Universal Journal of Educational Research 5(9): 1457-1467, 2017 http://www.hrpub.org DOI: 10.13189/ujer.2017.050903 An Evaluation of Oral Language: The Relationship between Listening, Speaking and Self-efficacy Sezgin Demir Faculty of Education, Firat University, Turkey Copyright©2017 by authors, all rights reserved. Authors agree that this article remains permanently open access under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 International License Abstract Listening and speaking skills are fundamental as activities that form the communication process, complete determinants of an individual’s academic success. The aim each other and cannot be separated. [2]. Listening and of this research is to establish the relationship between speaking constitute the two elements of oral language, and listening and speaking skills, and study how listening the existence of listening skills obliges speaking, but in terms predicts and cognitively arranges speaking. The research was of language acquisition listening is prior to speaking. The carried out using the quantitative pattern in correlational type. close relationship between listening and speaking is taken The population of the research consists of a randomly chosen into consideration by researchers in two fundamental ways. sample of 662 secondary school students from the city of Firstly, listening is the cognitive process and interpretation of Aksaray in Turkey. The data were gathered and analysed auditory codes; the semantics. Secondly, listening triggers, using the percentage and frequency techniques and gender supervises and organises speaking [3, 4, 5]. Listening variance comparisons were made. Independent group t-tests, supervises the performance of speaking, and is as important and variance analysis were used on grade, parental education as speaking. If we accept the existence of listening activities status, book reading, TV watching and internet use. To during speaking and abstract mental designing during these determine the relationship between the variables, Pearson interpreting processes, we find a layout in the base data correlation coefficient was used and to determine the ordered in a complex way and we can explain why oral predicting relationship, simple linear regression analysis was expressions are heard and understood in certain ways in used. The research found that girls have higher verbal some communication [6]. In addition, auditory feedback communication skills and that the higher the level of parental disability or disorder, which results from sensory-neurologic education and the more time spent reading books led to an hearing handicap, causing failures in the ability of the increase in verbal communication skills and self-efficacy, individual to recognize and correct his or her own speaking whereas the amount of time spent watching TV and using a deficiencies and mistakes is related to the supervising and computer had a negative effect on self-efficacy. Statistics regulating activities of speaking [7]. When speaking at a show that listening skill is a significant predictor of speaking specific speed, expressing an idea possibly changing a skill. narrow verb juncture, the fact that we listen and do not control the choice of the words is a feature of the skill of Keywords Language Education, Mother Tanguage, comprehension, which forms the cognitive side of listening Listening, Speaking, Oral Language, Self-efficacy [1]. The listener knows very little about the structure types within the comprehension process of the spoken language and uses the syntactic and semantic knowledge of the language while hearing the speaking input verb by verb [8]. 1. Introduction Without adequate listening skills, sustaining learning processes that might be boring in first or foreign language Language has a complicated structure and is difficult to education, does not seem possible [9]. Within the process of define, but we define it as a conventional system with two language acquisition the necessity for effective listening adjuncts and a fundamental function of communication. The skills obliges us to reveal whether the students know how to essential difference between oral and written language is that listen or not [10]. Having good pronunciation allows the the spoken word is instantaneous and transient with little communication to be easily understood and speaking opportunity to hear what was said again. [1]. Although fluently can contribute to the student’s image [12]. In speaking is involved in expressing and listening is involved conclusion, listening, recording what is heard and in comprehension, speaking and listening must be considered interpretation skills form the basis of speaking performance. 