Sociolinguistic Communicative Competence of Graduate English Language Education Students in Classroom Interactions

Suciaty Pratiwi; Mujib Hasib

doi:10.56209/badi.v3i2.107

Authors

Suciaty Pratiwi English Education Department, STKIP Bina Harapan Celebes, Indonesia
Mujib Hasib English Education Department, STKIP Bina Harapan Celebes, Indonesia https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5516-6257

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.56209/badi.v3i2.107

Keywords:

Sociolinguistic Competence, Speech Acts, Communicative Competence, Classroom Interactions

Abstract

The sociolinguistic communicative competence idea pertains to an individual's ability to proficiently comprehend, produce, and use language in a way that is congruent with the particular situation. Therefore, it is important to thoroughly examine the students' level of competency while they participate in classroom activities, especially throughout the process of engaging in conversations. The present study was carried out at Pascasarjana UNM, including a sample of English graduate students in their third semester. A single class consisted of a total of 25 pupils. The researcher used a discourse analysis methodology to examine and interpret the collected data. A comprehensive collection of six recordings was undertaken to document the students interactions throughout class, supplemented by an additional five recordings derived from the interview segments. Subsequently, the transcriptions underwent meticulous scrutiny and analysis, with a specific emphasis on the student’s sociolinguistic proficiency as outlined by Sato & McNamara (2019) in the context of speech actions. The findings unearthed a diverse array of sociolinguistic communicative ability among graduate students, including assertive force, directive force, commissive force, and expressive force. The students used their abilities to embrace their classmates, provide crucial information, inquire, articulate expectations, provide ideas, and condense the subject. Through the analysis of the functions, it was determined that students mostly used a directed approach, characterized by their reliance on questioning. This method was used 67 times, representing 28% of the overall usage. By comprehending the communication patterns of students, instructors may customize their approach and pinpoint efficacious learning tactics for each person.

References

Algouzi, S., Alzubi, A. A. F., & Nazim, M. (2023). Strengthening English language undergraduates’ presentation skills: A blackboard-mediated intervention program. Plos one, 18(8), e0289936. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289936

Andres, H. (2020). The role of active teaching, academic self-efficacy, and learning behaviors in student performance. Journal of International Education in Business, 13(2), 221-238. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIEB-02-2020-0017

Austin, J.L. (1962). How to do things with words. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press

Ballantine, J. A., Guo, X., & Larres, P. (2018). Can future managers and business executives be influenced to behave more ethically in the workplace? The impact of approaches to learning on business students’ cheating behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 149, 245-258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3039-4

Byram, M., & Golubeva, I. (2020). Conceptualising intercultural (communicative) competence and intercultural citizenship. In The Routledge handbook of language and intercultural communication (pp. 70-85). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003036210

Calculator, S. N. (2009). Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) and inclusive education for students with the most severe disabilities. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13, 93 – 113. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110701284656

Castro, R. (2019). Blended learning in higher education: Trends and capabilities. Education and Information Technologies, 24(4), 2523-2546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09886-3

Desai, S., & Wane, N. (2022). Educating courageously: Transformative pedagogy infusing spirituality in K-12 education for fostering civil society and democracy. International Journal of Educational Research, 115, 102017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2022.102017

Dimbleby, R., & Burton, G. (2020). More than words: An introduction to communication. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003060284

Doyle, T. (2023). Helping students learn in a learner-centered environment: A guide to facilitating learning in higher education. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003445067

Du Bois, J. W., Schuetze-Coburn, S., Cumming, S., & Paolino, D. (2014). Outline of discourse transcription. In Talking data (pp. 45-89). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315807928

Evans, G., Lusher, J., & Day, S. (2022). Completeness of the qualitative characteristics using Foucauldian critical discourse analysis and content analysis paradigms: towards a revised conceptual framework. Journal of Financial reporting and accounting, 20(2), 334-351. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFRA-11-2020-0313

Farny, S., Kibler, E., & Down, S. (2019). Collective emotions in institutional creation work. Academy of Management Journal, 62(3), 765-799. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0711

Franz, I., Knoop, C. A., Kentner, G., Rothbart, S., Kegel, V., Vasilieva, J., ... & Menninghaus, W. (2022). Prosodic Phrasing and Syllable Prominence in Spoken Prose. A Validated Coding Manual. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/h4sd5

Harris, D. W. (2019). Intention and commitment in speech acts. Theoretical Linguistics, 45(1-2), 53-67. https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2019-0004

Heath, R. L. (2020). Management of corporate communication: From interpersonal contacts to external affairs. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003064046

Hlas, A. C., Neyers, K., & Molitor, S. (2019). Measuring student attention in the second language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 23(1), 107-125. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168817713766

Hong, F. Y., Chiu, S. I., Huang, D. H., & Chiu, S. L. (2021). Correlations among classroom emotional climate, social self-efficacy, and psychological health of university students in Taiwan. Education and Urban Society, 53(4), 446-468. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124520931458

