ISSN: 2157-4898; EISSN: 2157-4901
© 2020 IJLS; Printed in the USA by Lulu Press Inc.
Challenges and solutions to develop critical thinking with the British Parliamentary Debate System in EFL classrooms
Sri WAHYUNI1, Sekolah Tinggi Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan Bina Bangsa Getsempena, Indonesia
Hijjatul QAMARIAH, Sekolah Tinggi Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan Bina Bangsa Getsempena, Indonesia
Mulyadi SYAHPUTRA, Sekolah Tinggi Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan Bina Bangsa Getsempena, Indonesia
Yunisrina Qismullah YUSUF2, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Indonesia Sofyan A. GANI, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Indonesia
This study reports the challenges and solutions found by Acehnese lecturers during the implementation of the British Parliamentary Debate System (henceforth, BPDS) in teaching critical thinking to university students. This study uses a qualitative approach, from observations to in-depth interviews, to discover the problems in the implementation of the debate techniques in teaching speaking as experienced by the lecturers. The subjects of the study were five lecturers who have been teaching English speaking courses at five private higher education institutions in Aceh, Indonesia. The results showed that there were three challenges in the implementation of BPDS; these included institutional, procedural, and intellectual challenges. The institutional challenges comprised limited meeting quantity and limited duration in a class meeting. The procedural challenges were the insufficient duration of case building for beginner students and the inability of BPDS to cover the population of average- range students in a class. Meanwhile, the intellectual challenges were the lack of students’ general knowledge and poor speaking skill. From the interviews, the lecturers also proposed some solutions to these problems, and they are discussed in this paper.
Keywords: British Parliamentary Debate System; Challenges; Critical Thinking; Debate Technique; Solutions; Speaking
1 Corresponding Author (Email: [email protected])
2 Corresponding Author (Email: [email protected])
1. Introduction
Critical thinking is one of the essential skills required by all students to face the industrial revolution 4.0. Therefore, many studies have been conducted to investigate the effectiveness of various methods in shaping students’ critical thinking skills in language education (Dehghayedi & Bagheri, 2018; Iman, 2017; Salmani Nodoushan, 2012, 2017; Salmani Nodoushan & Daftarifard, 2011; Salmani Nodoushan & Pashapour, 2016). Although many experts believe that debate is one of the most respected techniques in teaching critical thinking skills in education, a preliminary study conducted by the researchers of this study found otherwise. Not much development is found on the development of students’ critical thinking in a number of private colleges in Aceh, Indonesia. This claim is further proven by statistical data from research conducted by PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) 2015, which showed that Indonesian students’ skills in critical thinking are still left behind (OECD, 2016). Indonesia ranks in the ten lowest scores from 70 countries that participated in PISA.
The British Parliamentary Debate System (BPDS) has been used as the World University Debate Championship (WUDC) system that deploys four teams in a chamber. According to Smith (2011), each chamber consists of Opening Government (OG), Opening Opposition (OO), Closing Government (CG) and Closing Opposition (CO). OG and CG are the two teams that support the motion (pro to the case of that stated in the motion) while the other two teams, OO and CO supposed to attack the Government Bench case. Each team are scored individually using the international scoring criteria.
In Indonesia, the education in higher education, have tried to implement the BPDS into the classroom as one of the speaking teaching techniques. A number of researches have reported its effectiveness in encouraging students’ speaking skills (Nurhidayat, 2016; Siallagan, 2017; Wahyuni, et al., 2019; Yulia & Aprilita, 2017). The arrangement of the BPDS is motivated by the standard debating system applied in WUDC. Likewise, the private colleges in Aceh also participate in the Indonesia national debate competitions.
Lecturers that train students to be part of the competitions sometimes use the BPDS technique in teaching their students to speak English with critical thinking in their EFL classrooms. However, in any technique that educators use in the classroom to teach their students, there bounds to be challenges.
Therefore, this research intends to discover the challenges that lecturers face in the implementation of BPDS technique in teaching English speaking, and the solutions these lecturers have come up with to solve the problems. The results of this study can be used as references in the literature of using BPDS technique in teaching speaking to EFL learners.
