THE CORRELATION BETWEEN STUDENTS’ PHONETIC SYMBOLS MASTERY AND PRONUNCIATION ABILITY AT TRIDINANTI UNIVERSITY

Jenny Elvinna Manurung; Heru Setiawan; Rindang Aulia Yesar; Nita Ria

doi:10.32502/ecj.v7i1.5682

THE CORRELATION BETWEEN STUDENTS’ PHONETIC SYMBOLS MASTERY AND PRONUNCIATION ABILITY AT TRIDINANTI UNIVERSITY

Jenny Elvinna Manurung, Heru Setiawan, Rindang Aulia Yesar, Nita Ria

Abstract

Pronunciation is one of the subjects that should be accomplished by EFL students at Tridinanti University. Surely, the mastery of English phonetic symbols may have the relation to the pronunciation ability. Hence, the objectives of this study were (1) to dig out the information whether or not there was a significant correlation between EFL students of Tridinanti University’ phonetic symbols mastery and their pronunciation ability and (2) to find out how much the students’ phonetic symbols mastery contribute toward pronunciation ability. The method used in this research was correlation design. There were 50 students as the population of this research, and the researchers took 34 students as the sample of this study using purposive sampling technique. This research data were analyzed using Pearson Product Moment formula to know whether there was a correlation between students’ phonetic symbols mastery and pronunciation ability. There were two instruments of tests, they were phonetic test and pronunciation test. Based on the result, it was found that the pearson correlation coefficient was 0.466. It can be concluded that there was a fair correlation between students of EFL Tridinanti University’s phonetic symbols mastery and their pronunciation ability. The value of R Square in regression analysis was 0.218. It can be assumed that the students’ phonetic symbols mastery contribute as much as 21.8% toward pronunciation ability.

Keywords

correlations, phonetic symbols mastery, pronunciation ability.

Full Text:

PDF

References

Burns, A., & Claire, S. (2003). Pronunciation in Action for Teacher. Sydney : Macquarie University.

Cohen, L. M. (2007). Research methods in education. (6th ed). New York: RoutIedge.

Fraenkel, J. R., Norman, E. W., & Hyun, H. H. (2009). How to Design and EvaIuate Research in Education. New York: Mc Graw HiII.

Hamann, C., & Schmitz, C. (2005). Phonetics and PhonoIogy. University of Oldenburg.

Johnson, K., & Ladefoged, P. (2010). A Course in phonetic. Boston: Wadsworth.

Julianto, W. (2015). Implementation of Scientific Approach for Teaching EngIish at SMA Negeri 1 Baturetno in 2014/2015 Academic Year. Surakarta: Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta.

Mompean, J., & Lintunen, P. (2015). Phonetic Notation in Foreign Language Teaching and Learning: PotentiaI Advantages and Learners' View. Research in Language.

Nurmalasari, I. (2016). The CorreIation Between Students’ Phonetic Transcription Mastery and their Pronunciation AbiIity of the Second Semester of EngIish Education Program In The Academic Year of 2015/2016. Purworejo: Purworejo Muhammadiyah University.

Ogden, R. (2009). An introduction to English Phonetics. Edinburgh University Press.

RameIan. (2003). EngIish Phonetics. Semarang: CV IKIP Semarang Press.

Richard, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman Dictionary of Language teaching and AppIied Linguistics (3rd edition). London: Longman.

Syafryadin, S. (2020). Students? Strategies in Learning Speaking: Experience of Two Indonesian Schools. Vision: Journal for Language and Foreign Language Learning, 9(1), 33-46.

Tamas, V. (2009). Lectures In Theoritical Phonetics of the English Language and Method-Guides for Seminar. Ungvar.

Yule, G. (2010). The study of language. Cambridge University Press.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.32502/ecj.v7i1.5682