THE CORRELATION BETWEEN STUDENTS INTELLIGENCE

QUOTIENT AND THEIR SPEAKING ABILITY

A Paper
Submitted to the English Education Study Program Faculty of Teachers Training and
Educational Sciences Pakuan University as a Partial Fulfilment of the Requirement for the
Sarjana Pendidikan Examination



By:
Fajar Tri Utami
031109208





ENGLISH EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM
FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES
PAKUAN UNIVERSITY
2013


APPROVED BY:




Supervisor I Supervisor II




Atti Herawati, Dra., M.Pd. Nur Utami, S. K., M.Hum
NIP 196801291993032001 NIK 10603019421



Dean of FKIP UNPAK, Head of English Education
Study Program FKIP,



Deddy Sofyan , Drs., M.Pd. Atti Herawati, Dra., M.Pd.
NIP 195601081986011001 NIP 196801291993032001


















i

DECLARATION




I here with declare that the research paper I write as a partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the Sarjana Pendidikan and submitted to the English
Education Study Program, Faculty of Teachers Training and Educational Science
Pakuan University wholly constitutes my own original scientific writing.
As for the other person works whose ideas were quoted in this paper had
been referred to appropriately in accordance to prevailing legal and intellectual
ethic in the world of scientific writing tradition.
However, if the originality of this paper either partially or wholly is, later
on, proved or it falls under convincing plagiarism, I would be prepared to receive
any consequences in the form of any sanction such as loosing my related
academic degree obtained from the institution as well as other rules prevailing in
Indonesia.




Bogor, September 2013


Fajar Tri Utami









ii

ABSTRACT



This research is aimed to find out the correlation between students
intelligence quotient and their speaking ability. It is conducted to the third grade
of SMP N 1 Megamendung Bogor in academic year 2013-2014. The writer
chooses this grade because they had taken IQ test in 2012. The population of this
research is 304 students while the sample is 38 students, taken by quota or
convenience sampling technique.The writer applies Ex Post Facto Design
especially in Correlation Design using Pearson Product-Moment Formula. The
data are taken from students IQ score and a speaking test. The result of r-
observed is 0.271, which is lower than r-table (0.329). The null hypothesis (Ho) is
accepted. It means that there is no correlation between students intelligence
quotient and their speaking ability. In conclusion, there is no guarantee that the
students who have high IQ score will be able to speak well too. Even though IQ is
the independent variable, and speaking ability is the dependent one, but this
research shows that speaking is not always influenced by IQ. There is a
component of speaking that can not be assessed in IQ test, for example:
pronunciation. While the types of intelligence are: verbal, body, musical, logic,
visual, impersonal, and intrapersonal.

























iii

PREFACE

Alhamdulillah, the writer is grateful to Allah S.W.T. because only by His
mercy this paper entitled The Correlation between Students Intelligence
Quotient and Their Speaking Ability can be finished.
The paper is written to fulfil one of the requirements for the Sarjana
Pendidikan Examination at English Education Study Program, Faculty of
Teachers Training and Educational Sciences, Pakuan University, Bogor.
The writer realizes that this paper is still far from being perfect. However,
she hopes that this paper will be useful to her and to those who read it. Finally,
she also appreciates all the constructive criticisms and suggestions to improve this
paper.

Bogor, September 2013

The Writer















iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The writer would like to express her sincere gratitude and appreciation to
all people who have helped her finish the paper, especially to Dra. Atti Herawati,
M.Pd., as the first supervisor and also the Head of the English Education Study
Program of Pakuan University and Yayu Heryatun M. Pd., as the second
supervisor for their guidance, advise, motivation, suggestion and support.
The appreciation is also expressed to Drs. Deddy Sofyan S, M.Pd., as the
as the Dean of the Faculty of Teachers Training and Educational Sciences of
Pakuan University. Dra. Lestari Sukartiningsih, M.Pd., as the Academic
Counselor, and all lecturers and staff of FKIP of Pakuan University for the
knowledge and help.
Hereby I also would like to thanks to ibu Tri as the headmaster of SMP N
1 Megamendung Bogor and Nia Kurniawati S.Pd who have allowed me to
conduct the research there also and the third grade students for their cooperation
and support in conducting this research.
Her special thanks are also dedicated to her beloved family; Bapak, Ibuk,
Mbak Muth, Mase, Mas Lis, Tsabita, Tsaqifah, mas Sulhan and his big family,
Lik Mah, Lik Ruhin, Nok Ip, Irma, Nidha, Ulum, Ririn, and Mad for their endless
prayer, love, financial support, motivation and patience. Additionally, her thanks
are expressed to her best friends; Ayu Ratnasari and Ule Fitriyanih also for her
special classmate (The Special Class of 2009) and all people who have helped her
who cannot be mentioned one by one.
v

