Available via license: CC BY-SA 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 25, No. 1, April 2022, pp. 149-159
LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Learning
http://e-journal.usd.ac.id/index.php/LLT
Sanata Dharma University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
149
AN EXPLORATION ON STUDENTS’ PUBLIC SPEAKING ANXIETY:
STIFIn PERSPECTIVE
Benni Ichsanda Rahman Hz
Universitas Islam Negeri Sumatera Utara Medan, Indonesia
correspondence: benni.ichsanda@uinsu.ac.id
https://doi.org/10.24071/llt.v25i1.4502
received 31 March 2022; accepted 10 May 2022
Abstract
The purpose of this research is to examine the level of public speaking anxiety
among students based on the differences in human intelligence machine division:
STIFIn (Sensing, Thinking, Intuiting, Feeling, and Insting). This study involved 51
Management students who took the English for Specific course on their semester
credits. This study employs a case study that is qualitative in nature. The data was
gathered using a semi-structured approach. The data collected was then processed
by using two methods: statistical calculations for quantitative data related to the
results of filling out 17 Public Speaking Anxiety Scale (FLAS) questionnaires by
students concerning their level of anxiety when performing a public speaking and
constructive analysis for qualitative data related to the results of comparing
respondents' responses. The results show that students in the Insting personality
have a higher average of public speaking anxiety: 51.60. Students who are Sensing
have an average anxiety level of 49.25, whereas students who are Thinking have an
anxiety level of 47.50. In comparison, Intuiting students have an average anxiety
level of 48.66, while Feeling students have an average anxiety level of 50.17.
Consider the implications, some suggestions are discussed to overcome the
challenges..
Keywords: anxiety, brain dominance, personality, public speaking
Introduction
Although there have been numerous studies on the relationship between
personality and speaking ability factors (Fazeli, 2011 in Foroozandehfar & Khalili,
2019), there has been no research on speaking ability factors based on the
distinction of human intelligence machine. Speaking ability is influenced by a
number of variables, one of which is anxiousness (Marwa & Thamrin, 2016).
Various studies on anxiety in public speaking based on personality have been
conducted (Boroujeni et al., 2015; Marwa & Thamrin, 2016), but it is still
inadequate in the context of it’s relation to distinction of human brain capability.
There are some theories that divide human personality based on brain
dominance. One of these is the STIFIn method for dividing the human brain's
ability, which is being the topic of this study. STIFIn is a tool for determining a
LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 25, No. 1, April 2022, pp. 149-159
150
person's genetic personality potential (Dini, 2022 in Poniman, 2009). The
separation of the powers of the human brain by STIFIn was created in 1999, since
the psychological analytical method pioneered by Carl Gustav Jung, coupled with
Ned Herrmann's theory of The Whole Brain Concept and theory Tiune Brain, is
more scientifically based in the STIFIn tests started by Poniman (2009). The
STIFIn technique is based on the STIFIn idea, which combines psychological,
neurology, and human resource science theories (Alindra, 2018). It is achieved by
fingerprints scanning, in which fingerprints provide information about the nervous
system's makeup, which is then analyzed and linked to certain brain areas that act
as the main operating system and machine intelligence (Rafianti & Pujiastuti,
2017).
STIFIn stands for Sensing, Thinking, Intuiting, Feeling, and Insting
(Poniman, 2009), which are then these five types of personality known as
Intelligence Machine (Agung & Rustandi, 2017, p.46), while the intelligence
steering consists of introverts and extroverts (Poniman, 2009). Genetic personality
in STIFIn is formed from a combination of intelligence engine and intelligence
steering (Dini, 2022). Thus, there are 9 types of genetic personality, namely
Sensing extrovert (Se), Sensing introvert (Si), Thinking extrovert (Te), Thinking
introvert (Ti), Intuiting extrovert (Ie), Intuiting introvert (Ii), Feeling extrovert (Fe).
), Feeling introvert (Fi), and Instinct (In) [(Dini, 2022 cited Poniman, 2009)]. This
notion becomes the STIFIn genetic personality identification paradigm, in which
only one dominant genetic personality is identified and developed (Poniman, 2009).
