LINGUISTIC COMPETENCE AND SPEAKING

PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH EDUCATION STUDY

PROGRAM STUDENTS OF SRIWIJAYA UNIVERSITY

Dwi Wahyuni
dwi.wahyuni@yahoo.co.id
Diemroh Ihsan
diemroh.ihsan@facebook.com
Rita Hayati
ritahayati78@yahoo.com

Abstract:The objectives of this study were to find out whether or not there
was (1) a significant correlation between linguistic competence (LC) and
speaking performance (SP), and (2) a contribution of linguistic competence
to speaking performance. The method of the study was a correlational
study. The population was the fourth, sixth, and the eighth semester
students of English Education Study Program, Sriwijaya University in
academic year of 2013/2014. The total number of the sample was 100
students. In this study, the students were given two kinds of tests, that is,
linguistic competence test and speaking test used to measure the two main
variables (LC and SP). The data obtained from the tests were analyzed by
using Pearson Product Moment Coefficient on SPSS program for windows.
The findings showed that there was a significant correlation between
students’ linguistic competence and their speaking performance. The
correlation coefficien between linguistic competence and speaking
performance was 0.315 and the correlation was low or weak. Furthermore,
it was found that the influence of linguistic competence on speaking
performance was 9.9 %. It is concluded that linguistic competence gave
contribution to students’ speaking performance.

Key words:linguistic competence, correlation, speaking performance

Talking about language as means of by which sounds and meanings are

communication, it is necessary to related. In addition, Kola (2008) defines
consider the importance of language language as “a complex and dynamic
itself in our life. The importance of system ofconventional symbols that are
language in general had attracted the used in various modes forthought and
attention of scholars.Osisanwo (2003, p. communication” (p. 12).
1, as cited in Adekunle & Aina, 2012, p. The scientific study of human
1) seeslanguage as “Human vocal noise language that refers to linguistics has
or the arbitrary graphic presentation of close relationship with language itself.
this noise, used systematically and Taha and Reishaan (2008, p. 35) argues
conventionally by members of a speech thatlinguistics is concerned with the
community for purposes of study of competence, and does not
communication”. Fromkin and Rodman restrict itself to performance. The
(1993, p. 5) define language as a system statement indicates that there is a

