















































267 

 

JOURNAL OF ENGLISH EDUCATION AND TECHNOLOGY 

Vol. 01 No. 04, January 2021, pp. 267 - 290 

Available online at: 

http://jeet.fkdp.or.id/index.php/jeet/issue/current 

ISSN: 2721-3811 (media online) 

 
Improving Speaking Skills Through Pro-Voc Method by Students’ Self-Efficacy at 

Pesantren Mambaus Sholihin 

Saadatuddaroini 

Institut Keislaman Abdullah Faqih Gresik 
 

Saadatuddaroini306@gmail.com  

ABSTRACT 
This study aims to increase students' feeling of being able to speak English. So the researcher tries to build 

students' confidence about their ability in speaking English by forming knowledge of pronunciation and 

vocabulary. The researcher used classroom action research with three instruments: observation, 

questionnaire and speaking assignment. The results showed that The PRO-VOC Method can improve 

students' self-efficacy in terms of speaking. There was a significant improvement in the results of the primary 

and final tests in the first and second cycles. The students' mean score of the primaty test was 41.36, in the first 

cycle it was 50.30 and 73.64 in the second cycle. Based on students' improvement in their achievement, it 

corresponds to their increase in feeling capable. It is proven by the results of the questionnaire that the average 

percentage of the student self-efficacy scale in the previous study was 46.36%, 64.55% in the first cycle and 

73.37% in the second cycle. 

Keywords: The PRO-VOC Method, Self-Efficacy, Speaking 

 

I. INTRODUCTION 

I always feel nervous when speaking English. 

I wonder why I can’t speak English very well. 

I feel that English is so difficult to study. 

Both its written and sound is so different. 

I feel bad in my mind. 

My English appears not good enough; I can’t 

express it very well. 

But I know that I need to be able to speak 

English. 

(Quoted from the transcripts of this 

study) 

Such statements usually come from foreign 

language learners and are too familiar to the 

foreign language teachers. It indicates an 

essential problem that the majority of students 

face in learning a foreign language, especially in 

http://jeet.fkdp.or.id/index.php/jeet/issue/current
http://u.lipi.go.id/1580741566
mailto:Saadatuddaroini306@gmail.com


268 

 

speaking a foreign language. Many learners 

express their inability to speak a foreign language 

because they don’t know how to face this 

problem. These learners are good at learning.  

People tend to have a different way to be 

able to speak English. There are not only 

encouragements but also barriers that make 

people want to express their ideas in English. 

Particularly in Indonesia, although English is 

learned since Elementary school, people do not 

commonly communicate with English in a 

community. Some people may feel hesitant to 

talk English ahead of people who do not use it. 

On the opposite hand, some others have their 

encouragement, so that they are willing to speak 

English (Anggia, 2013). Almost half of the 

students are in medium to very low self-efficacy 

in speaking English. Other research explained 

that the level of self-efficacy is two; they are high 

self-efficacy and low self-efficacy (Bandura, 

1997). Rahil states there is 51.1 per cent of the 

students have high self-efficacy, and 48.9 per cent 

were of low self-efficacy in the English language 

(Mahyuddin et al., 2006). 

 According to Bandura, efficacy beliefs 

will vary reckoning on the subsequent seven 

factors: (a) assessment of subsisting capabilities, 

(b) perceived difficulty of the task, (c) amount of 

effort required, (d) amount of external aid 

required, (e) circumstance in which the tasks are 

performed, (f) temporal patterns of successes and 

failures, (g) the way experiences are organized 

and reconstructed (Bandura, 1925). It is different 

from Anggia’s finding in her research that the 

most influential factors are the environment. 

Both parent and peers are having an essential role 

in influencing student self-efficacy. “It was found 

that families and peers became influential factors 

to improve students’ self-efficacy in speaking 

English (Anggia, 2013). Parents’ support such 

gives the students verbal compliments on their 

ability in speaking English become more 

proposed to motivate them in learning a foreign 

language.  

 In line with parents, peers also have an 

essential role in improving students’ self-efficacy. 

Four students with very high and high self-

efficacy showed that they were more confident to 

speak English since they often communicated in 

English with their friends (Bandura, 1997). It 

means that student of EFL (English as a foreign 

language) need a partner or rival to practice their 

English. Social strategies mainly concern 

interaction with other people, so these strategies 

were found more popular with ESL learners, who 

had much more opportunity to use the language 

or have access to the native speakers than EFL 

learners (Li, 2010). As EFL learner, peers become 

more influence in language learning achievement. 

In their daily, they spend time to talk with their 

peers more than others. Their opportunity to 

practice English is based on how large their 

environment supports them (Aziz & Dewi, 

2019).  

 As in Mamba’us Sholihin, which is a 

bilingual environment, students have more 

opportunity to practice speaking English. In 

their daily, the role forces them from 



269 

 

communicating with each other in English. The 

environment supports them to use their English. 

Properly, all the students are capable of speaking 

English. Not all students speak English. Some 

students are hesitant in speaking English.  There 

are some barriers or problems they encounter in 

speaking English. They are lousy pronunciation 

and lack of vocabularies. It belongs to internal 

factors that influence students’ self-efficacy. Both 

pronunciation and vocabulary are sub-skill that 

constructs students’ speaking skill. Gilakjani 

states in his journal that Pronunciation has a 

positive effect on language learning and learners 

can gain the skills for effective communication in 

English (Gilakjani & Ahmadi, 2011). As children 

learn, their first language needs to know letter by 

letter to construct a word and word by name to 

build a sentence. So do learners of EFL, they need 

to know how to spell letter by letter to 

pronounce complete words.  

