Students’ Perspective of Factors Affecting Listening

Compehension Ability
Kan Xuan and Debora Chaterin S., MAEd
English Education Program, Faculty of Teachers Training and Educational
Science
Universitas Advent Indonesia

Abstract
The teaching of listening in Indonesia is essential, a process that is
considered to be indispensable. This paper explores several factors that affect
students’ listening comprehension ability; which are: Limitation of Vocabulary,
Teaching Strategy, Limitation of Materials and Equipment, Student’s Listening
Anxiety, Exposure towards American English and culture. The main purpose of
this research is to determine which factor that significantly affects students’
listening comprehension ability. After going through factor analysis, it is found
that the most dominant factor that affects listening comprehension ability is
Limitation of Listening Materials and Equipment. This study was conducted in
three schools: SMP Negeri 1 Cisarua, Bandung, SMP Negeri III Cisarua,
Bandung, SMP Negeri I Parongpong, Bandung.

Key Words: Listening Comprehension Ability, Exposure towards American

English and Culture

Introduction
People can hardly argue that listening skills play important role in
enhancing one’s speaking proficiency. Listening is not only about how people
hear words; it is a process to respond to someone or people they talk to (Amin,
2011). Along with this, Bestakanshin (2012) said that the ability to establish
listening skills is an essential component towards successful communication.
However Vandergrift (2011) stated that listening is also considered as an intricate,
active process in which the listener should be able to distinguish sounds,
comprehend meaning of words and grammatical structures, point out stress and
intonation in order to have proper utterance. In addition, Richards (2008)
emphasized two listening processes: bottom-up processing and top-down
processing. In improving students’ listening comprehension ability, English
teachers must implement those two processes.
Moreover, in teaching listening, teachers should be aware of several key
issues in listening. Graham and Santos (2015) explicated that key issues most
likely refer to skills, process and strategies; they are difficult to expound and
distinguish from one another. Basically, in order to overcome those issues and
have an effective listening course, students must do a lot of listening. However, in

1 
 
England there is not much time can be dedicated to systematic work on listening
development. In addition to that, Rost (2012) claimed that listening
comprehension is important yet relatively few research project are carried out in
this area. Osada (2004) also mentioned in his research that researchers have
slightly given little attention to listening theory and practice.
In Indonesia, English has been taught formally in schools; however, the
result from years of studying English is less than satisfactory (Lie, 2007).
Moreover, Ivonne (2005) stated that learning English In Indonesia is not more
than a set of grammar rules and a pile of vocabulary items to be memorized which
makes listening becomes the least of priority wherein very few teachers are aware
of students’ cognitive process. Wolvin (2010) stated that when a listener receives
and interprets the message through his/her cognitive psychological process, he/she
then have the ability to respond to the message.
Traditionally, as stated by Flowerdew and Miller (2005), listening is not
specifically taught in language classes. Gilakjani and Ahmadi (2011) added that
formal education tends to focus more on the grammar, reading and vocabulary.
However in reality, Cahyono and Widiati (2009) said that listening is the primary
skill in language acquisition in which a child usually listen before he or she is able
to speak, read and write.
Upon cultivating several journals regarding listening comprehension
ability, the researchers scoped up this study within several factors that assumingly
affect students’ listening comprehension ability: a) Limitation of Vocabulary.
Abbas (2011) stated that there are times listeners encounter unknown word which
may cause them to stop and think about the meaning of the word which cause
them to miss the next part of the speech; b) Teaching Strategy. It is important for
teachers to give appropriate ways of teaching listening to their students in order to
achieve the goal in learning process (Facella, Rampino & Shea, 2005); c)
Limitation of Materials and Equipment. Joseph (2008) stated that students may
encounter confusion if the materials are lengthy, too abstract, and poorly
organized. Other than that if listening equipment is not complete then students
might not be able to have variety of activities; d) Students’ Listening Anxiety.
Golchi (2012) stated in her research that anxiety gives huge impact while learning
English as a foreign language. It is considered as a problematic nature of listening
in which teachers feel incredibly difficult to teach students with anxiety; e)
Exposure towards American English and Culture, Every country has different
customs and culture. Culture and Language cannot be separated (Greenland,
2012). English is not only a language course that provides basic knowledge but it
is also a course to enhance students’ capacity to broaden their horizons and learn
about different culture in the world (Liang & Chen, 2012).