Hz (2021, p.14) following the study of Poniman & Mangussara (2013) and
Mundiri & Zahra (2017) further explains these five brain distinctions: 1) Sensing
has to do with the way they learn by remembering, how they play, how strong their
muscles are, how often they study, and how they focus on their lessons. It also has
to do with their own chemistry and how it affects their power with a stable social
role and how much money they have. The best way to learn how to sense people is
to look at other people. Record how the best people do something, then do it the
same way. They should do upcopy if possible. The more practice they have, the
better their skills become. They start with a small amount and then add on little by
little (Hz, 2021, p.14).
Furthermore, When Sensing individuals are pushed from the outside, they
develop a more withdrawn and apprehensive temperament. They would, however,
dare to attempt to maximize their existing power potential. Even when it comes to
speaking up, if they have been forged through disciplined training and experience,
Sensing feels most entitled to stand in the front row, despite their initial shyness
(Poniman, 2011). However, the component that most assist the Sensing type master
the lesson is repetition of practice questions: answering all types of questions from
easy to tough or solving problems. This type of experience will always be a
prerequisite for success. For the Sensing personality type, the most successful
method of learning is through trial and error. Exercises that are repeated are an
effective technique to maintain muscle memory. The more frequently they train, the
more muscle memory is developed, resulting in increase in this type of talent
(Poniman, 2011).
Moreover, 2) Thinking personality is so inclined to the throne with a social
role in power, decisiveness, and independence that they have a computational
learning style, serious habits, greatness in logic, a focus on friendship, the path to
LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 25, No. 1, April 2022, pp. 149-159
151
success by setting priorities, and blood type stimulus A (Hz, 2021, p.15). The most
effective method of developing thinking strategies is for students to make
advantage of their left brain's ability to analyze. They observe a work process or
task, then identify flaws, make improvements, and monitor the results. They
continue to do so until they observe beneficial effects. They pore over the
instructions, observing and mastering the structure and procedure. They next go
through as much data as possible to fine-tune the analysis. Poniman (2011)
emphasizes that Thinking people think positively and feel they can. They are also
analytical, which means they think analytically about a system's pieces, like to
debate and discuss, like to compete for something, and have a powerful and formal
attitude. In addition, Thinking type immediately functions in its regular effective
style of working. This category treats work with a high standard of output. This
type of operation must be efficient and precise. Finally, the Thinking individuals
will oversee the process and organize the system so that the activities operate
smoothly. Otherwise, 3) Intuiting people have a way of learning that is based on
patterns and habits, and they are creative, classy, knowledgeable, and influential in
words. This is because their social role is to be creative, classy, intelligent, and
influential in words, and this is how they learn about the world and the world
around them. The best way to learn how to read people is to use their right brain's
ability to look for ideas and patterns, which is what you should do. Ideas and
patterns can be found in books, films, magazines, TV shows, and more. They can
be found anywhere. They always try to find something new from what they have
seen, heard, or read. These people look for patterns in the things they have learned
so they can connect it with the information they want to learn more about. They
have the most important thing: imagination and creativity (Hz, 2021, p.15).
In addition, 4) Feeling tends to be blazing social and mood, as well as
feelings of love as a result of their dysplastic constitution, dysplastic DNA and
blood type O stimulant. In order to develop a better sense of empathy, interacting
with other people is the most effective method. They are motivated or enlightened
by the experiences of others. They are more likely to engage in conversation with
those who already have a firm grasp of the subject matter they seek to master. They
select books, articles, or biographies that are relevant to them and investigate how
they use the information (Hz, 2021, p.15). Poniman (2011) added that Feeling are
persuasive, tolerant, affectionate, communicative and good communicators, good
listeners, considerate and able to take care of other people's feelings, and
sympathetic. Feelings individuals have the potential mental strength to hear the
language of the heart of the other person with their power of deep breath. The
Feeling type's greatest asset is its ability to enhance others' feelings. Thereafter, this
personality gets to play the role of king-maker. This kind focuses on being a mentor
and motivator for those they care about. As a result of their inherent calling, they
prefer to help others reach their full potential. This type of galvanizer gives all they
have until the point of exhaustion. Ultimately, this type is content if its cadres
achieve their goals. Feeling persons are referred to as coaches because of their
competence, and one of them even aspires to become the most expensive coach.