1458 An Evaluation of Oral Language: The Relationship between Listening, Speaking and Self-efficacy Listening forms the basis for speaking and is about showing who work in the universities of Aksaray, Fırat and Hacettepe. the cognitive side, whereas speaking is about Because of the evaluations provided, some items were behaviour/performance. For successful communication, it is improved and rearranged, and five items were removed from inevitable to combine listening and speaking education. the scale. For the pre-application carried out with 253 Listening while providing control of the learning process participants using the 23-item draft scale, considering the stimulates students to speak and helps to improve their correlation matrix, it was decided that there were many items speaking skills, and their self-control during verbal above the acceptable relation level, including (r>.30). Matrix determinant value is bigger than .0001, and multi co-linearity communication [13]. (r>.80) but as none was observed that there was no need to Another important issue in learning is positive remove them. The KMO value of the scale was .87 and the self-perception and belief in success that can affect students’ Barlett test result was 2.045,345 which was significant at .05 participation in classroom activities and help them avoid levels so it was decided to use exploratory factor analysis. deciding that the activities are beyond their abilities [14]. In Since the intersection values of all items in the anti-image terms of deep process strategies, the amount and the quality correlation matrix were above .50, no items could be of effort is related to students’ self-efficacy in terms of their removed from the scale. When the Scree Plot graphic was general cognitive learning interactions with the effective considered with respect to point 2, in which the eigenvalue students using more cognitive strategies than those who line was broken and gained a consistent slope, a Varimax possess self-efficacy [15]. This helps determine self-efficacy operation was carried out which is one of the (vertical) in relation to listening and speaking skills that form verbal extracting approaches and because of the factor analysis an communication, the relationship between these skills and item was removed from the scale since it did not have how one predicts the other. loading value. Since the loading value of all the other items was above .30, determining that there were no cyclical items whose relation level was lower than .10, no items were 2. Method removed from the scale. In LSS the first factor, which consists of 14 items, explains 19.61% and the second factor, This research was carried out using a scanning type which consists of 8 items explains 20.54% of the total quantity pattern on 705 secondary school students chosen by variance. Both factors explain 40.15% of the total variance. the stratified sampling method based on grade variables from It can be said that this is adequate for a multidimensional schools in four education zones within the city centre of scale. Within the reliability test carried out for the 22 items it Aksaray. A total of 662 students’ scales were included in the was seen that the item-test (total) correlation coefficients analysis, of these, 374 were female (56.5%), 288 were male changed between .33 and .60 and therefore no items were (43.5%), 171 were 5th grade (25.8%), 163 were 6th grade, removed from the scale. For the first 14 items, the factor 166 were 7th grade and 162 were 8th grade students. Due to Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficient was .85, for the some respondents choosing more than one alternative, or second 8 items the factor was .85. For the whole scale, the leaving some items blank etc., 43 scales were not evaluated. Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficient was .89. The Spearman Brown reliability coefficient was calculated as .86 2.1. Purpose of the Research and the Guttman split half coefficient was .77. Considering all these results it can be said that the LSS scale was reliable. The purpose of this research is to determine the Speaking Skills Self-Efficacy Scale (SSS): (SSS): To relationship between the self-efficacy of students regarding determine the self-efficacy of the students regarding their their listening and speaking skills, and to establish this. We speaking skills, a 33 item five Likert type draft scale was sought answers to the following questions: developed and presented for evaluation by five Turkish 1. Does the self-efficacy of the students regarding oral language teachers who work in the province of Aksaray and language differ in terms of gender, classroom, parental five academics who work in the universities of Aksaray, education levels, amount of time spent reading, watching TV Fırat and Hacettepe, after which five items were removed and using the internet? and some items were improved and rearranged. After the 2. What is the correlation level between listening and pre-application process using 253 participants regarding the speaking self-efficacies? 