Communication Skills and Challenges of Pre-Service Teachers: A Basis for Developing a Communication Skills Enhancement Module

Communication Skills and Challenges of Pre-Service Teachers: A Basis for Developing a Communication Skills Enhancement Module

Dr. Estelito J. Punongbayan, Roselyn A. Andino, Hannah Shaine I. Atienza, Vernadine R. Baral

College of Teacher Education, Batangas State University, The National Engineering University ARASOF-Nasugbu, Balayan, Batangas, Philippines

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.906000235

Received: 05 June 2025; Accepted: 09 June 2025; Published: 09 July 2025

ABSTRACT

This study aimed to assess the communication skills of pre-service teachers and identify the challenges they faced, to develop a communication skills enhancement module. Specifically, it examined the demographic profile of the respondents; their self-assessment of oral and written communication skills; the strategies they employ to improve these skills; the significant differences in their self-assessments when grouped according to profile variables; the specific challenges they encounter in oral and written communication; and the development of a module designed to enhance communication competencies in preparation for teaching. A descriptive quantitative research design was utilized, employing survey questionnaires to collect data from 224 pre-service teachers across selected campuses of Batangas State University–The National Engineering University (BatStateU-TNEU), as well as feedback from three evaluators. Findings revealed that in oral communication, pre-service teachers assessed themselves positively in creating a conducive communication environment. In written communication, they reported commonly proofreading their work to identify and correct errors. Frequently used strategies included maintaining eye contact during presentations for oral communication and seeking feedback on written outputs for written communication. However, challenges emerged in both domains. A lack of vocabulary knowledge, difficulty in maintaining a consistent tone and style, and organizing information were identified as significant obstacles. Based on these findings, a communication skills development module was created to address the identified gaps. The module serves as a supplementary resource aimed at enhancing the oral and written communication competencies of pre-service teachers, thereby better preparing them for professional teaching roles.

Keywords: pre-service teachers, communication skills, teaching challenges, skills development module

INTRODUCTION

Language Communication is a vital component of everyday life, serving as a bridge that connects individuals within both local and global communities. It enables people to express ideas, share information, and build relationships. As Prabavathi (2018) emphasized, successful individuals understand the art of effective communication—both oral and written—allowing them to convey intentions, avoid misunderstandings, and foster meaningful connections. Proficiency in communication is fundamental to achieving mutual understanding, collaboration, and success in both personal and professional contexts. In today’s increasingly interconnected world, these skills are indispensable for meaningful interaction and the effective exchange of ideas.

In the context of education, the Department of Education (DepEd) Order No. 42, s. 2017, which promotes the National Adoption and Implementation of the Philippine Professional Standards for Teachers (PPST), underscores the importance of communication in achieving teaching excellence. The PPST sets clear expectations for teachers’ competencies, including their ability to communicate effectively. Domain 1 of the PPST specifically highlights the need for teachers to demonstrate proficiency in the use of the Mother Tongue, Filipino, and English to enhance teaching and learning. It also emphasizes the role of communication in utilizing effective teaching strategies that improve educational outcomes and develop globally competent educators.

Communication, as defined by Saavedra (2023), is the process of exchanging information, which involves more than just speaking includes listening, empathizing, observing, and providing appropriate feedback (Northup, 2023). It occurs in various forms, including oral, written, and non-verbal cues such as body language. An individual’s ability to communicate effectively plays a crucial role in shaping their personal and professional opportunities. Moore (2023) observed that individuals who struggle with communication often face difficulties in their careers and relationships due to their inability to express needs and resolve issues, leading to frequent misunderstandings. Over time, these communication gaps can have negative implications on one’s quality of life.

In the professional setting, Campbell (2022) emphasized that effective communication enhances teamwork, boosts productivity, and improves employee satisfaction. Sehgal (2022) added that oral communication is not limited to speaking but also includes active listening and understanding, which are vital for relationship-building and professional networking. Similarly, written communication is essential for presenting complex information clearly and accurately. Well-structured writing demands grammatical correctness, precision, and clarity, which are key to ensuring that messages are well understood.

