This is my full article for the first UICELL seminar few years ago.
The Relationship Between Motivation, Anxiety, and English Proficiency at Pusdiklat Keuangan Umum Jakarta
Efi Dyah Indrawati
Ministry of Finance RI
The study analyses motivation and anxiety in relation to the English proficiency of trainees of English at Pusdiklat Keuangan Umum (PKU) Jakarta. Based on a survey consisting of AMTB questionnaire, FLCAS questionnaire, and the result of English proficiency test, the findings revealed that there were a high level of motivation and moderately high level of anxiety in learning English among PKU trainees, as well as an intermediate level of English proficiency. Also, motivation was more significant than anxiety in influencing English proficiency, but both variables were found to have not a very strong relationship with it, which is only 0.291 to affect on English proficiency. Therefore, based on goodness of fit statistics, there should be variables other than motivation and anxiety to be put in the regression model. Finally, the study puts several suggestion and recommendations for teachers, training center, and future researchers in the area.
Keywords: motivation, anxiety, English proficiency, Pusdiklat Keuangan Umum
Penelitian bertujuan untuk mengetahui tingkat motivasi dan tingkat kecemasan, serta hubungan antara motivasi, kecemasan, dan English Proficiency pada peserta diklat bahasa Inggris di Pusdiklat Keuangan Umum Kementerian Keuangan RI di Jakarta. Dengan survei menggunakan kuesioner motivasi AMTB, kuesioner kecemasan FLCAS, serta nilai TOEFL test, diperoleh hasil bahwa peserta diklat bahasa Inggris PKU memiliki tingkat motivasi tinggi dan tingkat kecemasan cukup tinggi. Motivasi dan kecemasan memiliki korelasi positif dengan English proficiency. Selain itu motivasi memiliki pengaruh yang lebih signifikan terhadap English proficiency, meskipun hubungan dua variabel lemah pada taraf signifikansi 0.291. Dari sini disimpulkan bahwa harus ada variable-variabel lain yang dapat mempengaruhi English proficiency untuk ditambahkan dalam model regresi. Pada akhir penelitian diberikan beberapa rekomendasi bagi para pengajar bahasa Inggris, Pusdiklat Keuangan Umum, serta peneliti yang akan melakukan studi serupa.
There have been many linguists and psychologists tried to associate the success of foreign and second language learning with affective factors, among which are motivation and anxiety as important predictors of foreign language performance. Many studies have generated context-specific findings on the identification and formulation of foreign language motivation and anxiety, and the assessment of their impact on the learning experience (Horwitz, Horwitz & Cope; Gardner, Day & MacIntyre; MacIntyre & Gardner; Wei). However, little empirical study is available to understand motivation and anxiety in English learning in Indonesia, a foreign language setting. Indonesian authors such as Laturiuw and Marlina, only suggested the study on motivation among different groups of EFL learners in Indonesia. Yet, no formal study studies have been conducted to examine the relationship between motivation, anxiety, and English proficiency among adult learners serving as government officials. Therefore, this study will endeavor to provide empirical evidence on affective studies by examining the motivation and anxiety of Indonesian learners of English, in particular Ministry of Finance (MOF) officials learning at Pusdiklat Keuangan Umum (PKU) MOF, and consider how the two factors correlate to their proficiency in English. PKU itself is an echelon II unit under Finance Education and Training Agency MOF that provides many general trainings except for areas of taxation, budgetary, customs and excise, and state assets. As English is getting more emphasized in MOF as the international means of communication and knowledge distribution, every year PKU delivers more and more English courses for MOF officials. It is then very important to know PKU trainees’ affective factors to provide some contributions both theoretically and practically. Theoretically, this can support the existing theories on motivation and anxiety and provide one empirical evidence for Indonesian EFL setting, specifically in a government training center. Practically, this study is expected to contribute to the improvement of English teaching at PKU by taking into account affective factors, i.e. motivation and anxiety, to minimize participants’ problems in learning English and to enhance language-learning effectiveness in PKU classroom teachings.
Therefore the research questions are as follows:
- What is the level of motivation and anxiety of PKU trainees in learning English?
- What is the relationship between PKU trainees’ motivation and their English proficiency?
