{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04855706095256398, 'fraction_numerical': 0.026744819192210372, 'mean_word_length': 5.185023771790808, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 14, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 3, 'https://': 1, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Revealing lecturer’s paralinguistic attribution: How the visual manner contributes to students’ non-cognitive skills

Classroom-based communication requires an appropriate contribution from lecturer’s perspectives to address students’ non-cognitive skills. This study examines the paralinguistic attribution contributions deriving from lecturer’s visual manner. Of 504 pre -service English teachers, 120 freshmen participated in this study. Data collection used the questionnaire through a random sampling selection from lecturer’s writing instruction. Data analysis used the multiple regression analyses with the significance level ( p -value) of .05. The findings exhibited that lecturer’s paralinguistic attributions, namely: articulation (t = 1.073; p = .286), sonority (t = 2.896; p = .005), loudness (t = 3.433; p = .001), facial expression and lips setting (t = 1.097; p = .275), and gesture (t = 2.323; p = .022) contributed a significant influence towards the writing class instruction positively. The effectiveness of the paralinguistic attributions contributed 45.5% from overall findings shown in this study, in which the regression analysis statistically addressed that F = 19.017, R² = .455, and p < .05. This study concludes the existence of the paralinguistic attributions accommodates freshmen’s learning maturation in lecturer’s instructional modes.


INTRODUCTION
The current issues at applying for the pedagogical strategies in foreign language teaching have been engaged in lecturers mainstreaming. Both cognitive and non-cognitive skills among students become the lecturer's priority. The later, non-cognitive skills which focus the paralinguistic attribution on the lecturer's instructional modes attempt to provide an understanding in the context of the lecturer's position in the classroom when delivering any designated topics . Therefore, students' non-cognitive skills truly remain to be important in their day-to-day lectures. The relevance of this study arrays non-verbal determinant of the lecturer's articu lation, sonority, loudness, facial situation-related variation of behavior; dependence versus independence of the channel on simu ltaneous linguistic behavior usage (Laver, 1999), which substituted the speakers to modify the linguistic features (Yamashita, 2013) and to control intentions, attitudes, emphasis, and speaking styles regarding the part of non-linguistics. The function deals with modifying and clarify ing of the voice intonation (Parola et al., 2015), non-verbal behaviors, such as eye contacts, facial expressions, postures and gestures (Wiklund, 2016), time, space and territory (Anvari & Atiyaye, 2014) with some expressions, such as nodding head, raising thumb, smiling lips, clapping hands, and joking act ivities (Maolida, 2013) as well.
Further, the paralinguistic attribution identically constitutes the phonetic commun ication (Mag zhan et al., 2014), in which the lecturer potentially uses the phonation or commonly known as fillers, such as uhhh, e-e-e-rrr, ohhh, ahhh, ehmmm, and so on in the daily communicat ion. The expression and emotion lin k with the diction and lecturer's thoughts since the communicat ion observes users' movements and sound phenomena (Spasova, 2011) and is mostly used to indicate the direct physical expressions shown in front of the students (AlAfnan, 2015). this remarkably proves through the function of pauses, loudness, and syllabic duration, hand gestures (Mechó, 2015), as well as contributes intonation, the timing of responses, and volume (Chakhachiro, 2016). This point means that the lecturer's articulat ion clarity may directly affect students' perceptions relating to co mpetence, credibility, and sociability (Hsu, 2012) when expressing the body movements (Acosta, 2014). In this context, the lecturer's unscripted, unrehearsed, spontaneous set of actions can improvise students' opportunities to increase their commun ication skills, prove the confidence, and engage the positive self-concepts improvement (Dundar, 2013), particu larly when the writ ing class is being instructed.
In this construction, the impact of paralinguistic attribution figures out the contents of the valuable informat ion (Nikolaevna, 2012) derived fro m lecturer and students' interactions. This impact is shown in Figure 1 as the function of paralinguistic modes that proves its style and existence.
Several studies showed that classroom-based communicat ion indicated a very conducive climate in learning among students. Students' proficiency performed their co mmun icative linguistic co mpetence and was associated with achievement (Narzoles, 2013). Anvari and Atiyaye (2014) proved that communication effectiveness played an important role in delivering a message in the classroom's contribution. Herein, a positive facial exp ression created a form of information to students when comp leting their tasks. Hence, a positive facial exp ression increased the students' emotional level and performance in transferring information.  (Mechó, 2015).
