i
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ASIAN PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE TECHNIQUE IN TEACHING SPEAKING AT THE SECOND GRADE
STUDENTS OF SMA NEGERI 5 BANDAR LAMPUNG Rio Sanjaya, Ari Nurweni, Hartati Hasan
Riosanjaya74@gmail.com University of Lampung
Abstract
The objectives of the research were to examine the process of the implementation of the Asian Parliamentary Debate technique, to find out the increase of the students’ speaking ability after being taught by using the Asian Parliamentary Debate technique, and to identify the students’ problems during the implementation of the technique. This research involved 30 students of XI IPA II Class of SMAN 5 Bandar Lampung academic year 2013/2014 and employed the one group pretest-posttest design. The result showed that there was a significant increase of the the students’ speaking ability after being taught by using the Asian Parliamentary Debate technique.The students’ mean score inthe pretest was 46.33, the mean score inthe posttest was 60.53, and t-ratio is higher than t-table (10.249> 2.045).It can be seen that there was an improvement of the pretest and postest results in the terms offluency, grammar, vocabulary,pronunciation ,and comprehension. Although there were many problems during the process of the implementation of the technique, overall the process of the implementation ran sucessfully with the indicator of students’ improvement in speaking English. The students’ mean score in pretest was 46.33, and the mean score in posttest was 60.53. The statistical calculation showed that the technique used gave a significant increase because t-ratio is higher than t-table (10.249> 2.045). From the students’ point of view, learning debate is quite difficult. They found many obstacles during the teaching and learning process such as difficulties in comprehending the role of each speaker, sharing their ideas by using their L1and arranging arguments systematically. The researcher believes that the factors that can hamper the teaching and learning process are students’mother tongue interference and their confidence. Furthermore, it is suggested that the English teachers should apply this technique in order to improve the students’ speaking ability because this technique can make students more confident to speak English and make them accustomed to speaking English.
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In the name of Alloh, the Beneficent and Merciful. All praise is merely to the Mightiest Alloh SWT, the Lord of the worlds, for the gracious mercy and tremendous blessings that enables me to accomplish this script.This script, entitledThe Implementation of Asian Parliamentary Debate Technique in Teaching Speaking at the Second Grade SMAN 5 Bandar Lampung, is submitted to fulfill one of the requirements for obtainingthe academic title of the Bachelor Degree of English Education, Department of Language and Arts, Teacher Training and Education Faculty, University of Lampung.
It is important to acknowledge that this script would never have come into existence without any supports, encouragements, and assistance by several generous persons.
Among many individuals who have generously offered suggestion for improving this script, first of all the writer would like to extend his sincere gratitude to Dr. Ari Nurweni, M.A., the writer’s first advisor and his co- advisor,Dra. Hartati Hasan, M.Hum,who have contributed and given their invaluable evaluations, comments, and suggestions during the completion of this script. The writer also would like to express his deepest gratitude and respect to Prof. Dr. Patuan Raja, M.Pd. as his examiner who has generously contributed his suggestion and criticism for the improvement ofthis script. Then, the writer is very thankful to Drs. Huzairin, M.Pd., as his academic advisor for his kindness and patience in guiding the writer during his study at English Department. The writer also would like to express his gratitude to Dr. Muhammad Sukirlan, M.A., Prof. Dr. Cucu Sutarysah, M.A., and Drs. Basturi Hasan, M.Pd., as the writer’s lecturers who always gave some advice and had a time discussing and sharing about the research in English teaching. The deepest appreciation is given to all lecturers of English Department, University of Lampung.
The writer also would like to extend his appreciation to Drs. Hi. Ahyauddin, M.Pd., the headmaster of SMAN 5 Bandar Lampung, for providing a place to conduct this research. Then, next appreciation is addressed toDra. Endang Tri Novianti, as the English teacher,for being so helpful during the process of the research in the class. Besides, the writer also extends his thankfulness to the students of XI IPA II class for their willingness, cooperation, and participation in this research.
vi
Last but not least, his special gratitude and indebtedness are dedicated to his beloved mother, Sri Lestariand his beloved father, Supardi, who always give their loves, prayers, supports, and encouragements for every single thing that has been done by the writer. It is truly undoubted that loves, cares, timeless prayers during days and nights, are everything for him.
Hopefully, this script will give a positive contribution to the educational development and also for those who want to carry out further research.The writer is completely aware that this script is far from the perfection. Therefore, constructive input and suggestion are expected to compose better script in the future.
Bandar Lampung, October 2014
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ASIAN PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
TECHNIQUE IN TEACHING SPEAKING AT THE SECOND GRADE
STUDENTS OF SMA NEGERI 5 BANDAR LAMPUNG
(A Script)
By
RIO SANJAYA 1013042058
Advisors:
1. Dr. Ari Nurweni, M.A.
2. Dra. Hartati Hasan, M.Hum.
Examiner:
Prof. Dr. Patuan Raja, M.Pd.
ENGLISH EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACULTY LAMPUNG UNIVERSITY
ii study at SMA Negeri 2 Bandar Lampung in 2006 and graduated in 2009.
After graduating from senior high school, he planned to continue his study to the university. At the first time studying in the university, he faced many obstacles in his first year of his study. In 2009, he enrolled at Physics Education, but he did not finish his study in physics education because he did not have a strong passion in physics. After studying two semesters in Physics Education, he decided to take an SNMPTN test again. He successfully enrolled at English Education Study Program at University of Lampung in 2010.
