6.

DISCUSSION

This section presents the discussion on the oral communication apprehensions towards

the students’ speaking skills.

6.1. Levels of oral communication apprehension of the respondents

Results showed that the respondents have moderately low level of oral communication

apprehension with a mean score of 3.8 on item number 2 as ranked first. This is because when a

student goes to school, he meets students of different cultures. From a chapter that talks about

intercultural communication, it is said that communication skills enable greater effectiveness in

personal and professional life, in a globalized and technologized social context. Without the ability

to communicate, man cannot pass on his accumulated wisdom to the succeeding generations. So

complete is the human reliance on language that it often seems that language actually

determines the possibilities for thought and action in any given culture. Perhaps we are actually

unable to perceive phenomena for which we have no nouns or to engage in actions for which we

have no verbs. When people share a language, they share a condensed, very flexible set of

symbols and meanings. That makes communication possible, at least communication beyond

grunts and hand signals, and provides the basis for symbolic interaction, along with non-verbal

communication and symbols (Vega, et. al., 2009).

They have a moderately high level of oral communication apprehension with a mean

score of 2.1 on item number 1 as ranked 14th or the last rank. This is because the respondents do

not really practice their interpersonal intelligence. When a student has interpersonal intelligence,

he is sensitive to body language, moods, voice, feelings, has inclination to noticing and

responding to other people’s feelings and personalities and has the ability to work with people

(administrators, managers, consultants, teachers) and help people identify and overcome

problems (therapists, psychologists) (Corpuz and Salandanan, 2013) and oral communication

apprehension is everywhere. We live in times of anxiety. We naturally feel some stress before a
test, a performance, or a job interview. And a healthy fear of danger helps us to avoid harm

(Jehovah’s Witnesses, 2015).

The average mean score of the level of oral communication apprehension of the

respondents is 3.1, which means that they have a moderate level of oral communication

apprehension. This may be due to the fact that their self-perceived competence and the level of

oral communication apprehension was significantly correlated (Radzuan and Kaur, 2010). It is

also because the respondents are exposed to a school culture in which they have a voice and

their opinions are heard (Vega, et. al., 2009).

6.2. Levels of speaking skills of the respondents

The tables above show the levels of speaking skills. Table 2 shows the specified

speaking activities on the various speaking activities under the different criteria. The respondents

have an excellent level on the pronunciation and language for the impromptu speaking and

pronunciation for peer discussion with a mean of 4.6 as ranked first. This is due to the reason that

learners were taught how to communicate clearly – how to send clear, concise messages and

how to receive and correctly understand messages sent. There is need to help learners expand

their vocabularies to enhance their communication skills (Bilbao, et. al., 2012) and according to

Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence Theory, when a student has verbal-linguistic intelligence, he is

sensitive to sounds, meanings, structures and styles of language, has inclination to speaking,

writing, listening and reading, and has the ability to speak effectively (such as teacher, religious

leader, politician) or write effectively (poet, journalist, novelist, copywriter, editor) (Corpuz and

Salandanan, 2013).

They have a fair level of nonverbal communication for the impromptu speaking with a

mean of 3.5 which ranked 11th or the last rank. The learning environment is a product of the

physical, psychological as well as social atmosphere created by the interaction between teacher

and the learners and among the learners themselves. How much learning will take place depends

25
ultimately on the learner. Whether or not he or she develops his potentials as a genius to the

fullest is ultimately up to him or her (Corpuz and Salandanan, 2013).

On the over-all speaking activities, 1st in rank is the peer discussion with a mean of 4.2

while the 3rd or last rank is the impromptu speaking with a mean of 3.9, both having a very good

level of speaking skills. This is because some of the essential interaction skills needed by

students are that they should be able to direct the dialogue with one another, comment

immediately on what another speaker has just said, disagree with or challenge another speaker’s

statement, should not have to be invited to speak or speak when there is a short silence

indicating the end of someone else’s turn, interpret one another to include an opinion or question,

and finally use appropriate paralinguistic features. Lam and Wong in a related study, conclude

that learners should also exhibit appropriate cooperative behavior and peer support to

compensate for the ineffective use of interaction strategies due to limited language proficiency

(Lourdunathan and Menon, 2014) and speaking skills also adapts a principle in learning.

According to Horne and Pine’s Principles of Learning, learning is an experience which occurs

inside the learner and is activated by the learner. The process of learning is primarily controlled

by the learner and not by the teacher. Learning is not only a function of what a teacher does to, or

says to, or provides for a learner. More significantly, learning has to do with something which

happens in the unique world of the learner. It flourishes in a situation in which teaching is seen as

a facilitating process that assists people to explore and discover the personal meaning of events

for them (Corpuz and Salandanan, 2013).

The average mean of the speaking skills of the respondents is 4.1, which means that

they have a very good level of speaking skills. This is a result of an excellent performance with an

excellent pronunciation, language, impact and timing, confidence, and nonverbal communication.

This is because some students do improve their speaking skills until they become perfect of it.

The will to excel is a reasoned-but-flexible desire to perform competently (Cannon, 2012). It is

also due to giving emphasis on the respondents’ voices are heard (Mansell and Raboy, 2014).

26
6.3 Significant relationship between the level of oral communication apprehension and
the speaking skills of the respondents

The level of oral communication apprehension and speaking skills for the clinical

interview and peer discussion had no significant relationship as it has a ρ-value of 0.32336 and

0.32067, whereas, for the impromptu speaking there is a significant relationship as it has a ρ-

value of 0.52163. This is because the respondents were anxious on the impromptu speaking as

they stand in front alone.

27