Assessing Social and Cultural Awareness: The Sociolinguistic Competence of Arts Students

Abstract

Sociolinguistic competence is the understanding of social and cultural usage and discourse norms that apply to various languages. The study aimed to assess the respondents’ level of social and cultural awareness to know their level of sociolinguistic competence. The descriptive correlational research method was used to determine their level of social awareness, cultural awareness, and their sociolinguistic competence awareness. The result revealed that there is a significant difference between the respondents’ sociolinguistic competence awareness in year level and age, however, no significant difference in terms of course, there is a significant difference between the respondents’ level of social awareness in year level and course, however, no significant difference in terms of age, and it is indicated that there is a significant difference between the respondents’ level of cultural awareness in year level and course, however, no significant difference in terms of age. Hence, the level of sociolinguistic competence awareness depends on the level of awareness to social and cultural aspects of language. With this, there is a need for the students to be aware of their differences in social and cultural aspects of language to develop their level of sociolinguistic competence awareness. Students have to recognize how they use language, adjust their linguistic terms to connect with different culture, and address others with socially appropriate language.

Introduction

I. INTRODUCTION

Learning how to utilize language for a variety of purposes, such as getting situations done in varied circumstances, is a necessary component of developing sociolinguistic competence. This is why it is important to be able to communicate efficiently and nicely. People from a variety of groups seem to follow their own set of rules when they get together. In the area of language learning, being able to use the target language for communicative purposes has been considered as a prominent factor for successful communication. According to Gioiosa and Kinkela (2019) as cited by Al-Alawneh (2019) in achieving goals that include personal, interpersonal, and social abilities communication skills are required.

In order to give successful communication with respect to their sociolinguistic competence, AB ELS and BAC students’ abilities in having communication and in producing engagement should be open to being conscious of the social and cultural language rules. Stated by Canale and Swain (1980 & 1983), sociolinguistic competence is described as using the language appropriately in various social context. Even for students who have never lived in the target culture, it can be quite challenging to learn because what is permissible to say in one culture might be entirely inappropriate in another. In order to comprehend and internalize the target language and its distinctions from their native language and culture, it is crucial for the students to be aware of social and cultural disparities.

By becoming culturally aware, communicators can develop meaningful connections with those who they have to talk with, and this influences the way they interact with everyone else. Developing this awareness enables the speakers to be conscious of what may be offensive or unsuitable to others that could be easily prevent unintended misinterpretation. This awareness counts because people engage with diverse individuals on a daily basis. By understanding their backgrounds and cultures, one can have the ability to assist this group feel more at ease, forge positive relationships, and have a greater effectiveness in their interactions. In an inclusive society, cultural sensitivity can improve communication among cultures and reduce the possibility of misinterpretation and misunderstanding (Tomalin & Stempleski, 2013).

Understanding the dynamic social setting in which language is used, including the rules of the people involved, the information they communicate, and the purposes of the contact, is necessary for this type of competence. The capacity to employ the entire system of grammatical rules, linguistic etiquette for successful and effective communication, and understanding of the culture, traditions, history, and notable figures of the culture where the language is acquired come first. Without this capacity and this type of competence even the most perfectly grammatical statements can communicate a meaning that is quite different from that which the speaker meant, it is necessary to adapt one's speech to match the situation.

Meanwhile, a substantial body of work examined the connection between linguistic proficiency and societal awareness. The impact of sociocultural awareness on language proficiency and other characteristics of competence has been the subject of numerous research. However, none have evaluated the social and cultural awareness of AB ELS and BAC students. Hence, the goal of this study is to determine if the respondents have acquired a developed level of sociolinguistic competence.

In essence, this aligns with Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 4, known as Quality Education. SDG 4 aims to break down barriers and develop communication skills. It creates an educational environment that fosters sociolinguistic competence by promoting inclusivity, multilingualism, effective communication skills, and intercultural understanding. It encourages multilingual education, allowing students to learn and communicate effectively in their mother tongue and additional languages. This expands their ability to understand different social and cultural contexts by using language appropriately.

The study delimits to probe differences in the respondents’ level of sociolinguistic competence when they are assessed according to their social and cultural awareness. It did not consider anymore the respondents’ linguistic competence but only those aspects relevant to the assessment of their sociolinguistic competence such as their profile in terms of their year level, age, and course.