28-item draft scale, considering the correlation matrix, it 3. What is the predicting level of listening self-efficacy for was decided that there were many items above the speaking self-efficacy? acceptable relation level including (r>.30), matrix determinant value is bigger than .0001, and multi 2.2. The Development of the Data Gathering Tool co-linearity (r>.80) that were not observed therefore there Listening Skills Self-Efficacy Scale (LSS): To determine was no need to remove them. The KMO value of the scale the levels of self-efficacy regarding listening skills a 28 item was .88, the Barlett test result was 2.289,458 and these 5 Likert type draft scale was formed and the content validity results were significant at .05 levels so it was decided to was presented for evaluation by five Turkish language carry out exploratory factor analysis. Since the intersection teachers who work in the city of Aksaray and five academics values of all items in the anti-image correlation matrix were Universal Journal of Educational Research 5(9): 1458-1467, 2017 1459 above .50, no items could be removed from the scale. When determine the relationship between the variables and to the Scree Plot graphic was considered with respect to point determine the predictor, the Pearson correlation coefficient 1, in which the eigenvalue line was broken and gains a linear regression analysis was used. To determine the consistent slope, it was decided that it was a one dimension performance level for each, item the categories of “always scale. Due to the factor analysis, three items were removed (5)”, “often (4)”, “sometimes (3)”, “seldom (2)”, and “never from the scale since they were under the threshold load (1)” were used. To calculate the average the values between value. Since the item load value of all the other items was 1,00-5,00 were determined as “always: 4.21-5.00”, “often: above .30 no items were removed from the scale. It was 3.41-4.20”, “sometimes: 2.61-3.40”, “seldom: 1.81-2.60” determined that in SSS, 25 items explained 30.26% of the and “never: 1.00-1.80”. total variance and this was adequate for a one dimension scale. Within the reliability test carried out for the 25 items 3. Findings and Interpretation it was seen that the item-test (total) correlation coefficients were between .45 and .61 and therefore no items were removed from the scale. The Cronbach Alpha reliability Analysis of the data on the verbal communication skills of coefficient calculations for the whole scale was .90, the the students are found in this section. Spearman Brown reliability coefficient was .86 and the In Table 1 it is seen that the self-efficacy perceptions of Guttman split half coefficient was .86, so considering all the students regarding their verbal communication skills these results it can be said that the SSS scale was reliable does not differ significantly between genders; [t (660) =.588; (see attachment). p>0.05], girls ( M=3.93) and boys (M =3.90) expressed views using the category “often”. Regarding listening skills, 2.3. The Analyze of the Data girls at (M =3.85) and boys at (M =3.83) is almost the same and regarding speaking skills girls (M =4.00) and boys (M = Using percentage and frequency techniques for analysis 3.97) chose the category “often”, which is also similar. For of the personal data of the participants, and comparisons by both listening and speaking and verbal communication gender, the independent groups t-test and variance analysis skills, it can be said that the self-efficacy of girls was was used in terms of classroom, parental education status, slightly higher than boys. book reading, watching TV and internet use. In addition, to Table 1. The Results of the T-Test regarding the Verbal Communication Skills of the Students by Gender Dimensions Gender n X ss sd t p Female 374 3.85 .57 Listening Skills 660 .416 .68 Male 288 3.83 .64 Female 374 4.00 .55 Speaking Skills 660 .692 .49 Male 288 3.97 .59 Female 374 3.93 .52 Verbal Communication Skills 660 .588 .56 Male 288 3.90 .58 *p<.05 Table 2. The Results of the Variance Analysis regarding Verbal Communication Skills of the Students according to their Grade Levels Dimensions Class n X ss VK KT sd KO F p Difference 5th grade 171 3.92 .56 Intergroup 4.277 3 1.426 6th grade 163 3.72 .63 5-6 Listening Skills 7th grade 166 3.90 .61 4.033* .007 In-group 232.585 658 .353 6-7 8th grade 162 3.83 .58 Total 662 3.84 .60 Total 236.861 661 5th grade 171 4.15 .48 Intergroup 5.975 3 1.992 6th grade 163 3.93 .56 5-6 Speaking Skills 7th grade 166 3.97 .64 6.303* .000 5-7 In-group 207.910 658 .316 8th grade 162 3.91 .57 5-8 Total 662 3.99 .57 Total 231.885 661 5th grade 171 4.03 .48 Intergroup 4.257 3 1.419 Verbal 6th grade 163 3.82 .56 5-6 Communication 7th grade 166 3.94 .59 4.833* .002 In-group 193.193 658 .294 5-8 Skills 8th grade 162 3.87 .53 Total 662 3.92 .55 Total 197.450 661 *p<.05 1460 An Evaluation of Oral Language: The Relationship between Listening, Speaking and Self-efficacy The findings of the variance analysis shown in Table 2 that self-efficacy in students regarding their verbal indicate that the verbal communication skills of the students communication skills does not differ significantly due to the differ significantly between grades; [F (3-658) =4.833*; education status of their mothers [F (3-658) =.994; p>.05]. p<.05]. The Scheffe, Tukey and LSD tests indicate that there However, it is seen that where the education level of are differences regarding verbal communication skills mothers is higher, the self-efficacy of the students’ among 5th grade (M =4.03), 6th grade (M =3.82) and 8th regarding their verbal communication skills also increases. grade students (M =3.87). The Scheffe, Tukey and LSD tests The variance analysis carried out for self-efficacy regarding indicate that self-efficacy regarding their listening skills listening skills shows that a significant difference did not differs significantly [F (3-658) =4.033*; p<.05] and this occur [F (3-658) =1.997*; p>.05], and