83
difference between competence and them all together”. Furthermore,
performance. Moreover, Chomsky linguistic knowledge as represented in
(1965, as quoted in Finch, 2003, p. 16) the speaker’s mind is called agrammar.
distinguishes competence and Fromkin (2000, p.7) defines grammar
performance as two types of linguistic as follows :
ability. In linguistics, as cited by
Hamerka (2009, p. 14), the term Agrammar includes everything one
competence is used to describe the knows about the structure of one’s
learner´s capacity to produce alanguage. language– its lexicon(the words or
vocabulary in the mental
Another term, performance, denotes the
dictionary), itsmorphology(the
production of actualutterances as a structure of words), its syntax(the
result of certainpsychological processes structure of phrasesand sentences
(de Kort and Leerdam, as cited in Scha, and the constraints on well-
1990, p. 5). formedness of sentences),
Similarly, Fromkin and Rodman itssemantics(the meaning of words
(1993) differentiate competence and and sentences) and its
performance as follows, “it is a phoneticsandphonology(the sounds
difference between what you know, and the sound system or patterns)
which is your linguistic competence and
how you use this knowledge in actual Therefore, linguistic competence
speech production and comprehension, refers to the knowledge and ability of
which is your linguistic performance” individuals for appropriate language use
(pp. 11-12). in the communicative events in which
Based on Chomsky's theory, our they find themselves in any particular
linguistic competence is our speech community.
unconscious knowledge of languages In attempting to describe linguistic
and the organizing principles of a competence, linguistic construct a
language. Then, what we actually grammar, which is an explicit system of
produce as utterances is called linguistic elements and rules that are needed to
performance (Denham & Lobeck, form and interpret sentences (O’Grady,
2013, p. 21). Furthermore, O’Grady, Dobrovolsky, & Aronoff, 1989, p.4).
Dobrovolsky, and Aronoff, (1989) state, Widdowson (1983, p. 1) state,
“…speakers of language know a system “someone knowing a language knows
that enables them to create and more than how to understand speak,
understand novel utterances. This read, and write sentences. He also
unconscious knowledge is often labeled knows how sentences are used to
linguistic competence” (p. 4). communicative effect”. When a speaker
Linguistic competence includes of any language, no matter if the
therules of word formation and language is their first, or second,speaks
vocabulary (lexicon), pronunciation the language, their performance results
(phonology), and sentenceformation from their competence (Hamerka, 2009,
(syntax). This knowledge of the p. 15).
language code is framed in terms According to Widdowson (1983, p.
ofunderstanding the literal meaning of 1), the aims of a language teaching
the utterance (Verhoeven & Vermeer, course are very often defined with
1992, pp.164-166, as cited by Pillar, reference to the four language skills:
2012, p. 6). Fromkin and Rodman understanding speech (listening),
(1993, p. 12) describe linguistic speaking, reading, and writing. These
competence as “the linguistic system aims relate to the kind of activity which
that includes the sounds, structures, the learners are to perform. Speaking is
meaning, words, and rules for putting one of two productive skills in a
language teaching.
 Furthermore, Widdowson (1983, p. of language through four language
57) states that speaking and writing are skills especially speaking. Based on
said to be active, or productive skills Chomsky’s theory, the knowledge of
whereas listening and reading are said language is students’ linguistic
to be passive, or receptive skills. competence as input in process of
Speaking plays an important role in knowing language and speaking is
learning a foreign language because it is output of linguistic performance (as
used as a measurement of knowing cited by Chidambaram, 2005, p. 9).
language. Widdowson (1983) argues, Speaking is taught in four
“speaking in the usage sense involves semesters, that is, IEC Speaking,
the manifestation either of the Speaking I, Speaking II, and Speaking
phonological system or of the III. Although the students of English
grammatical system of the language or Education Study Program have taken
both” (p. 58). Therefore, the learners both of the linguistics and speaking
seem to be well aware of the fact that courses, some of the students’ speaking
knowing language means being able to performance is not so good yet. When
speak. they speak, they often make mistakes in
Speaking is a part of linguistic pronunciation and grammar.
performance that takes input from However, the data taken from
linguistic knowledge. Linguistic English Education Study Program of
knowledge is assumed as a theory rather Sriwijaya University showed 23.4 % of