Thereupon those factors are deemed to give impact towards students’

listening comprehension ability and this study hopefully will give information or
proof

2 
 
Methodology
This study utilized descriptive-correlation research design. This method
was used to find out the most factor that affect students’ listening comprehension
ability. Best and Khan (2001) explained that this method is a method that
describes, records, analyses, and interprets particular condition that exist in certain
group. This study utilized random sampling as the basic sampling technique for
the researcher to select a group of subjects. The main instrument utilized in this
research is a self-designed questionnaire which underwent Pilot Study to find its
validity and reliability.
In processing the data, the researchers used factor analysis to cluster items
into common factor and interpret each factor according to the items and
summaries the items into a small number of factor. After a careful analysis,
Spearman Rank Correlation Formula was being used to find the correlation of
each factor.

Research Questions
The present study aims to answer the following research questions:
a. Which factor that significantly affects students’ listening comprehension
ability?
- Limitation of Vocabulary
- Teacher’s Teaching Strategy
- Limitation of Listening Materials and Equipment
- Students’ Listening Anxiety
- Exposure towards American English and Culture
b. Is there any significant correlation between each of the factors above and
students’ perspective towards the importance of listening comprehension
ability?

Theoretical background of the study

In order to answer the research questions mentioned above, this study
drew on Jenkins’ (2007) factors influence one’s perception and understanding of a
certain English Variety and Smith’s (2009) three dimensions of understanding.

Research Setting and Participants

The subjects of this research were eight graders from three different
schools: SMP Negeri 1, Parongpong, SMP Negeri 1, Cisarua, SMP Negeri 3,
Cisarua. Every possible sample of a given size had the same chance of selection;
for example, each member of the population is equally to be chosen at any stage
in the sampling process. Each subject was fully informed about the research goals,

3 
 
data collection procedures, as well as their privacy protection. The subjects were
also guaranteed that their real names would not be disclosed in the research report.
Result and Discussion
The following is the result of the standard deviation of each factor. The
researchers should find the Standard Deviation before conducting factor analysis.
Since the Standard Deviation is smaller compare to the mean, the data was
standardized so that the value of standard deviation is small.
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive Statistics
Items N Minimum Maximum Mean Std.
Deviation
Limited 60 19 36 29.67 4.475
Vocabulary
Teaching 60 16 27 21.27 3.080
Strategy
Limitation 60 16 25 19.60 3.421
of Material
and
Equipment
Student’s 60 18 36 28.83 3.872
Listening
Anxiety
Exposure 60 14 28 21.40 2.836
towards
American
English and
Culture
Valid N 60
(Listwisee)

Correlation Matrix was conducted to find the correlation value. It is shown

from the table below that the correlation value between the Teaching Strategy and
Student’s Listening Anxiety is 0.386; it means both factors have the highest
correlation. The significant value between the Limitation of Vocabulary and
Student’s Listening Anxiety is 0.001—the value is less than 0.05 which means
these factors are significantly correlated with each other.

4 
 
 Table 2
Correlation Matrix
Zs Zs Zs Zs Zs
(LV) (TS) (LME) (SLA) (ETAEC)
Correlation Zs (LV) 1.000 -.081 .124 -.232 -.215
Zs (TS) -.081 1.000 -.254 .386 .160
Zs (LME) .124 -.254 1.000 -.110 -.106
Zs (SLA) -.232 .386 -.110 1.000 .011
Zs -.215 .160 -.106 .011 1.000
(ETAEC)
Sig. (1- Zs (LV) .270 .173 .037 .049
tailed) Zs (TS) .270 .025 .001 .111
Zs (LME) .173 .025 .201 .211
Zs (SLA) .037 .001 .201 .467
Zs .049 .111 .211 .467
(ETAEC)
Zs = Zscore

After conducting The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value, it is found that the

correlation matrix is not identified Matrix because the KMO is 0.524; the value is
more than half (0.5) while Bartlett’s Test Value is 0.019. Therefore based on the
result below, factor analysis is conducted.

Table 3
KMO and Bartlett’s Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy
Approx. Chi-Square 21.339
Barlett’s Test of Df 10
Sphericity Sig. .019

From the table Anti-image Matrices below, most of the measure of

sampling adequacy (MSA) value is more than half (0.5) yet Exposure towards
American English and Cultural Background (ETAEC) factor is less than half
(0.5); it is 0.490. Hence this factor should be removed to proceed to Correlation
Matrix.

