Accelerat ing t he world's research.

Challenges and solutions to develop

critical thinking with the British
Parliamentary Debate System in EFL
classr...
Yunisrina Qismullah Yusuf, Hijjatul Qamariah

International Journal of

Cite this paper Downloaded from Academia.edu 

Get the citation in MLA, APA, or Chicago styles

Related papers Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

Front mat t er
Ahdi hassan

BOOK ABST RAK

rahmad sp

T he 61st T EFLIN Int ernat ional Conference 2014. organized by English Depart ment , Teacher Training a…
Noor Hanim Rahmat , (Associat e Professor, Dr), Azizah Daut
International Journal of Language Studies
Volume 14, Number 3, July 2020, pp. 137-156

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: sri@stkipgetsempena.ac.id)

2 Corresponding Author (Email: yunisrina.q.yusuf@unsyiah.ac.id)
ISSN: 2157-4898; EISSN: 2157-4901
© 2020 IJLS; Printed in the USA by Lulu Press Inc.
138 S. Wahyuni, H. Qamariah, M. Syahputra, Y. Q. Yusuf & S. A. Gani

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.
 International Journal of Language Studies, 14(3), 137-156 139

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
140 S. Wahyuni, H. Qamariah, M. Syahputra, Y. Q. Yusuf & S. A. Gani

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
 International Journal of Language Studies, 14(3), 137-156 141

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.
142 S. Wahyuni, H. Qamariah, M. Syahputra, Y. Q. Yusuf & S. A. Gani

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
 International Journal of Language Studies, 14(3), 137-156 143

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
144 S. Wahyuni, H. Qamariah, M. Syahputra, Y. Q. Yusuf & S. A. Gani

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 Shortening the amount of case building and
quantity. substantive speech time for each speaker.

Limited duration in a Assigning students to conduct case building a week

meeting. 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)
 International Journal of Language Studies, 14(3), 137-156 145

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)
146 S. Wahyuni, H. Qamariah, M. Syahputra, Y. Q. Yusuf & S. A. Gani

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 The motion was announced a week before the
case building for beginner debate starts to ensure the students have
students. enough time to build their case.

The inability of BPDS to The students who were not assigned as a

cover the population of debater should be the observers, and each of
average-range students. them will be questioned by the lecturer after
each speaker on the motion debated.
 International Journal of Language Studies, 14(3), 137-156 147

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)
148 S. Wahyuni, H. Qamariah, M. Syahputra, Y. Q. Yusuf & S. A. Gani

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 Building students’ reading habit in various contexts and
knowledge. the alteration of selected motions based on students’
interests.
Poor speaking Selecting motions related to the students’ interests.
skill.

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.
 International Journal of Language Studies, 14(3), 137-156 149

Table 5
The Challenges and Solutions for BPDS Implementation to Develop Critical
Thinking in Speaking Classes
No Type ofConstraints Solutions
Challenges
1. InstitutionalLimited meeting quantity Shortening the time for case
Challenges Limited duration in eachbuilding and substantive speech
meeting of each speaker.
Assigning students to conduct
case building a week before the
debate
2. Procedural Insufficient duration ofThe motion release is conducted
Challenges case building for beginnera week before the debate.
students. Assigning other students who
The inability of BPDS toare not directly part of the
cover average-range ofdebate to become debate
class population. observers.
3. Intellectual Lack of generalBuilding students’ reading habit.
Challenges knowledge. Selecting motions related to
Poor speaking skill. 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.
150 S. Wahyuni, H. Qamariah, M. Syahputra, Y. Q. Yusuf & S. A. Gani

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: sri@stkipgetsempena.ac.id) 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
 International Journal of Language Studies, 14(3), 137-156 151

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: hijjatul@bbg.ac.id) 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: mulyadisyahputra@bbg.ac.id) 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: yunisrina.q.yusuf@unsyiah.ac.id) 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: sofyangani@unsyiah.ac.id) 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
152 S. Wahyuni, H. Qamariah, M. Syahputra, Y. Q. Yusuf & S. A. Gani

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.
 International Journal of Language Studies, 14(3), 137-156 153

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.
154 S. Wahyuni, H. Qamariah, M. Syahputra, Y. Q. Yusuf & S. A. Gani

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.
 International Journal of Language Studies, 14(3), 137-156 155

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.
156 S. Wahyuni, H. Qamariah, M. Syahputra, Y. Q. Yusuf & S. A. Gani

Zulfahmi. (2017). Factors that affect students’ success in English debates.

English Education Journal, 8(2), 134-148.