Home⇛International Journal of Multidisciplinary Educational Research and Innovation⇛vol. 3 no. 3 (2025)

The Influence of Face-to-Face Social Interaction on Grammar Skills among English Students

Mark Anthony Cantos | Hazel Kate Bayagna | Julie Ann Tapulgo | Ariel Tomaquin | Jeddah B. Quiño- Justol

Discipline: Education

 

Abstract:

This study explored the impact of face-to-face social interaction on the grammar skills of second-year Bachelor of Secondary Education major in English students, focusing on sentence structure and verb tense usage. Anchored in Vygotsky’s Interactionist Theory of Language, a quantitative descriptive-correlational design was employed with 70 participants selected through total sampling. Data were collected using survey questionnaires assessing both social interaction and grammar proficiency. Results revealed that students exhibited high levels of face-to-face social interaction and generally proficient grammar skills. Statistical analyses indicated a significant positive correlation between social interaction and grammar proficiency, suggesting that meaningful peer interactions enhance grammar learning. The findings highlight the pedagogical value of incorporating structured face-to face interactions in language instruction to improve students’ grammar skills and overall communication competence. The study recommends integrating interactive activities, such as group discussions and collaborative tasks, into English language instruction to foster a supportive learning environment that promotes grammar development.



References:

  1. 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
  2. Anggrawan, A., Ibrahim, N., Muslim, S., & Satria, C. (2019). Interaction between learning style and gender in mixed learning with 40%40% face- to- face learning and 60%60% online learning. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 10(5). https://doi.org/10.14569/ijacsa.2019.0100550
  3. Astrid, A., Rukmini, D., Fitriati, S. W., & Syafryadin. (2021). Experiencing the peer feedback activities with teacher's intervention through face- to- face and asynchronous online interaction: The impact on students' writing development and perceptions. Journal of Language and Education, 7(2), 64- 77. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2021.10585
  4. Bagheri, M., & Mohamadi Zenouzag, Z. (2021). Comparative study of the effect of face- to- face and computer mediated conversation modalities on student engagement: Speaking skill in focus. Asian- Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-020-00103-0
  5. Bhuvaneswari, G., Borah, R. R., & Hussain, M. M. (2022). Willingness to communicate in face- to- face and online language classroom and the future of learning. In Studies in Computational Intelligence (pp. 237- 253). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-93921-2_14
  6. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
  7. Elbashir, R., & Hamza, S. (2022). The impact of virtual tools on EFL learners' performance in grammar at the times of COVID- 19 pandemic. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 19(3). https://doi.org/10.53761/1.19.03.07
  8. Guraya, S. S., Yusoff, M. S., Mat Nor, M. Z., Fredericks, S., Rashid- Doubell, F., Harkin, D. W., & Guraya, Y. (2022). Validating the medical education E- ProfEssionalism framework using the content validity index. Education in Medicine Journal, 14(3), 31- 47. https://doi.org/10.21315/eimj2022.14.3.3
  9. Istanbul Gedik University. (n.d.). Sample English proficiency exam. Gedik University. https://www.gedik.edu.tr/wp-content/uploads/sample-english-proficiency-exam.pdf
  10. Jiang, D., Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2020). Comparing face- to- face and computer- mediated collaboration when teaching EFL writing skills. Educational Psychology, 41(1), 5- 24. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2020.1785399
  11. Ji- Young, S. (2021). The effects of group work on interaction and learning outcomes in non face- to- face synchronous general English classes in the EFL setting. Journal of Education and e- Learning Research, 8(2), 230- 237. https://doi.org/10.20448/journal.509.2021.82.230.237
  12. Khodabandeh, F. (2021). Comparing learners' interactions in conventional and virtual classes of distance education university: Examining two approaches of teaching grammar. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 13(27), 265- 294.
  13. Li, X., & Hu, W. (2024). Peer versus teacher corrections through electronic learning communities and face- to- face classroom interactions and EFL learners' passion for learning, speaking fluency, and accuracy. Heliyon, 10(4), e25849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e25849
  14. Mayanondha, O., & Soontornwipast, K. (2020). The effects of an interactive web- based test of English for international communication tutoring course on Thai students' English grammar proficiency. Arab World English Journal, 6, 67- 83. https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/call6.5
  15. Minick, N. (1987). The development of Vygotsky's thought: An introduction. In The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky (pp. 17- 36). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-1655-8_2
  16. Omair, A. (2014). Sample size estimation and sampling techniques for selecting a representative sample. Journal of Health Specialties, 2(4), 142- 147. https://doi.org/10.4103/1658-600X.142783
  17. Quiño, J., & Corpuz, G. (2021). Self- efficacy and practices in teaching 21st- century skills. Academia Letters. https://doi.org/10.20935/all1255

Tools


Copyright © 2026  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic