Content uploaded by Sebastianus Menggo
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sebastianus Menggo on Aug 25, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
, Vol. 31, No. 1, Juni 2019 137
ISSN 0854-3283 (Print), ISSN 2580-0353 (Online)
HINDERING FACTORS IN THE ACHIEVEMENT OF ENGLISH
COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE
IN TOURISM ACADEMY STUDENTS
FAKTOR-FAKTOR PENGHAMBAT KETERCAPAIAN KOMPETENSI KOMUNIKATIF
BAHASA INGGRIS MAHASISWA AKADEMI PARIWISATA
Sebastianus Menggoa, I Nyoman Suparwab, I Gede Astawac
aDepartment of English Education, STKIP Santu Paulus
Jalan A. Yani 10, Ruteng, Flores, Indonesia
Telephone (0385) 22305, 22194, Facsimile (0385) 21097
bDepartment of Linguistics, Universitas Udayana Denpasar
Jalan Nias 13, Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia
Telephone (0361) 461714, Facsimile (0361) 463656
cDepartment of Tourism, Akademi Pariwisata Denpasar
Jalan Tukan Balian 15, Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia
Telephone (0361) 249396, Facsimile (0361) 238150
Email: sebastian.pradana@gmail.com
Article accepted: May 6th, 2018; revised: May 5th, 2019; approved: June 21st, 2019
Permalink/DOI: 10.29255/aksara.v31i1.235.137- 152
Abstract
English communicative competence is one of the prime preferences for learners in this current
century, including tourism academy students. The aims of this research were to analyze the
hindering factors in communicative competence and disclose the micro and macro component
problems of English communicative competence at the fourth semester of hotel department
students enrolled in three-year diploma program in Denpasar tourism academy. This was
a descriptive-quantitative study and involved 30 students and one English lecturer as the
respondents at this college. Data were collected through in-depth interview, questionnaire,
were analysed by using software program, Excel Chart Data Series. The result indicates that
more complicated than macro components in the students’ English communicative competence.
Keywords: communicative competence, hindering factors, micro-macro component
Abstrak
Kompetensi komunikatif dalam berbahasa Inggris merupakan preferensi utama dari para
mahasiswa ada saat ini, tidak terkecuali mahasiswa akademi pariwisata. Tujuan penelitian
ini adalah untuk menganalisis faktor-faktor yang memengaruhi kompetensi komunikatif dan
mengungkapkan permasalahan komponen mikro dan makro dari kompetensi komunikatif
berbahasa Inggris mahasiswa D-3, semester IV, Jurusan Perhotelan Akademi Pariwisata
Denpasar. Jenis penelitian ini adalah penelitian deskriptif-kuantitatif dan melibatkan 30
mahasiswa dan satu orang dosen bahasa Inggris sebagai responden di kampus ini. Data
dikumpulkan melalui wawancara mendalam, angket, observasi lapangan, dan dokumen
kompetensi komunikatif mahasiswa dalam berbahasa Inggris. Data dianalisis dengan
menggunakan program software, Excel Chart Data Series. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan
138 , Vol. 31, No. 1, Juni 2019
Hindering Factors in the Achievement of English Communicative Competence ...
(Sebastianus Menggo, I Nyoman Suparwa, I Gede Astawa)
ISSN 0854-3283 (Print), ISSN 2580-0353 (Online)
Halaman 137 — 152
bahwa faktor-faktor internal para mahasiswa lebih berpengaruh daripada faktor yang lainnya
dan komponen mikro lebih sulit daripada komponen makro pada kompetensi komunikatif
mahasiswa dalam berbahasa Inggris.
Kata kunci: faktor penghambat, kompetensi komunikatif, komponen mikro-makro
How to cite: Menggo, S., Suparwa, IN., & Astawa, IG. (2019). Hindering Factors in The
Achievement of English Communcative Competence in Tourism Academy Students. Aksara,
31(1), 137-152 (DOI: 10.29255/aksara.v31i1.235.137- 152).
sociolinguistic competence emphasizes on the
knowledge of sociocultural rules of language
and of discourse. This competence requires
an understanding of social context in which
language is used; the roles of the participants,
the information they share, and the function of
the interaction; and strategic competence refers
to the verbal and nonverbal communication
strategies that may be called into action to
compensate for breakdowns in communication
competence. Besides that, communicative
to use the language correctly and appropriately
in the given situation (Hymes, 1972). A speaker
is sued to have not only linguistic competence
but also sociolinguistic, discourse, and strategic
competence. According to Hymes linguistic
competence is the knowledge of the language
code, i.e. its grammar and vocabulary, and also
of the conventions of its written representation
(script and orthography). The grammar
component includes the knowledge of the
sounds and their pronunciation (i.e. phonetics),
the rules that govern sound interactions and
patterns (i.e. phonology), the formation of
(i.e. morphology), the rules that govern the
combination of words and phrases to structure
sentences (i.e. syntax), and the way that meaning
is conveyed through language (i.e. semantics).
Furthermore, Sociolinguistic competence is the
knowledge of sociocultural rules of use, i.e.
knowing how to use and respond to language
INTRODUCTION
English communicative competence as key
roles nowadays including in tourism. It is an
essential to the creation of network and to the
tourism organizational management (Reddy,
2016). Communicative competence can gain
the language and create an atmosphere during
the process of communication (Fang, 2010).
