International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET)

Volume 10, Issue 03, March 2019, pp. 808–817, Article ID: IJMET_10_03_084
Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/ijmet/issues.asp?JType=IJMET&VType=10&IType=3
ISSN Print: 0976-6340 and ISSN Online: 0976-6359

© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

FACTOR ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH

COMMUNICATION COMPETENCY AMONG
MALAYSIAN TECHNOLOGY
UNDERGRADUATES
Sarala Thulasi Palpanadan, PhD
Centre for Language Studies
Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia
ORCID # 0000-0001-9140-3937

Iqbal Ahmad, PhD

Faculty of Education,
University of Malakand, Pakistan

Venosha K.Ravana
Faculty of Language and Linguistics
Universiti Malaya

ABSTRACT
This paper aimed to determine factors influencing English communication
competency among Malaysian university undergraduates from technology
departments at Universiti Tun Hussain Onn Malaysia (UTHM). A survey was
administered to a random sample of 102 undergraduates. Factor analysis was applied
to determine the underlying dimensions that influence English competency among the
students. The findings revealed four critical factors: mother tongue interference, lack
of confidence, lack of practice, and home environment. Thus, students need to be
encouraged to communicate in English at the university and home to provide wider
language practice opportunities to master communication skills in English and
perform well in the technology courses.
Key words: English competency, exploratory factor analysis, communication skills,
technology courses.
Cite this Article: Sarala Thulasi Palpanadan, Iqbal Ahmad, Venosha K. Ravana,
Factor Analysis of English Communication Competency among Malaysian
Technology Undergraduates, International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and
Technology 10(3), 2019, pp. 808–817.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/issues.asp?JType=IJMET&VType=10&IType=3

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 808 editor@iaeme.com

 Sarala Thulasi Palpanadan, Iqbal Ahmad, Venosha K. Ravana

1. INTRODUCTION
The two areas of English language and technology are inseparable where they complement
each other very much. Having a good grasp of English language and technology skills
facilitate the learning skills to obtain more knowledge (Ahmadi, 2018). English is becoming
popular day by day all over the world including the technology field. It is used as an
international lingua franca (Ahmad, 2016). English is an important language to have better job
employment opportunities in all fields (Suryasa et al., 2017; Swales & Feak, 2004). Thus,
mastering English in our daily life has become essential (How et al., 2015; McKay, 2002).
Meanwhile, technology also plays a crucial role in bringing about changes in people’s
perception, association and style of lives (Salehan, Kim & Lee, 2018). Technology is a tool
utilized by everyone, especially engineers to uphold the development and improvement of the
world so that everyone can benefit from it. Technological determinism theory (TDT) supports
the idea that the development of a nation based on its societal and cultural values depend on
its progression of technology (Howells, 1997). Thus, it is very important to study the
challenges of English instruction in technology integrated courses among the Malaysian
undergraduates who are pursuing technology and engineering based courses at the
universities.
Malaysia is a multi-race country and Malay is the national language. Malay language is
often used as the language of instruction, administration and employment in government and
non-government sectors (Mahir et al., 2007). Malay is the language that is used most
frequently for communication among people who are not proficient in English in the
Malaysian context. English is usually used for some specific occasions and events at English
Departments in government institutions and some private sectors. As a matter of fact, many
Malaysians still use Malay widely in their daily communication without having to worry
about their incompetency in English as it is easily understood by the majority.
Apparently, the Malaysian education system has promoted bilingualism and
multilingualism school system with three different mediums as instruction, such as Malay,
Tamil and Mandarin language mediums. This is to let Malaysians to have a chance to learn
their own mother tongue according to their own races (Benraghda et al., 2017). Various
languages have benefits for Malaysian students and allow them to get further understanding
about the importance of English language (How et al., 2017). However, as English is still not
widely used in Malaysia, this might affect the mind sets of the people that English language is
not the most important language and therefore, they need not focus in using English in their
daily lives (Heriansyah, 2012; Pandian, 2002). Consequently, people may gradually ignore
the importance of English language in their daily activities. This is a very serious matter that
has to be investigated and discussed as many graduates scored good grades in the examination
but they tend to face difficulties in finding jobs due to the lack of fluency in English language
(Kirkpatrick, 2012; Nunan, 2003). Employers claim that the graduates’ lack of
communication skills was one of the reasons of the increasing unemployment rate in Malaysia
(Shanmugam, 2017). In addition, high unemployment rate among Malaysia graduates in the
private sector is often attributed to lack of English proficiency and communication skills
(Ting et al., 2017).
In order to ensure that people can communicate well in English language, several
continuous processes need to be involved in their daily routine (Rashid & Hashim, 2008;
Thirusanku & Yunus, 2014). Effective communication and understanding are among the
important processes that are involved in peoples’ daily lives which can lead to good grasp of
English. In addition, university students and the surrounding community should consciously
work towards improving the ability to speak in English fluently. Therefore, this research was
carried out at UTHM to determine the reasons that deter effective English communication

