THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CLASSROOM DEBATE TO IMPROVE

ii ii ii ii ii ii

ii STUDENTS’ SPEAKING SKILL

ii ii

(A iiQuasi-Experimental iiStudy iiat iithe iiEleventh iiYear iiStudents iiof iiSMAN ii3 iiSouth
iiTangerang)

SITI NURAENI ii

109014000104

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH EDUCATION ii ii ii

ii FACULTY OF TARBIYAH AND TEACHERS’

ii ii ii ii

ii TRAINING
‘SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH’ STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY
ii ii ii ii

ii JAKARTA 2014 ii
 THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CLASSROOM DEBATE TO IMPROVE
ii ii ii ii ii ii

ii STUDENTS’ SPEAKING SKILL ii ii

(A iiQuasi-Experimental iiStudy iiat iithe iiEleventh iiYear iiStudents iiof iiSMAN ii3 iiSouth
iiTangerang)

A iiSkripsi
Presented iito iithe iiFaculty iiof iiTarbiyah iiand iiTeachers’ iiTraining
in iiPartial iiFulfillment iiof iithe iiRequirements iifor iithe iiDegree iiof
ii Strata-1 ii(Bachelor iiof iiArt) iiin iithe iiDepartment iiof iiEnglish
ii Education

By:
SITI NURAENI ii

109014000104

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH EDUCATION ii ii ii

ii FACULTY OF TARBIYAH AND TEACHERS’

ii ii ii ii

ii TRAINING
‘SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH’ STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY
ii ii ii ii

ii JAKARTA 2014 ii
 ABSTRACT

Nuraeni, iiSiti ii(109014000104). iiThe iiEffectiveness iiof iiClassroom iiDebate iito

iiImprove iiStudents’ iiSpeaking iiSkill ii(A iiQuasi-Experimental iiStudy iiat iithe

iiEleventh iiYear iiStudents iiof iiSMAN ii3 iiSouth iiTangerang). iiSkripsi, iiDepartment iiof

iiEnglish iiEducation, iiFaculty iiof iiTarbiyah iiand iiTeachers’ iiTraining, iiSyarif

iiHidayatullah iiState iiIslamic iiUniversity iiJakarta, ii2014.

This iiresearch iiwas iiaimed iito iisee iithe iieffectiveness iiof iiclassroom iidebate iito
iiimprove iistudents’ iispeaking iiskill. iiThe iisamples iiwere iithe iieleventh iiyear iistudents

iiof iiSMAN ii3 iiSouth iiTangerang iiwith ii28 iistudents iifor iieach iiclass. iiThe iistudents iiof

iiXI iiIPA6 iiwere iias iithe iicontrol iiclass iiand iiXI iiIPA5 iias iithe iiexperimental iiclass. iiThe

iieffectiveness iiof iiclassroom iidebate iican iibe iiseen iifrom iithe iistudents’ iispeaking

iiscores.

The iiwriter iiused iiquantitative iimethod iiand iiquasi-experimental iidesign iias

iithe iiresearch iimethodology iiwith iiconvenience iisampling iias iithe iisampling

iitechnique. iiThe iiresearch iiinstrument iiwas iian iioral iitest iithat iiused iirubric iiof ii‘The

iiStudents iiOral iiLanguage iiObservation iiMatrix ii(SOLOM)’ iito iiscore iithe

iistudents’speaking iiskill.

The iiresult iiof iithis iiresearch iiwas iishown iiby iithe iistatistical iihypothesis iitest
iithat iifound iion iisignificance iilevel ii5%, iitvalue iiwas ii4.37 iiand iittable iiwas ii1.68 iiso iitvalue

ii> iittable. iiThus, iithe iiH0 iiwas iirejected iiand iithe iiH1 iiwas iiaccepted iithat iimeans iithere

iiwas iia iisignificant iidifference iiin iithe iimain iigains iibetween iithe iistudents’ iispeaking

iiscore iitought iiby iiclassroom iidebate iiand iistudents iitaught iiwithout iiit. iiThe

iiimplementation iiof iiclassroom iidebate iiincreased iithe iistudents’ iispeaking iiscores iiso

iithere iiwas iia iipositive iieffect iiof iiclassroom iidebate iitowards iithe iistudents’ iispeaking

iiskill. iiClassroom iidebate iiis iieffective iitowards iistudents’ iispeaking iiskill.

.
Keywords: iiClassroom iiDebate, iiSpeaking iiSkill.

iv
 ABSTRAK

Nuraeni, iiSiti ii(109014000104). iiKeefektifan iiDebat iiKelas iiuntuk

iiMeningkatkan iiKemampuan iiBerbicara iiSiswa ii(Penelitian iiKuasi-Experimen

iiterhadap iiSiswa iiKelas iiSebelas iiSMAN ii3 iiTangerang iiSelatan). iiSkripsi iijurusan

iiPendidikan iiBahasa iiInggris, iiFakultas iiTarbiyah iidan iiKeguruan, iiUniversitas iiIslam

iiNegeri iiSyarif iiHidayatullah iiJakarta, ii2014.

Penelitian iiini iibertujuan iiuntuk iimelihat iikeefektifan iidebat iikelas iiuntuk

iimeningkatkan iikemampuan iiberbicara iisiswa. iiSample iipenelitian iiini iiadalah iisiswa

iikelas iisebelas iiSMAN ii3 iiTangerang iiSelatan iidengan iijumlah ii28 iisiswa iisetiap

iikelasnya. iiSiswa iikelas iiXI iiIPA6 iisebagai iikelas iikontrol iidan iiXI iiIPA5 iisebagai

iikelas iieksperimen. iiKeefektifan iidebat iikelas iidapat iidilihat iidari iinilai iikompetensi

iiberbicara iibahasa iiInggris iisiswa.

Penulis iimenggunakan iimetode iikuantitatif iidan iidisain iikuasi-eksperimen

iisebagai iimetode iipenelitiannya iidengan iiconvenience iisampling iisebagai iiteknik

iipengambilan iisample. iiInstrumen iipenelitian iiini iiadalah iites iilisan iiyang

iimenggunakan iirubrik iiThe iiStudents iiOral iiLanguage iiObservation iiMatrix

ii(SOLOM) iiuntuk iimenilai iikompetensi iiberbicara iibahasa iiInggris iisiswa.

Hasil iipenelitian iiini iiditunjukan iioleh iipenghitungan iites iihipotesis iistatistik

iidimana iipada iisignifikasi ii5%, iitvalue iiyaitu ii4.37 iidan iittable iiyaitu ii1.68 iisehingga iitvalue

ii> iittable. iiOleh iikarena iiitu, iiH0 iiditolak iidan iiH1 iiditerima iiyang iiberarti iibahwa

iiterdapat iiperbedaan iisigifikan iipada iipencapaian iinilai iikompetensi iiberbicara iibahasa

iiInggris iisiswa iiyang iimendapat iiperlakuan iidebat iikelas iidan iitidak iimendapat

iiperlakuan iidebat iikelas. iiPenerapan iidebat iikelas iidapat iimeningkatkan iinilai

iikompetensi iiberbicara iibahasa iiInggris iisiswa iisehingga iiterdapat iiefek iipositif iidari

iidebat iikelas iiterhadap iikemampuan iiberbicara iisiswa. iiDebat iikelas iiterbukti iiefektif

iiterhadap iikemapuan iiberbicara iisiswa.

Kata iikunci: iiDebate iiKelas, iiKemampuan iiBerbicara

v
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

In iithe iiname iiof iiAllah, iiThe iiBeneficent iiand iiThe

iiMerciful

All iipraises iibe iito iiAllah iifor iithe iiblessing, iithe iistrength, iiand iithe iiguidance
ii given iito iithe iiwriter iiin iicompletion iithis iiresearch. iipeace iiand iiblessing iibe iiupon iito iithe
ii prophet iiMuhammad iiSAW, iihis iifamily, iihis iicompanion, iiand iihis iiadherence.
It iiis iian iihonor iithat iithe iiwriter iicould iifinally iiaccomplish iia iiskripsi iientitled
ii “The iiEffectiveness iiof iiDebate iito iiImprove iiStudents’ iiSpeaking iiSkill ii(A iiQuasi-
Experimental iiStudy iiat iithe iiEleventh iiYear iiStudents iiof iiSMAN ii3 iiSouth iiTangerang)”.
ii She iidedicated iithis iiskripsi iito iiher iibeloved iiparents iiand iisisters iifor iithe iieternal iilove,
ii pray iiand iisupport. iiFurthermore, iithe iiwriter iiwould iiparticularly iithank iito iiher
ii wonderful iiadvisors iiDr. iiFahriany, iiM.Pd. iiand iiZaharil iiAnasy, iiM.Hum, iifor iithe
ii guidance, iipatience, iiknowledge, iiand iimotivation iiin iihelping iithe iiwriter iito iiaccomplish
ii this iiskripsi. iiIn iithis iioccasion, iithe iiwriter iiwould iilike iito iigive iithe iideepest iigratitude
ii and iisalute iito:
1. Dra. iiNurlena iiRifa’i, iiMA, iiP.hD. iias iithe iiDean iiof iiFaculty iiof iiTarbiyah iiand
ii Teachers iiTraining iiSyarif iiHidayatullah iiState iiIslamic iiUniversity iiJakarta.
2. The iiHead iiof iiDepartment iiof iiEnglish iiEducation, iiDrs. iiSyauki, iiM.Pd. iiand iithe
ii Secretary iiof iiDepartment iiof iiEnglish iiEducation, iiZaharil iiAnasy, iiM.Hum.
3. All iilectures iiin iiDepartment iiof iiEnglish iiEducation iifor iithe iiprecious iiknowledge,
ii motivation, iiand iipatience iiduring iithe iiwriter’s iistudy.
4. The iiHeadmaster iiof iiSMAN ii3 iiSouth iiTangerang iiwho iihas iigiven iipermission iiof
ii doing iiresearch iiat iithe iischool, iiMrs. iiTati iiErayati, iiM. iiPd. iias iithe iiEnglish iiteacher
ii who iihas iigiven iipermission iiand iihelped iito iithe iiwriter iiin iiconducting iia iiresearch iiin
ii her iiclasses, iiand iithe iistudents iiof iiXI iiIPA5 iiand iiXI iiIPA6 iias iithe iiobjects iiof
ii research iiwho iihave iibeen iivery iibrilliant.

vi
5. Mr. iiJuwarso ii(beloved iifather) iiand iiMrs. iiSetianingrum ii(beloved iimother) iiwho
ii always iipray iithe iibest, iidevote iian iieverlasting iilove, iigive iipriceless iimotivation,
ii wonderful iistrenght iiand iitrust iito iithe iiwriter. iiYou iiare iithe iireason iiof iimy iilife.
6. Families, iiespecially iithe iiwriter’s iilovely iiyounger iisisters, iiSiti iiAmaliyah iiand iiRizki
ii Mubarokah, iiwho iialways iibe iithe iireason iiof iithe iiwriter’s iistruggle. iiIn iiaddition,
ii special iithanks iito iiMr. iiJarukhi, iiMr. iiSahuri, iiMr. iiSuhaji, iiMr. iiWaridin ii(beloved
ii uncles), ii iiMrs. iiWaimah, iiMrs. iiSubiah ii(beloved iigrandmothers), iiand iiMr. iiKusen,
ii Mr. ii iiDulmuin ii(beloved iigrandfathers).
7. All iiof iilovely iifriends iiof ii“C4C ii(Class iiof iiPBI iiC ii2009)” iiin iiDepartment iiof iiEnglish
ii Education, iithanks iifor iisharing iithe iilovable iimoments iiboth iiin iisadness iiand ii

ii happiness. iiMy iispecial iiwarm iithanks iito iiArief iiRahman iiand iiViona iiRosalina iiwho
ii have iibecome iithe iibest iifriends iiever.
8. The iibig iifamily iiof iiUKM iiBAHASA-FLAT iiUIN iiJakarta iiespecially iifor iithe
ii committee iiboard iiof ii2013-2014 iiwho iihave iibeen iithe iisecond iifamily iiof iithe iiwriter.
ii FLAT iiis iione iiof iithe iibest iiparts iiof iiher iilife.
9. To iianyone iiwho iigives iicontribution iito iithe iiwriter iithat iicannot iibe iimentioned iione
ii by iione.
Finally iithe iiwriter iitruly iirealizes iithat iithis iiskripsi iicannot iibe iiconsidered iias iia
ii perfect iimasterpiece. iiTherefore, iiit iiis iian iihonor iifor iiher iito iiget iisuggestion iiand
ii criticism iifor iigood.

Jakarta, iiJuly ii7th ii2014

Siti iiNuraeni

vii
 TABLE OF CONTENT
ii ii

APPROVAL iiLETTER.......................................................................................i
ENDORSEMENT iiSHEET.................................................................................ii
CERTIFICATION iiOF iiORIGINALITY...........................................................iii
ABSTRACT.........................................................................................................iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT..................................................................................vi
TABLE iiOF iiCONTENT.....................................................................................viii
LIST iiOF iiTABLES.............................................................................................x
LIST iiOF iiFIGURES...........................................................................................xi
LIST iiOF iiAPPENDICES....................................................................................xii

CHAPTER iiI INTRODUCTION

A. Background iiof iithe iiStudy.................................................1
B. Identification iiof iithe iiProblem...........................................4
C. Limitation iiof iithe iiProblem................................................4
D. Formulation iiof iithe iiProblem.............................................4
E. Objective iiof iithe iiStudy.....................................................5
F. Significance iiof iithe iiStudy.................................................5

CHAPTER iiII THEORETICAL iiFRAMEWORK

A. Classroom iiDebate.............................................................6
1. The iiUnderstanding iiof iiClassroom iiDebate..................6
2. The iiObjective iiof iiClassroom iiDebate..........................8
3. The iiComponents iiof iiClassroom iiDebate.....................10
4. Format iiand iiSteps iito iiRun iiClassroom iiDebate............14
5. Rules iiof iiClassroom iiDebate 17
B. Speaking...................................19
1. The iiUnderstanding iiof iiSpeaking................................20
2. The iiObjectives iiof iiSpeaking.......................................22
viii
 3. The iiElements iiof iiSpeaking.........................................22
4. Teaching iiSpeaking iiand iiSpeaking iiActivities iiin iithe
ii Classroom..................................................................23
5. Types iiof iiSpeaking iiTest..............................................25
6. Scoring iiSpeaking iiTest. 28
C. Relevant iiStudy.........................33
D. Conceptual iiFramework....................................................34
E. Hypothesis........................................................................35

CHAPTER iiIII RESEARCH iiMETHODOLOGY

A. Place iiand iiTime iiof iithe iiStudy...........................................36
B. Method iiand iiResearch iiDesign..........................................36
C. The iiPopulation iiand iiSample.............................................37
D. The iiResearch iiIntrument...................................................37
E. The iiTechniques iiof iiData iiCollecting.................................43
F. The iiTechniques iiof iiData iiAnalysis....................................45

CHAPTER iiIV RESEARCH iiFINDINGS

A. The iiData iiDescription.......................................................49
B. The iiData iiAnalysis............................................................57
C. Discussion.........................................................................67

CHAPTER iiV CONCLUSION iiAND iiSUGGESTION

A. Conclusion........................................................................71
B. Suggestion.........................................................................72

BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................................................................73
APPENDICES......................................................................................................76

ix
 LIST OF TABLES
ii ii

Table ii2.1 The iiNational iiCertificate iiDescriptive iiScale ii.............................. 29

Table ii2.2 The iiStudents iiOral iiLanguage iiObservation iiMatrix ii(SOLOM) 31
ii..

Table ii3.1 Blueprint iiof iithe iiResearch iiInstrument....................................... 39

Table ii4.1 The iiAverage iiScore iiof iiFive iiSpeaking iiComponents iiof
Experimental iiClass................................................................... 52
Table ii4.2 The iiFinal iiScore iiof iiPre-test iiand iiPost-test iiof iiExperimental
iiClass

.................................................................................................. 53
Table ii4.3 The iiAverage iiScore iiof iiFive iiSpeaking iiComponents iiof iiControl
Class ii......................................................................................... 55
Table ii4.4 The iiFinal iiScore iiof iiPre-test iiand iiPost-test iiof iiControl iiCLass 56
ii....

Table ii4.5 The iiFrequency iiDistribution iiof iiPre-test iiScore iiof

iiExperimental

Class ii......................................................................................... 57
Table ii4.6 The iiFrequency iiDistribution iiof iiPre-test iiScore iiof iiControl
iiClass

.................................................................................................. 59
Table ii4.7 The iiFrequency iiDistribution iiof iiPost-test iiScore iiof
iiExperimental

Class ii......................................................................................... 60
Table ii4.8 The iiFrequency iiDistribution iiof iiPost-test iiScore iiof iiControl
iiClass

.................................................................................................. 62
Table ii4.9 The iiNormality iiTest iiof iiPre-test ii................................................. 63
Table ii4.10 The iiNormality iiTest iiof iiPost-test ii............................................... 64
Table ii4.11 The iiHomogenity iiTest iiof iiPre-test ii............................................. 64
Table ii4.12 The iiHomogenity iiTest iiof iiPost-test............................................ 65
Table ii4.13 The iiResult iiof iiStatistical iiHypothesis iiof iiPost-test iiof
ii Experimental iiClass iiand iiControl iiClass......................................66
x
 LIST OF FIGURES
ii ii

Figure ii2.1 The iiPhysical iiLayout iiof iiClassroom iiDebate 10

ii..............................

Figure ii2.2 The iiFormat iiof iiClassrom iiDebate 15

ii..............................................

