BOOSTING STUDENTS' INTEREST IN ENGLISH SPEAKING LEARNING: DEBATING AND ASSESSING ISSUES
DOI: https://doi.org/10.26618/r2kk1d56
British Parliamentary Debate, Peer Assessment, Speaking Ability, Students Interest.
Abstrak
In the context of globalization, English speaking proficiency has become a crucial skill for academic and professional success. However, many students still demonstrate low interest and engagement in speaking activities due to the lack of interactive and student-centered learning strategies. This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of British Parliamentary Debate and peer assessment in enhancing students’ interest in learning English speaking skills. The novelty of this research lies in the integration of a formal international debate system with collaborative peer-based evaluation to foster both cognitive and affective engagement. Employing a quantitative descriptive design, the study involved 45 third-semester students of the English Department at Universitas Muhammadiyah Parepare. Data were collected through a 32-item Likert-scale questionnaire and analyzed to measure students’ interest across three dimensions: desire, necessity, and happiness. The findings reveal a high level of student interest, with an overall mean score of 88.68, categorized as “strongly interested.” Among the dimensions, urgency (89.47) and desire (93.68) emerged as dominant factors, indicating that students perceived the learning activities as both essential and highly engaging. Additionally, students reported positive emotional responses, including increased confidence and enjoyment in speaking activities. This study contributes to English language teaching by demonstrating that the integration of British Parliamentary Debate and peer assessment creates a dynamic, interactive, and collaborative learning environment that significantly enhances students’ motivation and speaking engagement. It is recommended that these strategies be more widely implemented to improve both affective and communicative competencies in EFL classrooms
Referensi
Azmidar, A., Darhim, D., & Dahlan, J. A. (2017). Enhancing Students’ Interest through Mathematics Learning. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 895(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/895/1/012072
Crisianita, S., & Mandasari, B. (2022). the Use of Small-Group Discussion To Imrpove Students’ Speaking Skill. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 3(1), 61–66. https://doi.org/10.33365/jeltl.v3i1.1680
Fauzan, U. (2016). Enhancing Speaking Ability of EFL Students through Debate and Peer Assessment. EFL Journal, 1(1), 49. https://doi.org/10.21462/eflj.v1i1.8
Green, L., & Mitchell, S. (2023). Thinking on your feet: The impact of British Parliamentary debating on students’ spontaneous argumentation and persuasion. Argumentation and Advocacy, 59(2), 145-163. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2023.2190112
Harackiewicz, J. M., & Priniski, S. J. (2023). Improving student motivation and interest in educational and occupational activities: A value-based approach. Annual Review of Psychology, 74(1), 319-346. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-032620-043029
Haryono, P. (2021). Analysis of Motivation And Learning Interest In The English Speaking Ability of Madrasah Tsanawiyah Students. Edukasi Islami: Jurnal Pendidikan …, 751–758. https://doi.org/10.30868/ei.v10i02.4523
Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2023). Interest, engagement, and the development of purpose in the educational process. Educational Psychologist, 58(2), 85-99. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2023.2183421
Jerome, F., & Al-Mahrooqi, R. (2022). Developing critical thinking and analytical skills through the British Parliamentary debate format in higher education. Journal of Education for Teaching, 48(3), 312-326. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2022.2045618
Khan, R. M., & Khan, M. S. (2023). Enhancing English speaking skills of students in the globalization era: Challenges and opportunities. International Journal of Linguistics and Communication, 11(2), 45-56. https://doi.org/10.15640/ijlc.v11n2a4
Khasanah, V. N., Usodo, B., Subanti, S., Candiasa, I. M., & Santiyadnya, N. (2017). Enhancing Students ’ Interest through Mathematics Learning Enhancing Students ’ Interest through Mathematics Learning.
Krapp, A. (2015). 18 : An Educational-Psychological Theory of Interest and Its Relation to SDT Interest : A Rediscovered Motivational Concept in. January 2002.