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 809 editor@iaeme.com

 Factor Analysis of English Communication Competency among Malaysian Technology
Undergraduates

skills among the undergraduates of technology courses. It was perceived that the local
students seldom communicated with each other in English due to their own preferences within
the campus compound. Students often used their own mother tongue to communicate with
friends from the same races and use Malay language to communicate with friends from
different races. English language was neither their favourite choice nor a case for stern
learning. Thus, there is a strong reason to study and overcome this phenomena.

2. PROBLEM STATEMENT
Many studies were conducted on how the integration of technology could facilitate the
English language learning (Ince, 2014; Ahmadi, 2018). However, not many studies show how
English language could facilitate the technology based courses at universities. As a matter of
fact, many researchers stated that the local university students in Malaysia are still grappling
with to communicate effectively in English (Musa et al., 2012; Ting et al., 2010). In addition,
many engineering and information technology graduates often remain jobless in the job
market due to the poor command of English language and lack of confidence to converse in
English (Ibrahim & Mahyuddin, 2017).
The low English language proficiency among Malaysian graduates is a serious issue that
needs to be discussed and addressed. The current research was conducted to determine the
factors influencing English communication skills among the undergraduate students from
three technology departments at UTHM Malaysia. The Malaysian universities are offering
various technology courses where most of the lectures are conducted in English. Furthermore,
the notes and resources are mostly available in English Language. Therefore, as much as the
mastery of technology is concerned, the undergraduates’ challenges and ability to process all
the information in English has to be addressed as well. This study is important so that the
problem in communicating in English among the students of the technology courses can be
identified that can help the universities to produce professional and competent graduates in
future.

3. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
The main objectives of this study are:
 To explore factors influencing English communication among the technology students at the
university.
 To suggest strategies for the promotion of English language communication skills among the
technology students at universities.

4. METHODS
4.1. Participants
This exploratory study was conducted to explore potential factors influencing English
language communication skills among the students taking the technology courses and
programs at UTHM. The sample consisted of 102 students selected from three departments:
Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, Faculty of Technical and
Vocational Education and Faculty of Technology Management and Business. A self-
developed 20 items questionnaire was distributed among the participants for data collection.
The first part of the questionnaire consisted of demographic features including races and
gender and second part items concerning English language speaking skills.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 810 editor@iaeme.com