In the field of education, communication is especially critical. Teachers must possess strong communication skills to create an engaging and inclusive classroom environment. As Sword (2020) noted, effective communication is essential for teachers to present themselves, foster positive classroom interactions, and facilitate student learning. Conversely, teachers who lack communication skills may hinder their students’ academic growth and comprehension, potentially leading to disengagement and disinterest in school.

Given the pivotal role of communication in education, this study focused on assessing the communication skills of pre-service teachers and the challenges they faced. Understanding these challenges will inform the development of a communication skills enhancement module, ultimately aimed at preparing future educators to communicate effectively and teach competently in diverse learning environments.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Communication is a foundational element in the teaching and learning process. It is not only about transmitting information but also about fostering understanding, motivation, and engagement. According to Hybels and Weaver (2014), communication is the process of creating meaning through symbolic interaction. In educational contexts, this process includes verbal and non-verbal forms such as speech, writing, body language, and visual aids.

Sehgal (2022) emphasized that effective oral communication encompasses speaking clearly, listening actively, and presenting confidently—skills critical for teachers managing diverse classrooms. In contrast, written communication involves organizing thoughts, using proper grammar and mechanics, and conveying ideas in a structured, logical format. Both forms are necessary for successful instruction, feedback delivery, and documentation.

The Philippine Professional Standards for Teachers (DepEd Order No. 42, s. 2017) outlines the expectations for teacher proficiency, including effective use of language and communication strategies. Under Domain 1, teachers are expected to demonstrate competence in using the Mother Tongue, Filipino, and English to facilitate learning and ensure comprehension. This highlights the importance of communication in achieving high-quality teaching outcomes and learner performance.

Trilling and Fadel (2009) further argued that in the 21st century, communication is a core life and career skill. For educators, this skill extends beyond instruction—it affects professional collaboration, student engagement, and curriculum delivery.

Pre-service teachers often struggle with communication due to anxiety, limited vocabulary, and a lack of structured training. Moore (2023) pointed out that oral communication difficulties may include public speaking fear and unclear articulation, while written communication problems involve disorganized content, weak grammar, and difficulty expressing ideas. These issues can hinder classroom effectiveness and student understanding.

A study by Prabavathi and Nagasubramani (2018) found that many pre-service teachers in India had inadequate oral and written communication skills due to insufficient training and practice. The researchers emphasized the need for curriculum interventions focusing on communication development.

In the Philippine context, Saavedra (2023) identified that education students often face challenges such as low confidence during oral presentations and frequent grammatical errors in academic writing. These limitations affect their performance in both in-campus training and practicum experiences.

Similarly, Ariyanti (2016) researched Indonesian pre-service teachers and found that communication modules, focused on both oral fluency and academic writing-significantly improved the participants’ confidence and competence.

Northup (2023) examined the use of skills-based training modules for communication development among education students. The study showed that consistent practice, instructor feedback, and peer evaluation improved both oral presentation skills and academic writing quality.

In a local study, Santos (2020) developed a communication workshop for pre-service teachers that led to noticeable improvement in articulation, vocabulary use, and classroom interaction confidence. The study recommended the integration of such workshops or modules into teacher education programs.

RESEARCH METHODS

Research Design

This study employed a descriptive quantitative research design to assess the communication skills of pre-service teachers without manipulating any variables (Siedlecki, 2020). This approach was chosen for its ability to collect objective, numerical data by observing participants in their natural academic environment.

According to the Dovetail Editorial Team (2023), descriptive research aims to provide an accurate picture of a population or phenomenon by identifying patterns and characteristics through structured methods such as surveys and observations. In its quantitative form, it allows for statistical analysis of measurable data.

This study specifically examined the oral and written communication skills of first- to fourth-year Bachelor of Elementary Education pre-service teachers, focusing on their self-assessed proficiency, strategies, and challenges. The findings served as a foundation for designing a communication skills enhancement module to support their professional growth as future educators.

Research Environment

This study was conducted across four selected campuses of Batangas State University – The National Engineering University (BatStateU-TNEU): Pablo Borbon Campus, Malvar Campus, Rosario Campus, and ARASOF-Nasugbu Campus. These campuses offer the Bachelor of Elementary Education (BEEd) program and serve as training grounds for pre-service teachers who are preparing to enter the teaching profession.

