ENGLISH REVIEW: Journal of English Education p-ISSN 2301-7554, e-ISSN 2541-3643 Volume 10, Issue 2, June 2022 https://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/ERJEE 485 THE CORRELATION AMONG RETICENCE, PERSONALITY TYPES AND SPEAKING PROFICIENCY OF ENGLISH EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM STUDENTS OF PGRI UNIVERSITY PALEMBANG Indah Pratiwi Hrp English Language Education, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Sriwijaya, Indonesia Email: indahpratiwiharahap@gmail.com Sofendi English Language Education, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Sriwijaya, Indonesia Email: sofendi@yahoo.com Ismail Petrus English Language Education, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Sriwijaya, Indonesia Email: ismailpetrus@yahoo.com APA Citation: Hrp, I. P., Sofendi., & Petrus, I. (2022). The correlation among reticence, personality types and speaking proficiency of English education study program students of PGRI university Palembang. English Review: Journal of English Education, 10(2), 485-498. https://doi.org/10.25134/erjee.v10i2.6249 Received: 02-02-2022 Accepted: 29-04-2022 Published: 30-06-2022 INTRODUCTION Language has been considered as a bridge which facilitates communication among people. Over the years, the importance of English has become higher and higher, and it took place in the curriculum (Tsui, 1995). In Indonesia, English is learned as a foreign language and a compulsory subject in senior high schools up to university levels. Thus, students should learn its four language skills, such as speaking, listening, reading, and writing. One of the language skills should be mastered in learning English is speaking skill. Speaking is the ability that requires the process of communicative competence, pronunciation, intonation, grammar, and vocabulary. However, knowledge is almost nothing if not expressed. It is not necessary to say that the students at university level should have the ability to express their thoughts and ideas in English (Chowdhury, 2016). So, it is expected that the students would be competent enough in oral and written English, when they get themselves admitted into a university. Moreover, speaking has been given priority during English teaching and learning process nowdays. But unfortunately, it is observed that some problems still occur for most of the students, for instance, they feel like speaking tasks are rather difficult to do in the classroom, then, not all the students during English speaking activities have courage to speak, in addition though the students can write well, they are not ready to speak Abstract: This study aims to investigate the correlations among reticence, personality types and speaking proficiency. For this purpose, the Unwillingness-to-Communicate Scale (UCS) questionnaire and the IPIP Big- five questionnaire were used. Moreover, speaking proficiency test to the sample was employed to find the correlation among students’ reticence, personality types and speaking proficiency. The questionnaire and speaking test result revealed students’ reticence tend to reflect attitudes toward communication, and the students’ dominant personality type was agreeableness, and students’ speaking proficiency was in moderate category. The results revealed that, there was a significant correlation between traits (agreeableness, emotional stability, openness of experience) of personality type and speaking proficiency and there was a significant correlation between personality types and (vocabulary) aspect of speaking proficiency. Keywords: reticence; personality types; speaking proficiency. mailto:indahpratiwiharahap@gmail.com mailto:sofendi@yahoo.com mailto:ismailpetrus@yahoo.com Indah Pratiwi Hrp, Sofendi, & Ismail Petrus The correlation among reticence, personality types and speaking proficiency of English education study program students of PGRI university Palembang 486 in English and if the teacher asks them any question in English, they would keep silent for sometime till the teacher helps them out, Moreover, during speaking activity, the students only did some written exercises and the teacher mostly gave high attention in teaching grammar to their students with the less speaking exercises. Therefore, some researchers have investigated this phenomenon which related to the problems above, it is student’s reticence, and they have discovered various reasons about it. For example, Westgate, Batey, Brownlee, & Butley (1985) claimed that the structure of the teacher fronted interaction in language classroom might cause the poor behaviors on the part of the students. Wesgate et al. also observed that students attempts to avoid talking to deal with such classroom settings, which in turn exerts influences on the amount of learners’ talk in class. On the other hand, the study conducted by Lee (2006) supported the above findings; Lee stated that there are strict behavioral rules between the teacher and his/her students, For example, students speak only when they are spoken to. The interaction between the teacher and students’ character is that the teacher leads the students in the classroom, and students’ verbal participation is passive. Also, language competence, previous negative speaking experiences in class, lack of confidence, personality, or cultural constrains are all possible reasons that prevent students from communication. Reticence is defined by Keaton, Kelly, & Finch (2000) as a communication problem with cognitive, affective and behavioral dimensions are is due to the belief that one is better off remaining silent than risking appearing foolish. Therefore, when people avoid communication because they believe it is better to remain silent than to risk appearing foolish; this behavior is referred to as reticence, and people who tend to avoid communication, they are called reticent. The speaking problems above are probably closely related to the students’ personality types toward speaking in English. Personality plays an important role that affects academic achievement (Khatibi and Khormaei, 2016). According to Dzulkifli and Alias (2012), personality is also described as a categorized set of attributes that is found in a person that influences and defines the individual’s cognition, motivations and behaviors. Therefore, personality is one of the internal