LIST OF GRAPHS
Page Graph
1. The Students’ Five Aspects of Speaking Score in the pretest ... 72 2. The Students’ Five Aspects of Speaking Score in the Posttest ... 74 3. The Increase of Students’ Speaking Scores in Five Aspects from
MOTTO
Man Jadda Wajada
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Table of Specification for Speaking Test ... 35
2. Table of Linguistic Evaluation Form of the Speaking Test in the Pretest and Posttest... 38
3. Table of the Students’ Activity in Three Times Treatment... 39
4. Table of Learning Effectiveness (Teacher Evaluation)... 39
5. The Table of the Scores in Adjudicating the Debate... 46
6. The Result of the Students’ Activity in Three Times Treatments.... 53
7. The Result of the Learning Effectiveness (Teacher Evaluation)... 66
8. Distribution of Pretest Score ... 73
9. Distribution of Posttest Score ... 75
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendices Page
1. Surat Keterangan Penelitian... App 1 2. The List of the Students XI IPA II Class 2013/2014... App 2 3. Research Schedule... App 3 4. The Observation sheets of the Result of the Students’ Activity... App 4 5. The Observation sheets of the Result of the Result of Learning
Effectiveness (Teacher Evaluation) ... App 5 6. The Samples of the Results of Questionnaires... App 6 7. Direction for Pretest ... App 7 15. The Students’ Debating Scores in the First Meeting... App 15 16. The Students’ Debating Scores in the Second Meeting... App 16 17. The Students’ Debating Scores in the Third Meeting... App 17 18. The Comparison of Students’ Debating Scores in the Three
iii
DEDICATION
By offering my praise and gratitude to Allah SWT for His abundant blessing to me, this script is proudly dedicated to:
The greatest inspirations of my life: my beloved Father and Mother, Supardi and Sri Lestari.
My beloved Brother: Roynaldy, ZN. and all my big family who cannot be mentioned directly in this script.
CONTENTS 1.1 Background of the Problems ... 1
1.2Formulation of the Problems ... 6
1.3Objectives of the Research ... 6
1.4 Uses of the Research ... 7
2.1.2 Components of Speaking ... 11
2.1.3 Concept of Teaching Speaking ... 12
2.2Concept of Asian Parliamentary Debate ... 15
2.3 The Assessment of Asian Parliamentary Debate ... 19
2.4 Debate In the Teaching of Speaking...21
2.5Procedures of the Implementation of Asian Debate Parliamentary In the Teaching of Speaking ... 22
2.6The Advantages and Disadvantages of Debate in the Teaching of Speaking ... 28
3.4.3 Questionnaire ... 40
3.5 Criteria of Evaluating Students’ Speaking ... 41
3.5.1 Reliability ... 42 4.1. The Process of Implementation ... 52
4.1.1. Students Activities in the Teaching and Learning Process ... 53
4.1.2. The Evaluation of the Teaching and Learning Effectiveness .. 66
4.2.The students’ speaking ability ... 71
4.2.1. Result of Pretest ... 72
4.2.2. Result of Posttest ... 74
4.2.3. The Increase of the Students’ Speaking Ability after being taught by using the Asian Parliamentary Debate technique .... 75
4.2.4. Result of Hypotheses Test ... 80
4.3. The Students’ Problem ... 80
4.4. Finding and Discussion ... 86
4.4.1. Finding and Discussionof the Process of the Implementation .. 86
4.4.2. Finding and Discussionof the Product ... 93
V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS 5.1. Conclusions ... 100
5.2. Suggestions ... 101
1. INTRODUCTION
This chapter discusses several substantives relating to the reasons in conducting the research: The background of the problem, formulation of the problems, objectives of the research, uses of the research, scope of the research as well as the definition of key terms, discussed as follows.
1.1. Background of the Problem
If we withdraw several statements from the theories above, it can be seen that speaking does not only encompass the ability of delivering feelings or thoughts in spoken language. Speaking is an activity done by people in order to communicate and interact with other people, and aspirate their voice and ideas in spoken language. This is a two-way process where the people have to consider delivering their verbal ideas comprehensively, understanding interlocutors’ ideas and giving
the understandable and relevant responses towards the topics given by the interlocutor. In the context of teaching and learning process specifically in the teaching of speaking, the English teacher has to encourage students to be more aware to develop their communication skill. The students are required to establish a good speaking by considering several aspects. In example, the aspect on how they deliver ideas and refute others’ ideas (students’ attitude), on how they overcome their deficiency in speaking skill (students’ communication strategies),
on how they gather ideas (brainstorming) before they speak, and so on. Therefore, in teaching and learning process actually students are required and expected to have sufficient skill in speaking.
teaching and learning process in Indonesia specifically in Lampung. Subjectively, I have experienced teaching in the class where the time allocation given for conducting speaking class is insufficient. It means that speaking is not a priority in the teaching of English. Some teachers allocate a bigger portion to the written exercises than the spoken exercises. They prioritize students’ results in answering the written tests. The students’ achievements in the mid semester test, national examination and the preparation test to enter state universities are being English teachers’ concern. It is not anomalous if most students of senior high school find
many difficulties in speaking. Most of them usually feel hesitated and ashamed to speak up because they are not accustomed to the circumstances that require them to communicate orally. They also cannot overcome their lack of ability in speaking.
In accordance with the School-Based Curriculum (Kurikulum tingkat Satuan Pendidikan/KTSP), the goal of teaching language in the senior high school is that the students are expected to get involved in the communication using English, spoken as well as written, not only for transactional and interpersonal purposes but also for accessing information and delivering their ideas in this developing global information, communication, and technology era. In order to achieve the goals of the curriculum in English teaching and learning process, integrating students’ knowledge and attitude in speaking should be taken into account
students’ needs in the future, one of techniques that can be implemented by
teachers in English classroom particularly in speaking class is debate.