2. Background
Education needs to pay a great deal of attention to the development of technology and the challenges both teachers and students face in the international community (Muslem, et al., 2018; Silviyanti & Yusuf, 2015;
Syahputra, 2019; see also Al Shalabi & Salmani Nodoushan, 2009; Salmani Nosoushan 2015a, 2015b, 2015c, 2015d, 2015e, 2018). Thus, as a response to the challenge of social behaviour transformation from the impact of technological advancements in the 21st century, one of the most required skills by employers in the past few decades is critical thinking and problem- solving skills followed by professionalism and collaboration (National Association of Colleges and Employers, 2016). Moreover, Kraisuth and Panjakajornsak (2017) state that the dependable skill enumerated in all the importance of college and career readiness is critical thinking. Workforces need critical thinking skill since robots in technology lack such skill. Critical thinking is a willingness to accept objections to one’s own beliefs, a willingness to adopt a sceptical attitude not only toward authority and toward views opposed to our own but also toward common sense (Barnet &
Bedau, 2011).
The weightiness of critical thinking in the industrial revolution 4.0 requires a direct response from education to provide the generation with such skills to make them ready for their future. Thus far, all educational levels in Indonesia have adjusted their objectives and curriculum to fit with the current demand of the social competition, starting from elementary, junior, senior high school, and higher education (Education Sector Analytical and Capacity Development Partnership, 2017). Educational institutions are duty-bound to prepare their students for their work in the future, and having critical thinking is part of the curriculum and KKNI (Kerangka Kualifikasi Nasional Indonesia or Indonesian National Qualifications Framework). Educators must prepare students to attain the soft and hard skill for their future work.
Moreover, critical thinking contributes to EFL language proficiency (Rezaee &
Mubarak, 2018). Accordingly, Saniboo and Sinwongsuwat (2016) state that collaborative learning methods could improve students’ speaking and critical thinking performances in the EFL classrooms. And, the debate technique is part of the collaborative learning method (Najafi, et al., 2016). Many experts suggest debate techniques as a successful method in building and increasing students’ critical thinking (Handayani, 2016). This statement is emphasized by Scott (2008), who states that debates help students understand various topics better, gain new knowledge and further gain an understanding of the debate process. Additionally, the debate technique also establishes strong teamwork among the members of the debate in one bench (Elmiyati, 2019). It is a natural technique that could sharpen the students’ analysis of the various
issues and topic debated (Zulfahmi, 2017), and this process leads to problem- solving skills by analysing scenarios in motions.
Likewise, the conduct of presidential candidate debates in many democratic countries is a proof that the debate has been designed as media for seeking better solutions to the national and international issues (Changwong, Sukkamart & Sisan (2018). To some developed country, having the debate skills is necessary for visionary and potential leaders. The consideration of the leaders’ worthiness is adjudicated through their abilities in delivering arguments and tackling the opponents’ cases (Gusthini, Sobarna, & Amalia, 2018). Due to its importance in the democratic system, many debate techniques have been created. Among them are such as the Asian Parliamentary System, Australian Parliamentary System, British Parliamentary System, and Work School Techniques. Each system has different rules and procedures. Hence, at the university level, the most common technique used is the British Parliamentary Debate System (BPDS).
The basic format to the BPDS is that four teams of two people each engage one another through a sequence of seven-minute speeches intermingled by points of information. The teams from each side try to preserve loyalty to one another while at the same time representing the exclusive qualities of their own arguments.
3. Method
This qualitative study explores the challenges and solutions in the implementation of the BPDS technique by lecturers in their classrooms to increase students’ critical thinking in English class, especially in the Speaking course. This qualitative study enables an understanding of the practice of education from the perspective of the lecturers (Pinnegar & Hamilton, 2009).
The research was conducted by visiting five private universities in Aceh, and interviewing the lecturers who implement BPDS in their English-speaking courses.
3.1. Participants
The participants in the research were five English lecturers. These lecturers were selected based on the following matrixes:
1. Teaching experience
The selected lecturers have to be fully experienced in teaching speaking with BPDS and are noted from their teaching records. They should possess at least four years of teaching experience, especially in speaking subject using BPDS to elevate the students’ critical thinking.
2. Institution’s superficies
The second criteria used in selecting the participants is based on the region of the lecturers’ institutions. The participants should be a part of an institution located in the Aceh region. This matrix is expected to minimize the bias of the research due to the excessive variety of the students’
characteristics.
3. Lecturers’ consent
In order to respect the lecturers’ rights, this study is conducted entirely under the lecturers’ consent. Here is the list of the participants in this research complete with their years of experience and teaching subject.
