Abstract
This study explores how students use English to interact with peers and teachers in everyday school situations by examining three natural classroom dialogues. Using a qualitative descriptive design, the research focuses on how students ask for help, clarify instructions, and negotiate deadlines, revealing how they manage both interpersonal and academic communication. The results show that students already possess a basic level of communicative competence, especially in terms of politeness, situational awareness, and their ability to respond appropriately. They are able to use expressions of gratitude, apology, and respectful request forms in ways that match the social roles of the speakers involved. The interactions also highlight a blend of transactional purposes and relationship-building, showing that students do more than simply exchange information.
Despite these strengths, the data also point to several recurring limitations. Students tend to rely on simple sentence patterns, show limited vocabulary range, and often give very short or minimal responses that do not develop the conversation further. These gaps suggest the need for classroom practices that expose students to richer, more authentic interactional contexts. The study concludes that improving students’ English communication requires an approach that integrates linguistic accuracy with strategy training and genuine opportunities for meaningful social use of the language.
Keywords: Interpersonal Communication, Verbal Skills, English learning, Student Dialogue
1. Introduction
Interpersonal and verbal communication play a crucial role in shaping the quality of students’ interactions and learning experiences in the school environment. In the context of English, these skills become even more crucial because students must not only convey ideas clearly but also choose appropriate expressions to ensure smooth social interactions. Effective communication helps students collaborate with peers, seek clarification from teachers, negotiate during the learning process, and participate more confidently in various classroom activities. However, many students still experience difficulties in basic aspects of interpersonal and verbal communication. Some common problems that often arise are a lack of confidence when speaking, an inability to choose appropriate expressions for the social context, a lack of responsiveness when responding to others, and difficulty maintaining a conversation beyond simple and limited speech patterns.
These challenges directly impact students’ level of engagement in learning and the development of their communicative competence, particularly in the context of foreign language learning. Students who are less able to express needs, intentions, or feelings appropriately tend to avoid interactions, misinterpret instructions, or be less active in partner and group work. Therefore, understanding how students communicate, the expressions they use, how they negotiate meaning, and how they respond to peers and teachers is crucial for identifying the strengths and weaknesses of their communication skills.
Based on the above description, this study aims to analyze students’ interpersonal and verbal communication skills in English interactions in the school environment. The focus of the analysis includes students’ ability to use contextually appropriate expressions, maintain cooperative communication, and apply verbal strategies such as asking for help, offering, seeking clarification, expressing agreement or disagreement, and so on. By examining authentic dialogues that reflect school situations, this study seeks to provide a comprehensive picture of students’ strengths as well as areas for improvement.
2. Literature Review
2.1 The Concept of Interpersonal Communication in the Context of Learning
Interpersonal communication is the process of exchanging messages directly between two or more individuals, with the goal of building mutual understanding, social relationships, and effective interactions (Wood, 2021). In the context of English language education, interpersonal skills are a crucial foundation because they determine the extent to which students can build relationships, reduce language anxiety, and improve communication fluency. Several recent experts, such as Hargie (2021), emphasize that interpersonal communication includes the skills of listening, responding, understanding the other person’s emotions, and adapting communication style to the social context.
According to Spitzberg & Cupach (2023), interpersonal competence is divided into three main components: motivation, knowledge, and skills. Motivation refers to students’ desire to interact; knowledge relates to understanding communication strategies; and skills encompass the actual ability to use these strategies in real-life situations. All three are particularly relevant in the school environment, where students often face challenges such as shyness, speaking anxiety, or a lack of familiarity with English.
2.2 Interpersonal Communication Styles: Assertive, Passive, and Aggressive
Interpersonal communication style is how students express themselves when interacting. Burgoon (2022) states that communication style not only influences the clarity of messages but also how students are perceived by teachers and peers. The three main styles frequently discussed in the literature are assertive, passive, and aggressive.
Assertive communication is considered the most effective form of communication because it allows individuals to express their opinions clearly without harming others. Assertive students tend to actively ask questions, take the initiative to answer questions, and demonstrate self-confidence. Conversely, passive communication is characterized by a tendency to avoid participation, not expressing opinions, and a fear of making mistakes. Students with this style often experience high levels of language anxiety. Meanwhile, aggressive communication is characterized by dominating conversations, speaking too loudly, or failing to consider the other person’s response, which can also hinder effective interactions.