Next, conversation analysis constituted an innovative and efficient method for understanding students' problems (Wiklund, 2016). Tsou (2005) addressed students' participation that could be integrated into the regular learning, not only in students' proficiency achievement, but also their attitudes towards class activities became more positive, particularly to those whose participation backgrounds were passive enough. Further, Spasova (2011) confirmed the formal conversation which involved more than two communicators was influenced by its informat ion, pronunciation, and pronunciation effects. All of these effects were connected with communicators' intentions that possibly exchanged the conversation topics.
Other studies supported the accessibility of a communicat ing device for students with disabilities. In this case, the paralinguistic attribution assisted an 11-year-o ld boy, who was born deaf in a hearing Finnish fa mily. The boy's first language is Finnish Sign Language. He used this sign language in particular situations, such as while swimming and being too far for communicat ing with others (Nieminen & Takkinen, 2011). Meanwhile, Nilsen, Rints, Ethier, and Moroz (2016) t rusted that the paralinguistic attribution might identify the executive functions in students' communicat ive skills development and supply the growing literature of how the students' with the attention-deficit and hyperactivity disorder constituted with others' co mmunicative behavior. Hence, the paralinguistic attribution was determined to be a promising measure to gain more insight into the emotional processing (Hagenaars & Minnen, 2005) and to prosodically convey the pragmatic exp ression in the interactional discourse which was relevant with the lexical tones of the words (Ha & Grice, 2017).
The importance of this study aims at addressing classroom-based communication that addresses an appropriate contribution fro m the lecturer's perspectives towards students' non-cognitive skills contribution. This study also extends the factors of reliab ility to be systematic and applicable. Thus, in congruence with the importance of this study, the paralinguistic attribution issue proposes two research questions (RQs) regarding the following students' perception on lecturer's visual manner in this study: 1. Does the lecturer's articulation, sonority, loudness, facial expression and lips setting, and gesture partially give an influence on the writing instruction?

2.
Do the lecturer's articulat ion, sonority, loudness, facial expression, and lips setting and gesture collectively give a contribution to students' understanding of the writing instruction?
To comprehend the paralinguistic attribution insight, six hypotheses are tested to address the research questions, as follows: H1-there is a positive and significant in fluence of the lecturer's art iculation (X1) towards the writing instruction (Y); H2-there is a positive and significant influence of the lecturer's sonority (X2) towards the writ ing instruction (Y); H3there is a positive and significant influence of the lecturer's loudness (X3) towards the writ ing instruction (Y); H4 -there is a positive and significant influence of the lecturer's facial expression and lips setting (X4) towards the writing instruction (Y); and H5-there is collectively a positive and significant contribution among the lecturer's art iculation (X1), sonority (X2), loudness (X3), facial exp ression and lips setting (X4), and gesture (X5) towards the writing instruction (Y).

METHODS
This study employed the quantitative method design which constituted the paralinguistic attribution contribution as set in the writ ing class, namely: lecturer's articulat ion, sonority, loudness, facial expression, and lip setting, and gesture during the pedagogical practices conducted in English Education Depart ment, one of private Universities in Purworejo, Central Java, Indonesia, whose core educational system was affiliated with Muhammadiyah, one of the largest Islamic organizat ions in Indonesia. Of 504 active pre-service English teachers , 120 freshmen participated in this study of the second semester of 2019/2020 academic year. Samp les size determination was undertaken from Tabachnick and Fidell's (2007) formulat ion, where N > 50 + 8m; m = nu mber o f independent variables. The composition of respondents were 87% (n = 105) females and 13% (n = 15) males and their age accordingly ranged in between 17 to 23 years old (Mage = 20; SD = 4.242) when fu lfilling the questionnaire.
Data was granted from the Higher Education Directorate (PD DIKTI) web at https://forlap.ristekdikti.go.id/prodi/detail/ on May 14 th , 2019. Data collection used the questionnaire through a proportional random samp ling technique, where the instrument was collected fro m self-rated students' perception in the paralinguistic attribution as modified by Reid (2013) and Bo mbelli et al. (2013). The instrument consisted of ten closed statements with a 5-point Likert scale ranging fro m 5 to 1, in which 5 = very visible, 4 = visib le, 3 = fair, 2 = poor, and 1 = invisible. The instrument was directly distributed by the authors to the respondents inside their classroom soon after they finished with their writ ing class. The respondents voluntarily filled in the questionnaire using a pencil and paper-based method during the span of five days for all respondents .