than applied as linguistic performance. 41 students in year of entrance 2010 got
In linguistics, such in other science A for IEC Speaking, 41% of 41 students
branches, the abstract theory and got A for Speaking I, 58.5% of 41
applied practice have relationship but students got A for Speaking II, and 78%
the theory preceded its applied (Lyons, of 41 students got A for Speaking III.
1968, p. 70). According to Bygate Although the data showed that there
(1987, p. 3), in order to achieve a was a progress in students’ speaking
communicative goal throughspeaking, achievement, it must be supported by
there are two aspects to be considered – linguistic knowledge to measure the
knowledge of the language, and skill students’ speaking achievement. De
inusing this knowledge (as cited in Jong, Steinel, Florijn, Schoonen, and
Vilimec, 2006, p. 10). Hulstijn (2012, p. 14) found that the
In English Education Study linguistic knowledge measures aspects
Program, Faculty of Teacher Training of linguistic processing skills. So, it
and Education, Sriwijaya University, could be assumed that the students’
linguistics is taught in the third semester English ability in English Education
under the subject called ‘Introduction to Study Program of Sriwijaya University
Linguistics’. In this course, the students are still not good yet since only 2.4 %
are taught about basic components of of 41 students got A for Introduction to
linguistics including Phonology, Linguistics and 34% of 41 students got
Morphology, Pragmatics, Syntax, and lower than B.
Semantics. In the following semesters, Related to a previous study,
those basic components of linguistics students face many problems in
are taught in more details. So, those speaking. Hamerka (2009, p. 39) in his
courses can help students to know the survey found that there were possible
language. Fromkin and Rodman (1993) causes the problems of students’
state, “When you know a language, you speaking performance. They were not
know the sounds, the words, and the enough opportunities to use English
rules for combination” (p. 11). The actively for communication (28 %), not
students can perform their knowledge enough opportunities to be in an
English-speaking enviroment (27%), Indralaya in the academic year
psychical causes (19%), insufficient 2013/2014 that has studied Introduction
knowledge of English (10%), not to Linguistics subject. The writer chose
enough opportunities to listen to spoken fourth, sixth, and eighthsemester
English (8%), the way of learning students since they had the same
English in general (6%) and other characteristics. The total number of the
causes (2%). population of the study was 123
Based on the descriptions above, students.In this study, the writer used
the students’ linguistic competence total sampling method.
might support their speaking To collect the data for this study,
achievement. Since speaking is very tests were used. There were two tests in
important for the students of English this study: the linguistic competence
Education Study Program when they test and the speaking test.The linguistic
become teachers, they need to be aware competence test was administered to
of knowledge of language; whether it is find out the students’ linguistic
high (positive) or low (negative) and competence. The linguistic competence
how their linguistic competence test consisted of aspects or basic
correlates with and influence their components of linguistics that
speaking achievement. Therefore, the isPhonology, Morphology, Syntax,
writer was interested in investigating Semantic, and Pragmatics. The writer
whether or not there was any significant conducted the linguistic competence
correlation between linguistic test based on a book ‘An Introduction to
competence and speaking performance Language’ that was used by students of
(total and partial) of English Education English Education Study Program of
Study Program students of Sriwijaya Sriwijaya University. Then, the writer
University. If there was, the next took some references not only from the
purpose was to find out the contribution book but also from internet for
of linguistic competence (total and conducting the test. Besides, some
partial)to speaking performance. items of the test were linguistics
theories that related to definitions of
each linguistics aspects.In order to
RESEARCH METHOD measure students’ speaking
This study used explanatory design performance, speaking test was given.
which is a correlationaldesign in which To do that, the students were given the
the researcher is interested in theextent same topic to talk about in 2-5 minutes
to which two variables (or more) co- which were video-taped recorded by
vary, that is, where changes in one using a digital camera. There were three
variableare reflected in changes in the steps to collect the data:
other (Creswell, 2012, p.340).
There were two variables in this Step 1 : The writer gave the topic
study, independent variable (x) and What is the unforgettablemoment in