Communicative competence as the main
component in the second/foreign language
teac hing m ethod ology (Bis s enba y eva,
Ubniyazova, Saktaganov, Bimagambetova,
& Baytucaeva, 2013). It enables students
to participate actively in the professional
communications. Consequently, communica-
tive competence is not only as an inherent
grammatical competence (linguistic com-
petence) but also as the ability to use grammatical
competence (linguistic performance) in a
variety of communicative situations.
Communicative competence as a construct
which is made up from four components
(Canale & Swain, 1980). The first two
components reflect the use of linguistic
systems; the two components related to the
functional aspects of communication. The
four components are grammatical competence
which refers to knowledge of lexical items
and of rules of morphology, syntax, sentence-
grammar semantics, and phonology; discourse
competence concerns with the ability to connect
sentences in stretches of discourse and to form
a meaningful whole out of a series of utterance;
, Vol. 31, No. 1, Juni 2019 139
Faktor-Faktor Penghambat Ketercapaian Kompetensi Komunikatif Bahasa Inggris...
(Sebastianus Menggo, I Nyoman Suparwa, I Gede Astawa)
ISSN 0854-3283 (Print), ISSN 2580-0353 (Online)
Halaman 137 — 152
appropriately. The appropriateness depends
on the setting of the communication, the
topic, and the relationships among the people
communicating. Moreover, being appropriate
depends on knowing what the taboos of the
other culture are, what politeness indices are
used in each case, what the politically correct
attitude (authority, friendliness, courtesy,
irony etc.) is expressed, etc. Then, discourse
competence is the knowledge of how to
produce and comprehend oral or written texts
in the modes of speaking/writing and listening/
reading respectively. It’s knowing how to
combine language structures into a cohesive
types. Thus, discourse competence deals with
organizing words, phrases and sentences
in order to create conversations, speeches,
poetry, newspaper articles, etc. And strategic
competence is the ability to recognize and
repair communication breakdowns before,
during, or after they occur. For instance, the
speaker may not know a certain word, thus
will plan to either paraphrase, or ask what
that word is in the target language. During the
conversation, background noise or other factors
may hinder communication; thus, the speaker
must know how to keep the communication
channel open.
In this paper, English communicative
competence is indicated by the ability
of speakers to perform micro and macro
components correctly and appropriately
in oral language ability context. Micro
components is representative into linguistic
competence and macro components refer
to performance competence. Micro and
macro components are basis for a speaker
in supporting communicative competence
(Fromkin, 2003). According to Fromkin, micro
components (linguistic competence) represent,
how speaker’s knowledge of their language
is performed in the particular interaction,
such as lexicon production, morphology,
syntax, semantics and the phonetics and
phonology. Meanwhile, macro components
(performance competence) represent, how
speaker’s knowledge of language interacts with
non-linguistic knowledge, namely pragmatic
and sociolinguistic competences.
Res e archers adapted component s of
communicative competence from research
& Wudthayagorn, 2015) as shown in this
following table.
Table 1 Components of Communicative Competence in Language Use
Canale &Swain
(1980)
Canale (1983)
Celce –
Murcia (1995)
Bachman & Palmer
(1996)
Fulcher
(2003)
Brown (2004)
Micro components
- Linguistic
Competence or
Grammatical
- Discourse
Competence
- Linguistic
Competence
- Discourse
Competence
- Formulatic
Competence
- Organizational
Knowledge
Knowledge
- Language knowledge
- Textual knowledge
- Language
competence
140 , Vol. 31, No. 1, Juni 2019
Hindering Factors in the Achievement of English Communicative Competence ...
(Sebastianus Menggo, I Nyoman Suparwa, I Gede Astawa)
ISSN 0854-3283 (Print), ISSN 2580-0353 (Online)
Halaman 137 — 152
Previous researches present convincing
evidence that communicative competence must
be mastered by fresh graduates including hotel
department of tourism academy students so that
they can cope better with the communication
problems they encounter in their lives (Keyton
et al., 2013). However, the concept of the micro
and macro components of communicative
competence and factors are hindering students’
achievement of communicative competence
have not been strongly supported by recent
While the assumption that micro and macro
components of communicative competence
that hamper students’ English communicative
competence achievement and the factors
obstruct that achievement is commonly
micro and macro components of communicative
communicative competence have increasingly
become the centre of attention (Dumitriu,
Timofti, & Dumitriu, 2014). In this pap e r ,
the concept of micro and macro components
of communicative competence is highly
supported. We assume that the achievement of
communicative competence of hotel department
relevant factors.
Some studies have provided evidence that
the achievement of English communicative
competence is determined by some factors. For
example, (Chang & Goswami, 2011) presented
the factors that hamper students’ English
communicative competence achievement
learning resources, teachers’ persistence, school
support, appropriate curriculum, students’
willingness to participate in the class, students’
ne ed to use English for com munication
and modified exams. Similarly, (El-Omari,
communicative competence are attitudinal,
socioeconomic, social, and extra-curricular
activities. Moreover, performance factor,
during speaking tasks also as the factors
communicative competence (Hoang, Tran, &
Mai, 2015).
Other factors also affected toward the
ecouragement), rural background (lack of
(Bashiruddin, 2018).
