Debating as a Systematic Teaching Technique to Promote HOTS (Higher Order Thinking Skill)

Authors

  • Dinar Dipta Universitas Darussalam Gontor
  • Muhammad Haikal Universitas Darussalam Gontor
  • Eka Indah Nuraini Universitas Darussalam Gontor
  • Diska Fatima Virgiyanti Universitas Darussalam Gontor
  • Aries Fachriza Universitas Darussalam Gontor
  • Puput Jianggi Mahastu Universitas PGRI Madiun
  • Annisa Ramadhani Universitas Darussalam Gontor

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.25273/etj.v11i2.17838

Keywords:

debating, HOTS, speaking, teaching, technique

Abstract

Enhancing speaking skills is essential, especially for EFL learners who find it challenging to perform English well since it is not their native language. In this case, a debate is promoting a new perspective among the EFL learners that this technique gives them opportunities to have discussions; they can use the language freely; without any forces and strict rules that make them be motivated to speak actively. The instructors can employ this technique to accommodate students with differing learning styles. Debating as a teaching technique brings many advantages to EFL learners, including promoting higher order thinking skill, mastering the course topics, increasing the speed of learning, enhancing social skills, promoting evaluation power, promoting mental health, and leading to creative learning. However, this technique carries its own opponents, is limited, and is challenging to apply. Therefore, this paper aims to introduce debate as an instructional technique, review earlier studies on it, compare it with other similar procedures, and discuss its limitations and challenges as well as its benefits, especially to EFL learners.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Andrade, Heidi. L. (2019). A Critical Review of Research on Student Self-Assessment. Frontiers in Education, 4(87): 1-13.

Associated Leaders of Urban Debate. (2021). Benefits of Debate. Accessed on 22 September 2021. Retreived from: http://www.debateleaders.org/root/NEWwelcome.shtml

Bedir, H. (2013). Reading and Critical Thinking Skills in ELT Classes of Turkish Students. World Applied Sciences Journal, 21(10): 1436-1439.

Bellon, J., (2000). A Research Based Justification for Debate Across the Curriculum. Argumentation and Advocacy, 36(3): 161-173.

Ciardiello, A. V. (2000). Student Questioning and Multidimensional Literacy in the 21th Century. The Educational Forum, 64(3): 215-222.

Duron, R., Barbara L., & Wendy W. (2006). Critical Thinking Framework for Any Discipline. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 17(2): 160-166.

Gervey, R., M. Drout, & C. Wang. (2009). Debate in the Classroom: An Evaluation of a Critical Thinking Teaching Technique within a Rehabilitation Counseling Course. Rehabilitation Education, 23(1): 61-73.

Goldin, Claudia, & Katz, Lawrence, F. (1999). The Shaping of Higher Education: The Formative Years in the United States, 1890 to 1940. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 13(1): 37–62.

Hadavi, T.M. (2004). Green Time. Tehran: Khane Kherad Publication.

Hall, D. (2011). Debate: innovative Teaching to Enhance Critical Thinking and Communication Skills in Healthcare Professionals. The Internet Journal of Allied Health Sciences and Practice, 9(3): 1-8.

Harmer, Jeremy. (1998). How to Teach English. London: Longman Publishing Group.

Johnson, B., & Thristersen L. (2004). Educational Research: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Approach. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the Effectiveness of Work Groups and Teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77–124.

Leuser, David. (2003). Classroom Debates. New Hampshire: Plymouth State University.

Liza, Khaira & Setyaningrum, Septiana W. (2019). Teaching English Debate Through Line Group Chat: A Narrative Inquiry Study. Proceeding of National Seminar Applied Lingustics (Nasal) “Creative and Critical Thinking in Language Education, Literature, and Translationâ€, Presented in Program Pascasarjana Linguistik Terapan Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta on Saturday, 13 April 2019.

Najafi, M., et.al. (2016). Debate Learning Method and Its Implications for the Formal Education System. Academic Journal, 11(6): 211-218.

Nanlohy, Frensya M. (2020). Case Study: The Use of British Parliamentary Debate System and Critical Thinking. MATAI: International Journal of Language Education, 1(1): 39-51.

Nuri M., & Wafa J. (2001). The Moral Responsibilities of Students and Teachers. Mashhad: Publication of Student Association.

Rezaie, M., & Annita L. (2015). Reviewing Different Aspect of Classroom Discourse. International Journal of English and Education, 4(4): 449-459.

Williams, D., B McGee, & D. Worth. (2001). University Student Perceptions of the Efficacy of Debate Participation: An Empirical Investigation. Argumentation and Advocacy, 37(1), 198-209.

Zare, Pezhman, & Othman, Moomala. (2013). Classroom Debate as a Systematic Teaching/Learning Approach, World Applied Sciences Journal, 28 (11): 1506-1513.

Downloads

Published

22-12-2023

Issue

Vol. 11 No. 2 (2023)

Section

Articles

License

1. License

The non-commercial use of the article will be governed by the Creative Commons Attribution license as currently displayed on Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. 

2. Author(s)' Warranties

The author warrants that the article is original, written by the stated author(s), has not been published before, contains no unlawful statements, does not infringe the rights of others, is subject to copyright that is vested exclusively in the author, and free of any third party rights, and that any necessary written permissions to quote from other sources have been obtained by the author(s).

3. User/Public Rights

ETJ's spirit is to disseminate articles published are as free as possible. Under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, ETJ permits users to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work for non-commercial purposes only. Users will also need to attribute authors and ETJ to distributing works in the journal and other media of publications. 

4. Rights of Authors

Authors retain all their rights to the published works, such as (but not limited to) the following rights;

  • Reproduce the work
  • Prepare derivative works based upon the work
  • Distribute copies of the work
  • Perform the work publicly
  • Display the work publicly
  • Copyright and other proprietary rights relating to the article, such as patent rights,
  • The right to self-archive the article (please read our repository policy),
  • The right to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the article's published version (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal (English Teaching Journal : A Journal of English Literature, Language and Education).

5. Co-Authorship

If the article was jointly prepared by more than one author, any author submitting the manuscript warrants that he/she has been authorized by all co-authors to be agreed on this copyright and license notice (agreement) on their behalf, and agrees to inform his/her co-authors of the terms of this policy. English Teaching Journal : A Journal of English Literature, Language and Education will not be held liable for anything that may arise due to the author's internal dispute. English Teaching Journal : A Journal of English Literature, Language and Education will only communicate with the corresponding author.

6. Royalties

Being an open accessed journal and disseminating articles for free under the Creative Commons license term mentioned, author(s) are aware that English Teaching Journal : A Journal of English Literature, Language and Education entitles the author(s) to no royalties or other fees.