- What is the the relationship between PKU trainees’ anxiety and their English proficiency?
- What is the relationship between PKU trainees’ motivation and anxiety towards their English proficiency?
And the verbal hypotheses for research questions are:
Research Question No. 2
H1.1 = There is a relationship between motivation and English Proficiency.
H0.1 = There is no relationship between motivation and English Proficiency.
Research Question No.3
H1.2 = There is a relationship between anxiety and English Proficiency.
H0.2 = There is no relationship between anxiety and English Proficiency.
Research Question No.4
H1.3 = There is a relationship between motivation and anxiety towards English Proficiency.
H0.3 = There is no relationship between motivation and anxiety towards English Proficiency.
The research is quantitative using a cross-sectional approach, whereas subjects’ characteristics were studied once before the relationship had been determined. To investigate the relationship between three variables, a correlational design is used. The researcher employed descriptive analysis to answer research question number 1 and an inferential analysis using correlational technique to answer research question number 2, 3, and 4.
- English Proficiency is a prediction of someone’s ability or skill to perform in English language measured by a performance test consisting of standardized multiple-choice items on grammar, vocabulary, reading comprehension, and aural comprehension (Brown).
- Motivation is the extent to which an individual works or strives to learn the language because of a desire to do so and the satisfaction experienced in this activity, subsumed in three components: motivational intensity, desire to learn the language, and an attitude towards the act of learning the language (Gardner). In addition, motivation is also manifested through integrativeness, attitudes towards the learning situation, language anxiety, and attributes like instrumental orientation and family encouragement.
- Anxiety is the feeling of uneasiness, worry, nervousness and apprehension experienced by non-native speakers when using a foreign language, including speaking, listening, and learning. It comprises three main categories: communication apprehension, test anxiety, and fear of negative evaluation. (Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope)
- Background Questionnaire
The background questionnaire consists of ten questions on the subject’s name, age, gender, work unit , length of English learning, English test taken, experience in an English-speaking country, and their feeling about an English class. The last two questions are open-ended ones to obtain personal motivation and anxiety of each trainee in learning English.
- Motivation Questionnaire
The motivation questionnaire is taken from Gardner’s Attitude/Motivation Test Battery (AMTB) version 2004, with 104 items for the 6-point Likert Scales. The researcher changes the word ‘Japan’ into ‘Indonesia’ , “school” into “training/ course”, “teacher” to “trainer”, and ‘’job to “position” on several items to make the items explicitly represent characteristics of government training course setting. The researcher also changes the original word “parents” to “family” to represent better choice for adult respondents. The Cronbach’s Alpha of AMTB is 0,926 (Excellent), therefore the instrument is valid for the research.
- Anxiety Questionnaire
The anxiety questionaire is adapted from the English version of the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS) designed by Horwitz in 1986, consisting of 33 items. The researcher changed “Foreign Language” into ‘English and also changed the original 5-point Likert Scale into a 6-point Likert Scale (ranging from ‘Strongly Disagree’ to “Strongly Agree’) to avoid clustered responses in the middle of the scale and to provide more valuable information for statistical analysis.
There are eight items for communication anxiety (1, 9, 14, 18, 24, 27, 29, 32), nine items for fear of negative evaluation (3, 7, 13, 15, 20, 23, 25, 31, 33) and five items for test anxiety (2, 8, 10, 19, 21). The remaining eleven items are put in a group named as anxiety of English classes. The result of reliability statitics Cronbach’s Alpha of FLCAS is 0,824 (Good); therefore, the instrument used is valid for the research
- Proficiency Test
The proficiency test used is a TOEFL (PBT) developed by PKU for English placement test. It consists of three sections: Listening, Structure and Written Expression, and Reading Comprehension, with a total items of 140. The English Proficiency score in this study is indicated by the TOEFL score reported as the result of English Placement Test year 2015.
Setting and Participants
The study is conducted in 2016 at Pusat Pendidikan dan Pelatihan (Pusdiklat) Keuangan Umum or PKU located in Pancoran, South Jakarta – Indonesia. A total sample of 80 PKU trainees participated in the study and only 48 responses are found usable for data analysis.