Comparable, 5) Insting have a balanced DNA between Adenine, Guanine,
Thymine and Cytosine, a stenis physical constitution, adenine, guanine, thymine
and cytosine, and their chemistry is water, therefore they tend to be happy with the
social role of peace (peacemaker) and happiness. The greatest way for instinctive
LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 25, No. 1, April 2022, pp. 149-159
152
people to learn is to respond swiftly and spontaneously to situations that demand
knowledge. Their freedom will help them learn. They use their abilities to help
others complete work that requires knowledge to be mastered (Hz, 2021). The
Insting person, according to Poniman (2011), is a great spiritualist but also a fierce
and temperamental individual, with sharp instincts and good prediction but doubtful
and no principles (decisions easily changed) (not aggressive, confident in achieving
something). This kind is also quick to respond and thorough, but less long term,
honest, innocent, and naive. Moreover, Instinct people have natural desire to be
happy all the time. As it is, they just like living in a place where they can be happy
and not have to deal with problems. Instinct likes a peaceful and calm situation
without any confrontations. If the happiness is achieved, then these people start to
play a role in multitasking. They always want to help other people. Not even if they
have to be number two in their partnership, this type does not really matter. What is
important for this type is that it can be a partner for other types at a better level.
This type does not want to be a target if they become number one. They prefer to be
number two or being support system.
Meanwhile, STIFIn has been extensively researched in the context of its
relation with other subjects (eg: (Amri & Rahman, 2020; Rafianti & Pujiastuti,
2017; Yandri et al., 2021). However, specifically, the relationship between STIFIn
and English language acquisition and English language competence is still not
widely carried out, especially between English public speaking ability and brain
dominance.
At that point, in Medan, there is one university that implements the entire
division-based curriculum system, which is predominantly brain-based: based on
STIFIn. All classes of students are classified into groups based on the type of
intelligence they possess. Students with right-brain dominance are placed in classes
that are exclusively made up of right-brain people. Students with left brain
dominance, on the other hand, are placed in classes that are exclusively made up of
left brain individuals. This constructivist approach, which has been in place for the
past two years, is designed to ensure that students receive instruction that is
customized to their individual talents and interests, as theorized by STIFIn.
This institution is a vocational university that specializes in the topic of
economic management. However, there are four English courses in the curriculum
that begin in semesters one through four, respectively: Basic English I and II,
Conversation I and II, Business English, and English for Specific Purpose. These
courses are offered in the first and second semesters of each semester. These series
of English subjects are taught in stages from basic to advanced levels by lecturers
who have also been assessed for their brain dominance.
According to the syllabus for intermediate (namely: business English) and
advanced (namely: English for Specific Purpose) courses, one of the course's
outcomes is that students be able to communicate in the context of their
professional life, and more specifically, public speaking. All students are taught and
encouraged to develop the ability to deliver public speaking in the context of their
work (e.g., corporate presentations), both in openly and digitally. Otherwise,
numerous challenges arise during the teaching and learning processes of this
course. Grammatical errors, pronunciation difficulties, and a dearth of vocabulary
are all common problems. The issue is essentially about a single underlying issue:
students' apprehension or lack of fearlessness whenever it comes to public speaking
LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 25, No. 1, April 2022, pp. 149-159
153
in front of communities. Most students were afraid, frightened, and worried when
required to talk in front of the class, which, according to the author's views, is a
small sample of the common society. All of these issues belong to one main issue:
public speaking anxiety.
Studies on speaking anxiety have been conducted since five decades ago
(Tsang, 2020), which is started by McCroskey in 1977 who studied about the
summary of theories and researches about oral communication apprehension.
McCroskey (1977) defined communication apprehension as an individual's level of
worry or anxiety in response to actual or expected conversation with another person
or entities. Even though, anxiety is a crucial component in the field of language that
can have both a positive and a negative impact on a person's ability to communicate
effectively (Sutarsyah, 2017; Yildiz, 2021).
Public speaking anxiety, as defined in the context of public speaking, is a
combination of evaluative feelings regarding one's ability to speak in front of
audience (Daly et al., 1989). As an additional point of reference, Hunter et al.,
(2014) following the study of Bodie (2010), explained that public speaking anxiety
is a situation-specific social anxiety that originates from the actual or expected
enactment of an oral presentation. In practice, public speaking anxiety is the most
common type of communication anxiety, and it is also one of the most extensively
studied and researched communication constructs (LeFebvre et al., 2018).