BatStateU-TNEU is recognized for its commitment to academic excellence and teacher education. The university provides diverse and dynamic learning environments where pre-service teachers are trained in both theoretical and practical aspects of teaching. The selected campuses represent a broad demographic and geographic range, which adds to the diversity of perspectives in the study.

This research environment was ideal for exploring the oral and written communication skills of pre-service teachers, as it allowed the researchers to observe and assess participants within authentic academic settings where teaching and learning interactions naturally occur.

Subjects of the Study

The subjects of this study were pre-service teachers enrolled in the Bachelor of Elementary Education (BEEd) program at selected campuses of Batangas State University – The National Engineering University (BatStateU-TNEU). A total of 224 pre-service teachers from the first to fourth year levels were selected through random sampling to ensure a representative distribution across different academic year levels and campuses.

The breakdown of respondents is as follows: 63 from Malvar Campus, 32 from Pablo Borbon Campus, 24 from Rosario Campus; 100 from ARASOF-Nasugbu Campus.

These pre-service teachers were chosen as subjects because they are currently undergoing training in preparation for their future roles as professional educators. Their experiences and perspectives provided valuable insights into the development, strategies, and challenges related to oral and written communication skills—an essential component of effective teaching.

Data Gathering Instrument

The researchers used an adapted questionnaire with permission from the original authors. It was then modified to align with the objectives of this study. The instrument was divided into four sections:

Profile of Respondents – including age, gender, campus, and section.

Self-Assessment – focusing on the respondents’ perceived oral and written communication skills.

Communication Strategies – identifying the strategies used by pre-service teachers to improve their oral and written communication.

Communication Challenges – assessing the challenges they encounter in both oral and written communication.

The questionnaire was distributed to pre-service teachers from the 1st to 4th year across selected campuses of Batangas State University–TNEU. The researchers personally administered the surveys to ensure clarity of instructions and proper data collection.

Likert Scale was used to quantify responses.

Data Gathering Procedure

The researchers began by submitting a formal approval letter to the Dean of the College of Teacher Education in each of the selected campuses of Batangas State University—Pablo Borbon, Malvar, Rosario, and ARASOF-Nasugbu. These letters were delivered both personally and via email for confirmation.

Upon receiving approval from the respective deans, the researchers proceeded to submit a request letter to conduct the study involving 1st to 4th year Bachelor of Elementary Education pre-service teachers. Once permission was granted, the researchers administered the questionnaires to the selected participants.

Respondents were given sufficient time to complete the questionnaire. The researchers ensured that all responses were complete and that all participants provided their informed consent after being fully briefed on the purpose and nature of the study. After collection, the data were organized and tabulated for statistical analysis.

Statistical Treatment of Data

Data The data collected in this study were subjected to several statistical treatments to analyze the responses effectively. These include the following:

Frequency Count – Used to determine the number of responses for each option in specific questionnaire items. It helped identify how often particular answers were selected by the respondents.

Percentage – Applied to describe the proportion of responses to the total number of participants. It was computed by dividing the frequency of a response by the total number of responses, then multiplying by 100.

Weighted Mean – Used to calculate the average level of responses, particularly in assessing the respondents’ self-evaluated communication skills. This was done by multiplying each response by its assigned weight, summing the results, and dividing by the total number of responses.

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) – Employed to determine whether there were significant differences in the respondents’ communication skills when grouped according to profile variables such as year level, campus, or gender.

