conducted by Pajares, (1996) where a person’s interest and motivation in understanding
the mission will drive them to succeed in their difficulty, yet approachable goal. The finding from this current study also shows that students enjoyed working in group oral presentation.
They also enjoyed doing group presentations in class. This is probably because when working in group make them more confident compared to individual tasks. This finding complement Dodds (2011) study which showed that there was significant positive correlation between English-speaking self-efficacy beliefs and English speaking performance among participants.
It is stated that the participants who had resilient principles in their abilities to perform certain speaking tasks were later able to complete those tasks to a high degree. Therefore, students are able to give support to each other.
Meanwhile the results from the last construct that is aspiration (Refer Table 4.3), denoted that majority of the respondents listed speaking well in English is one of their main goals in life.
The finding also shows that majority of the students’ main goals is to be much better at speaking in English by next year. Students who had high self-efficacy have ability to organize and select good environment to support them in activating self-efficacy (Amwazir, Perpisa and Ikhsan, 2013 ). By selecting environment that suit their ability, students are able to create beneficial environments to exercise some control and having strong sense of self-efficacy.
Next, students show that they just want to be like their friends who are good speaker. This can be seen from mean score in Item 24, “I would like to speak good English just like other students who are good speakers” (1.90). This infer that peer influence play important role to one’s self- efficacy. This finding complement study by Schunk and Swartz (1991) where students will learn more by watching successful peer role modelling than teacher role modelling because students can identify readily with their peers.
The findings of this present study yield several pedagogical implications for lecturers wishing to produce confident speakers of English language. Increasing students’ self-efficacy might be useful as it includes a multifaceted interface of actions, cognitions and affect. According to Pajares (1996), if the lower levels of self-efficacy are identified among students, appropriate actions should be done to help boost students’ self-efficacy levels through verbal persuasion and encouragement.
Persuasion is one of the four sources of self-efficacy listed by Bandura (1986). Therefore, it is vital for educators to give positive criticism and reassurance to enrich students’ self-efficacy in oral communication. Students who display low self-efficacy have a tendency to brawl in order to complete a task. They will find it hard to do which leads to frustration. Thus, having lectures and discussions in class help them understand the task of working in a group.
In addition, students should be perceptible to successful role models such as classmates and lecturers. Using their peers as an example will make them more contented. Therefore, students should be given chances to perceive their friends do task well as these will help learners to substitute positive beliefs about themselves (Raofi, Tan & Chan, 2012). Moreover, lecturers should be attentive that all three elements: aptitude, ability and aspiration must be taken into respect in improving students’ self-efficacy level in speaking English. These three elements can be integrated in teaching and assessing students.
It should be noted that as this study was carried out in one Malaysia technical college.
Therefore, it may be unfair to provide generalizations regarding self-efficacy in ability to speak in English for all polytechnic students. Furthermore, this study only focused on students from engineering courses. Thus, there are no insight from the non-technical courses. Even so, it
could be a good indication of perceived self-efficacy in speaking English among technical students in Malaysian polytechnics.
References
Abdullah, K.I., 2001. English for Specific Purposes in 35(1): 47-57. Malaysia: International influence, local flavour. 24. Southeast Asian Journal of Education, 2(2): 345-361.
Al-Tamimi, A., & Munir Shuib. 2008. The English language curriculum for petroleum engineering students at Hadhramout university of science and technology. In Moris, Z.
Abdul Rahim, H. & Abdul Manan, S. (Eds.), Higher education in the Asia pacific:
Emerging trends in teaching and learning (pp. 115-125).Malaysia: Penerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia.
Amwazir, R., Perpisa, L., & Ikhsan, M. K. (2013). Students’self-efficacy in speaking class at the first year English department students of STKIP PGRI Sumatera Barat in academic year 2012/2013. Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, 2(2).
Anite a/p kanestion. 2014. Speaking self-efficacy among students of Kedah
Matriculation College. Proceeding of Symposium of International Language & Knowledge (SiLK 14);2014
Anyadubalu, C. C. 2010. Self-efficacy, Anxiety and Performance in the English
Language among Middle-school Students in English Language Program in Satri Si Suriyothai School, Bangkok. International Journal of Human and Social Sciences, 5 (3), 193-198.
Bandura, A. 1997. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A. 1994. Self-efficacy. Encyclopedia of Human Behavior, Vol. 4, pp. 71-81. New York: Academic Press.
Bandura, A. 1982. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. 1977. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioural change.
Psychological review. 84, 191-215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191 Brown. H. D. 2001. Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy,
2th edition. San Francisco: Longman.
Creswell, J. W. 2006. Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.
Creswell, J. W. 2012. Educationalresearch: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. (4th ed.) Boston: Pearson
Dodds, J. 2011. The correlation between self-efficacy beliefs, language performance, and intergration amongst Chinese immigrant newcomers. Unpublished Dissertation.