 Vocabularies are central to English 

language teaching because, without sufficient 

dictionary, students cannot understand and 

express their ideas (Aziz & Dewi, 2019). It is a 

reason why students should construct their 

vocabulary knowledge. Teaching-learning 

pronunciation in Mambaus Sholihin Course is 

usually separated from other sub-skill, so does 

teaching learning vocabulary which is taught 

separately in out of course time. For teaching-

learning pronunciation, it is being shown in 

about three meetings. It seems that teaching-

learning pronunciation is lesson practising. As a 

result, the students sometimes are challenging to 

read these phonetic symbols in a word. While in 

vocabulary, the students are being drilled every 

night before going to sleep. There is no 

requirement or punishment to memorise the 

vocabulary. This activity makes sure that the 

student recalls the vocabulary well. It is less on 

giving an effect on enriching students’ vocabulary 

mastery. This research is purposed to solve the 

problem faced by the students in MA Mamba’us 

Sholihin Female Gresik. This research focuses on 

constructing a working class in overcoming 

students’ difficulty in speaking, which is 

expected can help the students to get the 

problem-solving in improving self-efficacy. 

Therefore, making the right solution by using the 

Pro-Voc Method to overcome students’ low self-

efficacy in speaking English will be appropriate 

with the students need. 

II. LITERATURE REVIEW 

A. Understanding of Self-Efficacy 

Self-efficacy refers to the judgments of 

the personal capability to organise and 

execute the courses of action that required to 

attain designated types of performances 

(Bandura, 1997). Bandura states that self-

efficacy is beliefs in one's capacity to perform 

towards a given goal (Bandura, 1997) , namely, 

the individual’s perception plays a crucial 

role in how they can achieve in certain tasks. 

To be more specific, self-efficacy saves as 

influential actions in learning motivation and 

performance. Besides, learner’s self-efficacy 



270 

 

influences their motivation and learning 

performance. Self-efficacy beliefs the 

foundation of human motivation, well-being, 

and personal accomplishment. Unless people 

believe that their actions can produce the 

outcomes their desire, they need little 

incentive to act or to persevere within the 

face of difficulties (Bandura, 2010). 

 A strong sense of efficacy increase 

human accomplishment and well-being in 

many ways. People with high self-assurance 

in their capabilities approach the difficult 

task as challenges to be mastered rather than 

a threat to be avoided (Bandura, 2010). People 

who have high self-efficacy face failure with 

sustained effort. Individuals who feel 

efficacious are encouraged to work harder 

when they encounter difficulties than those 

who doubt their capabilities. 

In contrast, people who doubt their 

capabilities back from difficult tasks which 

they view as personal threats. They have low 

aspirations and little motivation to pursue 

the goals they choose. People who have a 

weak sense of efficacy may avoid for 

accomplishing a task. 

1. The Sources of Self-Efficacy 

People’s beliefs are about their efficacy 

which develops by four sources that 

influence the level of self-efficacy. The case 

for the contextual and meditational role of 

self-efficacy beliefs in human behaviour can 

be made by mastery experience, vicarious 

experience, social persuasions, and 

psychological state and indexes (Pajares, 

1996). 

a. Mastery Experience 

The most important source is the 

interpreted result of one’s past performance. 

Individuals join in some activities, 

understand the consequences of their 

actions. They use their responses to develop 

self-beliefs about their capability to engage 

in the next events and act in concert with the 

views created. Bandura states that the most 

effective ways of creating a strong sense of 

efficacy are through mastery experience 

(Bandura, 1925). 

b. Vicarious Experience 

Besides, to interpret the results of their 

actions, people form their self-efficacy beliefs 

through the vicarious experience provided 

by social models. Seeing people similar to one 

succeed by sustained efforts raises observers’ 

self-beliefs that they possess the capabilities 

to master comparable activities required to 

achieve (Bandura, 1925). 

c. Social Persuasions 

Individuals are also creating and develop 

self-efficacy beliefs as a result of the social 

persuasions they receive from others. People 

who persuade verbally that they have 

capabilities to master given task are likely to 

have more significant effort than who have 



271 

 

self-doubt about their abilities. Persuaders 

play an essential role in the development of 

an individual’s self-belief. 

d. Psychological State 

The fourth way of modifying self-beliefs 

of efficacy is to reduce people stress reactions 

and alter their negative emotional 

proclivities and is interpretations of their 

physical state (Bandura, 1925). People can 

measure their degree of confidence by the 

emotional state they experience as they 

contemplate an action.  

2. Efficacy-Activated Processes 

 Much research has been conducted 

on the four major psychological processes 

through which self-beliefs of efficacy affect 

human functioning. Efficacy beliefs produce 

their effects through four major processes 

that usually operate in concert: cognitive, 

motivational, affective, and selection 

processes (Bandura, 1925). 

a. Cognitive Process  

 The most course of action is initially 

organised in thought. Managing difficult 

tasks requires considerable effort and 

analytical thinking. People with high efficacy 

choose challenging goals for themselves and 

regulate the necessary energy to reach the 

goal and overcome impediments or threats. 