Table 1
Research Participants
No Participant Participants’ institution Teaching experiences 1. Participant 1 Abulyatama University 4 Years 2. Participant 2 Serambi Mekkah University 4 Years 3. Participant 3 Jabal Ghafur University 5 Years 4. Participant 4 STKIP Muhammadiyah Barat Daya 4 Years 5. Participant 5 Almuslim University 4 Years 3.2. Instruments
This study was conducted using a semi-structured interview method for data collection. The three main questions asked to the participants were:
a. How often do you apply the BPDS in your Speaking class?
c. What is your constraint in applying BPDS in your Speaking class?
d. How do you overcome the obstacles faced during the implementation of BPDS in your Speaking class?
The questions above are aimed to investigate the problems or obstacles and their roots as noticed and felt by the lecturers during the application of BPDS in their Speaking classes to increase their students’ critical thinking. Efforts done by the lecturers to overcome constraints were inquired as well. Each interview lasted for about 30 minutes and were recorded.
3.3. Procedure
After the data were collected, the results from the interview recordings were transcribed. To analyse the data, this study applied the stages proposed by Miles, Huberman and Saldana (2014), which include: data condensation, data display, and data conclusion.
1. Data Condensation
The first step was to filter and categorize the data pertaining to the research questions. According to Alston and Bowles (2003), data condensation starts by coding, summarizing, and categorizing data. This phase was essential to reduce the irrelevant information as well as to review whether or not the existing data needed an extension. Hence, the data were categorized based on themes found in the transcription.
Accordingly, the challenges faced by the lecturers could be divided into:
institutional challenges, procedural challenges and intellectual challenges.
2. Data Display
Data display is the stage the gathered data are exhibited in proper sections (i.e. data are reconstructed into forms of texts/excerpts, chart, diagrams, matrix, or table). The purpose of the data transformation is to help the readers to better understand the data. In this study, data display is revealed in the forms of texts, excerpts and tables.
3. Data Conclusion
The last stage is the effort to conclude the displayed data into potential implications. In this phase, logic and understanding are employed to take conclusions from the implications. The research questions are answered and this is highly determined by the ability of the researchers to process the possible logical impact of data.
4. Results
The results from the interviews with the five lecturers revealed that their challenges in implementing the BPDS technique in teaching Speaking to their students are from institutional challenges, procedural challenges and intellectual challenges. They are elaborated in the next subsections.
4.1. Institutional challenges
All five lecturers found that they experienced difficulty in allocating sufficient time to build students’ critical thinking due to the lack of time allocated by the institution in a course meeting. Typically, a course is allocated for 2x45 minutes for a meeting and the subject is taught once a week.
Participant 1 (henceforth, P1) stated that the meeting duration exceeded the duration given for each meeting in the classroom. The quote from Participant 1 is as follows (E refers to excerpt):
E1 “The constraint we got during the implementation is the limited number of meetings we can allocate in one semester. Despite each course is
allotted for 16 meetings, hence each course is taught by two lecturers.
From a total of 16 meetings, each lecturer only gets 8 meetings. And of course, we cannot fully apply the BPDS all the time since the speaking subject do not only contain lessons on debate, but there are other types of speaking skills that we also need to teach the students such as description, explanation, as well as procedure”. (P1)
Moreover, as one is 2x45 minutes, this is not enough time to fully prepare for the BPDS because in one round of debate, it consists of 15 minutes of preparation and almost one hour and a half for debating. P1 further informed that:
E2 “We don’t have time to give students any direct feedback”. (P1)
Therefore, in terms of time constraint, the solution proposed by P1 is to abridge the case building and substantive speech for each speaker. This is as explained by P1 in the following excerpt:
E3 “It is impossible to exceed the meeting duration since it has been a final decision of the institutions and the curriculum. It is also not possible to pause the debate before the speakers have used their time; delaying the debate will cause injustice to certain speakers and inability of the speakers to remember what their opponent’s cases were to rebut. So, I decided to shorten the speaker and case building time. Case building is only allowed to be conducted in ten minutes, while each speaker only has 5 minutes to deliver their substantive speech for each”. (P1)
P5 also added that the time constraints made it difficult for the students to express their thoughts to the audience. The quoted statement from P5 is as follows.
E4 “The biggest challenge is that it is hard to build students’ critical thinking skills in very few meetings and limited time. Moreover, they are still beginners in the debate, which makes it hard for them to express their thoughts in very short times”. (P5)
Therefore, the solution given by P5 towards the problem mentioned in E4 is to ask the students to conduct case building a week before the BPDS debate begins. She claimed that it effectively reduced the time consumed during the implementation of BPDS. Accordingly, she explained:
E5 “I usually solve the solution by asking them to prepare their case building as homework (i.e. outsides of the class meeting). The motion is given a
week before the debate starts. This way, it can save 15-30 minutes of duration of class time”. (P5)
To sum up, both participants agreed that time is a constraint to implement BPDS in Speaking class. Hence, the solutions they have practiced in class have helped them overcome this problem. Table 2 summarizes the challenges and solutions to problems rooted from the institution.