factors that takes crucial part in language learning. Different students may have different personality, since they have their own weaknesses and strengths. The students will get different outcomes in their learning activities. It happens since each type of personality will influence students in taking decision and responding to it. Thus, personality is a crucial thing in teaching and learning, because knowing students’ personality types is able to understand of the classroom dynamics and to be better able to determine what kinds of classroom activites and strategies would be effective in the class. Consequently, teachers are suggested to acquire knowledge on students’ personality in order that the students will be treated differently and overcome the problems easily in order to achieve the goal in teaching and learning process, especially to enhance students’ speaking proficiency. Hence, awareness of the of reticence of the EFL students in language classrooms and the relationship between learners’ personality and their reticence in EFL classroom can play an important role in identifying the potential causes of verbal nonparticipation and encouraging the students to speak and express their ideas in oral language classrooms. Meanwhile, it can help the teachers to come to a better understanding of the students’ behavior in the learning situations. In English Education Study Program, the students are demanded to have three such as main competence, the four skills such as listening, speaking, reading and writing. While, the other skills such as grammar/structure, linguistics, translation, etc. Related to this study, the researcher focus only to speaking subject. Moreover, the greatest challenge in EFL classroom is the development of students’ speaking skill. In English education study program, there are three speaking subjects offered, they are speaking-1, speaking-2 and speaking-3. Thus, students who have passed the three speaking subject are considered having good English speaking. Based on the researcher’s personal experience as an alumni student of the English Department at PGRI University of Palembang and the latest conditions based on the results of my preliminary interview with one of the lecturers of English Department at PGRI University of Palembang and concerning things discussed above, the researcher was interested in doing the study in PGRI University in investigating the ENGLISH REVIEW: Journal of English Education p-ISSN 2301-7554, e-ISSN 2541-3643 Volume 10, Issue 2, June 2022 https://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/ERJEE 487 correlation among students’ reticence, personality types and speaking proficiency. METHOD In conducting this study, correlational research was used. This study is aimed at finding out whether or not students’ reticence and personality types correlate to their speaking proficiency. The procedure of conducting this study were: first, researcher identified the students' reticence by using questionnaire. Then, researcher identified the students' personality types by using questionnaire. The students' speaking proficiency obtained by using speaking test. Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient used in order to find out the correlation among the variables based on the result of questionnaires and speaking proficiency test. At last, the researcher discussed the explanation and interpretation of the results. The research design was as follows: Description: X1 = students’ reticence X2 = students’ personality types Y = students’ speaking proficiency r1 = correlation between students’ reticence and students’ speaking proficiency r2 = correlation between students’ personality types and students’ speaking proficiency r3 = correlation between the predictor variables (reticence and personality types) and the criterion variable (speaking proficiency) r4 = contribution of the predictor variables (reticence and personality types) to the criterion (speaking proficiency) Table 1. Population of the study No. Class Students 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1st semester 3rd semester 5th semester 7th semester 9th semester 84 91 77 30 26 Total 308 Source: PGRI University Palembang Population is the larger group to which one hopes to apply the results (Fraenkel and Wallen, 2012). The population of this study is all active first till ninth semester students of English education study program of PGRI University Palembang. The population of the study is presented in the table 1 above. Table 2. Sample of the study No Class Students 1. 5th Semester 59 Total 59 Source: PGRI University Palembang According to Arikunto (2010), the sample is a part of the whole population of the investigation. To determine the sample this study, purposive sampling was used which the sample selection was not carried out randomly with certain criteria. According to Fraenkel and Wallen (2012), purposive sampling method is a method where investigators use personal judgment to select a sample. Therefore, the researcher took the fifth semester students of the English Education Study Program of PGRI Palembang in the academic year 2020/2021 as the samples of this study, because they passed speaking-1, speaking-2 and speaking-3 in first semester until third semester. From 77 of the total number students in fifth semester, there were only 59 students who participate to do the speaking test and questionnaires, because they passed the passing grade for speaking-3. The sample of the study is presented in the table 2 above. Two techniques are used to collect the data, those are (1) Asking for respondents’ opinion using ready-made questionnaire of UCS (Unwillingness- to-Communicate Scale) for Reticence and Goldberg’s IPIP Big-five questionnaire for Personality Types and (2) Testing the sample using Speaking Proficiency Test In this study, two sets of questionnaires were used. The first is reticence questionnaire. To obtain the information about students’ reticence, the researcher used Reticence Unwillingness-to- Communicate Scale (UCS) by Burgoon (1976). It is Indah Pratiwi Hrp, Sofendi, & Ismail Petrus The correlation among reticence, personality types and speaking proficiency of English education study program students of PGRI university Palembang 488 developed to measure students’ reticence in speech communication. The questionnaire measures two dimensions of communication reticence: approach- avoidance (AA) and Reward (R). The AA dimension represents an individual’s tendency to avoid or participate in interpersonal and small group interactions. The R dimension, by contrast, reflects attitudes toward communication—whether one considers it a valuable, honest, and personally rewarding enterprise or feels socially isolated and regards communication as a deceptive, manipulative, or unprofitable activity. In this study, the 20-item (10 items for AA and 10 items for R) short form of the UCS will be used to measure students’ general tendency to avoid speech communication. The questionnaire contains 20 items, the specification of questionnaire items 1. (AA) approach-avoidance: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. 