Latifa, A., Rahman, A., Hamra, A., Jabu, B., & Nur, R. (2015). Developing a practical rating rubric of speakingtest for university students of English in Parepare, Indonesia. English Language Teaching, 8(6), 166–177. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v8n6p166
Mitchell, S., & Green, L. (2024). Evaluating pedagogical interventions in speaking classrooms: A multi-perspective analysis of student debate experiences. Language Teaching Research, 28(2), 241-259. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688241123456
Nanlohy, F. M. (2020). Case Study: The Use of British Parliamentary Debate System and Critical Thinking. Matai International Journal of Language Education, 1(1), 37–49. https://ojs3.unpatti.ac.id/index.php/matail/article/view/2771
Panadero, E., Broadbent, J., Boud, D., & Chatoor, R. (2025). Using rubrics and agreed criteria in peer assessment: Effects on student motivation and learning outcomes. Studies in Higher Education, 50(2), 341-356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2024.101345
Patall, E. A., Vasquez, A. C., Steingut, R. R., Trimble, S. S., & Pituch, K. A. (2022). The role of interest and autonomy support in student engagement during learning activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 114(5), 1012-1031. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000712
Rao, P. S. (2022). The importance of English in the modern world. Journal of English Language and Literature, 9(1), 121-128. https://doi.org/10.33329/joell.9.1.21
Self, I. (2017). Incorporating Self and Peer Assessment in Reflective Teaching Practices. 10(4), 165–184.
Takahashi, Y., & Al-Subhi, M. (2024). The global adoption of British Parliamentary debate in educational institutions: Fostering analytical competencies in ESL/EFL contexts. Higher Education Research & Development, 43(4), 891-906. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2024.2312345
Tighe-mooney, S. (2016). Peer Assessment as a Teaching and Learning Process : The Observations and Reflections of Three Facilitators on a First-Year Undergraduate Critical Skills Module *. 8(2).
Topping, K. J. (2021). Peer assessment: What’s in it for the assessor and the assessee? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(6), 900-912. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1836234
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2024). Expectancy-value theory and its relation to student motivation and engagement in school activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 76, Article 102240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2024.102240
Wu, Y., & Schunn, C. D. (2024). From feedback to mastery: How reciprocal peer assessment fosters mutual assistance and learning gains in higher education. Instructional Science, 52(3), 311-329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-023-09645-w
Xiao, M., & Zhang, J. (2016). Theoretical Overview on the Improvement of Interest in Learning Theoretical Course for Engineering Students. International Education Studies, 9(8), 15. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v9n8p15
Yusna, M. (2019). The Use Of Peer Assessment In Speaking Skill. Yusna Musfirah 1 Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, Indonesia. EEJ: English Education Journal, 10(1), 67–79. https://www.atlantis-press.com/proceedings/icolae-21/125974331
Unduhan
Diterbitkan
Cara Mengutip
Terbitan
Bagian
Lisensi
Hak Cipta (c) 2026 EXPOSURE : JURNAL PENDIDIKAN BAHASA INGGRIS
Artikel ini berlisensiCreative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
In order to assure the highest standards for published articles, a peer review policy is applied. In pursue of the compliance with academic standards, all parties involved in the publishing process (the authors, the editors and the editorial board and the reviewers) agree to meet the responsibilities stated below in accordance to the Journal publication ethics and malpractice statement.
Duties of Authors:
- The author(s) warrant that the submitted article is an original work, which has not been previously published, and that they have obtained an agreement from any co-author(s) prior to the manuscript’s submission;
- The author(s) should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal;
- The authors(s) make certain that the manuscript meets the terms of the Manuscript Submission Guideline regarding appropriate academic citation and that no copyright infringement occurs;
- The authors(s) should inform the editors about any conflict of interests and report any errors they subsequently, discover in their manuscript.
Duties of Editors and the Editorial Board:
- The editors, together with the editorial board, are responsible for deciding upon the publication or rejection of the submitted manuscripts based only on their originality, significance, and relevance to the domains of the journal;
- The editors evaluate the manuscripts compliance with academic criteria, the domains of the journal and the guidelines;
- The editors must at all times respect the confidentiality of any information pertaining to the submitted manuscripts;
- The editors assign the review of each manuscript to two reviewers chosen according to their domains of expertise. The editors must take into account any conflict of interest reported by the authors and the reviewers.
- The editors must ensure that the comments and recommendations of the reviewers are sent to the author(s) in due time and that the manuscripts are returned to the editors, who take the final decision to publish them or not.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a pre-publication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