Those who have a high sense of efficacy, 

visualise success scenarios that provide 

definite guides and supports for 

performance. Those that doubt their efficacy 

imagine failure scenarios and waver on 

things which will get it wrong. People's 

efficacy shapes the types of anticipatory 

situations they construct and rehearse. 

Bandura said that a significant function of 

thought is to enable people to predict events 

and to develop ways to control those that 

affect their lives (Bandura, 1925).  

 It requires a robust sense of efficacy 

to stay task-oriented within the face of 

pressing situational demands, failures and 

setbacks that have significant repercussions. 

Indeed, when people are faced with the 

responsibilities of managing severe 

environmental requirements under taxing 

circumstances, those that are beset by self-

doubts about their efficacy become more and 

more erratic in their logical thinking, lower 

their aspirations and therefore the quality of 

their performance deteriorates. In contrast, 

those that maintain a resilient sense of 

efficacy set themselves challenging goals and 

use good logical thinking which pays off in 

performance accomplishments. 

b. Motivational Processes 

 Self-beliefs of efficacy plays an 

essential role within the self-regulation of 

motivation. Most human motivation is 

cognitively generated. People motivate 

themselves and guide their actions 

anticipatorily by the exercise of forethought. 



272 

 

They form beliefs about what they'll do. They 

anticipate likely outcomes of planned 

activities. They set goals for themselves and 

plan courses of action designed to know 

valued futures. 

 There are three different kinds of 

cognitive motivators around which different 

theories are built. They include causal 

attributions, outcome expectancies, and 

cognised goals(Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy 

beliefs influence causal attributions. Folks 

that regard themselves as highly efficacious 

attribute their failures to insufficient effort, 

people who consider themselves as 

inefficacious attribute their failures to low 

ability. Causal attributions affect motivation, 

performance and affective reactions mainly 

through beliefs of self-efficacy. In 

expectancy-value theory, motivation is 

regulated by the expectation that a given 

course of behaviour will produce specific 

outcomes and also the value of these 

outcomes(Bandura, 1997). But people act on 

their beliefs about what they'll do, similarly 

as on their feelings about the likely results of 

performance. 

 A large body of evidence shows that 

explicit, challenging goals enhance and 

sustain motivation. Goals operate primarily 

through self-influence processes instead of 

regulating motivation and action 

directly(Bandura, 1997). Motivation 

supported goal setting involves a cognitive 

comparison process. By making self-

satisfaction conditional on matching 

adopted goals, people give direction to their 

behaviour and establish incentives to 

continue their efforts until they fulfil their 

goals 

A. The PRO-VOC Method 

 The PRO-VOC Method is the 

method that combines the teaching of 

pronunciation and vocabularies. The 

technique exploits the principle of 

categorisation by organising new vocabulary 

according to some aspect of the phonological 

form of a word, i.e., a sound (vowel or 

consonant) or other feature such as stress 

pattern (des Langues, Malmberg, Nickel, & 

Heidelberg, n.d.).  

 In addition to the pronunciation 

focus, this method incorporates a vocabulary 

focus in the form of teaching new vocabulary 

items, collocations, sense relations, and so 

on. Memory and social strategies are 

exploited through the use of several activities 

that promote deep processing and 

interaction between classroom agents. 

 At the beginner or elementary level, 

the vocabulary focus is on frequent lexical 

items and concrete nouns; pronunciation 

aims at the teaching of the English vowel 

categories. At the intermediate level, 

vocabulary relates to countries, nationalities 



273 

 

and food and is combined with the learning 

of selected English consonant and the 

phenomenon of stress shift (des Langues et al., 

n.d.). 

B. Proficiency Level in The PRO-VOC 

Method 

Beginner or Elementary 

 For the implementation of a new 

method at the beginner or elementary level, 

the teaching of vowel categories is based on 

the use of a coding system. It can involve the 

use of colours, proper names, animal, and so 

on. 

 

 

Table 1.1: The colour-coding system  

 Once the coding system has been 

decided upon, any new vocabulary item 

introduced is categorised according to the 

colour (or proper name, animal, etc.) which 

contains the same vowel as the vocabulary 

item. For example, under green, which 

provides/i:/, common words such as tree, sheep, 

bean, cream, dream, peace etc. can be categorised. 

For the teaching of /ɪ/, vocabulary items such 

as pig, bin, fish, ship, pin, etc. can be categorized 

under the pink (des Langues et al., n.d.). 

 This system can facilitate the 

teaching and learning of pronunciation of 

new words, can provide opportunities for 

work on listening discrimination and 

production and can progressively lead from 

activities at the word level to events at the 

phrase level (des Langues et al., n.d.). 

Intermediate 

 The material in the intermediate level 

is more complicated than at the elementary 

level. In the elementary level, the student 

learns pronunciation begins in a vowel 

sound, but in the medium, they learn 

consonant sound. So does the vocabulary. It 

can be related to countries, nationalities, and 

food. 

 

Table 2.3: Categorisation of vocabulary 

related to other 

Phrases and collocations can be formed 

based on familiar and contrasting sounds. 

Nationalities and food can be combined in 

phrases and collocations involving similar 

sounds such as Chinese chopstick, Japanese jam, 

British sugar, or different tones such as Belgian 

chocolate, Russian soup, Lebanese courgette.  