Anxiety can arise in educational settings from a variety of factors, including
stress, depression, exhaustion, resource constraints, and apprehension about being
evaluated (LeFebvre et al., 2018). To put it in other words, students who have more
competent oral communication abilities will indeed be effective in managing the
anxiety that comes with public speaking situations (LeFebvre et al., 2018). Stewart
et al., (2021) following the findings of Bodie (Bodie, 2010) stated that public
speaking anxiety is a situation specific social anxiety that arises from the actual or
anticipated enactment of an oral presentation. Increased heart rate and perspiration
are common physiological responses to anxiety, while trembling, rocking, and other
adaptive behaviors are also common behavioral responses to anxiety (Bodie, 2010,
in Stewart et al., 2021).
Thus, paucity of empirical of research on the relationship between STIFIn
and English language acquisition and competence: particularly on the relationship
between English public speaking ability and brain dominance, the purpose of this
research is to examine the level of public speaking anxiety among students based
on the differences in intelligence machine (in thic case: STIFIn). Whether the
students with Sensing, Thinking, Intuiting, Feeling, and Insting personalities have
significantly different levels of anxiety or not, or even whether these brain
dominant traits have no association with public speaking ability, then were
explored.
Method
Participants
This study enrolled 51 students of the economic management universities in
North Sumatra province. Samples were chosen from two classes of fourth semester
students who took the English for Specific Purpose course on their semester credits.
All of the participants went through a series of English subject on their previous
LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 25, No. 1, April 2022, pp. 149-159
154
semesters, starting with Basic English I and II, English Conversation I and II, and
progressing to Business English.
Instrument
This research is a case study that is qualitative in nature. The data was
gathered by using a semi-structured approach. The data collected in this study was
then processed using two methods: statistical calculations for quantitative data
related to the results of filling out 17-question student questionnaires concerning
their level of anxiety when performing a public speech, and constructive analysis
for qualitative data related to the results of comparing respondents' responses.
Procedure of Data Analysis
The researcher began by taking note of the different personality traits
associated with brain dominance among students that were available through the
university's academic division. Following that, the researcher asked students to
complete a Foreign Language Anxiety Scale (FLAS) questionnaire developed by
Bartholomay & Houlihan (2016), which consisted of 17 questionnaire items to be
answered on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest level of anxiety and 1 being
the lowest level of anxiety (5 questions within score reversing: number 6, 7, 8, 16,
and 17). Table 1. FLAS Scale
The absolute maximum score is 5, and there are 17 questions to answer. This
means that the highest maximum score is 85, while the lowest is 17. The more
anxious they are, the higher their score will be. Researchers divided the 85 score
into three different groups according on their recorded levels of anxiety: low (1–
28), moderate (29–57), and high (57–85).
It was subsequently determined the students' experiences and involvement in
public speaking, as well as their practice, depended on which brain dominant type
they possess, as well as how anxious they are about speaking in front of others.
Findings and Discussion
The data from the questionnaire on students' anxiety of public speaking are
presented in the table below.
Table 2. The level of public speaking Anxiety among students.
Level
Sensing
Thinking
Intuiting
Feeling
Insting
∑
%
∑
%
∑
%
∑
%
∑
%
High (57-85)
4
25
-
-
2
13.33
2
33.33
1
20
Moderate (29-56)
12
75
10
100
13
86.67
4
66.67
4
80
Low (1-28)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Scale Ranging
Description
5
Extremely
4
Very
3
Moderately
2
Slightly
1
Not at all
LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 25, No. 1, April 2022, pp. 149-159
155
According to the table, 25% of Sensing students have high levels of public
speaking anxiety, while none of the Thinking students have high levels of public
speaking anxiety. The following percentages are: 13.33% Intuiting, 33.33%
Feeling, and 20% Insting students who have high levels of public speaking anxiety.
On the contrary, 100% of Thinking participants found moderate levels of anxiety,
followed by 80% of Insting students who also reported moderate levels.
A more in-depth analysis was completed. The entire number of responses to
all of the survey questions was tallied up to arrive at the anxiety level of the
participants. The table below shows the findings.
Table 3. Average level of Anxiety
Brain Dominant
Type
Average level
of Anxiety
Level
Sensing
49.25
Moderate
Thinking
47.50
Moderate
Intuiting
48.66
Moderate
Feeling
50.17
Moderate
Insting
51.60
Moderate
Sensing students have an average anxiety level of 49.25, while Thinking
students have an anxiety level of 47.50. In contrast, Intuiting students have a degree
of anxiety of 48.66, followed by Feeling students who have a level of anxiety of
50.17 on average. Insting students, on the other hand, have a higher average: 51.60.