TABLE OF CONTENT

DECLARATION ......................................................................................... i
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................. ii
PREFACE .................................................................................................... iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ........................................................................... iv
TABLE OF CONTENT ............................................................................... v
LIST OF TABLE ......................................................................................... vi
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ............................................................ 1
A. Background of the Study ............................................... 1
B. Reason for Choosing the Topic ...................................... 2
C. Aims of the Research ..................................................... 3
D. Statement of the Problem .............................................. 3
E. Hypothesis ..................................................................... 3
F. Limitation of the Study .................................................. 3
G. Population and Sample .................................................. 3
H. Research Method ........................................................... 4
CHAPTER II THEORETICAL FOUNDATION ................................... 5
A. Related Research .......................................................... 5
B. Intelligence Quotient ...................................................... 5
C. Speaking ....................................................................... 7
1. Definition of speaking ........................................... 7
2. Element of speaking .............................................. 9
vi

3. Types of classroom speaking performance ............. 11
4. The problem of speaking ........................................ 13
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................... . 16
A. Research Method and Design ....................................... 16
B. Population and Sample ................................................. 16
C. Research Instrument .................................................... 17
D. Data Collection Technique ........................................... 17
E. Data Analysis ............................................................... 18
CHAPTER IV RESEARCH FINDING AND DISCUSSION .................. 20
A. Research Finding ....................................................... 20
1. Calculating the interval data ................................ 20
2. Calculating of Mean .............................................. 24
3. Calculating the Correlation Coefficient ................ 24
4. Hypothesis Testing ................................................ 25
B. Discussion ................................................................... 25
CHAPETR V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION ............................. 27
A. Conclusion ................................................................... 27
B. Suggestion ................................................................... 27
BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................ 29
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 : Surat Keputusan Pembimbing
Appendix 2 : Surat Izin Penelitian
Appendix 3 : Surat Keterangan Melakukan Penelitian
vii

Appendix 4 : Buku Bimbingan
Appendix 5 : Table of r Pearson Product Moment
Appendix 6 : Research Instrument
Appendix 7 : Table of speaking score
Appendix 8 : Table of IQ score



















viii

LIST OF TABLE

Table 2.1: The classification of IQ ............................................................... 7
Table 3.1: The rating scale of table .............................................................. 16
Table 4.1: The data of IQ score ..................................................................... 20
Table 4.2: The students speaking score ........................................................ 20
Table 4.3: The students scores of IQ and their speaking ability .................... 21
Table 4.4: The interpretation of correlation coefficient (r) ............................. 24


























1

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

A. Background of the Study
Everybody in the world needs a language to communicate, so they can
deliver the message, and it can be understood by persons whom they are
talking with. Communication can occur if they know the language used by
each other. In this global era, international language is needed to make
communication among different nations.
English is an international language used in this world. It has two
productive skills, and speaking is one of them. Speaking is the direct route
from one mind to another, and is the way people usually chose when they
want to ask a question, or give an explanation (Turk, 2003:9). While
according to Gumperz as quoted by Nazara (2011:30), speaking is
cooperatively constructed which is based on contributions, assumptions,
expectations, and interpretations of the participants utterances. Yet,
sometimes people have difficulties to talk what they want to talk because
English is only taught in school, not in their daily activities.
In addition, people who learn English in school still have difficulties to
speak fluently because of some factors, such as: the teacher, the students
themselves, or the Intelligence Quotient or IQ of the students. Carter (2005:1)
stated that intelligence may be narrowly defined as the capacity to acquire
knowledge and understanding, and use it in different novel situation.
2

It is the ability, or capacity, which enables the individual to deal with
real situations and profit intellectually from sensory experience.
The students with high IQ score are often considered more successful in
studying or get better result than those with low IQ score (Sarwono,
2012:157). Differently, Munandar stated in a paper written by Maulida (2003)
that the way to speak, the way to ask questions, the ability to solve their
problems and so on reflect their intelligence. Maulida (2003) conducted
research about the correlation between intelligence quotient and students
speaking ability. Then it inspires the researcher to conduct the same research
but in different grade.

B. Reason for Choosing the Topic
The researcher chooses this topic to prove the statements of Munandar
in the paper written by Maulida (2003) and Sarwono. Munandar believed that
the way to speak, the way to ask questions, the ability to solve their problems
and so on reflect their intelligence while Sarwono stated that the students with
high IQ score are often considered more successful in studying or get better
result than those with low IQ score which is also believed by many people in
the real life. The researcher wants to know whether the students Intelligence
Quotient (IQ) influence their abilities or not, especially their speaking ability.



3

C. Aims of the Study
The aim of this research is to find out the correlation between students
Intelligence Quotient (IQ) and their speaking ability.

D. Statement of the Problem
The statement of the problem is Is there a correlation between
students Intelligence Quotient (IQ) and their speaking ability?

E. Hypothesis
The hypothesis of this research is statistics or null hypothesis (Ho):
There is no correlation between students Intelligence Quotient (IQ) and their
speaking ability.

F. Limitation of the Study
The researcher only focuses the research on the students speaking
score from their comprehension when they are asked some questions and their
IQ score.