2. (R) Reward: 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20. Each type had 10 items having positive and negative statements. A response indicating a low level of reticence receives one point, and those showing a high level of reticence receive five points. The score ranges are represented by using numbers (Likert-scale) from 1 until 5. The answers have five responses, which are (1) Strongly Disagree, (2) Disagree, (3) Netral, (4) Agree and (5) Strongly Agree. The possible range of reticence scores is 20 for the lowest score and 100 for the highest score for reticence. The second, personality types questionnaire. The researcher used a ready-made IPIP Big five questionnaire from Goldberg (1992) in ipip.ori.org. It is used to know which dominant type of students’ personality. The IPIP Big five questionnaire was categorized five types: extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness to experience. The questionnaire contains 50 items. The questionnaire consisted of 50 items by using Likertscale from very inaccurate to very accurate. Each type had 10 items having positive and negative statements. The specification of questionnaire items 1. Extraversion: (positive statement) 1, 11, 21, 31, 41, 46, (negative statement) 6, 16, 26 and 36. (2) Agreeableness: (positive statement) 7, 17, 27, 37, 42 and 47, (negative statement) 2, 12, 22 and 32. (3) Conscientiousness: (positive statement) 3, 13, 23, 33, 43 and 48, (negative statement) 8, 18, 28 and 38. (4) Emotional stability: (positive statement): 9 and 19, (negative statement) 4, 14, 24, 29, 34, 39, 44 and 49. (5) Openness to experience: (positive statement) 5, 15, 25, 35, 40, 45 and 50, (negative statement) 10, 20 and 30. The personality types questionnaire was scored by assigning the value of 1 to 5 points to the chosen response. The score ranges are represented by using numbers (Likert- scale) from 1 until 5. The answers have five responses, which are (1) Very Inaccurate, (2) Moderately Inaccurate, (3) Neither Accurate nor Inaccurate, and (4) Moderately Accurate and (5) Very Accurate. A response indicating a low level of personality types receives one point, and those showing a high level of personality types receive five points. The possible range of personality types scores is 50 for the lowest score and 250 for the highest score for personality types. The speaking test is aimed at identifying the students’ skill and attitude toward speaking. To know the result of students’ speaking score, analytical speaking rubric (2004: Foreign Language Program of Studies) was used. The rating sheet consists of a set of qualities to be rated such as task completion, comprehensibility, fluency, pronunciation, vocabulary and language control. The ratings have a range of one to four points. Then, to get student points the researcher used the scoring system, student points = converted % score × (max score/100). The possible range of speaking proficiency scores is six for the lowest score and 24 for the highest score for speaking proficiency. The researcher conducted kinds of analysis in this study: first descriptive statistic and second Pearson product-moment Correlation Coefficient. The descriptions of the Degree of Correlation are as follow: Table 3. The degree of correlation Interval Degree of Correlation 0.00 – 0.199 Very weak correlation 0.20 – 0.399 Weak correlation 0.40 – 0.599 Fair correlation 0.60 – 0.799 Strong correlation 0.80 – 1.000 Very strong correlation Source: Sugiyono (2016) RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The result of reticence questionnaire Reticence questionnaire was from Unwillingness- to-Communicate Scale (UCS). It was a ready-made questionnaire by Burgoon (1976). It was administered to know a students’ tendency to be ENGLISH REVIEW: Journal of English Education p-ISSN 2301-7554, e-ISSN 2541-3643 Volume 10, Issue 2, June 2022 https://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/ERJEE 489 reticent of fifth semester students of English Education Study Program of PGRI University Palembang. Reticence questionnaire consisted of 20 items. Table 4 below shows the descriptive statistics of the reticence questionnaire. Table 4. The descriptive statistics of reticence questionnaire N Mini mum Maxi mum Mean Std. Deviation Reticence 59 41 88 66.75 9.815 Valid N (listwise) 59 Source: Output from SPSS version 20 Based on the data obtained from reticence questionnaire, students reticence ranged from a minimum 41 to a maximum 88 with the mean of 66.75 and a standard deviation of 9.815. The result of personality types questionnaire Personality types questionnaire was a ready-made questionnaire. It was from IPIP Big-five questionnaire by Goldberg (1992). It was administered to know what dominant characteristics on that certain type of personality of fifth semester students of English Education Study Program of PGRI University Palembang. Personality types questionnaire consisted of 50 items. Table 6 below shows the descriptive statistics of the personality types questionnaire. Table 5. The descriptive statistics of personality types questionnaire N Mini mum Maxi mum Me an Std. Devi ation Personality Types 59 103 196 16 1.3 9 17.4 44 Valid N (listwise) 59 Source: Output from SPSS version 20 Based on the data obtained from Personality types questionnaire, students’ personality types level ranged from a minimum 103 to a maximum 196 with the mean of 161.39 and a standard deviation of 17.444. The result of speaking proficiency The researcher made speaking proficiency test in form of monologue. The researcher wanted to measure students’ speaking proficiency by asking their opinion, thought, feeling in a particular situation. The researcher used topics about the impact of Covid-19 Pandemic on education, economics and social. The following table 7 presents the descriptive statistics of the speaking proficiency test result. Table 6. The descriptive statistics of speaking proficiency N Mini mum Ma xim um Mean Std. Deviati on Speaking_ proficiency 59 69.7 97. 