dependent variable (y). The your life? Why do you think so?
independent variable was students’ Step 2 : The students were given 5 minutes
to think about the topic and their
linguistic competence, and the
own sentences.
dependent variable was speaking Step 3 : The students were asked one by one
performance of English Education to speak and the writer video taped
Study Program students of Sriwijaya it.
University.
The population of this study was To ensure that the instrument that
students of English Education Study the writer used was accurate, content
Program of Sriwijaya University at validity was applied. The writer tried
out50 questions of linguistic performance of English Education
competence test to 30 students of Study Program students of Sriwijaya
English Education Study Program in University, the Pearson Product
Palembang as non sample students. The Moment Correlation Coefficient
result of the analysis showed that 16 formula in Statistical Package for Social
items of 50 items of the linguistics Science (SPSS) type 21. In addition,
competence test were not valid because regression analysis was applied to test
the correlation was below 0.361, but the whether independent variable
writer only used 30 items to be (Linguistic competence) significantly
administered to the sample that covered determined the dependent variable
the aspects of linguistics in the same (students’ speaking performance).
total number.To measure the reliability Regression analysiswas used to support
of the linguistic competence test, the the correlation coefficient analysis and
writer used internal-consistency to find out how much the contribution
reliability. Cresswell (2012, p. 161) of the independent variable to the
defines “the coefficient alpha is used to dependent variable.
test for internal consistency”. The writer
analyzed the reliability of the
instrument Cronbach’s Alpha Method. FINDINGS
To find the reliability the writer used The Result of the Linguistic
SPSS version 21. It was found that Competence Test
Alpha obtained was 0.754. According Based on Table 1, it was found that
to Wallen and Fraenkel (1991, p. 99), the highest score of linguistic
for research purposes, a rule thumb is competence test was 28 and the l owest
that realiability should be at least 0.70 score was 9. The mean score was 19.27
or preferably. Consequently, the result and the standard deviation was 3.604.
of the try out showed that the From the table, it can be seen that 2
instrument was reliable. (2%) students were categorized as very
The speaking test was validated by good, 39 (39%) students were
matching the test item with the categorized as good, 35 (35%) students
objectives of the test. The objectives are were categorized as fair, 12 (12%) were
to find out whether (1) the students are categorized as poor, and 2 (2%)
able to apply their knowledge of students were categorized as very poor.
language in their speaking performance, Furthermore, having divided the
(2) the students are able to speak using students by the semester, the writer
the content as rubric presents, they are: found that in semester IV there were 10
pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, (28.6%) students categorized having
fluency, comprehension, and gesture. In good linguistic competence, 17 (48.6%)
order to ensure the validity and students categorized having fair
reliability of a speaking tests attention linguistic competence, 7 (20%) students
needs to be paid the quality of the categorized having poor linguistic
speaking performance along with competence, and 1 (2.9%) students
scoring that is based on the specific categorized having very poor linguistic
criteria to the particular testing context competence. In semester VI, there were
(Kim, 2006, p. 2). The students’ 22 (59.5%) students categorized having
speaking performance scored by two good linguistic competence, 9 (25.7%)
raters based on a rubric that consists of students categorized having fair
six criteria. linguistic competence, 5 (14.3%)
To find out whether or not there students categorized having poor
was a significant correlation between linguistic competence, and 1 (2.9%)
linguistic competence and speaking students categorized having very poor
linguistic competence. In semester VIII, excellent, 7 students were categorized
there were 2 (7.1%) students as good, 20 students were categorized
categorized having very good, 7 (25%) as average, 1 student was categorized as
students categorized having good poor, and no student was categorized as
linguistic competence, and 19 (67.9) very poor in speaking performance
students categorized having fair
linguistic competence. Table 2
Summary of Descriptive Statistics of
Table1 Speaking Test (N=100)
N
Summary of Descriptive Statistics No of Student
total
ofLinguistic Competence (N=100) Variable
N IV VIII
No of Student VI
total Speaking
Variable
Performance
IV VIII
VI Excellent 0 0 0 0
Linguistic
Competence Good 2 2 7 11