Figure ii4.1 The iiDiagram iiof iiFrequency iiDistribution iiof iiPre-test iiScore iifor
Experimental iiClass ii.................................................................. 58
Figure ii4.2 The iiDiagram iiof iiFrequency iiDistribution iiof iiPre-test iiScore iifor
Control iiClass ii............................................................................ 59
Figure ii4.3 The iiDiagram iiof iiFrequency iiDistribution iiof iiPost-test iiScore
iifor

Experimental iiClass................................................................... 61
Figure ii4.4 The iiDiagram iiof iiFrequency iiDistribution iiof iiPost-test iiScore
iifor

Control iiClass ii............................................................................ 62

xi
 LIST OF APPENDICES
ii ii

Appendix ii1 The iiStudents iiOral iiLanguage iiObservation iiMatrix ii(SOLOM) ii..
ii 76 iiAppendix ii2 The iiStudents’ iiScores..................................................................78
Appendix ii3 The iiFrequency iiDistribution iiCalculation iiof iiPre-test..................92
Appendix ii4 The iiFrequency iiDistribution iiCalculation iiof iiPost-test................96
Appendix ii5 The iiNormality iiof iiPre-test.........................................................100
Appendix ii6 The iiNormality iiof iiPost-test.......................................................103
Appendix ii7 The iiHomogenity iiof iiPre-test.....................................................106
Appendix ii8 The iiHomogenity iiof iiPost-test....................................................108
Appendix ii9 The iiStatistical iiHypothesis iiTest iiCalculation............................110
Appendix ii10 The iiInstrument iiof iiPre-test iiand iiPost-test.................................113

xii
 CHAPTER I ii

ii INTRODUCTIO
N

A. The Background of the Study

ii ii ii ii

English iihas iibecome iithe iimost iicommon iiforeign iilanguage iiused iifor
ii communication iiamong iipeople iiwho iido iinot iispeak iithe iisame iifirst iilanguage.
ii According iito iiAnderson, iiMaclean iiand iiLynch iithat ii“English iiis iinow iiby iifar iithe
ii most iifrequently iiused iilanguage iiin iiInternational iiconference. iiIncreasingly, iiit iiis
ii the iionly iiofficial iilanguage.”1 iiIt iimeans iithat iiEnglish iiis iiimportant iito iilearn iibecause
ii it iiis iivery iineeded iias iithe iimedium iiof iicommunication. iiLearning iiEnglish iiwill
ii facilitate iipeople iito iiget iithrough iithe iiworld iiinformation. iiIn iiorder iito iiparticipate iiin
ii international iicommunnities, iithe iineed iiof iiEnglish iilearning iihas iiincreased iiin iimany
ii countries iiincluded iiin iiIndonesia. iiThat iiis iiwhy iiEnglish iihas iibeen iitaught iias iia
ii compulsory iisubject iiof iieducation iilevel iiin iiIndonesia
In iiEnglish iilearning, iistudents iihave iito iimaster iifour iilanguage iiskills. iiThose ii
ii are iilistening, iispeaking, iireading iiand iiwriting. iiThe iifour iiskills iiare iiimportant iibut
ii speaking iiseems iiintuitively iithe iimost iiimportant iione iibecause iispeaking iiskill
ii represents iia iireal iichallenge iito iimost iilanguage iilearners.2 iiSpeaking iiskill iiserves iithe
ii students iito iibe iiable iito iicommuicate iitheir iiopinion, iifeeling iiand iiexpression iiwith iino
ii limitation iiof iidifferent iinative iilanguage, iiculture iior iicountry. iiStudents iican iiexpress
ii themselves iiand iilearn iihow iito iifollow iisocial iiand iicultural iirules iiappropriate iiin iiany
ii communicative iicircumstance. iiIn iiaddition, iithey iican iiprepare iithemselves iito iigain
ii more iichallange iifor iiapplying iibetter iijob, iienrolling iicompetitive iiuniversity, iior
ii participating iiin iiinternational iicommunities. iiBy iithose iireasons, iithe iiwriter
ii assumed iithat iispeaking iiis iicrucial iifor iiEnglish iilearning.
Students iilike iito iievaluate iitheir iiEnglish iiability iias iithey iisee iihow iiwell iithey
ii improve iitheir iispoken iiproficiency. iiThe iicondition iiis iirelated iito i i the iiobjective iiof

1 ii
Kenneth iiAnderson, iiJoan iiMaclean iiand iiTony iiLynch, iiStudy iiSpeaking iiA iicourse iiis
iiSpoken iiEnglish iifor iiAcademic iiPurposes ii(Second iiEdition), ii(Cambridge: iiCambridge iiUniversity
iiPress, ii2004), iip. ii18
2 ii
Scott iiThornbury, iiHow iito iiTeach iiSpeaking, ii(Edinburgh iiGate: iiPearson iiEducation
iiLimited, ii2005), iip. iiiv
1
 2

English iilearning iifor iistudents. iiThe iiobejctives iiof iiEnglish iilearning iiin iiIndonesia
iiis iibased iion iicurriculum iiof iiKTSP ii2006 ii(Kurikulum iiTingkat iiSatuan
iiPendidikan). iiThe iiobjective iiof iiEnglish iilearning iiis iistated iion iicompetence
iistandard iiand iibased iicompetence iiof iiKTSP. iiOne iiof iilearning iiobjectives iiof
iiEnglish iisubject iiin iiKTSP iiis iito iiimprove iicommunicative iicompetence iiincluding
iispoken iicommunication.3 iiIt iimeans iithat iispeaking iiskill iiis iineeded iito iimeasure
iistudents’ iiability iifor iiEnglish iisubject. iiThe iiobjectives iiof iispeaking iiskill iifor
iisenior iihigh iischool iican iibe iiseen iiat iithe iiindicators iiof iiEnglish iisyllabus. iiBased
iion iithe iiEnglish iisyllabus, iithe iiobjectives iiof iispeaking iiskills iiare iienabling
iistudents iiin:
1. Using iiand iiresponding iiexpressing iiof iiattitude, iilove, iisadness,
ii embarassment, iianger.
2. Identifying iiand iiresponding iiexpressiong iiof iiannoyance.
3. Using iipast iicontinous iitense iiin iiextending iinarrative iiand iispoof.
4. Doing iimonolog iiin iinarrative iiform.
5. Using iimodals iiauxiliaries ii“should” iiin iigiving iisuggestion.
6. Debating.4
The iiobjectives iiabove iiallow iistudents iito iilearn iiexpressing iiof iiattitude, iilove,
ii sadness, iiembarassment, iianger, iiannoyance, iifunctional iitexts iiin iitheir iidaily
ii conversation, iiand iidebating.
Based iion iithe iiwriter’s iiexperience iiin iiteaching iisenior iihigh iischool, iithe
ii writer iifound iithat iistudents iihave iiproblem iito iilearn iiEnglish iisubject. iiEspecially iifor
ii speaking iiskill, iistudents iihave iiproblem iiin iiperforming iispeech. iiBecause iimost iiof
ii students iishow iiless iiscores iifor iispeaking, iiit iiis iiimportant iito iifix iithe iiproblem. iiThe
ii writer iiclassified iithe iiproblem iiinto iipronunciation, iigrammar, iivocabulary, iifluency,
ii and iicomprehension iibecause iithose iiare iiindicators iiof iiassessing iispeaking iibased iion
ii the iiStudents iiOral iiLanguage iiObservation iiMatrix ii(SOLOM).5 iiFirst iiis
ii comprehension; iiStudents i i are i i not i i able i i to i i comprehend i i the i i message
i i clearly, i i even i i in i i the i i simple

3 ii
Badan iiStandar iiNational iiPendidikan, iiKurikulum, iiStandar iiisi iiuntuk iisatuan
iiPendidikan iiDasar iidan iiMenengah, ii(Jakarta:2006), iip.14
4 ii
MGMP iiBahasa iiInggris, iiEnglish iiSyllabus, ii(South iiTangerang: iiSMAN ii3 iiSouth
iiTangerang, ii2013), iipp. ii1 ii– ii19
5 ii
San iiJose iiU.S.D., iiStudent iiOral iiLanguage iiObservation iiMatrix, ii(California:
iiBilingual iiEducation iiOffice iiof iithe iiCalifornia iiDepartment iiof iiEducation, ii2013), iip. ii2
 3

English iiconversation. iiSecond iiis iifluency; iiStudents iifound iithat iitheir iispeech iiis
ii halting iiwhen iithey iispeak iiEnglish. iiThey iicannot iihandle iithe iisituation iiand iithey
ii find iihard iito iigrope iithe iinext iiwords iito iispeak. iiThird iiis iivocabulary; iiStudents iifeel
ii difficult iito iichose iithe iicorrect iiwords iito iiexpress iitheir iimind iibecause iiEnglish
ii contains iimany iiwords iiwith iidiffererent iiusage. iiFourth iiis iipronunciation; iiStudents
ii feel iidifficult iito iipronounce iimany iiEnglish iiwords iisince iiEnglish iihas iialot iiof iiwords
ii with iino iiclear ii iirules iito iipronounce iithem iiin iione iikind. iiFifth iiis iigrammar; iiStudents
ii feel iidifficult iito iiuse iicorrect iiEnglish iigrammatical iirules iidirectly iiwhen iithey iispeak.
ii Since iiour iifirst iilanguage iidoes iinot iihave iigrammatical iirules iifor iidifferent iisituation
ii so iiit iimakes iistudents iifeel iiconfused iito iiuse iiEnglish iigrammar.
After iiclasifying iithe iiproblem, iithe iiwriter iilooked iifor iithe iisolution. iiBased
ii on iithe iiwriter’s iiexperience iias iia iidebater, iistudents iiwho iijoined iiEnglish iidebate
ii club iiwould iiproduce iibetter iispeech iiand iiactively iiinvolved iiin iidiscussion. iiIt iiis
ii because iistudents iiget iimore iipractices, iipeers, iiexposures iiand iiactivities iithat
ii encourage iithem iito iispeak iiup. iiClassroom iidebate iitrains iistudents iito iihave iipairs iiin
ii speaking, iigroup iiand iiindividual iiwork. iiIt iiallows iistudents iito iiform iigroups iiof iitwo
ii or iifour iiin iiwhich iithey iiwill iishare iithe iiresponsibility iiof iigetting iithe iijob iidone iiand
ii doing iithe iiplanning, iipreparation iiand iipresentation iiof iitheir iiaccumulated
ii information iias iia iiteam. iiStudents iican iigive iithe iibetter iispeech iiwhen iithey iican
ii organize iitheir iipresentation iisequentially, iichronologically iiand iithematically.
ii Through iiclassrooom iidebare, iistudents iiwill iipractice iito iiorganize iitheir iispeech
ii including ii their iicomprehension, iifluency, iivocabulary, iipronunciation iiand
ii grammar iiaround iiproblems iiand iisolutions, iicauses iiand iiresults, iiand iisimilarities
ii and iidifferences.
Concerning iithe iiproblems iiabove iiand iithe iiadvantages iiof iiclassroom iidebate,
ii the iiwriter iidecided iito iibring iithe iiidea iiof iiclassroom iidebate iias iia iitreatment iito
ii improve iithe iistudents’ iispeaking iiskill. iiThe iiwriter iionly iifocuses iion iithe iifive iiareas
ii of iiassessing iispeaking iiskill iithat iiare iicomprehension, iifluency, iivocabulary,
ii pronunciation iiand iigrammar iibecause iithose iiareas iicontain iiindicators iiof iistudents
ii speaking iiprogress.
 4

B. Identification of the Problem ii ii ii

Based iion iithe iiEnglish iisyllabus iifor iieleventh iiyear iistudents iiof iisenior iihigh
ii school, iithe iiwriter iiidentified iithe iistudents’ iiproblems iiin iispeaking iiskill iiin iias
ii follows:
1. Pronunciation; iiStudents iifeel iidifficult iito iiproduce iithe iiright iipronunciation
ii in iilearning iisome iiEnglish iiexpression iisuch iias iiattitude, iilove, iianger,
ii annoyance.
2. Grammar; iiStudents iifeel iidifficult iito iiuse iigrammatical iirules iibased iion iithe
ii situations iisuch iias iitelling iithe iicase iiin iinarrative iiusing iisimple iipast iitense,
ii using iithe iiright iiarticle iior iipreposition, iietc.
3. Vocabulary; iiStudents iiadmit iithat iithey iihave iilimits iivocabulary iito iiproduce
ii speech iisuch iias iimonolog iiin iinarrative iiform iior iidebate iiwith iipeers. iiSince
ii English iicontains iimany iiwords iiwith iidiffererent iiusage, iithe iistudents iishould
ii use iithe iiappropriate iiwords iito iisupport iitheir iimessage.
4. Fluency; iiStudents iifound iithat iitheir iispeech iiis iihalting iiwhen iithey iispeak
ii English. iiIt iimay iihappen iiwhen iistudents iiare iitelling iilong iispeech iisuch iias
ii extending iithe iicase iiin iinarrative. iiThey iistill iihave iito iigrope iiwords iito iispeak
ii more.
5. Comprehension; iiStudents iicannot iiunderstand iithe iimessage iiwell iisuch i i as
ii being iidifficult iito iiunderstand iithe iimeaning iiof iisome iiEnglish iiexpression
ii and iito iidiffer iithe iimeaning iifrom iianother iiexpression. iiStudents iialso iineed
ii more iirepetition iito iiget iithe iimessage iiwhen iithey iicommunicate.
C. Limitation of the Problem ii ii ii

To iiclarify iithe iiproblem, iiit iiis iinecessary iito iimake iilimitation iiof iithe iiproblem.
ii The iiwriter iilimits iithe iiproblem iiin iithe iieffectiveness iiof iiclassroom iidebate iitowards
ii students’ iispeaking iiskill. iiIn iithis iicase, iithe iiwriter iifocused iion iithe iiareas iiof
ii pronunciation, iigrammar, iivocabulary, iifluency, iiand iicomprehension iithat iiaffect iito
ii speaking iiskill.
D. Formulation of the Problem ii ii ii

The iiwriter iihas iiformulated iithe iiproblem iias iifollow:

“Is iiclassroom iidebate iieffective iito iiimprove iistudents’ iispeaking iiskill iiin iithe
ii eleventh iiyear iiof iiSMAN ii3 iiSouth iiTangerang”
 5

E. The Objective of the Study

ii ii ii ii

The iiobjective iiof iithe iistudy iiis iito iifind iiout iithe iiempirical iievidence iiwhether iior
ii not iiclassroom iidebate iiis iieffective iito iiimprove iistudents’ iispeaking iiskill.
F. The Significance of the Study
ii ii ii ii

By iidoing iithe iiresearch, iithe iiwriter iiexpected iito iigive iivaluable iicontributions
ii ii to iiteacher, iistudents, iischool iiand iiother iireaders. iiFor iiteachers, iithe iiwriter iihopes
ii this iiresearch iiwill iihelp iito iisolve iithe iistudents’ iiproblem iiin iitheir iipronunciation,
ii grammar, iivocabulary, iifluency, iiand iicomprehension iiso iiteacher iican iiraise iithe
ii speaking iiability iiand iiachieve iithe iiEnglish iistandard ii(KKM). iiFor iistudents, iithis
ii study iiwill iihelp iito iiimprove iitheir iispeaking iiability. iiBesides, iithe iistudents iican iifind
ii the iiways iito iiend iithe iidifficulties iiin iitheir iiEnglish iilearning. iiIt iiwill iihelp iito iiknow
ii their iispeaking iiskill iiafter iitaught iiby iiapplying iidebate. iiFor iithe iischool, iithis iistudy
ii will iihelp iito iiimprove iithe iiimplementation iiof iiKTSP iicurriculum iiand iielaboration
ii of iistudents’ iicompetence, iihelp iito iiimprove iiand iisolve iiproblems iiof iistudents’
ii education.
 CHAPTER II ii

ii THEORETICAL
ii FRAMEWORK

A. Classroom iiDebate
1. The iiUnderstanding iiof iiClassroom iiDebate
The iiidea iiof iiclassroom iidebate iiis iibasically iifrom iithe iiconcept iiof iidebate
ii competition iiamong iischools. iiDebate iiis iiwell iienough iiknown iias iiarguing iiideas
ii between iitwo iiopposite iisides. iiIn iischool iienvironment, iidebate iiis iiwell iiknown iias iian
ii English iicompetition iiamong iistudents iiin iiwhich iithe iistudents iiare iirepresentatives
ii from iitheir iischools. iiDebate iidemands iistudents iito iibe iiable iito iidefend iitheir
ii opinions iiso iiit iirequires iigood iiability iito iispeak iiEnglish iiwell.
As iiQuinn iisaid iiin iihis iibook, iiDebating, iidebating iigives iiyou iithe iichance iito
ii meet iinew iipeople iiand iinew iiideas. iiBest iiof iiall, iiyou iihave iithe iiopportunity iito iistand
ii up iiand iiargue iiwith iisomeone iiin iipublic, iiin iia iistimulating iiand iiorganized iidispute
ii about iireal iiissues.1 iiIt iimeans iithat iidebate iifacilitates iistudents iito iidiscuss iitheir iiideas
ii and iitry iito iiconvince iipeople. iiDebating iiis iian iiimportant iiand iiinteresting iiway iito
ii discuss iiissues iifacing iiour iisociety. iiStudents iihave iito iispeak iiwith iisome iievidences
ii and iidefend iitheir iiopinions iito iiwin iithe iidebate. iiDebate iiallows iistudents iito iiknow
ii many iidifferent iipeople iiwith iidifferent iiideas.
Another iiopinion iicomes iifrom iiMulholland iithat iiin iia iiformal iidebate, iia
ii strong iideveloped iipersonal iineed iiand iistrong iisocial iipreference iiare iipresented iifor
ii manageable iiagreement iiand iidisagreement. iiThe iitwo iiare iiintertwined iiand iiaffect
ii the iiformulation iiof iia iivery iihigh iiproportion iiof iispeech iibehaviors iiproduced iiin
ii interaction.2 iiIt iimeans iithat iidebate iihas iia iihuge iiamount iiof iiinteraction iirole iiamong
ii people iibecause iipeople iiwant iia iiconfession iiof iiideas iiabout iiagreement iior
ii diagreement. iiIn iipresenting iithe iiconfession, iithe iideabaters iiwill iistrongly iishow
ii their iicharacteristic iiof iispeech iibehaviors iiduring iiinteraction.