Data Collection Method(s) and Analysis
The study uses a decriptive analysis to describe the total view of the information or data from answers no. 1 through 10 of the background questionnaire, which includes frequencies and percentages. The data analysis uses MS.Excel for statistical calculation.
From the background questionnaire no. 9 and 10, the researcher enlists all answers and categorizes them based on the sameness of the content, then fed the data into MS-Excel. The result was then summarized in a table and presented in a pie chart.
To score the Likert-Scales items on the motivation questionniare/ATMB, the researcher uses the guideline as seen on Appendix 4. For the negatively worded items, the scoring must be reversed in order to make the instrument reflect the motivation in descending order. A high score (maximum = 624) indicates a high motivation in learning English, and a low score (minimum = 104) indiates a low motivation in learning English.
To score the anxiety questionnaire or the FLCAS, the researcher uses the guideline from table 5. Responses ranged from 6 (Strongly Agree) to 1 (Strongly Disagree), with a minimum score of 66 meaning a very low anxiety and maximum of 198 meaning very high anxiety.
The most items (22 items) in the FLCAS are negatively worded, and they are scored as indicated by the table above. Items number 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 15, 18, 22, 24, 28, and 32 (which are positively worded) are inversely scored to make the instrument reflect the degree of anxiety in ascending order.
The score for English proficiency test is taken from the result of English placement test using a paper-based TOEFL test. The PBT scores, ranging between 310 to 677, is based on three subscores: Listening (31-68), Structure (31-68), and Reading (31-67), and they define PKU trainees’ level of proficiency.
After three scores for motivation, anxiety, and TOEFL were obtained, the data were illustrated to enable the calculation for regression, which is performed by SPSS 23. But before conducting the hypothetical testing, the researcher had completed the prerequisite testings, which include tests on normality, homogeneity, and linearity. The results indicated that all variables are normally distributed, the model equation is linier (i.e. variables are appropriate), and there is no heteroscedascity of the variances in the regression model (i.e. the population sample is homogenous).
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
From the background questionnaire, it was shown that participants’ age varied from 20 to 40 years old, with male participants (86%) outnumbered female (14%) in the sample. They came from different units in the MOF: Setjen (12), DJPK (3) , DJP (22) , DJBC (7) , DJPPR (4), DJKN (12), Itjen (2), BKF (6), BPPK (12). They have various length of previous study with English but the majority (43%) have more than 10 years of learning English. Participants also show different background of acquaintance with an English speaking country but the biggest portion (65%) mentioned they have never visited any English speaking countries. Dealing with question on their feeling about English class (Q8), all participants (100%) likes their class. The major reason by 32 participants says that English class improves English knowledge and ability. The remaining answers given are participants have personal drives and love for learning, English class is fun, and they need certain environment to learn English. The answers to Q9 on what motivates trainee in learning English (open-ended question) vary greatly, but the top three answers are they want to study abroad (34 participants), they want to speak English fluently (29 participants), and English is an international language for global communication (27 participants). The result of Q10 indicates that 46 participants admitted that they did not have anything to worry or scare in learning English. But, others mentioned their anxiety such as speaking (52), limited Grammar (34), limited Vocabulary (27), Listening (16), making mistakes (9), English teacher (7) English tests/exam (7), and Writing (5). Some other mentioned that English is very difficult/complex to learn (10), and that they are shy/not confident (5).
Dealing with the English proficiency score, the participants demonstrate intermediate to middle-intermediate-range of proficiency. In other words, the average level of PKU English trainees’ proficiency for this study is middle intermediate.
The finding for research Research Question no.1 can be seen from the following Figure 1:
Figure1: Descriptive Statistics of AMTB and FLCAS
|Valid N (listwise)||48|
As shown in the above figure, the mean score of participant’s level of anxiety is 116,21. Given that the mean scores of the minimum and the maximum levels of the anxiety experienced by the participants are 89 and 153, it can be said that the participants in this study have moderately high language learning anxiety. As also evident in the table, the mean score of participants’ motivation to learn English is 469,35, their maximum level is 551 and their minimum level is 382. It can be concluded that participants’ motivation is high.