This study aimed to assess the level of sociolinguistic competence of AB ELS and BAC students to achieve communication goals.

Specifically, the study aimed to:

1) Determine the sociolinguistic competence awareness level of the respondents;

2) Determine the level of awareness of the respondents in the following areas:

1. Social
2. Cultural

3) Determine the difference in the respondents’ level of sociolinguistic competence awareness when grouped according to their year level, age, and course.

4) Determine the difference in the respondents’ level of social and cultural awareness when grouped according to their year level, age, and course.

II. MATERIALS AND METHODS

Descriptive-correlational research method was used in this study. The study aimed to make a assess the awareness of the respondents as well as a survey and description of the level of their sociolinguistic competence. The goal is to ascertain the extent to which a significant difference can be established, which serves as the foundation for further interpretation.

This study aimed to determine sociolinguistic competence of AB ELS and Mass communication students. The respondents of this study are the 93 AB ELS and 88 Mass communication students of Isabela State University-Echague campus from the first year up to the fourth year students enrolled during the first semester of school year 2023-2024.

The instruments of this study presupposed the use of a test questionnaire. The instruments are stipulated and described in the foregoing discussion. The questionnaire was adapted and revised from Rutter et al. (2003) The Social Communication Questionnaire (SCQ) with ten (10) questions, Special Populations and CTE Illinois Leadership Project (2016) Cultural Diversity Self-Assessment with nineteen (19) questions, and another ten (10) questions from Wellness Council of America (WELCOA) (2011) adapted from the thesis of Mendoza (2019) lifted from the handbook3.com (2006) from its original form introduced by the researcher and duly consulted with the research panel as a matter of validation. The questionnaire focused into the Social awareness of the respondents which consists of ten (10) items.

The next part inquires into the respondents’ Cultural awareness which consists of nineteen (19) items. The last part of the questionnaire inquires into their level of sociolinguistic competence with ten (10) items. The respondents will be asked to answer the following by putting a mark in every scale.

In order to select the respondents for the current study, the researcher employed random sampling. Since random sampling procedures provide unbiased, representative, and equal probability of the population, the researcher was able to draw meaningful results from the full population of AB English Language Studies and AB Communication students. The study focuses on the sociolinguistic competence of Isabela State University’s AB ELS and BAC students during the academic year 2023-2024.

The respondents’ level of sociolinguistic competence awareness, social awareness, and cultural awareness and its difference to their year level, age, and course was examined using F-test and T-test. The respondents used a 5-point Likert type scale with 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 signifying Very aware, Aware, Moderately Aware, Fairly Aware, and Needs Improvement.

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 1.  Respondents' Level of Sociolinguistic Competence Awareness. The table 1 shows the respondents’ level of sociolinguistic competence awareness. The data shows that majority of the statements were rated as “Aware” except for the items 7 “I choose language that is appropriate for social situations.” with a mean of 4.26  and 8 “I choose language that is appropriate for cultural situations.” with a mean of 4.23 rated as “Very Aware.” This indicates that the respondents are very aware in choosing the language that is appropriate for social situations and even for cultural situations. Moreover, according from the data, item 1 “I am sensitive to differences in dialect or variety when communicating.” got the lowest mean of 3.72 or “Aware” implying that the respondents are aware when it comes to being sensitive to differences in dialect.

Based on the result, the respondents are very aware in choosing what language to use in a situation and  they are sensitively aware to the differences in dialect. They are very aware of what to use and aware of the differences. With that, the level of sociolinguistic competence awareness of the respondents is “Aware” with a grand mean of 3.98. In learning a language, it is an advantage if the speaker knows when to use it and how it is delivered, that way it will develop the level of sociolinguistic competence.

As defined in this study, sociolinguistic competence is a skill in which someone knows the social and cultural aspects of diverse linguistic communities to be able to communicate effectively. According to Mede and Dalilitas (2015) sociolinguistic competence played a role in communicative competence, thus includes awareness to the level of sociolinguistic competence. The study of Yang and Rehner (2015) states that sociolinguistic competence is constitutive of communication and social relations, the respondents being aware of their level of sociolinguistic competence are good in social and cultural interaction.

Table 2.  Respondents' Level of Social Awareness. Table 2 presents the statistically processed results of the respondents’ level of social awareness. The data show that statement 10 “I respond positively when others approach me.” got the highest mean of 4.26 or “Very Aware” this means that when someone talks to them their response is in a positive way. On the other hand, the rest of the statements were rated as “Aware” except for the items 3 “I use socially inappropriate questions or statements.” with a mean of 3.13 and 4 “I ask personal questions or make personal comments at awkward times.” with a mean of 3.11 rated as “Moderately Aware.” Meaning to say, when they communicate they are not fully aware that they are already using socially inappropriate questions and asking personal comments that makes the conversation awkward. 

The result implies that they can socially communicate since they are very aware that in responding to others it is done positively, they are moderately aware when it comes to inappropriate questions and personal statements, and they are aware in terms of using phrases, aligning facial expressions to particular situation, showing interest to engage attention, and they are aware of their intentions why they talk to others. With that, the level of  social awareness of the respondents is “Aware” with a grand mean of 3.75. Having this qualities and social practices makes someone to easily understand and learn the language of others which can lead to not just developing the level of social awareness but also to be very aware of how language works to different speakers and in different context of linguistics. 

As stated by Amideevna (2021), teaching the basics of ethics of communication allows people to participate in intercultural communication in the social, cultural, educational and professional aspects. In a way, the respondents’ level of awareness regarding social skills in terms of having communication are relevant to their level of sociolinguistic competence. 

In achieving communication goals, Gioiosa and Kinkela (2019) states that social ability is required and this ability or social awareness is present to the respondents implying that in terms of level they are socially aware.

Table 3.  Respondents' Level of Cultural Awareness. Table 3 presents the statistically processed results of the respondents’ level of cultural awareness. It can be seen from the table that all of the 19 statements were rated as “Aware” with a mean ranging from 3.54 to 4.20. Statements 7, 5, and 19 obtained the top three highest means. Statement 19 “I know and accept that people’s experiences and background impact how they interact with and trust me.” has the highest mean of 4.20, followed by statement 5 “I realize that people of other cultures have a need to support one another and connect as a group.” with a mean of 4.14, and lastly a mean of 4.13 for statement 7 “I’m interested in the ideas and beliefs of people who don’t think and believe as I do, and I respect their opinions even when I disagree.” In terms of the lowest, statements 4 “I do not participate in jokes that are derogatory to any individual group,” 3 “I challenge others when they make racial/ethnic/sexually offensive comments or jokes,” and 6 “I connect easily with people who look different from me and am able to communicate easily with them” obtained the spots with the means of 3.54, 3.55, and 3.74, respectively. This implies that the respondents were aware of people’s experiences and background in terms of cultures and beliefs and were aware of the derogatory jokes that must be avoided to be able to communicate effectively which is an important aspect of sociolinguistic competence.

Based on the result, their level of cultural awareness is “Aware” since every statement that describe cultural awareness was rated as aware showing that the respondents are aware that people’s experiences and background impacts interaction and they are aware in terms of jokes that are derogatory to any group. With that, the level of cultural awareness of the respondents is “Aware” with a grand mean of 3.93.  Thus, the respondents are aware of the cultural practices which is good in language learning and in developing competence considering that being aware to how the language works means you know how to use and apply it to conversations.

This corresponds with the study of Kidwell and Triyoko (2021) that cultural awareness is an important aspect of the learning process since without this awareness in the case of having communication especially with the involvement of other cultures who have their own languages, the communication process may lead to misinterpretation given that there is a lack of familiarity with the proper use and meaning of the language spoken.

The students are aware of their level in cultural aspects of language showing that they are culturally competent. Cultural competence emphasizes abilities from diverse cultures and backgrounds in an effective way (Hanover Research, 2019).

Table 4.1. Differences in the Respondents' Level of Sociolinguistic Competence Awareness according to their year level. In table 4.1, F-test was used to determine the significant difference on the level of sociolinguistic competence awareness of the respondents when they are grouped according to their year level.

The table revealed that in statement 8, having 3.009 as its f-Test and .032 as its p-value and statement 1 with 3.547 as its f-test and .016 as its p-value that the hypothesis which states that there is no significant difference between the variables is rejected. It shows that there is a significant difference between the respondents’ level of sociolinguistic competence awareness and their year level.

Based on the result, it suggests that the respondents have differences in their level of sociolinguistic competence awareness. The results are more on differences in choosing a language in communicating. Like statement 7 and 1, which states that they choose language that is appropriate for cultural situations and they are sensitive to the differences in dialect when communicating. They have different level of awareness when it comes to sociolinguistic competence, which implies that the respondents, as to their year level, choose language for cultural situations and are sensitive to differences in dialect differently. 

Students have differences on how they develop sociolinguistic competence since their learning environment in which they encounter a language can be satisfying or not and so their awareness needs to have assessment. Similar to the idea of Ahmed et al. (2018), there is a need to assess the learning experiences of the students to know why they have different level of awareness to the language that they encounter. How they choose appropriate language and their sensitivity to dialect is not the same.

The respondents have differences in sociolinguistic competence in a way that they accept social cues and cultural knowledge in language differently. Social norms of language choice vary from different situations and communities (Martinez & De Vera, 2019).

Table 4.2. Differences in the Respondents' Level of Sociolinguistic Competence Awareness according to their age. In table 4.2, F-test was used to determine the significant difference on the level of sociolinguistic competence awareness of the respondents when they are grouped according to their age.

The table revealed that in statement 8, having 3.356 as its f-test and .037 as its p-value that the hypothesis which states that there is no significant difference between the variables is rejected. It shows that there is a significant difference between the respondents’ level of sociolinguistic competence awareness and their age.

Based on the result, it indicates that the respondents have differences in their level of sociolinguistic competence awareness. The result is more on the appropriate use of language. Just like in statement 8, which states that the respondents choose language that is appropriate for cultural situations, this means that the respondents, as to their age, choose the language that is appropriate for cultural situations differently since generations involve in language learning and studying a language have different ways of using a language and in dealing communication.

Similar to the idea of Amideevna (2021) that each must be able to correctly translate cultural vocabulary   into   their   native   language indicates that the age of the respondents has their own awareness on how to understand and use cultural vocabularies.

Table 4.3. Differences in the Respondents' Level of Sociolinguistic Competence Awareness according to their course. In table 4.3 , t-test was used to determine the significant difference on the level of sociolinguistic competence awareness of the respondents when they are grouped according to their course.

Result revealed that the hypothesis stating that there is no significant difference between variables is accepted. It means that the respondents have the same level of awareness on sociolinguistic competence when grouped according to their course. It implies that there is no disparity between the course of the respondents and their level of sociolinguistic competence awareness.

As stated by Yang and Rehner (2015) the similar beliefs regarding the development of sociolinguistic competence may improve the learning opportunities of the students to the languages that they encounter and their level of awareness. The respondents, as to their course have the same level of sociolinguistic competence awareness which is helpful for them to learn languages.

Table 5.1. Differences in the Respondents’ Level of Social Awareness according to their year level. In table 5.1, f-test was used to determine the significant difference on the respondents’ level of social awareness when they are grouped according to their year level.  The table revealed that in statement 3 having 2.978 as its f-test and .049 as its p-value and statement 2 with 6.218 as its f-test and .000 as its p-value that the hypothesis which states that there is no significant difference between the variables is rejected. It shows that there is a significant difference between the respondents’ level of social awareness and their year level.

Based on the result, it shows that there are differences in their social awareness. It is revealed in statement 3 and 2, stating that the respondents use socially inappropriate questions and odd phrases in almost the same way which is not a good practice in terms of having communication. They use statements over and over again. They have differences in social awareness, which implies that the respondents, as to their year level, use socially inappropriate questions and use odd phrases or say things over and over again differently. As mentioned in the study of Fariha, Anwar, and Maruf (2023) comprehensive skills and competencies are needed in order to have effective communication within the different and various social contexts. It is a skill helpful in adapting language to suit social situations and interactions in a speech community.  

Social challenges and opportunities of the respondents were handled differently. According to Alhamami (2020), human experiences affects social implications to languages in a way that they understand social context in different way.

Table 5.2. Differences in the Respondents’ Level of Social Awareness according to their age. In table 5.2, f-test was used to determine the significant difference on the level of social awareness of the respondents when they are grouped according to their age. 

Result revealed that the hypothesis stating that there is no significant difference between the variables is accepted. It means that the respondents have the same level of social awareness when grouped according to their age. It implies that the respondents’ age is not a manifestation that there is a difference in their level of social awareness. They have the same level of awareness.

Having the same level of social awareness conforms to the study of CASEL (2018) as cited by Chin (2019) that perspective-taking, empathy, appreciating diversity, and respect for others contributes to the level of social awareness of someone. It means that having these practices builds the same level of social awareness to the students.

Table 5.3. Differences in the Respondents’ Level of Social Awareness according to their course. In table 5.3, t-test was used to determine the significant difference on the respondents’ level of social awareness when they are grouped according to their course.

The table revealed that in statement 8 having 6.356 as its t-test and .013 as its p-value and statement 3 having 6.428 as its t-test and .012 as its p-value that the hypothesis which states that there is no significant difference between the variables is rejected. It shows that there is a significant difference between the respondents’ level of social awareness and their course.

Based on the result, it suggests that these two statements have similarities. The results are more on getting attention during conversations. Like item 8 and 3, which states that the respondents show things that interest the person to catch their attention and they also use socially inappropriate statements. They have differences in social awareness, which implies that the respondents show things to catch attention and use socially inappropriate statements differently.

As mentioned in the study of Fariha, Anwar and Maruf (2023) comprehensive skills and competencies are needed in order to have effective communication within the different and various social contexts. It is a skill helpful in adapting language to suit social situations and interactions in a speech community.  Personal and situational antecedents also impact how students develop social awareness. According to Wegner and Giuliano (2017), their way of thinking to different things are based on their own perspectives and so they are not the same on how they face social encounters.  Table 6.1. Differences in the Respondents’ Level of Cultural Awareness according to their year level.  In table 6.1, f-test was used to determine the significant difference on the respondents’ level of cultural awareness when they are grouped according to their year level.

The table revealed that in statement 17 having 2.711 as its f-test and .047 as its p-value and statement 6 with 2.882 as its f-test and .037 as its p-value that the hypothesis which states that there is no significant difference between the variables is rejected. It shows that there is a significant difference between the respondents’ level of cultural awareness and their year level.

Based on the result, it is more on appreciating and communicating with others who have different cultures. The statement 17 and 6 imply that the respondents try to learn about and appreciate the richness of other cultures and honor their holidays and events and they connect easily with people who look different from them and are able to communicate easily with them. With this, it means that there is a difference in their level of cultural awareness. They have different reasons and experiences that is why how they give importance and understanding to cultural things are not the same and their way of interaction with in the culture is according to their own awareness.

To achieve the same level of cultural awareness the idea of Frank (2013) can be considered which is to incorporate cultural activities in order for the students to become culturally aware of the different properties of language.

Mentioned in the study of Wegner and Giuliano (2017), ways of understanding interactions is predominate for a person who experience different circumstances. In line with this, people develop their social awareness at different times or level.

Table 6.2. Differences in the Respondents’ Level of Cultural Awareness according to their age. In table 6.2, f-test was used to determine the significant difference on the level of cultural awareness of the respondents when they are grouped according to their age.

Result revealed that the hypothesis stating that there is no significant difference between the variables is accepted. It means that the respondents have the same level of cultural awareness when grouped according to their age. It implies that the respondents’ age is not a manifestation that there is a difference in their level of cultural awareness. They have the same level of awareness.

Having the same level of cultural awareness conforms to the study of CASEL (2018) as cited by Chin (2019) that perspective-taking, empathy, appreciating diversity, and respect for others contributes to the level of cultural awareness of someone. It means that having these practices builds the same level of cultural awareness to the students. For the respondents to achieve good level of sociolinguistic competence, the level of cultural awareness no matter what their age is part of the developing process. 

Table 6.3. Differences in the Respondents’ Level of Cultural Awareness according to their course.  In table 6.3, t-test was used to determine the significant difference on the respondents’ level of cultural awareness when they are grouped according to their course.

The table revealed that in statement 8 having 7.632 as its t-test and .006 as its p-value that the hypothesis which states that there is no significant difference between the variables is rejected. It shows that there is a significant difference between the respondents’ level of cultural awareness and their course.

Based on the result, it suggests that the respondents make sure that people who are different from them are heard and accepted as revealed in statement 8. With this, it means that there is a difference in their level of cultural awareness in terms of making other cultures feel accepted. It is in a way that the culture that they encounter are understood differently and so how they use language with in that culture is different to how they use the language in other cultures that they are familiar with. These differences in cultural awareness impacts how they apply the language in cultural situations.

Related to the idea of Koika (2015) that if cultural elements will be integrated in teaching language and value the use of culturally sensitive tasks then students regardless of their courses will experience cultural and linguistic stimuli. Exploring languages with the involvement of sociolinguistic competence also promotes awareness of the language learners regarding social and cultural aspects of the language that they used in interaction.

The differences that are found can be understood through the idea from the study of  Creese and Blackledge (2015) that limited exposure to cultural situations creates different understanding on how language is used to cultural context and conversations.

Conclusion

According to the result of this study, differences in the awareness to social and cultural properties of a language contributes to the competence of the arts students to properly use the language in having conversations in different context. In various fields of learning especially in linguistics and other aspects that involves languages, learners learn in different ways and styles and so in dealing with their different competencies particularly their level of sociolinguistic competence a broad exposure to social and cultural understanding of a language must be provided to acquire and apply the language in context and to attain “Very Aware” level of competence and awareness. Therefore, the level of sociolinguistic competence awareness depends on the level of awareness to social and cultural aspects of language. Thus, the result of this study implies that there is a need for the students to be aware of their differences in social and cultural aspects of language in order for them to develop their level of sociolinguistic competence awareness. These differences of the students affects their formal and informal way of communicating. Students have to recognize how they use language, adjust their linguistic terms to connect with different culture, and address others with socially appropriate language. Based on the results and conclusions of the study, the following recommendations were made. As to the profiles of the respondents, further research can explore on other set of variables or factors to assess the level of the students in the context of developing awareness to which this awareness may be related to their level of sociolinguistic competence and other areas of linguistic competence. The results as to those variables found to be significantly related to the level of sociolinguistic competence awareness, social awareness, and cultural awareness should be noted as factors to consider aimed to enhance the students’ level of sociolingustic competence, social awareness, and cultural awareness. Determine other factors aside from social and cultural awareness that may contribute to the level of sociolinguistic competence of learners, know the reasons why learners are aware of the social and cultural aspects of language for the development of their competence.