Available at: www.hamline.edu/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=2147516352 Dörnyei, Z. 2005. The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second
language acquisition. New Jersey London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Erkan, Y. D., & Saban, A. I. 2001. Writing Performance relative to Writing Apprehansion, Self-eficacy in Writing and Attitudes towards Writing: A Correlation Study in Turkish Tertiary-Level EFL. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 13 (1), 163-191.
Green, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptualframework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11 (3), 255-274.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. 1998. Multivariate data analysis.
5th ed. Upper Saddler River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hairuzila, Idrus. & Sivapalan, S. 2007. Perceived self-efficacy of ESL students with regard to their oral communication ability. Paper presented in International Conference on Social Sciences and Humanities 2007. Bangi, Malaysia.
Hairuzila Idrus & Rohani Saleh. 2008. Perceived self-efficacy of Malaysian ESL engineering and technology students on their speaking ability. The English Teacher, 37, 61-75.
Hairuzila Idrus, Rohani Salleh & Muhammad Ridhuan Tony Lim Abdullah. 2011. Oral communication ability in English: An essential skill for engineering graduates. Asia Pacific Journal for Educators and Education, Vol. 26, No. 1, 107-123
Hammer, J. 2007. How to teach English new edition. China: Longman.
Hsieh, P. & Kang, H. (2010). Attribution and self-efficacy and their interrelationship in the Korean EFL context. Language Learning 60.3, 606–627
Hsieh, P.P and Schallert,D.L 2008. Implications from self-efficacy and attribution theories for an understanding of undergraduates’ motivation in a foreign language course.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, Volume 33, Issue 4, Pages 513-532.
Ida Sariani and Harwati hashim. 2012. Students' anxiety level towards speaking in English:
Malaysia polytechnic experience. Business, Engineering and Industrial Applications (ISBEIA), 2012 IEEE Symposium. 595-599. DOI:10.1109/ISBEIA.2012.6422957 Krejcie, Robert V. and Morgan, Daryle W. 1970. Determining Sample Size for Research
Activities. Educational and Psycological Measurement.
Mehta, D. & Mehta, N.K. 2007. Communication skill for Engineering professionals. Adit Journal., 4, 1, pg. 89-95.
Mikulecky, L., Llyod, P. & Huang, S. C. 1996.Adult and ESL literacy learning self-efficacy questionnaire. ERIC#: ED394022
Mohd Najib Abdul Ghafar. 1999. Kaedah penyelidikan pendidikan. Johor: Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Mohd Majid Konting. 1994. Kaedah Penyelidikan Pendidikan. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.
Neuman, W. L. 2004. Basics of social research: Qualitative and quantitative approaches.Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
Nunan, D. 1992. Research Methods in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Patil, Arun; Nair, Chenicheri and Codner, Gary. Global Accreditation for the Global Engineering Attributes: A Way Forward. 19th Annual Conference of the Australasian Association for Engineering Education: To Industry and Beyond; Proceedings of the Pajares, F. 1996. Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research,
Vol. 66, 543-578.
Pendergrass, N., Kowalczyk, R., Dowd, J., & Laoulache, R. 2001. Improving first year engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education. 90 (1), 33-41.
Rahil Mahyuddin, Habibah Elias, Loh Sau Cheong, Muhd Fauzi Muhamad, Nooreen Noordin and Maria Chong Abdullah. 2006. The relationship between students’ self-efficacy and their achievement. Jurnal Pendidik dan Pendidikan, Jil, 21, 61-71.
Raoofi, S., Tan, B. H., & Chan, S. H. 2012. Self-efficacy in Second /Foreign language Learning contexts. English Language Teaching, 5(11), 60-73.
Schunk, D. H. 2003. Self-efficacay for reading and writing: Influence of modelling, goal setting and self-evaluation. Reading and writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 19 (2), 159-172.
Schunk, D. H., & Swartz, C. W. 1991. Goals and progress feedback: Effects on self- efficacy and writing achievement.
Schunk, D. H. & Swart, C. W. 1993. Goals and progress feedback: Effects on self-efficacy and writing achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, Vol. 18, 337-354.
Available at: http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/f/D_Schunk_Goals_1993.pdf
Seat, E. & Lord, S. M. 1999. Enabling effective Engineering teams: A program for teaching interaction skills. Journal of Engineering Education, 1, 1, pg.16.
Srigayathridevi, K. & Thamaraiselvi, R. 2006. Commnunication skills among the final year Engineering students in an autonomous Engineering college in Coimbatore, India: An Evaluation. The journal of Nepalese Business Studies, 3. 1. Pg. 114-119.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Applied Social Research Methods Series, 46. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Troike, M. S. 2006. Introducing second language acquisition. Cambridge: University Press.
Woodrow, L. J. (2006) Anxiety and speaking English as a second language English language speaking anxiety in a second language environment. RELC Journal, 37 (2),: 308 -328 Wong, S. L. 2005. Language learning strategies and language self-efficacy. Investigating the
relationship in Malaysia. RELC Journal, 36 (3), 245-269.