Huber, M. T., & Morreale, S. P. (2023). Situating the scholarship of teaching and learning: A cross-disciplinary conversation. In Disciplinary styles in the scholarship of teaching and learning (pp. 1-24). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003444268

Jensen, B., Valdés, G., & Gallimore, R. (2021). Teachers learning to implement equitable classroom talk. Educational Researcher, 50(8), 546-556. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X211014859

Koehler, A. A., Cheng, Z., Fiock, H., Wang, H., Janakiraman, S., & Chartier, K. (2022). Examining students' use of online case-based discussions to support problem solving: Considering individual and collaborative experiences. Computers & Education, 179, 104407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104407

Ladegaard, H. J. (2011). ‘Doing power’at work: Responding to male and female management styles in a global business corporation. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(1), 4-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.09.006

Levin, O. (2024). Simulation as a pedagogical model for deep learning in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 143, 104571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2024.104571

Light, J., & McNaughton, D. (2014). Communicative Competence for Individuals who require Augmentative and Alternative Communication: A New Definition for a New Era of Communication?, Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 30 (1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2014.885080

Mac Ginty, R. (2021). Everyday peace: How so-called ordinary people can disrupt violent conflict. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197563397

Markowitz, D. M. (2023). Self-presentation in medicine: How language patterns reflect physician impression management goals and affect perceptions. Computers in Human Behavior, 143, 107684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107684

Mourik, R. M., Sonetti, G., & Robison, R. A. (2021). The same old story–or not? How storytelling can support inclusive local energy policy. Energy Research & Social Science, 73, 101940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.101940

Nguyen, T., Graham, I. D., Mrklas, K. J., Bowen, S., Cargo, M., Estabrooks, C. A., ... & Wallerstein, N. (2020). How does integrated knowledge translation (IKT) compare to other collaborative research approaches to generating and translating knowledge? Learning from experts in the field. Health research policy and systems, 18, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-020-0539-6

Paraskeva, J. M. (2021). Conflicts in curriculum theory: Challenging hegemonic epistemologies. Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77420-2

Pekarek Doehler, S. (2021). Toward a coherent understanding of L2 interactional competence: Epistemologies of language learning and teaching. Classroom-based conversation analytic research: Theoretical and applied perspectives on pedagogy, 19-33. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52193-6_2

Pinker, S., & Jackendoff, R. (2005). The faculty of language: what's special about it?. Cognition, 95(2), 201-236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.08.004

Rizki, S., & Golubović, J. (2020). An analysis of speech act of Omar Mukhtar's utterances in lion of the desert movie. Englisia: Journal of Language, Education, and Humanities, 7(2), 195-210. http://dx.doi.org/10.22373/ej.v7i2.6358

Róin, T., Petersen, M. S., & Róin, Á. (2021). Managing a positive impression: Self-presentation among octogenarians. Journal of Aging Studies, 59, 100968. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaging.2021.100968

Sato, T., & McNamara, T. (2019). What counts in second language oral communication ability? The perspective of linguistic laypersons. Applied Linguistics, 40(6), 894-916. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amy032

Seregina, U. A. (2020). Co-creating bodily, interactive, and reflexive knowledge through art-based research. Consumption Markets & Culture, 23(6), 513-536. https://doi.org/10.1080/10253866.2019.1634059

Thaler, V. (2012). Mitigation as modification of illocutionary force. Journal of pragmatics, 44(6-7), 907-919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.04.001

Toomaneejinda, A., & Harding, L. (2018). Disagreement practices in ELF academic group discussion: Verbal, nonverbal and interactional strategies. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 7(2), 307-332. https://doi.org/10.1515/jelf-2018-0016

Udoudom, U., Igiri, A., George, K., & Aruku, K. J. (2024). Promoting health education through effective communication for development. ALSYSTECH Journal of Education Technology, 2(1), 68-88. https://doi.org/10.58578/alsystech.v2i1.2399

Urquía-Grande, E., & Perez Estebanez, R. (2020). Bridging the gaps between higher education and the business world: internships in a faculty of economics and business. Education+ Training, 63(3), 490-509. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-01-2018-0017

Van Viegen, S., & Zappa-Hollman, S. (2020). Plurilingual pedagogies at the post-secondary level: Possibilities for intentional engagement with students’ diverse linguistic repertoires. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 33(2), 172-187. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2019.1686512

Virtanen, A., & Tynjälä, P. (2019). Factors explaining the learning of generic skills: a study of university students’ experiences. Teaching in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2018.1515195

Webb, M., & Doman, E. (2020). Impacts of flipped classrooms on learner attitudes towards technology-enhanced language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33(3), 240-274. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1557692

Wegerif, R. (2019). Dialogic education. In Oxford research encyclopedia of education. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.396

Willey-Sthapit, C., Jen, S., Storer, H. L., & Benson, O. G. (2022). Discursive decisions: Signposts to guide the use of critical discourse analysis in social work. Qualitative Social Work, 21(1), 129-146. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325020979050

Zimmerman, J. (2022). Whose America?: Culture wars in the public schools. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226820408