Constructing Communicative Interaction in an Elementary EFL Program: A Case Study of ‘A Day With A Native Speaker’ in Indonesia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33394/jollt.v14i4.21403Keywords:
Communicative interaction, EFL learning, Native speaker, Communicative competence, Elementary school studentsAbstract
English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learning at the elementary school level requires authentic opportunities for interaction to support students' communicative competence. However, opportunities to use English in real-world communication remain relatively limited in EFL contexts. This study aims to explore how communicative interactions are constructed through the A Day with Native Speaker program at SDS Labschool UPI Purwakarta, Indonesia. This qualitative case study involved 362 bilingual students from Grades 1–6, aged 6–13 years, who participated in the two-day program conducted for approximately five hours per day, along with one native speaker and one bilingual program coordinator. Data were collected through observations of program activities, semi-structured interviews with two upper-grade students, one native speaker, and one bilingual program coordinator, and documentation, and were analyzed using the interactive analysis model of Miles, Huberman, and Saldaña through data condensation, data presentation, and conclusion drawing. The findings show that communicative interactions were constructed through five interrelated components: active participation, comprehensible input, negotiation of meaning, interactional feedback, and confidence development. Students participated actively in authentic communication, while comprehensible input was supported through language adjustment, gestures, intonation, and contextual support. Negotiation of meaning occurred through clarification and confirmation, while interactional feedback supported continued communication without disrupting the interaction. These processes were dynamically interconnected and were associated with students' confidence in using English. Based on these findings, a context-specific cyclical conceptual model was developed to illustrate the dynamic relationships among the five components that support communicative interaction and students' communicative competence.
References
Alqarni, N. (2021). Language learners’ willingness to communicate and speaking anxiety in online versus face-to-face learning contexts. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 20(11), 57–77. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.20.11.4
Asrul, & Suratman, D. (2022). The use of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) method in improving students’ English vocabulary. JOLLT Journal of Languages and Language Teaching, 10(4). https://doi.org/10.33394/jollt.v10i4.5669
Azkarai, A., & Imaz Agirre, A. (2016). Negotiation of meaning strategies in child EFL mainstream and CLIL settings. TESOL Quarterly, 50(4), 844–870. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.249
Baker, C., & Wright, W. E. (2021). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (6th ed.). Multilingual Matters.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/1.1.1
Ciptaningrum, D., Iskandar, I., & Sulistyaningrum, S. D. (2025). Native speaker’s involvement in improving English speaking motivation on the English camp program in MTs Negeri 6 Jakarta. IJLECR (International Journal of Language Education and Cultural Review), 11(1), 89–97. https://doi.org/10.21009/ijlecr.v11i1.55450
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Ding, J. (2021). Exploring effective teacher-student interpersonal interaction strategies in English as a foreign language listening and speaking class. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 765496. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.765496
Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2021). Teaching and researching motivation (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Ellis, R. (2019). Task-based language teaching: Researching and understanding. Cambridge University Press.
García Mayo, M. P., & Imaz Agirre, A. (2016). Do children negotiate for meaning in task-based interaction? Evidence from CLIL and EFL settings. System, 60, 42–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.05.007
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2015). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. Routledge.
Ghane, M. H., & Razmi, M. H. (2023). Exploring the effectiveness of native and non-native English teachers on EFL learners’ accuracy, fluency, and complexity in speaking. Education Research International, 2023, 4011255. https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/4011255
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269–293). Penguin Books.
Ilyas, H. P. (2017). The effect of communicative approach on speaking achievement. ETERNAL (English, Teaching, Learning, and Research Journal), 3(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.24252/Eternal.V31.2017.A1
Krashen, S. D. (2017). The case for comprehensible input. Language Magazine, 17(4), 18–21.
Lantolf, J. P., Thorne, S. L., & Poehner, M. E. (2015). Sociocultural theory and second language development. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (2nd ed., pp. 207–226). Routledge.
Le, T. T., Nguyen, L. Q., & Phan, N. H. S. (2025). EFL students’ and teachers’ beliefs about oral corrective feedback and the role of students’ proficiency levels. SAGE Open, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440251392806
Lestari, D. T., Kusumaningrum, S. R., Anggraini, A. E., & Dewi, R. S. I. (2024). Oral language skills of elementary school students to support multiliteracy learning in the digital era. Indonesian Values and Character Education Journal, 7(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.23887/ivcej.v7i1.77157
Long, M. H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Wiley Blackwell.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). Academic Press.
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2023). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms: A systematic review of effectiveness. Language Teaching, 56(2), 135–164. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144482200033X
Mackey, A. (2020). Assessing the effectiveness of interactional feedback for L2 acquisition: Issues and challenges. Language Teaching, 53(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444819000375
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Nguyen, T. T. T. (2024). Enhancing EFL learners’ speaking and listening skills through authentic online conversations with video conferencing tools. Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2024.2334809
Ramadhani, G., Nidi, I. V., & Zahra, L. (2024). The role of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) in teaching English to Indonesian elementary school students within the Kurikulum Merdeka. STAIRS: English Language Education Journal, 11(2), 1–12.
Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. Cambridge University Press.
Roothooft, H., & Breeze, R. (2016). A comparison of EFL teachers' and students' attitudes to oral corrective feedback. Language Awareness, 25(4), 318–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2016.1235580
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2017). Languaging: A key concept in second language learning. In C. Abello-Contesse et al. (Eds.), Bilingual and multilingual education (pp. 47–62). Multilingual Matters.
Yashima, T., Zenuk-Nishide, L., & Shimizu, K. (2004). The influence of attitudes and affect on willingness to communicate and second language communication. Language Learning, 54(1), 119–152. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00250.x
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Citation Check
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Mila Inayah, Nadia Tiara Antik Sari, Neneng Sri Wulan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
License and Publishing Agreement
In submitting the manuscript to the journal, the authors certify that:
- They are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
- The work described has not been formally published before, except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review, thesis, or overlay journal.
- That it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere,
- That its publication has been approved by all the author(s) and by the responsible authorities – tacitly or explicitly – of the institutes where the work has been carried out.
- They secure the right to reproduce any material that has already been published or copyrighted elsewhere.
- They agree to the following license and publishing agreement.
Copyright
Authors who publish with JOLLT Journal of Languages and Language Teaching agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
Licensing for Data Publication
-
Open Data Commons Attribution License, http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/ (default)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