G. Population and Sample
The population of this research is the third grade of SMP N 1
Megamendung Bogor in academic year 2013-2014. There are 304 students.
The sample of this research is grade IX-1 which consists of 38 students taken
using quota or convenience sampling for correlation research.
4

H. Research Method
Correlation method is used in this research. There are two different sets
of data: students IQ score and students speaking ability. The data are
collected by using two kind of instruments: IQ score is obtained from IQ test
and speaking ability score is obtained from speaking test. The data of IQ
score is got from the students who have taken IQ test. Moreover, the
researcher gets the data of speaking score from speaking test. She does the
scoring together with her friend to avoid subjectivity.



























5

CHAPTER II
THEORETICAL FOUNDATION

A. Related Research
Related to Intelligence Quotient (IQ), there was a research conducted
by Maulida (2003) that discussed about the correlation between intelligence
quotient and students speaking ability. She conducted the research in the
third year of SMU Widya Dharma Turen Malang 2002-2003. The purpose of
her research was to see whether there was any positive correlation between
students IQ and their speaking ability or not.
She got the data of IQ score from the teacher while the speaking score
was taken by testing the students. They had to answer the questions given,
and each student had about 3 minutes to answer them. The data on speaking
test were examined to see their speech process which consists of
pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension.
After conducting the research, the mean score of IQ test ( X ) was 95.75
and the Standard deviation of IQ test (Sd) was 30.38; then the mean score of
speaking test (Y ) was 73.62 and the Standard deviation of speaking test (Sd)
was 55.67. The calculated data using Pearsons Product Moment (r) was .508.
The r-table of this study at level of significance (P) 0.05 and degrees of
freedom (df) at 40 was .264
Based on the computation above, the r-value was greater than r- table
(r- value=.508 > r- table= .264). Therefore, Ho is rejected. The result of the
6

research reads as: There is a positive correlation between students IQ and
their speaking ability in the third year of SMU Widya Dharma Turen- Malang
2002-2003.

B. Intelligence Quotient
Individuals have different ability and intelligence. According to Allen
(2010:1) intelligence is the development and analysis of raw material in order
to determine what the information means and to identify the implications for
decision making. Differently, Wallach and Kogan in Maulida (2003:4) state
that intelligence is a network of strongly related abilities concerning the
retention, transformation, and utilization of verbal and numerical symbols.
There are some types of intelligence as stated by Gardner in Charter
(2005:5-6) which can be summarized as follows:
1. Verbal/linguistic, e.g. lexical skills, formal speech, verbal debate, creative
writing.
2. Body/kinesthetic (movement), e.g. body language, physical gestures,
creative dance, physical exercise, drama.
3. Musical/rhythmic, e.g. music performance, singing, musical composition,
rhythmic patterns.
4. Logic/mathematic, e.g. numerical aptitude, problem solving, deciphering
codes, abstract symbols and formulae.
5. Visual/spatial, e.g. patterns and designs, painting, drawing, active
imagination, sculpture, colour schemes.
7

6. Interpersonal (relationships with others), e.g. person-to-person
communication, empathy practices, group projects, collaboration skills,
receiving and giving feedback.
7. Intrapersonal (self-understanding and insight), e.g. thinking strategies,
emotional processing, knowing yourself, higher order reasoning,
focusing/concentration.
There is a test to measure the score of intelligence. A test of intelligence
is designed to formally study, under test conditions, the success of an
individual in adapting to a specific situation. There are a number of different
methods which aim to measure intelligence. The most famous of which is the
IQ or intelligence quotient test. In the formation of such tests many
psychologists treat intelligence as a general ability operating as a common
factor in a wide variety of aptitudes.
Charter (2005:7) believes that Intelligence Quotient (IQ) is an age-
related measure of intelligence level and is described as 100 times the mental
age. The word quotient means the result of dividing one quantity by
another, and a definition of intelligence is mental ability or quickness of
mind. In other word, IQ is the measurement of how high individuals
intelligence is. Every single person has different level of IQ, and below is the
clssification of IQ level.
Table 2.1
The classification of IQ
IQ CLASSIFICATION
Over 130 Very superior
120 129 Superior
110 119 Smart normal
8

IQ CLASSIFICATION
90 109 Average
80 89 Unwieldy normal
70 79 Border-dull
70 and less Defect mentality

While the factors of IQ test, Ganesha Dwija Pertiwi, the institution
which held IQ test mentioned that there are six factors that affect the
measurement of IQ test:
Heredity
The condition of students physic/mental
The environment
Students motivation and readiness to answer questions
Measuring instrument
Mastery level of the instructor in delivering the material

C. Speaking
1. Definition of speaking
Speaking a language is especially difficult for foreign language
learners because effective oral communication requires the ability to use
the language appropriately in social interactions (Shumin in Richards and
Renandya, 2002: 204). According to Richards and Renandya (2002: 210),
speaking is one of the elements of communication. Where communication
is the output modality and learning is the input modality of language
acquisition (Brown in Xhaveri, 2012).
9