Based on the aforementioned literature
reviews, it is obvious that analyzing factors
Macro components
Sociolinguistic
Competence
- Sociocultural
Competence
- Interactional
Competence
- Pragmatic
Knowledge
Knowledge
knowledge
- Pragmatic
knowledge
- Sociolinguistic
knowledge
- Sociolinguistic
Competence
- Pragmatic
Conventions
- Communication
Strategy
, Vol. 31, No. 1, Juni 2019 141
Faktor-Faktor Penghambat Ketercapaian Kompetensi Komunikatif Bahasa Inggris...
(Sebastianus Menggo, I Nyoman Suparwa, I Gede Astawa)
ISSN 0854-3283 (Print), ISSN 2580-0353 (Online)
Halaman 137 — 152
is very essential to be understood by students
and lecturers at hotel department in tourism
academy Denpasar, Indonesia. Students and
their English communicative competence.
Instruction atmosphere can be altered in line
with the communicative competence problems
found in this study. Thus, the prime aim of
this current research is to disclose the real
problems faced by hotel department students
in tourism academy toward the achievement
of their English communicative competence;
both micro and macro components then
aims to answer the following questions.What
components do hamper the achievement of
students’ communicative competence and
what factors are hindering the achievement of
students’ communicative competence.
METHOD
This is a descriptive-quantitative study which
was conducted on May 2017 and involved 31
respondents. Furthermore, data were collected
through in-depth interview, questionnaire,
communicative competence document. Then
data were analyzed by using software program,
Excel Chart Data Series.
of English communicative competence.
Then researchers analyzed the hindering
factors in the achievement of their English
communicative competence.
Questionnaire instrument was used to
identify micro and macro components of
English communicative competence and the
factors hindering the achievement of English
communicative competence. The data was
collected from questionnaire then re-validated
through in-depth interview which was done
toward all students (30 students) and one
English lecturer. The questionnaire was
checked by two expert judgments for giving
their agreement and disagreement toward the
content validity.
Data were collected through some pro-
cedures namely; (1) the questionnaire was
distributed to all respondents at the same time
spending around 40 minutes and (2) in-depth
interview involved 30 students was conducted
about one hour after the questionnaire
distribution and it was recorded on the tape
in order to have accurate data for analysis. 30
students were divided into 4 groups and they
were seated in a circle seating arrangement.
The researchers proposed each question from
the list of interview and then all of them could
freely answer as what they wanted to say
about their problems in achieving English
communicative competence. Respondents
voluntarily responded any given questions.
Data were then analyzed by using software
program, Excel Chart Data Series and it was
continued by qualitative interpretation. Data
from the questionnaire deployed numerical
calculation of the percentage, meanwhile
data from in-depth interview were presented
qualitatively, rely on respondents’ responses.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The aims of this research are to describe the
components that hamper the achievement
of English communicative competence
and factors hindering that achievement.
The researchers found out that those micro
components are the prime problems of
the respondents’ English communicative
competence. It was (63,30%) and the problem
of macro component is only 5,40%. Micro
and macro problems can be seen through the
142 , Vol. 31, No. 1, Juni 2019
Hindering Factors in the Achievement of English Communicative Competence ...
(Sebastianus Menggo, I Nyoman Suparwa, I Gede Astawa)
ISSN 0854-3283 (Print), ISSN 2580-0353 (Online)
Halaman 137 — 152
Figure 1 Micro and Macro Problems
Furthermore, micro components as a major
linguistic competence represented phonology
which was the highest problem (15,20%),
discourse (11,60%) and less of vocabulary
mastery (10,30%). The micro components
described can be more understood through the
Figure 2 Micro Component Problems
The matter of each micro component
has the logic and unique argumentation.
Respondents have shown different ability
in each micro component and had equality
in macro components. The accuracy of
pronunciation (phonology) which focuses on
the ability of a speaker to produce a variety of
phoneme (intonation, rhythm, accent) so that it
can be easily understood by interlocutor was the
prime matter (15,20%). This problem caused
English directly with English speakers at
tourism objects in Bali and lack of students’
initiative in utilizing the use of modern
technology to minimize the pronunciation
problem. These were caused by respondents’
activities. Respondents highlighted that their
interlocutor were quite confused about the
meaning of words or phrases because of
aspect of language learning for EFL learners
(Mahripah, 2014). Generally, English is not
a phonetic language. That is, pronunciation
of English words is not similar to their
spellings. Words with similar spellings are
sometimes pronounced differently because
of their surrounding contexts like tenses and
phonemes that come after them. This can cause
a lot of problems for non-native speakers of
English and they sometimes get confused in
producing the English words. Mahripah further
claimed that some linguistic components of
language like syntax, vocabulary, semantics
and psychological factors such as motivation
achievement in learning a language. Modern
technologies such as communication lab,
speech recognition software and quicktionary
can be utilized in developing learners’
pronunciation (Bahadorfar & Omidvar, 2014).
These technological tools are much more
interesting and provide fun and enjoyable
learning, motivating the students, and help
them to enhance their language learning in a
fruitful way, moreover, these tools help students
learn at their own pace and promote autonomy
in them. Other modern technologies include
computers, laptop, PDAs, media players, you
tube, teacher tube, webquest and the like have
been a great inspiration for students and made
them want to learn more about learning material
, Vol. 31, No. 1, Juni 2019 143
Faktor-Faktor Penghambat Ketercapaian Kompetensi Komunikatif Bahasa Inggris...