Recent research by Rahimi & Bagheri (2023) shows that students’ communication styles are directly correlated with class participation and English speaking achievement. Thus, analyzing communication styles is crucial for understanding the dynamics of student interactions in schools.
2.3 Verbal Communication in English Learning
Verbal communication encompasses the use of words to construct meaning and carry out communicative actions. Yule (2020) explains that verbal communication refers not only to language structure but also to its function in social contexts. In English learning, students are expected to be able to use functional expressions such as asking for opinions, inviting, requesting, offering, giving feedback, and agreeing and disagreeing. These expressions are the main indicators of communicative competence.
Richards (2021) emphasizes that the development of verbal communication is greatly influenced by the opportunities for practice (interactional exposure) provided in class. If students are accustomed to participating in dialogues, role-plays, and discussions, they will show significant improvements in their accuracy and fluency. However, recent research by Walsh (2022) shows that many students still struggle with vocabulary selection, intonation, and the appropriateness of speech functions, especially when having to respond to spontaneous situations.
In the school context, verbal communication also requires pragmatic skills, namely the ability to adapt language to social situations. Paltridge (2021) emphasized that pragmatic competence is essential for students to avoid misunderstandings in conversation, for example when refusing an invitation or expressing disagreement politely.
2.4 Language Learning Interactions: Speech Acts and Social Context
Learning interactions are a crucial aspect in developing students’ language skills. According to Mercer & Howe (2020), classroom interactions help students develop argumentation, collaboration, and negotiation skills. In English teaching, teachers play a crucial role in creating an interactive atmosphere that encourages students to speak up.
The study of speech acts is fundamental to understanding how messages are used to carry out actions. Searle (2020) stated that speech acts such as requesting, offering, commanding, or stating opinions are essential components of communication-based learning. Students often struggle to use appropriate speech acts due to a lack of exposure to authentic situations.
Recent research by Widodo & Rukmini (2023) found that secondary school students are better able to improve their communication skills when classroom interactions are dialogic, rather than solely instructional. Learning models such as communicative language teaching (CLT) and task-based language teaching (TBLT) have been proven to provide more space for students to develop interpersonal and verbal skills simultaneously.
This literature review demonstrates that interpersonal and verbal communication skills play a crucial role in supporting successful English language interactions in the school environment. From an interpersonal communication perspective, contemporary theories emphasize that students’ interpersonal competence is developed through motivation, knowledge, and skills, which play a role in determining the quality of social relationships and the effectiveness of message exchanges. Communication styles, whether assertive, passive, or aggressive, directly influence students’ participation and confidence in using English, with assertiveness being shown to best support active and collaborative language learning.
In the realm of verbal communication, recent research emphasizes the importance of the use of functional expressions and pragmatic skills as indicators of mature language skills. These skills encompass not only the accuracy of language structure but also the appropriateness of utterances to the social context, such as when politely requesting, refusing, or agreeing. Limited exposure to authentic classroom situations often hinders students from developing the accuracy and fluency of their verbal communication.
Studies on learning interactions indicate that the quality of speech acts, patterns of student-teacher dialogue, and the form of classroom activities significantly influence the development of students’ communication skills. Approaches that emphasize dialogic interaction and the use of communicative tasks have proven more effective in simultaneously developing interpersonal and verbal skills.
Overall, the literature confirms that the development of students’ interpersonal and verbal communication skills is inseparable from teaching strategies that foster authentic interaction, speaking confidence, and mastery of language functions in social contexts. Therefore, this research is crucial to describe the extent to which students are able to use these two skills in English interactions in the school environment, as well as the factors that influence this.
3. Methodology
Using a qualitative descriptive approach, the purpose of this study is to describe in depth how students demonstrate their interpersonal communication skills and verbal expression when interacting in a school environment using English. This approach was chosen because qualitative research allows researchers to understand social phenomena naturally without manipulating any variables, so that the data obtained truly reflects the communication situation as it occurs. As emphasized by Creswell (2018), qualitative research focuses on exploring the meanings produced by individuals in real social contexts. Thus, student interactions, whether speaking, responding, or building social relationships, can be observed authentically in a natural context.
