Table of contentsIntroductionThe four personality typesResearch methodologyConclusionsThere are a number of factors that influence the success of learning a foreign language , including the personality type of the students. Thus, this study aimed to find out whether there is a significant correlation between students' personality type and their speaking results of the fifth semester EFL student of the English Education study program at UIN Raden Fatah Palembang . The researcher used correlational study as the research method for this study. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay The population of this research consisted of 298 students of the English Teaching Studies program at UIN Raden Fatah Palembang and 51 students were selected as the sample of this correlational study. research using purposive sampling technique. Furthermore, a quantitative method was used using the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI) and the students' speaking score as the instrument. As a result, it was found that there was no correlation between students' personality type and their speaking ability. However, Pearson product moment analysis revealed that there was no significant correlation between students' personality type and their speaking ability. Since the correlation of coefficients is less than r-table. Second, since there was no correlation between the personality type of the students and their speaking ability. Therefore, regression analysis was not necessary.IntroductionIn the era of globalization, English is becoming an increasingly well-known language in all corners of the world. He inspires people to learn, write and talk more with him. However, this language is learned by people because of its dual importance: communicating; and create greater employment opportunities (Crystal, 2003). Firstly, the importance of English lies in the fact that it is a means of communicating in an interconnected and interdependent world. Today, English has become an international language and is somewhat of an essential language in many countries around the world. Therefore, people realize the importance of this language for communication. Cook (2003) states that English is now taught as the primary foreign language in virtually all countries and used for business, education and access to information by a substantial proportion of the world's population. Moreover, English has become an important language for those who wish to have a better qualification to face the world. People with better English acquisition will have greater chances of obtaining a better career in their future, especially for those who are fluent. This is why speaking has become the first thing that appears in someone's performance. Moreover, speech is considered the most crucial and central language because it allows people to establish successful communication in that language, which is often the main goal of learning any foreign language (Pathan , Aldersi and Alsout, 2014). In fact, communication takes place where there is discourse. Without speech, people cannot communicate directly with each other. The importance of speaking proficiency is therefore enormous for learners of any language. Without words, a language is reduced to simple writing. More specifically, Mahdi (2014) asserts that psycholinguistics and sociocultural factors are everythingvery relevant in the field of education in the process of teaching and learning. This research focuses on university students since English is not only taught at high school, but also at the university level in which students are encouraged to actively participate in the teaching and learning environment. Therefore, it can be inferred that it is very important to improve the proficiency and accuracy of students' English communicative skills compared to the recent goals of the English curriculum in which teaching speaking skill is then become increasingly vital in the context of English as a foreign language. These are some of the reasons why the researcher conducted this research at this level, as Comenius (as cited in Prasettiyo, 2015) points out that the age range of the maturity level is between 18 and 24 years old. In this age group, students gained a lot of intelligence from their formal and informal education. They were also past puberty. So even if they had a bad personality and poor speaking ability, it can still be changed (Okeefe, 2015). Lahaye (1994) emphasizes personality as the outward expression of self, which may or may not be the same as a person's character. , depending on the authenticity of that person. It can be defined as an enduring and unique set of characteristics that can change in response to different situations (Schultz & Ellen, 2005). There are seven major group theories of personality that exist in the field of psychology, such as psychodynamic, neo-Freudian, learning (behavioral), humanistic, biological, trait (dispositional), and cultural perspective (Boundless, 2016) . Hans Eysenck was a personality theorist who focused on temperament – ​​innate and genetically based personality differences. He believed that personality was largely governed by biology, and he viewed people as having two specific personality dimensions: extroversion versus introversion and neuroticism versus stability. After collaborating with his wife and fellow personality theorist Sybil Eysenck, he added a third dimension to this model: psychoticism versus socialization. The Four Personality Types Littaeur (1996) defines four personality temperaments as a proto-psychological theory which suggests that there are four basic personality types. types, sanguine (optimistic and social), choleric (hot-tempered or irritable), melancholic (analytical and calm), and phlegmatic (relaxed and peaceful). Most formulations include the possibility of mixing types. Sanguine temperament is traditionally associated with air. People with this temperament tend to be lively, sociable, carefree, talkative, and pleasure-seeking. They can be warm and optimistic. They can easily make new friends, be imaginative and artistic, and often have many ideas. They can be volatile and changing; thus, sanguine personalities may have difficulty keeping up with tasks throughout and be chronically late or forgetful. Choleric temperament is traditionally associated with fire. People with this temperament tend to be egocentric and extroverted. They may be excitable, impulsive and restless, with reserves of aggression, energy or passion, and try to instill this in others. They tend to be task-oriented people and focus on completing a job efficiently; their motto is usually “do it now”. “This temperament is traditionally associated with the earth element. People with this temperament may appearserious, introverted, cautious or even suspicious. They