The three-highest ranks for AMTB items, which means above 5 (indicating a high level of attitudes) are question no. 8 (mean=6), no. 15 and no. 18 (mean=5.6), and no. 35, 76, and 72 (mean=5.5).
It is also indicated that the overall mean for each item on AMTB was 4,5 (SD = 1), which suggest that participants have a relatively high level of motivation. This result matches with the subjects’ response on the open-ended question in the background questionnaire, which reveals that 100% of the participants like English class and the desire to study or continue their education abroad as the most given motives in learning English.
Descriptive statistics for FLCAS items showed that the participants demonstrated a wide range of anxiety levels, ranging from 2.4 to 5.1 (maximum score per item = 6). The ranks for the mean score for anxiety from the highest to the lowest are question number 5, 27, 7, 22, 2, 21, 1, 9, 23, 13, 17, 26, 32, 33, 11, 24, 29, 15, 28, 10, 14, 30, 25, 31, 4, 12, 19, 3, 6, 18, 20, and 16.
Top five anxiety statements, which all had mean values exceeding 4, were from questions 5 (mean=5.1, SD=0.9) and no.27 (mean=4.4, SD=1) and no 2, 7, 23 (mean=4.1 SD=1). These items seemed to reflect a generally negative and passive attitude toward English class.
The data also shows that the overall mean for each anxiety items was 3,5 (SD =1,2), which indicates that participants were in moderate anxiety level. This finding explains the result of the open-ended question from the background questionnaire that 13 participants (27%) do not have any worry in English class, while the rest indicated an anxiety, especially in three biggest reasons: speaking (35%), limited grammar (27%), and fear of making mistakes (15%). That means students showed anxiety, but not very high.
The next Figure 2 shows the output of the SPSS23 program to get the regression model to predict English proficiency through motivation variable (Question No.2)
Figure 2: Motivation and English Proficiency (Partial)
|Model||R||R Square||Adjusted R Square||Std. Error of the Estimate|
|a. Predictors: (Constant), EFL Motivation|
|Model||Unstandardized Coefficients||Standardized Coefficients||t||Sig.|
|a. Dependent Variable: EFL Proficiency|
The estimated model of regression would be Y = 345,354 + 0,273X1. This means that 1% increase of motivation will increase English proficiency as high as 27%.
The following Figure 3 is the output of the SPSS23 program to obtain the regression model to predict English proficiency through anxiety variable (Research Question no.3)
Figure 3: Anxiety and English Proficiency (Partial)
|Model||Unstandardized Coefficients||Standardized Coefficients||t||Sig.|
|a. Dependent Variable: EFL Proficiency|
The estimated model would be Y = 431,689 + 0,361 X2. This means that 1% increase of anxiety will increase English proficiency as high as 36%.
Figure 4 we the extent of the relationship between motivation and anxiety simultaneously towars English proficiency, we need to see the following result.
Figure 4: Motivation, Anxiety and English Proficiency (Simultaneous)
|Model||R||R Square||Adjusted R Square||Std. Error of the Estimate|
|a. Predictors: (Constant), Anxiety Score, Motivation Score|
|Model||Unstandardized Coefficients||Standardized Coefficients||t||Sig.|
|a. Dependent Variable: TOEFL Score|
For the hypothetical testing, the estimation equation model resulted from SPSS23 is as follow: Y = 196.608 + 0.5398X1 0,774X2.
The equation means that motivation (X1) and anxiety (X2) altogether are related to English proficiency (Y), in which the correlation of both are positive. That means when motivation is raised by 1% therefore it will increase proficiency score by 39% and if anxiety is raised by 1%, it will increase proficiency score by 77%. The equation demonstrates that anxiety contributes a greater percentage to proficiency than motivation does.
The value of coefficient determination (R-squared) is 0,321, which means that motivation (X1) and anxiety (X2) variables can explain proficiency variable (Y) in 32%, while the other 68% are explained with different variables. The adjusted R-squared is smaller, indicated by a value of 0,291, meaning that other variables needs to be included in the model.
