KnE Social Sciences | The 1st Annual International Conference on Language and Literature (AICLL) | pages: 891–903

, , and

1. Introduction

A research on students' perception needs to be known because as said by Brown that “researchers need to continue assessing teachers' and students' perceptions of FL teaching, as the field will most assuredly change over time and idiosyncratic perceptions of FL teaching among teachers and students will most definitely remain a reality of the FL classroom. The most practical and far-reaching impact of future research in this area will take place in individual FL classrooms where teachers become researchers who desire to better understand their own perspectives on FL teaching, their students' perspectives, and how to reconcile the two (Brown, 2017: 271). This inspires the researcher to do a research on the perception of the students' towards language teaching. The problem of this research is “What is the perception of Learning English by undergraduate students?” Therefore, the purpose of this research is to find out the undergraduate students' perception towards English learning. The scope of the research is focused on the perception with some indications such as: the students' interest in English, the students' interest in items of English, the students' interest in English proficiency, and the students' interest in English teachers. Finally, this research, hopefully, may contribute formidable information for English teachers in fulfilling their task with good teaching achievement because by recognizing the perception of the students, teachers may design proper method or way of teaching.

2. Literature Review

Perception is the primary cognitive contact of person with the world around him [3]. This statement means a general scope or field that can be perceived. This research is under educational field, specifically foreign language learning. Thus, the perception focuses on the language learning, and in this research, it is learning English. English as an international language is regarded as foreign language in some countries. Students' perception of learning English is really important to know because there are many researchers found that students feel anxious in learning English. For example, a research by Žefran (2015) concluded that a worryingly negative attitude is felt by health sciences students towards learning English and towards their primary and secondary school foreign language teachers. It is correlated with their foreign language achievement. Most of the students feel that their knowledge of English is insufficient and afraid of speaking English to other people [8]. Other research found that the causes of the students' anxiety in learning English are “feeling shameful to their friends of making mistake and being afraid of making mistake. In other words, they feel anxious because of negative social evaluation (Ekalestari, 2016: 719). Related to students' perception in learning English, some researchers have worked on it. For example, a research found that undergraduate students have good eagerness to learn English, it means that they have positive attitude towards English language learning. It is driven by their needs of having competence in speaking English because of requirement in getting job. Thus, they are encouraged to learn English in courses [7]. Different research inferred that teachers have great effect to the students' perception in learning. In other words, teachers have significant role in building the perception of learning by students [6]. Therefore, to have good perception of learning, it is not a matter of infusing a course of study with the newest and most sophisticated educational technology, but it is about how to utilize technology to meet the real needs and interests of the teachers and students [2].

3. Research Method

This research is accomplished by adopting quantitative mood which is based on the measurement of the quantity or amount. Furthermore, the data are obtained from the questionnaires that are shared to the respondents of this research (Kothari, 2004).

The respondents of this research are students of the first undergraduate students of Faculty of Economics, Universitas Islam Sumatera Utara (UISU), Medan, Indonesia. They are the samples of this research chosen by deliberate sampling technique. Particularly, it refers to convenience technique because the sample is selected based on the ease of access [5]. There are 97 respondents of this research who come from two different classes.

The instrument of this research is questionnaire which is firstly tested by Product Moment Pearson to meet its validity with t-table larger than r-table; N=97, the 2-tailed significance 0.05 and the r-table is 0.1975. Then, the score of each item that is less than 0.1975 will be deleted. The questionnaire is also tested by adopting Alpha Coefficient to meet its reliability with Cronbach`s Alpha value larger than 0,6; the count result is larger than the score in r-table. It is 0.674. in other words, the questionnaire used in this research is valid and realiable.

The data of this research are obtained from the response of the respondents on the questionnaire given to them (Appendix 2). The questionnaire contains twenty five questions related to the indications of the students' perception as mentioned in the introduction of this research. Furthermore, the data are analyzed by using SPSS 20 to see the frequency of the Internal Consistency in the Likert Scale with four alternative responses. They are Strongly Disagree (51% – 100%), Disagree (34% -50%), Agree (26% - 33%), and Strongly Agree (0% - 25%).