0 84.89 0 6.1631 Valid N (listwise) 59 Source: Output from SPSS version 20 Based on the data obtained from speaking proficiency test, students’ speaking proficiency level ranged from a minimum 69.7 to a maximum 97 with the mean of 84.89 and a standard deviation of 6.1631. Correlation analysis Table 7. Correlation reticence and speaking proficiency Reticence Speaking Reticence Pearson Correlation 1 .053 Sig. (2- tailed) .692 N 59 59 Speaking Proficiency Pearson Correlation .053 1 Sig. (2- tailed) .692 N 59 59 Source: Output from SPSS version 20 As shown in the table above, the correlation test obtained between reticence and speaking proficiency. To make sure that there was a significant correlation between the two variables, the researcher consulted the value of r-table to check the value of r-obtained. If the value of r- obtained is higher than value of r-table and p (probability) is lower than 0.05, it means that there is a significant correlation between the variables. It was found that the r-obtained (.053) indicates a positive direction, meaning that there is a unidirectional correlation between reticence and speaking proficiency and it was lower than value of r-table (0.256) and p value (0.692) was higher than 0.05. It showed that there was no significant correlation between the two variables. The Indah Pratiwi Hrp, Sofendi, & Ismail Petrus The correlation among reticence, personality types and speaking proficiency of English education study program students of PGRI university Palembang 490 Pearson’s correlation coefficient r indicates that there was a very weak correlation between reticence and speaking proficiency. Table 8. Correlations the dimensions of the reticence and speaking proficiency Appro ach- avoid ance Rewa rd Speaki ng proficie ncy Approach- avoidance Pearson correlation 1 .447* * .028 Sig. (2- tailed) .000 .833 N 59 59 59 Reward Pearson correlation .447** 1 .064 Sig. (2- tailed) .000 .628 N 59 59 59 Speaking proficiency Pearson correlation .028 .064 1 Sig. (2- tailed) .833 .628 N 59 59 59 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Source: Output from SPSS version 20 Based on the table 8, the result of the correlation analyses for each dimension of reticence and speaking proficiency showed that there was no correlation which coefficient correlation of approach avoidance was .028. Because the correlation coefficient value was lower than value of r-table (0.256) and p value (0.833) was higher than 0.05 It showed that there was no significant correlation between the two variables. The Pearson’s correlation coefficient r indicates that there was a very weak correlation between approach avoidance and speaking proficiency. In addition, the correlation coefficient value of reward was .064 which is lower than value of r-table (0.256) and p value (0.628) was higher than 0.05 It showed that there was no significant correlation between the two variables. The Pearson’s correlation coefficient r indicates that there was a very weak correlation between approach avoidance and speaking proficiency. Table 9. Correlations reticence and aspects of speaking proficiency Task completio n Compre hensibili ty Fluency Pronunc iation Vocabu lary Languag e control Reticenc e T c Pearson correlation 1 .760** .502** .477** .464** .461** .185 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .160 N 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 C Pearson correlation .760** 1 .509** .521** .471** .466** -.035 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .791 N 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 F Pearson correlation .502** .509** 1 .326* .385** .308* -.153 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .012 .003 .018 .248 N 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 P Pearson correlation .477** .521** .326* 1 .540** .729** .103 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .012 .000 .000 .438 N 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 V Pearson correlation .464** .471** .385** .540** 1 .645** .144 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .003 .000 .000 .278 N 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 L c Pearson correlation .461** .466** .308* .729** .645** 1 .125 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .018 .000 .000 .344 N 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 ENGLISH REVIEW: Journal of English Education p-ISSN 2301-7554, e-ISSN 2541-3643 Volume 10, Issue 2, June 2022 https://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/ERJEE 491 R Pearson correlation .185 -.035 -.153 .103 .144 .125 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .160 .791 .248 .438 .278 .344 N 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 Based on the table 9, the result of the correlation analyses for reticence and aspect of speaking proficiency showed that there was no significant correlation which coefficient correlation of task completion was .185. Because the correlation coefficient value was lower than value of r-table (0.256) and p value (0.160) was higher than 0.05 It showed that there was no significant correlation between the two variables. The Pearson’s correlation coefficient r indicates that there was a very weak correlation between reticence and task completion. In addition, the correlation coefficient value of comprehensibility was -.035. The correlation index number was given minus (-) symbol. It showed that the correlation direction was negative. Thus, the correlation coefficient value of comprehensibility was lower than value of r-table (0.256) and p value (0.791) was higher than 0.05 It showed that there was no significant correlation between the two variables. The Pearson’s correlation coefficient r indicates that there was a very weak correlation between reticence and comprehensibility. The correlation coefficient value