2 Introduction
Debate is the way somebody thinks, proves, defends and says what is inside his or her mind. As debates need an involvement of critical thinking to analyze a particular issue and to defend arguments, debates are linked to a higher level of thinking. To debate means to have a good-content speech as a means of transforming one‟s ideas into compatible and understandable ideas for others. In
other words, what a debater thinks and says should help the debater persuade others to agree with him or her. In order to persuade others, debaters‟ speech should involve logical thinking as well as evidences to support the arguments. The evidences brought by debaters which are the products of sorting relevant information from various sources should be reliable.
In university context, debates are often considered scary and burdening as they seem to require an excellent command of language. Bearing this in mind, debates are also often thought as something exclusive, i.e., debates are only for certain people possessing outstanding speaking skills. This thought explains why some students feel reluctant to join debate teams.
3
members of the club, found that there was a belief among Satya Wacana Chr istian University students that English Debating Society should be for English Department students. They assumed only English Department students can speak English better than students from other faculties. The interview result also revealed that students have not yet understood that English proficiency can be improved through debate trainings. This indicates that most students do not know that debaters are the products of rigorous debate trainings. These trainings include not only debating skills but also language skills, in this case English.
The result of the preliminary interview makes me curious to investigate whether or not debaters think that English debates contribute to their English proficiency. It is an uninvestigated idea yet on how debates may contribute to somebody‟s English proficiency. The previous studies upon debates, Wijaya (2007) and Scott (2008) concerned more on the students‟ positive attitude toward
debates and the enhancement of critical thinking through debates for the students. Another study by Chang (2009) investigated the students‟ motivation and study efficacy in competitive English debates. This study found that competitive English debates were needed in educational field because debates improved English skills. These studies showed that studies on debaters‟ perception of English debate contribution to their English proficiency are still not many.
Because of the above reason, this study was conducted to find out: “What is debaters‟ perception of English debate contribution to their English Proficiency?” The results of this study will serve as a reflection for English
4
Wacana Christian University by changing non-ED students‟ mindset of English Debating Society. Moreover, this study is expected to bring insights about good promotion strategies for recruiting team members in order to have regeneration and diversification of the team members. This study is expected to give a pedagogical implication, i.e., debate is an alternative way to improve students‟ English proficiency.
Theoretical Frame work
This section covers two topics which discuss about what English debate is and the benefits of debate practices.
Englis h Debate
Debates refer to orderly process of arguing controversial issues in order to support or go against a stance. Freely and Steinberg (2008) states that debates refer to the process of analyzing and supporting issue to arrive at a reasoned conclusion, which makes individual able to think and therefore convince others‟ to agree with his or her arguments. The more logical the speech is, the more convincing it is to others. This means debates involve reasoned arguments for and against a given motion to achieved rational decision making (Freeley, 1993, as cited in Saraswati, 2010).
5
and British Parliamentary. Those systems basically have the same rules and process in the debates. What makes them different is the number of teams involved and the use of interruption in the debates.
A debate is organized into four phases. The first phase is intended to decide each team‟s position whether a team should support or go against a debate
topic. The second phase is called motion launch. A motion or a debate topic can be either impromptu or prepared motion (Saraswati, 2010). An impromptu motion is a motion which is given right before practices or competitions. On the other hand, a prepared motion is a motion which is given several days before the debate starts. The third phase is known as a motion case building. During a case building, debaters are given some time to prepare their speech. The speech should include many cogent arguments to support debaters‟ logical explanations of a stance whether they are pro or against a particular motion. At this stage, debaters are challenged to be able to think and produce their speeches in short notice (Cunningham et.al, 2007). After the case building, the next phase, which is the debate, is started. The composition of debaters‟ speech basically covers two main parts, which are to deliver arguments and to rebut the opponent‟s case to defend their stance. A debater‟s success is then assessed based on his or her ability to
convince judges of the debate to agree with his or her arguments. Debate practices and their benefits
6
Because of the debate practices, debates are believed to give several benefits for the debaters. As mentioned by McGee and Worth (2001) as cited in Chang (2009, p. 88) the top ten benefits of debate are “speaking/communication skills, analytic/critical skills, social life/meeting people, research skills, knowledge/education, self-esteem/confidence, argumentation skills, traveling, learning about issues, organizational skills and thinking fast.” These benefits result from the thorough process of debate trainings.