The validity and reliability results comp leted the criteria of Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficients after the instruments were tested to twenty-four pre-service English teachers at a private university in Klaten, Indonesia, dated December 14 th , 2017 fo llo wing their perceptions towards writ ing lecturer's paralinguistic attribution. The results ranged fro m .502 to .554 with p>.05 significance level. Cronbach's alpha () was .291 (SD = .737) for art iculation, sonority was .420 (SD = .779), loudness was .473 (S D = .923), facial expression including lips setting was .286 (S D = .690), gesture was .510 (SD = 9.71), and writ ing class was .512 (SD = .942).
Data analysis used the descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation coefficients (Pearson r), and mu ltip le regression analyses with the significance level of .05 to address the lecturer's paralinguistic attribution when dealing with students' non-cognitive skills contribution. Five independent variables of the lecturer's articulat ion (X1), sonority (X2), loudness (X3), facial exp ression and lips setting (X4), and gesture (X5) with its regression equation, Y = a + b 1X1+ b2X2+ b3X3+ b4X4+ b5X5 were statistically analyzed.

RESULT AND DISCUSSION
First, the interpretation of the descriptive statistics presented the number of fresh men who participated in this study. 120 pre -service English teachers were statistically counted in relevance to the collected data. The results descriptively summarized the freshmen's perception of the lecturer's visual interaction in writing class instruction (Y). 55 (45.8%) freshmen perceived lecturer's visual interaction was fair, 53 (44.2%) lecturer's visual interaction was visib le, 12 (10%) lecturer's visual interaction was very visible perfo rmed during writ ing instruction, where M = 3.64; SD = .658 with n = 120. Writ ing class instruction (Y) proved a fair category, as shown in Tab le 1 and Figure 1. Empirically, most of the freshmen showed an appropriate level of interesting and attentive participation during the lecturer's writ ing instruction. They developed their social skills that collaborated and interacted with the classroom activities.
Second, lecturer's art iculation (X1) p roved the frequency outputs, as follows: 3 (2.5%) freshmen perceived lecturer's articu lation was poor, 31 (25.8%) lecturer's articulat ion was fair, 71 (59.2%) lecturer's articulation was visible, and 15 (12.5%) lecturer's articulation was very visible articulated during writing instruction, where M = 3.82; SD = .673 with n = 120. Lecturer's articulation (X1) gained a visible category, with 59.2% respondents perceived it. However, all categories in the lecturer's articu lation were shown in Table 2 and Figure 2.    Third, lecturer's sonority (X2) verified the frequency outputs in the following sequences: 3 (2.5%) freshmen perceived lecturer's sonority was poor, 52 (45%) lecturer's sonority was fair, 47 (39.2%) lecturer's sonority was visible, and 16 (13.3%) lecturer's sonority was very visible revealed during writing instruction, where M = 3.63; S D = .744 with n = 120. Lecturer's sonority (X2) performed a fair category, with 45% of respondents perceived it. However, all categories in the lecturer's sonority were shown in Table 3 and Figure 3.  Fourth, lecturer's loudness (X3) confirmed its frequency outputs, as follows: 7 (5.8%) freshmen perceived the lecturer's loudness was poor, 67 (55.8%) lecturer's loudness was fair, 40 (33.3%) lecturer's loudness was visible, and 6 (5%) lecturer's loudness was very visible shown during writ ing class instruction, where M = 3.38; S D = .674 with n = 120. Lecturer's loudness (X3) proved a fair category, with 67% of respondents perceived it. However, all categories in the lecturer's loudness were shown in Table 4 and Figure 4.    Last but not least, this descriptive statistics interpretation emphasized the lecturer's gesture (X5) that addressed its frequency outputs, as follows: 7 (5.8%) freshmen perceived lecturer's gesture was poor, 18 (15.0%) lecturer's gesture was fair, 77 (64. 2%) lecturer's gesture was visible, and 18 (15.0%) lecturer's gesture was very v isible recorded during the writing instruction, where M = 3.88; SD = .724 with n = 120. Lecturer's gesture (X5) earned a visible category with 64.2% respondents perceived it. However, all categories in lecturer's gesture were shown in Table 6 and Figure  6.  