1 ii
Simon iiR. iiQuinn, iiDebating, ii(Brisbane: iiInternational iiDebate iiEducation iiAssociation,
ii 2005) iip.1
2 ii
Joan iiMulholland, iiThe iiLanguage iiof iiNegotiation, ii(London: iiRoutledge, ii2002), iipp.67 ii– ii68
6
 7

Hooley iistated iithat iidebate iiis iia iicourse iifor iifuture iiand iian iiinvestment iiin iiour
ii children iias iiproductive iiand iistrong iiworld iicitizens. iiDebate iiis iian iiadvanced iicivics
ii and iipolitical iiscience iiclass iibecause iithe iidebaters iimust iilearn iiexactly iihow iiour
ii governance iisystem iican iihelp iius iiin iisecuring iiand iimaintaining iia iibetter iilife.3 iiIt
ii means iithat iidebate iican iihelp iithe iistudents iito iilearn iihow iito iibe iicritical iiand
ii productive iicitizens iiin iisociety. iiAs iithe iigoverment iiside, iithe iipositive iiteam iiis
ii frequently iiasked iito iiadvocate iifederal iiaction iiin iisolving iia iiproblem. iiThe iistudents
ii should iigive iitheir iiarguments, iidefend iitheir iiopinions, iiand iishow iithe iievidence iito
ii support iithe iisolution iigiven. iiIt iineeds iilogical iiand iicritical iiconsideration iito iidecide
ii in iiwhat iiways iithey iisolve iithe iiproblem.
Last iiopinion iicomes iifrom iiOsborne. iiShe iistated iithat iiclassroom iidebate iiis iia
ii particularly iieffective iiway iiof iiworking iitoward iithe iigoals iiof iipersonal iidevelopment
ii and iipreparation iifor iicitizenship. iiIt iihelps iistudents iilearn iito iiparticipate iiin iithe
ii academic iiconversation iiand iiin iiturn iiin iithe iipublic iidiscourse iiof iiour iidemocratic
ii society iias iiwell.4 iiIt iimeans iithat iidebate iieffectively iihelps iistudents iito iidevelop iitheir
ii personal iicharacteristic iito iibe iibetter iistudents iiin iithe iiclassroom iiand iibetter
ii prepared iicitizens. iiThey iilearn iihow iito iibe iirespectful iiby iigiving iiappropriate
ii judgements iitowards iiaround iiissues. iiThis iistatement iiabviously iisupport iithe
ii previous iiopinion iifrom iiHooley iithat iidebate iinaturally iidevelop iithe iistudents‟
ii personal iiability iito iibe iibetter iiand iistrong iicitizens.
Based iion iiopinions iiabove, iithe iiwriter iiassumes iithat iidebate iiis iia iimore
ii commmunicative iiinteraction iithat iiinvolves iiopposite iipoint iiof iiviews iiand iibuilds
ii critical iiand iistrong iicharacteristics. iiDebate iican iibe iian iiarguing, iipresenting, iiand
ii defending iipoint iiof iiview iiand iievidence. iiIn iithe iiform iiof iiclassroom iidebate, iiit
ii presents iiopportunities iifor iistudents iito iiengage iiand iiuse iiextended iichunks iiof
ii language iifor iia iipurpose iito iiconvincingly iidefend iione iiside iiof iian iiissue. iiDebate
ii helps iistudents iito iienrich iitheir iivocabulary iithrough iicriticizing iiand iicomprehending
ii the iiissues. iiIn iiconvicing iitheir iiideas, iistudents iineed iito iipresent iiit iifluently iiand
i i grammatically

3 ii
Diana iiHooley, iiSpeaking iiMy iiMind: iiThe iiImportance iiof iiHigh iiSchool iiDebate, iiThe
iiEnglish iiJournal, ii96, ii2007, iipp. ii18 ii– ii19
4 ii
Anne iiOsborne, iiDebate iiand iiStudent iiDevelopment iiin iithe iiHistory iiClassroom, iiNew
iiDirectios iifor iiTeaching iiand iiLearning, ii103, ii2005, iip.40
 8

correct iiso iipeople iican iistrongly iibelieve iiand iisupport iitheir iiideas. iiBesides iithat,
ii presenting iithe iiideas iiwith iiclear iipronunciation iiis iialso iiimportant iito iideliver iithe
ii message iicorrectly. iiClassroom iidebate iihelps iistudents iito iidevelop iitheir iipersonal
ii oral iiproduction iiand iiteamwork iiability. iiIf iiwe iican iispeak iipublicly iiand iiconvey iiour
ii ideas iiand iithoughts iicoherently iiand iipassionately, iiwe iiwill iihold iia iivaluable iitool
ii for iiour iipublic, iiprivate iiand iifuture iilife.
2. The iiObjective iiof iiClassroom iiDebate
Some iipeople iibelieve iiin iidebate iias iitraining iifor iilaw iior iipolitics. iiActually
ii for iithe iivast iimajority iiof iidebaters, iiparticipating iiin iidebate iiis iiabout iitraining iifor
ii everyday iilife. iiDebating iican iibe iithe iiultimate iimulti-task iischool iiactivity iisince iiit
ii involves iiresearch, iiwriting, iispeaking, iilistening, iiand iiteamwork. iiAdapted iifrom iia
ii journal iiby iiKennedy, iidebate iias iian iiactive iiinstructional iistrategy iiis iiaimed iito
ii enhance iilearning iiparticularly iiin iithe iiareas iiof iimastering iithe iicontent iiand iiactive
ii engagement, iideveloping iicritical iithinking iiskills, iioral iicommunication iiskills, iiand
ii empathy.
a. Mastering iithe iicontent iiand iiactive iiengagement. iiStudents iilearn iimore
ii effectively iiby iiactively iianalyzing, iidiscussing, iiand iiapplying iicontent iiin
ii meaningful iiways iirather iithan iiby iipassively iiabsorbing iiinformation.
ii Students iilearn iibest iiwhen iiapplying iiwhat iithey iiare iilearning. iiTeachers
ii need iito iiuse iia iivariety iiof iiinstructional iistrategies iisince iistudents iilearn iiin
ii different iiways. iiIn iithe iiclass, iidebate iicultivates iiactive iiengagement iiof
ii students iiand iiplacing iithe iiresponsibility iiof iicomprehension iifor iiindividual
ii and iiteamwork. iiDebate iiencourages iistudents iito iire-read iiand iire-think iiboth
ii their iiown iiand iithe iiopposing iiposition iimore iiintensely iithan iiis iinecessary iito
ii repeat iilecture iimaterial. iiThe iistudents‟ iiapproach iidramatically iichanges
ii from iia iipassive iiapproach iito iian iiactive iione. iiThrough iidebate, iistudents iican
ii improve iitheir iicomprehension iitoward iithe iiissues.
b. Developing iicritical iithinking iiskills. iiBecause iidebate iirequires iilisteners iiand
ii participants iito iievaluate iiideas, iiit iidevelops iihigher-order iipsychological
ii functions iias iiwell iias iicritical iithinking iiskills. iiThe iilower iiorder iithinking
ii skills iiof iiknowledge, iicomprehension, iiand iiapplication iifocus iion iirote
ii learning iior iiwhat i i students i i should i i think, i i whereas i i the i i higher
i i order i i thinking i i skills i i of
 9

analysis, iisynthesis, iiand iievaluation iifocus iion iihow iito iithink. iiThe iishort-term
ii objective iiof iiacquiring iiknowledge iishould iibe iitempered iiwith iithe iilong
ii term iigoal iiof iitraining. iiCritical iithinking iiskills iiused iiin iia iidebate iiinclude
ii defining iithe iiproblem, iiassessing iithe iicredibility iiof iisources, iiidentifying
ii and ii challenging ii assumptions, ii recognizing ii inconsistencies, ii and
ii prioritizing iithe iirelevance iiand iisalience iiof iivarious iipoints iiwithin iithe
ii overall iiargument. iiThese iiskills iirequire iimore iivocabulary iimastery iiso
ii students iiare iiencouraged iito iienrich iitheir iivocabulary iiof iirelated iiissues.
c. Oral iicommunication iiskills. iiStudents iiwith iidebate iiexperience iiare
ii significantly iibetter iiat iiemploying iithe iithree iicommunication iiskills
ii (analysis, iidelivery, iiand iiorganization) iiutilized iiin iithis iistudy iithan iistudents
ii without iiexperience. iiParticipants iialso iimust iihone iitheir iilistening iiskills iiin
ii order iito iigive iieffective iirebuttals. iiThere iiare iimany iiapparent iireasons iifor
ii the iisuccess ii iiof iidebate iias iia iimethod iiof iiteaching iioral iicommunication.
ii First, ii the ii debater ii has ii access ii to ii a ii trained ii and ii experienced
ii communication iiprofessional iicoach iiin iipreparing iitheir iispeeches. iiSecond,
ii each iispeech iithat iihe iior iishe iigives iiis iijudged iiby iia iicommunication
ii professional iiin iithe iiforensics iicommunity. iiThe iistudents iireceive iiextensive
ii criticism iiand iifeedback iiand iiare iimeasured iiagainst iiestablished iieducational
ii standards iiso iithey iihave iito iishow iifluent iiexplanation, iiexact iipronunciation
ii and iiuse iicorrect iigrammar. iiImplementing iiclassroom iidebate iican iihelp
ii students iito iiachieve iiover iithe iistandards.
d. Developing iiempathy. iiDebate iiopens iiopportunities iifor iidevelopment iiof
ii empathy. iiWhen iistudents iigo iito iidebate iithey iilisten iito iiboth iisides iiof iithe
ii argument. iiThey iido iisee iiboth iisides, iirather iithan iijust iiseeing iiit iifrom iione
ii point iiof iiview. iiLecturers iitend iito iihave iitheir iiown iiopinion, iiso iiin iithis iiway
ii students iihear iiboth iisides iiof iithe iiargument. iiDebate iiis iione iiway iito
ii minimize iiinstructor iibias. iiWhen iistudents iidefend iia iiposition iithey iioppose,
ii they iimust iiat iileast iitemporarily iitranscend iitheir iiown iibias. iiBy iilearning
ii both iisides iiof iia iicontroversial i i topic, i i students i i are i i more i i open-minded
ii and i i better i i able i i to i i see
 10

another iiperson‟s iiview iidebate iialso iiprovides iiopportunities iifor iideveloping

ii empathy iias iistudents iigive iiconsideration iito iivarious iiviewpoints.5
3. Components iiof iiClassroom iiDebate
Classroom iidebate iihas iisome iicomponents. iiThere iiare iicommon iicomponents
ii of iiclassroom iidebate iisuch iias, iithe iivenue, iithe iimotion, iithe iiteam iimembers,
ii chairperson, iispeaking iitimes iiand iitime iikeeper, iiinterjections, iiadjudication, iiand
ii the iiaudience.
a) The iivenue. iiThe iivenue iishould iiseat iithe iiaudience. iiIt iiis iirecommend iito iihave
ii two iitables iiat iithe iifront iifor iieach iiof iithe iitwo iiteams, iiand iione iifor iithe
ii chairperson. iiThe iitimekeeper iishould iisit iinext iito iithe iichairperson. iiThe
ii participants iiwho iibecome iichairperson, iitimekeeper, iiadjudicators iiand iiteam
ii members iishould iibe iiall iifrom iithe iistudents iiin iiorder iito iimake iithem iiknow
ii different iipositions iiand iijobs iiin iiclassroom iidebate. iiSimple iilayout iiof
ii classroom iidebate iican iibe iiapparently iiseen iiin iifollowing iifigure.
Figure ii2.1. iiThe iiPhysical iiLayout iiof iiClassroom iiDebate
ii (adapted iifrom iiStep iiby iiStep iiGuide iito iiDebate iiand iimodified iiby iithe
ii writer ii)6

6 Details:

2 3 1: iiTeacher
2: iiPositive iiTeam
3: iiNegative iiTeam
4: iiAdjudicators ii(students)

1 5: iiTime iikeeper iiand

4 5
Chairperson
6: iiSpeech iipoint
7 7: iiAudience

5 ii
Ruth iiKennedy, iiIn-Class iiDebates: iiFertile iiGround iifor iiActive iiLearning iiand iithe
iiCultivation iiof iiCritical iiThinking iiand iiOral iiCommunication iiSkills, iiInternational iiJournal iiof
iiTeaching iiand iiLearning iiin iiHigher iiEducation, ii19, ii2007, iipp. ii183 ii– ii185
6
Karen iiDavidson, iiPat iiThalheimer, iiand iiRolf iiPritchard, iiGuide iito iiIntroducing iiSpeech
iiand iiDebate iiin iithe iiClassroom, ii(Alberta: iiAlberta iiDebate iiand iiSpeech iiAssociation, ii2012), iip.18
 11

b) The iiMotion. iiThe iitopic iiof iidebate iicalled iimotion. iiMotions iimay iialso iibe
ii referred iias iia iiproposition iior iiresolution. iiMotions iiare iistatement iithat iican
ii be iiagreed iiwith iior iidisagreed iiwith ii(debatable). iiThey iican iibe iifun,
ii interesting, iilocal, iinational iior iiinternational iiimportance. iiThe iiteam iithat
ii wins iiis iithe iiteam iithat iimanages iito iipersuade iithe iiadjudicators iiand iiaudience
ii that iithe iiarguments iiof iitheir iiside iiare iibetter. iiIf iithe iiaffirmative iiwins, iiwe
ii say iithat iithe iimotion iistands. iiWhen iithe iinegative iiwins, iiwe iisay iithat iithe
ii motion iiis iiover-ruled. iiA iimotion iishould iibe iiThe iiexamples iiof iimotions iiare:
- This iiHouse iiBelieve iiThat ii(THBT) iiNational iiExamination iiShould iibe
ii Deleted iias iiGraduation iiStandard.
- This iiHouse iiWould ii(THW) iiban iischool iiuniform.
c) The iiSpeakers. iiClassroom iidebate iiuses ii2 iispeakers iifor iieach iiteam. iiAfter
ii being iiassigned iithe iimotion, iithe iiteam iishould iidiscuss iitogether iito iiprepare
ii for iidebate. iiDuring iitheir iimeetings, iithey iishould iianalyze iithe iimotion,
ii brainstorm iiand iidivide iipoints iiof iiarguments iiso iithe iispeakers iimust iiwork
ii out iitogether iias iia iiteam. iiEach iispeaker iihas iidifferent iijobs iifor iieach iistage iiin
ii a iiclassroom iidebate ii(presentation, iirebuttal, iiresponse, iiand iisummary
ii stage). iiThe iifollowing iipoints iiare iithe iijobs iiof iispeakers iiin iia iiclassrom
ii debate, iiadapted iifrom iiDebating: iiIntroduction iifor iiBeginners. iiFor iidetail
ii descriptions, iisee iiappendix ii10.
a. Presentation
- 1st iispeaker iiof iipositive iiteam: iiintroduction, iidefinition iiand
ii interpretation, iiintroduction iiof iispeakers ii(also iicalled iiteam iisplit),
ii Giving iiargument, iireasons iiand iievidence, iisummary iiof iiown iicase,
ii and iiconclusion.
- ii1st iispeaker iiof iinegative iiteam: iiintroduction, iidefinition iiof iimotion:
ii agree, iiamend, iior iireject iidefinition iiof iipositive. iiIf iireject iithen
ii justify, iiRebuttal iifor ii1st iispeaker, iiintroduction iiof iispeakers ii(also
ii called iiteam iisplit). iiGiving iiargument, iireasons iiand iievidence.
ii Summary iiof iiown iicase.Conclusion.
 12

b. Rebuttal
- 2nd iispeaker iiof iipositive iiteam: iiintroduction, iiresponse iithe iirebuttal
ii from ii1st iispeaker iiof iinegative iiteam, iirebuttal iifor ii1st iispeaker iiof
ii negative iiteam, iisummary iiof iiown iifirst iispeaker ii(optional), iigiving
ii arguments, iireasons, iiand iievidence, iisummary iiof iiteam iicase iiand
ii conclusion.
- 2nd iispeaker iiof iinegative iiteam: iiintroduction, iiresponse iifor iirebuttal
ii from ii2nd iispeaker iiof iipositive iiteam, iirebuttal iifor ii1st iior/and ii2nd
ii speaker iiof iipositive iiteam, iisummary iiof iiown iifirst iispeaker
ii (optional), iigiving iiarguments, iireasons, iiand iievidence, iisummary iiof
ii team iicase, iiand iiconclusion.
c. Response
- 1st iispeaker iiof iipositive iiteam: iigive iiresponse iiof iirebuttal iifrom
ii negative iiteam, iigive iirebuttal iithe ii1st iiand ii2nd iispeakers iiof iinegative
ii team, iirebuild iithe iicase iiof iithe iiteam, iiand iino iinew iiargument.
- 1st iispeaker iiof iinegative iiteam: iigive iiresponse iiof iirebuttal iifrom
ii positive iiteam, iigive iirebuttal iithe ii1st iiand ii2nd iispeakers iiof iipositive
ii team, iirebuild iithe iicase iiof iithe iiteam, iiand iino iinew iiargument.
d. Summary
- 2nd iispeaker iiof iipositive iiteam: iisummarize iithe iiwhole iiteam iicase,
ii convince iithe iiadjudicator iiwhy iipositive iishould iiwin iithe iidebate iiby
ii summarizing iithe iidebate iiwithout iibringing iiany iinew iiargument, iiand
ii no iirebuttal iiin iisummary
- 2nd iispeaker iiof iinegative iiteam: iisummarize iithe iiwhole iiteam iicase,
ii convince iithe iiadjudicator iiwhy iinegative iiteam iishould iiwin iithe
ii debate iiby iisummarizing iithe iidebate iiwithout iibringing iiany iinew
ii argument, iino iirebuttal iiin iisummary.
d) Chairperson. iiThe iiChairperson iiof iia iidebate, iiotherwise iiknown iias iithe
ii Chair, iitakes iicontrol iiof iia iidebate. iiHe/she iiwill iicall iithe iimeeting iito iiorder,
ii announce iithe iimotion iiand iispeaking iitimes, iiask iifor iia iidemonstration iiof
ii “the iitiming iisign” i i from i i the i i time i i keeper, i i introduce i i the i i speakers i i and
ii be i i responsible i i for
 13

ensuring iithat iithe iirules iiof iia iidebate iiare iifollowed. iiExample iiof
ii chairperson‟s iiscript:
"Good iievening iiladies iiand iigentlemen iiand iiwelcome iito iitoday's
iidebate. iiThe iitopic iifor iithis iidebate iiis ii"". iiFor iithe iipositive iithis

ii evening

we iihave ii(team iiname) iiand iifor iithe iinegative iithis iievening iiwe iihave
ii(team iiname). iiOur iiadjudictor iifor iithis iievening iiis ii(adjudicator's

iiname)."

"The iispeaking iitimes iithis iievening iiwill iibe ii(minimum iispeaking iitime)
iito ii(maximum iispeaking iitime). iiThere iiwill iibe iia iiknock iiat ii(minimum

iispeaking iitime) iiminutes ii[timekeeper iidemonstrates iithe iiknock] iiand iia

iisecond iiknock iiat ii(maximum iispeaking iitime) iiminutes ii[timekeeper

iidemonstrates iithe iiknock]."

"I iiwould iinow iilike iito iicall iithe iifirst iispeaker iiof iithe iiaffirmative
ii(speaker's iiname) iito iiopen iithe iidebate."

"I iiwould iinow iilike iito iicall iithe iifirst iispeaker iiof iithe iinegative ii(speaker's
iiname) iito iiopen iithe iicase iifor iithe iinegative."

[continue iiin iia iisimilar iimanner iithroughout iithe

ii debate] ii[at iithe iiend iiof iithe iidebate]

"I iiwould iinow iilike iito iicall iithe iiadjudicator ii(adjudicator's iiname) iito
iigive iithe iidecision iion iitonight's iidebate."