These statistical tools provided comprehensive insights into the communication abilities, strategies, and challenges faced by pre-service teachers, thereby informing the development of a communication skills enhancement module.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Respondent’s Profile according to their Age, Sex, Campus, and Year Level

The demographic profile of the 224 pre-service teacher respondents from selected campuses of Batangas State University–TNEU provides important contextual insight into the characteristics of future educators. In terms of age, most respondents were within the traditional college age range, with the highest concentration at 20 years old (29.5%) and 19 years old (29.0%), followed by 21 years old (20.5%). This aligns with the typical age range for students in higher education pursuing teacher education degrees. According to Ariyanti (2016), individuals within this age bracket are in a developmental stage where foundational professional and communication skills are actively being shaped, which is crucial for pre-service teachers. Regarding sex, the overwhelming majority of respondents were female (89.3%), consistent with findings by Saavedra (2023) and Prabavathi and Nagasubramani (2018), who reported a continued dominance of females in teacher education programs globally. This gender imbalance may influence classroom dynamics and pedagogical approaches, as women are more likely to pursue careers in nurturing and education-related professions.

In terms of campus distribution, nearly half of the respondents came from ARASOF-Nasugbu Campus (44.6%), suggesting a higher enrollment in the Bachelor of Elementary Education program at this campus. This is consistent with the observations of Northup (2023), who noted that institutional enrollment size can impact the demographic representation in research studies. Lastly, the data on year level reveals that the majority of respondents were 1st-year students (37.9%), followed by those in 3rd year (30.4%) and 2nd year (26.3%), with only 5.4% in their 4th year. The larger proportion of younger year levels suggests that many participants were still in the early stages of professional development. As Moore (2023) emphasized, early exposure to structured communication training is essential in building confidence and proficiency, especially in oral and written domains vital to teaching. These findings reinforce the relevance and urgency of providing developmentally appropriate communication training modules tailored to pre-service teachers’ diverse backgrounds and academic stages.

Preservice Teachers’ Self-Assessment of Their Oral and Written Communication Skills

The self-assessment results revealed that pre-service teachers from Batangas State University–TNEU rated themselves as “Proficient” in both oral and written communication skills, with composite means of 2.83 and 2.86, respectively. These findings demonstrate a generally positive outlook among respondents toward their communication competencies, which are essential in the teaching profession.

In terms of oral communication, the highest-rated indicator was stimulating a positive communication environment (M = 2.99), followed by demonstrating active listening (M = 2.97) and participating in group conversations with ease (M = 2.96). This suggests that pre-service teachers value and are aware of the importance of creating supportive, engaging classroom environments—a foundational skill in promoting learner-centered teaching (Sword, 2020). The ability to actively listen and engage in group discussions reflects interpersonal sensitivity, a trait identified by Prabavathi and Nagasubramani (2018) as a key element of effective communication. These skills are crucial not only in instructional delivery but also in classroom management and collaboration with peers and stakeholders.

Interestingly, the lowest-rated oral communication indicator was conveying ideas effectively (M = 2.71), indicating that while students may be socially interactive, some still struggle with articulating thoughts clearly and coherently. According to Pontillas et al. (2021), the ability to express oneself is often linked with confidence, experience, and feedback—factors that typically develop over time, especially through practice teaching and real classroom exposure.

In terms of written communication, the highest-rated skill was proofreading for errors (M = 3.06), followed by citing sources (M = 2.96), and using digital tools (M = 2.93). These results suggest a strong awareness among pre-service teachers of academic integrity and the importance of revising their work—skills that are reinforced through academic writing tasks in teacher education programs. Widiastuti et al. (2020) highlighted similar findings, stating that a majority of pre-service teachers demonstrated proficiency in structured text writing and citation practices, reflecting their training in academic conventions and digital literacy.

On the other hand, the lowest-rated writing skill was modifying writings for various audiences or situations (M = 2.68), followed by expressing complex ideas in writing (M = 2.72). This indicates a potential gap in rhetorical awareness and adaptability—critical for crafting messages suited to different learners, parents, or professional audiences. As Sehgal (2022) emphasizes, teaching requires written communication that varies in tone, formality, and purpose, from instructional materials to professional correspondence.

These findings suggest that while pre-service teachers are generally confident in their communication skills, there is still room for improvement—particularly in conveying nuanced ideas clearly and adjusting messages to diverse audiences. This supports the need for a Communication Skills Development Module that focuses not only on the mechanics of communication but also on contextual adaptability and message clarity. The respondents’ self-assessment confirms earlier studies (e.g., Ariyanti, 2016; Moore, 2023), which underscore the importance of targeted, scaffolded training in communication for developing globally competent and effective educators.