One part of debate practices is speech preparation. In preparing a speech, debaters will learn to prepare arguments, state their point of view and rebut others‟ point of view in limited time. In learning constructing arguments, debaters
are required to always update their knowledge by reading books, newspapers, and other good sources of controversial issues which happen around the world. As “argumentation is the communicative process of advancing, supporting,
criticizing, and modifying claims so that appropriate decision makers may grant or deny faithfulness” (Rieke & Silars, 1993, p. 1 ), this knowledge should include the
understanding of both views. This means “to be successful in debate, debaters need to understand both sides of an issue and support their position with evidence” (Rybold, 2006, p. 87). Moreover, updating also means to critically
7
relevant information, determining findings, and communicating effectively” (Paul and Elder 2006) as cited in (Scott, 2009, p. 40). This shows why critical thinking is seen as the most salient benefits of debate generally (Broda-Bahm, et.al 2004)
Apart from those discussed above, case buildings in debates share the same processes as writing. Debate and writing have the same processes in terms of brainstorming, developing, and structuring ideas. Both in debate and writing, people employ their systematic way of thinking as a means of producing either well organized written texts or speeches (Parcher, 1998). To have a well organized text and speech, both writers and debaters need to make outlines. In debates, debaters usually write their arguments in form of outline to help them understand and explain their viewpoint (Rybold, 2006). This suggests that debates teach a debater to be not only an excellent speaker but also a better writer
Besides, in debates, debaters‟ critical thinking is not only used to sort relevant information but also to develop debaters‟ outlines. This critical thinking makes debaters able to make well- elaborated arguments. Moreover, debates require debaters to give logical explanation of the arguments to adjudicators so that debaters will create understandable explanation. This suggests that debate process improves the student's ability to “write effectively, work in teams, and analyze arguments, all of which can improve the ability to think critically” (Dickson, 2004) as cited in (Scott, 2009, p. 41).
8
debaters convey arguments and respond opposite team‟s arguments effectively.
Thus, in a debate, debaters will analyze a problem, by making use of the data they have, and package their arguments in good persuasive speeches (Cunningham, et.al, 2007). By often practicing debates, a debater can be a better speaker in all situation-public and private (Rybold, 2006).
Besides fluency, debates also help debaters improve their communicatio n strategies. Communication strategies are used to overcome the difficulties in explaining ideas in debates. Communication strategies which are usually used are paraphrasing and approximation. Paraphrasing refers to a means of presenting a text, maintaining the same meaning, but using different terms and wording (The Learning Centre, 2007), whereas approximation is to “substitute the desired unknown target language item for a new one, which is assumed to share enough semantic features with it to be correctly interpreted” (Dobao & Martinez, 2007, p.89).
9
Debate practices also improve listening skill. This is because debate practices also provide opportunities to listen to five until seven speakers who deliver their arguments and responses. While listening, debaters should grab main ideas of the opponent‟s arguments to be able to make rebuttals and tackle down the opponent‟s case immediately (Rybold, 2006). This means the listening
activity forces debaters to actively analyze, criticize, or even question what is being said by their opponents. This kind of listening activity is essential in helping debaters to be critical listeners “to achieve the objective of refutation”
(Parcher,1998, p. 5).
Besides all those skills mentioned above, another significant benefit of debate practices is confidence building. Confidence is needed because it helps debaters to deliver their speech persuasively. “Persuasive speakers are believable
because they look, act and sound confidently in the presentation of their message” (Howe, 2005, p. 29). This means when a debater loses his or her confidence, there will be non- fluent speech. Non-fluent speech is “discernible in frequent pauses, repetition, and self-correction” (Hedge, 1993) as cited in (Cribb, 2009, p. 24). When this happens the debater will not be able to convince the judges. Debate practices become the right place to build confidence as they provide opportunities to practice speaking in front of others. These opportunities make debaters familiar with the pressure and atmosphere of public speaking, which will help debaters overcome their fears and develop debaters‟ oral English skills (Rybold, 2006).
10
This section discusses about the context of the study, the participants, the instrument of data collection, and the data analysis.
Context of the study
The setting of this study was the 14T H IVED (Indonesian Varsities English Debate) English debate competition, held on 19-24 January 2011 in Hassanudin University in Makassar. This competition was the first 2011 English competition in Indonesia which was attended by debaters all universities in Indonesia. This competition was selected because its date was within my research time frame. In this competition, English was actively used in oral communication by the debaters both in debate matches and outside the matches.
This competition included a debate seminar which gave participants general rules of the competition, debate matches, and debate‟s adjudication which gave reasons why a debate team won or lost. As English was totally used as a medium of communication and delivery, this competition became an English zone which challenged debaters‟ English proficiency.
Participants
11
participants were non English Department students. This was to suggest the participants‟ English proficiency was not related to their educational background.
[image:10.596.74.532.189.645.2]Employing these criteria, I selected six debaters to be the participants of this research. The detail information of the participants‟ information was displayed in Table 1.
Instruments of data collection
Single interview was chosen as the instrument of data collection so that the participants and I could be more focused in communicating. Besides, this kind of interview created relaxing atmosphere which led the participants to give in depth information and free responses (Seliger & Shohamy, 1989). This single interview was semi structured in nature. It means that there were main questions suc h as questions about personal information and opinion about English debate contribution toward their English proficiency. There were also additional questions used to ask the participants to clarify or elaborate their answers to the main questions.
Procedures of data collection
12
information said by the participants excluding repetition of the same ideas, “overlap and disfluencies” (Bauer & Gaskell, 2000, p. 194).
Data analysis
The data analysis was begun with reading carefully the clean transcription and classifying the participants‟ ideas into several categories. I used content
13 Table 1
Specific information of the participants
No. Name Detail information
1. Participant 1
Partic ipant 1 is a ma le student from Diponegoro University who is studying in Engineering faculty. He has been joining debate for three years. His achievements in English debate competitions are being listed as one of 30 best adjudicators in JOVED and a s e mi finalist IVED ITB. His English learning is through reading books and watching Hollywood movies.
2. Participant 2
Partic ipant 2 is a fe ma le student from Seko lah Tinggi Akuntansi Negara (STAN) in Ja karta. She has been joining debate for more than three years. She learned English subject from e le mentary until senior high school. Her achievements in English debate competitions are being 30 best adjudicator of JOVED 2010 and an octofinalist of IVED 2011.
3. Participant 3
Partic ipant 3 is a ma le student fro m Hassanuddin University Makassar who is studying in Civil Engineering faculty. He has been joining debate for two years. English is his second language at his home. His achievements in English debate competitions are being the octofinalist ALSA UI, the octofinalist of JOVED 2010 and the octofinalist of IVED 4. Participant
4
Partic ipant 4 is a ma le student fro m Institute Managemen Tele ko munikasi (IM TELKOM) who is studying management business. He has been joining debate for a year. He got English exposure through courses in his university. His achievements in English debate competitions are the winner of NUECD Kopertis and the octofinalist of IVED 2011.
5. Participant 5
Partic ipant 5 is a ma le student from At majaya Catholic Un iversity Jaka rta who is studying engineering. He has been joining debate for two years. He got English exposure through reading and watching Hollywood movies. He does not take English courses. His achievements in English debate competitions are being the octofinalist of JOVED, the octofinalist IVED 2010, the quarterfinalist of NUEDC, the quarterfinalist of FEST (Festival Economy STAN), the quarterfinalist of IVED 2011, the quarterfinalist of PRIDE and the 14th best speaker of JA VA 2010. 6. Participant
6
Partic ipant 6 is a fe male student from Ga jah Mada University who is studying psychology. She has been joining debate for more than three years. She learned English subject from ele mentary until senior high school. Her achieve ments in English debate competitions are being the octofinalist of IVED 2011, the quarter finalist in Hongkong debate 2010, one of 30 best adjudicators in JOVED and BIND, the cha mpion of PIMNAS 2009 , and the finalist of IVED 2009.
Findings and Discussions
14
speaking, listening, writing, vocabulary and grammar whereas the non- language skills involved reading habit, critical thinking, and confidence.
Englis h debate contribution to the language skills
In this section, the participants‟ positive perception of English debate‟s
contribution to their language skills was discussed. English debate contribution to speaking skills
All participants responded positively on the question about English debate contribution to their English speaking skill. They mentioned several advantages in speaking English such as in English fluency.
All participants added that English debates helped them improve their speaking ability especially in their English fluency. Participant 2, 3, 4, and 5 stated that their English fluency improved especially in English debates and daily conversation. These participants seemed to be accustomed to using English as they were demanded to always use it in the debates.