On iibehalf iiof iithe iidebating iiorganization, iiI iithank iithe iiJudges iiand iithe
iiTimekeeper iifor iitheir iiassistance; iiI iicongratulate iiall iiof iithe iidebaters

iion iitheir iiperformances; iiand iiI iihope iithat iiall iispectators iienjoyed iithe

iievent. iiI iideclare iithis iidebate iiofficially iiconcluded

e) Speaking iiTimes iiand iiTimekeeper. iiSpeaking iitimes iivary iifrom iidebate iito
ii debate. iiIt iiis iiusually iimaximum iiof ii4-minutes iispeeches iiand iia iiminimum iiof
ii 2- iiminute iispeeches. iiThe ii iilength ii iiof ii iiall ii iithe ii iispeeches ii iineed ii iinot ii iibe ii
ii the ii iisame. iiThere iiis iia iitimekeeper iiat iieach iidebate iiwith iia iistopwatch iiand iia
ii bell iior iisign ii(knock). iiSingle iiknock iiafter ii1 iiminute, iidouble iiknock iiin ii30
ii seconds iibefore iithe iiend iiof iitime iiand iitriple iiknoks iiwhen iitime iiis iiup. iiNote
ii that iimarks iiare iideducted iiif iithere iiis iian iiovertime, iiwhich iithe iitimekeeper
ii should iiannounce i i right i i after i i the i i speaker‟s i i delivery, i i in i i order i i to
ii inform i i the
 14

adjudicators. iiFor iian iiexample, iia iitime iikeeper iisays ii“The iifirst iispeaker iifrom
ii positive iiteam iispent ii3 iiminutes iiand ii30 iiseconds”.
f) Interjections. iiWe iirecommend iito iiallow iiinterjections, iior iifloor iiquestions.
ii If iiinterjections iiare iipermitted, iithe iichairperson iishould iimake iiit iiclear iithat
ii interjections iishould iibe iishort, iisharp iiand iito iithe iipoint. iiSpeakers iiare
ii required iito iianswer iithe iiquestions iiimmediately, iiwith iia iitime iilimit iiof ii15
ii seconds. iiWhile iiquestions iimay iibe iidirected iispecifically iito iia iispeaker,
ii anyone iiin iithe iiteam iimay iianswer iithe iiquestion. iiIt iiis iicommonly iiknown iias
ii POI ii(Point iiof iiInformation) iiand iiit iistarts iiafter ii1 iiminute iispeech ii(after iithe
ii time iikeeper iiknocked iionce).
g) Adjudication. iiAdjudicators iikeep iithe iidebate iifocused iiand iigive iiit iia
ii conclusion. iiIt iiis iiadvisable iito iihave iia iipanel iiof iiadjudicators iiwith iian iiodd
ii number iiof iiadjudicators. iiAt iithe iiend iiof iithe iidebate, iia iirepresentative iifrom
ii the iiadjudication iipanel iiwill iigive iia iibrief iidescription iiof iithe iidebate, iiand
ii some iivaluable iicomments iifor iithe iidebaters. iiBefore iithe iidebate iistarts,
ii adjudicator iiusually iiannounces iithe iiclassroom iidebate iirules iito iithe
ii speakers.
h) The iiaudience. iiThe iirole iiof iithe iiaudience iiis iito iienjoy iithe iidebate. iiThey
ii should iiapplaud iiafter iithe iidebater iihas iimade iia iispeech. iiThey iishould
ii participate iias iiany iipolite iiaudience iiwould, iiapplauding, iilaughing, iiand iiso
ii on iiat iiappropriate iitimes. iiIn iithis iiclassroom iidebate, iithe iiaudiences iialso
ii have iito iibe ii iiconvinced iiby iithe iispeakers‟ iiarguments. iiIn iithe iiclassroom
ii debate, iithe iiaudience iican iibe iiadjudicators.7
4. Format iiand iiSteps iito iiRun iiClassroom iiDebate
To iirun iiclassroom iidebate, iiteachers iiand iistudents iineed iito iiunderstand iithe
ii essential iisteps iiand iialso iithe iiformat iiof iidebate iiitself iiin iiorder iito iimake iian iieffective
ii debate iibetween iiopposite iiteams. iiBelow iiis iithe iiformat iiof iiclassroom iidebate iiby
ii Leuser.

7
, iiThe iiDebating iiSA iiTeam, iiDebating: iiA iiBrief iiIntroduction iifor iiBeginners ii(Australia:
ii Debating iiSA iiIncorporated, ii2008), iipp. ii10 ii– ii11
 15

Figure ii2.2. iiThe iiFormat iiof iiClassroom iiDebate

(This iiformat iiis iiadapted iifrom iiClassroom iiDebate iiand iimodified iiby iithe iiwriter)8

1st iiSpeaker iiof iiPositive iiTeam 1st iiSpeaker iiof iiNegative

Team

2nd iiSpeaker iiof iiPositive iiTeam 2nd iiSpeaker iiof iiNegative

Team

The iiorder iiof iispeaker’s iishift iiin iisequence

iiare:

4 iiminutes iiPosition iiPresentation ii– iiPro ii(1st iispeaker iiof iipositive

ii team) ii4 iiminutes iiPosition iiPresentation ii– iiCon ii(1st iispeaker iiof
ii negative iiteam) ii1 iiminute iiWork iiPeriod
4 iiminutes iiRebuttal ii– iiPro ii(2nd iispeaker iiof iipositive
ii team) ii4 iiminutes iiRebuttal ii– iiCon ii(2nd iispeaker iiof
ii negative iiteam) ii1 iiminute iiWork iiPeriod
2 iiminutes iiResponse ii– iiPro ii(1st iispeaker iiof iipositive
ii team) ii2 iiminutes iiResponse ii– iiCon ii(1st iispeaker iiof
ii negative iiteam) ii1 iiminute iiWork iiPeriod
2 iiminutes iiPosition iiSummary ii– iiCon ii(2nd iispeaker iiof iinegative iiteam)
2 minutes iiPosition iiSummary ii– iiPro ii(2nd iispeaker iiof iipositive iiteam)
3 iiminutes iiTallying iiof iiBallots/Announcement iiof iiWinner

Apparently, iithere iiare iisome iiserial iisteps iito iirun iia iiclassroom iidebate iithat
ii need iito iibe iidone iiby iithe iiteacher.
1) Prepare iiguidelines iiand iia iiset iiof iirules iito iiassist iistudents iias iithey iiprepare
ii for iithe iidebate.
2) Include iia iitime iiframe iiin iiwhich iithey iihave iito iiprepare iifor iithe iidebate iiand
ii how iithey iiare iito iipresent iitheir iimaterial.

8 ii
David iiM. iiLeuser, iiClassroom iiDebate, ii(New iiHampshire: iiPlymouth iiState iiUniversity,
ii 2003), iip. ii14
 16

3) Allow iinon-debate iistudents iito iibe iiadjudicators iito iihelp iithem iilearn iihow iito
ii be iiobjective iiin iirating iitheir iipeers‟ iiperformance.
4) Determine iiif iinon-debating iistudents iiwill iibe iiallowed iito iivote.
5) Provide iiresources iiwhich iiwill iihelp iistudents iilearn iiabout iidebates iiand iitheir
ii structure. iiConsider iiholding iia iipractice iidebate iito iihelp iistudents
ii understand iithe iiprocess.
6) Consider iihaving iistudents iiprepare iibrief ii“position iipapers” iiwhich iialso
ii includes iitheir iireaction iito iithe iidebate iiprocess iiand iihow iithey iiwere iiable iito
ii reach iiconsensus iiin iitheir iiteam‟s iiarguments.
7) Select iithe iiformat iiyou iiplan iito iiuse: iiteams, iiindividual iistudents, iiall
ii students ii(see iiformat iiabove).
8) Research iicontroversial, ii news-breaking iiand iistimulating ii topics iito
ii encourage iidynamic iiand iienergized iiclassroom iidiscussion. iiStudents iiare
ii more iilikely iito iibe iiauthentic iiwhen iithey iidebate iia iisubject iito iiwhich iithey
ii can iirelate.
9) Review iithe iidebate iiprocess iipreviously iiestablished iiand iiask iifor iiquestions
ii and iiclarifications iion iithe iiday iiof iithe iidebate,
10) Prepare iirating iirubrics iiand iidistribute iito iiadjudicators iibefore iithe iidebate
ii begins.
11) Begin iithe iidebate, iigiving iistudents iias iimuch iiautonomy iias iipossible
12) Facilitate iiclassroom iidiscussion iiand iidebrief iithe iiprocess iiat iithe iiend iiof iithe
ii debate.
13) Distribute iiboth iistudent iiand iiinstructor iievaluations iito iithe iiteams.
14) Have iia iiplan iiin iiplace iiif iithe iidebate iigets ii“hot” iiand iistudents iiargue iiinstead
ii of iidebate. iiReview iiguidelines iibefore iithe iidebate iibegins iito iiminimize
ii inappropriate iidiscussion iiand iibehavior. iiAlso, iigetting iito iiknow iiyour
ii students iithrough iiobservation iiand iiactively iilistening iito iitheir iiclassroom
ii conversations iican iiprovide iihelpful iiinformation iiwhen iiselecting iitopics iifor
ii debate.
 17

15) Debates iican iibe iivideo-taped iifor iistudents ii(can iibe iiused iifor iiself-
assessment, iipeer-assessment iiof iithe iiperformance iiamong iistudents, iiand iifor
ii teachers iito iigive iisome iifeedback iito iistudents). ii9
5. Rules iiof iiClassroom iiDebate
There iiare iisome iirules iifor iidebaters iiduring iithe iiclassroom iidebate. iiTeachers
ii are iidemanded iito iimake iiclear iithe iirules iito iithe iistudents iibefore iithe iidebate. iiThese
ii following iirules iiare iiadapted iifrom iiEnglish iiDebate iiSonic iiLinguistic ii2010 iiand
ii considered iiwith iithe iiterms iiof iiclassroom iidebate.
a) Classroom iidebate iiconsists iiof iidebate iiteams ii(positive iiand iinegative
ii team), iijury, iichairperson, iiaudience iiand iitime iikeeper.
b) The iitopic iiis iicalled iimotion iiand iiit iiwill iibe iidecided iiafter iithe iiteams iisettled
c) The iidebate iiwill iirun:
- Presentation ii(1st iispeaker) ii: ii4 iiminutes
- Rebuttal ii(2nd iispeaker) : ii4 iiminutes
- Response ii(1st iispeaker) : ii2 iiminutes
- Summary ii(2nd iispeaker) : ii2 iiminutes
d) The iiteams iihave iito iiwrite iitheir iiteam iimembers iiand iispeaker iiposition
ii in iia iipaper iithen iigive iiit iito iithe iichairperson
e) Time iikeeper iiwill iicatch iithe iitime iiof iispeaker iiand iiannounce iiit iiafter
ii the iispeaker iidone iithe iispeech
f) The iidebaters iihave ii10 iiminutes iifor iicase iibuilding ii(actually iithey iiare iialso
ii already iiknow iithe iimotion iiseveral iidays iibefore iithe iidebate)
g) Any iiPrint iimaterial, iidata, iinewspaper, iibooks iiare iiallowed iiduring iithe iicase
ii building iibut iithese iiare iinot iiallowed iito iibe iibrought iiwith iiwhile iithe iidebaters
ii are iispeaking
h) Any iikind iiof iicommunication iitools iishould iibe iiturned iioff iior iiin iisilent iimode
i) Debaters iiare iinot iiallowed iito iiuse iitheir iicell iiphones iiduring iithe iidebate
j) POI ii(Point iiof iiInformation) iiis iiallowed iiafter ii1 iiminute iispeech iiand iiit iihas
ii 15 iiminutes iilength.
9
http://ezinearticles.com/?How-to-Organize-a-Classroom-Debate&id=4132815, iiaccessed
ii on iiMarch ii31st ii4002, ii18:04
 18

k) POI iiis iionly iiallowed iiduring iipresentation, iirebuttal iiand iiresponse iistages, iiby
ii raising iihands.
l) Debaters iihave iito iigive iiresponse iito iiPOI iigiven iiwhether iirejecting iior
ii accepting.
m) Note iithat iino iinew iiinformation iimay iibe iiintroduced iiduring iithe iisummary.
ii Doing iiso, iimay iiresult iiin iidisqualification iiof iithe iioffending iigroup.
n) Debaters iiare iinot iiallowed iito iihumiliate iior iiproducing iibad iiwords iiin iitheir
ii speech.
o) The iiwinner iiwill iibe iidetermined iiby iivoting iifrom iithe iiaudience iiand
ii decision iifrom iijury.
p) Every iistudent iiin iithe iiclass iiis iipleased iito iibe iicooperated iito iiflow iithe iidebate iiwell.
q) The iidebate iishould iisportively iirun iia iifriendly iicompetition. ii10

10 ii
Students iiCouncil iiof iiMadrasah iiAliyah iiNegeri iiInsan iiCendekia iiSerpong, iiEnglish iiDebate:
ii Sonic iiLinguistic ii2010, ii(South iiTangerang: iiMadrasah iiAliyah iiInsan iiCendekia, ii2010), iip. ii3
 19

B. Speaking
1. The iiUnderstanding iiof iiSpeaking
People ii produce ii their ii speech ii to ii express ii their ii ideas ii to ii build
ii communication. iiMostly iiby iispeaking, iipeople iiare iiengaged iito iidiscuss, iicriticize,
ii and iiother iipossible iiways iiof iiinteraction. iiA iigood iispeaking iiwill iibring iithe iispeaker
ii and iithe iilistener iito iiprocess iithe iimessage iiclearly. iiSince iispeaking iiskill iibecomes
ii that iisignificant, iithis iiskill iihas iibeen iiconsidered iias iione iiof iimain iiskills iiin iilearning
ii English.
Louma iistated iithat ii“Speaking iiin iia iiforeign iilanguage iiis iivery iidifficult i i to
speak iiin iia iiforeign iilanguage iilearners iimust iimaster iithe iisound iisystem iiof iithe
ii language, iihave iialmost iiinstant iiaccess iito iiappropriate iivocabulary iiand iibe iiable iito
ii put iiwords iitogether iiintelligibly iiwith iiminimal iihesitation. iiIn iiaddition, iithey iimust
ii also iiunderstand iiwhat iiis iibeing iisaid iito iithem, iiand iibe iiable iito iirespond
ii appropriately iito iimaintain iiamicable iirelations iior iito iiachieve iitheir iicommunicative
ii goals”.11 iiStudents iihave iidifficulties iito iispeak iiEnglish iiwell iibecause iithey iihave
ii problem iito iiachieve iispeaking iicomponents ii(comprehension, iifluency, iivocabulary,
ii pronunciation, iiand iigrammar). iiThe iimessage iicannot iibe iiachieved iiand iithe
ii communication iicannot iibe iimaintained iiif iistudents iimake iimistake iiin iiproducing
ii speech. iiIn iiother iiwords, iistudents iineed iito iiget iimore iiexposure iiand iipractices iito
ii train iitheir iispeech iiproduction.
According iito iiBrown, ii“Speaking iiis iia iiproductive iiskill iithat iican iibe iidirectly
ii and iiempirically iiobserved”.12 iiStudents iiproduce iitheir iispeech iito iicommunicate.
ii When iistudents iiproduce iitheir iispeech, iithere iiare iisome iipoints iican iibe iimeasured.
ii Using iisome iiscales iiof iiassessing iispeaking, iithose iipoints iican iibe iiinterpreted iiin iithe
ii form iiof iiempirical iidata. iiObserving iistudents‟ iispeech iican iibe iidone iidirectly iithat iiis
ii by iiface iito iiface iibetween iithe iiobserver iiand iithe iistudents. iiFor iiadditional iitools,
ii some iiobservers iiuse iitape iirecorder iito iirecord iistudents‟ iispeech iiduring iithe
ii assessment. iiThis iirecording iiis iiused iito iimake iisure iiwhether iior iinot iithe iiscoring iiis
ii effective.
Based iion iisome iidefinitions iiabove, iiit iican iibe iisummarized iithat iispeaking iiis
ii a iiverbal ii iicommunication ii iithat ii iiinvolved ii iioral ii iiproduction ii iiof ii iilanguage ii iito ii
ii share ii i i or

11 ii
Sari iiLouma, iiAssessing iiSpeaking, ii(Cambridge: iiCambridge iiUniversity iiPress, ii2004). iip. iiix
12 ii
H. iiDouglas iiBrown, iiLanguage iiAssessment: iiPrinciples iiand iiClassroom iiPractices,
 20

ii (New iiYork: iiPearson iiEducation, iiInc., ii2004). iip. ii140.

 21

express iiideas, iito iinegotiate, iior iiestablish iisocial iirelationship iiand iifriendship.
ii Speaking iihas iiparticular iigoals iiand iicomponents iiso iipeople iican iimaintain iithe
ii communication. iiSpeaking iican iibe iimeasured iiempirically iiwhen iithe iiprocess iiof
ii transferring iiinformation iiis iieffectively iidone.
2. The iiObjectives iiof iiSpeaking
Speaking iiis iithe iimain iipart iiin iiwhich iipeople iicommunicate iiin iitheir iidaily
ii life. iiThe iimain iigoal iiof iispeaking iiis iidefinitely iito iiexpress iitheir iifeelings. iiThe
ii objectives iiof iiteaching iispeaking iifor iisenior iihigh iischool iiin iiIndonesia iiare
ii enabling iistudents iito:
a. Use ii and ii respond ii expressing ii of ii attitude, ii love, ii sadness,
ii embarassment, iianger.
b. Identify iiand iirespond iiexpressiong iiof iiannoyance.
c. Use iipast iicontinous iitense iiin iiextending iinarrative iiand iispoof.
d. Do iimonolog iiin iinarrative iiform.
e. Use iimodals iiauxiliaries ii“should” iiin iigiving iisuggestion.
f. Debate.13
Both iithe iilistener iiand iithe iispeaker iineed iito iicomprehend iithe iimessage
ii clearly. iiTo iisee iiwhat iispeaking iiis iifor, iiwe iican iiobserve iithe iieffect iiof iispeaking
ii towards iithe iilisteners. iiWilson iiand iiArnold iisaid iiin iihis iibook iithat iispeaking iihas
ii several iiobjetives iias iifollow:
1) Speaking iito iiinform. iiPeople iineed iiinformation iithat iithey iiwant iito iihear. iiThey
ii are iifully iisatisfied iiwhen iithey iiunderstand iithe iiinformation. iiIn iishort, iithe
ii information iiis iicalled iiinformative iispeaking. iiThe iigoal iiof iiinformative
ii speaking iiis iiin iiorder iito iimake iithe iilisteners iiunderstand iiabout iithe iitopic iithat
ii the iilisteners iiconvey iiby iicreating iiperception iiabout iitopic iiand iiwhat iithe
ii knowledge iithat iithey iineed iito iiknow. iiThe iispeakers iionly iiinform iithe iimessage
ii and iilet iipeople iiperceive iiit iiby iithemselves. iiThere iiare iisome iistandard
ii peculiar iithings iiwhich iican iibe iicategorized iiinto iiinformative iispeaking; ii(a)
ii Accuracy, iiit iiis iitrue iito iifact iiin iiboth iidetail iiand iiproportion; ii(b) iicompleteness,
ii it iiis iicomprehensive iienough iito iicover iithe ii subject ii promised ii in ii the ii specific
ii purposed i i of ii the iispeech ii or iiin ii any