In the practical use, debate is conducted to solve some problems in the parliamentary or governmental level. In the parliament, the proposed policies by the government cannot be easily approved without any tough debate between government side and opposition side. The government side needs to persuade the parliament members to approve the policies. In the debate, the government side usually consists of several speakers to persuade the parliament members and the opposition side has their speakers to oppose government’s policies. Thus,
generally there are two sides consisting of government and opposition sides in the parliamentary debate. Specifically, there are several formats in the parliamentary debate such as British Parliamentary Debate and Asian Parliamentary Debate. The history of the country and the geographical location of the country usually become the consideration of the country to implement certain formats of debate.
described by Piaget. According to Piaget (1973), most high school students have achieved the formal operational stage. These students can think abstractly and need fewer concrete examples to understand complex thought patterns. Generally speaking, most students share the following characteristics:
1. Need to understand the purpose and relevance of instructional activities 2. Are both internally and externally motivated
3. Have self-imposed cognitive barriers due to years of academic failure and lack self-confidence
4. May have “shut down” in certain cognitive areas and will need to learn how to learn and overcome these barriers to learning
5. Want to establish immediate and long-term personal goals
6. Want to assume individual responsibility for learning and progress toward goals.
Davidson (1996) states that with practice, many students show obvious progress in their ability to express and defend ideas in debate and they often quickly recognize the flaws in each other's arguments. Nisbett (2003) declares that debate is an important educational tool for learning analytic thinking skills and for forcing self-conscious reflection on the validity of one's ideas. In addition, the researcher also has conducted a pre-observation in one of senior high schools in Bandar Lampung that was SMAN 5 Bandar Lampung. He found that the implementation of the debate technique in that school was very potential to develop students’ speaking. Therefore, based on some theories, and several
and he entitled the script “The Implementation of Asian Parliamentary Debate Technique in Teaching Speaking at the Second Grade Students of SMAN 5
Bandar Lampung.”
1.2. Formulation of Problems
Based on the background that has been discussed above, the researcher formulated the problems as follows:
1. How is the implementation of the Asian Parliamentary debate in the teaching of speaking?
2. Is there any increase of the students’ speaking ability after being taught by using the Asian Parliamentary Debate technique?
3. What problems do the students face in the implementation of Asian Parliamentary Debate in the teaching of speaking?
1.3. Objectives of the Research
The objectives of this research comprise:
1. To examine the process of the implementation of the Asian Parliamentary Debate technique in the teaching of speaking.
2. To find out the increase of the students’ speaking ability after being taught by using the Asian Parliamentary Debate technique.
1.4. Uses of the Research
The uses of this research are:
1. Theoretically, the result of this research is expected to provide a reference to readers who would like to conduct further research about the implementation of Asian Parliamentary debate technique in teaching speaking.
2. Practically, this research can be used as information and reference by English teachers to apply the same technique in encouraging students’ critical thinking and developing students’ speaking ability in the teaching of
speaking.
1.5. Scope of the Research
This research was conducted in SMAN 5 Bandar Lampung, academic year 2013/2014. The subject of this research was XI A II class. The focus of this research was to investigate and examine the process of the implementation of the Asian Parliamentary Debate technique during the teaching and learning process in the classroom. It also examined the influence of the tecnique towards the students’ speaking ability and the students’ perception. The main reason why the researcher
1.6. Definition of Key Terms
In order to avoid misunderstanding from the readers, definition or terms are provided as follows:
Speaking is an ability of the student in delivering and responding ideas and thoughts orally.
Debate is a form of speaking activity where the students give their arguments towards related topics and rebuttal towards opposite’s arguments.
Asian Parliamentary Debate is a form of a debate that consists of two groups or teams and each team or group consists of three speakers. Those two groups are the positive team which proposes certain topics and the negative team which opposes the topics.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter discusses about literature review used in this research such as: concept of speaking, component of speaking, concept of teaching speaking, concept of Asian Parliamentary debate technique, the assessment of the Asian Parliamentary debate, procedures of using Asian Parliamentary debate technique in teaching speaking, the advantages and disadvantages of debate in teaching speaking, theoretical assumption, and hypothesis.
2.1. Speaking
2.1.1. Concept of Speaking
Scott in Johnson and Morrow (1981) defines speaking as an activity involving two (or more) people, in which the participants are both hearer and speaker having reaction to what they hear and make the contribution at high speed. In other words, each participant must have an intention or a set of intentions he wants to achieve in the interaction. Each participant has to be able to interpret what is said, and reply with the language he has which reflects his own intention.
thought and feeling that we want to share, influence, or interact to other people.
Lado (1961) describes speaking as the ability to express oneself in life situation, or the ability to report acts or situations in precise words, or the ability to converse, or to express a sequence of idea fluently. These ideas mean that speaking emphasizes more the ability of an individual to convey something whether it is in the form of expression, report with the language he has.
Biber (1999) states that spoken language takes place in real time, and are subject to the limitations of working memory so that its principles of linear construction are adapted to that purpose. A researcher can retract a sentence and it can be as if it never existed for the reader.
From the concepts of speaking stated above, it can be brought about a conclusion that speaking is a complex oral activity that is done by two or more people in order to express or deliver one’s ideas, respond other’s idea,
and share information involving our cognitive and affective. The cognitive domain covers our skill in brainstorming, producing analytical and critical thinking, and delivering ideas systematically and logically. The affective domain covers our attitude in responding and delivering ideas, respecting other’s ideas, using polite utterances, and so forth. Therefore, the cognitive
appropriate technique in example debate. By practicing debate, their affective and cognitive domain can be activated and they can be supportive towards students’ speaking skill development.
2.1.2. Aspects of Speaking
According to Harris (1974), speaking covers several aspects. The aspects of speaking are:
1. Fluency
Fluency can be defined as the ability to speak fluently and accurately. Fluency includes a reasonable fast speed of speaking and only a small numbers of pauses. It means that when a person make a dialogue with another person, the other person can give respond well without difficulty. 2. Grammar
Heaton (1991) defines grammar as the students’ ability to manipulate structure and to distinguish appropriate grammatical form in appropriate ones. In other words, grammar is a structured form to create good sentences. 3. Vocabulary
Nobody can communicate effectively if they do not have sufficient vocabulary. So, vocabulary means the appropriate diction which is used in communication.
4. Pronunciation
5. Comprehension
Syakur (1987) defines comprehension for oral communication that requires a subject to respond to speech as well as to initiate it. Comprehensibility denotes the ability of understanding the speakers’ intention and general
meaning. This idea means that if a person can answer or express well and correctly, it shows that he/she comprehends or understands well.
2.1.3. Concept of Teaching Speaking
According to Yorkey (1990), speaking skill is a skill and like other skill, it must be practiced continuously. The teacher role is becoming important for students later. There are many keys to support speaking skill by listening cassette, watching TV, watching film, practicing with foreigners, practicing with partners. In judging whether students are speaking in correct statements, there are two criteria which the teacher must take:
1. The students have to understand the meaning of words that they use and associate them into the objects of their represent.