the Scheffe, Tukey difference occurred among 6th grade (M =3.72), 5th grade and LSD tests show that the differences occurred between (M =3.92) and 7th grade students (M =3.90). Similarly the those students in elementary (M =3.82), secondary schools Scheffe, Tukey and LSD tests indicate that students’ (M =3.81) and universities (M =4.01) whose mothers were self-efficacy regarding speaking skills differs significantly [F graduates. Therefore, it seems that the education status of (3-658)=6.303*; p<.05] and this difference occurred among the mother is an important predictor in terms of 5th grade (M =4.15), 6th grade (M =3.93), 7th grade (M self-efficacy regarding students’ listening skills. Regarding =3.97), and 8th grade students (M =3.91). The results of the self-efficacy in relation to speaking skills there was no variance analysis indicate that self-efficacy in relation to significant difference relating to the education status of the listening and speaking skills and verbal communication mother [F (3-658) =.366; p>.05]. Variance analysis results skills was highest in the “often” category in all grades. The show that students’ choose the “often” category concerning research also indicates that the 5th grade students possess self-efficacy in relation to listening and speaking skills and higher levels of listening, speaking and verbal general verbal communication skills in terms of the communication skills compared to other grades. In education status of their mothers. In conclusion, it can be secondary schools, the mother language and activity centre education is ignored which is one of the reasons for these said that students of university graduate mothers possess findings. higher levels of self-efficacy regarding their own verbal The findings in Table 3 of the variance analysis indicates communication skills. Table 3. The Results of the Variance Analysis regarding Verbal Communication Skills of the Students According to the Education Status of their Mothers. Dimensions Class n X ss VK KT sd KO F p Difference Elementary School 333 3.82 .58 Intergroup 2.137 3 .712 Secondary School 171 3.81 .64 Listening Skills High School 101 3.89 .62 1.997 .113 - In-group 234.724 658 .357 University 57 4.01 .53 Total 662 3.84 .60 Total 236.861 661 Elementary School 333 3.99 .56 Inter .357 3 .119 Secondary School 171 3,98 .55 Group Speaking Skills High School 101 3.96 .64 .366 .366 - In-Group 213.528 658 .325 University 57 4.06 .57 Total 662 3.99 .57 Total 231.885 661 Elementary School 333 3.91 .53 Inter .891 3 .297 Secondary School 171 3.89 .56 Group Verbal Communication High School 101 3.93 .60 .994 .395 - Skills In-Group 196.559 658 .299 University 57 4.03 .52 Total 662 3.92 .55 Total 197.450 661 *p<.05 Universal Journal of Educational Research 5(9): 1458-1467, 2017 1461 The findings of the variance analysis shown in Table 4 important predictor of students’ self-efficacy regarding their indicate that the verbal communication skills of the students listening skills. There was no significant difference relating do not differ significantly according to the education status to the education status of fathers in self-efficacy regarding of their fathers [F (3-658) =2.208; p>.05]. The variance speaking skills [F (3-658) =.740; p>.05]. Variance analysis analysis performed in terms of self-efficacy regarding indicates that students’ self-efficacy regarding their verbal listening skills shows that a significant difference occurred communication skills and listening and speaking skills, were [F (3-658) =3.724*; p<.05]. The Scheffe, Tukey and LSD highest as expressed under the category “often”, so it can be tests indicate that the difference is among the students with said that students with fathers who graduated from university fathers who graduated, in elementary schools (M =3.79), possess a higher level of self-efficacy in relation to their own secondary schools (M =3.81) and universities (M =4.00). It verbal communication skills. can be said that the education status of the father is an Table 4. The Results of the Variance Analysis Regarding Verbal Communication Skills of the Students According to the Education Status of their Fathers Dimensions Class n X ss VK KT sd KO F p Difference Elementary 189 3.79 .57 School Intergroup 3.955 3 1.318 Secondary Elementary 175 3.81 .62 School School, Listening Skills 3.724* .011 High School 163 3.82 .62 Secondary In-group 232.907 658 .354 School-University University 135 4.00 .57 Total 662 3.84 .60 Total 236.861 661 Elementary 189 3.96 .54 School Intergroup .719 3 .240 Secondary 175 3,97 .57 School Speaking Skills .740 .528 - High School 163 4.00 .56 In-group 213.166 658 .324 University 135 4.05 .61 Total 662 3.99 .57 Total 213.885 661 Elementary 189 3.88 .52 School Intergroup 1.968 3 .656 Secondary Verbal 175 3.89 .56 School Communication 2.208 .086 - Skills High School 163 3.91 .55 In-group 195.482 658 .297 University 135 4.02 .56 Total 662 3.92 .55 Total 197.450 661 *p<.05 Table 5. The Results of the Variance Analysis regarding Verbal Communication Skills of the Students according to the Duration of their Daily Book Reading Dimensions Duration n X ss VK KT sd KO F p Difference 0-29 min 119 3.62 .68 Intergroup 8.976 3 2.992 30-59 min 245 3.84 .56 0-29 and 30-59, Listening