Students’ Preferences of Interaction in Oral Productions

Authors

Dwi Dian Permata Sari Hasanuddin University
Abidin Pammu Hasanuddin University
M. Amir P Hasanuddin University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.34050/elsjish.v5i1.20432

Keywords:

Students’ Preferences, Oral Production, Descriptive Method

Abstract

The objectives of the study were to know the students’ preferences of interactions in oral production at the fifth semester student in English Department of Makassar Muhammadiyah University. A descriptive method was applied to the fifth semester students as the sample of the study with the total number of samples were 24 students by using purposive sampling. The result of this study showed that there were three categories of preferences in oral interaction, those are preferences toward the teaching method, preferences toward the teacher performance, preferences toward the students’ interest. Meanwhile, the dominant preferences toward the teaching method were preferences of the open discussion class, the dominant preferences toward the teacher performance were preferences of the lecturer who help the students to solve the problem in the classroom, and the dominant preferences toward the students’ interest were preferences of using full English in presentation.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Al-Obaydi, L. H., & Rahman, F. F. (2021). The Use of Action Research in EFL Socio-professional Context: Students-teachers’ Perceptions. ELS Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities, 4(2), 232-240.

Aswad, M., Rahman, F., Said, I. M., Hamuddin, B., & Nurchalis, N. F. (2019). A software to increase English learning outcomes: An acceleration model of English as the second language. The Asian EFL Journal, 26(6.2), 157.

Butler, Y. G., & Gutiérrez, M. B. (2003). Learning climates for English language learners: A case of fourth-grade students in California. Bilingual Research Journal, 27(2), 207-224.

Byrne. (1991). Teaching Oral English. London: Mc Gill University.

Fernandez. (2004). Physician Language Ability and Cultural Competence. New York: The Commonwealth Fund.

Garrett, P., Coupland, N., & Williams, A. (2003). Investigating language attitudes: Social meanings of dialect, ethnicity and performance. University of Wales Press.

Ghrip. (2009). Motivation and Transfer in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lexy. (1985). Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif. Remadja. Rosdakarya CV, Bandung.

Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge university press.

Rahman, F., & Sadik, A. (2018). Improving The Students’speaking Ability Through Silent Way Method At Smu Negeri 12 Makassar. Jurnal Ilmu Budaya, 6(2), 303-312.

Rahman, F., M. Amir P., Tammasse (2019). Trends in Reading Literary Fiction in Print and Cyber Media by Undergraduate Students of Hasanuddin University. International Journal of Education and Practice, 7(2), 66-77.

Ritonga, S. N. A., Nasmilah, N., & Rahman, F. (2020). The effect of motivation and anxiety on students’ speaking performance: a study at Dayanu Ikhsanuddin university. ELS Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities, 3(2), 198-213.

Richmond. (2012). Teacher Performance Evaluation System. New York: Public School.

Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. W. (2013). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. Routledge.

Willing, K. (1985). Learning styles in adult migrant education: Report of the Program Development Project on Identifying and Accommodating Different Learning Styles. NSW Adult Migrant Education Service.

Downloads

Published

2022-03-25 — Updated on 2022-04-01

Versions

2022-04-01 (2)
2022-03-25 (1)

How to Cite

Permata Sari, D. D. ., Pammu, A. ., & P, M. A. (2022). Students’ Preferences of Interaction in Oral Productions. ELS Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities, 5(1), 151-154. https://doi.org/10.34050/elsjish.v5i1.20432 (Original work published March 25, 2022)