Speaking is a tool to express ideas and feelings in daily life. In this
case, Thornbury (2005:1) argues that speaking is so much a part of daily
life that people take it for granted. In other word, Luoma (2004:9) states
that all these perspectives see speaking as an integral part of daily lives,
that speaking is as interaction, as a social and situation based activity. It is
supported by Turk (2003:9) who states that speaking is the direct route
from one mind to another, and is the way people usually choose when they
want to ask a question, or give an explanation. Speakers talk in order to
have some effect on their listeners. They ask them questions to provide
information. They request things to get them to do things for them. They
give explanation in order to make them understand. So, in daily life human
being never be able to escape from speaking activities.
Shumin in Richards and Renandya (2002: 201) also states that
speaking is used for many different purposes, and each purpose involves
different skills. When people use casual conversation, for example, their
purposes may be to make social contact with other people, to establish
rapport, or to engage in the harmless chitchat that occupies much of the
time they spend with friends. When people engage in discussion with
someone, on the other hand, the purpose may be to seek or express
opinions, to persuade someone about something, or to clarify information.
In some situations, people use speaking to give instructions or to get
things done. They may use speaking to describe things, to complain about
peoples behavior, to make polite requests, or to entertain people with
10

jokes and anecdotes. Each of these different purposes for speaking implies
knowledge of the rules that account for how spoken language reflects the
context or situation in which speech occurs, the participants involved and
their specific roles and relationships, and the kind of activity the speakers
are involved in.
In addition, speaking is defined as a way to verbally communicate
for mostly interpersonal and somewhat transactional purposes (Nunan in
Nazara, 2011) and it usually happens when people are face to face (Lier in
Nazara, 2011). However, speaking might happen when people are not face
to face as supported by Thornbury and Slade (2006:17) that telephone talk,
as people shall see, very often falls within the parameters of conversation,
despite not being face to face communication.
Thus, speaking is one the elements of communication used in daily
life to express ideas and feeling that might happen when people are face to
face or not.

2. Element of speaking
Speaking is harder than listening because it is not only understanding
but also producing. On the other hand, to convey something in English is not
easy, especially for the learner whose mother tongue is vernacular, such as
Sundanese, Bataknese, Javanese, etc. They have to consider some aspects such as
language use, pronunciation, intonation, and diction. As supported by Harmer
(2007:343) if students are able to speak easily, well, and quickly, they have to be
11

able to pronounce the phonemes correctly, use stress and intonation patterns
appropriately, and speak in a connected speech.
According to Underhill (1987: 96), there are familiar components of
language proficiency used are:
a. Grammar
b. Vocabulary
c. Pronunciation, intonation, and stress
d. Style and fluency
e. Contents
In addition, there are some elements of speaking as suggested by
Luoma (2004:72-74):
a. Range: shows the speakers ability in formulating his/her idea on related
topic briefer and clearer.
b. Accuracy: shows the speakers ability in controlling grammar.
Furthermore, it describes his/her ability in using the correct patterns of
his/her sentence in order to avoid the misunderstanding between the
speaker and the listener.
c. Fluency: indicates the speakers ability in expressing his/her ideas
spontaneously. Moreover, fluency shows his/her self-confidence in
expressing the idea.
d. Interaction: describes the speakers ability in interacting with the listener
verbally and none verbally. He gives the opportunity to the audience to
involve in conversation.
12

e. Coherence: indicates the speakers ability in creating coherence idea, in
order to avoid misunderstanding during conversation.
Based on the explanation above, the writer will focus on students
speaking accuracy/grammar, content, and pronunciation. The students are
asked some questions and the writer will pay attention to those three
elements.

3. Types of Classroom Speaking Performance
According to Brown (2001: 271-276) there are six types of classroom
speaking performance that students are expected to carry out in the
classroom.
a. Imitative
A very limited portion of classroom speaking time may legitimately
be speech generating human tape recorder speech, where, for example,
learner practice an intonation contour or try to pinpoint a certain vowel
sound. Imitation of this kind is carried out nit the purpose of meaningful
interaction, but for focusing on some particular elements of language form.
b. Intensive
Intensive speaking goes one step beyond imitative to include any
speaking performance that is designed to practice some phonological or
grammatical aspect of language. Intensive speaking can be self initiated or
it can even form part of some pair work activity, where learners going
over certain forms of language.
13

c. Responsive
A good deal of student speech in the classroom is responsive: short
replies to teacher or student-initiated questions or comments. These replies
are usually sufficient and do not extend into dialogues. Such speech can be
meaningful and authentic.
d. Transactional (dialogue)
Transactional language, carried out for the purpose of conveying or
exchanging specific information is an extended form of responsive
language.
e. Interpersonal (dialogue)
The other form of conversation mentioned in the previous was
interpersonal dialogue, carried out more for the purpose of maintaining
social relationship than for the transmission of fact and information.
Learners would need to learn how such features as the relationship
between interlocutor, casual style, and sarcasm are coded linguistically in
this conversation.
f. Extensive (monologue)
Students at intermediate to advanced levels are called on to give
extended monologues in the form of oral reports summaries of perhaps short
speeches.
The research will focus on responsive type. Here, students are expected
to reply the writers questions. The students answers and comments can be
14

authentic because the writer asks them directly, and the students answers the
questions directly as well.