274 

 

 These formations also raise students’ 

awareness and practice the phenomenon of 

stress shift, thus including a suprasegmental 

aspect in pronunciation teaching 

III. METHOD 

The researcher observes the student of 

fourth level Mamba’us Sholihin by using 

classroom action research. Action 

researchers tent to be working intentionally 

towards the implementation of ideas that 

lead to personal development, better 

professional practice, improvement in an 

institution, or contributing to the right order 

of society.  

Table 1.2 The scheme of action research 

 

The Setting and Time of the Research 

 The study was conducted at 

Mambaus Sholihin in 20118/2019 academic 

year as the place of research. As the 

description, this Muslim boarding school is 

located on Jln. K.H. Syafi’i No.07 Suci 

Manyar Gresik.  Mambaus Sholihin is one of 

Pesantren in Gresik which uses bilingual 

circumstance, both English and Arabic. All of 

the students have to joint in it. The session is 

held in the morning for about 30 minutes, 

conducted for three months, and from Mei to 

July.  

Data and Source of Data  

  There are two sources of data; they 

are primary and secondary data. Quoting a 

primary source means quoting a writer’s ideas 

directly precisely as they appear in the original 

work where they were published. In 

contrast, citing a secondary reference means 

quoting a writer who has expressed the 

opinions of the original writer in his or her 

own words, and in doing so has interpreted 

and paraphrased (see below) the original 

writer. In other words, what you end up 

writing is two steps removed from the 

source. When you are reading a secondary 

source, you are not reading the actual words 

of the original author of those ideas but a 

‘second-hand’ version, which may not 

necessarily reflect fairly and accurately the 

original text. As such, wherever possible, it is 

preferable to quote primary sources. If you do 

wish to cite a secondary reference, be sure to 

Planning 

1st cycle Reflecting 

Observin

g 

Implementi

ng 

Planning 

2nd cycle Reflecting 

Observin

g 

Implementi

ng 

? 



275 

 

read the primary source on which it is based; 

that way you can be confident you are not 

misrepresenting the ideas of other scholars. 

The technique of  Data Analysis   

 There was two technique in 

analysing data, quantitative and qualitative. 

In the quantitative method of analysing data, 

the researcher uses the students’ previous 

mark (pre-test) and final test at the end of 

the cycle, the researcher, gave the students 

final-test to know whether The PRO-VOC 

method can improve the students’ self-

efficacy.  The result of the tests is analysed 

using descriptive statistics. It analyses the 

effect of the teaching and learning process to 

know the difference before and after the 

cycle. The procedure of analysed using 

descriptive statistics is as mean. The 

qualitative data will be analysed as long as 

collecting the data and after receiving data in 

a particular period. During the interview, the 

researcher will have been analyzed the 

answer of the interviewee.  

Figure 1.3 The component of data 

analysing (flow model) 

 

  

IV. RESULT  AND DISCUSSION 

Based on the interview and questionnaire 

pre-cycle, the researcher realised that the 

students face some problems in speaking, 

they face difficulty how to pronoun a word in 

English. They don’t have high self-efficacy 

to give utterance in English. The lack of 

vocabularies is also being one of the factors 

that influence their self-efficacy in speaking. 

Overall, the condition was identified as the 

answer to the questionnaire which was gained 

in preliminary research was mostly 

unsatisfying. The survey consisted of ten 

questions which indicate how much 

confidence they have to acknowledge their 

capability in speaking, by rating the degree of 

trust from 10 up to 50. Ten-point suggested 

that the student was not confident at all, 

twenty-point to show very little of their 

belief, thirty points represent some 

confidence, forty points for much confidence 

and fifty points for complete confidence. 

TABLE 1.5 

Students’ percentage of self-efficacy scale in 

speaking 

ANALYSIS 



276 

 

 

 Based on the percentage of their 

questionnaire answer, ten students got the 

upper 50%, and twelve students got under 

50%.  The highest point was 66% while the 

lowest score was 28% and the average of 

their point was 46.36%. 

 According to the average of their 

point, the researcher concludes that most of 

the student set on low self-efficacy, only 

some student that is on high self-efficacy. It 

also supported with the data of their 

pronunciation and vocabulary score in the 

preliminary test. The researcher gave a test to 

the students by asking them to pronounce 

some word and mention the meaning of the 

word. There are five questions for both the 

pronunciation aspect or vocabulary. The 

correct answer is one point and zeroes for the 

wrong one. So, the total score of 

pronunciation and vocabulary is ten. 

Table 1.6 Students’ score for pronunciation 
and vocabullary test 

 

 Almost all the students are under 50, 

and only a few students are upper 50. The 

detail is that one student got 80, one student 

got 70, and one student got 60. There are 

seven students got 50, four students got 40, 

four students got 30, three students got 20 



277 

 

and one got 10. The average of their score is 

41.36. 

Table 1.7 The percentage of student score 

 

Based on the result of questionnaire and 

students’ rating in the preliminary test, most 

of the students had difficulties in speaking. It 

can be seen from their average the score (4.1) 

and their average percentage of the 

questionnaire (46.3%).  From the problem 

found in preliminary research, the researcher 

planned to apply The PRO-VOC Method in 

English course to help the students to 

overcome the difficulties in speaking. 