The coefficient is positive for motivation (0,574), which means there is a positive relationship between motivation and proficiency. For anxiety, there is also a significant positive correlation, indicated by a parameter of 0,430. These are in line with the first hypotheses that motivation will have a positive influence to proficiency. In addition, a rise in anxiety will increase proficiency, and this is in line with the second hypothesis that there is a relationship between anxiety and proficiency. Therefore, H null is rejected.
To view the significance of variables, motivation variable (X1) is more significant than anxiety (X2). The result shows that motivation and anxiety altogether have influence to English proficiency; therefore, the third hypothesis is accepted.
The motivation level as shown by the motivation questionnaire was generally high, which was supported by students’ feeling in the open-ended question in the background questionnaire saying that they like English classes for three major reasons: “I need English to study abroad”, “I want to speak English fluently,” and “English is an international language for global communication”. This is also supported by the most-higly-rated answer to Q8 in the AMTB saying that Studying English is important because it will allow me to be more at ease with people who speak English. This supports many previous studies on motivation as one predictor in the success of EFL learning, although this study doesn’t attempt to focus on which type of motivation that plays role in English learning success.
But, seeing the top three major reasons from the background questionnaire, it can be said that PKU trainees were both instrumentally and integratively motivated. Instrumental motives that they wanted to study abroad and that English is an international language for global communication were more frequently given than the motive of being able to speak English fluently. From AMTB, the reponses are supported by top answered questions saying form Orientation Construct that Studying English is important because I will need it for my career and Studying English is important because it will make me more educated. It can indicate that PKU trainees learn English for more instrumental reasons, especially more reasons such as to travel abroad, to gain scholarship abroad, to enjoy entertainment, to advance in their career, and to improve knowledge were also given in their response to background questionnaire. The finding corresponds to the observation made by Dornyei that: “Instrumental motivation, intellectual, and sociocultural motives, and/or other motivational factors … may acquire a special importance, although affective factors that are normally part of integrative motivation in SLA contexts do play a role in FL … that differs from those emerging in SLA contexts“ (Dornyei, 1994). But the researcher views the finding does not necessarily invalidate Gardner’s integrative-instrumental model. As Dornyei noted: “Instrumentality and especially integrativeness are broad tendencies on subsystems rather than straightforward universals, comprising context-specific clusters of loosely related components.
It is also not surprising that the analysis showed a positive relationship between motivation and English proficiency. That validates Gardner et al. (1992) previous assumption that motivation can result in better learning achievement.
The finding also shows a significant positive relationship between anxiety and English proficiency, which is unlike other studies that indicate a negative coefficient for anxiety. The anxiety level as shown in this study is inconsistent with that of Wei (2007), who found a negative relationship and moderate level of anxiety among Chinese students. The background questionnaire that reveals speaking as the main factor to make trainees anxious is in accordance with what Horwitz et al. claim that many learners experience anxiety “in response to at least some aspects of foreign Language learning.” What is worth noting in the finding is the general negative attitude toward English classes is accompanied by some confidence or positive attitude, as shown by the top-five-rated anxiety statements from FLCAS: (Q5) It wouldn’t bother me at all to take more English classes, (Q27) I get nervous when I’m speaking in my English class, (Q2) I don’t worry about making mistakes in English classes, (Q7) I keep thinking that the other trainees are better than me, and (Q23) I always feel that the other trainees speak Englsih better than me. Since trainees’ motivation score is previously reported high, it is understandable that PKU trainess have moderate anxiety.
This finding of trainees’ anxiety is noteworthy since involvement in language learning process in a classroom is very important to the learning effectiveness in foreign language settings. The response to FLCAS items by the participants in this study probably indicates that anxious trainees are common in English classrooms even at a governmental training center, where the trainees are adult people. But, the generally negative attitude towards English classes could affect the effort in English learning. Phillips (1992) stated: “In today’s proficiency oriented classroom, teachers must continue to view foreign language anxiety as a serious problem to encourage students to further their education in foreign languages. The more desire trainees feel to learn about the target language and culture, the more effort they should take in their English learning. Therefore it’s crucial to make PKU trainees less anxious in the classroom. This will be task of PKU to organize English trainings with encouraging situations to promote trainees’ learning. Trainers also need to be enriched with various delivery methods and skills that will make classrooms not threatening but motivating and engaging.