13 ii
MGMP iiBahasa iiInggris, iiEnglish iiSyllabus, ii(South iiTangerang: iiSMAN ii3 iiSouth
ii Tangerang, ii2013), iipp. ii1-19
 22

subsection iiof iithe iispeech; ii(c) iiUnity, iiin iithe iisense iiof iiproviding iiknowledge
ii that iiwill iibe iiintelligible iias iia iiwhole. iiThe iiobejctive iiof iiteaching iispeaking iiin
ii senior iihigh iischool iibasically iiis iienabling iithem iito iiinform iitheir iiidea iiand
ii express iitheir iifeeling iias iiit iiis iistated iiin iiKSTP iicurriculum. iiBy iimeans, iithey
ii are iiable iito iibuild iimeaningful iiconversation iiand iishare iiknowledge.
2) Speaking iito iiinduce iiinquiry. iiThe iiobjective iiof iithis iispeaking iiis iito iiset iiout iithe
ii conditions iiwithin iia iisolution iimust iibe iifound iiand iito iichallange iimay iibe iifor
ii private iithought iior iifor iipublic iidiscussion iiin iithe iiopen iiforums iithat iioften
ii follow iisuch iispeeches. iiThe iitopic iiis iithe iiproblem iifound iiby iiinvestigation.
ii Speaker iiand iilisteners iicome iiup iiwith iitheir iiexplanation, iiideas iiand iisolution
ii to iicarefully iisolve iiit iitogether. iiThis iiobejctive iican iibe iilike iisome iicases iithat
ii demand iimore iiinvestigations.
3) Speaking iito iireinforce iibeliefs iiand iifeelings. iiThe iiaim iiof iithis iispeaking iiis iito
ii make iithe iilistener iibelieve iisomething iimore iithan iiever iior iito iifeel iistronger
ii than iiwhat iithey iifeel iibefore. iiWith iisome iievidence iiand iimore iiinformation,
ii the iispeakers iiconvince iithe iilistener iiabout iithe iiexists iiidea. iiThe iispeakers iitry
ii so iisupport iithe iiidea iiseems iitrue. iiThe iispeakers iiencourage iilisteners iito
ii release iitheir iidoubts iitowards iithe iiideas.
4) Speaking iito iientertain. iiThis iispeaking iiis iiaimed iito iientertain iipeople iiwho
ii listen iito iithe iispeaker. iiThe iispeaker iiwho iiis iiasked iito iideliver iian iientertaining
ii speech iithat iishould iirecognize iiand iichoose iiwhether iithe iisubject iiand iicentral
ii themes iiare iihumorous iior iinot. iiThe iispeakers iifocus iion iithe iicontent iiof iithe
ii message iithat iientertain iithe iilisteners. iiThis iispeaking iican iibe iitelling iisome
ii funny iistories iior iijokes iithat iiare iiunderstood iiby iithe iilisteners iiand iithe
ii speakers iias iiwell.
5) Speaking iito iipersuade. iiThis iispeaking iiis iiaimed iito iipersuade iipeople. iiThe
ii speaker iishould iigive iithe iispeech iiwihch iiis iidesigned iito iichange iior iireinforce
ii the iiaudience‟s iibeliefs iior iiactions, iiit iicould iibe iisaid iias iipersuasive iispeaking.
ii Persuasive iispeaking iiis iia iispeaking iiwhich iiinfluences iipeople‟s iiattitude,
ii behavior, iivalues, iiand iibeliefs. iiThis iitype iiof iispeaking iirequires iisome
ii evidences iito iiconvince iipeople iior iichange iitheir iipoint iiof iiviews iiin iiorder iito
ii support iithe iiidea
 23

of iithe iispeakers. iiThe iiexample iiof iithis iiobjective iiis iipromoting iiproducts iito
ii the iicustomers iiso iithey iiare iiencouraged iito iibuy. ii14
3. The iiElements iiof iiSpeaking
Many iistudents iihave iidifficulties iiin iispeaking. iiAccording iito iiHarmer iiin iihis
ii book ii“The iiPractice iiof iiLanguage iiTeaching” iithat iithey iiare iimany iielements iiof
ii speaking iithat iimust iibe iimastered iiby iistudents iiin iiorder iito iibe iia iigood iispeaker iisuc
ii as:
1) Connected iispeech. iiEffective iispeakers iiof iiEnglish iineed iito iibe iiable iinot
ii only iito iiproduce iithe iiindividual iiphonemes iiof iiEnglish, iibut iialso iito iiuse
ii fluent iiconnected iispeech. iiIn iiconnected iispeech iisounds iiare iimodified
ii (assimilation), iiomitted ii(elision), iiadded ii(linking iir), iior iiweakened ii(through
ii contraction iiand iiand iistress iipatterning). iiIt iiis iifor iithis iireason iithat iiwe
ii should iiinvolve iistudents iiin iiactivities iidesigned iispecifically iito iiimprove
ii their iiconnected iispeech.
2) Expressive iidevices. iiNative iiof iiEnglish iichange iithe iipitch iiand iistress iiof
ii particular iiparts iiof iiutterances, iivary iivolume iiand iispeed, iiand iishow iiby
ii other iiphysical iiand iinon iiverbal iimeans iihow iithey iiare iifeeling. iiThe iiuse iiof
ii these iidevices iicontributes iito iithe iiability iito iiconvey iimeaning. iiThey iiallow
ii the iiextra iiexpressions iiof iiemotion iiand iiintensity, iistudents iishould iibe iiable
ii to iideploy iiat iileast iisome iiof iisuch iisupra iisegmental iifeatures iiand iidevices iiin
ii the iisame iiway iiif iithey iiare iito iibe iifully iieffective iicommunicators.
3) Lexis iiand iigrammar. iiSpontaneous iispeech iiis iimarked iiby iithe iiuse iiof
ii number iiof iicommon iilexical iiphrases, iiespecially iiin iitheir iiperformance iiof
ii certain iilanguage iifunction. iiTeachers iishould iitherefore iisupply iivariety iiof
ii phrases iifor iidifferent iifunctions, iisuch iias: iigreeting, iiagreeing iiand
ii disagreeing.
4) Negotiation iilanguage. iieffective iispeaking iibenefits iifrom iithe iinegotiatory
ii language iiwe iiuse iito iiseek iiclarification iiand iito iishow iithe iistructure iiof iiwhat
ii we iiare iisaying.15 iiWe iioften iineed iiask iifor iiclarification iiwhen iiwe iiare
ii listening iito iisomeone iielse iitalk. iiSpeaking iiis iinot iionly iihaving iiamount ii iiof
ii vocabularies iiand iiknowing iithe iigrammatical iistructures, iibut iialso
ii mastering iiall iielements iiof

14 ii
J.F. iiWilson iiand iiCarroll. iiC. iiArnold, iiPublic iiSpeaking iias iia iiLiberal iiArt, ii(Boston:
 24

ii Allyn iiand iiBacon, ii2000), iip. ii10

 25

speaking iiabove. iiAll iimessages iiwe iidelivered iiwill iibe iiacceptable iiby iiall
ii communicants iiif iiwe iimastered iithose iielements.15
4. Teaching iiSpeaking iiand iiSpeaking iiActivities iiin iithe iiClassroom
Teaching iispeaking iiis iistarted iiat iiteaching iithe iistudents iihow iito iispeak iiin
ii English iias iitheir iiforeign iilanguage, iifor iithen iiask iithem iito iibe iiable iito iipronounce
ii the iinew iilanguage iiaccurately. iiIt iiis iicontinued iithen iito iiguide iistudents iito iia iipoint
ii where iithey iican iibegin iito iijudge iiwhether iitheir iisoundproductions iiare iicorrect iior
ii not. iiAt iithis iipoint, iiteacher iiis iino iilonger iiprimarily iito iicorrect, iibut iihe iior iishe iiis
ii supposed iito iiencourage iistudents iito iipractice iispeaking iithe iitarget iilanguage.
ii Meanwhile, iiteacher iishould iibe iiable iito iiencourage iistudents iispeaking iisome
ii sounds, iirepeating, iiand iiimitating iihim/her. iiFinally, iithe iistudents iiare iirequired iito
ii be iiused iito iipractice iiand iido iioral iilanguage. iiMany iiof iiclassroom iispeaking
ii activities iiwhich iiare iicurrently iiused iiare:
1) Acting iifrom iiscript. iiThis iiactivity iiencourages iistudents iito iiact iiout iiscenes ii
ii from iiplays iior iitheir iicourse iibooks, iisometimes iifilming iithe iiresult. iiStudents
ii will iioften iiact iiout iidialogues iithey iihave iiwritten iithemselves. iiThis
ii frequently iiinvolves iithem iiin iicoming iiout iito iithe iifront iiof iithe iiclass. iiWhen
ii chooseing iiwho iishould iicome iiout iito iithe iifront iiof iithe iiclass iiwe iineed iito iibe
ii careful iinot iito iichoose iithe iishyest iistudents iifisrt. iiWe iineed iito iiwork iiout iito
ii create iithe iiright iikind iiof iisupportive iiatmosphere iiin iithe iiclass. iiWe iineed iito
ii give iitime iifor iistudents iitime iito iirehearse iitheir iidialogues iibefore iithey iiare
ii asked iito iiperform.
2) Communication iigames. iiSpeaking iiactivities iibased iion iigames iiare iioften iia
ii useful iiway iiof iigiving iistudents iivaluable iipractice, iiwhere iiyounger iilearners
ii are iiinvolved. iiGames iibased iiactivities iican iiinvolve iipractice iiof iioral
ii strategies iisuch iias iidescribing, iipredicting, iisimplifying, iiand iiasking iifor
ii feedback. iiThe iiexample iiof iigames iican iibe ii“just iia iiminute”, ii“call iimy
ii bluff”, ii“fishbowl”, iietc.
3) Discussion. iiOne iiof iithe iireasons iithat iidiscussion iifail iiis iithat iistudents iiare
ii reluctant iito iigive iian iiopinion iiin iifront iiof iithe iiwhole iiclass, iiparticularly iiif
ii they iicannot ii think i i of i i anything i i to ii say iiand i i are ii not ii confident ii of ii the
ii language i i they

15 ii
Jeremy iiHarmer, iiThe iiPractice iiof iiEnglish iiLanguage iiTeaching,( iiPearson iiEducation
ii limited iiEngland: ii2002), iipp. ii269-270
 26

might iiuse iito iisay iiit. iiMany iistudents iifeel iiextremely iiexpose iiin iidiscussion
ii situations. iiThe ii“buzz iigroup” iiis iione iiway iiin iiwhich iiteacher iican iiavoid
ii such iidifficulties. iiIt iimeans iithat iistudents iihave iia iichance iifor iiquick
ii discussion iiin iia iismall iigroup iibefore iiany iiof iithem iiare iiasked iito iispeak iiin
ii public. iiIt iiis iiso iiusefull iito iireduce iithe iilevel iiof iistress. iiIt iican iibe iiused iifor
ii the iia iiwhole iirange iiof iidiscussions.
4) Debate. iiThe iiopposite iiextreme iifor iiinformal ii“Buzz iiGroup” iiis iiDebate.
ii Students iiprepare iiarguments iiin iifavor iior iiagaint iivarious iipropositions, iiso
ii that, iiwhen iithe iidebate iistarts, iithe iipanel iispeaker iiproduce iiwell-rehease
ii writing iilike iiarguments. iiDebate iiis iian iiactivity iiin iiwhich iiopposite iipoints iiof
ii view iiare iipresented iiand iiargued. iiDebate iican iipresent iiopportunities iifor
ii students iito iiengage iiin iiusing iiextended iichunks iiof iilanguage iifor iia iipurpose:
ii to iiconvincingly iidefend iione iiside iiof iian iiissue.
5) Prepared iitalks. iiA iipopular iikind iiof iiactivity iiis iithe iiprepared iitalk iiwhere
ii students iimake iia iipresentation iion iia iitopic iiof iitheir iiown iichoice. iiStudents
ii should iispeak iifrom iinotes iirather iithan iifrom iia iiscript. iiPrepared iitalks
ii represent iia iidefined iiand iiuseful iispeaking iigenre, iiand iiif iiproperly
ii organized, iican iibe iiextremely iiinteresting iifor iiboth iispeaker iiand iilistener.
6) Questionnaires. iiQuestionnaires iiare iiuseful iibecause iiby iibeing iipre iiplaned
ii they iiensure iithat iiboth iiquestioner iiand iirespondent iihave iisomething iito iisay
ii each iiother. iiDepending iion iihow iitightly iidesign iithey iiare, iithey iimay iiwell
ii encourage iithe iinatural iiuse iiof iicertain iireceptive iilanguage iipattern iiand iithus
ii be iisituated iiin iithe iimiddle iiof iiour iicommunication iicontinuum. iiStudents
ii can iidesign iiquestionnaires iion iiany iitopic iithat iiis iiappropriate. iiAs iithey iido
ii so iithe iiteacher iican iiact iias iia iiresource, iihelping iithem iiin iithe iidesign iiprocess.
7) Simulation iiand iirole-play. iiMany iistudents iiderive iigreet iibenefit iifrom
ii simulation iiand iiroleplay. iiStudents iisimulate iia iireal iilife iiencounter iias iiif
ii they iiwere iidoing iiso iiin iithe iireal iiworld. iiA iisimulation iiand iirole-play iican iibe
ii used iito iiencourage iigeneral iioral iifluency iito iitrain iistudents iifor iispecific
ii situation.
All iispeaking iiactivities iiabove iiencourage iistudents iito iipractice iispeaking iiin
ii classroom. iiTeacher iishould iichoose iiappropriate iiactivities iiabove iibased iion
 27

the iilevel iiof iithe iistudents. iiEvery iiteaching iiand iilearning iiprocess iican iibe
ii enjoyable iiif iiteacher iigives iithe iiappropriate iiactivity iibased iion iistudents‟
ii levels. iiBeside iiit iithe iiprocess iiof iitransferring iiknowledge iican iibe iidone
ii easily.16
5. Types iiof iiSpeaking iiTest
There iiare iiseveral iiways iito iitest iispeaking iiskill. iiBrown iistated iion iihis iibook
ii “Language iiAssessment: iiPrinciples iiand iiClassroom iiPractices” iithat iitesting
ii speaking iican iibe iiused iisome iitests, iias iifollow:
1) PhonePass iiTest. iiThis iitype iiof iithe iitest iielicits iicomputer-assisted iioral
ii production iiover iithe iitelephone. iiThe iitest iitaker iiread iialoud, iirepeat
ii sentences, iisay iiwords iiand iianswer iiquestions. iiWith iia iidownloable iitest
ii sheet iias iia iireference, iitest iitakers iiare iidirected iito iitelephone iidesignated
ii number iiand iilisten iifor iidirectons.
2) Directed iiResponse iiTasks. iiThe iitest iiadministrator iielicits iia iiparticular
ii grammatical iiform iior iia iitranformation iiof iia iisentence. iiSuch iitasks iiare
ii clearly iimechanical iiand iinot iicommunicative, iibut iithey iido iirequire iiminimal
ii processing iiof iimeaning iiin iiorder iito iiproduce iithe iicorrect iigrammatical
ii output.
3) Read-Aloud iiTasks. iiThis iitest iiis iiadministered iiby iiselecting iia iipassage iithat
ii incorporates iitest iispecs iiand iiby iirecording iithe iitest iitaker‟s iioutput. iiThe
ii scoring iiis iirelatively iieasy iibecause iiall iiof iithe iitest iitaker‟s iioral iiproduction
ii is iicontrolled.
4) Sentence/Dialogue iiCompletion iiTasks iiand iiOral iiQuestionnaires. iiThis iitest
ii requires iitest iitakers iito iiread iidialogue iiin iiwhich iione iispeakers‟ iilines iihave
ii been iiomitted. iiTest iitakers iiare iifirst iigiven iitime iito iiread iithrough iithe
ii dialogue iito iiget iiits iigist iiand iito iithink iiabout iiappropriate iilines iito iifill iiin.
ii Then iias iithe iitape, iiteacher iior iitest iiadministrator iiproduces iione iipart iiorally,
ii the iitest iitaker iiresponds.
5) Picture-Cued iiTasks. iiThis iitest iirequires iia iidescription iifrom iitest iitakers.
ii Pictures iimay iibe iivery iisimple, iidesigned iito iielicit iia iiword iior iia iiphrase,
ii somewhat i i more i i elaborate i i and i i “busy”; i i or i i composed i i a i i series

i i that i i tells i i a
16 ii
Ibid., iipp. ii271-275
 28

story iior iiincident. iiOne iimoderately iisuccesful iipicture-cued iitechnique

ii involves iia iipairing iiof iitwo iitest iitakers.
6) Translation ii(of iiLimited iiStretches iiof iiDiscourse). iiThis iitest iirequires iitest
ii takers iito iitranslate iia iinative iilanguage iiword, iiphrase iior iisentence.
ii Conditions iimay iivary iifrom iiexpecting iian iiinstant iitranslation iiof iian iiorally
ii elicited iilinguistic iitarget iito iiallowing iimore iithinking iitime iibefore
ii producing iia iitranslation iisomewaht iilonger iitext, iiwhich iimay iioptionally iibe
ii offered iito iithe iitest iitakers iiin iiwritten iiforms.
7) Question iiand iiAnswer. iiThis iitest iimay iiconsist iiof iione iior iitwo iiquestions
ii from iian iiinterviewer iior iithey iican iimake iiup iia iiportion iiof iia iiwhole iibattery
ii of iiquestions iiand iiprompts iiin iian iioral iiinterview. iiThey iican iivary iifrom
ii simple iiquestions. iiIn iidesigning iisuch iiquestions iifor iitest-takers, iiit iiis
ii important iito iimake iisure iithat iiyou iiknow iiwhy iiyou iiare iiasking iithe
ii questions.
8) Giving iiInstructions iiand iiDirections. iiThis iitest iiasks iithe iitest iitakers iito
ii engage iiin iirelatively iiextended iistretch iiof iidiscourse, iito iibe iivery iiclear iiand
ii specific, iiand iito iiuse iiappropriate iidiscourse iimarkers iiand iiconnectors. iiThe
i i administrator iiposes iithe iiproblem, iiand iithe iitest iitaker iiresponds.
9) Paraphrasing. iiThis iitest iiasks iithe iitest iitakers iito iiread iior iihear iia iilimited
ii numbers iiof iisentences ii(perhaps iitwo iior iifive) iiand iiproduce iia iiparaphrase iiof
ii the iisentence. iiThe iiadvantages iiof iisuch iitasks iiare iithat iithey iielicit iishort
ii stretches iiof iioutput iiand iiperhaps iitap iiinto iitest iitakers‟ iiability iito iipractice
ii the iiconversational iiart iiof iiconciseness iiby iireducing iithe iioutput/input iiratio.
10) Interview. iiA iitest iitaker iiand iia iitest iiadministrator iisit iidown iiin iia iidirect iiface
ii to iiface iiexchange iiand iiproceed iithrough iia iiprotocol iiof iiquestions iiand
ii directives. iiThe iiinterview iiwhich iimay iibe iitape-recorded iifor iire-listening, iiis
ii then iiscored iion iisome iiparameters. iiHowever, iithis iitype iineeds iimuch iitime,
ii therefore, iithe iiinterviewers iihave iilimited iitime iito iiask iithe iiinterviewee.
ii Besides iiit iiis iiso iihard iifor iithe iiinterviewers iito iitalk iiwith iitheir iistudents,
ii while iiin iithe iisame iitime, iithey iihave iito iimake iian iiobjective iiscoring
11) Role iiPlay. iiThis iitype iiis iithe iimost iitechnique, iiwhich iiis iiused iifor iispeaking
ii test. iiThe ii students i i can i i do i i a i i simple ii role-play iiin i i the i i class. i i This i i type
ii usually ii uses
 29