Skills 60-89 min 212 3.93 .58 8.639* .000 In-group 227.885 658 .346 60-89, 90 90 and more min 86 3,97 .54 and more Total 662 3.84 .60 Total 236.861 661 0-29 min 119 3.71 .66 Intergroup 12.358 3 4.119 30-59 min 245 4.01 .55 0-29 and 30-59, Speaking Skills 60-89 min 212 4.10 .51 13.450* .000 In-group 201.527 658 .306 60-89, 90 90 and more min 86 4.03 .51 and more Total 662 3.99 .57 Total 213.885 661 0-29 min 119 3.66 .63 Intergroup 10.275 3 3.425 Verbal 30-59 min 245 3.92 .52 0-29 and 30-59, Communication 60-89 min 212 4.02 .51 12.040* .000 In-group 187.175 658 .284 60-89, 90 Skills 90 and more min 86 4.00 .48 and more Total 662 3.92 .55 Total 197.450 661 *p<.05 1462 An Evaluation of Oral Language: The Relationship between Listening, Speaking and Self-efficacy The findings in Table 5 show that self-efficacy regarding in terms of TV watching duration [F (3-658) =3.509*; p<.05]. students’ verbal communication skills differs significantly in For listening self-efficacies Scheffe, Tukey and LSD tests relation to how much time they spent reading books [F indicate that the differences occurred between 30-59 minutes (3-658) =12.040*; p<.05]. The Scheffe, Tukey and LSD tests (M =3.98), 60-89 minutes (M =3.91) and 90 and more indicate that differences occurred between students who had minutes (M =3.78). A significant difference was determined reading durations of 0-29 minutes (M =3.66) and 30-59 in students’ self-efficacy in speaking according to how much minutes (M =3.92); 60-89 minutes (M =4.02) and 90 and time was spent watching TV [F (3-658) =3.053*; p<.05]. The more minutes (M =4.00). The variance analysis performed in Scheffe, Tukey and LSD tests show that the difference is terms of self-efficacy regarding listening skills shows a among 30-59 minutes (M =4.11), 60-89 minutes (M =4.05) significant difference [F (3-658) =8.639*; p<.05], and the and 90 and more minutes ( =3.93). Where there is an increase Scheffe, Tukey and LSD tests indicate that the difference in the time spent watching TV, there is a negative impact on occurred between students who have book reading durations secondary school students’ self-efficacy regarding their of 0-29 minutes (M =3.62), 30-59 minutes (M =3.84), 60-89 verbal communication and listening and watching skills. minutes (M =3.93) and 90 and more minutes (M =3.97). A The results of the variance analysis in Table 7 shows that significant difference is seen among students’ self-efficacy students’ verbal communication skills self-efficacy differs regarding speaking skills according to their daily book significantly based on how long they spent each day using reading durations [F (3-658) =13.450*; p<.05]. All students the internet; [F (3-658) =2.738*; p<.05]. The Scheffe, Tukey who participated in the research chose the category “often”. and LSD tests indicate that the difference is in usage between The results indicate that a regular habit of book reading and 90 and more minutes (M =3.85) and 30-59 minutes (M increasing the duration of book reading are important factors =4.01). In relation to listening self-efficacy there was no in the development of listening, speaking and verbal significant difference determined related to internet use [F communication skills. (3-658) =1.279; p>.05]. For speaking self-efficacy, a The variance analysis findings in Table 6 show that significant difference is determined [F (3-658) =5.219*; self-efficacy related to verbal communication skills in terms p<.05], and the Scheffe, Tukey and LSD tests indicate that of how much time is spent watching TV differs significantly the difference is among 0-29 minutes (M =4.08), 30-59 [F (3-658) =3.735*; p<.05]. The Scheffe, Tukey and LSD minutes (M =4.09) and 90 and more minutes (M =3.89). It tests show that the difference is between 90 and more can be said that internet use by secondary school students has minutes (M =3.86), 30-59 minutes (M =4.05), and 60-89 a negative effect on verbal communication skills minutes (M =3.98). A significant difference was determined self-efficacies. Table 6. The Results of the Variance Analysis Regarding Verbal Communication Skills of the Students According to the Duration of their Daily TV Watching Dimensions Duration n X ss VK KT sd KO F p Difference 0-29 min 70 3.88 .56 Intergroup 3.730 3 1.243 30-59 min 80 3.98 .59 Listening Skills 60-89 min 162 3.91 .56 3.509* .015 30-59, 60-89 and 90 90 and more In-group 233.132 658 .354 and more 350 3,78 .62 min Total 662 3.84 .60 Total 236.861 661 0-29 min 70 3.99 .63 Intergroup 2.936 3 .979 30-59 min 80 4.11 .62 Speaking Skills 60-89 min 162 4.05 .52 3.053* .028 30-59, 60-89 and 90 90 and more In-group 210.949 658 .321 and more 350 3.93 .56 min Total 662 3.99 .57 Total 213.885 661 0-29 min 70 3.93 .56 Intergroup 3.306 3 1.102 30-59 min 80 4.05 .58 Verbal Communication 60-89 min 162 3.98 .50 30-59, 60-89 and 90 3.735* .011 Skills 90 and more In-group 194.144 658 .295 and more 350 3.86 .55 min Total 662 3.92 .55 Total 197.450 661 *p<.05 Universal Journal of Educational Research 5(9): 1458-1467, 2017 1463 Table 7. The Results of the Variance Analysis regarding Verbal Communication Skills of the Students depending on the Duration of their Daily Internet Use Dimensions Duration n X ss VK KT sd KO F p Difference 0-29 min 166 3.83 .61 