However, the majority of students in any brain dominant type are in the moderate
range, not the high range, and the difference is not statistically significant. The
esearcher also calculated each student's average score for each question from the
replies they gathered via a questionnaire.
Table.4. Students Public Speaking Anxiety Score
Statements
Score
Sensing
Thinking
Intuiting
Feeling
Insting
Giving a speech is terrifying
2.50
2.30
2.80
2.67
2.20
I am afraid that I will be at a loss
for words while speaking
3.00
3.20
2.80
3.17
3.80
I am nervous that I will
embarrass myself in front of the
audience
3.06
2.80
2.73
2.67
3.20
If I make a mistake in my
speech, I am unable to re-focus
3.06
2.50
2.53
3.00
3.00
I am worried that my audience
will think I am a bad speaker
3.38
3.20
3.20
2.83
4.40
I am focused on what I am
saying during my speech*
2.75
2.30
3.33
2.67
1.80
I am confident when I give a
speech*
3.63
3.70
3.47
3.83
3.80
I feel satisfied after giving a
speech*
1.75
2.30
2.60
2.50
2.00
My hands shake when I give a
2.56
3.00
2.67
2.83
3.20
LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 25, No. 1, April 2022, pp. 149-159
156
speech
I feel sick before speaking in
front of a group
2.94
2.10
2.40
3.17
2.80
I feel tremble before giving a
speech
3.38
2.70
2.80
3.17
3.20
I am anxious before speaking
3.38
2.70
2.93
2.67
3.20
My heart pounds when I give a
speech
3.75
3.50
3.00
2.83
3.20
I sweat during my speech
2.31
2.30
2.93
2.83
2.60
My voice trembles when I give a
speech
2.19
3.00
2.40
2.83
2.80
I feel relaxed while giving a
speech*
2.75
3.20
2.93
3.17
3.20
I do not have problems making
eye contact with my audience*
2.88
2.70
3.13
3.33
3.20
Average
2.90
2.79
2.86
2.95
3.04
Nb.* Reverse score in its calculation
Thinking students have an anxiety level of 47.50, which put them as the
lowest anxiety averagely among other intelligence machine, although the difference
is not significant. This result is supported by the fact that the Thinking individuals
always have positive mindset that they feel they can do what being target, which in
this case support the emphasis of Poniman (2011). Therefore, they will perform
someting as better as they can in case the Thinking type is immediately able to
perform in its usual, efficient manner. They are analytical, which implies they are
interested in analyzing a system's components and enjoy debating and arguing with
others (Poniman, 2011). As the name suggests, the work in this category is held to a
high quality in which their operation necessitates speed and accuracy. They also do
not care about what other think about them, which make them making decisions
without any consideration about what will people think about them.
Students at Insting intelligence machine, on the other hand, report the
highest average anxiety level: 51.60, despite the fact that their apprehension is still
of a medium intensity. This findings support Poniman's (2011) assertion that
Insting individuals are indecisive and less convinced. To put it another way, their
decisions are easily changed, as well as their lack of confidence and aggression. As
a result of these variables, some people may not be confident to talk in front of the
audiences, even if they are not aware of it. Despite the fact that Insting students are
quick to react to a thorough question, their responses are not long-term, resulting in
their being naive persons.
Moreover, according to Table 4, the statement "I am worried that my
audience will think I am a bad speaker" has the highest level of anxiety across all
respondents, with a score of 4.40 from Instinct students. In this circumstance, the
students are extremely concerned and upset that they will be judged as
incompetent speakers. This finding is consistent with Poniman's (2011) hypothesis
that Instinct prefer to live in an area where they can be joyful without having to deal
with problems. Instinct prefers a pleasant environment free of conflict.
Consequently, they frequently avoid speaking in front of audiences in order to
prevent disagreement with others. This result is in contrast to Thinking students, as
their lowest anxiety level, 3.20, corresponds to Intuiting students, as Thinking
LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 25, No. 1, April 2022, pp. 149-159
157
persons are unconcerned about what others think of them, leading them to make
decisions without regard for what others would think.