(Sebastianus Menggo, I Nyoman Suparwa, I Gede Astawa)
ISSN 0854-3283 (Print), ISSN 2580-0353 (Online)
Halaman 137 — 152
(Suwannakhun & Taniteerapan, 2017).
Next, 13,80% respondents showed
their syntax matter which was far from
the expectation. This component engages
respondents to be able to implement the
appropriate patterns of target language, such
as word category, word formation, tenses,
plurality, etc. They need to have ‘a greater
skill. Respondents are encouraged to create
English verbal communication habit with
the appropriate pattern. Grammar rules can
help students to develop a habit of thinking
logically and clearly. A speaker who knows
the rule of a language, he/she will be able to
communicate that language in a smooth and
skilful way (Alhaysony & Alhaisoni, 2017).
Thus, mastering pattern is the foundation of
Moreover, fluency problem which
emphasizes on producing utterances (pauses,
stressing, voice purity, etc) was 12,40%. This
percentage was supported by respondents’
was the easiness of utterances to be understood
by interlocutor in the conversation. Fluency
facilitates any speakers to produce or
comprehend utterances smoothly, rapidly, and
accurately (Mirzaei, 2012). By improving
to use the language.
Then, discourse problem was at fourth
position (11,60%) where the respondents
are suggested to be able to produce cohesion
in form and coherence in meaning. Most
of respondents are unable to use coherently
various kinds of discourse in English course
such as the use of appropriate synonym words,
pronouns, substitution, repetition words and
phrases, coordinating conjunctions in their
conversation, etc. However, the ability of
discourse supports the speakers to construct
the organizing structure of the text, identify
the logical linkage of contents thus processing
the flow of information more easily and
can also activate those conceptual schemas
involved in communication of the meaning.
Metadiscourse helps a speaker in constructing
a good connecting sentences, shift topics,
recognize an introduction, transition, and a
conclusion, recognize the relevance signals
situation of the text (Tavakoli, 2010).
And vocabulary was 10,30%. Regarding
vocabulary problem, the respondents are highly
suggested to be able to provide the relevant
lexicon on the topic given and be able to use
the conjunctions (words cohesive devices).
The respondents are encouraged to be able to
construct the words which are in line with the
topic, use the appropriate conjunctions, meaning
passive and active vocabulary, etc. They
were unable to show the words of indicators
cohesively in their utterances; i.e. respondents
are unable to use conditional conjunctions
(if and unless); additional (moreover, then,
furthermore, etc); and conclusion (so, thus,
it means that, sum up, etc) appropriately.
Vocabulary is recognized as a vital factor for
the communication development. Vocabulary
knowledge may determine the quality of
speaker’ listening, speaking, reading and
writing performances (Mokhtar et al., 2010).
of the macro components, problems in
sociolinguistics and communication strategy
have been implemented up to 94.60% as shown
sociolinguistics competence (48,32%) such
as communication functions which rely on
setting, participant, aim, norms, and genre,
be able to perform a variety of language
style (verbal and non-verbal) and other
144 , Vol. 31, No. 1, Juni 2019
Hindering Factors in the Achievement of English Communicative Competence ...
(Sebastianus Menggo, I Nyoman Suparwa, I Gede Astawa)
ISSN 0854-3283 (Print), ISSN 2580-0353 (Online)
Halaman 137 — 152
sociolinguistic features. The English lecturer
disclosed that the ability of students in using
sociolinguistic features is caused by the usage
of various language expressions in informal
and formal interaction settings. These are
perhaps unconscious sociolinguistic behaviour
in their daily life. Besides that, communication
strategy is the second macro component which
makes emphasis on the ability of the speakers
to perform the battery of pre-communication,
whilst, and post-communication tactic. During
the interaction, addresser and addressee
sometimes struggle to find the appropriate
words or phrases to communicate, express and
understand the intended messages. It seems
that this struggle is due to a gap between what
the addressers (speakers) want to say and their
and strategies which are commonly referred to
as ‘communication strategies’. These strategies
enable to the speakers to compensate for and to
cope with problems resulting from their lack of
linguistic, communicative and cultural codes of
the target language.
The English lecturer claimed that
the students have known how to keep
the communication channel open. If the
communication was unsuccessful due to
external factors (such as interruptions), or due to
the message being misunderstood by addressee
(interlocutor), the students understood how to
restore his/her communication. The students
have performed the strategies in terms of
speech, or the usage of gestures, taking turns
in the conversation, etc. Regarding this,
the component was well implemented by
respondents (46.28%).
Figure 3 Macro Components
The proportionality between micro and
macro components in the verbal communication
is ‘the exact technique’ in achieving English
communicative competence. Both components
are reciprocal. A speaker cannot be separated
from competence (micro component) and
performance (macro component) in the speech
activity (Chomsky, 1965). Competence is
a speaker’s knowledge of language and
performance refers to the implementation in
the conversation. Cooper (Munby, 1989) said
than linguistic competence. A speaker must
know not only how to produce any and all
grammatical utterances of language, but also
how to use them acceptably and appropriately.
The speaker must know what to say, with
whom, and when, and where. Since both
components (micro and macro) are included
in the interaction settings, a speaker may have
good guarantee to be involved actively in the
functional communication (Tarigan, 2015).
Functional communication sues a speaker to
perform both micro and macro components in
the interaction. Functional refers to a speaker
is not only sued to possess the sufficiency
knowledge of the target language but also
, Vol. 31, No. 1, Juni 2019 145
Faktor-Faktor Penghambat Ketercapaian Kompetensi Komunikatif Bahasa Inggris...