Table 2
The Institutional Challenges and Solutions
Challenges Solutions
Limited meeting quantity.
Shortening the amount of case building and substantive speech time for each speaker.
Limited duration in a meeting.
Assigning students to conduct case building a week before the debate starts.
4.2. Procedural challenges
The procedural challenges are the hindrances for the educators in providing an active learning process due to the weaknesses of the methods, techniques, and system that are deployed in the classroom. This challenge shows the weaknesses of using BPDS in the classroom as a tool to enhance students’
critical thinking skill.
All five lecturers stated that they found weaknesses of implementing BPDS in the classroom. One of the participants argued that the duration of 15 minutes for case building is not sufficient. This is because most students are still freshmen and are still learning, and all five lecturers agreed that the ability of BPDS to accommodate only eight students for each round is not enough to cover the classroom which typically consist of 30 students.
P2 stated during the implementation of BPDS, there are many times when the debater (i.e. student) requested another time-extension for case building.
This request allows the lecturer to conclude that the time for preparation was not enough for them.
E6 “The next problem in the classroom is about the preparation time; the rule says that duration given should not exceed 15 minutes.
Unfortunately, that duration is not enough for my students. They always beg for more time for the case building. I believe this short preparation time is one of the reasons for their debating skill to be low”. (P2)
Henceforth, the solution offered by P2 is to give a restricted rule on timing rather than to give time extension for case building. She said that extending time for case building time was not an option since the duration given by the university in one meeting is not enough.
E7 “In class, I warn them that if they could not finish building their case in the amount of time given, they would be disqualified from the debate. At the end, they would avoid exceeding 15 minutes of preparation. I think to rush them in preparation is still acceptable; besides, it can train them to think quicker to solve problems in a short time”. (P2)
While five participants of the research feel the same constraints, all of them agreed that BPDS was unable to accommodate a wide range of students in the classroom. The average classroom size was 20-30 students. However, BPDS is merely able to accommodate eight students at most in one round. Since it consumes more than one and a half hours for one round, it means that only eight students can participate in a single meeting. If the number of the students is 30, it means the lecturer needs five days to give at least one opportunity for each individual to deliver their 7 minutes of speech. This duration is not enough to build the students critical thinking. Moreover, all lecturers agreed that this weakness could lead to a reduction in students’
motivation toward the speaking subject. This is as stated by P1 and P2 below.
E8 “The obstacles I found is in its (BPDS) implementation. We did not apply this technique in all meetings. So, we only have limited time, 3-4 meeting using this type of technique. Since the number of students in the class is 15 people, we need two days for two rounds, which mean in one semester they only experienced this technique once”. (P1)
E9 “The next obstacles I experienced is because some students do not have their turn in the debating process. The BPDS only deploy eight students, during that (process); the other students would not pay their attention to the teaching and learning process”. (P2)
The problem of internal BPDS itself has been left without a concrete solution.
Thus, P1 stated that even if the benefits of BPDS could not be fully acquired, there are still many constructive impacts that could be regulated through the implementation of BPDS. Hence, during her experience, she found that the benefits of BPDS exceeded its weaknesses. The statement from P1 is as follows.
E10 “I do not attempt to solve that (inability to accommodate a wide range of students) problem, I think they (i.e. students) have experienced sufficient practice in BPDS activity to introduce BPDS system, but not to enhance their critical thinking skill”. (P1)
Meanwhile, P3 claimed that this problem is impossible to overcome so nevertheless, lecturers just need to try their best to try to implement BPDS sufficiently in the classroom.
E11 “This type of problem is not our job to overcome. We need to satisfy with what we can afford using BPDS because we do not have other techniques that were more promising to increase students’ critical thinking skill”.
(P3)
P2 appealed that even though she could not adequately distribute the opportunity to participate in the debate for all of her students in the class, at least she hoped that students who were called to participate in the rounds of BPDS could engage other students to listen to the debate process. P2 explains that:
E12 “Yes, I always ask other students’ opinions on the arguments delivered by their friends during the debate. They need to glorify their stand by using another elaboration and rebut the case of the stand that they don’t agree with”. (P2)
Meanwhile, P4 and P5 added that:
E13 “I ordered them to gather in a circle every time a debate has ended. I urge them to defend the argument they like using a strong reason”. (P4) E14 “The quality of the audiences could be easily identified by how strong
their argument during the conferring process. I conducted this conferring process after every debate”. (P5)
Based on the explanation above, the summary of the procedural challenges is summarized in Table 3.
