Main Article Content


The purposes of this study were to describe students’ fluency level and to identify students’ disfluency factors at MA KMM Kauman Padang Panjang. It employed quantitative research method with the class of  grade XI students as the research population. There were 25 students taken as the research sample selected through purpossive sampling technique. The data were collected through speaking test and a set of questionnaire. In the speaking test, students were allowed to choose one of five topics provided and were asked to deliver short talks for 2 minutes. These short talks were recorded. In addition to the speaking test, there were 20 questions with four options as the answers. These questions represented five main factors of disfluency such as task with task difficulty, meaning focused, time pressure, planning and preparation, and task repetition. The collected data were mainly in the form of transcription texts mined from the recordings of the short talks as well as the answers from the questionnaire. The results of the study show that students’ fluency level at grade XI of MA KMM Kauman Padang Panjang is good (level 3). However, the information on disfluency which prevented them to get a higher score were also identified. Most of the main disfluency factors were task with task difficulty, meaningfocused, time pressure, planning and preparation, and task repetition.



Keywords: Speaking, speaking fluency, level of speaking fluency .

Article Details

How to Cite
Aditya, A. (2021). An Analysis of Students’ Speaking Fluency at XI Grade of MA KMM Kauman Padang Panjang. FOSTER: Journal of English Language Teaching, 2(1), 219-230.


  1. Anggraeni, W., Wahibah, & Faqihuddin Assafari, A. (2020). Teachers’ Strategies in Teaching Speaking Skills at SMAN 1 Palopo. FOSTER: Journal of English Language Teaching, 1(1), 83-97.
  2. Brown, H. Douglas. 2004. Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practices. Longman. New York: Pearson Education.
  3. Cameron, Lynne. 2001 Teaching Languagt to Young Learners. Cambridge: University Press.
  4. Farahani, A. & Kouhpaeenejad, M. (2017). The Relationship between Temporal Measures of Oral Fluency and Ratings of Fluency: A Case of Iranian Advanced EFL Learners. International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies. Volume: 05 Issue: 03 July-September, 2017
  5. Fernanda, Yogi. 2014. Speaking Activity in The English Literary Classroom. Sumatera Barat: STKIP PGRI Sumbar.
  6. Fitriani, A., Rustan, & Yahya, A. (2020). Show and Tell Technique in Teaching Speaking Skills at SMAN 2 Palopo. FOSTER: Journal of English Language Teaching, 1(2), 98-113.
  7. J., W.,Creswell.2009.Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approach. (Universityod Nebraska-Lincoln: Sage.
  8. Luoma, S. 2004. Assessing Speaking. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  9. Marwati, & Syamsudarni. (2020). Improving Students’ Speaking Skill Through Drama at the Eighth Grade of SMPN 9 Palopo. FOSTER: Journal of English Language Teaching, 1(1), 41-54.
  10. Nation and Newton. 2009. Teaching ESL/EFL Listening and Speaking. New York: Routledge
  11. Nunan, David. 2003. Practical English Language Teaching. Singapore: McGrawHill.
  12. Schmidt, R. 1992. Psychological Mechanism Underlying Second Language Fluency. Studies in Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  13. Stockdale, D. Ashley. 2009. Comparing Perception of Oral Fluency to Objective Measures in the EFL Classroom (Unpublished Thesis). Birmingham: University of Birmingham.