(Sebastianus Menggo, I Nyoman Suparwa, I Gede Astawa)
ISSN 0854-3283 (Print), ISSN 2580-0353 (Online)
Halaman 137 — 152
communication in that target language.
Savignon (Yu, 2001) stated that there is a
hypothetical integration of micro and macro
components of communicative competence.
Those components are interrelated. They
cannot be developed or measured in isolation
and one cannot go from one component
to the other as one strings beads to make
a necklace. Micro components consist of
grammatical competence and discourse
competence while sociocultural competence
and strategic competence included macro
components. Moreover, speaker’s language
ability is indicated by two components: micro
and macro (Bachman & Palmer, 1996). Micro
components or language knowledge consist of
grammatical knowledge and textual knowledge.
Grammatical knowledge encourages speaker to
possess the knowledge of linguistic competence,
such as vocabulary, syntax, phonology and
graphology. They enable recognition and
production of grammatically correct sentences
as well as comprehension of their propositional
content. In other hand, textual knowledge refers
to the ability of a speaker to develop and well
interprete the coherence and consistency in the
real interaction. For example, a speaker is able
to interprete the knowledge of cohesion (ways
of marking semantic relationships among two
or more sentences in a written text or utterances
in a conversation) and knowledge of rhetorical
organization (way of developing narrative texts,
or conversational organization (conventions
for initiating, maintaining and closing
conversations). Whereas macro components
are functional knowledge (pragmatic) and
sociolinguistic knowledge. Functional
knowledge encourages speaker to be able to use
language functions appropriately, i.e. emotive,
referential, expressive, directive and so forth.
Then sociolinguistic knowledge focuses on how
speaker understands the aim of communication,
interlocutor (hearer), context, setting, and
timing as well. Furthermore, speaker is engaged
to be able to perform the lexicon and oral types
of expression in line with the context and
culture of the target language.
The achievement of communicative
competence is also determined by some
factors such as students (learner inhibition,
lack of practicing, lack of motivation, lack
teachers (teaching materials, methods, medias,
assessments, creating learning atmosphere),
curriculum (students’ target needs), peers’
support, parent’s endorsement, and the like.
shows that there was an insufficiency of
practicing English after class with English
speaking communities although there are lots
of English speaking communities close to
their living places. The number of reached 41,
18%. This percentage was caused by students’
busyness. Respondents were very busy with
their part time job before class. They had
afternoon class and there was opportunity in the
morning to seek a part time job. Respondents
are from different backgrounds and they
recognized that the most of them had to work
in the morning before class to aid their living
allowance. Students disclosed that some of
them did not have enough monthly living
allowance. There were parents allocated their
monthly living allowance only IDR 5000000.
It is anxious living in this city. This limited
monetary allocation engages them to have a part
after class with their peers or English-speaking
communities. They were sued to classify
primary, secondary and tertiary needs in the
academic and non-academic. Some of them
left their non-academic habits which disturb
146 , Vol. 31, No. 1, Juni 2019
Hindering Factors in the Achievement of English Communicative Competence ...
(Sebastianus Menggo, I Nyoman Suparwa, I Gede Astawa)
ISSN 0854-3283 (Print), ISSN 2580-0353 (Online)
Halaman 137 — 152
weekend pub, wine consuming, motorbike/car
racing, and cigarette. But academic budgeting
such as books, seminars, relevant workshops
and conferences certainly they never cancelling.
If the respondents had strong commitment and
practice English regularly after class with their
peers and English-speaking communities, it
was possible for them having English speaking
habitual to support their oral English ability.
The frequency of practicing English outside
ability of the use of oral communication skill
(Huang, 2010). It is believed that someone who
is more often involved to functional practice
constantly may increase one’s linguistic
outcomes. Other factors affected toward
the achievement in the oral communication
according to Huang were learner’s language
proficiency, self-perceived oral proficiency
and their motivation in speaking English.
Furthermore, learners’ lack of practical
experiences, limited course time and length,
unsupportive English learning environment and
limited access to English co-curricular activities
are also the factors that hinder the development
of communicative competence (Xie, 2016).
To overcome the matter of learners’ lack
of practical experiences and to enhance
suggested to increase learners’ out-of-class
learning activities by developing a specially
designed self-access learning platform so that
they will be able to learn English whenever
wherever they need. Inhibition to speak
English in the classroom caused by lack
of students’ initiative to practice English
after class (Ur, 1996). According to Ur the
factors which hinder students’ achievement of
English communicative competence consist of
inhibition to practice English in daily life, lack
of topical knowledge (students may be bored
or feel that the topic is unrelated to anything
they know), low or uneven participation in
classroom activity, nothing to say (the students
This is because of lack of exposure to a variety
of vocabulary. This also leads to fail speaking
fluently in English Language, which again
use (when the learners are asked to perform
a speaking activity, they immediately start
thinking about the topic in their mother tongue,
concept what they want to say in their mother-
tongue and then translate it into English, which
often results in mistakes).
The second, the personal’ inhibition to
use English was 20,40%. The most common
matter encountered by the English lecturer was
the learner’s inhibition to speak in English.
Lecturer disclosed that students worried about
making mistakes and losing face in front of
the class. The English lecturer has attempted
to minimize students’ inhibition to practice
English in and after class. Students are obligated
to speak in English class whatever they have.