Table 3
The Procedural Challenges and Solutions
Constraints Solution
The insufficient duration of case building for beginner students.
The motion was announced a week before the debate starts to ensure the students have enough time to build their case.
The inability of BPDS to cover the population of average-range students.
The students who were not assigned as a debater should be the observers, and each of them will be questioned by the lecturer after each speaker on the motion debated.
4.3. Intellectual challenges
Intellectual challenges deal with the lecturers’ difficulty in pushing BPDS into an effective learning environment due to the limitation of the students’ skill and knowledge. Some of the lecturers believed that the internal intellectuality of the students plays a prominent role in shaping their critical thinking. The intellectual challenges consist of the inability to possess general knowledge as the supporting supplement to the content of their speech and the language hindrance that makes it difficult for them to express their thoughts in comprehensible English sentences.
Two lecturers agreed that students’ lack of general knowledge about the motion being debated was one of the challenges in the application of BPDS.
They stated that students required a basic knowledge on the theme to be able to relate the factual information into a rational analysis. P1 said that:
E15 “The students in my class does not have sufficient factual information.
They did not understand the current issue in many themes that are happening around the world. This obstacle makes us difficult to relate the factual information they experienced or read into their analyses”.
(P1)
Meanwhile, P2 stated that another common challenge during the implementation of BPDS was the lack of students’ ability to master English speaking skill. Most of their students were not skilful at expressing opinions in English, so it is harder when the lecturer asked them to debate in English.
E16 “We are from one of the rural areas in our province; our students do not have enough exposure to English compared to students residing in cities.
It was tough for them to construct sentences properly. So, we could not expect too much from them in debating in English”. (P2)
Consequently, the solutions offered by the lecturers to the intellectual challenges were to engage in building students’ reading habits in various contexts and the alteration of the selection of the motion based on the students’ interests. P2 believed that the students’ interest in a particular theme could help them master the language and technical terms on the appointed motion. P1 and P2 elaborated that:
E17 “The solution I attempted was by giving them (students) various material to read pertaining to the prepared motion. It could push them to enrich the content of their debate”. (P1)
E18 “Eventually, I pick motions based on their interests to motivate them in mastering the debate. If they like the motion, the debate runs more dynamically.” (P2)
Table 4 below concludes the constraints and solution to intellectual challenges that are discussed above.
Table 4
The Intellectual Challenges and Solutions Constraints Solution
General
knowledge. Building students’ reading habit in various contexts and the alteration of selected motions based on students’
interests.
Poor speaking
skill. Selecting motions related to the students’ interests.
5. Discussion
The results showed that the lecturers experienced various problems during the implementation of BPDS in the classroom. Three types of challenges were revealed. They are: 1) institutional, 2) procedural, and 3) intellectual challenges. Furthermore, the solutions offered to cope for each problem were different from one participant to another. Their discussion is briefly displayed in Table 5 below.
Institutional challenges are the obstacles faced by the lecturers due to the system that has been implemented by the government or the institution (Sulistiyono, 2007). There are two obstacles found by the lecturers during the implementation of BPDS in the institutional challenges. They are a limited meeting quantity and the duration or time of a meeting. Both of the constraints hamper the students’ development in their critical thinking because they claim that BPDS would not effectively work without reapplying it in many meetings. Developing critical thinking needs more time; it needs a process in shaping their logical thinking and analysis (Lai, 2011). That is why three to four meetings in one semester is deemed not enough.
There were two solutions offered to deal with the institutional challenges.
The first solution is to shorten the amount of time for case building. BPDS gives 15 minutes of preparation before the debate starts and 7 minutes for each to deliver their substantive speech, thus, the alternative is to replace 15 minutes of preparation into one week of preparation before class starts for the week. This solution could offer extra time for the substantive speech, and the substantive time is also reduced into three minutes for each speaker.
Table 5
The Challenges and Solutions for BPDS Implementation to Develop Critical Thinking in Speaking Classes
No Type of
Challenges Constraints Solutions 1. Institutional
Challenges
Limited meeting quantity Limited duration in each meeting
Shortening the time for case building and substantive speech of each speaker.
Assigning students to conduct case building a week before the debate
2. Procedural
Challenges Insufficient duration of case building for beginner students.