2. The students have to pronounce the words properly in order to arise the same perception and they understand each other.
being talked about. It should be familiar for the students, so that they can understand about their language needs.
Harris (1974) stated that achievement test indicates the extent to which an individual has mastered the specific information. To help the students develop communicative efficiency in speaking, the teacher can use a balanced activities approach that combines language input, structured output, and communicative output. Language input comes in the forms of teacher talk, listening activities, reading passages, and the language heard and read outside the class. It gives students the material they need to begin producing language themselves. Structured output focuses on correct forms. In structured input, students may have options for responses, but all of the options require them to use the specific form or structure that the teacher has just introduced. Structured output is designed to make students comfortable producing specific language items recently introduced, sometimes in combination with previously learned items.
and communication strategies that they know. In communicative output activities, the criterion of success is whether the student gets the message across. Accuracy is not a consideration unless the lack of it interferes with the message.
According to Harmer (1990), the aim of teaching speaking is to train students for communication. Therefore, language activities in speaking class should focus on language use individually. This requires the teacher not only to create a warm and humanistic classroom atmosphere, but also to provide a chance for each student to speak.
According to Nunan (2003), there are five principles for teaching speaking:
1. Be aware of difference between second language and foreign language in learning context.
2. Give students chance to practice with both fluency and accuracy.
3. Provide opportunities for students to talk by using group work or pair work.
4. Plan speaking task that involves negotiation for meaning.
5. Design classroom activities that involve guidance and practice in both transactional and interaction speaking.
those principles. The natures of the debate which require the students to deliver their ideas orally and respond other’s ideas in the end will create a
students-centered learning process. The students will be dominant during the process of teaching and learning. The teacher will act as the facilitator and source of learning and he or she guides the students to achieve the goals or objectives of the tasks given.
2.2. Concept of Asian Parliamentary Debate
In Asian Parliamentary debate, there are several concepts that should be known by the debaters. Birshan (2010) in his Debating Handbook proposes several concepts that can be seen as follows:
1. Basics of Debating
In the basics of the debating, the first principle of the debate is the model of the debate. In the debate, there are the affirmative/government and negative/opposition team led by a chairperson and no interruption is allowed during the debate. The speech duration order is as follows:
Affirmative Negative
1st Speaker (7 minutes) 1st speaker (7 minutes) 2nd speaker (7 minutes) 2nd speaker (7 minutes) 3rd speaker (7 minutes) 3rd speaker (7 minutes)
2. Motion/topic
There must be a motion or topic for each debate. After the topic or motion is given, those two teams of debaters are given 10 up to 30 minutes to prepare for their case (sets of arguments supported by evidence).
3. Case
After the topic is choosen, the debaters should gather some ideas that relate to the topic. The debaters should determine the thesis argument, and set of arguments supported byevidences with the elements:
a. Definition (clarification of motion)
A definition clarifies the motion and gives the clear boundaries to the motion, limiting what the debate will be about into a focus area of discussion. Definition should cover the whole motion and present the debatable and reasonable to the link of the motion in order to avoid the confusing among the two teams.
b. Theme line (core argument or basic idea)
Theme line consists of logic arguments that will be presented as the idea to strengthen the team. The team line in the team must heavily imbue each speech of every team members. It is the main idea that link together the first, second and third speakers, ensuring consistency among all speeches.
Argument should have A-R-E-L, where A as Assertion; statement of the argument, R as Reasoning; explanation of the arguments, E as Evidence; facts, statistics, L as Link back. The distribution is given to the first and the second speaker. The second speaker usually gets more split than the first speaker because the first speaker has motion, the theme line and the team split.
d. Rebuttal
Rebuttal is the way on how the opposing team shows the irrelevant topic with the proof that is given by the speaker. Rebuttal is usually done by the opposing team when they determinate the illogical idea from the opponent.
4. Roles of speakers
1st speaker of affirmative must: Define the motion
Presents the affirmative team line
Outline briefly what each speaker in their team will talk about Present the first half of the affirmative case
1st speaker of negative must:
Accept or reject the definition. If you don’t do this it is assumed that
you accept the definition. Present the negative team line
The 1st speaker of negative team should spend about one quarter of
their time rebutting
Present the first half of the negative team’s case
2nd speaker of affirmative must:
Reaffirm the affirmative team line
Rebut the main points presented by the 1st negative
The 2nd affirmative should spend about one third of their time rebutting Present the second half of the affirmative case
2nd speaker of negative must:
Reaffirm the negative team line
Rebut some points of the affirmative’s case
The 2nd negative should spend about one third of their time rebutting Present the second half of the negative’s case
3rd speaker of affirmative must:
Reaffirm of the affirmative team line
Rebut all the remaining points of the negative’s case
3rd speaker should spend about two third of three quarters of their time
rebutting
Present a summary of the affirmative’s case
Round off the debate for the affirmative
3rd speaker of negative must:
Reaffirm the negative team line
3rd speaker should spend about two third of three quarters of their time
rebutting
Present a summary of the negative’s case
Round off the debate for the negative.
The third speakers of both teams may not introduce any new parts of their team’s case. Reply speaker must show the weaknesses of the opponent team
and convince the adjudicators that their team’s arguments are better than the
opponent. The reply speakers also have to provide a summary or overview of the debate, identify the issued by both sides and provide a biased adjudication of the debate.
5. Adjudication
In adjudicating the debate, the adjudicator uses three criteria. They are matter (content 40%), manner (delivery 40%), method (structure 20%).
2.3. The Assessment of Asian Parliamentary Debate
In adjudicating the debate, D’Cruz (2003) defines three criteria of the debate
assessment. The three criteria of the debate assessment are explained as follows:
1. Matter
D’cruz (2003) defines that matter is the content of the speech. It can be
includes substantive matter, rebuttal and points of information. In debates in which points of information are used, both the content of the question and the content of the answer are considered matter.
2. Manner
D’cruz (2003) classifies the elements in adjudicating a manner in debate.