5 
 
 Table 4
Anti-Image Matrices
Zs (LV) Zs (TS) Zs Zs Zs
(LME) (SLA) (ETAEC)
Anti-Image Zs (LV) .891 -.057 -.085 .199 .197
Covariance Zs (TS) -.057 .784 .189 -.302 -.137
Zs (LME) -085 .189 .923 -.004 .043
Zs (SLA) .199 -.302 -.004 .801 .091
Zs .197 -.137 .043 .091 .921
(ETAEC)
Anti-Image Zs (LV) .512a -.068 -.094 .235 .218
Correlation Zs (TS) -.068 .522a .222 -.381 -.161
Zs (LME) -.094 .222 .631a -.005 .046
Zs (SLA) .235 -.381 -.005 .504a .105
Zs .218 -.161 .046 .105 .490a
(ETAEC)
a. Measures of Sampling Adequacy (MSA)

From the table of Correlation Matrix below, it is shown that between

Teaching Strategy and Students’ Listening Anxiety, the correlation value is
0.386—the significant value is o.001; wherein, the result is the same as the result
before; wherein both factors have the highest correlation and significantly
correlated with each other.
Table 5
Correlation Matrix
Zs (LV) Zs (TS) Zs (LME) Zs (SLA)
Zs (LV) 1.000 -.081 .124 -.232
Correlation Zs (TS) -.081 1.000 -.254 .386
Zs (LME) .124 -.254 1.000 -.110
Zs (SLA) -.232 .386 -.110 1.000
Zs (LV) .270 .173 .037
Sig.(1- Zs (TS) .270 .025 .001
tailed) Zs (LME) .173 .025 .201
Zs (SLA) .037 .001 .201

KMO and Bartlett’s Test was conducted to show whether the correlation
matrix is identified or not. From this test, it is shown that The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
Value is 0.545—the value is more than half 0.5 and the Bartlett’s Test Value is
0.010; therefore, the correlation matrix does not identify matrix. Through this
result, it is shown that the result of KMO is higher than the result of the previous

6 
 
KMO, which is 0.524. Based on the value of the KMO and Bartlett’s Test, factor
analysis is then continued. Hence Anti-image Matrices was done.
The table below is Anti-Image Matrices Table. After deleting ETAEC
from the analysis; it is shown that after ETAEC is deleted, the result shows that
all the Measure of Sampling Adequacy (MSA) value is more than half 0.5 then it
can be analyzed further.

Table 6
Anti-Image Matrices after Deleting ETAEC
Zs (LV) Zs (TS) Zs (LME) Zs (SLA)
Anti-Image Zs (LV) .935 -.030 -.100 .190
Covariance
Zs (TS) -.030 .805 .201 -.300
Zs (LME) -.100 .201 .925 -.009
Zs (SLA) .190 -.300 -.009 .810
Anti-Image Zs (LV) .557a -.034 -.107 .218
Correlation
Zs (TS) -.034 .533a .232 -.371
Zs (LME) -.107 .232 .583a -.010
Zs (SLA) .218 -.371 -.010 .537a
a. Measures of Sampling Adequacy (MSA)

The table below shows the extraction value; it is shown that there are two
factors that have extraction value more than half 0.5; which means that these two
factors have strong correlation with extracted factor. Those factors are Teaching
Strategy (ST) and Students’ Listening Anxiety (SLA)

Table 7
Communalities
Initial Extraction

LV 1.000 .232
TS 1.000 .553
LME 1.000 .284
SLA 1.000 .548
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis

7 
 
 The contribution of the Teaching Strategy factor is .553 to the extracted
factor, and the Students’ Listening Anxiety Factor is .548 to the extracted factor.
Therefore according to table below, if the Initial Eigen Values is more than 1
point, it can be considered as the component. It is shown from the table below that
there is one component to be considered.

Table 8
Total Variance Explained
Component Initial Eigen Values Extraction Sums of Squared
Loadings
Total % of Cumulative Total % of Cumulative
Variance % Variance %
1 1.618 40.461 40.461 1.618 40.461 40.461
2 .946 23.640 64.101
3 .888 22.211 86.312
4 .548 13.688 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis

After one component is found, Component Matrix is used to find the most
dominant factor that affect Students’ Listening Comprehension Ability. Based on
the result below, the highest values is 0.744 which means that The Limitation of
the Material and Equipment (LME) is the most dominant factor. This result shows
that the LME factor affect Students’ Listening Comprehension Ability in English
learning.
In order to see further of each factor that have significant correlation with
Students’ Listening Comprehension, Correlation Test is used. If the counted value
is less than < 0.05, it is considered significant. Based on the result below, there is
one factor that has significant correlation with Students’ Perspective towards
Factors that Affect Listening Comprehension Ability. That factor is Limitation of
the Material and Equipment.