Above the descriptive statistics results, here is beneath the multip le regressions that established five independent variables used the step-wise approach to measure whether the regression analyses had some correlations [independent variables (X1, X2, X3, X4, and X5) towards the dependent variable (Y) or conversely], they did not have any correlations. Herein, both the regression and the partial correlation tests resumed the values of Beta (β), T-test, F-test, and R² tests to comprehend the hypothesis tests , as shown in Table 7. Meanwhile, the mu ltivariate regression showed that R = .674; F = 19.017; p<.000 with its equation, Y = a + b1X1 + b 2X2 + b3X3 + b4X4 + b5X5. The symbol of Y dealt with Beta (β), 'a' referred to the constant, whereas b1, b2, b 3, b 4, and b5 indicated the regression coefficients. Thus, the converted values were Y = .319 + .101X1 + .247X2 + .261X3 + .102X4 + .188X5. The determinant coefficients value (R²) was gained fro m five independent variables, as follows: articulat ion = 10.1%, sonority = 24.7%, loudness = 26.1%, facial expression including lips setting = 10.2%, and gesture = 18.8%. Upon this lecturer's articulation, the significance ranked into the fifth level, where t = 1.073; p = .286 and the regression equation was Y = .319 + .101X1. Herein, the lecturer might consider some art iculation aspects in dealing with any interdisciplinary approaches, such as pitch, melody, loudness, timing, and voice quality (Koch, 2017;Kreiman & Sidt is, 2011). These attributions had a central ro le in the phrase-level phonological features, like phrase-init ial pitch rise and phrase-final pitch movements (Maekawa, 2004). Regarding the central role, a nuanced model might be applied fo r understanding the relational processes that not only required to stimu late the cognitive capacities, such as grasping, analyzing, speculating, presuming, and asking for the self-reflexive questions but also to control the emotional and social ones, such as empathizing with the existing meanings among others, opening-minded to any diversities that could be productively engaged in either lecturer or students (Baker & Dau mer, 2015). Hence, the ubiquitous real and connected speech might create the dynamic transitions involving both within and across words, and words group, such as phrases, clauses, and sentences which loaded the accessibility of both lecturers and students easier (Demirezen, 2016). As being realized, the fault articulat ion triggered problems p roducing voices. The voices could be substituted, left off, switched, or increased. Thus, some errors might create troublesome for students to understand their lecturer in the class (Johnson, 2015).
Next, lecturer's sonority earned its significance in the second level, where t = 2.896; p = .005 and the regression equation was Y = .319 + .247X2. Based on the emp irical portrait upon the lecturer's sonority, the lecturer might consider some sonority aspects to support her writ ing instruction. In a particu lar, Parker (2017) conveyed that the conceptualizat ion of sonority squarely places in the realm o f phonology, since the structure man ifested in different categories, such as obstruents, sonorants, and vowels that drove the phonological inventories (Hauser, 2014), wh ilst the sonority profile intrinsically depended on two segments and the relationships to the nearest sonority peaks to predict the sonority contour. However, both segments and relationships would not only determine the sequencing principle fro m the lexicon, phonetic experience, and innate, but they adequately represented speakers' performance (Daland et al., 2011). These two segments related to the sonority with the more and less sonorant that was to be nasalized in the nasal harmony (Lin, 2016). Further, Parker (2002) crit ically regarded the sonority hierarchy constructed with the typical phonological sonority scales, ranging fro m the strongest to the weakest position. These scales concerned with the intensity, oral air pressure, frequency, total airflo w, and duration. So that the relative sonority distances between sounds across languages might differ (Pons-Moll, 2008).
Then, lecturer's loudness revealed its significance in the first level, where t = 3.433; p = .001 and the regression equation was Y = .319 + .261X3. Based on the emp irical contribution upon the lecturer's loudness, the lecturer might consider some loudness aspects to support her writ ing class instruction. The contribution relied on the auditory elements of the instructional voices consideration when planning and evaluating educational practices became inherent (Koch, 2017), since the overall loudness impression calculated the short-term loudness working with the similar averaging mechanis m and predicted the brief sounds as a function of duration and the overall loudness of sounds at the various rates (Glasberg & Moore, 2002) when classifying them as loud and soft relat ing to the g lobal loudness (Ponsot, 2015). Fo llo wing the terms of loudness, it was dominated by the spectral loudness summation that increased the loudness of the modulated signal (Rennies, Verhey & Fastl, 2010). The loudness of speakers and hearers' processed and unprocessed oral communicat ions would be significantly occupied with the spectral shaping with dynamic range compression processes for those who were in some d isorder and typically developing peers (Flanagan, Zorila, Stylianou & Moore, 2018).