Analysis of First-Cycle 

 This cycle consists of four steps; they 

are planning, acting, observing, and 

reflecting. The measures will be itemized as 

follow: 

Planning 

  

The first cycle was conducted on 

Wednesday, 25 Mei 2016.  After identifying 

students’ difficulty in speaking lesson, the 

researcher had to prepare and design the 

lesson plan as guiding to teach students in 

the first cycle. The lesson plan was designed 

for three meetings. In the first meeting, the 

theme was about short and long vowel 

combined with Daily vocabularies.  For the 

second meeting, it was about Diphthong and 

Daily vocabulary. The last meeting was being 

taught Consonants and Daily Vocabulary. 

 The researcher made an observation 

guide to observe the students during the 

teaching-LEARNING process. The items to be 

observed are teacher preparation, class 

management, media, feedback, and students’ 

attention, student active or enthusiastic.  

 The next step is preparing the 

materials and choosing the media of 

instruction.  The article of every meeting 

which has been mentioned before gave to the 

student in the form of blueprint.  The teacher 

also used the whiteboard to help in drilling 

the students all the related vocabularies.  

Acting 

The researcher greeted the students and 

checked students’ attendance. She gave 

stimulant to the students related to The 

PRO-VOC Method. The teacher taught the 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Upper
50

5 4 3 Under
3

Series1



278 

 

students used memory strategy, asking the 

students to repeat after her reading the 

phonetic symbol and the vocabulary more 

than once. Then, she asked the students to 

mention vocabulary and its meaning, 

according to the phonetic symbol she had. 

 The next step was production or 

feedback, asking the students to look for 

another vocabulary related to the phonetic 

symbol as much as possible. After having 

some minutes to search for dictionary, the 

students were divided into four groups. All 

the groups had to make a small circle and 

each group had 37 pieces of phonetic symbol 

cards. Then, all the cards had to be divided 

into the member with the same number, and 

the last card had to be in the middle of the 

circle. The rule is that who finish the map for 

the first time is the winner, the score based 

on the rating of the winner. To complete the 

card, the student had to mention three 

vocabularies related to the last card in the 

middle of a circle and one vocabulary related 

to the dictionary which she put on the 

centre. The purpose of using this card is to 

persuade the students to remind or recall the 

vocabularies they had learned.  

Observing 

 The next phase is observation. In this 

phase, the researcher observed the class 

during the teaching-learning process. The 

view was done to know teaching-learning 

activity, teacher performance, and students’ 

participation.  

Table 1.8 Teacher’s Score of Observation in 

the First Cycle 

NO ASPECT 
SCORE GRADE 

1 2 3 4 5  

1 Teacher's lesson plan       √   4 

2 
Apperception or 
Motivation        √  

4 

3 Teacher's explanation       √   4 

4 
Teacher's management of 
class       

 

 √ 5 

5 Media instruction     √     3 

6 Giving feedback     √     3 

7 Teacher's closure      √    3 

Total Score 26 

 

 The score of teacher’s observation in 

the first cycle as follows: 

  𝐒𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐞 =
𝐓𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐞

𝑴𝒂𝒙𝒊𝒎𝒂𝒍 𝑺𝒄𝒐𝒓𝒆
× 𝟏𝟎𝟎% 

=
𝟐𝟔

𝟑𝟓
× 𝟏𝟎𝟎% 

= 74.2% 

 According to the result of 

observation, it shows the teacher activity 

when implementing The PRO-VOC Method 

is fair with 74.2%. The teacher read the 

material clearly and the students repeated 

after her loudly. The teacher divided the 

students into some group to work effectively 

and asked the students to play the phonetic 



279 

 

symbol card to persuade the students to be 

active in the learning process.  

Table 1.9 Students’ Score of Observation in 
the first cycle 

No Name code 1st Day 2nd Day 3rd Day 

1 A-1 10 9 9 

2 A-2 5 5 6 

3 A-3 10 9 10 

4 A-4 5 5 7 

5 A-5 8 9 7 

6 A-6 7 7 5 

7 A-7 8 10 7 

8 A-8 9 8 9 

9 A-9 10 8 9 

10 A-10 9 10 8 

11 A-11 9 10 10 

12 A-12 7 7 7 

13 A-13 5 7 10 

14 A-14 9 8 9 

15 A-15 6 6 5 

16 A-16 6 5 6 

17 A-17 10 10 10 

18 A-18 8 8 8 

19 A-19 7 7 8 

20 A-20 7 5 5 

21 A-21 5 6 5 

22 A-22 8 9 8 

 

 The game, which was played by the 

students was designed to have the students 

participated actively. The entire student 

finished the card they had. The highest point 

was for who finished the map for the first 

time and so on up to the last one with 5 

points as the score. The game helped the 

students to remind the vocabulary and 

practice more in reading the phonetic 

symbol.  

 To measure the students’ 

achievement in speaking, the researcher did 

the speaking test. The students were ordered 

to speak in front of the class with a particular 

theme. The measurement of the speaking test 

score was based on Hughes’s speaking 

measurement. According to Hughes’s 

speaking measurement, there are our aspects 

of assessment to measure student speaking 

skill, and they are pronunciation aspect, 

grammar aspect, vocabulary and fluency 

aspect. In this research, the researcher used 

only three dimensions to measure student 

speaking skill; they are pronunciation, 

vocabulary and fluency element.  