References

[1] Abdzadeh, Y., & Baker, W. (2020). Cultural awareness in an Iranian English language classroom: A teaching intervention in an interculturally “conservative” setting. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 9(1), 57-80. doi.org/10.1515/jelf2020-2030 [2] Ahmed, Y., Taha, M.H., Alneel, S., & Gaffar, A.M. (2018). Students’ perception of the learning environment and its relation to their study year and performance in Sudan. International Journal of Medical Education, 9(2), 145-150. doi.org/10.5116/ijme.5af0 [3] Al-Alawneh, M. K., Hawamleh, M.S., Al-Jamal, D.A., & Sasa, G. (2019) Communication skill in practice. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 18(6),1-19. doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.18.6.1 [4] Alhamami, M. (2020). Learners’ beliefs and communities around them: The social pressure to learn language. SAGE Open, 10(1). doi.org/10.1177/215.8 [5] Amideevna, A. (2021). Principles of the formation of sociolinguistic competence of students of secondary schools (with the Uzbek language of instruction). Annals of the Romanian Society for Cell Biology, 25(2), 133-140. [6] Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. AppliedLinguistics,1(1),1-47. doi.org/10.1093/applin/I.1.1 [7] Chaudhuri, T., Lopez-Ozieblo, R, & Martinez, V. (2022). Integrated language learning & social awareness: Research and practice. Springer ebooks, 2(1). doi.g/10.1007/978-981-16-8098-4 [8] Chin, C. (2019). Exploratory factor analysis of social awareness competency scale (SACS) using the social and emotional learning theory.Applied Linguistics, 1(2), doi.org/20.1084/458.8 [9] Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2015). Translanguaging and identity in educational settings. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 20-35 doi.org/10.1017/s02671905 [10] Fariha, N., Anwar, K., & Maruf, N. (2023). Exploring the correlation of sociolinguistic competence and speaking proficiency, and how learners perceived them. English review: Journal of English Education, 11(3), 1001-1012. doi.org/10.25134/erjee.vlli3.9083 [11] Frank, J. (2013). Raising cultural awareness in the English language classroom. Applied Linguistics, 3(1). doi.org/10.1045/t038429 [12] Garcia, M., Nguyen-Rodriguez, S. T., Gatdula, N., Aguirre, D., Rascon, M., Bird, M., Frank, G. C. (2021). The outcomes of interprofessional Experiential Learning for Underrepresented Racial/Ethnic Minority Students to address Latino Childhood obesity.Pedagogy in Health Promotion, 9(1), 34–44.doi.org/10.1177/23733799211021454 [13] Karl?k, M. (2023). Exploring the impact of culture on language learning: How understanding cultural context and values can deepen language acquisition. International Journal of Language Linguistics Literatureand Culture,02(05),0511.doi.org/10.59009/ijlllc.2023.0035 [14] Kidwell, T., & Triyoko, H. (2021). Language awareness as a resource for multilingual individuals’ learning about culture: a case study in the javanese context. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 2(1), 1–13. doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2021.1922421 [15] Kim, D. (2020). Learning language, learning culture: Teaching language to the whole student. ECNU Review of Education, 3(3), 519–541. doi.org/10.1177/2096531120936693 [16] Knoeferle, P., Mishra, R. K., & Peña, M. (2022). Editorial: Socially situated? Effects of social and culturalcontext on language processing and learning. Frontiers in Psychology,13(1), .doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.855733 [17] Koika, E. (2015). A year of celebrations: raising cultural awareness in class. Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 1(3), 45-83. [18] Markee, N. (2015).The handbook of classroom discourse and interaction. John Wiley & Sons Journal of Classroom Interaction, 3(1), 84-91. [19] Mede, E., & Dililita?, K. (2015). Teaching and learning sociolinguistic competence: Teachers’ criticalperceptions.Participatory Educational Research, 2(3),1431.doi.org/10.17275/per.15.29.2.3 [20] Muzaki, F. (2023). Challenges and strategies in developing sociolinguistic competence for Indonesian Elementary School Students. Journal of Language and Linguistics in Society (JLLS) ISSN 2815-0961, 3(03), 11–20.doi.org/10.55529/jlls.33.11.20 [21] Nardy, A., Chevrot, J., & Barbu, S. (2014). Sociolinguistic convergence and social interactions within a group of preschoolers: A longitudinal study. Language Variation and Change, 26(3), 273–301.doi.org/10.1017/s0954394514000131 [22] Rahman, M. (2020). Improving communicative English skills based on sociolinguistics competence of EFL students. The ESP Journal, 16(2), 34-40. [23] Riess, H. (2017). The science of empathy. Journal of Patient Experience, 4(2), 74–77. doi.org/10.1177/2374373517699267 [24] Sarimsakova, D. (2021). Developing the sociolinguistic competence of future English teachers through the use of case studies. Mental Enlightenment Scientific Methodological Journal, 2(02), 54–65. [25] Terogo, I. R., Elimino, C. C., Tallo, J. M., Sacal, J. A. & Balahadia, C. E. (2018). Linguistic and sociolinguistic competence of senior high school students. Recoletos Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 6(1), 18-24. [26] Tomalin, B., & Stempleski, S. (2013).Cultural awareness - resource books for teachers. Oxford University Press. 2(3), 23-26 [27] Wegner, D. M., & Giuliano, T. (2017). The forms of social awareness. In springe ebooks (pp. 165–198). Learning in Higher Education, 5(1), 34-38. doi.org/10.1515/cercles-2015-0008 [28] Yang, J., & Rehner, K. (2015). Learner beliefs about sociolinguistic competence: A qualitative case study of four university second language learners. Applied Linguistic 2(3), 78-8 [29] Zantua, J. (2017). Exploring the significance of social awareness among students. Dlsu Journal 1(2), 67-98.

Copyright

Copyright © 2024 Roshell Dupisen, Ma. Theresa Eustaquio. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.