“Debate is something which can increase your ability especially in public speaking.” (Participant 2)
“When you are accustomed debating, you have to be accustomed to use English. Precisely in speaking I think through debating I can increase my daily conversation and I can be accustomed to speak in English.”(Participant 3)
15
“Speaking is the most significant benefit because in debate, we speak in English.” (Participant 5)
“I was speaking in debate in seven minutes, and need to order speak in details and clearly because I need to explain order points actually, to make people understand what I am talking so that I learn speaking more clearly, I need to speak slowly but understandable. (Participant 6)
The above finding showed that English debates contributed positively to the participants‟ speaking fluency. Moreover, Participant 4 added that debate
was different from a prepared speech. In prepared speech, he could prepare his speech and even could write everything he was going to say. However, in debate, he could not do the same thing since debates required immediate responses. This condition forced him to speak English.
Since debaters were required to speak English in debates, they had more opportunities to practice speaking English. English debates then made debaters have improvement in their speaking ability both in public such as debates and private such as their daily conversation (Rybold, 2006). English debates facilitated debaters to speak English more fluent through practicing regularly.
Besides the above improvement in speaking, Participant 1 could speak more fluently by bridging the gap between the adjudicators and him. He used one of communication strategies which was approximation in his speech.
16
One participant improved his communication strategy which was approximation. Here, after he joined English debate club he got used to compensate difficulties in explaining his arguments in debate. He usually replaced a difficult word which he did not know with another word which shared a similar meaning.
In debates, debaters would seek for strategies to maintain their speech. For example, the speaker often substituted the desired an unknown target language item for a new one, which was assumed to share enough semantic features with it to be correctly interpreted (Dobao and Martinez, 2007). This strategy was used to bridge the gaps between debaters and listeners in order to make the debaters‟
speech successfully understood.
English debates contribution to listening skills
In debates, debaters should listen to the opponent‟s speeches. This
situation improved all participants‟ listening skill when they debated regularly. The participants below believed that English debates contribute positively to their English listening skills.
“I don‟t have severe problem with listening. I think that there is a lot of progress in my listening.” (Participant 3)
“Listening is improved since in debate, debaters should sensitive to the opponent team [speech]. In debate, not only speaking but also listening should be good.” (Participant 4)
17
“…and then listening[skills][improved] also because I should listen what the case our opponent also what is their rebuttal, so actually it really helps comprehensive listening, so it is really improving.” (Participant 6)
The above responses highlighted that listening to English speeches and critically analyzing what was being listened to, improved all participants‟
listening skills. This suggested that listening in debates was an active one as this skill also required the participants to criticize, question, and challenge others‟
opinion.
Besides the above benefit, debates, moreover, improved TOEFL listening score. It was shown from Participant 2‟s response below.
“The most important thing we learn to listen. I mean like in the senior high, maybe my listening skill is just so-so. After I encounter the debate, I take the TOEFL, the listening skill will be increasing [increased].” (Participant 2)
Participant 2 explained that through debating she succeeded to improve her score in TOEFL listening test. She emphasized that English debates gave her more opportunities to listen to more various English speeches. These data were in line with the theory that states debates are the perfect listening practices (Parcher, 1998).
In addition to the positive perception above, the excerpt below illustrated that Participant 1 improved his listening skill especially in listening to Indonesian people who spoke English.
18
The above response showed that English debate exposure made this participant have wider knowledge that helped him understand and interpret others‟ speech. In the case when he listened to his opponent‟s speech which had
grammatical errors, he could still infer the meaning of the speech. Clearness of speech depended on wider context which could assist listeners to infer the meaning (Esperantic Studies Foundation, 1992).
English debate contribution to writing skills
English debates contributed positively to two participants‟ writing skills.
Participant 2 and Participant 6 said that English debates gave some positive impacts in their writing process.
“Although debating doesn‟t have many [benefits] directly [to] writing but because you [get] used to case build, you used to make the arguments then it [case built] helps a lot when you make paragraph, you make you know, just like story or something like that.” (Participant 2)
“I think it is more on the language matter and also in the technicalities, debating also helps constructing if I need to create a paper for example. Because when we are creating paper, we should manage to structurize, for example what is the background, what is our subject.” (Participant 6)
19
producing English composition such as paragraph, story, and paper. “Debate teaches students a great deal more about organization and arrangement than merely to have an introduction, body and conclusion” (Parcher, 1998, p. 3). This suggested that debates also helped debaters to be good writers.
In contradiction to the positive perceptions above, the participant below responded negatively to English debate contribution to his writing skills.
“Writing will not be good because we are forced to be fast so that we will not care with the grammar.” (Participant 5)
The response above challenged Participant 2 and 6 perceptions of English debate contribution to their writing skills. Participant 5 emphasized that English debates gave no improvement in writing because of limited time in debates. English debates, moreover, created negligence on his grammar which resulted negatively to his writing. Furthermore, Participant 1, 3, and 4 did not give
explanation on writing skills.
English debate contribution to vocabulary
English debates contributed positively to Participant 2, 3, 5, 6‟s English
vocabulary enhancement. The excerpts below showed how these participants got enhancement in English vocabulary because of English debates.
“Our manner is not usual at first we join the debate maybe it‟s just a simple vocabulary but after joining debate itself, we make like sophisticated vocabulary, maybe only in debating world we used it.” (Participant 2)
20
than using the common words that we use.” (Participant 3)
“There is a significant improvement…vocabulary…” (Participant 4)
“The vocabulary will be increased since we are
searching for matter and the words will be often used in debate” (Participant 5)
“In vocabulary, I got lots of more words because you know, when I join this, I do not understand the word „justification‟, also several key words appear in debate. If I do not join debate may I will not know the meaning.” (Participant 6)
Participants 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 stated that they got a wider range of vocabulary since they were forced to understand and use specific terms in their speeches. The specific terms were technical jargons in debate and terms in politics, economy, gender, education, and etc which were often not related to the debaters‟ educational background. This specific term was helpful to make debaters understand opponent‟s language (Meany & Shuster, 2003)
On the other hand, there was a negative perception on English debate contribution to his English vocabulary.
“I do not think it [vocabulary] will improve much but I believe that there is some improvements even if that is small. In terms of searching for motion, I get the motion that not familiar. Some kind of word can be a unique word in gender equality. But it is not really significant.” (Participant 1)
The excerpt above highlighted that English debate did not contribute a lot to Participant 1‟s English vocabulary. Even if he got new vocabulary when he
21
English debates did not improve Participant 1, 3, 4, and 5‟s English grammar. The excerpt below showed the negative these participants‟ negative
perceptions.
“In term of grammar I do not really can measure it. Even now, I do not, I cannot recognize which one is past tense, which one is past continuous, and staff like that.” (Participant 1)
”Grammar is precisely how I structurize my words that makes it more comprehensible.” (Participant 3)
”Grammar is impossible to improve. Debates will not contribute significantly because conversation does not need grammar.” (Participant 4)
”Writing will not be good because we are forced to be fast so that we will not care with the grammar.” (Participant 5)
The explanations from four participants above showed that English debates did not require them to speak in correct English grammar which then improved nothing in debaters‟ grammar. Even if Participant 3 seemed to give
positive perception to his grammar but the grammar he meant here referred to the structure of words only. Furthermore, two other participants did not give explanation on the grammar aspect.
Englis h debate contribution to non-language area
Improvements in non- language area involved fostering reading habit, improvement of critical thinking, and building confidence.
English debates contribution to reading habits
Reading habit of Participant 2 and 6 was improved by joining English debates. This reading habit referred to habit in reading English text. It could be
22
“I mean like directly or not, we are also force to love to read the matters itself.” (Participant 2)
“I need to search matters, I should always read newspaper like Economist, Times and or the material in internet and usually the most matter- full one is English. I tend to read more and more.” (Participant 6)
Participant 2 and 6 explained that they were forced to read English texts from various sources like newspaper and articles in internet. Participant 6 explained that she gave an example of newspaper titled Economist to show that good sources were usually found in English. To be successful in debate, debaters needed to understand both sides of an issue and supported their position with evidence. Evidences could be found in both print and electronic sources (Rybold, 2006). Therefore, debaters should learn search for the information quickly. That was why the participants were accustomed to reading more English sources. However, Participant 1, 3, 4, and 5 did not relate reading habit to English debate contribution. This meant that only two participants whic h felt this improvement in reading habit.
English debates contribution to critical thinking
Four participants believe that their critical thinking was improved because of English debates. They defined the critical thinking as thinking deeper of knowledge. In other words, critical thinking could be defined as being critical in certain topic or situation in order to be able to produce opinions about the issue. The quotation below proved how debate‟s contribution to Participant 1, 3, 4‟s
critical thinking.