They are defined as follows:
a. Body language
The body language of a speaker is a very important element of their speaking style. As the expression indicates, body language is a language of its own. It can have a significant impact on an audience and can create powerful impressions such as confidence, trust and credibility.
b. Vocal style
The second element of manner is the vocal style of the speaker. All speakers must have their message heard and understood. Vocal style is central to this goal. Some of the elements of vocal style are volume and pace, tone, clarity and the use of language.
3. Method
D’ cruz (2003) states that method is the structure and organization of the
responsiveness: any strategy adopted by a speaker or team should be adapted to the dynamic nature of the debate.
2.4. Debate in the Teaching of Speaking
The goal of the learning and teaching English in the senior high school is communicative competence. Based on TEFL high school syllabus and KTSP, English teacher should teach English to the students communicatively, and encourage the students to have communicative competence by creating the atmosphere of the class that is rich in communication. According to Bashir, Azeem, and Dogar (2011) there are five stages in teaching speaking. They are:
1. Pre-production stage
This stage is also called the silent period. In this stage, the students just only imitate what the teacher says.
2. Early production stage
At the second stage, the students use short language expressions, but they cannot always use them correctly.
2. Speech emergence stage
3. Intermediate fluency
At this stage, the students are able to use complex sentences in speaking and share their feeling and expression. They are able to ask questions and clarify what they learn in class. They are able to work with some teacher’s supports.
4. Advance fluency
In this stage, the students have increasing facility in discussion using their vocabulary without any proper preparation.
In conclusion, teaching speaking is started at teaching the students how to speak in English as their foreign language, and then ask them to be able to pronounce the new language accurately. At this point, the teacher could introduce the students the Asian Parliamentary Debate technique considering their ability and cognitive stage are on the appropriate state. In the English speaking classroom, the debate can accomodate the goals of the learning and teaching English in the senior high school.
2.5. Procedures of The Implementation of Asian Parliamentary Debate in
the Teaching of Speaking
the procedures and method used. According to Brown (1994), a method is the practical realization of an approach. The originators of a method have arrived at decisions about types of activities, roles of teacher and learners, the kinds of material which will be helpful, and some model of syllabus organization. Method includes various procedures and techniques. When method has fixed procedures, informed by clearly articulated approach, they are easy to describe. The more all embracing they become, however, the more difficult it is to categorize them as real methods in their own right.
Different researchers have suggested different sets of procedures in the classroom that can support the goal of communicative teaching. The following principles are tips worth considering in communicative teaching suggested by Larsen – Freeman (1986):
1. Whenever possible language as it is used in real context should be introduced.
2. The target of language is vehicle for classroom communication, not just the object of study.
3. Students should work with language.
4. Games are important because they have in common with real communicative events.
5. Student should be given an opportunity to express their ideas and opinions.
7. The social context of the communicative event is essential in giving meaning to utterances.
8. Learning to use language forms appropriately is an important part of communicative competence.
9. The teacher acts as an advisor during communicative activities.
10. Student should be given opportunities to develop strategies for interpreting language as it is actually used by native speakers.
Developing a method of teaching in speaking ability needs an activity to support the method running active in learning process. The interesting activity that was implemented by the researcher in this script was the Asian Parliamentary debate.
Therefore, based on theories above, the researcher made the procedures of teaching speaking through Asian Parliamentary debate as follows:
a. Pre-activity
1. Teacher greets the students.
2. Teacher asks students to pray together. 3. Teacher checks attendance list.
5. Teacher encourages students by asking things that correlate to the subject and giving example topics to encourage students to deliver ideas and to defend their stances e.g. what is your stance regarding National Examination? Should national examination be implemented by our government? (Brainstorming).
b. While activity :
6. Teacher explains the material of the hortatory exposition.
7. Teacher gives the example in delivering ideas, and determining stances towards the topics in a form of oral hortatory exposition.
8. Teacher introduces the technique used in learning the material of oral hortatory exposition for speaking which will be the Asian Parliamentary Debate.
9. After explaining the concepts of Asian Parliamentary Debate, the teacher conducts an exhibition and chooses eight students randomly. Three students belong to the positive team, three students belong to the negative team, and two students accompany the teacher to be the adjudicators. The rest of the students in the class observes the simulation or exhibition of the Asian Parliamentary debate activity. 10. In the exhibition, the teacher acts as the main Adjudicator or
Adjudicator core. The teacher guides students to perform the Asian Parliamentary Debate.
12. After 10 minutes, the teacher calls students to go back to their seats. After that, the teacher opens the debate.
13. The teacher obliges all students to introduce theirselves in their turns before delivering arguments.
14. Teacher gives 7 minutes for the time allocation for each speaker except the reply speakers (reply speakers will be allocated 5 minutes).
15. Teacher asks the first speaker from positive group to deliver his or her arguments in the debate.
16. After the turn of first positive group speaker is over, the teacher calls the first speaker from the negative group to give his or her responds towards the first positive speaker’s arguments.
17. After the first speaker of negative group ends his or her turn, the teacher asks the second speaker from the positive group to deliver his or her arguments.
18. Then, the teacher asks the second speaker from negative to deliver arguments.
19. Teacher asks the third speaker from the positive team to deliver the arguments.
20. Teacher asks the third speaker from the negative team to deliver the arguments.
22. After that, the teacher asks the students adjudicator to give their verbal adjudication.
23. The teacher asks the main adjudicator also gives verbal adjudication. 24. After conducting the debate exhibition, the class will be divided into
three chambers, each chamber consists of one positive group, one negative group, and one adjudicator group. Then, the teacher forms groups and each group consists of three students.
25. Teacher provides numbered small papers. The papers consist of number 1-9. Then, teacher makes a lottery. Each group should take a paper in the lottery. Those who get number 1 will get the first turn, respectively. 26. Teacher calls the representatives of each group to draw the stance of
their group whether being affirmative or negative team.
27. Teacher provides a coin. Then, the teacher asks them to choose bird or number.
28. Teacher tosses the coin. When the tossed coin shows the right guess, the group which guesses the same symbol that appeared on the tossed coin, will have a right to choose their stance whether they are affirmative or negative team.