 Sarala Thulasi Palpanadan, Iqbal Ahmad, Venosha K. Ravana

4.2. Reliability and Validity

The questionnaire was tested for internal consistency using Cronbach’s alpha. The content
and face validity was checked by expert review and literature review. The statements of the
questionnaire were refined grammatically based on the feedback from three language experts.
The questionnaire was piloted on 30 respondents. Based on the inter item consistency
analysis, only those items which were above .40 were retained (Hinkin, 1995). The internal
consistency test showed an alpha of .75 for nineteen items which is considered very good as
an alpha value (Hinkin, 1995). The reliability of the questionnaire items was confirmed
through scale statistics and item statistics.
Table 1: Scale Statistics
Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items
63.71 94.958 9.745 19
Table 1 shows the scales statistics indicating a total mean 63.71, variance 94.95 and
standard deviation 9.74 for 19 items questionnaire.
Table 2: Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if Scale Variance Corrected Cronbach's
No Statements Item Deleted if Item Deleted Item-Total Alpha if Item
Correlation Deleted
1 Fear of mistakes and criticism 60.31 75.664 .733 .704
2 Lack of English speaking platform 60.77 94.167 .631 .770
3 Lack of effective learning strategies 60.28 76.539 .727 .706
4 Lack of English background 60.43 33.884 .596 .799
5 Family background or peer influence 60.17 93.460 .435 .760
6 Lack of practice in using English 60.21 73.762 .778 .697
7 Lack of using English in daily routine 60.32 78.541 .672 .713
8 Mother tongue interference 59.95 87.629 .441 .742
9 No interest in English language 60.33 77.336 .729 .707
10 Weak grammar usage 60.43 78.018 .659 .712
11 Introvert personality 60.47 99.230 .435 .784
12 Lack of confidence 60.63 77.529 .581 .791
13 Poor academic performance 60.36 45.655 .562 .787
14 Job opportunities in future 60.47 80.144 .500 .726
15 Unable to give presentation in class 61.43 88.488 .569 .746
16 Difficult to communicate with others 60.47 76.546 .777 .703
17 Interpersonal relationships 59.67 88.691 .559 .742
18 Cannot go overseas for further study 60.47 76.546 .777 .703
19 Speech anxiety 59.67 88.691 .559 .742
Table 2 shows that all items are above .40 meeting the criterion set for retaining items in
the questionnaire.

4.3. Factor Analysis of English Competency among Students

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to identify factors influencing the English
language competency among the technology students. The EFA is an analytical process and
data reduction that transforms statistical data into linear combination of variables. It is a
useful and meaningful statistical method applied to combine large number of data into small
factors with minimal loss of information (O'Leary-Kelly & Vokurka, 1998). The Kaiser-
Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity were used for determining the
sample size.
Table 3: KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .961
Approx. Chi-Square 15785.116
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity df 210
Sig. .000

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 811 editor@iaeme.com

 Factor Analysis of English Communication Competency among Malaysian Technology
Undergraduates

Table 3 indicates the KMO and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity for the current data. The
analysis shows the KMO was .96 with Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity significant at .000. This
indicated the sample adequacy for conducting the factor analysis.
Table 4: Communalities
No Statements Initial Extraction
1 Fear of mistakes and criticism 1.000 .800
2 Lack of English speaking platform 1.000 .735
3 Lack of effective learning strategies 1.000 .785
4 Lack of English background 1.000 .642
5 Family background or peer influence 1.000 .622
6 Lack of practice in using English 1.000 .885
7 Lack of using English in daily routine 1.000 .615
8 Mother tongue interference 1.000 .687
9 No interest in English language 1.000 .786
10 Weak grammar usage 1.000 .703
11 Introvert personality 1.000 .435
12 Lack of confidence 1.000 .587
13 Poor academic performance 1.000 .458
14 Job opportunities in future 1.000 .564
15 Unable to give presentation in class 1.000 .697
16 Difficult to communicate with others 1.000 .649
17 Interpersonal relationships 1.000 .779
18 Cannot go overseas for further study 1.000 .493
19 Speech anxiety 1.000 .779
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis
Table 4 shows that the communalities reveal the amount of variance of all the variables
individually. The size of the communality works as an index to assess the amount of variance
in an individual variable that accounts for the factor solution. The commonalties are higher
ranging from 0.435 to 0.800 as shown in Table 4 above.
Table 5: Total Variance Explained
Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Total % of Variance Cumulative% Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 8.241 43.376 43.376 8.241 43.376 43.376
2 1.883 9.912 53.288 1.883 9.912 53.288
3 1.378 7.253 60.541 1.378 7.253 60.541
4 1.097 5.772 66.313 1.097 5.772 66.313
5 .923 4.856 71.169
6 .860 4.526 75.695
7 .757 3.982 79.677
8 .697 3.667 83.344
9 .610 3.211 86.555
10 .483 2.543 89.098
11 .457 2.403 91.500
12 .380 2.002 93.503
13 .327 1.722 95.225
14 .280 1.475 96.700
15 .231 1.213 97.914
16 .174 .917 98.831
17 .142 .749 99.579
18 .080 .421 100.000
1.618 8.51
19 100.000
016 016
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 812 editor@iaeme.com

 Sarala Thulasi Palpanadan, Iqbal Ahmad, Venosha K. Ravana

Table 5 indicates that four factors were extracted based on Eigenvalues greater than 1
using principal component analysis. The first component (mother tongue interference)
accounts for 43.37 of the total variance. It is the first influencing factor. The second
component (lack of confidence) accounts for 9.91 percent of the total variance being the
second influencing factor. The third component (lack of practice) accounts for 7.25 percent of
the total variance being the third influencing factor. The fourth component (home
environment) accounts for 5.77 percent of the total variance being the fourth influencing
factor. The entire four components together accounted for 66.31 percent of the total variance
in the scale.

