Silvia Al Viana 1 , Ika Rama Suhandra 2 , Soni Ariawan 3
3.2 The Dominant Level of Thinking Domains Based on Blooms’ Taxonomy Presented by Students in Speaking
The second research question focuses on the dominant level of thinking domains based on Blooms’ taxonomy presented by the second semester students toward speaking activities. In the hybrid world we live in; thinking skills are not simply a supplement to our being.
However, they are considered by many scholars to be basic survival skills of individuals in facing the world [15]. Moreover, In the educational dimension, the development of thinking skills is believed to symbolize the goal of an educational foundation [16]. Yet it is necessary for students’ lives since it is essential to know the extent to which students can accord their ideas and perspectives toward some issues and topics so that teachers or lecturers can provide more appropriate learning models in the classroom. Meanwhile, one of the decisive reasons that hinder the development of ineffective CT skills in educational setting is the contextual factors, administrative constraints, and teacher education levels [11]. In addition, when teaching a particular subject such as speaking, teachers or lecturers often do not realize the importance of checking the students' ability to understand and elaborate particular topic, namely level of thinking. Ordinarily, the lecturers only give the instruction to students to come to the class and discuss about their daily routines, checking their grammar and vocabulary, as well as their pronunciation. However, the other factors that can affect their speaking ability is the extent of understanding toward the topics which is called critical thinking or “Higher-Order Thinking Skills”.
For instance, in the class of ISCP 2 where the researcher conducted the observation, founded that the lecturer instructed students to do mini debate activities to check as well as to trigger them conveying their perspectives and ideas toward the topics. The second aspect had already been discussed in the present study was about the dominant level of thinking domains by Blooms’ Taxonomy presented by students in speaking activities. Basically, it was revealed from the data findings that students deal with four domains only which were remember, understand, analyze and evaluate with the dominant domains of students’
1st International Conference on English Language Teaching ISSN:2962-1445 29-30 June 2022
108
thinking level were understand and analyze. This is similar with the previous study conducted by Nur Utari which discovered that students only deal with some domains of Anderson revised of Blooms’ taxonomy, they were understand, analyze, and evaluate [17].
The researcher concluded the discussion that in order to meet the needs of students and to increase the level of their thinking skills, the educators need to rearrange appropriate materials to improve students' analytical skills. This requires teachers to recognize the importance of explicit instruction on thinking skills. In doing so, they must go beyond simply reading and deep analysis.” Students need to have the ability to make additional inferences, evaluate arguments, and make reasonable conclusions [18].
4 CONCLUSIONS
After conducting the research upon the analysis of students’ level of thinking in speaking activities, and investigating the dominant domain of students’ level of thinking at Mataram State Islamic University, it can be inferred that the student's level of thinking was varied.
None of them were detected using the apply and create domain of Blooms taxonomy domain revised by Anderson. Meanwhile, the highest level that students could achieve was the evaluate which was evenly achieved by a small number of students in the class. The majority of students presented the understand and remember domain which categorized into LOTS level. In addition, the minority of students were classified as Hots students due to their achievement which already attached level of evaluation.
REFERENCES
[1] S. Zhang, “The Role of Input, Interaction and Output in the Development of Oral Fluency,” English Lang. Teach., vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 91–100, 2009, doi: 10.5539/elt.v2n4p91.
[2] D. Nunan, Practical English Language Teaching, vol. 57, no. 3. 2003.
[3] H. D. Brown, Language Assessment (Principles and Classroom Practices). 2004.
[4] J. Harmer, Learning the Language of Practice. 2007.
[5] H. S. Afshar and M. Rahimi, “The relationship among emotional intelligence , critical thinking , and speaking ability of Iranian EFL learners,” vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 31–59, 2014.
[6] A. M. Arfae, “The Impact of Teaching Critical Thinking on EFL Learners ’ Speaking Skill : A Case Study of an Iranian Context,” Can. Cent. Sci. Educ., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 112–
123, 2020, doi: 10.5539/elt.v13n1p112.
[7] L. Mutakinati, I. Anwari, and K. Yoshisuke, “Analysis of Students ’ Critical Thinking Skill of Middle School Through Stem Education Project-Based Learning,” J. Pendidik.
IPA Indones., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 54–65, 2018, doi: 10.15294/jpii.v7i1.10495.
[8] N. Mustika, J. Nurkamto, and Suparno, “TEACHER ’ S QUESTIONING IN SENIOR HIGH ENGLISH CLASSROOM : AN INVESTIGATION OF STUDENTS ’ CRITICAL,”
vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 278–287, 2020.
[9] S. Y. Foo and C. L. Quek, “Developing Students ’ Critical Thinking through Asynchronous Online Discussions : A Literature Review,” vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 37–58, 2019.
[10] Y. H. Manurung and F. S. Siregar, “Developing Students ’ Critical Thinking on Speaking Through Socratic Questioning Method,” Int. Conf. Lang. Lit. Educ., vol. 263, no. Iclle, pp. 212–216, 2018.
[11] M. R. Hashemi and A. Ghanizadeh, “Critical discourse analysis and critical thinking:
An experimental study in an EFL context,” System, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 37–47, 2012, doi:
10.1016/j.system.2012.01.009.
1st International Conference on English Language Teaching ISSN:2962-1445 29-30 June 2022
109
[12] L. W. Anderson et al., Taxonomy for_ Assessing a Revision 0F Bl00M’S Tax0N0My 0F Educati0Nal Objectives. 2001.
[13] D. F. Abdullah, “ENGLISH DEBATE: INVESTIGATING STUDENTS’ CRITICAL THINKING IN SPEAKING CLASSROOM THESIS,” 2021.
[14] A. Glassner and B. B. Schwarz, “What stands and develops between creative and critical thinking?. Argumentation?,” Think. Ski. Creat., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 10–18, 2007, doi:
10.1016/j.tsc.2006.10.001.
[15] N. C. Facione and P. A. Facione, “Externalizing the critical thinking in clinical judgment,” Nurs. Outlook, vol. 44, pp. 129–165, 1996.
[16] J. Moon, Critical thinking: An exploration of theory and practice. 2007.
[17] N. Utari, “AN ANALYSIS OF EFL STUDENTS ’ CRITICAL THINKING IN SPEAKING AT UNIVERSITAS MASA DEPAN Postgraduate Program of English Language Education Universitas Muhammadiyah Malang AN ANALYSIS OF EFL STUDENTS ’ CRITICAL THINKING IN,” no. 201810560211013, 2020.
[18] A. Ghanizadeh, “The interplay between reflective thinking, critical thinking, self- monitoring, and academic achievement in higher education,” High. Educ., vol. 74, no.
1, pp. 101–114, 2017, doi: 10.1007/s10734-016-0031-y.
111