The findings also prove that there was relationship between anxiety and English proficiency, between anxiety and English proficiency, and also both motivation and anxiety towards English proficiency simultaneously, although the extent of influence was not very strong. This is consistent with Gardner’s (1988) notion that (integratively) motivated students are less anxious in second language context. This is also consistent with Wei’s study that anxiety and motivation overall were not significantly correlated, and integrative motivation was the predictor of low anxiety. In addition, it also agrees with Yan’s (1988), which reported that the strength of student motivation and anxiety were negatively correlated and lack of motivation could result in anxious behavior.
It is also shown how motivation was more significant with English proficiency than anxiety, which can be concluded that the more motivated the students were, the more effective their learning was, as indicated by a higher score on the proficiency test. Dealing with anxiety variable that is not significant in the result, that means this study is still in favor of the theory. Both motivation and anxiety are related to English proficiency, and the empirical findings show the results indicate a positive correlation.
The study also shows that both motivation and anxiety altogether can only explain English proficiency in 29% which means that other variables has more influence of 71% than those two affective factors. This is in line with Gardner’ model that motivation and anxiety are just a part of learner’s differences. Other learner factors, such as intelligence or personality, could be considered taken into account for further research to provide an empirical proof.
In addition, motivation by itself is a complex construct; effort (motivational intensity), cognitions (desire), affect (attitude), and goal are just the notion by Gardner’s model, further studies could consider using more attributes in motivation or using revised or developed models. Also, further studies with consideration of a wide range of factors such as curriculum design, language planning, and other sociocultural issues are needed to explore fully how motivation and anxiety are related to language proficiency. It is also need to be noted that this study is context-specific, as the sample is taken from one governmental training center. Therefore, the limitation of participants to only one governmental institution do not allow one to conclude that in general to all government officials in Indonesia. It would be more desirable for further studies to include a larger sample with more diverse backgrounds, so that the findings will be more generalizable. And lastly, further studies with broader qualitative and a quantitative perspectives should be undertaken in order to reach better results regarding the social-psychological aspects of foreign language learning in Indonesian goverment training center.
The followings are some important conclusions made:
- This study is intended to understand the level of motivation and the level of anxiety PKU trainees in learning English, as well as the correlation between motivation and English proficiency, between anxiety and English proficiency, and the relationship between learner’s motivation and anxiety towards their English proficiency. Overall, the results indicated a high motivation level and a moderate anxiety level, both are positively correlated with the participant’s English proficiency.
- There is a positive relationship between motivation and English proficiency, between anxiety and English proficiency, and simultaneously between motivation and anxiety towards English proficiency. That means every changes in the affective factors will give influence to English proficiency.
- The analysis suggested that motivation was found to be more significant than anxiety in influencing English proficiency. However, the two variables were found to have weak relationship with English proficiency, which suggested that variables other than motivation and anxiety have bigger influence on English proficiency, which need to be investigated in further studies.
- Foreign language learning is a complex process. Affective factors are interrelated and not the only factors that influence English proficiency or language learning success, which may be in part a result of classroom environments. Classrooms should be places where motivation can be encouraged and anxiety should be minimized, with trainers who are capable of promoting good learning environment for trainees.
The further recommendations are as the followings:
- For Trainers
English teaching practice should be made into a more motivating experience. Classroom activities must be carefully developed to increase trainees’ confidence, self-esteem, and level of participation. Trainers must develop methods and strategies that maintain trainees’ interest and commitment to improve language proficiency.
- For PKU Training Center
The implementation of language requirements (concerning some English trainings with certain minimum score for passing grade, such as in the General English course) need to be re-evaluated more thoroughly and carefully on the actual effect on the learning process. In other words, implementing rules must take into account affective factors to promote learning success, so that trainees will become less anxious, more confident, and more capable learners.
- For Researchers
More research on affective factors need to be conducted by:
- including other learner factors, such as intelligence and personality
- using larger sample and more diverse backgrounds
- using broader qualitative and quantitative perspective, such as phenomenological approach and factor analysis.