of fluency was -.153. The correlation index number was given minus (-) symbol. It showed that the correlation direction was negative. Thus, the correlation coefficient value of fluency was lower than value of r-table (0.256) and p value (0.248) was higher than 0.05 It showed that there was no significant correlation between the two variables. The Pearson’s correlation coefficient r indicates that there was a very weak correlation between reticence and fluency. The correlation coefficient value of pronunciation was .103 which is lower than value of r-table (0.256) and p value (0.438) was higher than 0.05 It showed that there was no significant correlation between the two variables. The Pearson’s correlation coefficient r indicates that there was a very weak correlation between reticence and pronunciation. The correlation coefficient value of vocabulary was .144 which is lower than value of r-table (0.256) and p value (0.278) was higher than 0.05 It showed that there was no significant correlation between the two variables. The Pearson’s correlation coefficient r indicates that there was a very weak correlation between reticence and vocabulary. The correlation coefficient value of language control was .125 which is lower than value of r-table (0.256) and p value (0.344) was higher than 0.05 It showed that there was no significant correlation between the two variables. The Pearson’s correlation coefficient r indicates that there was a very weak correlation between reticence and language control. Table 10. Correlation personality types and speaking proficiency Personality Types Speakin g Personali ty Types Pearson Correlation 1 .197 Sig. (2-tailed) .134 N 59 59 Speaking Proficien cy Pearson Correlation .197 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .134 N 59 59 Source: Output from SPSS version 20 As shown in the table above, the correlation test obtained between personality types and speaking proficiency. Based on table 10 above, the correlation coefficient value obtained is .197, with the sig value obtained is .134. The correlation coefficient value of .197 indicates a positive direction, meaning that there is a unidirectional correlation between personality types and speaking proficiency. The result of the correlation analyses for personality types and speaking proficiency showed that there was no significant correlation which coefficient correlation of personality types was .197. Because the correlation coefficient value was lower than value of r-table (0.256) and p value (0.134) was higher than 0.05 It showed that there was no significant correlation between the two variables. The Pearson’s correlation coefficient r indicates that there was a very weak correlation between personality types and speaking proficiency. Table 11. Correlations among the types of the personality types and speaking proficiency Extraver sion Agreeab leness Conscie ntiousne Emotion al Opennes s Speak ing Indah Pratiwi Hrp, Sofendi, & Ismail Petrus The correlation among reticence, personality types and speaking proficiency of English education study program students of PGRI university Palembang 492 ss profic iency Extraversion Pearson Correlation 1 .418** .086 .079 .309* .095 Sig. (2-Tailed) .001 .518 .551 .017 .473 N 59 59 59 59 59 59 Agreeablenes s Pearson Correlation .418** 1 .460** -.264* .580** .353** Sig. (2-Tailed) .001 .000 .044 .000 .006 N 59 59 59 59 59 59 Conscientious ness Pearson Correlation .086 .460** 1 .051 .538** .180 Sig. (2-Tailed) .518 .000 .700 .000 .172 N 59 59 59 59 59 59 Emotional Pearson Correlation .079 -.264* .051 1 -.229 -.306* Sig. (2-Tailed) .551 .044 .700 .081 .018 N 59 59 59 59 59 59 Openness Pearson Correlation .309* .580** .538** -.229 1 .385** Sig. (2-Tailed) .017 .000 .000 .081 .003 N 59 59 59 59 59 59 Speaking proficiency Pearson Correlation .095 .353** .180 -.306* .385** 1 Sig. (2-Tailed) .473 .006 .172 .018 .003 N 59 59 59 59 59 59 **. Correlation Is Significant At The 0.01 Level (2-Tailed). *. Correlation Is Significant At The 0.05 Level (2-Tailed). Source: Output from SPSS version 20 Based on the Table 11, the result of the correlation analyses for each type of personality types and speaking proficiency showed that the correlation coefficient of extraversion and speaking proficiency was .095. Because the correlation coefficient value was lower than value of r-table (0.256) and p value (0.473) was higher than 0.05, it showed that there was no significant correlation between the two variables. The Pearson’s correlation coefficient r indicates that there was a very weak correlation between extraversion and speaking proficiency. The correlation coefficient value of agreeableness was .353 which is higher than value of r-table (0.256) and p value (0.006) was lower than 0.05 It showed that there was significant correlation between the two variables. The Pearson’s correlation coefficient r indicates that there was a weak correlation between agreeableness and speaking proficiency. The correlation coefficient value of conscientiousness was .180 which is lower than value of r-table (0.256) and p value (0.172) was higher than 0.05 It showed that there was no significant correlation between the two variables. The Pearson’s correlation coefficient r indicates that there was a very weak correlation between conscientiousness and speaking proficiency. The correlation coefficient value of emotional was -.306. The correlation index number was given minus (-) symbol. It showed that the correlation direction was negative. Thus, the correlation coefficient value of emotional was higher than value of r-table (0.256) and p value (0.018) was lower than 0.05 It showed that there was significant correlation between the two variables. The Pearson’s correlation coefficient r indicates that there was a weak correlation between emotional and speaking proficiency. The correlation coefficient value of openness was .385 which is higher than value of r-table (0.256) and p value (0.003) was lower than 0.05 It showed that there was significant correlation between the two variables. The Pearson’s correlation coefficient r indicates that there was a weak correlation between openness and speaking proficiency. Table 12. Correlation among personality types and aspect of speaking proficiency Task completi on Compre hensibili ty Fluenc y Pronunc iation Vocabul ary