Intergroup 1.373 3 .458 30-59 min 125 3.94 .49 Listening Skills 60-89 min 154 3.84 .59 1.279 .281 - In-group 235.488 658 .358 90 and more min 217 3,81 .65 Total 662 3.84 .60 Total 236.861 661 0-29 min 166 4.08 .56 Intergroup 4.971 3 1.657 30-59 min 125 4.09 .48 0-29, 30-59 and Speaking Skills 60-89 min 154 3.96 .58 5.219* .001 In-group 208.914 658 .317 90 and 90 and more min 217 3.89 .60 more Total 662 3.99 .57 Total 213.885 661 0-29 min 166 3.96 .55 Intergroup 2.435 3 .812 Verbal 30-59 min 125 4.01 .45 30-59 and Communication 60-89 min 154 3.90 .55 2.738* .043 90 and In-group 195.015 658 .296 Skills 90 and more min 217 3.85 .58 more Total 662 3.92 .55 Total 197.450 661 *p<.05 Table 8. The Results of Correlation Analysis According to the Students’ Grades Dimensions Part n Listening Skills Speaking Skills 5th grade 171 1.00 6th grade 163 1.00 Listening Skills 7th grade 166 1.00 8th grade 162 1.00 Total 662 1.00 5th grade 171 .75** 1.00 6th grade 163 .77** 1.00 Speaking Skills 7th grade 166 .81** 1.00 8th grade 162 .69** 1.00 Total 662 .75** 1.00 *p<.05, **p<.01 The findings in Table 8 show that there is a significant changes regarding speaking can be explained by other relationship (p<.01) between the speaking self-efficacy and components of verbal communication skills. The listening self-efficacy levels of the students in terms of significance test of basic predictor variable coefficient gender. Listening and speaking self-efficacies are positive (B=.72) for regression equation also points out that listening for girls (r=.73, p<.01), boys (r=.78, p<.01) and all students skills are important predictors. As a result of the simple (r=.75, p<.01). The correlational relation between the linear regression analysis, the regression equation which listening and speaking self-efficacies of the boys is higher predicts speaking can be visualized as: Speaking than for the girls. Self-efficacy = (.72 x Listening Self-efficacy) + 1.24. Table 9. The Results of the Regression Analysis between Listening and Speaking Skills 4. Discussion Speaking Skills n B SHB β t p Stable 1.24 .10 13.07 .00 There were no differences in gender variables concerning Listening Skills 662 .72 .02 .75 29.42 .00 self-efficacy related to verbal communication skills. n= 662, R= .75, R2= .57, F= 865.259, p< .01 However, girls have higher perception levels than boys that As a result of the simple linear regression analysis carried can be explained by boys having higher levels of anxiety out to determine the predicting level of listening for speaking, when speaking in front of others. Research carried out by a significant relation is observed between these two variables [16], with university students studying English as a foreign (R=.75, R2=.57) and it is determined that listening is a language supports this view. In addition, although a predictor of speaking (F (1-660) =865.259, p<.01). It can be significant difference was not determined [t=.898, .486; said that self-efficacy regarding listening skills explains 57% p>.005]; in terms of gender, it points to males (M =56.41, of self-efficacy for speaking skills. The other 43% of 44.97) having higher levels of anxiety when compared to 1464 An Evaluation of Oral Language: The Relationship between Listening, Speaking and Self-efficacy females (M =52.45, 41.63). It is determined that the students Listening and reading both provide models and samples for who have higher levels of anxiety are also anxious about speaking and writing skills and dialogue and interaction may failure and are not inclined to use the learning strategies be useful in improving both listening and reading skills [23]. enough to overcome this [17]. When linguistic anxiety is Literature is important in the teaching of language skills, high, it nurtures anxiety about failure and causes less use of providing benefits to language education, but speaking, remedial learning strategies. To decrease this anxiety about listening, reading and writing should not be taught separately, failure, an encouraging behaviour must be assumed towards but should be taught in an integrated manner and teachers students’ verbal communication skills, because the more should consider these four skills as part of the application of they speak, the more they will gain self-confidence and take verbal and written language [24]. In the research, the risks to develop communication skills in self-directed increase in the time spent reading books has a positive effect behaviour [18]. on listening and speaking skills. The fact that self-efficacy in relation to verbal Television with its exciting cartoons, moving images, communication skills decreases as the class grade increases entertaining theatre, interesting musical tunes and indicates that linguistic skills in mother language education international scientific movies is enchanting for children and lessons, especially in the secondary school, are not intense or attracts their attention with these features [25]. However, this attentive enough. The effort of performing mother language research shows that if the time spent watching TV increases education through reading and writing communication skills students’ self-efficacy regarding all their verbal reveals this negative situation. Not paying enough attention