Strategies for Improving Communication Skills

As regards the communication skills, the composite mean for strategies employed in improving oral communication skills was 3.80, verbally interpreted as “Often”. The data suggests that pre-service teachers actively engage in various strategies to strengthen their speaking competencies.

The most frequently applied strategy was maintaining eye contact when presenting (M = 4.16), which reflects the respondents’ awareness of the nonverbal components of effective communication. Eye contact not only establishes credibility but also strengthens the connection between speaker and audience, as emphasized by Pestano (2020), who noted that maintaining eye contact boosts self-confidence and fosters deeper audience engagement.

Ranked second was providing concrete examples when the audience struggles to understand (M = 4.13), indicating that pre-service teachers adapt their explanations for clarity, an essential pedagogical skill in facilitating learner understanding. Prabavathi and Nagasubramani (2018) support this, highlighting the importance of simplifying content to ensure student comprehension.

Using appropriate gestures and facial expressions (M = 4.10) and engaging in role-play activities (M = 4.02) also ranked high, showing that these respondents understand the value of expressiveness and simulation in practicing verbal delivery. These practices align with experiential learning theory, which stresses the importance of reflection and action in communication development (Kolb, 1984).

Meanwhile, attending public speaking workshops was the least utilized strategy (M = 2.63, “Sometimes”). This may reflect barriers such as limited access, time constraints, or low prioritization. Nonetheless, structured training environments can significantly enhance communicative competence, as noted by Balbay and Kilis (2017), who emphasized the effectiveness of public speaking courses in building oral fluency and confidence.

As regards the written communication strategies, the composite mean for strategies used to enhance written communication skills was 3.88, also interpreted as “Often”, suggesting that pre-service teachers are intentional about improving their writing proficiency.

The top strategies were receiving feedback (M = 4.31) and using formatting techniques like bold and bullet points (M = 4.31), both indicating that respondents are mindful of clarity and structure in written outputs. Feedback, in particular, is a cornerstone of academic growth. According to Hardavella, Rousalova, and Aamli-Gaagnat (2017), constructive feedback provides direction, reinforces strengths, and helps learners identify areas for improvement.

Editing and revising for accuracy and clarity (M = 4.19), using grammar and spell-check tools (M = 4.16), and collaborating with peers on writing projects (M = 4.11) were also commonly practiced. These strategies suggest that pre-service teachers value not only technical accuracy but also collaboration and technology as means to elevate the quality of their written work. These findings are consistent with Graham and Perin’s (2007) meta-analysis, which confirmed that revision, grammar instruction, and collaborative writing significantly improve students’ writing skills.

In contrast, participating in writing workshops or seminars (M = 2.54) was the least employed strategy, interpreted as “Rarely.” This may suggest logistical limitations or a lack of awareness of such resources. However, Widiastuti et al. (2020) emphasized that structured writing training improves syntactic variety, coherence, and formal writing conventions among pre-service teachers.

Test of Significant Difference Between Respondents’ Demographic Profile and Their Self-Assessment in Communication Skills

As regards oral communication skills, the p-values for all demographic variables—age (0.40), sex (0.94), campus (0.25), and year level (0.28)—are greater than the significance level of 0.05, leading to a failure to reject the null hypothesis. This indicates that there is no statistically significant difference in the self-assessment of oral communication skills when respondents are grouped according to these demographic factors.

This result implies that oral communication skills are uniformly developed among pre-service teachers regardless of their age, gender, campus, or academic year. It suggests that these skills may be influenced more by common educational exposure and shared instructional experiences rather than by individual demographic characteristics.

These findings align with the results of Pontillas et al. (2021), whose study also found that oral communication proficiency among pre-service teachers did not significantly differ across demographic categories. Similarly, McCroskey and Richmond (1991) emphasized that while communication apprehension and oral proficiency can vary among individuals, instructional contexts tend to mitigate demographic disparities over time, particularly in structured academic programs like teacher education.