Efi Dyah Indrawati is a civil servant in Finance Education and Training Agency of Ministry of Finance (FETA – MoF) of Indonesia, with her current position as a senior trainer at Pusdiklat Keuangan Umum (PKU) or General Finance Education and Training Center in Pancoran – Jakarta. She is also a lecturer at the State Finance Polytechnic (PKN) STAN in Jakarta.
As a senior trainer, her duties are designing training programs, formulating curriculum, performing evaluation and assessments, and lecturing at FETA’s trainings particularly in the field of training management, English communication, and human resource management. As PKN STAN lecturer, her responsibilities are delivering lectures and seminars, developing course materials, assessing students course works, setting and checking examinations, and supporting advisory role for Diploma I and Diploma III students.
Brindley, G. & Slater, H. (2002). Exploring task difficulty is ESL listening assessment. Language Testing, 19(4), 369-394.
Brown, H. D. (2004). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practice. New York: Longman.
Brown, J. D. (1996). Testing in Language Programs. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Brown, H. D. (2004). Language Assessment: Principle and Classroom Practices. New York: Prentice Hall.
Carroll, J. B. and Sapon, S. (2002). Characterictics of Succesful Second Language Learners. New York: Regents Publishing Company, Inc.
Crookes, G. and Smith, R. W. (1991). Motivation: Reopening the Research Agenda. Language Learning 41. 469-512.
Deci, E. L. and Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-Determination Theory: A Macrotheory of Human Motivation, Development, and Health. Canadian Psychology, 49 (3): 182-185.
Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Motivation in Second and Foreign Language Learning. Language Teaching 31:117-135.
Dörnyei, Z. (1994). Understanding L2 Motivation: On with the challenge! Modern Language Journal, 78: 515-523.
Dörnyei, Z. (1990). Conceptualizing Motivation in Foreign-Language Learning. Language Learning 40:1 : 45-78.
Ely, C. (1986). Language Learning Motivation: A Descriptive and Causal Analysis. The Modern Language Journal 70(1), 28-35.
Fraenkel, J. R. and Wallen, N.E.. (2007). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. 6th Ed. Singapore: McGraw-Hill.
Gardner, R. C. (1988). The Socio-Educational Model of Second Language Learning: Assumptions, Findings, and Issues. Language Learning, 38: 101-126.
Gardner, R.C. (1985). Social Psychology and Language Learning: The Role of Attitudes and Motivation. London: Edward Arnold. 10.
Gardner, R.C., Day, J.B., and MacIntyre, P. D. (1992). Integrative Motivation, Induced Anxiety, and Language Learning in a Controlled Environment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14 (2): 197-214
Gardner, R.C. and MacIntyre, P.D. (1993). On the Measurement of Affective Variables in Second Language Learning. Language Learning 43. 157-194.
Gardner, R.C. and Smythe, P.C. (1981). On the Development of Attitude/Motivation Test Battery. Canadian Modern Language Review 37. 510-525
Horwitz, E.K., Horwitz, M.B., and Cope, J. (1986). Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70: ii.
Laturiuw, A. K. (2002). A Study of Motivational Factors in Groups of EFL Learners Using Williams and Burden’s Model. Jakarta: Master Thesis of Program Pascasarjana Universitas Katolik Indonesia Atma Jaya.
MacIntyre, P.D. and Gardner, R.C. (1994). The Subtle Effects of Language Anxiety on Cognitive Processing in the Second Language. Language Learning, 44: 283-305.
MacIntyre, P.D. and Gardner, R.C. (1991). Investigating Language Class Anxiety Using Focused Essay Technique. The Modern Language Journal 75(3), 296-304.
Marlina, L. (2007). Motivation and Language Learning: A Case of EFL Students. Konferensi Linguistik Tahunan Atma Jaya Tingkat Internasional 5: 110-115.
McDonough, S.H. (1981). Psychology in Foreign Language Teaching. London: Allen and Unwin.
Noels, K.A., Clement, R. and Pelletier, L.G. (1999). Perception of Teacher’s Communicative Style and Students’ Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation. The Modern Language Journal 83 (1): 23-34.
Oxford, R.L. and Shearin, J. (1994). Language learning Motivation: Expanding the Theoretical Framework. The Modern Language Journal, 78: 12-28.