This technique provides rehearsal opportunities
for students to use any languages they have
known to provide feedback for both teacher and
students. The more students have opportunities
to activate the various elements of language they
have stored in their brains, the more automatics
of their use of these elements. Accordingly,
students require a supportive learning technique
in which they are encouraged and challenged
to speak with clarity, and moreover engage
in purposefully to explore a variety of topics.
Students are encouraged to have a lot of time to
practice their English speaking. Listening and
repeating are simple strategies can be done by
students in improving their English-speaking
skill. Teachers are asked to provide some
guidelines and ask students to repeat/follow.
This can remove the learners’ shyness. Teachers
can use short questions and short dialogues in
, Vol. 31, No. 1, Juni 2019 147
Faktor-Faktor Penghambat Ketercapaian Kompetensi Komunikatif Bahasa Inggris...
(Sebastianus Menggo, I Nyoman Suparwa, I Gede Astawa)
ISSN 0854-3283 (Print), ISSN 2580-0353 (Online)
Halaman 137 — 152
the classrooms to develop students’ speaking
skills (Bashir, 2011). There were three factors
such as motivation, anxiety and self-esteem
(Ariyanti, 2016). Motivation is regarded as a
competence. Motivation is a key factor in
learning a language (Nida, 1956). It is an inner
source, preference, desire, emotion, reason,
need, impulse or purpose that moves a person
to a particular action. Motivation is viewed as
and amount of success of foreign language
learners. More than that, motivation contributes
to learners’ attitudes and it should be kept in
mind in the learning process (Genc & Aydin,
2017). Motivation is like ‘smart processor’ in
determining student’s achievement (Harmer,
2007). He categorized intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation. Intrinsic motivation happens
inside the classroom, namely teacher’s method,
students’ involvement, or students’ perception
toward their success or failure. Extrinsic
a number of external factors such as society,
family, and peer’s support. In short, motivation
can influence students’ decision on being
involved or not to practice their English. Next,
speaking English in front of class often leads
to anxiety. This is one of the major factors for
the inability to speak in English. It is a natural
psychological aspect which contains the feeling
of fear which sometimes uncontrollable (Javed,
Eng, Mohamed, & Sam, 2013). The English
lecturer is suggested to help and encourage the
students to practice English more and more, in
this way the students would be able to minimize
the anxiety towards the English language
learning. Then, self-esteem which becomes one
in the communicative competence. The students
who have high self-esteem will perceive better
achievement rather than those who do not.
(León & Cely, 2010). León &
asses s m e n t and classroom management
(Lozano, 2018).
Then, the insufficiency of parents’
endorsement to facilitate their English
communicative competence was 14,42%.
148 , Vol. 31, No. 1, Juni 2019
Hindering Factors in the Achievement of English Communicative Competence ...
(Sebastianus Menggo, I Nyoman Suparwa, I Gede Astawa)
ISSN 0854-3283 (Print), ISSN 2580-0353 (Online)
Halaman 137 — 152
Parents’ endorsement played a role in
overcoming the obstacles of limiting English
learning opportunities for students. The
English lecturer recognized that some students
the achievement of English communicative
competence than those who didn’t. Those
students might enroll English courses outside
and had the frequency of the use English.
Students who took English course had greater
achievement at learning English language.
Socio-economic status of students’ households
is one of the factors that hinder toward
students’ academic performance (Mlambo,
2012). Whereas the other factors such as home
atmosphere, students’ personality (self-esteem
and attitude), school management, teacher’s
method, class size, quality of teaching, the
social structure including relationship with
peers, parents’ involvement in their child’s
education, gender, aptitude, motivation
and entry qualifications and prerequisites
also contribute toward students’ academic
performance. Each percentage of these factors
4.
Figure 4
Factors aecting Communicative
Competence
The factors describe above definitely
contribute toward students’ achievement
in Englis h comm u n i cative competence.
Those factors are interrelated. Students’
learning satisfaction must be in line with their
achievement motivation and teachers’ teaching
performance. Teachers’ teaching performance
that can be viewed during the learning process.
Student learning satisfaction is measured as
an attitude and psychological conditions of
students in responding to the learning process
experience. Then, students’ achievement
motivation is the psychological driving force
from the students themselves, which directs
the learning activities into the right direction.
Thus, the students can achieve better results.
factors that cannot separated each other toward
the achievement of communicative competence
(Thornburry, 2005). Cognitive factor refers
to familiarity with topic, genre, interlocutors,
and processing demands. Familiarity with the
topics enable the speakers to be easier in the
communication task. Then, genre familiarity
means a speech will be easier if the speakers
are familiar with those particular genres. Next,
familiarity with the interlocutors helps the
speaker to have enjoyable communication.
Generally communication, the better you know
shared knowledge you can do. And processing
demands concerns with the procedure done
toward speaker’s performance in producing
the utterances. Then topic interested refers to
speaker’s feeling toward topic. If the speakers
are interested to the topic we are talking about,
the easier speech activity will be. Whereas,
performance factor means that a speaker has
, Vol. 31, No. 1, Juni 2019 149
Faktor-Faktor Penghambat Ketercapaian Kompetensi Komunikatif Bahasa Inggris...