As to written communication skills, it reveals a more nuanced outcome regarding written communication skills. The p-values for age (0.03) and campus (0.02) are less than the significance level of 0.05, indicating a significant difference in the self-assessment of written communication skills across these variables. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected for both age and campus, but retained for sex (p = 0.66) and year level (p = 0.06).

These findings suggest that age influences how pre-service teachers perceive their writing abilities. This could be attributed to cognitive maturity, experience with academic writing, or exposure to various writing tasks over time. Older students may have developed more advanced writing strategies or had more time to practice writing for academic or professional purposes.

The significant difference based on campus affiliation may reflect variability in instructional quality, availability of writing resources, curriculum emphasis, or faculty expertise across the different Batangas State University campuses. This supports the idea that the institutional environment plays a critical role in shaping writing proficiency.

This conclusion is supported by the findings of Dela Cruz (2019), who observed a moderately significant difference in written communication skills when pre-service teachers were grouped by age and campus. Furthermore, Widiastuti et al. (2020) emphasized that institutional differences, including writing instruction practices and support systems, significantly influence students’ writing performance.

On the other hand, the lack of significant differences in written communication skills based on sex and year level aligns with findings from Graham and Perin (2007), who reported that structured writing instruction benefits all students, regardless of gender or academic standing, provided that writing tasks and feedback are consistent.

Challenges in Oral and Written Communication Skills

Pre-service teachers encounter several challenges in both oral and written communication skills that may hinder effective classroom instruction and student engagement. In oral communication, the primary obstacles include a fear of judgment or criticism, limited vocabulary knowledge, and inconsistent voice modulation, such as speaking too loudly or softly. These emotional barriers and vocabulary gaps negatively affect their confidence and clarity, which is consistent with Krashen’s (1982) Affective Filter Hypothesis, emphasizing how anxiety can impede language acquisition. Similarly, Acosta (2022) and Goolamhossen (2013) highlight the critical role of vocabulary in effective communication, while Lucas (2011) stresses the importance of vocal control in public speaking. Other challenges, such as maintaining audience attention and proper pronunciation, though less frequent, also suggest the need for more focused training to improve oral proficiency.

In terms of written communication, pre-service teachers frequently struggle with organizing information clearly and maintaining a consistent tone and style throughout their writing. These challenges are supported by research from Oshima and Hogue (2006) and Hardavella et al. (2017), who emphasize the importance of structure and coherence in effective writing. Translating thoughts into coherent content also poses difficulty, reflecting the writing fluency concerns identified by Hyland (2003). Additional issues such as time management, hesitation to express ideas, and difficulties in accepting feedback indicate a need for support in writing confidence and planning skills. Lower-ranked challenges like inconsistent formatting and simplifying complex information highlight areas for further improvement.

Overall, these findings suggest that pre-service teachers require targeted communication training to address emotional barriers, vocabulary development, voice modulation, and writing organization. Integrating public speaking practice, writing workshops, and confidence-building activities into teacher education programs can enhance their communication competence, aligning with the recommendations of several scholars who underscore communication skills as vital for effective teaching.

Development of a Module Towards Competent Teaching of Pre-service Teachers’ Communication Skills

The results presented above served as the foundation for developing a learning module aimed at enhancing the oral and written communication skills of pre-service teachers, thereby supporting their preparation for effective classroom instruction. The module addresses the most common challenges identified, such as limited vocabulary, fear of judgment, difficulties in organizing ideas, and maintaining a consistent writing tone—and integrates practical strategies to overcome them. Structured into three chapters, it includes discussions, exercises, activities, and reflections to promote active engagement and skill reinforcement. According to Goolamhossen (2013) and Plakhotnik and Ershova (2017), targeted interventions like these are effective in addressing communication barriers among teacher trainees. Furthermore, Hardavella, Rousalova, and Aamli-Gaagnat (2017) emphasize the role of feedback and reflective practice in developing communication competence, reinforcing the value of the module’s design. This approach aims to help pre-service teachers build confidence, improve linguistic clarity, and engage more effectively with their future learners.