4. The problem of speaking
There are some characteristics that can make speaking difficult. As
Brown (2001:270-271) demonstrates some characteristics of spoken language
that can make oral performance easy as well as, in some cases, difficult.
a. Clustering
Fluent speech is phrasal, not words by words. Learners can organize
their output both cognitively and physically (in breath group) through such
clustering.
b. Redundancy
The speaker has an opportunity to make meaning cleaner through the
redundancy of language. Learners can capitalize on this feature of spoken
language.
c. Reduce forms
Contraction, elisions, reduced vowels, etc., all form special problems
in teaching spoken English.
d. Performance variables
One of the advantages of spoken language is that the process of
thinking as people speak allows them to manifest a certain number of
performance hesitations, pauses, backtracking and corrections.
e. Colloquial language
15

The students are reasonable well acquainted with the words. Idioms
and phrases of colloquial language and those they get practice in
producing these forms.
f. Rate of delivery
Another salient characteristic of fluency is rate of delivery. One of
teachers tasks in teaching spoken English is to help learners achieve an
acceptable speed along with other attributed of fluency.
g. Stress, rhythm, and intonation
The stress-timed rhythm of spoken English and its intonation patterns
convey important messages.
h. Interaction
Learning to produce waves of language in a vacuum-without
interlocutors would rob speaking skill of its richest component: the
creativity of conversational negotiation.
Those characteristics are important to learn to make them speak easily.














16

CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

A. Research Method and Design
In this research, the correlation method is used to investigate the
correlation between students intelligence quotient and their speaking ability.
There are two variables in this research; the first variable is students
intelligence quotient as the independent variable (X) and the second variable
is students speaking ability as the dependent variable (Y). The writer uses
Ex- Post Facto design to investigate the correlation between those variables.
The design is:
Tx Ty
Tx: Students intelligence quotient
Ty: Students speaking ability
In conducting the research, the writer takes students IQ score and
gives a speaking test. Then, she analyzes the data and makes the conclusion.

B. Population and Sample
The population of this research is the third grade students of SMP N 1
Megamendung Bogor in academic year 2013-2014. There are 304 students.
The sample of this research is grade IX-1 which consists of 38 students taken
by quota or convenience sampling for correlation research.

17

C. Research Instrument
The instruments of this research are the document of students IQ
score and students speaking score. IQ test was done by LPSDM GANESHA
DWIJA PERTIWI. The writer only analyzes data which is taken from the
teacher while the speaking score is taken by testing the students. The writer
assesses the students together with her friend to avoid subjectivity.

D. Data Collection Technique
The writer collects the data from the students who have done IQ test.
For speaking score, she gives a test to measure their speaking ability. She
records and transcribes the voice of the students. She will focus on students
speaking accuracy/grammar, content, and pronunciation. The rating scale of
those components is as follows:
Table 3.1
The rating scale of speaking
Categories Criteria Scale
Grammar
Errors in grammar are frequent, but speaker can
be understood by a native speaker used to dealing
with foreigners attempting to speak his language.
1
Can usually handle elementary constructions quite
accurately but does not have thorough or confident of
grammar.
2
Control of grammar is good. Able to speak the
language with sufficient structural accuracy to
participate effectively in most formal and informal
conversations on practical, social, and professional
topics.
3
Able to use the language accurately on all levels nor-
mally pertinent to professional needs. Errors in
grammar are quite rare.
4
Equivalent to that of an educative native speaker 5
18

Categories Criteria Scale
Comprehension
Within the scope of his very limited language
experience, can understand simple questions and
statements if delivered with slowed speech repetition,
or speech.
1
Can get the gist of most conversations of non-
technical subjects (i.e., topics that require no
specialized knowledge.
2
Comprehension is quite complete at a normal rate of
speech.
3
Can understand any conversation within the range of
his experience.
4
Equivalent to that an educated native speaker.
5
Pronunciation
Errors in pronunciation are frequent but can be
understood by a native speaker used to dealing with
foreigners attempting to speak his language.
1
Accent is intelligible though often quite faulty. 2
Errors never interfere with understanding and rarely
disturb the native speaker. Accent may be obviously
foreign.
3
Errors in pronunciation are quite rare. 4
Equivalent to and fully accepted by educated native
speakers.
5

E. Data Analysis
To find out the result, the data collected are analyzed by the following
procedure.
1. Scoring the students speaking test.
2. Calculating the mean of both variables. It is to find out the balance point or
average of X and Y variables. The formula is:


19

Note:
: the mean of IQ score.
: the sum of IQ score.
N : the number of respondent.
: the mean of speaking score.
: the sum speaking score.
3. Calculating the correlation coefficient, the Pearson Product Moment
formula is used to measure the degree of relationship between students
intelligence quotient and their speaking ability which is symbolized by r as
follows:
=
Note:
: coefficient correlation between variables X and Y
: multiplication between x and y
x
2
: quadrate of x
y
2
: quadrate of y









20

CHAPTER IV
RESEARCH FINDING AND DISCUSSION

A. Research Finding
1. Calculating the interval data
In this chapter, the writer discusses the result of the research. She
gave a speaking test to the students to measure their speaking ability. For
IQ score, she collected the data from the students who have taken IQ test.
Table 4.1
The data of IQ Score
R IQ Score R IQ Score
1 115 20 104
2 114 21 93
3 114 22 110
4 108 23 111
5 104 24 112
6 109 25 98
7 111 26 97
8 95 27 111
9 102 28 98
10 102 29 109
11 112 30 92
12 105 31 109
13 108 32 97
14 108 33 110
15 110 34 110
16 105 35 98
17 108 36 102
18 92 37 113
19 110 38 104

21

Speaking score is taken by testing three components of speaking,
namely: comprehension, grammar, and pronunciation. The way of
scoring is . The table below shows the score of
speaking test.
Table 4.2
The students speaking score
R Grammar Pronunciation Comprehension Total score
1 2 3 3 53
2 1 1 2 27
3 2 1 2 33
4 2 3 2 47
5 1 1 3 33
6 2 2 2 40
7 1 2 2 33
8 1 1 2 27
9 1 1 3 33
10 3 3 2 53
11 1 1 1 20
12 1 1 2 27
13 3 4 3 67
14 1 1 3 33
15 1 1 2 27
16 3 4 4 73
17 1 1 1 20
18 1 2 1 27
19 2 1 3 40
20 1 1 1 20
21 2 2 1 33
22 1 1 2 27
23 3 4 5 80
24 2 3 2 47
25 1 3 4 53
26 1 1 1 20
27 3 1 1 33
28 1 1 1 20
29 1 2 1 27
30 1 1 1 20
31 3 1 2 33
32 1 1 2 27
33 1 1 1 20
22

R Grammar Pronunciation Comprehension Total score
34 1 1 1 20
35 1 1 1 20
36 1 1 1 20
37 4 1 4 60
38 1 1 2 27

The variable X is the score of IQ and variable Y is the score of
speaking test. After the writer calculated the data, she found the students
IQ scores and their speaking ability. The table below shows the score of
both variables.
Table 4.3
The students scores of IQ and their speaking ability
N X Y x Y xy x
2
y
2

1 115 53 9.5 18.4 174.4 89.7 339.3
2 114 27 8.5 -7.6 -64.2 71.7 57.5
3 114 33 8.5 -1.6 -13.4 71.7 2.5
4 108 47 2.5 12.4 30.7 6.1 154.3
5 104 33 -1.5 -1.6 2.4 2.3 2.5
6 109 40 3.5 5.4 18.8 12.0 29.4
7 111 33 5.5 -1.6 -8.6 29.9 2.5
8 95 27 -10.5 -7.6 79.8 110.9 57.5
9 102 33 -3.5 -1.6 5.6 12.5 2.5
10 102 53 -3.5 18.4 -65.0 12.5 339.3
11 112 20 6.5 -14.6 -94.3 41.9 212.6
12 105 27 -0.5 -7.6 4.0 0.3 57.5
13 108 67 2.5 32.4 80.1 6.1 1051.1
14 108 27 2.5 -7.6 -18.7 6.1 57.5
15 110 27 4.5 -7.6 -33.9 20.0 57.5
16 105 73 -0.5 38.4 -20.4 0.3 1476.1
17 108 20 2.5 -14.6 -36.0 6.1 212.6
18 92 27 -13.5 -7.6 102.6 183.1 57.5
19 110 40 4.5 5.4 24.2 20.0 29.4
20 104 20 -1.5 -14.6 22.3 2.3 212.6
21 93 33 -12.5 -1.6 19.8 157.0 2.5
22 110 27 4.5 -7.6 -33.9 20.0 57.5
23

N X Y x Y xy x
2
y
2

23 111 80 5.5 45.4 248.4 29.9 2063.0
24 112 47 6.5 12.4 80.4 41.9 154.3
25 98 53 -7.5 18.4 -138.7 56.7 339.3
26 97 20 -8.5 -14.6 124.4 72.8 212.6
27 111 33 5.5 -1.6 -8.6 29.9 2.5
28 98 20 -7.5 -14.6 109.8 56.7 212.6
29 109 27 3.5 -7.6 -26.3 12.0 57.5
30 92 20 -13.5 -14.6 197.3 183.1 212.6
31 109 33 3.5 -1.6 -5.5 12.0 2.5
32 97 27 -8.5 -7.6 64.7 72.8 57.5
33 110 20 4.5 -14.6 -65.2 20.0 212.6
34 110 20 4.5 -14.6 -65.2 20.0 212.6
35 98 20 -7.5 -14.6 109.8 56.7 212.6
36 102 20 -3.5 -14.6 51.5 12.5 212.6
37 113 60 7.5 25.4 189.9 55.8 646.2
38 104 27 -1.5 -7.6 11.6 2.3 57.5
N=38 4010 1314 0 0 1054.4 1617.5 9339.3