communication skills are negatively affected. It is known to and ignoring listening skills points to two fundamental that digital technologies, social media, and time spent in difficulties which are the effort required to make students virtual environments and using software applications are understand the process regarding listening skills on their own, attractive to young people and can provide extensive and choosing the right environment for teaching listening education opportunities across different times and distances strategies in the classroom [19]. Language teachers whether [26]. However, in their studies of university students in mother language teaching or foreign language teaching Stankovska, Angelkovska, and Grncarovska, suggest that must be aware of the belief levels of the students regarding overuse of the internet may lead to poor performance at language training [14], otherwise students could be school, social isolation, depression and loneliness, and they condemned to failure from the outset. determined a potential negative relationship between internet The self-efficacy of the students is closely associated with use and loneliness (r = .009, p> .01); and between internet their high self-confidence, the family environment they grew addiction and high academic performance (r = .002, p> .01) up in and the educational status of their parents. It is seen that [27]. This research showed that increases in the duration of as parental education level increases, there is an increase in internet use have a negative impact on self-efficacy self-efficacy regarding verbal communication skills. The regarding verbal communication skills. research carried out by Brassart and Schelstraete with The correlation between self-efficacy regarding listening, students at the ages of four and five shows that after and speaking skills which consists of the two dimensions of pragmatic and sensitive interventions using verbal praise, verbal communication skills, determined that boys have explanation requests, sensitive labelling, question marks, and higher levels of relations compared to girls. Also, it is reproduction and repetitions performed in the parental interesting that in terms of grade variables the relationship language, the verbal communication skills of the children are between listening and speaking skills of 8th grade students negatively affected [20]. In research carried out by Holloway, were at low levels compared to other grades. The simple Yamamoto, Suzuki, Mindnich in 2008 with Japanese linear regression analysis determined that listening skills mothers, it is suggested that mothers who pay more for self-efficacy predicts speaking significantly and explains complementary acts are more educated, they have higher 57% of the self-efficacy regarding speaking skills. This family incomes and their children demand more [21]. This supports the thesis concerning listening skills constituting can be explained by higher levels of parental education ideational infrastructure regarding speaking and arrangement leading to an increase in financial status which means they of speaking cognitively. can enable their children to take part in academic or social complementary activities, courses etc. and by doing this they 5. Results provide their children with environments where they can socialize and develop verbal communication skills, Regarding verbal communication skills, it is determined especially listening. that girls have higher levels of self-efficacy than boys. In Educational research indicates that when language is addition, it can be said that 8th grade students’ self-efficacy taught to students using children’s literature, they think more is quite low regarding verbal communication and critically, become individuals who can solve problems they significantly different from students in other grades. The encounter and have a stronger capacity for relating to real life higher the level of parental education positively affects experiences [22]. Performing four fundamental self-efficacy regarding verbal communication skills communication skills integrated with language education especially listening skills as does an increase in time spent by activities is important in terms of constituting a model. students reading a book, and the application of children’s Universal Journal of Educational Research 5(9): 1458-1467, 2017 1465 literature reading programmes. However, the increase in girls. It is seen that the relationship between listening and time spent watching TV and using the internet have a speaking skills of the 8th grade students are lower when negative effect on self-efficacy in relation to verbal compared to other grades. In conclusion, it can be said that communication skills. The research determined that there is a self-efficacy regarding listening skills is a predictor of correlation between self-efficacy regarding listening and speaking skills and from this aspect speaking has a regulator speaking skills at a high level which is higher in boys than function in forming the intellectual substructure of speaking. Appendix Listening and Speaking Skills Self-efficacy Evaluation Form Dear students Using this information, we aim to evaluate your listening and speaking skills, so your views are valuable to us. While completing the questionnaire, you should read each question carefully and choose only one option. The information you provide will only be used for scientific purposes. We thank you for your patience and attention. Personal Information 1. Sex: ( ) Female ( ) Male 2. Grade: ( )5.grade ( ) 6. grade ( ) 7. grade ( ) 8. grade 3. Mother Education Status: ( ) Not literate ( ) Elementary School ( ) Secondary School ( ) High school ( ) University 4. Father Education Status: ( ) Not literate ( ) Elementary School ( ) Secondary School ( ) High school( ) University 5. Mother’s Occupation: 6. Father’s Occupation: 7. How many brothers or sisters do you have? 8. How many people live in your house? 