29. Teacher gives 10 minutes for students to do a brainstorming.
30. After that, the teacher asks the students to arrange their seats into U shape.
who seat in the middle in the adjudicators’ seat, will be the adjudicator
core.
32. Teacher asks the students to begin the debate and all of students in the class perform the debate contemporaneously.
33. The teacher asks the adjudicator team to record the debate activity, and obliges all of them to decide the winner, conclude the debate, give the comment or verbal adjudication.
34. Teacher asks one of positive or negative team member to record the verbal adjudication delivered by the adjudicator team.
35. Teacher observes the debate activity done by the students in the class. 36. Teacher collects the video recordings from the students.
c. Post-activity
37. Teacher concludes and gives the feedback toward the teaching and learning activities.
38. Teacher asks students’ comments about their difficulties in doing debate.
39. The teacher closes the class and greets the students.
2.6. The Advantages and Disadvantages of Debate in the Teaching of
Speaking
Chan (2009) states that using debate as a teaching tool in the classroom has many advantages and disadvantages. It can be seen as follows:
a. Advantages of Debate
Improve students’ communication and expression skills in a public
setting.
Enhance techniques of searching information.
Improve skills for gathering, evaluating and synthesizing data from
various sources in order to develop arguments.
Foster appreciation of opposing viewpoints.
Enhance debating/arguing techniques against opposing opinions.
Allow more interactive exchange among students and teachers.
b. Disadvantages of Debate
Students may not be familiar with debates as an assessment method.
Debates are time-consuming (e.g. time for research and preparation, time
for presentation of each group).
Students who do not like public speaking would be less motivated in
participating.
2.7. Theoretical Assumption
2.8. Hypothesis
III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter discusses about the methods of the research that was used in the
research such as: research design, subject, variables, instruments, criteria of
evaluating students’ speaking, data collecting technique, research procedures,
analyzing the data, data analysis, and hypothesis testing.
3.1. Research Design
As the researcher stated in the previous chapters, his research focused on the
implementation of debate. This research was conducted in order to answer the
problems: (1) to examine the process of the implementation of Asian
Parliamentary debate in the process of teaching of speaking, (2) to find out the
increase of the the students’ speaking ability after being taught by using the Asian
Parliamentary Debate technique, and (3) to identify the problems faced by
students in the implementation of Asian Parliamentary Debate in the teaching of
speaking. Therefore, in order to answer the problems, the researcher applied the
pre-experimental design in his research. Theone group pretest-posttest design was
applied and the speaking test was administered to the students in order to know
how good their speaking ability was. Then, the researcher randomly chose one
class of second grade by using lottery and the students of XI A II class were the
subjects. In the teaching process, the treatment given to the students was debate.
Parliamentary Debate. The researcher conducted a pretest in a form of a speaking
test, three times treatments, and the posttest.
The design of the research is as follows:
T1 X T2
Where:
T1 : Pretest
T2 : Posttest
X : Treatment
(Setiyadi, 2004)
The reason why the research applied this method was that he would like to
holistically examine and observe the natural phenomenon that occured in the
debate activity done by the 2nd grade students of senior high school. He also
would like to know whether the Asian Parliamentary Debate was applicative and
significant towards the teaching of speaking process.
3.2. Subjects
The subjects of this research were the students of XI A II class, SMAN 5 Bandar
Lampung academic year 2013/2014. The research was conducted in five
meetings, one meeting for the pretest, three meeting for the treatments, and one
as the students’ performances in the debate. Then, the researcher was observing
the students when they performed the debate in front of the class.
3.3. Variables
Hatch and Farhady (1982:12) states that variable as an attribute of person or of an
object which varies from person to person or from object to object. In order to
assess the influence of the treatment in the research, variable can be defined as
independent and dependent variables.
According to Hatch and Farhady (1982:15), types of variable are as follows:
1. The independent variable is the major variable that was investigated by the
researcher.
2. Dependent variable is the variable that the researcher observed and measured
to determine the effect of the independent variable.
In this research, the independent variable is known as the treatment variable. The
writer proposed two variables in this research, as follows:
1. Asian Parliamentary Debate technique as independent variable (X) because
this variable was the major and investigated.
2. Development of students’ speaking components was the dependent variable
(Y) because this variable determined the effect of the Asian Parliamentary
3.4. Instruments
In conducting the research, the researcher applied three instruments. The
researcher used the test of speaking, observation sheets, and questionnaire in the
research.
3.4.1. Test of Speaking
This research used speaking test that was giving arguments towards the
topic given as the instrument to collect the data. In this speaking test, the
procedures were: the students were given a topic in a form of a hortatory
text. The topic was about “Banning senior high school students to drive a
car to the school”. In the beginning of the test, the researcher gave the
students the same topic. Then, the teacher asked the students to work in pair.
The teacher gave the questions list, the first student had to play a role as an
interviewer and ask those questions to their pair. The teacher asked the
interviewers to record it. Here, the students were required to state their
stances and give their arguments based on the given topic. To make the
activity interesting, all students were required to perform their speaking at
the same time.
Before giving arguments, firstly they had to introduce their self. Secondly,
They had to deliver their ideas or opinion relating to the topic given.Then,
this activity was done independently and they had to record their pair’s
performance by sound or video recorders. Each student had five minutes to
deliver his or her opinion. This activity was done alternately with pair and
their turns in speaking, then the researcher collected all students speaking
data from their gadgets. After that, the researcher in collaboration with the
English teacher assessed the students’ speaking ability. In order to make a
clear assessment towards students’ speaking ability, the researcher used the
oral rating sheet proposed by Harris.
Harris (1974) proposes oral rating sheet in the teaching of speaking. During
the process of teaching and learning, the researcher was assisted by the
teacher. The teacher acted as the rater 2 to evaluate students’ speaking skill.
In evaluating and scoring the students’ speaking score, the researcher and
teacher considered following aspects of speaking.
Table 3.1 Table of Specification for Speaking Test
No. Speaking Aspects Definition Percentage
Then, the researcher and the teacher gave the score in each speaking aspect
based on the following explanation below.