8 
 
 Table 9
Correlation Test
Students’ Listening
Comprehension Ability
LV Correlation Coefficient .042
Sig. (2-tailed) .750
N 60
TS Correlation Coefficient -.061
Sig. (2-tailed) .642
N 60
LME Correlation Coefficient .379**
Sig. (2-tailed) .003
N 60
SLA Correlation Coefficient .083
Sig. (2-tailed) .529
N 60
ETAEC Correlation Coefficient .063
Sig. (2-tailed) .632
N 60
SLC Correlation Coefficient 1
Sig. (2-tailed) -
N 60
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Discussion
After conducting a careful analysis above, it is shown that Limitation of
Material and Equipment significantly affect students’ listening comprehension
ability. It is proven to have positive effect on Students’ Listening Comprehension
Ability. Bin (2009) stated that Listening Material and its equipment is one major
reason for students to have poor listening comprehension ability; a school needs
to provide print materials, audio or video tapes, video players, VCRS, VCDs,
computers in order to enhance students’ ability in listening comprehension. In
addition to this, Joseph (2008) accentuated that the difficulty of content and
concepts, especially if the material is abstract, abstruse, esoteric, lengthy, or
poorly organized; students will have difficult time to comprehend listening
material which most likely their listening comprehension will be affected.

9 
 
 References

Abbas, P. G. (2011). Journal of Language Teaching and Research, Vol. 2. No. 5.

p. 977-988
Amin, M.M (2011). A correlation study between EFL listening strategy and
listening comprehension skills among secondary students. Unpublished
Mini-Thesis.

Cahyono, B.Y. & Widiati, U. (2009). The teaching of EFL listening in the
Indonesian context: the state of art. TEFLIN Journal, 20 (2), pp. 194
211.
Golchi, M.M. (2012). International Journal of Linguistics: Listening Anxiety and
Its Relationship wwith Listening Strategy Use and Listening
Comprehension among Iranian IELTS Learners. V Vol. 2. No.4.
Best W.J and Khan, V (2001). Research Methods I Agricultural Extension. New
York: Columbia University. Best, K.S (2012). The importance of
listening: Journal of Language Teaching and Research. New Y York.
Bin, Z (2009). Improving of students’ listening comprehension. Chinese Foreign
Language Publication, p.118
Facella, M.A. & Rampino, K. M. & Shea, E.K. (2005). Bilingual Research
Journal. Effective tteaching strategies for English langauge learners. Vol.
29. Pg. 209-221
Flowerdew, J. & Miller, L. (2005). Second language listening: theory and
practice. New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.
Gilakjani, A.P. & Ahmadi, M.R. (2011). A study of factors affecting EFL
learners’ Englishllistening comprehension and the strategies for
improvement. Journal of Language Teaching and Research. 2 (5), pp.
977-988.
Graham, S. & Santos, D. (2015). Strategies for second language listening.
Palgrave. Macmillan.
Green, L. (2012). Memory in psychology. Psychology Journal 18112012.
Ivonne F.M. (2005). Teaching English as a foreign language in Indonesia: the
urge to improve classroom vocabulary instruction. TEFLIN Journal. 16 (2), pp.
195-208
Joseph K. (2008). Facilitations in teaching and learning. Education of Language:
USA. Longman.
Liang, A. & Chen, Y. (2012). Development of college English teaching in China
under needs analysis. Higher Education of Social Science, Vol. 2, No. 3,
2012, pp. 22-26.

10 
 
Lie (2007). Education policy and EFL curriculum in Indonesia: between the
commitment to competence and the quest for higher test scores. TEFLIN
Journal. 12 (1).
Richards (2008). Teaching listening and speaking: from theory to practice.
Cambridge University press.
Rost (2002). Teaching and research in listening. London, UK: Longman.
Osada (2004). Listening comprehension research: a brief review of the past thirty
years. Dialogue. 3, pp. 53-66.
Vandergriff (2011). Facilitating second language listening comprehension:
acquiring successful strategies. ELT Journal 53/3.
Wolvin, A. D. (2010) (Eds). Listening and human communiation in the 21st
century. Wiley-Blacwell.

11