(Sebastianus Menggo, I Nyoman Suparwa, I Gede Astawa)
ISSN 0854-3283 (Print), ISSN 2580-0353 (Online)
Halaman 137 — 152
to understand how the message is delivered,
emotional equality, time allocation, participant,
setting, aim, and genre as well. Speaker is
pushed to be able to monitor interlocutor’s
responses such as gesture and eye-contact
toward message given. Next, a speaker’s feeling
equality can be done through preparation. The
more time to prepare, the easier the speech
will be. Moreover, time allocation must be
understood by a speaker. How many times
(hours or minutes) implicate toward speaker’s
performance. Besides that, the speaker must
know what is the aim of speech activity, what
is the context, what to say, with whom, when,
and where.
weaknesses of knowledge of language for
CONCLUSION
Referring to the data described, this research
concludes that the micro components is the
prime matter in achieving students’ English
communicative competence. The accuracy
of pronunciation (phonology) contributes
the highest percentage (15,20%) then it
is followed by syntax problem (13,80%).
Fluency is the third component (12,40%),
problem of limited vocabulary (10,30%).
Meanwhile, macro components’ problem
only 5,4%. In terms of hindering factors in the
achievement of communicative competence
the English communicative competence is
class with English speaking communities
(41,18%). Then followed by lack of eagerness
of students’ peers to practice their English in
and after class (24%). No peer’s eagerness to
practice English in and after class contributes
20,40 % then closed by lack of parents’
and discussion elaborated above, below are
some recommendations:
1) Micro components of communicative
competence, particularly on phonology
must be the center of attention given
by English lecturer. Students also are
asked to be familiarized with the speech
recognition software in overcoming the
accuracy of pronunciation matter.
2) It is recommended that English lecturer
to be more creative in designing the
instructional activities and materials to
provide students’ linguistic resources.
Participatory method, task-based method,
direct method and communicative language
teaching method are highly suggested and
performance-based assessment and peer
assessment are possible to be applied in
measuring students’ oral communication
ability.
3) Other researchers are expected to explore
toward students’ achievement in the
communicative competence.
REFERENCES
Alhaysony, M., & Alhaisoni, E. (2017). EFL
teachers’ and learners’ perceptions of
grammatical difficulties. Advances in
Language and Literary Studies, 8(1),
188–199. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.
alls.v.8n.1p.188.
150 , Vol. 31, No. 1, Juni 2019
Hindering Factors in the Achievement of English Communicative Competence ...
(Sebastianus Menggo, I Nyoman Suparwa, I Gede Astawa)
ISSN 0854-3283 (Print), ISSN 2580-0353 (Online)
Halaman 137 — 152
Ariyanti, A. (2016). Psychological Factors
Affecting EFL Students’ Speaking
Performance. ASIAN TEFL: Journal
of Language Teaching and Appli ed
Linguistics, 1(1), 91–102. https://doi.
Bachman, L., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language
testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Bahadorfar, M., & Omidvar, R. (2014).
Technology in teaching speaking
skill. Acme International Journal of
Multidisciplinary Research, 2(4), 9–13.
Retrieved from http://www.aijmr.net
English Speaking Skill. British Journal of
Arts & Social Sciences, 2(1), 34–50.
Learning Speaking Skills in English
among Rural Students in India, 4(5),
115–118.
Bissenbayeva, Z., Ubniyazova, S., Saktaganov,
B., Bimagambetova, Z., & Baytucaeva,
A. (2013). Communicative Competence
Development Model. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 82, 942–945. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.375.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical
bases of communicative approaches to
second language teaching and testing.
Applied Linguistic, 1(1), 1–47.
Castillo, C. Y. P. (2007). Improving Eleventh
Graders’ Oral Production in English Class
through Cooperative Learning Strategies.
PROFILE Issues in Teachers’ Professional
Development, 8(1), 75–90. Retrieved from
http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS
&PAGE=reference&D=psyc13a&NEWS
=N&AN=2014-34222-005.
Chang, M., & Goswami, J. (2011). Factors
affecting the implementation of
communicative language teaching in
Taiwanese college English classes.
English Language Teaching, 4(2), 3–12.
https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v4n2p3.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of
syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Dumitriu, C., Timofti, I. C., & Dumitriu, G.
(2014). Communicative Skill and/or
Communication Competence? Procedia
- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141,
489–493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
sbspro.2014.05.085.
El-Omari, A. H. (2016). Factors Affecting
Students’ Achievement in English
Language Learning. Journal of
Educational and Social Research, 6(2),
9–18. https://doi.org/10.5901/jesr.2016.
v6n2p9.
Fang, F. (2010). A Discussion on Developing
Students’ Communicative Competence
in College English Teaching in China.
Journal of Language Teaching and
Research, 1(2), 111–116. https://doi.
org/10.4304/jltr.1.2.111-116.
Fromkin, A. V. (2003). Linguistics: An
introduction to linguistic theory. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Genc, Z. S., & Aydin, F. (2017). An Analysis of
Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes toward
Learning English Language at Tertiary
Level in Turkish EFL Context. English
Language Teaching, 10(4), 35–44. https://
doi.org/10.5539/elt.v10n4p35.
Harmer, J. (2007). How to teach English (2nd
Ed.). England: Pearson Longman.
Hoang, N., Tran, T., & Mai, N. (2015).
Mobile-Factors Affecting Students’
Speaking Performance at Le Thanh
Hien High School. Asian Journal of
Educational Research, 3(2), 8–23. https://
doi.org/10.1055/s-0029-1220681.