Languag e control Personal ity types TC Pearson Correlation 1 .760** .502** .477** .464** .461** .224 ENGLISH REVIEW: Journal of English Education p-ISSN 2301-7554, e-ISSN 2541-3643 Volume 10, Issue 2, June 2022 https://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/ERJEE 493 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .088 N 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 C Pearson Correlation .760** 1 .509** .521** .471** .466** .021 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .873 N 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 F Pearson Correlation .502** .509** 1 .326* .385** .308* .053 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .012 .003 .018 .690 N 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 P Pearson Correlation .477** .521** .326* 1 .540** .729** .100 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .012 .000 .000 .453 N 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 V Pearson Correlation .464** .471** .385** .540** 1 .645** .299* Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .003 .000 .000 .021 N 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 LC Pearson Correlation .461** .466** .308* .729** .645** 1 .177 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .018 .000 .000 .180 N 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 PT Pearson Correlation .224 .021 .053 .100 .299* .177 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .088 .873 .690 .453 .021 .180 N 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). Source: Output from SPSS version 20 Based on the Table 12, the result of the correlation analyses for personality types and each aspect of speaking proficiency showed that the correlation coefficient of task completion and personality types was .224. Because the correlation coefficient value was lower than value of r-table (0.256) and p value (0.088) was higher than 0.05, it showed that there was no significant correlation between the two variables. The Pearson’s correlation coefficient r indicates that there was a weak correlation between task completion and personality types. The correlation coefficient value of comprehensibility was .021 which is lower than value of r-table (0.256) and p value (0.873) was higher than 0.05 It showed that there was no significant correlation between the two variables. The Pearson’s correlation coefficient r indicates that there was a very weak correlation between comprehensibility and personality types. The correlation coefficient value of fluency was .053 which is lower than value of r-table (0.256) and p value (0.690) was higher than 0.05 It showed that there was no significant correlation between the two variables. The Pearson’s correlation coefficient r indicates that there was a very weak correlation between fluency and personality types. The correlation coefficient value of pronunciation was .100 which is lower than value of r-table (0.256) and p value (0.453) was higher than 0.05 It showed that there was no significant correlation between the two variables. The Pearson’s correlation coefficient r indicates that there was a very weak correlation between pronunciation and personality types. The correlation coefficient value of vocabulary was .299 which is higher than value of r-table (0.256) and p value (0.021) was lower than 0.05 It showed that there was significant correlation between the two variables. The Pearson’s correlation coefficient r indicates that there was a weak correlation between vocabulary and personality types. The correlation coefficient value of language control was .177 which is lower than value of r-table (0.256) and p value (0.180) was higher than 0.05 It showed that there was no significant correlation between the two variables. The Pearson’s correlation coefficient r indicates that there was a very weak correlation between language control and personality types. Indah Pratiwi Hrp, Sofendi, & Ismail Petrus The correlation among reticence, personality types and speaking proficiency of English education study program students of PGRI university Palembang 494 Table 13. Correlations among predictor variables (reticence and personality types) and criterion variable (speaking proficiency) Model summary Variables R R square F Sig. Predictor variables and criterion variable .219a .048 1.413 .252b A. Predictors: (constant), personality types, reticence Source: Output from SPSS version 20 The result showed on table 13 that the correlation coefficient between the predictor variables total and the criterion variable total was .219 with a significance value of .252b. Thus, it can be concluded that there was no significant correlation between predictor variables (reticence and personality types) and the criterion variable (speaking proficiency). Regression analyses Table 14. Contribution of agreeableness and speaking proficiency Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .353a .125 .109 5.8167 a. Predictors: (Constant), AGREEABLENESS Source: Output from SPSS version 20 Stepwise method was used to see the contribution. Squaring R value leads to 0.353= 0.125. It could be seen that the total contribution of agreeableness toward speaking proficiency was 12.5%. Table 15. Contribution of emotional and speaking proficiency Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .306a .094 .078 5.9188 a. Predictors: (Constant), EMOTIONAL Source: Output from SPSS version 20 Stepwise method was used to see the contribution. Squaring R value leads to 0.306= 0.094. It could be seen that the total contribution of emotional toward speaking proficiency was 9.4%. Table 16. Contribution of openness and speaking proficiency Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .385a .148 .133 5.7375 a. Predictors: (Constant), OPENNESS Source: Output from SPSS version 20 Stepwise method was used to see the contribution. Squaring R value leads to 0.385= 0.148. It could be seen that the total contribution of openness toward speaking proficiency was 14.8%. Table 17. Contribution of personality types and aspect of speaking proficiency (vocabulary) Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .299a .089 .073 .424 a. Predictors: (Constant), PERSONALITY Source: Output from SPSS version 20 Stepwise method was used to see the contribution. Squaring R value leads to 0.299= 0.089. It could be seen that the total contribution of openness toward speaking proficiency was 8.9%. Discussion Based on the results of the students responded to reticence questionnaire, it is discovered that there were 31 students who tend to reward (R). While, there are 28 students who tend to approach- avoidance (AA). In short, the majority of the students (53%) were in reward (R). Meanwhile, 47% of students were in approach-avoidance (AA). The AA dimension represents an individual’s tendency to avoid or participate in interpersonal and small group interactions. The R dimension, by contrast, reflects attitudes toward communication— whether one considers it a valuable, honest, and personally rewarding enterprise or feels socially isolated and regards communication as a deceptive, manipulative, or unprofitable activity. The result of personality questionnaire shown that of three students had extraversion personality type, 24 students had agreeableness personality type, 22 students had conscientiousness personality type, three students had emotional stability personality type and 7 students had Openness to experience personality type. The distribution of the result of personality types, showed that 41% (24) of the students were dominant for agreeableness. Most students agreed that they did not get stressed easily, they were relaxed most of the time, they seldom felt ENGLISH REVIEW: Journal of English Education p-ISSN 2301-7554, e-ISSN 2541-3643 Volume 10, Issue 2, June 2022 https://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/ERJEE 495 sad, they did not get depression and they did not have interpersonal problems. In short, most of students felt flexible, helpful, sympathetic, warm, kind, courteous, and appreciate with either people around them or their lives. McCrae and John (1992) state that agreeableness and extraversion generally define interpersonal circumflex. Agreeableness appears the human aspects of humanity such as altruism, nurturance, and emotional support. It is in line with the study conducted by Shahab (2016) in which most students got high scores in Agreeableness. Meanwhile, the conscientious students felt responsible, disciple, careful, organized, mindful, and related to hardworking, success-orientation, and tenacity. The open students felt creative, curios, imaginative, reflective, and adventurous. The extrovert students felt active, energetic, talkative, cheerful, and comfortable. The stable emotional students felt patient, confident, and respectable on emotion. Therefore, some students displayed and brought out their personality types to the society and others focused on the achievement. Based on students’ speaking proficiency test result, the researcher found that 10 students (17%) were in good category of speaking proficiency, 39 students (66%) were in moderate category of speaking proficiency, and 10 students (17%) were in poor category. In short, it can be concluded that majority of fifth semester students of English Education Study Program of PGRI University Palembang speaking proficiency were in moderate category. This study revealed that reticence exists among students in English foreign language classroom. As reticence has been found to be a problematic behavior by many English foreign language instructors, this issue should be studied seriously. It has been explored that psychological factors contribute to students’ reticence and makes it a serious problem in foreign language learning. Reticence is a phenomenon in which students tend not to participate or interact in the English foreign classroom. There are various reasons behind reticence such as low self-confidence, fear of losing face and past experiences. Baktash and Chalak (2016) state that the result showed that personality types influence on the EFL students’ reticence. The influence is more prominent among the students with higher proficiency level. Moreover, educational, situational, and emotional factors impact on the English foreign language learners’ reticence. In addition, the more proficient in English the students were, the more willing they were to participate in speech communication and the more positive they were about it. In order to avoid reticence and its consequences in English foreign language classrooms, both teachers and students are expected to transform the classrooms into a more active one. CONCLUSION Based on the findings of this study, the researcher shows the result of the research. The analysis of the data collected through the researcher found out that there was no significant correlation between reticence and speaking proficiency. Second, there was no significant correlation between personality types and speaking proficiency. However, there was a significant correlation between trait of personality type and speaking proficiency and there was a significant correlation between personality types and (vocabulary) aspect of speaking proficiency. First, a significant correlation between agreeableness and speaking proficiency are found in this finding. Based on the calculation of the distribution of personality types result, showed that the students’ dominant trait is agreeableness, it means that most students agreed that they felt concern for others, they sympathized with others’ feeling, they made people feel at ease, they felt others’ emotions. In short, most of students felt flexible, helpful, sympathetic, warm, kind, courteous, and appreciate with either people around them or their lives. Agreeableness may have a positive contribution to academic achievement. It is in line with the study conducted by Vermetten, Lodewijks, and Vermunt (2001). This was indicated by a study which mentioned that this factor was associated with compliance with teacher instructions and concentration on learning. This means that those who are high on agreeableness are generally good at academic adjustment as they can keep a positive relationship with their teachers and peers, and they usually show scholastic competence, behavioral conduct, and academic success. Second, the researcher found that there was correlation between openness to experiences and speaking proficiency. Those who are high on openness to experience are usually intellectually curious. This personality trait has been considered to be a reflection of the ideal student (De Raad, and Indah Pratiwi Hrp, Sofendi, & Ismail