4. Analysis

The data analysis is fulfilled by obtaining the frequency analysis by using SPSS 20. The analysis is started from the analysis of each item of the questions related to the perception, followed by the recapitulation of the whole calculation of the analysis. However, the graph display is only given for the recapitulation calculation.

Table 1

Question 1.


Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 8 8.2 8.2 8.2
2 2 2.1 2.1 10.3
3 46 47.4 47.4 57.7
4 41 42.3 42.3 100.0
Total 97 100.0 100.0
Table 2

Question 2.


Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 0 1 1.0 1.0 1.0
1 7 7.2 7.2 8.2
2 49 50.5 50.5 58.8
3 36 37.1 37.1 95.9
4 4 4.1 4.1 100.0
Total 97 100.0 100.0
Table 3

Question 3.


Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 4 4.1 4.1 4.1
2 45 46.4 46.4 50.5
3 45 46.4 46.4 96.9
4 3 3.1 3.1 100.0
Total 97 100.0 100.0
Table 4

Question 4.


Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 2 16 16.5 16.5 16.5
3 61 62.9 62.9 79.4
4 20 20.6 20.6 100.0
Total 97 100.0 100.0
Table 5

Question 5.


Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 0 1 1.0 1.0 1.0
1 19 19.6 19.6 20.6
2 53 54.6 54.6 75.3
3 23 23.7 23.7 99.0
4 1 1.0 1.0 100.0
Total 97 100.0 100.0
Table 6

Question 6.


Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 3 3.1 3.1 3.1
2 25 25.8 25.8 28.9
3 60 61.9 61.9 90.7
4 9 9.3 9.3 100.0
Total 97 100.0 100.0
Table 7

Question 7.


Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 4 4.1 4.1 4.1
2 25 25.8 25.8 29.9
3 59 60.8 60.8 90.7
4 9 9.3 9.3 100.0
Total 97 100.0 100.0
Table 8

Question 8.


Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 6 6.2 6.2 6.2
2 31 32.0 32.0 38.1
3 50 51.5 51.5 89.7
4 10 10.3 10.3 100.0
Total 97 100.0 100.0
Table 9

Question 9.


Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 3 3.1 3.1 3.1
2 27 27.8 27.8 30.9
3 54 55.7 55.7 86.6
4 13 13.4 13.4 100.0
Total 97 100.0 100.0
Table 10

Question 10.


Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 1 1.0 1.0 1.0
2 25 25.8 25.8 26.8
3 59 60.8 60.8 87.6
4 12 12.4 12.4 100.0
Total 97 100.0 100.0
Table 11

Question 11.


Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 3 3.1 3.1 3.1
2 22 22.7 22.7 25.8
3 63 64.9 64.9 90.7
4 9 9.3 9.3 100.0
Total 97 100.0 100.0
Table 12

Question 12.


Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 0 1 1.0 1.0 1.0
1 1 1.0 1.0 2.1
2 30 30.9 30.9 33.0
3 60 61.9 61.9 94.8
4 5 5.2 5.2 100.0
Total 97 100.0 100.0
Table 13

Question 13.


Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 30 30.9 30.9 30.9
2 51 52.6 52.6 83.5
3 10 10.3 10.3 93.8
4 6 6.2 6.2 100.0
Total 97 100.0 100.0
Table 14

Question 14.


Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 1 1.0 1.0 1.0
2 1 1.0 1.0 2.1
3 54 55.7 55.7 57.7
4 41 42.3 42.3 100.0
Total 97 100.0 100.0
Table 15

Question 15.


Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 5 5.2 5.2 5.2
2 42 43.3 43.3 48.5
3 39 40.2 40.2 88.7
4 11 11.3 11.3 100.0
Total 97 100.0 100.0
Table 16

Question 16.


Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 25 25.8 25.8 25.8
2 53 54.6 54.6 80.4
3 13 13.4 13.4 93.8
4 6 6.2 6.2 100.0
Total 97 100.0 100.0
Table 17

Question 17.


Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 5 5.2 5.2 5.2
2 7 7.2 7.2 12.4
3 43 44.3 44.3 56.7
4 42 43.3 43.3 100.0
Total 97 100.0 100.0
Table 18

Question 18.


Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 3 3.1 3.1 3.1
2 3 3.1 3.1 6.2
3 62 63.9 63.9 70.1
4 29 29.9 29.9 100.0
Total 97 100.0 100.0
Table 19

Question 19.


Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 4 4.1 4.1 4.1
2 7 7.2 7.2 11.3
3 52 53.6 53.6 64.9
4 34 35.1 35.1 100.0
Total 97 100.0 100.0
Table 20

Question 20.


Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 0 2 2.1 2.1 2.1
1 21 21.6 21.6 23.7
2 50 51.5 51.5 75.3
3 21 21.6 21.6 96.9
4 3 3.1 3.1 100.0
Total 97 100.0 100.0
Table 21

Question 21.


Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 0 2 2.1 2.1 2.1
1 49 50.5 50.5 52.6
2 35 36.1 36.1 88.7
3 9 9.3 9.3 97.9
4 2 2.1 2.1 100.0
Total 97 100.0 100.0
Table 22

Question 22.


Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 29 29.9 29.9 29.9
2 50 51.5 51.5 81.4
3 16 16.5 16.5 97.9
4 2 2.1 2.1 100.0
Total 97 100.0 100.0
Table 23

Question 23.


Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 0 1 1.0 1.0 1.0
1 2 2.1 2.1 3.1
2 7 7.2 7.2 10.3
3 60 61.9 61.9 72.2
4 27 27.8 27.8 100.0
Total 97 100.0 100.0
Table 24

Question 24.


Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 0 1 1.0 1.0 1.0
1 2 2.1 2.1 3.1
2 4 4.1 4.1 7.2
3 68 70.1 70.1 77.3
4 22 22.7 22.7 100.0
Total 97 100.0 100.0
Table 25

Question 25.


Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 0 1 1.0 1.0 1.0
1 2 2.1 2.1 3.1
2 3 3.1 3.1 6.2
3 31 32.0 32.0 38.1
4 60 61.9 61.9 100.0
Total 97 100.0 100.0

The analysis is also emphasized by using Likert Scale Calculation. It is by making the range of the frequency related to the internal consistency adopted in the questionnaire. The internal consistencies applied in the questionnaire are Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree. Likert Scale will calculate the range of those items with interval value 25. Therefore, the range of each item is as follows:

  • 0 % - 24,99 % = Strongly Disagree

  • 25 % - 49,99 % = Disagree

  • 50 % - 74,99 % = Agree

  • 75 % - 100 % = Strongly Agree

Then the final result is obtained by the formula: Total Score / Highest Score x 100

The total score is obtained from the amount of the whole calculation of each item multiplied with the frequency of the respondents' response.

Respondents who answer       Strongly Disagree (Item Code: 1) are 237

Respondents who answer       Disagree (Item Code: 2) are 636

Respondents who answer       Agree (Item Code: 3) are 1.094

Formua:

T x Pn

T: total respondents who choose the item

Pn: Item Code

Respondents who answer       Strongly Disagree (Item Code: 1) are 421

Respondents who answer       Strongly Disagree: 237 x 1 = 237

Respondents who answer       Disagree: 636 x 2 = 1.272

Respondents who answer       Agree: 1.094 x 3 = 3.282

Respondents who answer       Strongly Disagree: 421 x 4 = 1.684

Total score: 6.475

Final result:

Total Score / Highest Score x 100 6.475 / 9.700 x 100 = 66,8 % (Agree)

This result is shown in the table and bar chart as follows:

Table 26

VAR00001.


Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 51.00 1 1.0 1.0 1.0
53.00 1 1.0 1.0 2.1
55.00 1 1.0 1.0 3.1
57.00 1 1.0 1.0 4.1
59.00 1 1.0 1.0 5.2
61.00 2 2.1 2.1 7.2
62.00 5 5.2 5.2 12.4
63.00 8 8.2 8.2 20.6
64.00 5 5.2 5.2 25.8
65.00 4 4.1 4.1 29.9
66.00 18 18.6 18.6 48.5
67.00 12 12.4 12.4 60.8
68.00 7 7.2 7.2 68.0
69.00 6 6.2 6.2 74.2
70.00 7 7.2 7.2 81.4
71.00 3 3.1 3.1 84.5
72.00 2 2.1 2.1 86.6
73.00 2 2.1 2.1 88.7
75.00 3 3.1 3.1 91.8
76.00 3 3.1 3.1 94.8
78.00 1 1.0 1.0 95.9
80.00 1 1.0 1.0 96.9
81.00 1 1.0 1.0 97.9
84.00 1 1.0 1.0 99.0
87.00 1 1.0 1.0 100.0
Total 97 100.0 100.0
fig-1.jpg

5. Conclusion

The analysis shows that the perception of the undergraduate students towards learning English is 66%. It means that their perception on learning English is in the range of item code 3 (agree). It implies that the respondents have positive perception on learning English because the questions in the questionnaire are positive questions.

6. Recommendation

This research shows that undergraduate students have positive perception on learning English, thus it is a task for English teachers or instructors to perform their teaching performance to meet their teaching achievement. Teachers and lecturers need to create a breakthrough on modular teaching and teaching method since new or different modular teaching and method will give different or even better teaching achievement. New modification is really important and crucial for language teaching to meet the interest of the students and the teachers. In other words, research on language learning must be sustainable.

References

1 

Brown, Alan, V. (2017). Students' and Teachers' Perceptions of Effective Teaching in the Foreign Language Classroom: A Comparison of Ideals and Ratings. Arizona: The University of Arizona. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10150/195302

2 

Chaney, D., Chaney, E., & Eddy, J. (2010). The context of distance learning programs in higher education: Five enabling assumptions. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 8(4), 1-7. Retrieved from http://learning.fon.edu.mk/knigi/teachinganl earningatadistance-4.pdf

3 

Efron, Robert. (1968). What is Perception? Proceeding of the Boston Colloquium for the Philosophy of Science (pp.137-173) Boston: Springer Link.

4 

Ekalestari, S. (2016). The Anxiety of Learning English by Senior High School Students in Medan. Proceedings of The 7th Annual International Conference (AIC) Syiah Kuala University and The 6th International Conference on Multidisciplinary Research (ICMR) in conjunction with the International Conference on Electrical Engineering and Informatics (ICELTICs) 2017, October 18-20, 2017, Banda Aceh, Indonesia

5 

Kothari, C. R. (2009). Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques, 2 nd Ed. Jaipur: New Age International Publisher.

6 

Metin, Erhan. (2017). Student Perception Problem in Using Historical Language: Semantic/Phonetic Connotation and Concept Loss. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 3(1), 135-169. Turkey: JSSER

7 

Singh, Manjet, K.M. (2014). Undergraduates' Perception of the English Language Proficiency Courses at Tertiary Level. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 4(12), 185-190.

8 

Žefran, Mojca. 2015. Students' Attitudes towards their EFL Lessons and Teachers: Their Retrospective Study. Revija za Elementarno Izobraževanje, 8(1-2),167-180. Maribor: University of Maribor. Retrieved from: https://doaj.org/article/01662361e672480098dc9697a3ad8143

FULL TEXT

Statistics

  • Downloads 20
  • Views 106

Navigation

Refbacks



ISSN: 2518-668X