Huang, C.-P. (2010). Exploring Factors
Strategies. Lunghwa University of Science
, Vol. 31, No. 1, Juni 2019 151
Faktor-Faktor Penghambat Ketercapaian Kompetensi Komunikatif Bahasa Inggris...
(Sebastianus Menggo, I Nyoman Suparwa, I Gede Astawa)
ISSN 0854-3283 (Print), ISSN 2580-0353 (Online)
Halaman 137 — 152
and Technology, 30, 85–104. Retrieved
from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/46
8a/7212e4d3bb4e359f84160c32fe3ef25
3bfa8.pdf.
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative
competence. In Pride, J.B.; Holmes,
J. Sociolinguistics: Selected readings.
Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Javed, M., Eng, L. S., Mohamed, A. R., &
Sam, R. (2013). Comparative Study of
the Pakistani and Indonesian Student
’ s Anxiety Towards the English
Language Learning. Middle-East Journal
of Scientific Research, 18(11), 1563–
1572. https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.
mejsr.2013.18.11.12456.
Keyton, J., Caputo, J., Ford, E., Fu, R.,
Leibowitz, S., Ghosh, P., & Wu,
C. (2013). Investigating verbal
workplace communication behaviors.
Journal of Business Communication,
50(2), 152–169. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0021943612474990.
León, W. U., & Cely, E. V. (2010). Encouraging
Teenagers to Improve Speaking Skills
through Games in a Colombian Public
School. PROFILE: Issues in Teachers’
Professional Development, 12(1), 11–31.
Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.
com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&A
N=EJ1051534&site=ehost-live.
Lozano, A. (2018). Personal , Family ,
and Academic Factors Affecting Low
Ach ievement in Seconda r y School.
Electronic Journal of Research
in Educational Psychology and
Psychopedagogy, 1(1), 43–66.
Mahripah, S. (2014). The Third UAD TEFL
International Conference Proceedings
“ EL T Ma t eria ls D e velo pmen t in
Asia and Beyond: Directions, Issues,
and Challenges “. English Education
Department, Universitas Ahmad Dahlan,
Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
Mirzaei, A. (2012). Exploring the Use of Oral
Communication Strategies by ( Non )
Fluent L2 Speakers. The Journal of Asia
Te, 9(3), 131–156.
Mlambo, V. (2012). An Analysis of Some Factors
in an Introductory Biochemistry Course
at the University of the West Indies. The
Caribbean Teaching Scholar, 1(2), 79–92.
Mokhtar, A., Raiwan, R., Yahaya, M., Abdullah,
A., Mansor, M., Osman, M., & Mohamed,
A. (2010). Vocabulary knowledge of
adult ESL learners. English Language
Teaching, 3(1), 71–80.
Munby, J. (1989). Communicative Syllabus
Design: A sociolinguistic Model for
Dening the Content of Purpose-Specic
Language Programmes. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Nida, E. A. (1956). Motivation in Second
Language Learning. Language Learning,
7(3–4), 11–16. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S026144480001315X.
Ounis, T. (2016). Exploring the Use of Oral
Communication Strategies by High and
Low Proficiency learners of English:
Tunisian EFL students as a case study.
International Journal of Humanities
and Cultural Studies, 3(1), 1077–1098.
Retrieved from https://www.ijhcs.com/
index.php/ijhcs/article/view/1410.
Poolsawad, K., Kanjanawasee, S., &
Wudthayagorn, J. (2015). Development of
an English Communicative Competence
Diagnostic Approach. Procedia -
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191,
759–763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
sbspro.2015.04.462.
Reddy, M. S. (2016). Importance of English
Language in Today’s World. International
Journal of Academic Research, 3(4),
33–45. Retrieved from www.ijar.org.in.
Riemer, M. (2007). Communication skills for
152 , Vol. 31, No. 1, Juni 2019
Hindering Factors in the Achievement of English Communicative Competence ...
(Sebastianus Menggo, I Nyoman Suparwa, I Gede Astawa)
ISSN 0854-3283 (Print), ISSN 2580-0353 (Online)
Halaman 137 — 152
the 21 st century engineer. Global Journal
of Engineering Education, 11(1), 89–100.
Suwannakhun, S., & Taniteerapan, T. (2017).
Design and development of distance
laboratory package for teaching basic
electronics via cloud computing.
International Journal of Online
Engineering, 13(8), 60–78. https://doi.
org/10.3991/i joe.v13i08.6985.
Tarigan, H. G. (2015). Berbicara Sebagai Suatu
Keterampilan Berbahasa (Edisi Rev.).
Bandung: Angkasa.
Tavakoli, M. (2010). The Effect of
Metadiscourse Awareness on L2 Reading
Comprehension : A Case of Iranian EFL
Learners. Teaching Language Teaching,
3(1), 92–103.
Thornburry, S. (2005). How to teach speaking.
England: Pearson Educated Limited.
Ur, P. (1996). A course in Language Teaching.
Practice and Theory. Cambridge:
Cambridge Uiniversity Press.
Xie, Q. (2016). Developing Communicative
Competence for the Globalized Workplace
in English for Occupational Purposes
Course in China. Journal of Language
Teaching and Research, 7(6), 1142–1152.
Yu, L. (2001). Communicative Language
Teaching in China: Progress and
Resistance. TESOL Quartly, 35(1), 194–
198. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587868.