Afterwards, lecturer's facial expression and lips setting placed its significance in the fourth level, where t = 1.097; p = .275 and the regression equation was Y = .319 + .102X4. In particular, the lecturer might consider some facial expressions and lips setting aspects to adapt her writing class instruction. The supporting aspects relied on the use of video recording as an instrument that might identify the transfer of the lecturer's mean ingfulness efforts with verbal communicat ion. This instrument was granted as the unique field and mode of paralinguistics, which determined the spoken types upon users' specific purposes (Chakhachiro, 2016). To be able to smile is important for commun ication and social interaction (Sjögreen, Loh mander & Kiliard is, 2011). Nevertheless, the facial expression noted six emotional images that might determine the verbal co mmunication mean ings. Those were concerned with fear, anger, d isgust, happiness, sadness, surprise, and neutral expression (Khan, 2018). Th is could be notified that the face region was extracted fro m the input of the frontal-view face images. Further, the segmented face region was subjected to the per facial co mponent processes, such as eyes, eyebrows, and mouth (Pantic & Rothkrantz, 2004). To go deeper upon the facial expression, Darwin's theory on the facial description determined eight criteria of fear, anger, d isgust, contempt, happiness, surprise, sadness, and joy (Darwin, 1872) facial exp ression that commonly influenced people's physical performance. Moreover, Roy, Blais, Fiset, Rainville, and Gosselin (2015) emphasized the signal of being aversive and consistent with the social ro le would engage in potential threats during producing communications. Therefore, the facial expression that directly examined the informat ion extract ion would be crit ical for identification and judgment.
Eventually, lecturer's gesture established its significance in the third level, where t = 2.323; p = .022 and the regression equation was Y = .319 + .188X5. Particularly, the lecturer might consider some gesture aspects to adapt to supporting writ ing instruction when communicat ing with her students. The supporting aspects relied on the elements of either the meaning or the form of a gesture naturally that are heavily dependent on the context (Johnston, 2014). Gesture encompassed the articulatory movements that constituted spoken and signed words and dealt with the other functional bodily act ions to reveal the form and mean ing source in a certain in time and space (Wilco x, 2004), which considered the psychological, social, anthropological, and semiot ic level (Grischin, 2011) and to describe the semantic and p rag matic functions, modalities, and relationship to discourse and dialogue context as well (Wagner, Malisz & Kopp, 2014). The spoken words with symbolic gestures were coded as a single signal by the unique co mmunication system (Bernardis & Gentilucci, 2006).
These regression results were accordingly constituted to the paralinguistic attributions to record the lecturer's visual manner modes during her writing instruction. Shortly, accord ing to Johnston (2014), th e paralinguistic attributions or non-verbal signs constituted to the users' physical posture, head movement, eye gaze, facial exp ression, and lips setting. Meanwhile, Perera, Eales, and Blashki (2009) addressed that the paralinguistic attribution qualities importantly allo w the expression and engagement. These prove through the expressive vocalizations, such as laughing and exclaiming, and vocal segregates, such as pitch and volume. The paralinguistic attribution contributions, according to Rusu and Chirita (2017), are flexib ly interpreted when reducing barriers in addition to other factors, such as gender, education, age, and past experiences to others. Mainly, the value showed .455 (p>.05), wh ich indicated that the mult iple determinant coefficient (R²) was .455. This meant the variance level of writ ing instruction was 45.5%of five independent variables. On the other hand, other possible independent variables totaling 54.5% were still out of this study coverage. However, the scatter plot (Figure 7) addressed the interconnected relationships between independent variables and the dependent variable. Moreover, part of this finding chiefly attempted to address the hypotheses, which collectively examined five independent variables towards one dependent variable. The null hypothesis (H₀) confirmed, "there was no collectively a positive and significant influence of lecturer's articulat ion (X1), sonority (X2), loudness (X3), facial exp ression and lips setting (X4), and gesture (X5) towards writing instruction (Y)". However, Tab le 7 showed p<.000 in which this possibly decreased the minimal error (<) at p = .05. Thus, the alternative hypothesis (Hₐ) conversely confirmed, "there was collectively a positive and significant influence of lecturer's articulat ion (X1), sonority (X2), loudness (X3), facial exp ression and lips setting (X4), and gesture (X5) towards writ ing instruction (Y)". Therefore, the alternative hypothesis was rejected. Secondly, the hypothesis independently examined five independent variables that were to show the existence of these variables positively and significantly. In this respect, the hypotheses sequentially stated that "H₀ = there was no positive and significant influence of lecturer's articulation (X1) towards writing instruction (Y), whilst Hₐ = there was a positive and significant influence of lecturer's articulat ion (X1) towards the writing instruction (Y)". The null hypothesis (H₀) would be rejected if the p-value was less than .05 (p<.05). Herewith, the Pearson correlation coefficients (Pearson r) of the lecturer's articulation (X1) was .286; p<.05. Based on the result, the H₀ was rejected, and the Hₐ was accepted. This was interpreted lecturer's art iculation had a positive influence on writ ing instruction (p = .286). This emp irical fact showed the more visib le lecturer's articulation was revealed, and the more co mprehensive writing instruction would be set up in the classroom.