An additional point of differentiation is found in the sentence "I am
confident when I give a speech”. Feeling students, on average, score 3.83 out of a
possible 5.0 in this context. It is their chemistry as good communicators and good
listeners that causes them to feel courageous; they are persuasive, tolerant, and
affectionate; and this confirms the idea of Poniman (2011). They have the potential
mental strength to hear the other person's heart language through their deep breath
in which the Feeling type's greatest asset is its ability to enhance others' feelings, as
well as, this personality gets to play the role of king-maker. They give all they have
until they are exhausted, and they are considered as coaches as they are so excellent
at what they should be doing.
Another important distinction is in the point of “I am anxious before
speaking”. In this circumstance, Sensing students possess the higher anxiety, where
averagely they have 3.38, and “my heart pounds when I give a speech”, in which
averagely they possess 3.75 that make Sensing is the higher than others types. This
anxiousness is in this case created by their lack of experiences, due to the fact that
the students in this class, according to the author’s observation, have not been
consistently engaged in the real public audience making their presentations. Their
potential brave tend to be expressed, in case they are brave persons, as explained by
Poniman (2011), that Sensing individuals dare to attempt to maximize their existing
power potential. Even when it comes to speaking up, if they have been developed
through disciplined training and experience, Sensing feels most entitled to stand in
the front row, despite their initial nervousness, if they push forward their main
power: by employing process of trial and error. Exercises that are repeated are an
efficient way to retain muscle memory, which bring the more frequently individuals
train, the more muscle memory is produced, resulting in increase in this type of
potential.
Conclusion
In this study, 25% of Sensing students exhibited high levels of public
speaking anxiety, while none of the Thinking students did. These are the
percentages: the anxiety encompasses 13.33% Intuiting, 33.33% Feeling, and 20%
Insting students. Rather, 100% of Thinking participants experienced moderate
anxiety, followed by 80% of Insting students.
Students in the Insting personality, on the other hand, have a higher average
of public speaking anxiety: 51.60. Students who are Sensing have an average
anxiety level of 49.25, whereas students who are Thinking have an anxiety level of
47.50. In comparison, Intuiting students have an average anxiety level of 48.66,
while Feeling students have an average anxiety level of 50.17.
Furthermore, when it comes to the statement " "I am worried that my
audience will think I am a bad speaker", Instinct students have the highest amount
of anxiety among all respondents, scoring 4.40 on average. Furthermore, in the
context "I am confident when I give a speech," Feeling students score an average of
3.83 out of a possible 5.0. Last but not least, when it comes to "I am anxious before
speaking," Sensing students had the highest anxiety, with an average of 3.38, and
"my heart pounds when I give a speech," with an average of 3.75, making Sensing
the highest individuals in these circumstances.
LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 25, No. 1, April 2022, pp. 149-159
158
Consider the implications, that both students and instructors need to work
together to seek solutions to their anxiety-inducing situations. Quite a strategies are
proposed that students could use to completely overcome the challenges for Insting
students (as the most anxious), as well as to reduce the level of anxiety for other
brain dominant types, such as: invariably practicing with peers, removing the fear
of being giggled after giving a presentation, participating in speaking or
presentation contexts, establishing friendly relationships with students, and being-
mixed with high-level confidence students. Instructors can also help students
overcome their anxiety by developing programs to boost their confidence,
encouraging them to speak in front of an audience and not be afraid of making
mistakes, involving them in English speaking programs like debating, presentation,
and conversation clubs, and asking them to come prepared to class. And most
importantly, the lecturers must creating and developing suitable teaching syllabus,
materials, methods and techniques, appropriate with the students' individuals
characteristics, personality, and intelligence machine.
References
Agung, B., & Rustandi, D. (2017). Ini gue banget: Temukan kekuatan rahasiamu,
jadilah apapun yang kamu mau. PT. Elex Media Komputindo.
Alindra, A. L. (2018). Kajian aksiologi metode STIFIn dalam pemetaan mesin
kecerdasan manusia. Jurnal Filsafat Indonesia, 1(1), 23–29.
Amri, M., & Rahman, U. (2020). Description of structural officers STIFIN test
results of UIN Alauddin Makassar. Lentera Pendidikan: Jurnal Ilmu Tarbiyah
Dan Keguruan, 23(1), 1–8.