23
“Debate is important, precisely when it comes to the situation. Having critical thinking in solving a problem” (Participant 3)
“Debate is thinking critically about knowledge. It is not a general knowledge but thinking deeper of that knowledge.” (Participant 4)
The data showed that debates required participants to involve their critical thinking skill in debates. This meant by often debating, debaters had more opportunities to criticize, analyze, and question arguments. Debaters also learned to solve problem implied from motions. This condition made participants‟ critical
thinking improved.
In addition to the above critical thinking improvement, the excerpt of Participant 2 below showed how English debate contributed to the content of her daily conversation.
“...before I joined debate maybe I just speak English like usual. I mean like ordinary things that I talked but after joining debate, it more have content, such as the knowledge itself and how to link one argument with another, not empty as before.”(Participant 2)
24
conversation to others. Unfortunately, the critical thinking improvement was not responded by Participant 5 and six which I assumed this improvement was not really significant for them.
English debate contribution to confidence
The last data analysis was on how English debates contributed to participants‟ confidence to speak in public. Participant 1, 5, and 6 responded positively on English debate contribution to their confidence.
“It will improve our confidence. If you happened to speak something sophisticated why you cannot say something simple like daily conversation and explain your activity.“ (Participant 1)
“The most significant benefit is confident in speaking English.” (Participant 5)
“Before join debate I was less confident to talk to people especially in front of people then after join debate I have confidence more.” (Participant 6)
Debates required the participants to speak persuasively and confidently to deliver their arguments to the adjudicators. By joining debates, debaters could make use chances to speak in front of others to impro ve their confidence. In debates, debaters would be familiar with pressure of public speaking. Debates facilitated confidence and eliminated the communication apprehension which made debaters‟ speeches successfully understood (Parcher, 1998). This
improvement, unfortunately, was not added by Participant 2, 3, 4 whether their confidence was influenced or not by their joining English debates.
25
This study investigated the debaters‟ perception on English debate contribution to their English proficiency. This study challenged the common belief that English debate was burdening and was also intended to English Department students only. This study mostly proved that debates improve English language skills, which were speaking, listening, and writing since the participants should organize their thought, speak persuasively, and listen to opponent‟s arguments.
Moreover, debates required debaters to read more English texts which foster debaters‟ reading habit as well as debaters‟ understanding of many specific terms
in politics, economy, education and etc.
This study also found that debates improved critical thinking and building confidence. Debates forced the participants to critically analyze and solve problems implied from the motions. Besides, as debates were conducted in front of others, debates trained the participants to be accustomed to speaking in front of others which made more fluent and familiar with the pressure of public speaking. These explained how the participants improved their critical think ing and built their confidence in speaking English.
However, the finding of this study also suggested, grammar, which is one aspect of English proficiency, was not considered improving since four participants highlighted grammar aspect did not improve. Further studies can be conducted to investigate why grammar cannot be improved.
26
particularly those encouraging students to use English. Debates are good ways to accommodate English language skills. This study shares the same conclusion that English debates can be seen as important activities in educational field regarding its benefit in improving English skills (Chang, 2009).
There are two suggestions proposed in this study. First, teachers can add more debate activities in classroom such as Academic reading class or others. It can be done by modifying group discussions. Instead of merely asking students to discuss a problem, teachers can divide the class into two teams, each of which is asked to support or go against a topic. The more important thing here is students learn to construct, deliver, and defend arguments. Further studies can be conducted in this area to investigate whether or not debates can improve English skills.
Second suggestion is intended for those involve in debates, especially English Debating Society members to promote English debating society for all students in all faculties in Satya Wacana Christian University. Instead of holding debate exhibition or debate seminars, debate team members can hold sharing activity to show the benefits of debates. In this activity, debate team members can invite good debaters who are not English Department students to share their experience which highlights debates contribute to their English fluency.
In conclusion, debates contribute positively to debaters‟ English
27
28
References
Bauer, M. W. & Gaskell, G. (2000). Qualitative researching with text, image,
and sound. London: SAGE publications. Retrieved November 20,
2011 from
http://books.google.co.id/books?id=UQewQ4FzHowC&printsec=fr ontcover&hl=id&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage
&q&f=false
Broda-Bahm, K. T., Kempf, K., & Driscoll, W. J. (2004). Argument and
audience: presenting debates in public settings. New York: The
International Debate Education Association. Retrieved May 8, 2011 from
http://books.google.co.id/books?id=CkiLXLYlZAAC&printsec=fr ontcover&hl=id&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage
&q&f=false
Chang, S. (2009). Taiwanese high school students‟ participation in competitive English debate: A motivation and efficacy study.