Petrus The correlation among reticence, personality types and speaking proficiency of English education study program students of PGRI university Palembang 496 Schouwenburg, 1996), due to its relationship with foresightedness and intelligence. Openness to Experience showed an association with academic achievement in school and at different university levels. Students high in this personality factor tend to have more curiosity and interest to discover or learn new things including foreign languages. These students may consider English language a skill that is worth being learnt in order to explore the world and, therefore, broaden their experience. Third, in this finding there was a significant correlation between emotional stability and speaking proficiency. In this study, most students agreed that they did not get stressed easily, they were relaxed most of the time, they seldom felt sad, they did not get depression and they did not have interpersonal problems. Thus, Learners with high scores on emotional stability may avoid holding a conversation in the English language as they usually have extreme worry. Fourth, the researcher also found that the correlation between personality types and vocabulary as aspect of speaking proficiency. It is line with the study conducted by Sukainah (2016), students could not recognize speaker’s idea because of limited English vocabulary and low motivation in learning. Some students were shy to ask difficult learning materials but some of them were not. This study revealed that reticence exists among students in English foreign language classroom. As reticence has been found to be a problematic behavior by many English foreign language learners, this issue should be studied seriously. It has been explored that psychological factors contribute to students’ reticence and makes it a serious problem in foreign language learning. Reticence is a phenomenon in which students tend not to participate or interact in the English foreign classroom. There are various reasons behind reticence such as low self-confidence, fear of losing face and past experiences. Baktash and Chalak (2016) state that the result showed personality types influence on the EFL students’ reticence. The influence is more prominent among the students with higher proficiency level. Moreover, educational, situational, and emotional factors impact on the English foreign language learners’ reticence. In addition, the more proficient in English the students were, the more willing they were to participate in speech communication and the more positive they were about it. In order to avoid reticence and its consequences in English foreign language classrooms, both teachers and students are expected to transform the classrooms into a more active one. Lastly, for future researchers, the researcher hopes that other researchers are suggested to find out the better way and methods to advance the students’ speaking proficiency achievement. Future researchers are also suggested to find different population which has different characteristics with the population in this study and to use the other recent instruments for measuring the students’ speaking proficiency test, reticence and personality type in order to do some better improvements. It is also advisable for English teacher to enhance student’ interest in and motivation to speak language, also promote students to be active participation in English lesson. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would like to acknowledge my advisors and English students at PGRI University in Palembang. REFERENCES Arikunto, S. (2010). Prosedur penelitian: Suatu pendekatan praktek. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta. Burgoon, J. K. (1976). The unwillingness-to- communicate scale: Development and validation. Communication Monographs, 43, 60-69. Chowdhury, F. R. (2016). Reasons of reticence in speaking English among the freshmen in Port city International University; Chittagong, Bangladesh: A case study. Asia Pacific Journals, 2(3). De Raad, B., &Schouwenburg, H. C. (1996). Personality in learning and education: A review. European Journal of Personality, 10, 303-336. Dzulkifli, M. A., & Alias, I. A. (2012). Students of low academic achievement – their personality, mental abilities and academic performance: How counselor can help?. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(23), 220- 225. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2012). How to design and evaluate: Research in education (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the big-five factor structure. Psychological Assement, 4(1), 26-42. Keaton, J. A., Kelly, J. L., Finch, C. (2000). Effectiveness of Penn State program in ENGLISH REVIEW: Journal of English Education p-ISSN 2301-7554, e-ISSN 2541-3643 Volume 10, Issue 2, June 2022 https://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/ERJEE 497 changing beliefs associate with reticence. Communication Education, 41, 35-45. Khatibi, M., & Khormaei, F. (2016). Learning and personality: A review. Journal of Educational and Management Studies, 6(4), 89-97. Lee, Y. (2006). Towards respecification of communicative competence: Condition of L2 instructions or its objectives? Applied Linguistics. 27(3). McCrae, R. R., &John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Rerieved from www.workplacebullying.org Shahab, A. (2016). The correlation among personality types, cross cultural understanding, and reading habits of EFL students of Sriwijaya University (Graduate’s Thesis). Sriwijaya University, Palembang, Indonesia. Tsui, A. B. M. (1995). Introducing classroom interaction. London: Penguin Books. Tsui, A. B. M. (1995). Introduction classroom interaction. London: Penguin. Vermetten, Y. J., Lodewijks, H. G., &Vermunt, J. D. (2001). The role of personality traits and goal orientations in strategy use. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 149-170. Westgate, D., Batey, J., Brownlee, J., & Butley, M. (1985). Some characteristics of interaction in foreign language classrooms. British Educational Research Journal, 113(3), 271-281. http://www.workplacebullying.org/ Indah Pratiwi Hrp, Sofendi, & Ismail Petrus The correlation among reticence, personality types and speaking proficiency of English education study program students of PGRI university Palembang 498