the iisituations iiin iieveryday iireality iias iithe iirole-play iimaterials. iiTherefore,
ii students iihave iibeen iiusual iito iiface iithe iisituations. iiSometimes, iithe iistudents ii
ii are iigiven iia iitext iiwhich iiare iisuitable iiwith iithe iisituation. iiTherefore, iithey
ii can iiprepare iithemselves iibefore iithey iido iithe iirole-play.
12) Discussions iiand iiConversations. iiThis iitype iiis iiquite iisimilar iito iirole-plays,
ii but iiin iithis iitype, iithe iistudents iiare iinot iirequired iito iitake iia iirole, iithey iihave
ii to iibe iithemselves. iiThey iiare iiexpected iito iispeak iiinteractively, iitherefore
ii their iispeaking iiskills iican iibe iiobserved. iiAs iiformal iiassessment iidevices,
ii discussions iiand iicoversations iiwith iiand iiamong iistudents iiare iidifficult iito
ii specify iiand iieven iimore iidifficult iito iiscore. iiThis iiis iian iiintegrative iitask iiand
ii so iiit iiis iiadvisable iito iigive iisome iicognizance iito iicomprehension
ii performance iiin iievaluating iilearners.
13) Games. iiThis iitest iirequires iithe iitest iitakers iito iiplay iigames iisuch iias
ii “Tinkertoy”, ii“crossword iipuzzles”, iietc. iiThe iibenefit iiof iithis iitest iiis iias
ii formative iinature iiand iiwashback iito iithe iistudents.
14) Oral iiPresentations. iiIn iithe iiacademic iiand iiprofessional iiareas, iiit iiwould iinot
ii be iiuncommon iito iibe iicalled iion iito iipresent iia iireport, iia iipaper, iia iimarketing
ii plan, iia iisales iia iiidea, iia iidesign iiof iia iinew iiproduct iior iia iimetho. iiA iisummary
ii of iioral iiassessment iitechniques iiwould iitherefore iibe iiincomplete iiwithout
ii some iiconsideration iiof iisome iiextensive iispeaking iitasks. iiOnce iiagain, iithe
ii rules iifor iithe iieffective iiassessment iimust iibe iiinvoked iispecify iicriterion, iiset
ii apppropriate iitasks, iielicit iioptimal iioutput, iiand iiestablish iipractical, iireliable
ii scoring iiprocedures. iiFor iioral iipresentation, iia iichecklist iior iigrid iiused iia
ii common iimeans iiof iiscoring iior iievaluation. iiThe iitest iiin iithis iiresearch iiwas
ii oral iipresentation. iiThe iitest iiwas iidone iias iithe iipre-test iiand iipost-test iiand
ii used iito iiscore iithe iistudents iispeaking iiskill.
15) Picture-Cued iiStory-Telling. iiThis iitest iirequires iithe iitest iitaker iito iitalk iiabout
ii a iiseries iiof iipictures iiwith iilonger iistory. iiThe iiobjective iiof iieliciting
ii narrative iidiscourse iineed iito iibe iiclear iiabout iiwhat iiyou iiare iihoping iito
ii assess.
16) Retelling iia iiStory, iiNews iiEvent. iiThis iitest iirequires iithe iitest iitakers iito iihear
ii or iiread i i a i i story i i or i i a i i news i i event i i and i i they i i are i i asked i i to i i retell. i i The
ii discourse i i is
 30

longer iiand iiwith iidifferent iigenre. iiThe iiobjectives iiin iiassigning iisuch iia iitask
ii vary iifrom iilistening iicomprehension iito iiproduction iiof iioral iidiscourse
ii features.
17) Translation ii(of iiExtended iiProse). iiThis iitest iirequires iitest iitaker iito iitranslate
ii longer iitext. iiThe iitext iicould iicome iiin iimany iiforms iisuch iias iisynopsis,
ii dialogues ii, iietc. iiThe iiadvantages iiis iiin iithe iicontrol iiof iithe iicontent,
ii vocabulary iior iigrammatical iifeatures.17
6. Scoring iiSpeaking iiTest
Speaking iiis iia iiproductive iiskill iiwhich iihas iisubjective iijudgement. iiThe
ii judgement iiof iispeaking iiis iia iicrucial iithing; iihowever, iiit iidoesn‟t iimean iispeaking
ii test iicannot iibe iimeasured iiin iicorrect iiways. iiTherefore, iinormally iiin iiassessing
ii speaking, iiit iirequires iitwo iior iimore iiteacher iito iiavoid iiinvalid iiscoring. iiThere iiare
ii two iimain iiways iiin iiscoring iispeaking iiscales; iiholistic iiscoring iiand iianalytic
ii scoring.
1) Holistic iiScoring. iiThe iiscale iiprovides iidescriptions iiof iiability iiat iia iinumber
ii of iidifferent iilevels. iiThese iilevels iiare iiprovided iion iia iisingle iiscale, iiwhich iiis
ii divided ii into ii bands ii or ii levels ii labelled ii in ii various ii ways, ii for
ii example i i from
„needs iiimprovement‟ iito ii„good‟ iito ii„outstanding‟, iior iifrom ii„Level ii0‟, iito
„Level ii5‟. iiHolistic iiscales iican iibe iiconstructed iifrom iicurriculum iior iitheory
ii based iidefinitions iiof iilanguage iiability. iiHolistic iiscoring iihas iiadvantage iiof
ii being iiquicker, iiit iiis iisuitable iifor iinormal iispeaking iitest.18 iiThe iiattention iiis
ii focused iion iicertain iiaspects iiof iithe iiperformance, iiand iithis iican iiguide iithem
ii to iiknow iiwhat iiis iisalient iior iiimportant iifor iia iisuccessful iiperformance. iiIt
ii shown iian iioverall iiimpression iiof iia iitestee‟s iiskill iiin iione iiscore iiwhich iiis
ii used iiin iirating iiscale, iithe iiraters iimay iibe iiasked iito iipay iiattention iito iioverall
ii impression iionly. iiTable ii2.1 iigives iian iiexample iiof iia iiholistic iirating iiscale.

17 ii
Brown, iiop iicit., iipp. ii144-182
18 ii
Thornburry, iiop. iicit., iip. ii127
 31

Table ii2.1. iiThe iiNational iiCertificate iiDescriptive

ii Scale ii(Adapted iifrom iiAssessing iiSpeaking)19
Speaks iifluently iiwith iifew iiif iiany iinon-native iifeatures, iisuch iias iia
ii foreign iiaccent. iiIs iicapable iiof iiexpressing iieven iisubtle iinuances
ii of iimeaning iiwith iiprecision, iiand iialso iimakes iivaried iiand
6 ii appropriate iiuse iiof iiidiomatic iiexpressions. iiIs iiable iito iidescribe
ii even iia iicomplicated iitopic iiand iito iiinclude iisub-themes iiin iithe
ii description, iito iidevelop iidifferent iiviewpoints iiand iito iibring iithe
ii presentation iito
an iiappropriate iiconclusion.
Speaks iifluently iiwithout iifrequent iiobvious iineed iito iisearch iifor iian
ii expression. iiDelivery iicharacterized iiby iinaturalness, iicoherence
ii and iiappropriate iilength. iiIs iiable iito iipresent iia iiclear iiand iidetailed
5
ii description iiof iieven iia iicomplex iitopic. iiCan iiuse iiidiomatic
ii expressions iiand iieveryday iiexpressions, iiand iiis iiable iito iiexpress
nuances iifairly iiwell.
Copes iifairly iiwell iieven iiin iiless iifamiliar iispeech iisituations.
ii Makes iia iidistinction iibetween iiformal iiand iiinformal iiregisters, iiat
ii least iito iisome iiextent. iiIs iiable iito iipresent iiand iijustify iian iiopinion
4 ii comprehensibly. iiIs iiable iito iitalk iiabout iiand iidescribe iisights,
ii sounds iiand iiexperiences. iiIs iiobliged iionly iirarely iito iiuse
ii circumlocutions iiin iieveryday ii communication ii because ii of
ii inadequate i i language
proficiency.
Copes iiwith iithe iimost iifamiliar iispeech iisituations iiand iiis iiable iito
ii take iithe iiinitiative iiin iievery iiday iilanguage-use iisituations.
ii Speech iimay iibe iiquite iislow iibut iithere iiare iifew iiunnatural iipauses.
3 ii Is iicomprehensible iidespite iitransferring iinative iior iiforeign
ii language iistructures iiand iivocabulary iito iithe iitarget iilanguage.
ii Pronunciation iimay iiclearly iideviate iifrom iitarget iilanguage
ii standards.

19 ii
Louma, iiop. iicit., iip. ii61
 32

Copes iiwith iiroutine iispeaking iisituations iithat iirequire iia iisimple

ii exchange iiof iiinformation. iiNevertheless, iithe iispeaker‟s iilanguage
ii proficiency iiconsiderably iirestricts iithe iirange iiof iimatters iithat iican
ii be iidealt iiwith. iiSuccessful iicommunication iiof iia iimessage
2
ii presupposes iithat iithe iiinterlocutor iiis iiwilling iito iihelp iithe iispeaker
ii in iiforming iithe iimessage. iiPronunciation iimay iideviate iiclearly
ii from iithe i i target i i language i i norm, i i thus i i requiring i i special
ii effort i i from i i the
interlocutor iiand iiimpeding iisuccessful iicommunication.
Is iiable iito iiask iiand iireply iito iisimple iiquestions iidealing iiwith
ii immediate iieveryday iineeds. iiCan iimake iiuse iiof iisimple iipolite
1 ii forms. iiCopes iiwith iithe iivery iisimplest iispeaking iitasks, iibut
ii communication ii is ii slow ii and ii very ii fragmented. ii Often
ii obliged i i to
resort iito iinonverbal iimeans iiin iiorder iito iibe iiunderstood.

2) Analytic iiScoring. iiThis iitype iiof iiscoring iitakes iilonger iibut iiforces iithe iitesters
ii to iitake iia iikind iiof iifactors. iiIf iithose iifactors iiare iiwell iichosen, iiis iiprobably
ii both iifairer iiand iimore iireliable.20 iiAnalytic iiscoring iicontains iia iinumber iiof
ii criteria, iiusually ii3-5, iieach iiof iiwhich iihas iidescriptors iiat iithe iidifferent iilevels
ii of iithe iiscales. iiAnalytic iirating iiscales iisplits iiup iithe iispecified iicriteria iiso
ii that iimarkers iimake iia iidecision iiabout iithe iilevel iiof iiperformance iion iieach
ii dimension ii(or iicriterion) iiand iithen iicome iiup iiwith iia iifinal iiscore, iisingle
ii composite iior iiprofile, iiby iichecking iiacross iithe iioverall iipattern iiof iilevels
ii achieved. iiGrammar, iivocabulary, iipronunciation iiand iiother iifeatures iiof
ii language iican iibe iiassessed iithrough iianalytic iiscales. iiAnalytic iicriteria iiare
ii considered iito iihelp iiteachers iiand iiassessors iito iibe iiless iisubjective iiand iiless
ii prone iito iivariability iiin iitheir iimarking iithan iiholistic iicriteria. iiThey iitake
ii more iitime iito iicomplete iithan iiglobal iiscales, iibut iithey iiprovide iiclear
ii guidance iito iimarkers iion iiwhat iithey iiare iilooking iifor. iiIn iiaddition, iianalytic
ii scales iihave iibeen iifound iito iibe iimore iiuseful iiin iirater iitraining. iiAn iiexample
ii of iianalytic iirating iiscale, iidesigned iito iiscore iioral iiproficiency, iiis iipresented

ii in iitable ii2.2 iibelow.

20 ii
Thornbury, iiop. iicit., iip. ii127
 33

Table ii2.2. iiThe iiStudents iiOral iiLanguage iiObservation iiMatrix

ii (SOLOM) ii(Adapted iifrom iiStudents iiOral iiLanguage iiObservation
ii Matrix)21

Students iiName : City :

Grade : State :
School : Rated iiby :
Language iiObserved : Date :
. Level ii1 Level ii2 Level ii3 Level ii4 Level ii5
Cannot Has iigreat Understand Understands Understand
understand difficulty most iiof iiwhat nearly everyday
even iisimple following is iisaid iiat everything conversatio
conversation. what iiis iisaid. slower-than- at iinormal n iiand
Comprhension

can normal iispeed speed. normal

comprehend with Although classroom
only ii“socal repetition. occasional discussions
conversation repetition without
”spoken may iibe difficulty.
slowly iiand necessary.
with iifrequent
repittition.
Speech iiis iiso Usually Speech iiin Speech iiin Speech iiin
halting iiand hesiatant; everyday everyday everyday
fragmentary iias often iiforced communicati communicat conversatio
to iimake into iisilence on iiand ion iiand n iiand iiin
conversation by iilanguge classroom classroom classroom
virtually limitations. dicussion iiis discussion discussion
impossible. frequently in iigenerally is iifluent
disrupted iiby fluent, iiwith and
the iistudent‟s occasional effortless
Fluenc

search iifor iithe lapses iiwhile approximati

y

correct the iistudents ng iithat iiof iia

manner iiof searches iifor native
expression. the iicorrect speaker.
manner iiof
expression

21 ii
San iiJose iiU.S.D., iiStudent iiOral iiLanguage iiObservation iiMatrix, ii(California:
ii Bilingual iiEducation iiOffice iiof iithe iiCalifornia iiDepartment iiof iiEducation, ii2013), iip. ii2
 34

Level ii1 Level ii2 Level ii3 Level ii4 Level ii5
Vocabulary Misuse iiof Frequently Occasionall Use iiof
limitations iiso words iiand uses iithe y iiuses Vocabulary
extreme iias iito very iilimited wrong iiwords inappropriat and iiidioms
Vocabulary

make vocabulary conversation e iiterms iior approximat

conversation make somewhat must es iithat iiof iia
virtually comprehensi limited rephrase native
impossible. on iiquite because iiof ideas speaker.
difficult. inadequte because iiof
vocabulary. inadequate
vocabulary.
Pronunciation Very iihard iito Pronunciation Always Pronunciati
problem iiso understand problems intelligible, on iiand
severe iias iito because necessitate though iione intonation
Pronunciation

make iispeech pronunciatio concentration is iiconcious approximat

virtually n iiproblem, on iithe iipart iiof of iia iidefinite es iithat iia
unintelligible. must listener iiand accent iiand native
frequently iibe occasionally occasinal speaker.
asked iito lead iito inappropriat
repeat iiin misunderstan e iiintonation
order iito iibe ding. patterns.
understood.
Errors iiin Grammar Makes Occasionall Grammatic
grammar iiand and iiword frequent y iimake al iiusage
word iiorder iiso order iierror errors iiof grammatical and iiword
severe iias iito make grammar iiand or iiword order
make iispeech comprehensi word iiorder order iierrors approximat
Gramma

virtually on iidifficult. which which iido e iia iinative

r

unintelligible. Must iioften occasionally not iiobscure speaker‟s.

rephrase iior obscure meaning.
restrict iiwhat meaning.
is iisaid iito
basic
patterns.
 35

C. Relevant Study ii

The iifirst iirelevant iistudy iiselected iiby iithe iiwriter iiwas iiwritten iiby iiRicha
ii Rubiati iifrom iiIAIN iiWalisongo iiSemarang iiUniversity iiwith iithe iititle ii“Improving
ii Students‟ iiSpeaking iiAbility iithrough iiDebate iiTechnique”. iiThis iiresearch iiwas
ii aimed iito iidescribe iithe iiimplementation iiof iidebate iitechnique iito iiimprove iistudents‟
ii speaking iiskill iiand iito iiidentify iihow iimuch iistudents‟ iispeaking iiskill iiimprovement
ii after iibeing iitaught iiby iiusing iidebate iitechnique iiat iithe iifirst iisemester iistudents iiof
ii English iiLanguage iiTeaching iiDepartment iiTarbiyah iiFaculty iiat iiIAIN iiWalisongo
ii Semarang iiin iithe iiacademic iiyear iiof ii2010/2011. iiThis iiresearch iiused iiclassroom
ii action iiresearch iias iithe iiresearch iimethodology. iiThe iiresult iistated iithat iithe
ii implementation iiof iidebate iiin iiteaching iispeaking iiwas iisuccessful iibecause iithe
ii students‟ iimean iiscore iiwas iiincreased iiand iistudents iihave iia iilot iiof iiopportunity iito
ii practice iispeaking iiin iispeaking iiclass. iiThe iiresearcher iiconcluded iithat iidebate iiis iian
ii appropriate iitechnique iiused iiin iiteaching iispeaking.22
The iisecond iirelevant iistudy iiwas iifrom iiUswatun iiHasanah iifrom iiSTAIN
ii Salatiga iiby iithe iititle ii“The iiImpelementation iiof iiDebate iiTechnique iito iiImprove iithe
ii Students‟ iiSpeaking iiSkill”. iiThe iiobjective iiof iithis iiresearch iiis iito iidescribe iithe
ii implementation iiof iidebate iitechnique iiin iispeaking iiclass iiand iito iimeasure iithe
ii improvement iiof iistudents‟ iispeaking iiskill iiafter iiimplementation iidebate iitechnique
ii the iisecond iiclass iiof iiMTs iiSA iiMiftahul iiHuda. iiThe iireseach iimethodology iiwas
ii classroom iiaction iiresearch. iiThe iiresult iiof iithis iiresearch iishowed iithat iithere iiis
ii improvement iiof iispeaking iicompetence iiin iipronunciation, iivocabulary iiand iimore
ii confident iithat iican iibe iiseen iifrom iithe iiresult iiof iimean iiin iiall iifour iicycles iifrom iipre-
test iiand iipost iitest. iithe iiresearcher iiconcluded iithat iidebate iitechnique iiis iigood iito
ii improve iistudents‟ iispeaking iiskill.23
Those iitwo iiresearches iihad iisimilarity iiand iidifference iiwith iithis iiresearch.
ii For iithe iisimilarities, iithey iihad iithe iisame iivariables iithat iiwere iidebate iiand iistudents‟
ii speaking iiskill. iiHowever, iithe iitwo iiresearches iialso iihad iidifferences. iiFirts, iithe iitwo

22 ii
Richa iiRubiati, iiImproving iiStudents’ iiSpeaking iiAbility iithrough iiDebate iiTechnique,
ii(Semarang: iiIAIN iiWalisongo iiSemarang, ii2010) iipp. ii24 ii– ii44
23 ii
Uswatun iiHasanah, iiThe iiImpelementation iiof iiDebate iiTechnique iito iiImprove iithe
iiStudents’’ iiSpeaking iiSkill, ii(Salatiga: iiSTAIN iiSalatiga, ii2012), iipp. ii26 ii– ii76
 36

researches iiused iiclassroom iiaction iiresearch iias iithe iimethodology iiwhile iithis
ii research iiused iiquasi iiexperimental iiresearch. iisecond, iithe iiobjective iiof iithe iitwo
ii researches iiwere iito iidescribe iithe iiimplementation iiof iidebate iitechnique iitowards
ii students‟ iispeaking iiskill iiand iito iiidentify iihow iimuch iistudents‟ iispeaking iiskill
ii improvement iiafter iibeing iitaught iiby iiusing iidebate iitechnique. iiMeanwhile, iithis
ii research iiwas iiaimed iito iisee iithe iieffectiveness iiof iiclassroom iidebate iitowards
ii students‟ iispeaking iiskill. iiThe iilast iidifference iiwas iithe iithe iisample iiof iireseach
ii were iidifferent iito iithis iiresearch. iiThis iiresearch iiused iian iioral iitest iinamely iiThe
ii Students iiOral iiLanguage iiObservation iiMatrix ii(SOLOM) iito iigain iithe iidata iiof
ii students‟ iispeaking iiscore. iiThe iifinal iiscores iiwill iibe iianalyzed iiusing iit-test iito iifind
ii whether iior iinot iiclassroom iidebate iiis iieffective iito iitowards iistudents‟ iispeaking
ii skill.
D. Conceptual Framework
ii

Teaching iispeaking iiby iimemorizing iiconversation iiis iian iiold iimethod iithat
ii only iimake iistudents iimemorize iibut iinot iicriticize iior iicomprehend iithe iimaterials. iiAs
ii stated iiin iichapter ii1, iithis iiresearch iiwas iifocused iion iithe iifive iiproblems iifaced iiby
ii students iisuch iias iicomprehension, iifluency, iivocabulary, iipronunciation iiand
ii grammar. iiIf iiwe iilook iiat iithe iiobjective iiof iiclassroom iidebate, iithere iiare iimany
ii benefits iifor iistudents iiso iithey iican iisolve iitheir iiproblems iiin iispeaking. iiClassroom
ii debate iiwill iihelp iistudents iiin iimastering iithe iicontent iiand iiactive iiengagement iifor
ii teamwork. iiIt iiwill iihelp iistudents iito iiimprove iitheir iicomprehension iiand iienrich
ii their iivocabulary. iiMoroever, iistudents iiwill iidevelop iitheir iicritical iithinking iiskills
ii so iithey iiwill iibe iiable iito iiunderstand iigrammar iimore iithan iiever. iiStudents iiwill iilearn
ii about iiperforming iitheir iiargument iiin iifront iiof iiclassroom. iiIt iiwill iihelp iistudents iito
ii improve iitheir iioral iicommunication iiskill iiso iithey iiwill iialso iiimprove iitheir
ii pronunciation iiand iifluency. iiThey iiare iitrained iito iimaster iispeaking iicomponents
ii during iithe iidebate. iiClassroom iidebate iicovers iiall iimaterials iiof iispeaking iiskill
ii stated iiin iischool iicurriculum iiso iiit iiis iihelpful iito iihelp iistudents iiachieve iischool
ii curriculum. iiIf iiclassroom iidebate iigoes iiin iiinteractive iiway, iithe iistudents iiwill
ii automatically iiincrease iithose iifive iipoints iito iiimprove iitheir iispeaking iiskill. iiOn iithe
ii contrary, iiif iithe iistudents iirun iithe iidebate iipassively iiand iiconfusing, iiit iiwill iiaffect
ii those iifive iipoints iias iiwell. iiThe iistudents iimay iiget iiproblem iiduring iitheir iispeaking.
 37

Finally, iipassive iiclassroom iidebate iimay iiaffect iistudents iito iilearn.

ii Meanwhile, iiinteractive iiclassroom iidebate iiis iineeded iito iiincrease iitheir
ii pronunciation, iigrammar, iivocabulary, iifluency, iiand iicomprehension. iiSo, iithe
ii students iiwill iibe iibetter iiin iitheir iiEnglish iicommunication.
E. Hypothesis
There iiare iitwo iitypes iiof iiresearch iihypothesis: iialternative iihypothesis ii(H1)
ii and iistatistic iihypothesis iior iinull iihypothesis ii(H0).24 iiThe iialternative ii(H1)
ii hypothesis iishows iithat iithere iiis iia iisignificant iidifference iiin iithe iimain iigains
ii between iithe iistudents‟ iispeaking iiscores iitought iiby iiclassroom iidebate iiand iistudents
ii taught iiwithout iiit. iiIt iimeans iithat iiclassroom iidebate iiis iieffective iitowards iispeaking
ii skill. iiThe iinull iihypothesis ii(H1) iishows iithat iithere iiis iino iisignifcant iidifference iiin
ii the iimain iigains iiof iistudents‟ iispeaking iiscore iitaught iiby iiclassroom iidebate iiand
ii students iitaught iiwithout iiit. iiIt iimeans iithat iiclassroom iidebate iiis iinot iieffective
ii towards iistudents‟ iispeaking iiskill.

24 ii
Suharsimi iiArikunto, iiProsedur iiPenelitian iiSuatu iiPendekatan iiPraktik, ii(Jakarta: iiPT.
ii Rineka iiCipta, ii2010), iip. ii112
 CHAPTER III ii

ii RESEARCH
ii METHODOLOGY

A. Place and Time of the Study

ii ii ii ii ii

This iiresearch iiwas iiconducted iiat iiSMAN ii3 iiSouth iiTangerang, iiacademic
ii year ii2013/2014. iiIt iiwas iilocated iiat iiJl. iiBenda iiTimur iiXI iiKomplek iiPamulang
ii Permai, iiSouth iiTangerang, iiBanten. iiThe iiresearcher iichose iithis iischool iibecause iiit
ii used iiKTSP iicurriculum iifor iithe iieleventh iiyear iistudents. iiIt iialso iihad iiEnglish
ii debate iiin iiits iiEnglish iisyllabus iiso iiit iiwas iireally iimatch iiwith iithe iiwriter’s iiresearch
ii background. iiThe iiresearcher iiconducted iithe iiresearch iion iiMarch ii25th iiup iito iiApril
ii 25th ii2014 iithat iiwas iiexactly iion iithe iisecond iisemester. iiIt iiwas iidone iiby iigiving
ii pretest, iitreatment iiand iipost- iitest iito iithe iieleventh iiyear iisudents. iiThe iiwriter iihas ii6
ii meetings iifor iitreatment iiand ii4 iimeetings iifor iipretest iiand iipost-test.
B. Method and of Research Design
ii ii ii ii

The iimethod iiused iiin iithis iiresearch iiwas iia iiquantitative iimethod. iiThe
ii quantitative iiresearch iiis iia iitype iiof iieducational iiresearch iiin iiwhich iithe iiresearcher
ii decides iiwhat iito iistudy; iiasks iispecific iiquestions; iicollects iiquantifiable iidata iifrom
ii participants; iianalyzes iithese iinumbers ii iiusing iistatistics; iiand iiconducts iithe iiinquiry
ii ii ii in iian iiunbiased, ii ii objective ii ii manner.1 iiThis iiresearch iidirectly iiattempts iito
ii influence ii ii iia iiparticular iivariable. ii iiWhen ii iiit ii iiproperly ii iiapplied, ii iiit ii iiis ii iithe ii iibest ii
ii type ii iifor ii ii iitesting iihypothesis iiabout iicause iiand iieffect iirelationship.
The iidesign iiused iiin iithis iiquantitative iiresearch iiwas iia iiquasi-experimental
ii study. iiThis iikind iiof iistudy iiallows iithe iiresearcher ii iito ii iilook ii iiat ii iithe ii iieffects ii iiof ii
ii at iileast iione iiindependent iivariable iiand iione iior iimore iidependent iivariables.2
ii Independent iivariable iiin iiexperimental iiresearch iiis iialso iifrequently iireferred iito iias ii
ii the iiexperimental iior iithe iitreatment iivariable. iiIn iithis iiresearch, iithe iiresearcher ii
ii wanted iito iisee iiwhether iithe iitreatment iimade iia iidifference iior iinot. iiThis i i research

1
John iiW. iiCreswell, iiEducational iiResearch; iiPlanning, iiConducting, iiand iiEvaluating
Quantitative iiand iiQualitative iiResearch, ii(New iiJersey: iiPearson iiEducation, ii2008), iip. ii46
ii
2
Jack iiR iiFraenkel iiand iiNorman iiE. iiWallen, iiHow iito iiDesign iiand iiEvaluate iiResearch iiin
Education ii(Fifth iiEdition), ii(New iiYork: iiMcGraw- iiHill, ii2003), iip. ii268

36
 37

included iipre-test iiand iipost-test iito iimeasure iithe iistudents’ iiachievement. iiThere
ii were iitwo iiclasses iiin iithis iiresearch iinamely iian iiexperimental iiclass iiand iia iicontrol
ii class. ii iiThe iiexperimental iiclass iireceived iitreatment. iiHowever, iithe iiclass iithat iidid
ii not iireceive iithe iitreatment iiwas iicalled iias iithe iicontrol iiclass.3
C. Population and Sample ii ii

The iipopulation iiin iithis iireserach iiwere iistudents iiof iiSMAN ii3 iiSouth
ii Tangerang. iiIn iiaddition, iithe iisamples iiwere iieleventh iiyear iistudents. iiThere iiwere
ii 238 iieleventh iiyear iistudents iiin iieight iiclasses; iiXI iiIPA ii1, iiXI iiIPA ii2, iiXI iiIPA ii3, iiXI
ii IPA ii4, iiXI iiIPA ii5, iiXI iiIPA ii6, iiXI iiIPS ii1, iiand iiXI iiIPS ii2. iiThe iiclass iisamples iiwere
ii XI iiIPA ii5 ii(experimental iiclass) iiand iiXI iiIPA ii6 ii(controlled iiclass). iiThe iiresearcher
ii only iigave iiclassroom iidebate iias iithe iitreatment iifor iiX iiI iiIPA ii5. iiEach iiof iiclasses iihad
ii 28 iistudents.
The iitechnicques iisampling iiused iiin iithis iiquantitative iiresearch iiwas iinon-
ii probability iisampling iinamely iiconvenience iisampling. iiNon-probability iisampling
ii permitted iithe iiresearcher iito iiselect iiindividuals iibecause iithey iiwere iiavailable,
ii convenient; iimoreover, iithey iirepresented iithe iiinvestigation.4 iiThe iiresearcher
ii chose iiconvenience iisampling iibecause iiit iiwas iiallowed iito iiselect iiparticipants iias
ii sample iibecause iiof iithe iistudents’ iiavailability iito iibe iistudied iiat iithe iischool. iiThe
ii availability iicame iiafter iithe iiresearcher iigot iipermission iifrom iithe iischool ii

ii principle. ii ii The ii ii principle iigave iitwo iiavailable iiclasses iias iithe iisample iito iibe
ii participated iiin iithis iiresearch iiwith iithe iipermission iiof iithe iiEnglish ii teacher.

D. The Research Instrument

ii ii

Instrument iiis iithe iidevice ii(such iias iia iipencil iiand iipaper iitest, iia iiquestionare,
ii or ii iia iirating iiscale) iithat iithe iiresearcher iiuses iiit iito iigather iidata. iiThe iidata iirefer iito
ii the iiinformation iiwhich iiis iiobtained iion iithe iisubject iiof iithe iiresearch. iiThe iientire
ii process iiof iipreparing iito iicollect iithe iidata iiis iicalled iiinstrumentation.5 iiThe
ii instrument iiused iiin iithis iiresearch iiwas iian iioral iipresentation iitest. iiTo iitest iispeaking
ii ability iiwe iishould iirequire iicandidates i i to i i demonstrate i i their i i ability i i to i i use
ii language i i in i i ways i i which i i are

3
W. iiLawrence iiNeuman, iiBasic iiof iiSocial iiResearch iiQualitative iiand iiQuantitative
iiApproaches iiSecond iiEdition, ii(United iiStates: iiPearson iiEducation, ii2007), iip. ii205
4 ii
Creswell, iiop. iicit., iip. ii155
5
Jack iiR. iiFraenkel iiand iiNorman iiE. iiWallen, iiHow iito iiDesign iiand iiEvaluate iiResearch iiin
iiEducation ii(Fifth iiEdition), ii(New iiYork: iiMcGraw- iiHill, ii2003), iip. ii118
 38

characteristic iiof iiinteractive iispeech.6 iiInteractive iispeech iican iibe iidone iiby iicreating
ii task iifor iistudents iiinto iipartners iior iigroups iithat iiwill iiencourage iithem iito iispeak.
ii Each iispeaker’s iiturn iiis iia iireaction iito iithe iiprevious iiturn, iiand iiif iiclarifications iior
ii other iimodifications iiare iineeded iito iithe iigeneral iiinteraction iiplan iithese iican iibe
ii made. iiThe iiconstruct iiassessed iiis iiclearly iirelated iito iispoken iiinteraction. iiThe
ii researcher iiasked iithe iispeakers iito iigive iioral iipresentation iiindividually iiwith iithe
ii motion iigiven. iiThe iispeakers’ iipresentations iihave iito iibe iifocused iion iithe iijob iipoints
ii as iistated iion iispeaker iijob iidetails ii(chapter ii2 iipage ii11). iiThe iiorder iiwas iiin iiturn iiwith
ii each iispeaker iiin iiboth iiteams. iiAs iiit iiwas iistated iiin iithe iiformat iiof iiclassroom iidebate
ii (figure ii2.2 iichapter ii2), iithe iiorder iiof iispeakers’ iioral iipresentations iiwas iistarted iiwith
ii the iifirst iispeaker iiof iipositive iiteam. iiThe iioral iitest iiconducted iiin iithis iiresearch
ii included iipre-test iiand iipost- iitest. iiIn iithis iiresearch, iithe iiclass iiXI iiIPA ii6 iias iithe
ii control iiclass iiwas iinot iigiven iitreatment iiof iiclassroom iidebate. iiMeanwhile, iithe
ii class iiXI iiIPA ii5 iias iithe iiexperimental iiclass iiwould iireceive iitreatment iiof iiclassroom
ii debate. iiFinally, iithe iitwo iiclasses iiwould iihave iia iipost-test.
The iiproblem iiof iithis iiresearch iiwas iifocused iion iithe iifive iiareas iiof iistudents
ii speaking iiskill iiso iithe iiinstrument iiwas iionly iiused iifor iitesting iispeaking. iiThe iioral
ii presentation iitest iiin iithis iiresearch iiwas iiused iito iimeasure iithe iistudents’
ii comprehension, iifluency, iivocabulary, iipronunciation, iiand iigrammar iibefore iithe
ii treatment ii(pre-test) iiand iiafter iithe iitreatment ii(post-test). iiThe iidebate iiindicator iiwas
ii not iiscored iion iithe iitest. iiThe iitest iipaper iiwas iiconsisted iiof iiindicators iithat iican iibe
ii seen iibelow.

6 ii
Cyril iiJ. iiWeir, iiLanguage iiTesting iiand iiValidation: iiAn iiEvidence-based iiApproach,
ii (Hampshire: iiPalgrave iiMacmillian, ii2005), iip. ii103
 39

Table ii3.1. iiBlueprint iiof iithe iiResearch iiInstrument

The iiStudents iiOral iiLanguage iiObservation iiMatrix ii(SOLOM)
(The iicriteria iiwas iiadapted iifrom iiStudents iiOral iiLanguage iiObservation iiMatrix.7
The iirating iiwas iiadapted iifrom iiTesting iifor iiLanguage iiTeachers
ii
8
) iiRated iiby : Class i i :
Date : Test :

Below ii62 63-72 73-82 83-92 93-99

Level ii1 Level ii2 Level ii3 Level ii4 Level ii5
Cannot Has iigreat Understand Understands Understand
understand difficulty most iiof nearly everyday
even iisimple following what iiis iisaid everything conversatio
conversation. what iiis iisaid. at iislower- at iinormal n iiand
Comprhension

can than-normal speed. normal

comprehend speed iiwith Although classroom
only ii“socal repetition. occasional discussions
conversation” repetition without
spoken may iibe difficulty.
slowly iiand necessary.
with iifrequent
repittition
Speech iiis iiso Usually Speech iiin Speech iiin Speech iiin
halting iiand hesiatant; everyday everyday everyday
fragmentary often iiforced communicat communicat conversatio
as iito iimake into iisilence ion iiand ion iiand n iiand iiin
conversation by iilanguge classroom classroom classroom
virtually limitations. dicussion iiis discussion discussion
impossible. frequently in iigenerally is iifluent iiand
Fluenc

disrupted iiby fluent, iiwith effortless

y

the occasional approximati

student’s lapses iiwhile ng iithat iiof iia
search iifor the iistudents native
the iicorrect searches iifor speaker.
manner iiof the iicorrect
expression. manner iiof
expression

7 ii
San iiJose iiU.S.D., iiStudent iiOral iiLanguage iiObservation iiMatrix, ii(California: iiBilingual
iiEducation iiOffice iiof iithe iiCalifornia iiDepartment iiof iiEducation, ii2013), iip. ii2
8 ii
Arthur iiHughes, iiTesting iifor iiLanguage iiTeachers, ii(Cambridge: iiCambridge
iiUniversity, ii2003), iip.131-133
 40

Below ii62 63-72 73-82 83-92 93-99

Level ii1 Level ii2 Level ii3 Level ii4 Level ii5
Vocabulary Misuse iiof Frequently Occasionall Use iiof
limitations iiso words iiand uses iithe y iiuses Vocabulary
extreme iias iito very iilimitedwrong inappropriat and iiidioms
make vocabulary words e iiterms iior approximate
Vocabulary

conversation make conversatio must s iithat iiof iia

virtually comprehensi n rephrase native
impossible. on iiquite somewhat ideas speaker.
difficult. limited because iiof
because iiof inadequate
inadequte vocabulary.
vocabulary.
Pronunciatio Very iihard iito Pronunciati Always Pronunciati
n iiproblem iiso understand on iiproblems intelligible, on iiand
severe iias iito because necessitate though iione intonation
Pronunciation

make iispeech pronunciation concentratio is iiconcious approximate

virtually problem, n iion iithe of iia iidefinite s iithat iia
unintelligible. must part iiof accent iiand native
frequently iibe listener iiand occasinal speaker.
asked iito occasionally inappropriat
repeat iiin lead iito e iiintonation
order iito iibe misundersta patterns.
understood. nding.
Errors iiin Grammar iiand Makes Occasionall Grammatica
grammar iiand word iiorder frequent y iimake l iiusage iiand
word iiorder iiso error iimake errors iiof grammatical word iiorder
severe iias iito comprehensi grammar or iiword approximate
Grammar

make iispeech on iidifficult. and iiword order iierrors a iinative

virtually Must iioften order iiwhich which iido speaker’s.
unintelligible. rephrase iior occasionally not iiobscure
restrict iiwhat obscure meaning.
is iisaid iito meaning.
basic
patterns.
 41

The iiqualificaton iiof iiinstrument iiused iiin iia iiresearch iiis iivery iiimportant.
ii Validity iiand iireliability iiare iiessential iirequirements iishould iibe iifulfilled iito iiensure
ii the iiinstrument iiis iiqualified.
1) Validity
One iiof iiimportant iiprinciples iiin iilanguage iiassesment iiis iivalidity.
ii The iiresearch iiinstrument iishould iihave iivalidity iitesting iito iiknow iiits
ii eligibility. iiThe iitest iiused iias iithe iiinstument iiin iithis iiresearch iialso iineed iito
ii be iiexamined iibefore iithe iistudents iitested. iiIn iia iiresearch, iivalidity iirefers iito
ii the iiappropriateness, iithe iicorrectness, iior iithe iiusefulness iiof iithe iiinferences
ii a iiresearcher iimakes.9 iiBriefly, iivalidity iiof iithe iitest iiis iithe iiextent iito iiwhich iiit
ii measures iiwhat iiit iiis iisupposed iito iimeasure.10 iiIt iirefers iito iithe
ii meaningfulness iiof iithe iiscores, iiwhich iidefines iia iibroad iiscope iiof iiconcerns.
ii Regarding iitasks iiand iicriteria, iione iiof iithe iimain iiconcerns iiis iicontent
ii coverage iiand iicomprehensiveness iiin iirelation iito iithe iidefinition iiof iithe iitest
ii purpose. iiValidity iideals iiwith iihow iiwell iithe iioperational iidefinition iifits
ii with iithe iiconceptual iidefinition. iiSince iithe iiinstrument iiof iithis iiresearch iiused
ii oral iitest, iiit iibecame iiimportant iito iiknow iiwhat iito iimaesure iiin iian iioral iitest
ii and iiits iipurpose. iiAn iioral iitest iiis iidesigned iito iimeasure iispeaking iiability.
ii The iitype iiof iioral iitest iiused iiin iithis iiresearch iiis iioral iiPresentation iitest iitask
ii (see iifor iifurther iiin iichapter ii2 iipage ii27). iiThe iiresearcher iiasked iistudents iito
ii give iioral iipresentation iiindividually iiabout iithe iimotion iigiven.
The iitest iirequires iistudents iito iiperform iioral iiproduction iidirectly iito
ii be iimeasured. iiIn iithis iicase, iithe iicontent iiof iidebate iimotions iidrived iithe
ii students’ iiperformance iiso iithe iiresearcher iiused iicontent iivalidity iito iiattain
ii the iievidence iiof iivalid iiinstrument. iiBrown iisaid, ii“You iican iiusually iiidentify
ii content-related iievidence iiobservationally iiif iiyou iican iiclearly iidefine iithe
ii achievement iithat iiyou iiare iimeasuring”.11 iiIt iiis iiimportant iito iigive iidetail iithe
ii oral iitest iicriteria iito i i know