Table 1.10 Students’ score of the final test in 

the first cycle 

 



280 

 

 After calculating the students’ score, 

the researcher calculated the average score to 

measure the improvement of students’ score 

in every cycle. The average of students’ rating 

in the first cycle as follow: 

M =
∑ −𝑥

𝑛
 

=
1107

22
 

= 50.30 

 According to the data above, the 

researcher observed that the entire student 

participated on playing the game; it was easy 

for the researcher to monitor the students’ 

ability in reading phonetic symbol and 

recalling the vocabularies that had been 

learned.  

 To measure students’ level of self-

efficacy, the researcher gave the students’ 

questionnaire. There are seventeen elements 

which indicate how many confident 

students have. The students’ answer the 

survey by rating 10 - 50 to mean their 

confidence. 

Table 1.11 Students’ result of questionnaire 

 

 Based on the table above, it can be 

concluded that the highest percentage of 

speaking self-efficacy scale was 85% and the 

lowest was 48%. The average student 

percentage in talking self-efficacy scale was 

65%. Refer to the data above, seven students 

were on low self-efficacy, nine students were 

on medium self-efficacy, and six students 

were on high self-efficacy 

1. REFLECTING 

 In this cycle, several notes could be 

taken as consideration. From the observation 

result, it was observed that the 

implementation of the research cycle one 

succeeded in changing the classroom and 



281 

 

learning atmosphere. The formerly passive 

students were improving to become active 

learners. They could participate and give 

feedback to each other in their group. The 

students appeared quite happy with most of 

the language-animated activities. By using 

The PRO-VOC Method, the students could 

read the phonetic symbol well and recalling 

more vocabularies. This two of speaking 

aspects were hopefully able to support 

students’ speaking ability.   

 On the other hand, there were also 

undesirable results in implementing The 

PRO-VOC Method. Based on the effect of the 

final test, the students’ score was 

unsatisfying. There were five students got 

upper 50, and seventeen students got under 

50.  Almost the students still could not do the 

speaking test based on three of speaking 

measurement aspect.    

Table 1.12 

Rating of Students’ score 

 

 

 Based on students’ average (43.4), 

there were some aspects or component of 

speaking which need to be improved. The 

Students’ improvement of speaking skill in 

the first cycle was far from expectation and 

unsatisfying. It is caused by the lack of 

practising putting words into sentences. So, 

the students are confused about how to 

speak with the vocabularies they had.  

 Refer to the student questionnaire 

result; the average of student speaking self-

efficacy scale was 65%. It improved 19% from 

the effect of preliminary research which the 

result was 46.3%.  

 Therefore, in cycle two, the 

researcher proposed using a subset of 

memory and social strategy to facilitate and 

enhance students’ score. In the first cycle, the 

researcher was applied memory strategy. It 

focused on the in-depth process to be better 

recalling the form and meaning of each 

vocabulary. So, in the second cycle, the 

researcher combined both memory and social 

strategy to promote students interaction 

with the teacher or researcher and classmate 

and aim to support the learning of form and 

meaning of vocabulary further. 

A. ANALYSIS OF SECOND-CYCLE 

1. PLANNING  

 The first cycle created a lively 

atmosphere for the students to learn English. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1 anak 1 anak 3 anak 5 anak 7 anak 3 anak 2 anak



282 

 

It had encouraged the students who formerly 

were passive learners to start becoming more 

active performers in the classroom. It was 

shown by the data from the students’ 

observation sheet which recorded that 

students were enthusiastic and enjoyed most 

of the arranged research activities. 

 The learning activities in the first 

cycle, however, still had been implemented 

in the second cycle by mixing the memory 

and social strategy to overcome the problems 

raised in the first cycle. The second cycle was 

conducted on Saturday, 04 June 2016. After 

identifying the issue raised in the first cycle, 

the researcher redesigned the lesson plan 

according to the strategy chosen before. The 

activity in the second cycle was designed to 

give the students more opportunity to 

communicate with both the teacher and 

classmate.  

 There were some differences between 

the first and second cycle lesson plan. It was 

in the theme which being taught. In the 

second cycle, long and short vowel combined 

with education vocabulary was being taught 

in the first meeting. The second meeting, the 

researcher showed diphthong and social 

instruction vocabulary. In the third meeting, 

the students learned consonant combined 

with food and hobby vocabulary. 

2. Acting 

 In this cycle, the researcher did the 

teaching and learning process according to 

the procedures that had been made before. 

All the activities in the second cycle were 

almost the same as the first cycle; the 

difference is in giving feedback to the 

students. In the second cycle, the researcher 

gave feedback using social strategy.  

 The first time entering the class, the 

researcher opened the course by greeting and 

checking the students’ attendance. After 

opening, the researcher gave an ice breaker or 

stimulant to make the students more focus 

on the teaching-learning process.  

  The next step, the researcher began 

the lesson by asking the students how to read 

these phonetic symbols. After the researcher 

showing the way to understand the phonetic 

symbol, she ordered the students to repeat 

after her, such in the first cycle. Then, the 

researcher asked the students to mention the 

vocabulary she appointed after wiping off the 

dictionaries on the whiteboard one by one.   