Pronunciation
Score Interpretation
5 Has few traces of foreign accent.
4 Always intelligible though one is conscious of a definite accent.
3 Pronunciation problems necessitate concentrated listening
occasionally lead to miss understanding.
2 Very hard to understand because of pronunciation problems must frequently be asked to repeat.
1 Pronunciation problems to serve as to make speech virtually unintelligible.
Grammar
Score Interpretation
5 Make few (if any) noticeable errors of grammar of word order.
4 Occasionally makes grammatical and/ or word order which do
not, however, obscure meaning.
3 Make frequent errors of grammar and word order errors,
obscure meaning.
2 Grammar and word orders make comprehension difficult must
often rephrase sentences and/ or restrict him to basic pattern.
1 Errors in grammar and word order to severe as to make speech
virtually unintelligible.
Vocabulary
Score Interpretation
5 Use of vocabulary and idioms is virtually that of native speaker. 4 Sometimes uses inappropriate terms and / or must rephrase
ideas because of lexical inadequacies.
3 Frequently uses the wrong words, conversation somewhat
limited because of inadequate vocabulary.
2 Misuses of words and very limited vocabulary make
comprehension quite difficult.
Fluency
5 Appears to understand everything without difficulty.
4 Understand nearly everything at normal speed although
occasionally repetition maybe necessary.
3 Understand most of what is said at lowers that normal speed with repetition.
2 Has great difficulty following what is said. The students can comprehend only “social conversation” spoken with frequent repetition.
1 Cannot be said understand even simple conversation of English.
The score of each point in the tables above should be multiplied by four.
Thus, the highest score should be 100. In example if the student get 4 in
pronunciation, 3 in grammar, 3 in vocabulary, 2 in fluency, and 3 in
comprehension. Thus, his final score would be:
Pronunciation : 4X4= 16
Vocabulary : 3X4= 12
Fluency : 2X4= 8
Comprehension : 3X4=12 +
Final score : 60
Table 3.2 Linguistic Evaluation Form of the Speaking Test in the
Pretest and Posttest
St. code
Fluency Gramm. Vocab. Pronunc. Comprehen. Total
score
1... 2... 3... 4...
3.4.2. Observation Sheet
During the process of teaching and learning, the researcher also observed
the activities done by the students in the classroom. The researcher applied
the observation sheet adapted from APKG (Alat Penilaian Kemampuan
Guru). In order to establish the same and valid perception towards the
effectiveness of the teaching and learning process as well as the activities
done by the students in the classroom, the researcher used two formats of
the observation sheet during the three time treatments. The first format was
the researcher observed the students by using the students’ activities
observation sheet. The second format was the teacher evaluated the
Table 3.3 The Students’ Activity in Three Times Treatment
Table 3.4 Learning Effectiveness (Teacher Evaluation)
The Aspects Observed
Definitions given as vocabulary
Pre-activity is interesting
Giving the steps learning activity
Lesson plan is organized well The conclusion refers to the
learning process
Relating the review with the
learning before
Relating the review with the next
learning
Offering the questions with some
question levels
Giving enough time
The students ask something
The feedback is informative
Teacher responds student's
response well
Teacher's language is
understandable
Teacher's pronunciation is clear
Teacher teaches fluently without “eee...” etc
Using whiteboard and organized well
After conducting the pretest, treatments, and posttest, the researcher gave a
questionnaire to the students. The format of the questionnaire given was an
perspective and analyze the students’ problems or difficulties in practicing
the Asian Parliamentary debate. The researcher intended to give the students
a freedom to express their responses regarding the implementation of the
Asian Parliamentary debate. The feedbacks from students were very helpful
for developing the quality of the research. The researcher gave following
questions to students.
No. Questions Substantives
1. What kind of difficulties that faced by you building or brainstorming (arranging ideas before debating), how do you discuss the ideas with the team and how do you explain the ideas in front of your team?”
Brainstorming
3. In your opinion, from three components of debate: Matter(comprehending material/ideas),
Manner (Gestures/Body Language), and
method (the structures of the argument). What kind of components that is the most difficult to master and comprehend, why?
Components of Debate
4. In your opinion, how is your improvement in
speaking after practicing the Asian
Parliamentary Debate?
Students’ perception after practicing
debate
3.5. Criteria of Evaluating Students’ Speaking
In evaluating the students’ speaking ability, the researcher in the collaboration
with the English teacher gave the scores for the students. The researcher used
sound or video recording to improve the quality and the objectivity of the
research. The test of speaking was measured based on two principles; reliability
3.5.1. Reliability
There were three instruments used during the process of the implementation
of the technique. The first instrument was the observation sheet that was
used to answer the first research question, the second instrument was the test
of speaking that was used to find out the increase of the students’ speaking
abilit, and the third instrument was the questionnaire that was used to
answer the third research question. The researcher has tested the validity and
reliability of those instruments. The researcher has proven the reliability of
the speaking test by analyzing the results of the coefficient values of two
raters.
Reliability is used to describe the overall consistency of a measure. A
measure is said to have a high reliabilityif it produces similar results under
consistent conditions. In this research, the researcher used inter-rater
reliability to assess students’ performance. There were two raters in this
research, they were the researcher and one of the English teachers in SMAN
5 Bandar Lampung. They gave the scores toward the students’ performance
in the pretest and posttest. The scores of the two raters proved the
consistency of the instrument.
The statistical formula for counting the reliability is as follows :
R = 1 - )
Where :
N : Number of Students
D : The different of Rank Correlation
1-6 : Constant Number
After finding the coefficients between raters, the researcher then analyzed
the coefficient reliability with standard reliability below:
a. A very low reliability (range from 0.00 to 0.19)
b. A low reliability (range from 0.21 to 0.39)
c. An average reliability (range from 0.40 to 0.59)
d. A high reliability (range from 0.60 to 0.79)
e. A very high reliability (range from 0.80 to 0.100)
Slameto (1998: 147)
3.5.2. Validity
Validity is defined as the extent to which the instrument measures what it
purposes to measure. It means that validity is related directly to the purpose
of the test. Content of validity, the test is a good reflection of what has been
taught and the knowledge which the teacher wants her students to know.