REFERENCES

1. Acosta, A. (2022). Developing oral communication competence among pre-service teachers. Philippine Journal of Education, 75(2), 45–56.
2. Ariyanti, A. (2016). The teaching of EFL writing in Indonesia. Dinamika Ilmu, 16(2), 263–277. https://doi.org/10.21093/di.v16i2.274
3. Balbay, S., & Kilis, S. (2017). Students’ perceptions of the effectiveness of public speaking courses and their impact on their future careers. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(14), 63–71.
4. Campbell, J. (2022). Professional communication in the workplace: Enhancing productivity through collaboration. Business Communication Journal, 5(1), 34–45.
5. Dela Cruz, R. M. (2019). The relationship between communication skills and academic performance of pre-service teachers. Journal of Educational Research and Policy Studies, 9(2), 87–98.
6. Department of Education. (2017). DepEd Order No. 42, s. 2017: National adoption and implementation of the Philippine professional standards for teachers (PPST). https://www.deped.gov.ph/2017/08/11/do-42-s-2017/
7. Dovetail Editorial Team. (2023). Descriptive research: Definition, examples, and methods. Dovetail. https://dovetailapp.com
8. Goolamhossen, R. (2013). Vocabulary and communication skills: The missing link in language education. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 2(6), 231–235. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20130206.13
9. Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools. Alliance for Excellent Education.
10. Hardavella, G., Rousalova, I., & Aamli-Gaagnat, A. (2017). How to give and receive feedback effectively. Breathe, 13(4), 327–333. https://doi.org/10.1183/20734735.009917
11. Hybels, S., & Weaver, R. L. (2014). Communicating effectively (10th ed.). Pearson Education.
12. Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667251
13. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.
14. Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon Press.
15. Lucas, S. E. (2011). The art of public speaking (11th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
16. McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1991). Willingness to communicate: A cognitive view. In M. L. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication yearbook 14 (pp. 157–179). Sage.
17. Moore, A. (2023). Overcoming communication barriers in education: A guide for pre-service teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 50(1), 15–29.
18. Northup, R. (2023). Improving oral and written communication through skills-based training: A study among pre-service educators. Journal of Communication Pedagogy, 7(2), 112–128.
19. Oshima, A., & Hogue, A. (2006). Writing academic English (4th ed.). Pearson Longman.
20. Pestano, M. (2020). Non-verbal cues and student engagement: The role of eye contact in effective classroom communication. Journal of Teacher Development, 8(1), 44–51.
21. Plakhotnik, M. S., & Ershova, T. V. (2017). Communication training as a tool for pre-service teacher development. International Journal of Teaching and Education, 5(2), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.20472/TE.2017.5.2.002
22. Pontillas, R., de Guzman, A., & Salcedo, M. (2021). Communication competency of teacher education students: Basis for enhancement program. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, Arts and Sciences, 8(3), 23–32.
23. Prabavathi, P. (2018). Effective communication skills. Journal of English Language and Literature, 5(1), 94–97.
24. Prabavathi, P., & Nagasubramani, P. C. (2018). The importance of communication in teaching: A literature review. Journal of Applied and Advanced Research, 3(S1), 17–19. https://doi.org/10.21839/jaar.2018.v3iS1.169
25. Saavedra, J. (2023). Communication challenges faced by education students: A qualitative study. Philippine Journal of Teacher Education, 9(1), 88–102.
26. Santos, A. M. (2020). Enhancing communication skills through workshops: A program for pre-service teachers. International Journal of Educational Management, 34(5), 789–800.
27. Sehgal, R. (2022). The dynamics of oral and written communication in professional settings. International Journal of Communication Studies, 4(1), 19–33.
28. Siedlecki, S. L. (2020). Understanding descriptive research designs. Clinical Nurse Specialist, 34(1), 8–12. https://doi.org/10.1097/NUR.0000000000000493
29. Sword, H. (2020). Effective academic communication for educators. Higher Education Quarterly, 74(3), 251–270. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12245
30. Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. Jossey-Bass.
31. Widiastuti, I. A. M. S., Mantra, I. B. N., & Wayan, I. M. S. (2020). Academic writing skills of Indonesian EFL pre-service teachers. Asian EFL Journal, 27(4.3), 256–273.