English Teaching & Learning.Retrieved March 29, 2011 from
http://ir.lib.ntnu.edu.tw/retrieve/58596/ntnulib_ja_B0201_3304_08 5.pdf
Cribb, M. (2009). Discourse and the non-native English speaker. Amherst, NY: Cambria Press. Retrieved May 29, 2011 from
http://books.google.co.id/books?id=UiqbSvxPZ_gC&printsec=fron tcover&hl=id&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q
&f=false
Cunningham, et. all. (2007). Limited Preparation Debate At Idea Forum
2007: How to use your thirty minutes most effectively. Idea Forum
2007
Dobao, A. M. F., & Martinez, I. M. F. (2007). Negotiating meaning in interaction between English and Spanish speakers via
communicative strategies. Atlantis Journal. Vol 29.1(87-105. Retrieved November 19, 2011 from
http://www.atlantisjournal.org/ARCHIVE/29.1/2007FernandezDob
ao_PalaciosMartinez.pdf
Esperantic Studies Foundation. (1992). Esperanto and education:
toward a research agenda. Esperanto Studies and Interlinguistics.
Retrieved June 8,2011from
29
Freeley, A. J., & Steinberg, D. L. (2008). Argumentation and debate: Critical
thinking for reasoned decision making, 12th ed. United States:
Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Retrieved June 4, 2011 from
http://books.google.co.id/books?id=ZR6RxPGlOgQC&printsec=fr ontcover&dq=argumentation+and+debates+:+critical+thinking+for +reasoned+decision+making&h
Howe, B. M. (2005). An introduction English language debate in Asia. Seoul, Korea: Ehwa Womans University Press. Retrieved May 8, 2011 from
http://books.google.co.id/books?id=71bqd5SsLBQC&printsec=fro ntcover&hl=id&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&
q&f=false
Lynch, B. K. (1996). Language program evaluation: theory and practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Meany, J. & Shuster, K. (2003). On that point: An introduction to
parliamentary debate. New York, NY: International Debate
Education Association. Retrieved September 19, 2011 from
http://books.google.co.id/books?id=pNIXmpxoSskC&printsec=fr ontcover&hl=id&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepag
e&q&f=false
McKay, S. L. (2006). Researching second language classrooms. Mahwah, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Retrieved May 11, 2011 from http://books.google.co.id/books?id=vTL9tk6FxkYC&printsec=fron tcover&dq=Researching+second+language+classrooms.&hl=id&ei =_ZIJT6mbIsvJrAeLicC4Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=1&ved=0CDEQ6wEwAA#v=onepage&q=Res earching%20second%20language%20classrooms.&f=false
Parcher, J. (1998). The Value of Debate: Adapted from the Report of the Philodemic Debate Society. Georgetown: Georgetown University. Retrieved June 20, 2011 from
http://www.debateleaders.org/The%20Value%20of%20Debate.htm
Rieke, R. D., & Sillars, M. O. (1993). Argumentation and Critical Decision
Making, 3rd ed. New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.
Rybold, G. (2006). Speaking, Listening, and Understanding: Debate for
non-native English speakers. IDEBATE PRESS: Southport, United
Kingdom. Retrieved March 3, 2011 from
http://books.google.co.id/books?id=J_rWosO0XgcC&printsec=fro ntcover&hl=id&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&
30
Saraswati, S. (2010). Difficulties in constructing arguments in debating: a
case study. Salatiga: Universitas Kriten Satya Wacana
Scott, S. (2008). Perceptions of students‟ learning critical thinking through debate in a technology classroom: A case study. The Journal of
Technology Studies.(39-44). Retrieved May 10,2011 from
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JOTS/v34/v34n1/pdf/scott.pdf
Sliger, H.W., & Shohamy, E. (1989). Second language research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved March 30, 2011 from
http://books.google.co.id/books/about/Second_language_research_ methods.html?id=zhDeTQthwb0C&redir_esc=y
The Learning Center. (2007). Paraphrasing, summarizing, and quoting. South Wales: University of South Wales. Retrieved May 3, 2011 from http://www.lc.unsw.edu.au/onlib/pdf/paraquo.pdf
Wallace, J. M. (2006). Action research for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wijaya, H. (2007). The attitude of students from the faculty of language and literature Satya Wacana Christian University toward debate