The inability of BPDS to cover average-range of class population.
The motion release is conducted a week before the debate.
Assigning other students who are not directly part of the debate to become debate observers.
3. Intellectual
Challenges Lack of general knowledge.
Poor speaking skill.
Building students’ reading habit.
Selecting motions related to students’’ interests.
Meanwhile, in the procedural challenges, there were two significant constraints during the application of BPDS in the classroom setting. The first constraint is the insufficient duration of case building for beginner students.
This problem is a challenge to the lecturer in building students’ critical thinking since the debate process would not be effective if they were unable to prepare their case due to the limitation of the time. However, in order to elevate the students’ critical thinking and make sure that the BPDS can proceed effectively, the solution is to launch the motion a week before the debate starts, which gives an excessive amount of time and resources that are required for the students for BPDS (Hunter, 2014).
The second problem in the procedural challenges was the inability of BPDS to cover a large number of students in one classroom. The average number of students is typically 30, while in one and a half hour, it could only accommodate eight students in one BPDS activity. This impedes the equal distribution of opportunity for all students to be involved in the BPDS activity, and thus, could only benefit a small number of students. The solution offered was that for students who were not assigned as debaters to become observers. The lectures will question them on the debated motion after each debate activity.
Finally, in the intellectual constraints, there are two obstacles in the classroom. One is the lack of general knowledge related to the discussed motion. If the students are not familiar with the current issue, it is difficult for them to find the related case for the debate motion. This lack of speaking skill hampers the students’ critical thinking skill development in the implementation of BPDS (Hunter, 2014). The solution undertaken by the lecturers was to build the students’ reading habit in various contexts. Reading is well known to stimulates one’s mind with enriched thinking power (Obaidullah & Rahman, 2018). The second obstacle was poor language ability, especially in the speaking context. BPDS will not be affective if the students struggle to speak due to the lack of vocabulary and fluency.
6. Conclusion
This study presents the challenges faced by the Acehnese lecturers in teaching speaking using BPDS in private universities at Aceh province. It is believed that BPDS can increase students’ critical thinking. The challenges comprise institutional challenges, procedural challenges and intellectual challenges. The institutional challenges included limited meeting quantity and limited duration in a class meeting. The procedural challenges were the insufficient duration of case building for beginner students and the inability of BPDS to cover the population of average-range students in a class.
Meanwhile, the intellectual challenges were the lack of students’ general knowledge and poor speaking skill.
The lecturers proposed some solutions so that the BPDS activity in the classroom can proceed effectively and the students’ critical thinking can be developed. These solutions are still self-claimed, and need to be further investigated to prove their effectiveness and cogency. More interviews and observations of teachers who have successfully implemented the BPDS in developing students’ critical thinking in speaking classes should be further explored. Experimental research to further verify the efficacy of these solutions are recommended. Enhanced outcomes can better assist teachers in developing BPDS into an improved model for the EFL (English as a Foreign Language) learners.
The Authors
Sri Wahyuni (Email: [email protected]) is a lecturer at Sekolah Tinggi Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan (STKIP) Bina Bangsa Getsempena, Banda Aceh, Indonesia. She received her Master’s in Education from Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, Indonesia. English education is her research areas. She focuses on the practice of curriculum and pedagogy and English Language Teaching in general. Particularly, her works focus on
extensive reading, speaking skill and critical thinking. She has published several articles in the related areas. Sri is also the Head of English Language Education Department at STKIP Bina Bangsa Getsempena for more than three years. Formerly, she works as an editorial member of Getsempena English Education Journal at her college and a trainer of the college debate club.
Hijjatul Qamariah (Email: [email protected]) is a lecturer at Sekolah Tinggi Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan (STKIP) Bina Bangsa Getsempena, Banda Aceh, Indonesia. She received education in English Language Education and TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages). TESOL has been a home for her as English Language teaching is her passion. Her research has focused on the practice of TESOL, curriculum and pedagogy. Currently she is interested in the professional development, motivation and perception studies. A majority of her past works focus on the English language teaching.
In addition to her work at STKIP Bina Bangsa Getsempena, Hijjatul is also an editorial team at Jurnal Ilmiah Peuradeun which focuses on social sciences.
Besides, she is also the chief editor of Getsempena English Education Journal at her college.