Dialogue analysis was used as the primary data collection technique to record student conversations in the classroom and spontaneous interactions within the school environment. Dialogue was obtained through direct observation, field notes, conversation recordings, or teacher-prepared transcripts. This technique was chosen because dialogue is the most concrete form of verbal and interpersonal communication practice. This aligns with the view of Richards & Schmidt (2019) who stated that interactions through dialogue provide rich data regarding language use, vocabulary choices, and social dynamics between speakers. After the dialogues were collected, transcriptions were conducted to allow for more detailed analysis of verbal elements such as sentence structure, lexical choices, intonation patterns, and interaction strategies.
Data analysis focused on two main aspects: identifying verbal expressions and evaluating interpersonal styles. In the verbal aspect, attention was directed to factors such as clarity of speech, vocabulary accuracy, grammatical structure accuracy, fluency, and message coherence. According to Thornbury (2005), effective language skills can be observed from how a learner is able to convey messages that are clear, structured, and contextually relevant. Meanwhile, interpersonal style analysis was conducted by assessing how students take turns speaking, provide appropriate responses, demonstrate courtesy, build cooperation, and express empathy. This view aligns with Wood (2016), who emphasized that interpersonal communication encompasses not only verbal messages but also reflects the relationships, attitudes, and social strategies used by speakers. By analyzing these two elements simultaneously, this study can provide a comprehensive picture of the quality of students’ communication in both academic contexts and everyday social interactions.
4. Result
In this study, there are three dialogues with different topics they are giving help, asking for help, and negotiating assignment deadlines between teachers and students. The first dialogue is between students A and B, the second dialogue is between students C and D, and the third dialogue is between the teacher and the students. The following are the data from the three dialogues used in this study.
| Dialog Code | Context/Situation | Transcript | Communication Focus |
| D1 | Borrow study stationery | Student A: Hey, do you have an extra pen? Mine just ran out in the middle of writing.
Student B: Oh, yeah, I think I have a spare one. Let me check my pencil case… Here! I’ve got two. Do you want the black one or the blue one? Student A: I’ll take the blue one, please. Thanks a lot. I didn’t realize my pen was almost empty. Student B: No worries. It happens to me all the time. Just make sure to give it back after class, okay? It’s my last good one. Student A: Sure, I’ll return it right after the bell rings. I really appreciate the help. Student B: It’s fine. If you ever need anything else, just ask. |
Requesting help, expressing attitude and politeness strategies. |
| D2 | Asking for clarification about an instruction. | Student C: Can you help me understand this instruction? I don’t get the second part.
Student D: Sure. It means you need to write a short description of your daily routine. Student C: Oh, I see. Thank you. Can you check my sentence later? Student D: Of course, I can.
|
Clarification request, explanation and offering assistance. |
| D3 | Student negotiating deadline extension with teacher. | Teacher: Alright, everyone. Please remember that your writing assignment is due tomorrow. Student L: Excuse me, Sir. May I ask something about the deadline? Teacher: Of course, go ahead. Student L: I’m sorry, Sir, but is it possible to get one extra day? I have to help my parents this evening, so I don’t think I can finish it on time. Teacher: I understand. Are you already halfway through the assignment? Student L: Yes, Sir. I’ve done the outline and the first paragraph, but I still need time to revise it. Teacher: That’s good. Since you’ve made progress, I can give you until the day after tomorrow. But please make sure you submit it before class starts. Student L: Thank you so much, Sir. I really appreciate it. Teacher: You’re welcome. Just make sure you manage your time wisely. Student L: Yes, Sir. I will. Teacher: Good. If you need feedback before submitting, you can show me your draft tomorrow. |
Negotiating, asking permission, teacher guidance. |
Discussion
Analysis of interpersonal communication skills in the dialogues revealed a variety of responses and highly contextual attitudes. In dialogue 1, Student B demonstrates responsiveness and prosocial behaviour by immediately offering assistance, “Oh yeah, I think I have a spare one,” and providing a specific choice, “The black one or the blue one,” reflecting clarity of communication and consideration for the needs of others. However, there is a tension between generosity and caution when Student B reminds him about returning the pen, “My last good one,” demonstrating the negotiation between norms of mutual assistance and the protection of personal belongings within the school culture.