Construct validity concerns with whether the test is actually in line with the
theory of what it means to the language (Shohamy, 1985:74) that is being
to know a language. It means that the test measured certain aspect based on
the indicator. Therefore, in this research the researcher applied the content
and construct validity to validate the speaking test. The Asian
Parliamentary Debate implemented in the teaching of speaking was based
on the modification of English teaching and learning material. The test of
speaking was based on hortatory exposition texts. Therefore, the researcher
applied the content validity to validate the speaking test. The researcher also
tested the students’ speaking ability based on oral rating sheet proposed by
Harris (1974) and the researcher applied debating chart proposed by D’cruz
(2003). Here, the researcher applied the construct validity.
3.6. Data Collecting Technique
The researcher used several methods to gain the data; the researcher applied
several method as follows:
1. Pretest
In order to know how far the students’ ability in speaking English was, a
pretest was conducted before implementing the treatment in the classroom.
The purpose of the pretest given to the students was to convince the
researcher whether the students had the same ability or not. The researcher
administered the pretest to all students. The form of the pretest was giving
arguments towards the topic given as the instrument to collect the data. In
this speaking test, the procedures were: the students were given a topic in a
students to drive a car to the school”. In the beginning of the test, the
researcher gave the students the same topic. Then, the teacher asked the
students to work in pair. The teacher gave the questions list, the first student
had to play a role as an interviewer and ask those questions to their pair. The
teacher asked the interviewers to record it. Here, the students were required
to state their stances and give their arguments based on the given topic. To
make the activity interesting, all students were required to perform their
speaking at the same time. Before giving arguments, firstly they had to
introduce themselves. Secondly, They had to deliver their ideas or opinion
relating to the topic given.Then, this activity is done independently and they
had to record their pair’s performance by sound or video recorders. Each
student had five minutes to deliver his or her opinion. This activity was done
alternately with pair and respectively until the last student ended his or her
turn. After completing their turns in speaking, the researcher collected the
students’ speaking data from their gadgets. After that, the researcher in
collaboration with the English teacher assessed the students’ speaking
ability.
2. Treatment
The treatment was conducted after giving the pretest. The students were
introduced to the Asian Parliamentary debate. They practiced their speaking
ability through Asian Parliamentary Debate. They also practiced the Asian
Parliamentary debate, the rules, procedures, method and so on. There were
debate. During the treatments, the students’ performances were assesed by
using debating chart proposed by D’Cruz. D’Cruz (2003) proposes debating
chart that is used as the general principle to mark the debate. Below are the
scores and the representation of the scores in adjudicating the debate.
Table 3.5 The Scores in Adjudicating the Debate
Matter Manner Method Meaning
26 26 13 Poor
27-29 27-29 14 Below Average
30 30 15 Average
31-33 31-33 16 Above Average
34 34 17 Excellent
3. Posttest
A posttest was administered after the treatment was given. This was
designed to know how far students’ improvement in speaking was. Thus,
from the posttest result, later on, it could be concluded that whether the
Asian Parliamentary debate was effective or applicative to be implemented
in the senior high school or not.
4.Observation
The researcher conducted an observation during the teaching and learning
process in the class to get the qualitative data. The researcher used two
formats of the observation sheet during the three time treatments. The first
format was the researcher observed the students by using the students’
activities observation sheet. The second format was the teacher evaluated
the researcher using the teaching effectiveness observation sheet. The
4. Recording
The researcher used a video recorder to record learning and teaching process
in the classroom. Capturing much of the data on video tape also allowed
what Edwards and Westgate (1987) refer to as retrospective analysis at
leisure, and in much greater depth than would have been possible even using
techniques involving live coding. Categorization of the data could similarly
be developed more fully after viewing the tapes and adopting an
‘open-minded stance’, allowing the data itself to influence the design of a category
system derived from analyzing it rather than being imposed on it.
It was easier for researcher to analyze the data by using the video recorder.
The researcher put the video recorder in front of the class. After that, the
researcher transcribed the students’ speaking data easily.
5. Questionnaire
The questionnaire was given after the posttest. The format of the
questionnaire given was an open-ended questionnaire. The researcher gave
five questions in order to see the students’ perspective and analyzed the
students’ problems or difficulties in practicing the Asian Parliamentary
debate. The researcher gave students a freedom to express their responses
regarding the implementation of the Asian Parliamentary debate. The
feedbacks from students were very helpful for developing the quality of the
6. Transcription
The data were gained from the video recording of the students. The students
during the pretest. Treatments, and postest made a documentation and sent
the documentation to the researcher via E-mail and flashdisk. The researcher
carefully transcribed the data from the video. If necessary, the videos were
played many times over in order to get the valid data from students’
speaking activities in the class.
3.7. Research Procedures
In conducting the research, the researcher used the following procedures:.
1. Selecting the instrument material. The instrument was chosen from the
material from the internet and the book.
2. Determining the subject of the research: the subject of the research was
determined through the simple random sampling. The researcher selected the
sample randomly using lottery.
3. Administering the pretest. The researcher asked the students to answer the
question based on the topic given in order to know the students’ basic
speaking ability. Then, they independently recorded their performance and the
researcher collected the data from their gadgets later on.
4. Giving treatments. The researcher gave three times treatments to the class by
5. Administering the Posttest. The posttest was aimed to find out the students’
speaking ability given the instruments used as their speaking technique. After
that, they also recorded their performance.
6. Evaluating the teaching and learning process. The researcher applied the
observation sheets adapted from APKG.
7. After administering post-test, the researcher distributed the questionnaire to
the students.
8. The last, the researcher conducted the data transcription. The data were
transcribed based on the oral rating sheet proposed by Haris (1974) and
debating chart proposed by the D’cruz (2003).
3.8. Analyzing the Data
The researcher analyzed the data by comparing the average score (mean) of the
pretest and posttest in order to know whether the Asian Parliamentary Debate
technique influenced students’ speaking ability.
Where:
: mean
x: total score