Figure 1
Figure 1 also shows the four factors extracted through principal component method
(PCA). It shows that the curve tailing off after the four factors. Thus, it allows for retaining
four factors as a result of factor analysis.

Table 6 Rotated Component Matrix

No Component
1 2 3 4
.870
.826
.870
.530
.607
.925
.766
.869
.770
.605
.485
.605
.650
.503
.701
.670
.613
.592
.642

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 813 editor@iaeme.com

 Factor Analysis of English Communication Competency among Malaysian Technology
Undergraduates

Table 6 reveals the rotated component matrix showing the factor loadings for each of the
variables on the main components based on varimax rotation. It also shows the correlation of
the components with each other. Values less than .40 were suppressed in the results. Based on
the rotated components, seven variables loaded on factor I which was named ‘Mother Tongue
Interference’ based on the nature of the items. Five variables loaded on factor 2 which was
named ‘Lack of Confidence’ based on the nature of the items. Three variables loaded on
factor 3 which was named ‘Lack of Practice’ based on the nature of the items. Four variables
loaded on factor four which was named ‘Home Environment’ based on the nature of the
items.

Table 7: Factor Loading Results for all Factors

Item Statements Factor loadings Factor
No
1 Fear of mistakes and criticism .870
2 Lack of English speaking platform .826
3 Lack of effective learning strategies .870
4 Lack of English background .530
5 Family background or peer influence .607 Mother Tongue
6 Lack of practice in using English .925 Interference
7 Lack of using English in daily routine .766
8 Mother tongue interference .869
9 No interest in English language .770
10 Weak grammar usage .605
11 Introvert personality .485 Lack of confidence
12 Lack of confidence .605
13 Poor academic performance .650
14 Job opportunities in future .503 Lack of practice
15 Unable to give presentation in class .701
16 Difficult to communicate with others .670
17 Interpersonal relationships .613
18 Cannot go overseas for further study .592 Home environment
19 Speech anxiety .642

5. DISCUSSION
The aim of this study was to explore the factors influencing English communication among
the technology program students at UTHM Malaysia. The factor analysis highlighted four
important influencing factors: Factor 1-mother tongue interference, Factor 2- lack of
confidence, Factor 3-lack of practice, and Factor 4- home environment as explained below in
detail.
Factor 1 (Mother Tongue Interference) is identified as the most powerful influencing
factor that affects students’ communication skills. This factor explains 43.37 percent of the
total variance. Seven variables loaded on this factor as a result of the principal component
analysis with factor loadings ranging from .530 to .870. This factor reveals that mother tongue
interference is one of the biggest factors that affect English communication of engineering
students in UTHM. This finding also supports previous research studies where mother tongue
has been found as a barrier to second and foreign language learning (Gimenez, 2015).
Factor 2 (Lack of Confidence) is the second influencing factor. This factor explains 7.25
percent of the total variance. Three variables loaded on this factor based on principal
component analysis with factor loadings ranging from .503 to .701. This means that lack of
confidence is one of strongest barriers to English language communication among technology

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 814 editor@iaeme.com

 Sarala Thulasi Palpanadan, Iqbal Ahmad, Venosha K. Ravana

program students at UTHM. This result is in line with previous research that students have
lower confidence and cannot communicate with others (Heriansyah, 2012; Souriyavongsa et
al., 2013). Consequently, they show poor communication skills and perform low in the
language courses and activities.
Factor 3 (Lack of Practice) is the third strongest influencing factor. This factor accounts
for 9.91 percent of the total variance. Five variables loaded on this factor based on principal
component analysis with factor loadings ranging from .485 to .879. This shows that
engineering students are unable to find opportunity to practice English language which affects
their communication skills in the language. Previous research has also revealed that lack of
practice contributes to poor communication skills (Gan, 2012; Stacey & MacGregor, 1991).
Factor 4 (Home Environment) is the fourth strongest influencing factor. This factor
explains 5.77 percent of the total variance. Four variables loaded on this factor on the basis of
principal component analysis with factor loadings ranging from 592 to .670. This reveals that
home environment is another barrier for effective English communication for technology
program students. Previous studies have also indicated that students who do not find
encouraging environment at home regarding second language communication demonstrated
low language competency. Normally, such students come from non-English speaking
background. Studies have shown that children who do not get encouragement from parents or
other elders at their homes show poor speaking performance (Lessing & Mahabeer, 2007;
Roopnarine et al., 2006)