Very Good 0 0 2 2 Average 21 30 20 71

Good 10 22 7 39 Poor 11 5 1 17

Fair 17 9 19 35 Very Poor 1 0 0 1

Poor 7 5 0 12 Total 35 37 28 100

Very Poor 1 1 0 2
Total 35 37 28 100 The Correlation and Linear
Regression Analysis (Total)
In order to find out whether or not
The Result of Speaking Test
there was a significant correlation
The result of the students speaking
between students’ linguistic
test showed that the highest point was
competence and their speaking
24 and the lowest score was 10 with
performance, the writer used the
18.37 for the mean and 2.269 for the
Pearson Product Moment Correlation
standard deviation. In Table 4.2 below,
Coefficient formula which was done by
it can be seen that from total, there was
using SPSS version 21 for windows.
none (0%) student categorized as
The following table shows the
excellent, 11 (11%) students were
correlation between two variables.
categorized as good, 71 (71%) students
were categorized as average, 17 (17%) Table 3
students were categorized as poor, and Correlation between Linguistic
1 (1%) student was categorized as very Competence and Speaking Performance
poor in speaking performance. (N=100)
Model r R Adjusted p.value
From Table2, it can also be seen square R Square
that in semester IV none of the students 1 .315a .099 .090 .001
was excellent, 2 students were good, 21
were average, 11 students were poor,
and 1 student was very poor in speaking From the table above, it was found
performance. In semester VI, there was that the correlation coeeficient (r)
no student categorized as excellent, 2 between linguistic competence and
students were categorized as good, 30 speaking performance was .315, which
students were categorized as average, 5 is categorized in low or weak category.
students were categorized as poor, and Based on the degree of correlation
no student categorized as very poor in coefficient (see Sugiyono, 2010, p.
speaking performance. In semester VIII, 245), the range between 0.20-0.40is low
there was no student categorized as
or weak. It means there was a aspects of linguistic competence
correlation between two variables. contributed 11.3% to students’
Furthermore, the table showed that vocabulary in speaking. The Rsquare of
the significant level was less than .05 ( linguistic competence aspects to fluency
p = .001). So, the null hypothesis was was .118, so aspects of linguistic
rejected and the research hypothesis competence contributed 11.8% to
was accepted. It can be concluded that students’ fluency in speaking. The
there was a significant correlation Rsquare of linguistic competence aspects
between linguistic competence and to comprehensionr was .090, so aspects
speaking performance of English of linguistic competence contributed
Education Study Program students of 9% to students’ comprehension in
Sriwijaya University Indralaya Campus. speaking. The Rsquare of linguistic
Since there was a significant competence aspects to gesture was .044,
correlation between linguistic so aspects of linguistic competence
competence and speaking performance contributed 4.4% to students’ gesture in
(total), the data analysis was continued speaking.
by using linier regression to find out The significant level existed if
how much the influence of linguistic sig.(α value < .05). All aspects of
competence to speaking performance. linguistic competence significantly
The analysis was done by using SPSS contributed to speaking performance.
version 21 for windows. The There were four aspects of speaking
contribution of linguistic competence performance were influenced by
can be seen from Rsquare. The Rsquare linguistic competence aspects, that is,
is .099, so linguistic competence grammar, vocabulary, fluency, and
contributed 9.9 % to the students’ comprehension. The significant level of
speaking performance. linguistic competence aspects in
grammar was .049 from all aspects of
Multiple Regression Analysis linguistic competence. The significant
(Partial) level linguistic competence aspects in
There were five aspects vocabulary was .043 especially from
(phonology, morphology, syntax, pragmatics was .007. The significant
semantics, and pragmatics) of level linguistic competence aspects in
linguistics and six aspects fluency was .036 especially from
(pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, pragmatics was .009. The significant
fluency, comprehension, and gesture) of level linguistic competence aspects in
speaking performance, the writer tried comprehension was .016 especially
to find out the contribution of from morphology was .013.
linguistics competence aspects to
speaking performance. DISCUSSION
The contribution of linguistic The contribution of linguistic
competence aspects can be seen from competence aspects can be seen from
Rsquare. linguistic competence aspects to Rsquare. From the table above, the Rsquare
pronunciation was .086, so aspects of of linguistic competence aspects to
linguistic competence contributed 8.6% pronunciation was .086, so aspects of
to students’ pronunciation in speaking. linguistic competence contributed 8.6%
The Rsquare of linguistic competence to students’ pronunciation in speaking.
aspects to grammar was .110, so aspects The Rsquare of linguistic competence
of linguistic competence contributed aspects to grammar was .110, so aspects
11% to students’ grammar in speaking. of linguistic competence contributed
The Rsquare of linguistic competence 11% to students’ grammar in speaking.
aspects to vocabulary was .113, so The Rsquare of linguistic competence
aspects to vocabulary was .113, so students who were in good category of
aspects of linguistic competence linguistic competence got the same
contributed 11.3% to students’ category on speaking performance.
vocabulary in speaking. The Rsquare of Moreover, the students who got poor or
linguistic competence aspects to fluency very poor category on linguistic
was .118, so aspects of linguistic competence got same category in
competence contributed 11.8% to speaking performance.
students’ fluency in speaking. The The contribution of linguistic
Rsquare of linguistic competence aspects knowledge could be seen from the
to comprehensionr was .090, so aspects students’ linguistic competence score.
of linguistic competence contributed The best scores of linguistic
9% to students’ comprehension in competence test showed that the
speaking. The Rsquare of linguistic students had enough knowledge of
competence aspects to gesture was .044, English so that they applied their
so aspects of linguistic competence knowledge to their speaking
contributed 4.4% to students’ gesture in performance. Consequently, the
speaking. students’ performance was influenced
The significant level existed if by their linguistic competence.
sig.(α value < .05). From Table 4.4, it Two suggestions are offered to the
shows that not all aspects of linguistic students (student-teacher) and future
competence significantly contributed to researchers. First, to the students, keep
speaking performance. There were four up practicing because practice makes
aspects of speaking performance were perfect. They also must balance
influenced by linguistic competence between possessing knowledge of
aspects, that is, grammar, vocabulary, language and mastering of language
fluency, and comprehension. The skills. When they possess a certain
significant level of linguistic knowledge of language, they should
competence aspects in grammar was apply the rules in their language skills.
.049 from all aspects of linguistic Second, to future researchers, it is
competence. The significant level suggested that they separate the
linguistic competence aspects in linguistic aspects to correlate a certain
vocabulary was .043 especially from skill. In addition, it is better that future
pragmatics was .007. reseachers give a questionnaire to know
The significant level linguistic the students’ interested in linguistics
competence aspects in fluency was .036 related to certain skill if they would like
especially from pragmatics was .009. to correlate knowledge of language to
The significant level linguistic language skills, especially speaking
competence aspects in comprehension skill.
was .016 especially from morphology
was .013.