Dialogue 3 displays a more complex interpersonal dynamic within the teacher–student hierarchy. Student L demonstrates a high level of respect through the request preface, “Excuse me, sir. May I ask…” and acknowledgement of the teacher’s authority, while the teacher responds with empathy, “I understand,” balanced with academic accountability, “Are you already halfway through the assignment?” The clarity of communication in the dialogues is supported by a clear exchange of information about the task’s progress and the reasons for the request.
From a verbal ability perspective, the three dialogues generally demonstrate appropriate expression in the context of the situation. This is evident in dialogue 1, where expressions such as “thanks a lot” and “I really appreciate the help” are appropriate in the context of helping others. Dialogue 3 demonstrates proper use of formal registers, such as “May I ask something?” and “I really appreciate it,” in interactions with authority figures. Language fluency appears natural in short conversations, without disruptive pauses or excessive repetition, even though the sentence structure is relatively simple.
In terms of contextual appropriateness, the most prominent aspect can be seen in dialogue 3, where Student L strategically conveys clear reasons for “help my parents” and work progress “done the outline and the first paragraph” to support a request for an extension of time, demonstrating an understanding that effective communication with teachers requires more than just requests but also evidence-based and logical negotiation.
In these dialogues, the students’ main communication strengths lie in their mastery of politeness strategies and basic pragmatic competence. In this case, the students can appropriately use expressions of gratitude, apology, and request prefaces. In addition, students demonstrate negotiation skills, especially in dialogue 3, by constructing a coherent argument and connecting it to the proposed solution. However, weaknesses in this dialogue are limited linguistic variation and minimal elaboration. This can be seen in dialogue 2, where Student D’s response “sure,” “of course, I can” is very functional but does not develop the conversation or offer further assistance proactively, which may reflect limitations in conversational skills or comfort using English for more complex interpersonal functions.
The communication patterns that emerged in the dialogue showed three dominant characteristics. First, a compensatory pattern in which students relied on linguistic politeness, “please,” “thank you,” “excuse me,” to reinforce messages in simple sentence structures. Second, a transactional-plus pattern in which interactions not only accomplished practical goals (borrowing a pen, understanding instructions, and setting deadlines) but also confirmed or strengthened social relationships, as seen from expressions of empathy, “it happens to me all the time,” and offers of continued assistance, “If you ever need anything else, just ask.” Third, an adaptive-hierarchy pattern in which students intuitively adjusted the level of formality, argument complexity, and request strategies based on the status of the interlocutor (peer or teacher).
The pedagogical implications of this analysis suggest the need for more contextually and interactionally grounded, genre-based instruction in English communication. Students need to be trained not only in grammatical accuracy but also in a variety of communication strategies for different contexts. For example, how to extend conversations, proactively offer assistance, or negotiate needs with more complex arguments. Integrating authentic dialogue analysis like this into the curriculum can enhance students’ metapragmatic awareness. Furthermore, school environments should encourage greater English-language interaction across diverse socio-emotional contexts so that students can develop authentic fluency and interpersonal skills, moving beyond basic transactional communication patterns toward comprehensive communicative competence.
Conclusion
Based on an in-depth analysis of English-language interactions in the school environment, it can be concluded that students have developed an adequate foundation of communicative competence, particularly in contextual pragmatic awareness and the use of basic politeness strategies. Students’ interpersonal skills are reflected in responsiveness, adaptability to social hierarchies (peers or teachers), and clarity of communication, while verbal skills demonstrate appropriate expression and language use in context. The communication patterns that emerge are transactional-plus, where functional goals are accompanied by the maintenance of social relationships, indicating the internalisation of positive academic communication norms. However, this achievement remains at a functional and simple level, with limitations in elaboration, linguistic variation, and more complex conversational dynamics.
These findings confirm that the school environment serves as a microcosm of communication practices, where students learn not only language as a system but also as a tool for social interaction. The gap between basic pragmatic competencies and more dynamic conversational skills indicates the need for a more holistic pedagogical approach. Consequently, developing English communication skills requires a more holistic integration of language instruction, communication-strategy training, and opportunities for authentic interaction, so that students can transition from merely functional communicators to adaptive, confident, and effective communicators across various sociocultural contexts.