Mulyadi Syahputra (Emai: [email protected]) is a lecturer at Sekolah Tinggi Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan (STKIP) Bina Bangsa Getsempena, Banda Aceh, Indonesia. He completed his Master’s degree from Universitas Syiah Kuala in 2018. His research interest is in the area of language education with focuses on speaking skill, critical thinking, competitive debate, and technology in educational practice. In addition, he is also active in English proliferation through competitive English application such as debate, speech and storytelling.
Yunisrina Qismullah Yusuf (Email: [email protected]) is a lecturer at the Department of English Education, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, Indonesia. Her Master’s degree is in Linguistics and her Doctoral degree is in Phonology, in which both were obtained from University of Malaya, Malaysia. She has published a number of works in her area of studies in numerous national and international journals. She also serves as a reviewer in a number of reputable journals. She is currently the Editor-in-Chief of Studies in English Language and Education journal.
Sofyan A. Gani (Email: [email protected]) is an English lecturer in the English Education Department, Teacher Training and Education Faculty, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, Indonesia. He was born in Beureunuen, Pidie, Aceh. Sofyan obtained his Bachelor’s degree from Universitas Syiah Kuala in 1985, his Master’s degree from University of Wales, UK, in 2003, while his Doctoral degree from State University of Jakarta (UNJ), Indonesia in 2005. From the years of 1997 to 2000, Sofyan was assigned as the head of
UPT Universitas Syiah Kuala Library. In the years 2008 to 2016, he was appointed as the Head of the Graduate Program of English Education of Universitas Syiah Kuala.
References
Al Shalabi, M. F., & Salmani Nodoushan, M. A. (2009). Personality theory and TESOL. Journal on Educational Psychology, 3(1), 14-22.
Alston, M., & Bowles, W. (2003). Research for social workers: An introduction to methods (2nd Ed). Crow’s Nest: Allen & Unwin.
Barnet, S. & Bedau, H. (2011). Critical thinking, reading, and writing: A brief guide to argument (7th Edition). Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's
Changwong, K., Sukkamart, A., & Sisan, B. (2018). Critical thinking skill development: Analysis of a new learning management model for Thai high schools. Journal of International Studies, 11(2), 37-48.
Dehghayedi, M., & Bagheri, M. S. (2018). EFL teachers’ learning and teaching beliefs: Does critical thinking make a difference? International Journal of Instruction, 11(4), 223-240.
Education Sector Analytical and Capacity Development Partnership (ACDP).
(2017). Rapid review of Curriculum 2013 and textbooks. Jakarta:
Ministry of Education and Culture.
Elmiyati, E. (2019). Improving students speaking ability through debate in the classroom (A case study for students at second years students of SMAN 3 Kota Bima in Academic Year 2017/2018). International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding, 6(1), 229-239.
Gusthini, M., Sobarna, C., & Amalia, R. M., (2018). A pragmatic study of speech as an instrument of power: Analysis of the 2016 USA Presidential Debate. Studies in English Language and Education, 5(1), 97-113.
Handayani, R. (2016). Students’ critical thinking skill in a classroom debate. A Journal on Language and Language Teaching, 11(2), 132-140.
Hunter, D. A. (2014). A practical guide to critical thinking, what to do and believe (2nd Ed). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Iman, J. N. (2017). Debate instruction in EFL classroom: Impacts on the critical thinking and speaking skill. International Journal of Instruction, 10(4), 87-108.
Kraisuth, D., & Panjakajornsak, V. (2017). Thai engineer ASEAN readiness: A structural equation model analysis. Asia-Pacific Social Science Review, 16(3), 96-117.
Lai, E. (2011). Critical thinking: A literature review. Pearson’s Research
Reports, 6, 40–41. Retrieved from
https://images.pearsonassessments.com/images/tmrs/CriticalThinkin gReviewFINAL.pdf
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A.M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Muslem, A., Yusuf, Y. Q., & Juliana, R. (2018). Perceptions and barriers to ICT use among English teachers in Indonesia. Teaching English with Technology, 18(1), 3-23, http://www.tewtjournal.org
Najafi, M., Motaghi, Z., Nasrabadi, H. B., & Heshi, K. N. (2016). “Debate”
learning method and its implications for the formal education system.
Educational Research and Reviews, 11(6), 211-218.
National Association of Colleges and Employers (2016). Job Outlook (Infographic). Retrieved on 23 December 2019 from http://www.naceweb.org
Nurhidayat, E. (2016). Using British Parliamentary Debate Style in improving students’ speaking skills. Jurnal Educatio, 1(2), 20-25.
Obaidullah, M., & Rahman, M. A. (2018). The impact of Internet and social media on the habit of reading books: A case study in the southern region of Bangladesh. Studies in English Language and Education, 5(1), 25-39.