Phillips, D. (1995). Longman Preparation Course for the TOEFL Test: Skills and Strategies Vol. 1A. 2nd Edition. New York: Pearson ESL
Phillips, E. M. (1992). The Effects of Language Anxiety on Students’ Oral Test Performance and Attitudes. The Modern Language Journal, 76 (!): 14-26.
Pramesti, Getut. (2016). Statistika Lengkap secara Teori dan Aplikasi dengan SPSS 23. Jakarta: Elex Media Komputindo.
Pyle, M. A. and Munoz, M. E. (1992). Cliff’s TOEFL Preparation Guide. New Delhi: BPB. Publications.
Rogers, B. (1998). Peterson’s TOEFL Practice Tests. New York: Longman-Addison.
Scovel, T. (1978). The Effect of Affect on Foreign Language Learning: A Review of the Anxiety Research. Language Learning 28: 129-142.
Schumann, J. H. (1986). Research on The Acculturation Model for Second Language Acquisition. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 7(3): 49-76.
Sujarweni, V. Wiratna. 2015. SPSS Untuk Penelitian. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Baru Press.
Tremblay, P. F. and Gardner, R. C. (1995). Expanding the Motivation Construct in Language Learning. The Modern Language Journal, 79, iv :505-520.
Umar, H. (2003). Riset Sumber Daya Manusia. Jakarta: PT. Gramedia Pustaka Utama.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and Motivation. Oxford, England: Wiley.
Wei, M. (2007.) The Interrelatedness of Affective Factors in EFL Learning: A Motivational Patterns in Relation to Anxiety in China. Teaching English as Second Language Journal 11(1), 23.
Wen, X. Motivation and Language Learning with Students of Chinese. Foreign Language Annals, 30 (2) 235-251.
Yan, X. An Examination of foreign Language Classroom Anxiety: Its Sources and Effects in a College English Program in China. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin, Tx.
Instrumentation for Motivation
|Variable||Indicators||Item Number||Total Item|
|Positively Worded||Negatively Worded|
|Attitude/Motivation||Interest in Foreign Languages||1, 21, 42, 65, 85||12, 32, 55, 76, 95||10|
|Family Encouragement||2, 22, 43, 48, 57, 66, 86, 103||N/A||8|
|Motivational Intensity||13, 33, 56, 77, 96||3, 23, 44, 67, 87||10|
|English Class Anxiety||16, 36, 60, 80, 98||4, 24, 45, 68, 88||10|
|English Teacher Evaluation||5, 25, 46, 69, 89||14, 34, 58, 78, 97||10|
|Attitudes toward Learning English||6, 26, 47, 70, 90||18, 38, 62, 82, 100||10|
|Attitudes toward English-speaking people||7, 27, 40, 53, 49, 71, 91, 104||N/A||8|
|Integrative Orientation||8, 28, 50, 72||N/A||4|
|Desire to Learn English||9, 29, 51, 73, 92||17, 37, 61, 81, 99||10|
|English Course Evaluation||20, 41, 64, 84, 102||10, 30, 52, 74, 93||10|
|English Use Anxiety||11, 31, 54, 75, 94||19, 39, 63, 83, 101||10|
|Instrumental Orientation||15, 35, 59, 79||N/A||4|
Instrumentation for Anxiety
|Variable||Indicators||Item Number||Total Item|
|Positively Worded||Negatively Worded|
|Anxiety||Communication Anxiety||14, 18, 24, 32||1, 9, 27, 29||8|
|Fear of Negative Evaluation||25, 33||3, 7, 13, 15, 20, 23, 31||9|
|Test Anxiety||2, 8||10, 19, 21||5|
|Anxiety of English Classes||5, 11, 22, 28||4, 6, 12, 16, 17, 26, 30||11|
Instrumentation for English Proficiency
|Variable||Indicators||Sub-Indicator||Item No.||Total Item|
|English Proficiency||Listening||Short ConversationLonger ConversationLectures/Talks||1-3031-3839-50||50|
|Structure and written expression||Completing SentencesError Identification||1-1516-40||40|
|Reading||Questions on reading||1-50||50|
Scoring Guidance for 6-Likert-Scale AMTB (positively worded)
Scoring Guidance for 6-Likert-Scale FLCAS