Next, "H₀ = there was no positive and significant influence of lecturer's sonority (X2) towards writing instruction (Y), whilst Hₐ = there was a positive and significant influence of the lecturer's sonority (X2) towards writ ing instruction (Y)". The null hypothesis (H₀) would be rejected if the p-value was less than .05 (p<.05). Herewith, the Pearson correlation coefficients (Pearson r) of the lecturer's sonority (X2) was .005; p<.05. Based on the result, the H₀ was rejected, and the Hₐ was accepted. This was interpreted lecturer's sonority had a positive influence on writing instruction (p = .005). Th is empirical fact showed that the more visible lecturer's sonority was revealed, the more comprehensive writ ing instruction would be set up in the classroom.
Then, "H₀ = there was no positive and significant influence of lecturer's loudness (X3) towards writing setting instruction (Y), whilst Hₐ = there was a positive and significant influence of the lecturer's loudness (X3) towards writing instruction (Y). The null hypothesis (H₀) would be rejected if the p-value was less than .05; p<.05). Herewith, the Pearson correlation coefficients (Pearson r) of the lecturer's loudness (X3) was .001; p<.05. Based on the result, the H₀ was rejected, and the Hₐ was accepted. This was interpreted the lecturer's loudness had a positive influence on writ ing instruction (p = .001). This empirical fact showed the more visib le lecturer's loudness was revealed, and the more comprehensive writing instruction would set up in the classroom.
Afterward, "H₀ = there was no positive and significant influence of lecturer's facial expression and lips setting (X4) towards writ ing instruction (Y), whilst Hₐ = there was a positive and significant influence of lecturer's facial exp ression and lips setting (X4) towards writing instruction (Y). The null hypothesis (H₀) would be rejected if the p-value was less than .05 (p<.05). Herewith, the Pearson correlation coefficients (Pearson r) of the lecturer's facial expression and lips setting (X4) was .275; p <.05. Based on the result, the H₀ was rejected, and the Hₐ was accepted. This was interpreted lecturer's facial exp ression and lips setting had a positive influence on writing instruction (p = .275). This emp irical fact showed the more visible lecturer's facial expression and lips setting were revealed, and the mo re comprehensive writ ing instruction would be set up in the classroom. Lastly, "H₀ = there was no positive and significant influence of lecturer's gesture (X5) towards writing instruction (Y), whilst Hₐ = there was a positive and significant influence of lecturer's gesture (X5) towards writing instruction (Y). The null hypothesis (H₀) would be rejected if the p-value was less than .05 (p<.05). Herewith, the Pearson correlation coefficients (Pearson r) of lecturer's gesture (X5) was .022; p<.05. Based on the result, the H₀ was rejected and the Hₐ was accepted. This was interpreted lecturer's gesture had a positive influence on writing class instruction (p = .022). This emp irical fact showed the more v isible lecturer's gesture was revealed, and the more co mprehensive writing instruction would be set up in the classroom.

CONCLUSION
Paralinguistic attribution is regardfu lly p laced in the substantial category of the pedagogical issues. Nowadays, the growing demand fo r lecturers who are able to embolden students with their inspiring and applicable v isual manner as an undeniable critical consequence. Being given by two research questions, this conclusion draws that there is a positive and significant influence of the lecturer's articulation, sonority, loudness, and facial expression and lips setting towards the lecturer's visual manner in writ ing class instruction both partially and collectively. The effectiveness of the paralinguistic attribution contributes 45.5% in this study. This contribution refers to students' self-perception on the lecturer's visual manner when they have the writ ing class. This study concludes the existence of the paralinguistic attribution adapts the freshmen and sophomores' learn ing maturation towards the insightful lecturer's instructional modes. On the other hand, the results and discussions granted fro m this study are potentially subjective and interpretative in nature of the lecturer's visual manner to contribute students' non-cognitive skills, since the distributed questionnaire does not intentionally determine lecturer's academic backg rounds and teaching professionalism. Therefore, some possible generalizations in co mp leting the questionnaire are still debatable, whilst another limitat ion concerns the necessity of broadening the paralinguistic attribution variables for future research.