OECD. (2018). PISA 2015: Results in focus. Retrieved 23 December, 2019 from: https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisa-2015-results-in-focus.pdf Pinnegar, S & Hamilton, M. L. (2009). Self -study of practice as a genre of
qualitative research: Theory, methodology, and practice. New York:
Springer.
Rezaee, A. A., & Mubarak, L. (2018). EFL learners' proficiency level and critical thinking: The case of Iraqi university students. International Journal of Language Studies, 12(3), 91-108.
Salmani Nodoushan, M. A. (2012). Self-regulated learning (SRL): Emergence of the RSRLM model. International Journal of Language Studies, 6(3), 1- 16.
Salmani Nodoushan, M. A. (2015a). Review of the book An Anthropology of Learning: On Nested Frictions in Cultural Ecologies by C. Hasse. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(6), E30-E31.
Salmani Nodoushan, M. A. (2015b). Review of the book Cognitive coaching by J. Ellison & C. Hayes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(5), E21-E22.
Salmani Nodoushan, M. A. (2015c). Review of the book Networked Learning:
An Educational Paradigm for the Age of Digital Networks by C. Jones.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(6), E31-E32.
Salmani Nodoushan, M. A. (2015d). Review of the book Teaching for creativity in the common core classroom by R. A. Beghetto, J. C. Kaufman & J. Baer.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(5), E21-E22.
Salmani Nodoushan, M. A. (2015e). Review of the book Ways of learning:
Learning theories and learning styles in the classroom by A. Pritchard.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(6), E34-E35.
Salmani Nodoushan, M. A. (2016). Working on the ‘write’ path: Improving EFL students’ argumentative-writing performance through L1-mediated structural cognitive modification. International Journal of Language Studies, 10(4), 131-152.
Salmani Nodoushan, M. A. (2018). Implementation of the Beghetto-Kaufman- Baer approach to creativity and the four-c developmental trajectory in common core foreign language classrooms. In L. Caudle (Ed.), Teachers and teaching: Practices, challenges and prospects (pp. 157-174). New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Salmani Nodoushan, M. A., & Daftarifard, P. (2011). Globalized classroom, emancipatory competence, and critical pedagogy: A paradigm shift. In R. V. Nata (Ed.), Progress in education (pp. 147-162). New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Salmani Nodoushan, M. A., & Pashapour, A. (2016). Critical pedagogy, rituals of distinction, and true professionalism. Journal of Educational Technology, 13(1), 29-43.
Saniboo, H., & Sinwongsuwat, K. (2016). Improving English conversation skills through online conversation lessons and classroom interactions with English speakers. International Journal of Language Studies, 10(1), 111-124.
Scott, S. (2008). Perceptions of students' learning critical thinking through debate in a technology classroom: A case study. Journal of Technology Studies, 34(1), 39-44.
Siallagan, M. K. (2017). The implementation of ‘British Parliamentary Debate System’ in learning discussion text. PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences, 3(2), 1707-1723.
Silviyanti, T. M., & Yusuf, Y. Q. (2015). EFL teachers’ perceptions on using ICT in their teaching: To use or to reject? Teaching English with Technology, 15(4), 29-43.
Smith, N. H. (2011). The practical guide to Debating Worlds Style/British Parliamentary Style. London: Idebate Press.
Sulistiyono, S. T. (2007, July 26). Higher education reform in Indonesia at crossroad. Paper presented at the Graduate School of Education and Human Development. Nagoya University, Japan. Retrieved from www.dikti.go.id/files/atur/bhp/HEReform-Singgih.doc
Syahputra, M. (2019). Duolingo gamification: Does it reduce students’
grammatical errors in writing? Getsempena English Education Journal, 6(1), 1-12.
Wahyuni, S., Qamariah, H., Gani, S. A., Yusuf, Y. Q., & Syahputra, M. (2019).
Critical thinking skills: British Parliamentary Debate System to improve English as Foreign Language (EFL) students’ critical speaking. Budapest International Research and Critics Institute-Journal (BIRCI-Journal), 2(3), 429-433.
Yulia, H., & Aprilita, N. (2017). The implementation of British Parliamentary Debate Style training to improve second semester student’s speaking ability at English Education Study Program of Baturaja University.
International Journal of English Language and Teaching, 1(1), 1-7.
Zulfahmi. (2017). Factors that affect students’ success in English debates.
English Education Journal, 8(2), 134-148.