Bartholomay, E. M., & Houlihan, D. D. (2016). Public speaking anxiety scale:
Preliminary psychometric data and scale validation. Personality and
Individual Differences, 94, 211–215.
Bodie, G. D. (2010). A racing heart, rattling knees, and ruminative thoughts:
Defining, explaining, and treating public speaking anxiety. Communication
Education, 59(1), 70–105.
Boroujeni, A. A. J., Roohani, A., & Hasanimanesh, A. (2015). The impact of
extroversion and introversion personality types on EFL learners’ writing
ability. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(1), 212.
Daly, J. A., Vangelisti, A. L., Neel, H. L., & Cavanaugh, P. D. (1989).
Pre‐performance concerns associated with public speaking anxiety.
Communication Quarterly, 37(1), 39–53.
Dini, J. P. A. U. (2022). Strategi pendidikan karakter anak usia dini menggunakan
perangkat kepribadian genetik STIFIn. Jurnal Obsesi: Jurnal Pendidikan Anak
Usia Dini, 6(3), 1859–1872.
Fazeli, S. H. (2011). The exploring nature of language learning strategies (LLSs)
and their relationship with various variables with focus on personality traits in
the current studies of second/foreign language learning. Online Submission,
1(10), 1311–1320.
Foroozandehfar, L., & Khalili, G. F. (2019). On the relationship between Iranian
EFL learners’ reading fluency, their personality types and learning styles.
Cogent Arts & Humanities, 6(1), 1681347.
LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 25, No. 1, April 2022, pp. 149-159
159
Hunter, K., Westwick, J., & Haleta, L. (2014). Assessing success: A model for
assessing the impact of a fundamentals of speech course on decreasing public
speaking. Communication Education, 63(2).
Hz, B. I. R. (2021). Public speaking. Yogyakarta: K-Media.
LeFebvre, L., LeFebvre, L. E., & Allen, M. (2018). Training the butterflies to fly in
formation: Cataloguing student fears about public speaking. Communication
Education, 67(3), 348–362.
Marwa, W. S., & Thamrin, N. R. (2016). Extrovert personality and its impact on
studentsâ€tm argumentative essay writing skill. English Review: Journal of
English Education, 4(2), 267–274.
McCroskey, J. C. (1977). Oral communication apprehension: A summary of recent
theory and research. Human Communication Research, 4(1), 78–96.
Mundiri, A., & Zahra, I. (2017). Implementasi metode STIFIn dalam meningkatkan
kemampuan menghafal Al-Qur’an di rumah Qur’an STIFIn Paiton
Probolinggo. Jurnal Pendidikan Agama Islam (Journal of Islamic Education
Studies), 5(2), 201–223.
Poniman, F. (2009). STIFIn personality mengenali mesin kecerdasan anda. Bekasi:
PT. STIFIn Fingerprint.
Poniman, F. (2011). Penjelasan hasil tes STIFIn: Mengenali cetak biru hidup anda.
Bekas: PT. STIFIn Fingerprint.
Poniman, F., & Mangussara, R. A. (2013). Konsep Palugada: Apa Lu Mau Gua
Ada. STIFIn Institute.
Rafianti, I., & Pujiastuti, H. (2017). Analysis of students’mathematical power in
terms of STIFIn test. Infinity Journal, 6(1), 29–36.
Stewart, B., Broeckelman-Post, M., & Rossheim, C. (2021). Making a difference: A
quantitative study of communication center and basic course impact on public-
speaking anxiety, goal orientation, and motivation. Communication Education,
70(3), 307–326.
Sutarsyah, C. (2017). An analysis of student’s speaking anxiety and its effect on
speaking performance. IJELTAL (Indonesian Journal of English Language
Teaching and Applied Linguistics), 1(2), 143–152.
Tsang, A. (2020). The relationship between tertiary-level students’ self-perceived
presentation delivery and public speaking anxiety: A mixed-methods study.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(7), 1060–1072.
Yandri, H., Sujadi, E., & Juliawati, D. (2021). Perencanaan karir siswa sekolah
menengah atas dengan pendekatan konsep STIFIn untuk menghadapi perilaku
kapitalisme di era revolusi industri 4.0. Educational Guidance and Counseling
Development Journal, 4(2), 58–65.
Yildiz, M. (2021). The factors causing English speaking anxiety on non-English
major academics while using English as a medium of instruction. TEFLIN
Journal, 32(2), 389–412.