 The last step of the main activity was 

giving feedback.  In the first meeting, the 

researcher asked the student to debate in 

pairs. Each student got minimally one 

minute to share their ideas before the 

opportunity was given to their rivals. The 

students discussed under the title “pesantren: 

between the best or the out of date education 



283 

 

system in Indonesia”. The theme was 

matching with the subject being learned. 

This activity aimed to allow the students to 

practice the vocabularies had been learned.  

 In the second meeting, the researcher 

divided the student into two groups. Each 

group consisted of eleven students. Then, the 

researcher contributed a question card to all 

the students, and each student had only one 

card. The questions on the maps were 

matching with the vocabulary being learned. 

It was about a social problem. The first 

question was given by the researcher, who 

answered the question right to provide an 

item to other students. When all the cards 

had been finished, the student had to make a 

question by their selves and so on. 

 In the last meeting, the researcher 

divided the students into four groups which 

consisted of 5-6 students. She asked the 

students to present their hobbies and 

favourite food in front of their group. Each 

student had to pay attention to the presenter 

to give a question, and the issue was counted 

as their contribution. Almost the students 

spent time for about 3-4 minutes in 

presenting their hobbies and favourite food. 

They only had two minutes to arrange their 

presentation. 

3. Observation 

 In the second cycle, the researcher 

observed the teaching-learning process and 

the improvement of students’ performance. 

In the second cycle, the students were more 

alive than the first cycle because they had 

been allowed to practice the vocabulary they 

had put it into sentences.   

Table 1.13 Teacher’s score of second cycle 

observation 

 

Explanation: 

1 = Not so good (unfulfilled, inappropriate for 

aspect, ineffective, not punctually) 



284 

 

2 = Not good (fulfilled, inadequate for issue, 

unproductive, not punctually) 

3 = Good ((fulfilled, appropriate for issue, 

practical, not punctually) 

4 = Very good ((fulfilled, appropriate for 

issue, effective, punctually) 

The percentage of result score

=  
Total result score

Total maximal score
 

× 100 % 

 =  
81

104
 × 100 %  

 = 77.8 % 

Table 1.14 Students’ Score of Second 

Cycle Observation 

 

Explanation: 

1 = Not so good (unfulfilled, inappropriate for 

aspect, ineffective, not punctually) 

2 = Not good (fulfilled, inappropriate for 

aspect, ineffective, not punctually) 

3 = Good ((fulfilled, appropriate for aspect, 

effective, not punctually) 

4 = Very good ((fulfilled, appropriate for 

aspect, effective, punctually) 

The percentage of result score

=  
Total result score

Total maximal score
 

× 100 % 

 =  
29

36
 × 100 %  

 = 80.5 % 

  In the first meeting, the students 

debated with a particular theme. Their rivals 

gave the students the score. The score was 

gotten according to how long they speech by 

giving plus or minus in every statement.  

Table 1.15 Students’ score in debate 

season 

 

 Every student got the opportunity to 

speak 9-10 times. The lowest of the minus 

point was 0 and the highest was 5. For plus 



285 

 

point, the highest was nine, and the lowest 

was 5.  

 In the second meeting, the students 

discussed the social problem. Each student 

had to answer one of question card available. 

Not only answers, but they also had to make 

questions to make the discussion alive.  

Figure 1.16 Interactions Charting between 

Students in “A Group” and “B Group” 

 

 

 

 According to the interaction charting 

above that indicated what was going on, the 

arrows showed who spook to whom. In “A 

Group”, the student who spoke most was by 

name code “A-17” and in “B Group” was “A-

8”. Few students who only answered and 

gave a question according to the card they 

had. 

 In the third meeting, the students 

presented their hobbies and favourite food. 

The researcher observed how long their 

presentation and how much they 

contributed to other performance by giving 

question. 

Table 1.17 Students Participation in Other 

Presentation 

  

The highest number of contribution was 5, 

and the lowest was 1. For the most extended 

presentation was a student with the length 

of presentation time 00:04:09.  The shortest 

was by the period 00:03:10. 

A-17

A-1

A-11

A-15

A-5

A-19A-21

A-3

A-9

A-7

A-13

A-20

A-4

A-10

A-14

A-6

A-16A-22

A-8

A-12

A-2

A-18



286 

 

Table 1.18 Students’ Final Score of Cycle 

Two 

 

The average student percentage in cycle two 

as follow: 

M =
∑ −𝑥

𝑛
 

=
1667

22
 

= 75.7 

 To measure students’ scale of self-

efficacy, they answered the questionnaire 

given by the researcher. There are seventeen 

elements which indicate how many 

confident students have. The students’ 

answer the survey by rating 10 - 50 to show 

their confidence. 

Table 1.19 Students’ scale of self-efficacy in 

speaking 

 

 Based on the table above, it can be 

concluded that the highest percentage of 

speaking self-efficacy scale was 93% and the 

lowest was 56%. The average student 

percentage in talking self-efficacy scale was 



287 

 

73%. Refer to the data above, two students 

were on low self-efficacy, eight students 

were on medium self-efficacy, and twelve 

students were on high self-efficacy. 

4. Reflecting 

 For the reflection in the second cycle, 

the researcher found that the students’ score 

in period two was improved than the first 

cycle. The students were more active and 

dared to speak in public. The researcher 

assumed that using memory and social 

strategy could enhance students’ 

achievement. It was appropriate for student 

speaking score achievement. With the 

average 75.7, it showed that the students 

could reach the standard score for speaking. 

