Designing Argumentation Protocols for EFL Classrooms: An Analysis of Pragma-Dialectic Modelling

Abstract

This study explores how Indonesian EFL teachers perceive and implement argumentation protocols and pragma-dialectic principles in the context of English language teaching. Using a qualitative descriptive-interpretive design, data were collected through semi-structured interviews and classroom observations involving five government-certified EFL teachers with more than ten years of teaching experience. The findings reveal that teachers generally view argumentation protocols as valuable tools for enhancing students’ critical thinking, reasoning skills, and communicative competence. However, they also recognize the substantial challenges involved in applying these protocols, particularly due to students’ limited linguistic proficiency, low confidence, and cultural hesitations toward open disagreement. Teachers interpret pragma-dialectic principles as theoretically useful but cognitively demanding for learners, leading them to adopt simplified versions that emphasize clarity, respectful disagreement, and evidence-based reasoning rather than strict adherence to the full model. The study further shows that cultural norms, linguistic constraints, and identity-related issues significantly influence how argumentation unfolds in classrooms. Teachers navigate these complexities by implementing scaffolding strategies such as polite disagreement expressions, translanguaging practices, vocabulary support, and safe discussion spaces. Overall, the study contributes to a deeper understanding of how argumentation pedagogy can be adapted for culturally diverse and linguistically heterogeneous EFL contexts. It highlights the need for flexible, culturally responsive approaches that balance theoretical rigor with practical feasibility. The results offer valuable insights for teacher education, curriculum development, and the integration of argumentation pedagogy into EFL instruction in Indonesia and similar contexts.