6. CONCLUSIONS
This study aimed at identifying factors influencing English communication among technology
program students at UTHM. Through application of an exploratory factor analysis, this study
revealed that four major factors affected the English language communication skills of the
technology program students. These factors were mother tongue interference, lack of
confidence, lack of practice, and home environment. Thus, the stakeholders and the respective
lecturers will be able to tailor their lesson and learning activities to cater to needs of the
students based on the four factors identified in this study. Besides, scholars and lecturers also
can suggest to students to discuss with their respective family members to cooperate with
them to provide room for them to improve their communication skills based on their own
capacities. This would pave ways for the students not only to excel in English but also in their
technology courses and programs.

RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the results this study provides the following recommendations:
 It is important that students should get an environment at UTHM where English
communication can be declared mandatory for communication among lecturers and students
in the classroom and within the campus. The university management may notice this issue and
embed this matter it in the curriculum and policy.
 The students should be encouraged by lecturers and management to communicate in English
language. Thus, more language enhancement trainings, workshops, seminars, and symposium
could be held from time to time where students could participate actively. This would boost up
their confidence to speak in second language.
 Parents should be positive in creating an environment at home where children find ample
opportunity to practice English language. Parents could allow their children to watch English
drama, English language tutorials and other supportive channels and programs. This would
increase their knowledge of English language and also add to their language vocabulary.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 815 editor@iaeme.com

 Factor Analysis of English Communication Competency among Malaysian Technology
Undergraduates

 Further research is needed on this issue in the context of English learning among the
technology students in Malaysian universities. This would provide new knowledge and insight
for language policy development in educational institutions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The funding for this publication was provided by UTHM Research Fund (E15501).

REFERENCES
[1] Adelaar, K. A., and Prentice, D. (1996). Malay: the national language of Malaysia. Atlas
of languages of intercultural communication in the Pacific, Asia, and the Americas, 729-
733.
[2] Ahmad, S. R. (2016). Importance of English communication skills. International Journal
of Applied Research, 2(3), 478-480.
[3] Ahmadi, M. R., (2018). The Use of Technology in English Language Learning.
International Journal of Research in English Education. 3(2), 115-125
[4] Benraghda, A., Radzuan, N. R. M., and Ali, Z. (2017). Impediments to Delivering Oral
Presentations in English among Malaysian ESP Undergraduates. English for Specific
Purposes World(53), 1-13.
[5] Gan, Z. (2012). Understanding L2 speaking problems: Implications for ESL curriculum
development in a teacher training institution in Hong Kong. Australian Journal of Teacher
Education, 37(1), 3.
[6] Gimenez, S.L. (2015). A Case Study on Oral Corpus: The Use of MotherTongue in Class
by Brazilian Teachers of Spanish as Foreign Language. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 198, 242-248.
[7] Heriansyah, H. (2012). Speaking problems faced by the English department students of
Syiah Kuala University. Lingua Didaktika: Jurnal Bahasa dan Pembelajaran Bahasa,
6(1), 37-44.
[8] Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of
organizations. Journal of management, 21(5), 967-988.
[9] How, S. Y., Abdullah, A. N., and Chan, S. H. (2017). patterns of dominance of language
vitalities among malaysian students in primary national-type and secondary schools.
Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 271-287.
[10] How, S. Y., Heng, C. S., and Abdullah, A. N. (2015). Language Vitality of Malaysian
languages and its Relation to Identity. GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies,
15(2).
[11] Howells, J. (1997). Does Technology Drive History?: The Dilemma of Technological
Determinism, Merritt Roe Smith & Leo Marx (Eds), Cambridge, MA, London, MIT
Press, 1995, xv + 288 pp., ISBN 0-262-69167-1, Prometheus, 15:1, 144-148, DOI:
10.1080/08109029708632060
[12] Ibrahim, D. H. M., and Mahyuddin, M. Z. (2017). Youth Unemployment in Malaysia:
Developments and Policy Considerations. Outlook and Policy, Annual Report.
[13] Ince, M. (2014) The Investigation of Instructors’ Views on Using Technology in English
Language Teaching. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 141,670 – 674.
[14] Kirkpatrick, A. (2012). English as an international language in Asia: Implications for
language education English as an international language in Asia: Implications for
language education (pp. 29-44): Springer.
[15] Lessing, A. C., and Mahabeer, S. D. (2007). Barriers to acquiring English reading and
writing skills by Zulu-speaking foundation-phase learners. Journal for Language
Teaching= Ijenali Yekufundzisa Lulwimi= Tydskrif vir Taalonderrig, 41(2), 139-151.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 816 editor@iaeme.com