can become preoccupied with the tragedy and cruelty of the world and are prone to depression and mood swings. They can be focused and conscientious. They often prefer to do things themselves, both to meet their own standards and because they are not inherently sociable. The phlegmatic temperament is traditionally associated with water. People with this temperament can be inner and reserved, thoughtful, reasonable, calm, patient, caring and tolerant. They tend to have a rich inner life, seek a calm, peaceful atmosphere, and be content with themselves. An ambivert is moderately comfortable with groups and social interactions, but also enjoys time alone, away from crowds (Bhargava, Semwal, Juyal, Vyas, & Varsney, 2015). This is in a condition where someone belongs to all personality types. Because they naturally engage in a flexible pattern of talking and listening, ambiverts are likely to express enough confidence and enthusiasm to persuade and close a sale, but are more likely to listen to the interests of others. customers and less vulnerable to appearing too excited or too confident.Research MethodologyThis study was undertaken as part of the English Teaching Study Program at UIN Raden Fatah Palembang. The population consisted of 103 fifth semester students. All 51 students were involved in this study as a sample. The samples were selected using a purposive sampling technique. This study used two types of instruments to collect data. The Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI), specialized for adult learners by Eysenck (2011), was used to obtain student data. The goal was to find out what personality type the students belong to. The questionnaire included 57 dichotomous question items. The students' questionnaire was attached as Appendix 1. Then, the oral test was also carried out with the participant to obtain the students' oral results. The oral test recorded using a voice recorder and camera. The author used three trained evaluators to proceed with the outcome of the speech record. Personality Type of Students The total number of active students in the fifth semester of English study program was 103 students, 51 students participated in this study. The 57 items of the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI) were used to study the personality type of the participants. EPI was assessed using a dichotomous scale (yes or no). When assessing the students' personality, 24 items were calculated based on the answer key to measure the participants' degree of extrovert, 24 items were calculated to measure their degree of neuroticism. 9 items were not calculated because they used a “lie scale”. The purpose of constructing the scale was to find out whether students responded honestly or not. If students responded with a score of 5 or higher on this “lie scale,” it means they are probably trying to make themselves look good and are not being completely honest in their answers. Based on the table above, there are two additional personality types classified as follows: An ambivert. They are Sanguine-Melancholic and Choleric-Melancholic. Thus, there are 23 students who are included as choleric personality type, 2 students are included as sanguine, 18 students are included as melancholic, 3 students are included as melancholic sanguine, and 5 students are included as melancholic choleric. The total sample number was 51 students. The scoreminimum of personality types obtained by the students was 22 while the maximum score was 40. The average score obtained was 28.94 with the standard deviation was 4007. The result of oral performance of the studentsThe result that the minimum oral performance score obtained by the students was 11 while the maximum score was 18. The average score obtained was 15.33 with the standard deviation was 2.132. The descriptive statistical analysis of speaking for the participant is presented in Table 11. The maximum score is 18.33 and the lowest score is 11.33. The average of the participants' speaking scores is 15.25. The standard deviation is 2.13. The speaking performance range is 7. This average score indicates that the speaking performance level of the participants participants is good. For each category, 16 students had very good oral performances. 32 students had good results in oral expression. 3 students had an average. no student had weak or very poor speaking skills. Data are interpreted as normal if p>0.05. If p<0.05, it means the data is not normal. Kolmogorov-smirnov was used to seeing normality. The results of the normality test are presented in Table 12 and indicate that the data for each variable were all normal and suitable for data analysis with coefficients. 200 for personality and. 073 for oral performanceFor the linearity test, a linearity deviation was obtained. If the probability is greater than. 05, both variables are linear. The result showed that the deviation from linearity between personality type and speaking ability was to summarize that all data were linear for each correlation. Correlation between students' personality type and their speaking ability. Based on Pearson product moment correlation coefficient, the result indicated that the correlation pattern between personality and oral achievement was negative. The correlation coefficient or r-obtained was lower than the r-table. then the probability significance level (p) (two-sided sig.) was. That means it was higher than. Thus, there was no significant correlation between students' personality type and their speaking ability. This section presents interpretations of the study based on the result of data analysis to meet the objectives of this study; the correlation between students' personality type and their oral performance, the contribution of students' personality to their oral performance, the best predictor of personality type of their oral performance. To enhance the value of this study, interpretations are made based on the result of data analysis. According to the results, there was no significant correlation between personality type and speaking ability. Furthermore, since there is no correlation between the personality type of students and their speaking results of the fifth semester students of the English study program at UIN Raden Fatah Palembang, the second and third problems of research cannot be studied. Based on the Pearson Product Moment correlation result, it was found that there was no significant correlation between personality and speaking achievement of EFL undergraduate students at UIN Raden Fatah Palembang ( r-.190). This means that personality has no relation to their speaking performance. Conclusions Three conclusions are drawn in this study based on the results and interpretations. First, the results presented in Chapter 4 showed that there is no correlation.