It was necessary with the result of the 

questionnaire; that the average student 

percentage in self-efficacy scale for speaking 

was 73%. This result of this cycle was higher 

than in the previous period. According to the 

result, the researcher concluded that the 

second cycle was successful. The researcher’s 

target was better, and she could stop this 

cycle. The research findings show some 

important points as follows: 

1.  The PRO-VOC Method can improve 

student’s self-efficacy in speaking 

The researcher found several things 

that could be written down from the result of 

observation during the teaching-learning 

process. The result showed the improvement 

of students’ score in each cycle. The 

researcher stopped the research because the 

expected result has been reached.  

Table 1.20 

Comparison of Students’ Score  

  Pre cycle First Cycle Second Cycle 

Average 41,36 50,30 73,64 

Highest 80 67 80 

Lowest 20 33 60 

 

Table 1.21 

Comparison of Students’ Percentage Scale 

  Pre cycle First Cycle Second Cycle 

Average 46,36 64,55 73,37 

Highest 66 85 93 

Lowest 28 48 56 

 

2. The PRO-VOC Method Contribution 

toward Students’ Self-Efficacy in 

Speaking English  

In implementing The PRO-VOC 

Method, the researcher tries to construct 

student pronunciation and vocabulary 

knowledge. According to some aspects 

which compose speaking skill, they are 

grammar, pronunciation, vocabulary, etc.  

This research overcomes two of speaking 

sub-skill, they are pronunciation and 

vocabulary.  

By using memory and social strategy, 

this method provides an opportunity to 



288 

 

practice speaking English more. It also 

supports the researcher in improving student 

self-efficacy because one of the sources of 

self-efficacy is mastery experience  

V. CONCLUSION 

The research conclusion is presented 

according to the data. From all the 

data analysis about the implementation of the 

PRO-VOC Method to improve students’ self-

efficacy in speaking skill, it can be concluded 

that: 

1. The application of The PRO-VOC 

Method can be applied in some 

variation. In the first cycle, the 

researcher uses memory strategy in the 

teaching-learning process to be better in 

retaining and recalling the form and 

meaning of vocabularies. In the second 

cycle, memory and social policy are 

applied not only to maintain the 

structure and sense but also as further 

support in learning form and meaning of 

vocabularies. 

2. In the preliminary research, the students 

were not interested in the teaching-

learning process. The students’ 

achievement is only 41.36%. It rises to 

50.30% in the first cycle and 73.64% in 

the second cycle after the researcher 

implementing The PRO-VOC Method. 

Majority of the students were 

enthusiastic in the teaching-learning 

process. 

3. The students' responses when The PRO-

VOC Method applied were good. The 

students’ speaking competence can 

improve when The PRO-VOC Method 

used. The students’ speaking 

competence can increase in every 

meeting. The students result of the 

questionnaire also improved, from 

46.36% in primary research, reach 

64.55% in the first cycle and 73.37% in 

the second cycle.  It means that The 

PRO-VOC Method can help the 

students to improve their self-efficacy in 

speaking English. 

The weakness of The PRO-VOC Method 

in the teaching-learning process is: that this 

method does not facilitate the students in 

grammar learning while the lack of grammatical 

knowledge being the obstacle in improving 

students’ self-efficacy.  The strength of The PRO-

VOC Method is: in providing the opportunity for 

the students to learn both pronunciation and 

vocabulary. By applying the memory and social 

strategy, this method persuade the students in 

recalling and practising the vocabularies more 

than another method 

VI. REFERENCES 

Anggia, M. (2013). STUDENTS’SELF-
EFFICACY IN SPEAKING ENGLISH: 
A Study of Students’ Self-Efficacy in A 
Senior High School in Bandung. 



289 

 

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia. 

Aziz, I. N., & Dewi, Y. A. S. (2019). The 
Concept of Language Environment: A 
Descriptive Study at Madrasah Aliah 
Keagamaan Gresik. EDUKASI: Jurnal 
Pendidikan Islam, 7(2), 1–23. 

Bandura, A. (1925). Self-Efficacy: Exercise of 
Control (First). United State of 
America: W.H. Freeman and Company 
New York. 

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of 
control. Macmillan. 

Bandura, A. (2010). Self‐efficacy. The Corsini 
Encyclopedia of Psychology, 1–3. 

des Langues, E., Malmberg, B., Nickel, L. G., 
& Heidelberg, J. G. V. (n.d.). 
International Review of Applied 
Linguistics in Language Teaching. 

Gilakjani, A. P., & Ahmadi, M. R. (2011). 
Why Is Pronunciation So Difficult to 
Learn?. English Language Teaching, 4(3), 
74–83. 

Li, F. (2010). Relationship between EFL 
learners’ belief and learning strategy 
use by English majors in vocational 
colleges. Journal of Language Teaching and 
Research, 1(6), 858. 

Mahyuddin, R., Elias, H., Cheong, L. S., 
Muhamad, M. F., Noordin, N., & 
Abdullah, M. C. (2006). The 
relationship between students’ self 
efficacy and their English language 
achievement. Malaysian Journal of 
Educators and Education, 21, 61–71. 

Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in 
academic settings. Review of Educational 
Research, 66(4), 543–578. 

 

 