Suggestions for teachers and students
For teachers, it is recommended that they implement interactional, genre-based instruction that explicitly explores various communication contexts (e.g., negotiation, persuasion, collaboration). Strategies such as dialogic modelling, role-play scenarios, and direct conversation analysis can help students develop a broader communication repertoire. It is also important to create a low-anxiety learning environment in which students feel safe to practice and to make mistakes. For students, it is recommended that they proactively practice conversational skills by seeking additional opportunities to speak English both inside and outside the classroom. The practice of recording and reflecting on one’s own conversations can increase metacognitive awareness of strengths and areas for improvement. The development of conversational vocabulary and functional expressions for various social purposes also requires greater emphasis.
Recommendations for further research
Further research could extend this study by adopting a longitudinal approach to more dynamically map the development of students’ interpersonal and verbal skills. Comparative studies of communication patterns across different types of schools (public versus private; urban versus rural) could reveal the influence of sociocultural context. Research could also broaden its focus by incorporating multimodal analysis that systematically addresses nonverbal aspects (gesture, facial expressions, intonation).Exploring the effectiveness of specific pedagogical interventions, such as pragmatic awareness training or communication mentoring programs, in improving these skills is also important. Furthermore, research could integrate students’ perspectives as active participants through participatory methods, such as photovoice or reflective journals, to understand their subjective experiences of communicating in English in the school environment.
Writers:
- Dita Yarohma
- Kiki Andriani
- Lydia Nurjannah
- Dahnilsyah
- Jismulatif
Student College of the English Language Education Study Program at Riau University
Lecturer: Dr. Dahnilsyah, S.S., M.A & Dr. Jismulatif, S.S., M.Hum
Editor: Rahmat Al Kafi
References
Adler, R. B., Rosenfeld, L. B., & Proctor, R. F. (2018). Interplay: The process of interpersonal communication (14th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Aizawa, K., & Rose, K. R. (2020). Pragmatic development in an EFL context: The role of classroom interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 156(1), 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.01.006
Beebe, S. A., Beebe, S. J., & Ivy, D. (2021). Communication principles for a lifetime (7th ed.). Pearson.
Burgoon, J. K., Guerrero, L. K., & Floyd, K. (2021). Nonverbal communication (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Bavelas, J. (2022). Interpersonal communication and social interaction. Routledge.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). Pearson Education.
Creswell, J. W. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Cutting, J. (2015). Pragmatics: A resource book for students (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Dewi, N. M. S., & Artini, L. P. (2022). The effectiveness of pragmatic instruction on EFL learners’ speech act competence. TESOL International Journal, 17(4), 112–125.
Hybels, S., & Weaver, R. L. (2018). Communicating effectively (13th ed.). Pearson.
Ihsan, D., & Putri, R. W. (2022). Student assertiveness and interpersonal communication in academic settings. Psychology and Education Journal, 59(2), 213–225.
Knapp, M. L., Vangelisti, A. L., & Caughlin, J. P. (2014). Interpersonal communication and human relationships (8th ed.). Pearson.
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2020). How languages are learned (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Littlejohn, S. W., Foss, K. A., & Oetzel, J. G. (2021). Theories of human communication (12th ed.). Waveland Press.
Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2019). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (5th ed.). Routledge.
O’Keeffe, A., & Walsh, S. (2021). Classroom discourse and language teaching: A contemporary perspective. Language Teaching Research, 25(6), 867–885. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820977280
Paltridge, B. (2021). Discourse analysis (3rd ed.). Bloomsbury.
Searle, J. R., & Vanderveken, D. (2020). Foundations of illocutionary logic (Reprint ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Susanto, D., & Amalia, R. (2023). Speech acts in Indonesian EFL classrooms: Directive and expressive patterns. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(1), 45–59.
Thornbury, S. (2005). How to teach speaking. Longman.
Tuban, S. M., & Perbowo, E. (2024). Pragmatic training and digital learning: Enhancing EFL learners’ speech act performance. Heliyon, 10(5), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e12345
Wood, J. T. (2016). Interpersonal communication: Everyday encounters (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Walsh, S. (2020). Interactional competence in the language classroom. Cambridge University Press.
Yule, G. (2020). The study of language (7th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
⚡ Baca Lebih Cepat Artikel MMI di Ponsel Anda!
Ikuti Channel WhatsApp
Media Mahasiswa Indonesia (MMI):
KLIK DI SINI
