AN INVESTIGATION OF UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS' ORAL COMMUNICATION STRATEGY (OCS) IN DEBATE CLASS

Indra Yoga Prawiro, Chintia Fita Diyales, Atikah Wati
{"title":"AN INVESTIGATION OF UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS' ORAL COMMUNICATION STRATEGY (OCS) IN DEBATE CLASS","authors":"Indra Yoga Prawiro, Chintia Fita Diyales, Atikah Wati","doi":"10.31949/jell.v6i1.2502","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Dornyei (1995) classifies communication strategies based on the problem-oriented perspective. In this taxonomy, the oral communication strategies refer to the speakers’ strategies used when encountering some communication problems. This qualitative study was conducted in a descriptive case study to investigate undergraduate students’ oral communication strategy in debate class. The participants of this study were the third semester of undergraduate students who join in a critical speaking class. There were 24 students. The observation was used to obtain the data. The data has been collected from this instrument was analyzed using the steps from Gay et al. (2006) with memoing, describing, and classifying. The result of the study revealed that the students used 11 of 12 types of oral communication strategies. The first is message abandonment with 12 utterances (4.5%). The second is topic avoidance with five utterances (1.81%). The third is circumlocution with one utterance (0.37%). The fourth is an approximation with six utterances (2.25%). The fifth is using all-purpose words with five utterances (1.81%). The sixth is word coinage with five utterances (1.81%). The seventh is using non-linguistic means with 12 utterances (4.5%). The eighth is foreignizing with two utterances (0.75%). The ninth is code-switching, with 27 utterances (10.2%). The tenth is the appeal for help with 35 utterances (13.2%), and the last is the use of fillers applied by students with 157 utterances (58.8%). Meanwhile, the students do not apply the literal translation as a communication strategy when conducting a debate. It implies that the types of oral communication strategies used by the students in this study involve the ability to overwhelm language faults in English.","PeriodicalId":34871,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Research on English and Language Learning","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Research on English and Language Learning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31949/jell.v6i1.2502","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Dornyei (1995) classifies communication strategies based on the problem-oriented perspective. In this taxonomy, the oral communication strategies refer to the speakers’ strategies used when encountering some communication problems. This qualitative study was conducted in a descriptive case study to investigate undergraduate students’ oral communication strategy in debate class. The participants of this study were the third semester of undergraduate students who join in a critical speaking class. There were 24 students. The observation was used to obtain the data. The data has been collected from this instrument was analyzed using the steps from Gay et al. (2006) with memoing, describing, and classifying. The result of the study revealed that the students used 11 of 12 types of oral communication strategies. The first is message abandonment with 12 utterances (4.5%). The second is topic avoidance with five utterances (1.81%). The third is circumlocution with one utterance (0.37%). The fourth is an approximation with six utterances (2.25%). The fifth is using all-purpose words with five utterances (1.81%). The sixth is word coinage with five utterances (1.81%). The seventh is using non-linguistic means with 12 utterances (4.5%). The eighth is foreignizing with two utterances (0.75%). The ninth is code-switching, with 27 utterances (10.2%). The tenth is the appeal for help with 35 utterances (13.2%), and the last is the use of fillers applied by students with 157 utterances (58.8%). Meanwhile, the students do not apply the literal translation as a communication strategy when conducting a debate. It implies that the types of oral communication strategies used by the students in this study involve the ability to overwhelm language faults in English.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
大学生辩论课口语交际策略的调查研究
Dornyei(1995)从问题导向的角度对交际策略进行了分类。在这一分类中,口语交际策略是指说话者在遇到交际问题时所采取的策略。本研究采用描述性个案研究的方法,探讨大学生辩论课堂上的口头沟通策略。本研究的参与者是参加批判性演讲课的第三学期本科生。有24名学生。通过观测得到数据。从该仪器收集的数据使用Gay等人(2006)的步骤进行分析,包括记忆、描述和分类。研究结果显示,学生们使用了12种口头交流策略中的11种。第一个是信息放弃,有12个话语(4.5%)。第二种是话题回避,共5次(1.81%)。第三种是绕口令(0.37%)。第四个是一个近似,有六个话语(2.25%)。第五种是使用五种发音的通用词(1.81%)。六是造词五次(1.81%)。第七是使用非语言手段,有12句话(4.5%)。第八种是两句异化(0.75%)。第九种是语码转换,有27个话语(10.2%)。第十位是求助,有35个(13.2%),最后一个是使用填充语,有157个(58.8%)。同时,学生们在进行辩论时没有将直译作为一种交际策略。这意味着本研究中学生使用的口语交际策略类型包括克服英语语言错误的能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Youtube to Promote Critical Thinking in Critical Listening Course Students’ Direct Strategies in Speaking English of the Third Graders at Vocational High School of Ma’arif V Kebumen Teachers’ Perspective Toward Self-Reflection to Improve Teaching Performance Students' Problems in Online Learning: What Happened to the Students in English Class During Pandemic Covid-19? Improving the Students’ Writing Skills by Integrating Problem-based Learning (PBL) with Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL) Approach in Class 7. C of SMP-TQ Mu’adz bin Jabal
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1