 Sarala Thulasi Palpanadan, Iqbal Ahmad, Venosha K. Ravana

[16] Mahir, N. A., Jarjis, S., and Kibtiyah, M. (2007). The use of Malay Malaysian English in
Malaysian English: Key considerations. Paper presented at the The Second Biennial
International Conference On Teaching and Learning English in Asia: Exploring New
Frontiers (TELiA2).
[17] McKay, S. L. (2002). Teaching English as an international language: Rethinking goals
and perspectives. NY: OUP.
[18] Musa, N. C., Lie, K. Y., and Azman, H. (2012). Exploring English language learning and
teaching in Malaysia. GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies, 12(1).
[19] Nunan, D. (2003). The impact of English as a global language on educational policies and
practices in the Asia‐Pacific Region. TESOL quarterly, 37(4), 589-613.
[20] O'Leary-Kelly, S. W., and Vokurka, R. J. (1998). The empirical assessment of construct
validity. Journal of Operations Management, 16(4), 387-405.
[21] Pandian, A. (2002). English language teaching in Malaysia today. Asia Pacific Journal of
Education, 22(2), 35-52.
[22] Rashid, R. A., and Hashim, R. A. (2008). The relationship between critical thinking and
language proficiency of Malaysian undergraduates.
[23] Roopnarine, J. L., Krishnakumar, A., Metindogan, A., and Evans, M. (2006). Links
between parenting styles, parent–child academic interaction, parent–school interaction,
and early academic skills and social behaviors in young children of English-speaking
Caribbean immigrants. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21(2), 238-252.
[24] Salehan, M., Kim, D.J. & Lee. J-N. (2018). Are there any relationships between
technology and cultural values? A country-level trend study of the association between
information communication technology and cultural values. Information & Management.
55 (6).725-745.
[25] Shanmugam, M. (2017). Unemployment among graduates needs to be sorted out fast. The
Star Online.
[26] Souriyavongsa, T., Rany, S., Abidin, M. J. Z., and Mei, L. L. (2013). Factors causes
students low English language learning: A case study in the National University of Laos.
International Journal of English Language Education, 1(1), 179-192.
[27] Stacey, K., and MacGregor, M. (1991). Difficulties of students with limited English
language skills in pre-service mathematics education courses. Mathematics Education
Research Journal, 3(2), 14-23.
[28] Suryasa, I. W., Prayoga, I., and Werdistira, I. (2017). An analysis of students motivation
toward English learning as second language among students in Pritchard English academy
(PEACE). International journal of social sciences and humanities, 1(2), 43-50.
[29] Swales, J. M., and Feak, C. B. (2004). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential
tasks and skills (Vol. 1): University of Michigan Press Ann Arbor, MI.
[30] Thirusanku, J., and Yunus, M. M. (2014). Status of English in Malaysia. Asian Social
Science, 10(14), 254.
[31] Ting, S.-H., Mahadhir, M., and Chang, S.-L. (2010). Grammatical errors in spoken
English of university students in oral communication course. GEMA Online® Journal of
Language Studies, 10(1).
[32] Ting, S.-H., Marzuki, E., Chuah, K.-M., Misieng, J., and Jerome, C. (2017).
employers’views on importance of english proficiency and communication skill for
employability in malaysia. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 315-327.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 817 editor@iaeme.com