From Preparation to Public Response: Think-Pair-Share and Hot Seat Sequences to Support Argumentative Speaking Skills in Grade XI Students

Fanisa Maulidiyah; Muhammadu Sainulabdeen Zunoomy; Muhammad Farris Imadi Fuze

Authors

Fanisa Maulidiyah Independent Researcher Author
Muhammadu Sainulabdeen Zunoomy South Eastern University of Sri Lanka Author https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4285-5288
Muhammad Farris Imadi Fuze Universitas Nasional Chungnam Author https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4253-373X

Keywords:

Think Pair Share, Hot Seat, argumentative speaking skills, learning experience, dialogic learning

Abstract

Argumentative speaking requires students not only to produce linguistically appropriate utterances but also to take a stance, use evidence, construct reasoning, and respond to questions. This classroom action research examined changes in argumentative speaking performance and learning process indicators through an integrated Think-Pair-Share (TPS) and Hot Seat sequence. The study involved 33 Grade XI students in an Indonesian language class at SMA Islam Pasuruan during the second semester of the 2025/2026 academic year. Data were collected through speaking performance assessments, structured observations, learning process rubrics, questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, field notes, and documentation. Speaking performance was assessed using nine analytic indicators, while learning processes were examined through five indicators. The mean speaking performance score increased from 70.13 in Cycle I to 77.70 in Cycle II, with 30 students (90.9%) achieving ≥75. The largest improvements occurred in Gestures and Expressions (+0.79) and Content Mastery (+0.58), whereas Diction and Grammar remained unchanged (2.91). The mean learning process score increased from 62.42 to 77.88, with notable gains in Deep Learning Achievement (+0.70), Self-Efficacy (+0.67), and Active Interaction (+0.63). Cycle II incorporated a shared topic, Claim–Evidence–Conclusion structure, mandatory oral rehearsal, extended Pair time, Indonesian-only interaction, targeted scaffolding, and audience Q&A. The findings suggest that sequencing peer preparation and public response may support argumentative and public speaking performance, although linguistic accuracy did not improve correspondingly.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

Brown, H. D. (2004). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices. Pearson Education.

Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (3rd ed.). Pearson Longman.

Cooper, K. M., Schinske, J. N., & Tanner, K. D. (2021). Reconsidering the share of a Think–Pair–Share: Emerging limitations, alternatives, and opportunities for research. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 20(1), fe1. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-08-0200

Dewey, J. (1997). Experience and education. Touchstone. (Original work published 1938)

Fullan, M. (2013). Stratosphere: Integrating technology, pedagogy, and change knowledge. Pearson.

Gillies, R. M. (2016). Cooperative learning: Review of research and practice. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 39–54. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2016v41n3.3

González Palta, I., Larrain, A., Contreras, R., & Guzmán, M. J. (2026). How do college students argue orally in classroom debates with different communicative goals? Higher Education Quarterly, 80(1), e70100. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.70100

Guenther, A. R., & Abbott, C. M. (2024). Think-pair-share: Promoting equitable participation and in-depth discussion. PRiMER, 8, 7. https://doi.org/10.22454/PRiMER.2024.444143

Guo, K., Zhong, Y., Li, D., & Chu, S. K. W. (2023). Effects of chatbot-assisted in-class debates on students’ argumentation skills and task motivation. Computers & Education, 203, 104862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104862

Hall, J. K. (2022). L2 classroom interaction and its links to L2 learners’ developing L2 linguistic repertoires: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 55(1), 100–115. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444820000397

Hennessy, S., Calcagni, E., Leung, A., & Mercer, N. (2023). An analysis of the forms of teacher-student dialogue that are most productive for learning. Language and Education, 37(2), 186–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2021.2013252

Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 125–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1986.tb05256.x

Hu, L., & Chen, G. (2024). A systematic review and meta-analysis of productive peer talk moves. Journal of Behavioral Education, 33(4), 798–830. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-023-09513-9

Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Nixon, R. (2014). The action research planner: Doing critical participatory action research. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4560-67-2

Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2017). Experiential learning theory as a guide for experiential educators in higher education. Experiential Learning & Teaching in Higher Education, 1(1), 7–44. https://doi.org/10.46787/elthe.v1i1.3362

Nadolski, R. J., Hummel, H. G. K., Rusman, E., & Ackermans, K. (2021). Rubric formats for the formative assessment of oral presentation skills acquisition in secondary education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(5), 2663–2682. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10030-7

Padmawati, K. D., Arini, N. W., & Yudiana, K. (2019). Analisis keterampilan berbicara siswa kelas V pada mata pelajaran Bahasa Indonesia. Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 2(2), 190–200. https://doi.org/10.23887/jlls.v2i2.18626

Raba, A. A. A. (2017). The influence of Think-Pair-Share (TPS) on improving students’ oral communication skills in EFL classrooms. Creative Education, 8, 12–23. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2017.81002

Sybing, R. (2021). Examining dialogic opportunities in teacher-student interaction: An ethnographic observation of the language classroom. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 28, 100492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2021.100492

Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument (Updated ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Van der Veen, C., Michaels, S., Dobber, M., van Kruistum, C., & van Oers, B. (2021). Design, implementation, and evaluation of dialogic classroom talk in early childhood education. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 29, 100515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2021.100515

Van der Wilt, F., Bouwer, R., & van der Veen, C. (2022). Dialogic classroom talk in early childhood education: The effect on language skills and social competence. Learning and Instruction, 77, 101522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2021.101522

Veenstra, R. J., & Weaver, C. (2022). Examining a continuum of FL speaking anxiety over time in an EFL classroom in Japan. System, 110, 102889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102889

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Yu, Q. (2024). Foreign language anxiety research in System between 2004 and 2023: Looking back and looking forward. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1373290. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1373290

Zarefsky, D. (2009). Argumentation: The study of effective reasoning (3rd ed.). The Teaching Company.

Zhang, X. (2019). Foreign language anxiety and foreign language performance: A meta-analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 103(4), 763–781. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12590

Zhang, X., & Ardasheva, Y. (2019). Sources of college EFL learners’ self-efficacy in the English public speaking domain. English for Specific Purposes, 53, 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2018.09.004

Zhang, X., Ardasheva, Y., & Austin, B. W. (2020). Self-efficacy and English public speaking performance: A mixed method approach. English for Specific Purposes, 59, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2020.02.001