Note:
N :number of respondents
X : IQ score
Y : speaking test score
x : diminution score between variable X and
y : diminution score between variable Y and
xy : multiple score between variable X and Y
x
2
: squared of IQ score
y
2
: squared speaking test score



24

2. Calculation of mean
The writer calculated the mean of variable X and variable Y as
follows:


= 105.5 = 34.6
The mean of IQ score ( ) is 105.5 while the mean of speaking test score
( ) is 34.6.
3. Calculating the correlation coefficient
After getting the score of two variables, the writer calculated the
data of students IQ score and their speaking ability to get the correlation
coefficient value between the two variables. Pearson product moment
correlation was used to correlate the two variables and determine the
level of their relation.
The formula of Pearson Product Moment correlation is:
=
The result of Pearson Product Moment correlation is:
=
=
=
= 0.271
The data of the test show that the result of is 0.271.
25

4. Hypothesis Testing
After finding the correlation coefficient, the writer compared the
value of r-calculated with the value of r-table to know whether or not the
hypothesis is accepted. She calculated the degree of freedom with the
formula as follows:
df= N-2
df= 38-2
= 36
The result of (0.271) is lower than that of the r-table in the
significant level 0.05 with degree of freedom 36, the value of r-table is
0.329. It can be concluded that the null hypothesis (Ho) is accepted. It
means that there is no correlation between students IQ score and their
speaking ability.
B. Discussion
After calculating the correlation coefficient, the writer found the
correlation coefficient between students IQ score and their speaking ability is
0.271. To interpret the correlation coefficient, the writer uses the
interpretation table from Sugiyono (2009:257).
Table 4.3
The interpretation of correlation coefficient (r):
Value of or product moment (r) Interpretation
0.00 0.199 Very Low
0.20 0.399 Low
0.40 0.599 Quite Low
0.60 0.799 High
0.80 1.000 Very High

26

The interpretation table shows that the correlation coefficient is low. It
does not mean that students who have high IQ score will have good speaking
ability. It can be concluded that there is no guarantee that the students who
have high IQ score will be able to speak well too.
Even though IQ is the independent variable, and speaking ability is the
dependent one, but this research shows that speaking is not always influenced
by IQ. There is a component of speaking that can not be assessed in IQ test,
for example: pronunciation. While the types of intelligence are: verbal, body,
musical, logic, visual, impersonal, and intrapersonal.

























27

CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

A. Conclusion
After conducting the research, it can be concluded that there is no
correlation between students intelligence quotient and their speaking ability.
The writers hypothesis (Ho) is accepted because the value of r-calculated
(0.271) is lower than that of r-table (0.329). The result shows that not all
students who have high IQ score will have good speaking ability. It can be
concluded that the students who have high IQ score will not be able to speak
well.

B. Suggestion
After finding the result, the writer would like to give some suggestions
for the students and the next researcher. First, she suggest that the students
know that studying English needs patience and confidence. They should study
and practice it continuously to develop their speaking ability because
practicing continuously can make perfect. In conducting the research, the
researcher should consider the ability of the students, so she/he can get more
valid result because she/he can test the components of speaking well. In
addition, the researcher should use sensitive recording that can produce clear
and sound voice.
28

Since there is one of speaking components that can not be assed in IQ
test, it is suggested that the next researcher pay attention on types of IQ test
that relate to language aspect.



































29

BIBLIOGRAPHY



Allen, Thad. W. 2010. Intelligence. Washington: Coast Guard

Brown, H. Douglas. 2001. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to
Language Pedagogy: 2
nd
edition. San Francisco State University: Longman.

Carter, Philip. 2005. The Complete Book of Intelligence Tests. England: John
Wiley & Sons Ltd retrieved from
http://en.bookfi.org/s/?q=the+complete+book+of+intelligence&t=0
(accessed on November 12, 2012)

Harmer, Jeremy. 2007. The Practice of English Language Teaching. Edinburg
Gate: Pearson Longman

Kadir. 2010. Statistika. Jakarta: Rosemata Sampurna

Luoma, Sari. 2004. Assessing Speaking. New York: University Press retrieved
from
http://en.bookfi.org/s/?q=assessing+speaking&t=0 (accessed on April 6,
2013)

Nazara, Situjuh. 2011. Students Perception on EFL Speaking Skill
Development. Journal of English Teaching. Vol. I No. 1 retrieved from
http://jetuki.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/3-students-perception-on-efl-
speaking-skill-development-pp-28-43.pdf (accessed on March 3, 2013)