5. How much time do you spend reading a book each day? 6. Duration for Daily Use of Computer, Tablet etc.? 7. Duration for Watching TV Daily? LISTENING SKILLS SELF-EFFICACY SCALE Always Frequently Sometimes Seldom Never 1. Regarding what I listen to, I guess the meaning of words I do not know. 2. I do not have difficulty in determining the subject of what I listen to. 3. I can determine the main idea of what I listen to. 4. I determine the main theme of the poems I listen to. 5. I determine the attendant ideas of what I listen to. 6. I determine cause and effect relations in what I listen to. 7. I determine aim and result relations in what I listen to. 8. I do not have difficulty in finding covert/suppressive meanings in what I listen to. 9. I summarize what I listen to according to the sequence of events. 10. I answer accurately to the questions directed concerning what I listen to. 11. I distinguish subjective and objective estimations from each other in what I listen to. 12. I make comparisons regarding what I listen to. 13. During listening I put myself in another’s place and try to understand his or her thoughts. 14. I connect visual elements in what I listen to. 15. I can distinguish the language difference between poem and text. 16. I can connect daily life and what I listen to. 17. I can determine the related words in what I listen to. 1466 An Evaluation of Oral Language: The Relationship between Listening, Speaking and Self-efficacy 18. I try to learn the expressions in what I listen to (idioms, proverbs etc.) 19. I enjoy listening to the people who use Turkish language well. 20. I would like to join the auditions of my age (panel, conference, concert etc.) 21. I follow media publications according to my needs. 22. I can use different listening methods if necessary (engaged listening, listening taking notes, listening feeling empathy etc.). →→Please turn the page. →→ SPEAKING SKILLS SELF-EFFICACY SCALE Always Frequently Sometimes Seldom Never 1. I start my speech appropriately. 2. I change my speech according to the environment. 3. I pay attention to using Turkish words instead of foreign alternatives. 4. I arrange my speaking speed in a way that the listener can understand. 5. I pay attention to protocols in my speech. 6. I can express cause and effect relations in my speech. 7. I can express aim and result relations in my speech. 8. I end my speech with appropriate expressions. 9. I pay attention to breathing correctly (from the diaphragm). 10. I speak with a tone of voice that can be easily heard. 11. I pay attention for my speech to be understandable. 12. I pay attention on emphasis in the right places. 13. I pay attention to intonation in my speech. 14. I pause in the right places. 15. I speak with my own voice without imitating anyone. 16. I use body language effectively in my speech. 17. I make eye contact with my listeners. 18. I pay attention to speaking within the frame of a main idea. 19. I use assistant ideas to support my main idea. 20. I use figures of speech to increase the effect of my speech. 21. I give accurate answers to the questions directed to me. 22. I avoid giving distracting details in my speech. 23. I pay attention to completing my speech in a time frame that does not bore listeners. 24. I can express my ideas verbally without hesitation. 25. I pay attention to use the new words I have learned in my speech. Please write below any problems and difficulties you have relating to your speaking and listening skills. [3] Richards, J. C. (2008). Teaching Listening and Speaking: From Theory to Practice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. REFERENCES [4] Buck, G. (2001). Assessing Listening. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. [1] Xu, F. (2011). The Priority of Listening Comprehension over Speaking in the Language Acquisition Process, International [5] Erickzon, D. A. C. (2015). The Relationship Between Education Studies. Vol. 4, No. 1; February 2011, p. 161-165. Listening Proficiency and Speaking Improvement in Higher education: Considerations in Assessing Speaking and [2] Emiroğlu, S. & Pınar, F. N. (2013). Dinleme Becerisinin Diğer Listening, Higher Learning Research Communications. 5(2), p. Beceri Alanları ile İlişkisi / Relationshio Between Listening 34-56. http://dx.doi.org/10.18870/hlrc.v5i2.236. and Other Skill Types, Turkish Studies – International Periodical For The Languages, Literature and History of [6] Chomsky, N. (2002). Dil ve Zihin. Çev. Ahmet Kocaman. Turkish or Turkic. Vol. 8/4 Spring 2013, p. 769-782. Ayraç, Ankara.