CONCLUSION REFERENCES
The result of the test showed that
there was not so significant correlation Adekunle, O. O. M., & Aina, M. O.
between linguistic competence and (2012).Developing communicative
speaking performance of English competence in learners of english
Education Study Program students of as a second language.
Sriwijaya University. From the data Multidisciplinary Journal of
analysis, it could be seen that there was Research Development, 18(1), 1-8.
low influence of linguistic competence Retrieved from
in speaking performance. Most of the http://www.scribd.com/doc/167298
 391/Developing-Communicative- (Bachelor thesis,Masaryk
Competence-in-Learners-of- University Brno, Brno). Retrieved
English from
Bygate, M. (1987). Speaking. Oxford: http://is.muni.cz/.../Low_Speaking_
Oxford University Press. Performance_B

Chidambaram, K. (2005).A study on the Kola, S. (2008).The integration of

learning process of english by linguistic competence into
higher secondary students with communicative competence.
special reference to dharamapuri Linguistic into Communicative
district. Language in India, 5. Performance, 1. 10-40. Retrieved
Retrieved from from http:
http://www.languageinindia.com //www.lcpj.pro/skedaret/137640715
1-LCPJ%201,%20Article%201.pdf
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational
Lyons, J. (1968). Introduction to
research: Planning, conducting,
theoretical linguistics.Cambridge:
evaluating, quantitative and
qualitative research (4th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Boston, MA: Pearson. O’Grady, W., Dobrovolsky, M., &
De Jong, N. H. D., Steinel, M. P., Aronoff, M. (1989).Contemporary
linguistics an introduction. New
Florijn, A., Schoonen, R., &
Hulstijn, J. H. (2012). Linguistic York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
skills and speaking fluency in a Sugiyono. (2010). Metode penelitian
second language.Applied kuantitatif kualitatif dan R&D.
Psycholinguistics, 1-24. Bandung: Alfabeta
doi:10.1017/S0142716412000069
Taha, W. A. W., & Reishaan, A. H. K.
Denham, K.,& Lobeck, A. (2008). The relationship between
(2013).Linguistics for everyone : competence and performance:
An introduction (2nd ed.). Boston, Towards a comprehensive TG
MA: Wadsworth Cengage grammar. Adab Al – Kufa Journal.
Learning.Retrieved from 2. 35-59. Retrieved from
http://grammar.about.com/od/il/g/L http://www.iasj.net/
inguistic-Competence.htm iasj?func=fulltext&aId=42292
Finch, G. (2003).How to study Verhoeven, L., & Vermeer.(1992).
linguistics: A guide to Assessment of bilingual
understanding language. New proficiency. In L. Verhoeven & J.
York, NY: H. A. L. de Jong (Eds.), The
Fromkin, V., & Rodman, R. (1993).An constructof language proficiency:
introduction to language (5th Applications of psychological
ed.).Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt models of language assessment,
Brace College Publishers. (pp. 164-166). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins Publishing.
Fromkin, V. (2000).Linguistics: An
Vilímec, E. (2006). Developing
introduction to linguistic theory.
Malden, MA: Blackwell speaking skill (Diploma thesis,
Publishing. Retrieved from University of Pardubice,
http://www.phil.uu.nl/~mariekes/it0 Pardubice). Retrieved from
https://dspace.upce.cz/bitstream/10
8/ Fromkin.pdf
195/21610/1/D16159.pdf
Hamerka, V. (2009).Low speaking
Wallen, N. E., & Fraenkel, J. R. (1991).
performance in learners of English
Educational research: A guide to
 the process. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Widdowson, H. G. (1983). Teaching
language ascommunication.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
About the Authors
Dwi Wahyuni, S.Pd was the graduate of English Education Study Program, FKIP Universitas
Sriwijaya.
Prof. Diemroh Ihsan, Ph.D and Dra.Rita Hayati, M.A are the lecturers at the English
Education Study Program, FKIP Universitas Sriwijaya.