Richard, Jack and Renandya, Willy. 2002. Methodology in Language Teaching,
An Anthology of Current Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
retrieved from
http://en.bookfi.org/s/?q=Methodology+in+Language+Teaching%2C+An+
Anthology+of+Current+Practice.&t=0 (accessed on March 3, 2013)

Sarwono, Sarlito W. 2012. Pengantar Psikologi Umum. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers

Sugiyono. 2009. Metode Penelitian Pendidikan Pendekatan Kuantitaif, Kualitatif,
dan R&D. Bandung: Alfabeta

Thornbury, Scott.2005. How Teach Speaking. Edinburgh: Longman retrieved
from
http://en.bookfi.org/s/?q=How+To+Teach+Speaking&t=0 (accessed on
March 16 2011)

30

Thornbury, Scott and Slade, Diane. 2006. Conversation: from Description to
Pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press retrieved from
http://books.google.co.id/books/about/Conversation.html?id=V_Q9JnIqqVc
C&redir_esc=y (accessed on March 10, 2013)

Turk, Christopher. 2003. Effective Speaking, Communicating in Speech : Spon
Press retrieved from
http://en.bookfi.org/s/?q=Effective+Speaking%2C+Communicating+in+Spe
ech&t=0 (accessed on April 4, 2009)

Underhill, Nick. 1987. Testing Spoken Language: A Handbook of Oral Testing
Techniques. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Xhaferi, Brikena. 2012. Communication Strategies in the Written Medium. The
Reading Matrix 2012. Vol. XII No. 2 retrieved from
http://www.readingmatrix.com/articles/september_2012/xhaferi.pdf (accessed on
February 9, 2013)
































APPENDICES
































































































































































































RESEARCH INSTRUMENT

A. Comprehension
Students are asked to answer question below.
1. Do you like English? Why?
2. How many times do you have English subject in a week?
3. How long have you learnt English?
4. What do want to be? Why?

B. Accuracy
The researcher makes a sentence, and students are asked to make a question.
1. She goes to school.
2. I read a novel.
3. They will have lunch together.

The answers can be as follows:
1. a. Who goes to school?
b. Where does she go?
2. a. Who reads a novel?
b. What does he read?
c. Who read a novel?
d. What did he read?
3. a. Who will have lunch together?
b. What will they do?

C. Pronunciation
Students are asked to read a dialogue given (in pair)
Dialogue
Ahmad : Its good to see you. I just remind you about the meeting after school.
Umar : Yeah, Of course. Ill be there
Ahmad : Are you sure that Ririn will come to the meeting?
Umar : Im quite sure about that. She called me this morning.
Ahmad : Oh, Okay.







The students speaking score


R Grammar Pronunciation Comprehension Total score
1 2 3 3 53
2 1 1 2 27
3 2 1 2 33
4 2 3 2 47
5 1 1 3 33
6 2 2 2 40
7 1 2 2 33
8 1 1 2 27
9 1 1 3 33
10 3 3 2 53
11 1 1 1 20
12 1 1 2 27
13 3 4 3 67
14 1 1 3 33
15 1 1 2 27
16 3 4 4 73
17 1 1 1 20
18 1 2 1 27
19 2 1 3 40
20 1 1 1 20
21 2 2 1 33
22 1 1 2 27
23 3 4 5 80
24 2 3 2 47
25 1 3 4 53
26 1 1 1 20
27 3 1 1 33
28 1 1 1 20
29 1 2 1 27
30 1 1 1 20
31 3 1 2 33
32 1 1 2 27
33 1 1 1 20
34 1 1 1 20
35 1 1 1 20
36 1 1 1 20
37 4 1 4 60
38 1 1 2 27




The students IQ score

No Name IQ Score
1. Adil Maulana 115
2. Afrian Dany Hermansyah 114
3. Ahmad Hadi 114
4. Annisa Nurul Imani 108
5. Ary Yustiana 104
6. Asifa Sarda 109
7. Bagas Ajiyanto 111
8. Delufi Mei Wendra 95
9. Devie Dewanti Agustin 102
10. Dyrra Fauziah 102
11. Evawati 112
12. Febryan Rizki Pratama 105
13. Fryda Septiani Nurdiantini 108
14. Gilang Pramana 108
15. Iqbal Pratama 110
16. Kireyna Yunita Sulaeman 105
17. Larasati 108
18. Mega Silvia 92
19. Mia Zamiatul Latifah 110
20. Moch Fateh Rahmatsyah 104
21. Muhamad Dani Yusuf 93
22. Muhamad Hakam Tiro 110
24. Muhammad Afrizal 111
25. Muhammad Awaludin 112
26. Muhammad Rizky Alamsyah 98
27. Nadia Oktaviani 97
28. Nurseptianti Ningsih 111
29. Radja Maulana Putra 98
30. Rangga Kumara 109
31. Reni Herlinda 92
32. Ria Apriani 109
33. Shifa Azizah 97
34. Siti Maharani 110
36. Siti Saripah 110
37. Siti Yulianah 98
38. Syahrul Syifa 102
39. Triswandi 113
40. Wahyu Lianingsih 104