IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/eltjnl/v10y2017i8p145.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Enhancing English Learners’ Willingness to Communicate through Debate and Philosophy Inquiry Discussion

Author

Listed:
  • Mardziah Shamsudin
  • Moomala Othman
  • Maryam Jahedi
  • Dalia Aralas

Abstract

The present study investigated the impact of two instructional methods, Debate and Philosophy Inquiry (PI), in enhancing Willingness to Communicate (WTC) among two groups of English as a Second Language (ESL) learners who were randomly selected. In each group there were sixteen participants. The researchers used independent samples t-test and paired samples t-test to analyze the collected data. The data analysis using paired samples t-test showed that both methods of instruction have a significant effect on learners’ WTC. However, the learners’ WTC increased more in Debate group comparing to the Philosophy Inquiry classroom discussion group. The results indicate that Debate is more effective than Philosophy Inquiry classroom discussion in enhancing ESL learners’ WTC.

Suggested Citation

  • Mardziah Shamsudin & Moomala Othman & Maryam Jahedi & Dalia Aralas, 2017. "Enhancing English Learners’ Willingness to Communicate through Debate and Philosophy Inquiry Discussion," English Language Teaching, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 10(8), pages 145-145, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:ibn:eltjnl:v:10:y:2017:i:8:p:145
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt/article/download/69529/37848
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt/article/view/69529
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ibn:eltjnl:v:10:y:2017:i:8:p:145. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.