9 ii
Fraenkel iiand iiWallen., iiop. iicit., iip. ii158
10 ii
J.B iiHeaton, iiWriting iiEnglish iiLanguage iiTests, ii(New iiYork: iiLongman iiInc., ii1988), iip. ii159
11 ii
H. iiDouglas iiBrown, iiLanguage iiAssessment: iiPrinciples iiand iiClassroom iiPractices,
ii(New iiYork: iiPearson iiEducation, iiInc., ii2004). iip. ii22
 42

what iito iimeasure. iiMoreover, iiLouma iisaid iithat iithe iivalidity iiof iispeaking
ii scores iiis iigrounded iiin iithe iipurpose iithat iithe iiscores iiare iiintended iito iiserve.12
Based iion iion iithe iitheory iiof iicontent iivalidity iiabove, iithe iiresearcher
ii made iithe iischool iiEnglish iisyllabus iias iithe iimain iiachievement. iiThere iiare ii5
ii points iithat iiare iimeasured iiin iiterms iiof iigrammar, iipronunciation, iifluency,
ii vocabulary, iiand iicomprehension. iiThe iiresearcher iidefined iiand iiidentify iithe
ii content iiof iiEnglish iisyllabus iicovered iiin iithe iidebate iimotions iiinto iithose
ii five iipoints. iiBeside iithat, iithe iiresearcher iialso iiused iiface iivalidity iito iimake
ii clear iithe iiinstruction iiof iitest iigiven. iiThe iiresearcher iidid iiconsultation iito iithe
ii language iitesting iiexpert ii(the iiEnglish iiteacher) iiand iithe iithesis iiadvisors
ii related iito iivalidity iiof iiinstrument iiin iiwhich iithe iitest iiwould ii iibe ii iigiven iito
ii the iistudents. ii ii As iiconsideration iiof iithe iiinstrument iicompatibility, iithe
ii researcher iihad iimade iithe iirelevance iiof iithe iidebate iimotions, iithe iiobjective
ii of iithe iitest, iithe iirating iiscale, i i and iithe iiinstructions iiwith iithe iiSK-KD
ii (Standar iiKompetensi- iiKompetensi iiDasar) iiin iiorder iito iithe iiinstrument iiis
ii valid ii(see iithe iiappendix ii1 iiand ii10).
2) Reliability
Reliability iirefers iito iithe iiconsistency iiof iithe iiscore iiobtained.13 iiIt
ii means iiif iiyou iigive iithe iisame iitest iito iithe iisame iistudents iior iimatched
ii students iion iitwo iidifferent iioccasions, iithe iitest iishould iiyield iisimilar iiresult.
ii Brown iisaid iithat iihuman iierror, iisubjectivity iiand iibias iimay iienter iithe
ii scoring iiprocess. iiBy iimeans, iiattaining iireliability iiis iiimportant iibecause iiit
ii means iithat iithe iiscores iiare iidependable, iiso iithat iiwe iican iirely iion iithem iiin
ii decision-making.
In iiaddition, iiLouma iigave iithree iitypes iiof iireliability iiparticularly
ii relevant iifor iispeaking iiassessment; iiintra-rater iireliability, iiinter-rater
ii reliability iiand iiparallel iiform iireliability.14 iiIntra-rater iireliability iior
ii internal iiconsistency iimeans iithat iiraters iiagree iiwith iithemselves, iiover iia
ii period iiof iia iifew iidays, iiabout iithe iiratings iithat iithey iigive. iiInter-rater
ii reliability iimeans iithat iidifferent iiraters iirate iiperformances iisimilarly.
ii Parallel iiform iireliability iiis
12 ii
Louma, iiop. iicit., iip. ii185
13 ii
Fraenkel iiand iiWallen., iiop. iicit., iip. ii165
14 ii
Louma, iiop. iicit., iipp. ii179-180
 43

relevant iiif iithere iiare iimore iithan iione iitest iiform iithat iiare iimeant iito iibe
ii interchangeable. iiThe iiexaminees iiare iiasked iito iitake iitwo iior iimore iiof i i the
ii different iiforms, iiand iitheir iiscores iiare iithen iianalysed iifor iiconsistency. iiIf iithe
ii scores iiare iinot iiconsistent, iithe iiforms iicannot iibe iiconsidered iiparallel ii–
ii assuming iiof iicourse iithat iithe iiraters iiare iiinternally iiconsistent. iiSome iitasks
ii within iithe iiforms iimay iithen iineed iito iibe iirevised. iiThis iiresearch iiused iiinter-
ii rater iireliability iiso iithere iiwere iitwo iirater ii(the iiresearcher iiand iithe iiEnglish
ii teacher) iito iiscore iithe iisame iistudents’ iiperformace iiwith iithe iisame iirating
ii scale.
Heaton iistated iithat iione iieffective iiway iiof iiincreasing iitest iireliability
ii is iiby iicarefully iidrawn iiup iithe iirating iiscale. iiSuch iia iiscale ii(with iithe iiclear
ii and iiconcise iidescription iiof iivarious iicharacteristics iiof iiperformance iiat
ii each iilevel) iienable iithe iimarker iito iiidentify iiprecisely iiwhat iihe iior iishe
ii expects iifor iieach iiband iiand iithen iiassign iithe iimost iiappropriate iigrade iito iithe
ii task iibeing iiassessed. iiFurthermore, iimarkers iiare iiencourage iiin iithis iiway iinot
ii only iito iibe iiconsistent iiin iitheir iimarking iibut iialso iito iiformulate iijudgements
ii in iiqualitative iiterms iibefore iilater iiconverting iisuch iijudgements iiinto
ii quantitative iiassessments.15 iiThe iiresearcher iiprovided iithe iirating iiscale iiand
ii also iithe iiresult iiof iiscoring iiwith iiinter-rater iireliability ii(scored iiby iithe
ii researcher iiand iithe iiEnglish iiteacher) iiin iiorder iito iithe iiinstrument iiis iireliable
ii (see iithe iiappendix ii1 iiand ii2).
E. Techniques of Data Collecting ii ii ii

After iimaking iithe iiinstrument, iithe iiresearcher iicollected iithe iidata iiby iigiving
ii a iitest iito iithe iistudents. iiThe iitest iitechnique iiwas iione iiof iithe iidata iicollecting
ii techniques iiin iia iiquantitative iiresearch.16 iiThe iitest iiis iian iioral iitest iithat iithe iipurpose
ii is iiassessing iithe iistudents’ iispeaking iiskill. iiThe iiresearcher iiasked iithe iistudents iito
ii work iiin iipairs iiand iidebate iisome iitopics iigiven iiby iithe iiresearcher. iiThe iitest iigiven
ii consists iiof iipre-test iiand iipost-test.
1) Pre-test
The iiresearcher iiconducted iipre-test iito iitwo iiclasses. iiThe iipretest iiwas

15
Heaton, iiop. iicit., iip. ii165
16
Tim iiPenyusun iiPedoman iiPenulisan ii iiSkripsi ii iiFITK, ii iiPedoman ii iiPenulisan ii
iiSkripsi, ii ii(Jakarta: iiFITK, ii2013), iip.65
 44

on iithe iifirst iiweek iiof iithe iiresearch iitime. iiOn iiMarch ii26th iiand iiMarch ii27th,
ii the iiresearcher iiconducted iithe iipre-test iito iithe iiexperimental iiclass ii(XI iiIPA
ii 5) iiand iithe iicontrol iiclass ii(XI iiIPA ii6). iiBefore iithe iipre-test, iithe iiresearcher
ii explained iiabout iithe iiconcept iiof iiclassroom iidebate iisuch iias iithe
ii procedures, iithe iifunctions, iithe iielements, iithe iirules, iiand iithe iiscoring iito
ii both iiof iiclasses. iiThe iiresearcher iidevided iithe iistudents iiinto iipairs iias iithe
ii positive iiand iinegative iiteams iiand iithen iigroup iithe iiteams iiin iito iisome
ii round. iiThe iiresearcher iigave iithe iimotions iiand iidecided iithe iiteam iipositions.
ii The iiresearcher iigave iithem ii30 iiminutes iito iicontruct iithe iiidea ii(detail
ii explanation iican iibe iiseen iiat iichapter ii2). iiAfter iithat, iithe iistudents iigave iioral
ii presentation iiindividually iibased iion iithe iimotion iiand iithe iijob iidetails. iiThe
ii students’ iipresentation iicontained iirebuttal, iiopinion, iiexplanation iietc. iiThe
ii students iidebated iithe iimotion iiin iieach iiround ii(7 iirounds) iiso iiother iistudents
ii stayed iias iithe iiaudience iiwhile iione iiround iiwas iihaving iidebate. iiThe
ii researcher iiand iithe iiEnglish iiteacher iistayed iiin iithe iiclass iias iithe iiscorers
ii (inter-rater iiscoring). iiWith iidifferent iimotions iifor iieach iiround, iithe
ii students iihad iiclassroom iidebate iiso iithe iiresearcher iitook iithe iioral
ii proficiency iiscore iidirectly iiduring iistudents’ iiperformances iiand iiby iivideo
ii recording.
2) Post-test
The iipost-test iiwas iigiven iiafter iithe iitreatment. iiThe iiresearcher iionly
ii gave iithe iitreatment iiof iiclassroom iidebate iito iithe iiexperimental iiclass ii(XI
ii IPA ii5). iiWith iithe iisame iiprocedures iiand iiscoring iias iiin iithe iipre-test, iithe
ii students iiwere iiasked iito iigive iioral iipresentation iiindividually iifor iipost-test.
ii The iiresearcher iiconducted iipost-test iion iiApril ii24th iiand iiApril ii25th iito iithe
ii experimental iiclass ii(XI iiIPA ii5) iiand iithe iicontrol iiclass ii(XI iiIPA ii6).
 45

F. Technique of Data Analysis ii ii ii

For iithe iinext iistep iiof iithe iiresearch, iithe iiresearcher iiprocessed iiand iianalyzed
ii the iidata iifrom iipre-test iiand iipost-test iiscores. iiThe iiresearcher iihad iia iitest iiof
ii normality iito iisee iithe iinormality iiof iistudents’ iispeaking iiskill iiand iia iitest iiof
ii homogenity iito iiensure iithat iithe iistudents iispeaking iiskill iiof iiexperimental iiand
ii controlled iiclass iiwere iihomogenous. iiThese iitests iiwere iirequisite iitest iibefore iithe
ii researcher iianalyzed iithe iidata. iiAfter iitesting iithe iinormality iiand iihomogenety, iithe
ii data iigained iifrom iithe iipost- iitest iiof iiboth iiclasses iiwere iianalyzed iiusing iia
ii parametric iistatistic. iiThe iiparametric iistatistic iiused iiis iit-test iiformulation.
1) Test iiof iiNormality
Normality ii test iiis iidone iitowards iitwo iiclasses; iithose iiare
ii experimental iiclass iiand iicontrol iiclass. iiThe iinormality iitest iiis iidone iiwith
ii Liliefors iitest iiwith iirequirement iias iifollows: iiIf iiscore iiof iiLvalue ii≤ iiLtable ii, iiso
ii the iidata iicomes iifrom iithe iinormal iipopulation, iibut iiif iiit iiis iinot iifulfilled iithis
ii requirement, iiso iithe iidata iidoes iinot iicome iifrom iinormal iipopulation. iiScore
ii of iiLvalue iiis iigot iifrom iiLiliefors iiformula iias iifollows:

ii ii ii ii ii
̅
ii ii

ii

in iiwhich,
Zi = iinormality
Xi = iidata iifrom iievery iisample
ii = iideviation iistandard
̅ = iimean
2) Test iiof iiHomogenity
After iinormality iitest iigives iiindication iithat iithe iidata iiis iidistributed
ii normally, iiso iiit iineeds iito iido iihomogeneity iitest iiwith iiFisher iitest/ iiF iitest.
ii The iisteps iiof iidetermining iihomogeneity iiare:
 Dividing iithe iilarger iivariance iiby iithe iismaller iione. iiIf iithe iivariances iiare
ii similar iito iieach iiother, iithe iiF-value iiwill iibe iiclose iito ii1. iiThe iimore iithe
ii variances iidiffer, iithe iilarger iithe iiF-value iiwill iibe.
 46

 Comparing iithe iiobtained iiF-value iito iithe iiappropriate iione iiin iithe iitable.
ii If iithe iiobtained iiF-value iiis iiequal iito iior iilarger iifrom iithe iitable iivalue,
ii then iithe iidata iiis iilack iihomogeneity iiof iivariance
3) Statistical iiT-Test iiFormulation
To iifind iiout iithe iidifferences iiof iistudents’ iiscores iiby iiusing iithe
ii different iimethod, iithe iitechnique iiof iidata iianalysis iithat iiis iiused iiby iithe
ii writer iiin iithis iiresearch iiis iistatistical iianalysis iiwith iit-test, iiit iiis iito iitest iithe
ii significance iiof iithe iimean iigained iiscore iiof iithe iiexperiment iigroup iiand iithe
ii control iigroup. iiThe iiformula iiis iias iifollow:17
X ii ii ii ii ii ii i i X ii
tvalue =
ii ii

ii ii ii
ii ii ii ii ii
√ ii ii
ii ii

while iithe ( ii) ii( ii) ii ii

= ii√ ii

iiScom
ii ii ii ii ii ii
ii ii

The iiprocess iiof iit-test iiis iias iifollow:

 Determining iithe iihypothesis; iiH0 ii= iiX ii1 ii≤ iiX ii2 iior iiX ii1 ii> iiX i i 2
Annotation:

X 1 = The mean score of experimental class

ii
ii
ii ii ii ii ii ii

X 2 = The mean score of control class

ii
ii
ii ii ii ii ii ii

 Determining iicriteria iiof iitesting iiand iittable. iiThe iicriteria iiof iitesting iiwere:
ii If iitvalue ii< iittable, iiH0 iiwas iiaccepted iiand iiH1 iiwas iirejected, iion iithe iiother
ii hand, iiIf iitvalue ii> iittable, iiH0 iiwas iirejected iiand iiH1 iiwas iiaccepted.
 After iidetermining iithe iicriteria iiof iitesting, iithe iiresearcher iidetermined
ii the iisignificance iilevel iiα ii= ii0.05, iiit iimeant iithis iiresearch iiwas ii95%
ii trusted. iiMoreover, iithe iiresearcher iidetermined iithe iidegree iiof iifreedom
ii by iiformulation iidf ii= iin1 ii+ iin2 ii– ii2 iiand iithe iittable.

17 ii
Suharsimi iiArikunto, iiProsedur iiPenelitian iiSuatu iiPendekatan iiPraktik, ii(Jakarta: iiPT
ii Rineka iiCipta, ii2006), iipp. ii311-312.
 47

 Calculating iiof iitvalue. iiBecause iiboth iisamples iiof iithe iiexperimental iiand
ii the iicontrolled iiclass iiwere iihomogeneous, iihence iithe iihypothesis iitesting
ii used iit-test iiformulation.

ii X iiX ii ii ii
tvalue ii=
ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii
ii
ii ii ii
√ ii ii

Scom ( ii) ii( ii) ii ii

= ii√ ii
ii
ii
ii ii ii
ii
ii ii

Annotation:
X ii1 : iiThe iimean iiscore iiof iithe iipost iitest iiof iithe iiexperimental iiclass

X ii
2 : iiThe iimean iiscore iiof iipost-test iiin iicontrolled
ii class iiScom : iiVariance iicombination
S i 1i 2 : iiVariance iiin iiexperimental
ii class
2
iiS i i
2
: iiVariance iiin
ii controlled iiclass
n1 : iiTotal iistudents iiin iiexperimental
ii class iin2 : iiTotal iistudents iiin iicontrolled iiclass

 Comparing iitvalue iito iittable, iibased iion iithe iistatistical iicalculation

 Giving iiconclusion iiabout iithe iihypothesis.

a. Mean
Mean iiis iithe iitotal iiof iiall iidata iiwhich iiis iidivided iiwith iithe iinumber iiof
ii data. iiBecause iithis iiresearch iimakes iigrouped iidata iiso iithe iiformula iiis:
∑ ii ii ii ii ii
ii ii i i
X
∑ ii ii ii

b. Range ii(R)
Range iiis iithe iidifferent iibetween iithe iilargest iiand iismallest iivalues iiin iia
ii quantitative iidata iiset. iiThe iiformulation iiof iirange iiis:
Range ii(R) ii= iiXmax ii-
ii Xmin iiAnnotation:
 48

Xmax: iiThe iilargest iistudent’s iiscore

ii Xmin: iiThe iismallest iistudent’s
ii score
c. Variance ii(S2)
Variance iiis iithe iisquare iiof iithe iistandard iideviation. iiIn iiaddition, iiSwisher
ii and iiMcClure iistate iithat iiit iimeasures iithe iiamount iiof iidispersion iiof iithe
ii value iifrom iithe iimean iiof iian iiinterval-level iivariance.19 iiThe iiformulation
ii of iivariance ii(S2) iiused iiin iithis iiresearch iiwas:

S2 ii= ii ii ∑ ii(∑ ii) ii

ii ( ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii)

d. Standard iiDeviation
Deviation iistandard iiis iia iiquantity iicalculated iito iiindicate iithe
ii extent iiof iideviation iifor iia iigroup iias iia iiwhole. iiBefore iidetermining iithe
ii standard iideviation, iiat iifirst iivariance iishould iibe iidetermined.
Sd ii= i i √ ii ii
In iiwhich iiS2 ii= iiVariance
 71

CHAPTER V ii

ii CONCLUSION AND ii

ii SUGGESTION

A. Conclusion
The iiconclusion iiof iithis iiresearch iiobtained iithat iiusing iiclassroom iidebate iiis
ii effective iitechnique iito iiimprove iistudents’ iispeaking iiskill. iiThe iiexperimental iiclass
ii showed iisignificant iiimprovement iiafter iithey iilearnt iiclassroom iidebate. iiIt iican iibe
ii proved iiby iithe iiresearch iiresult iithat iihas iibeen iiexplained iiin iidata iianalysis ii(see
ii chapter iiIV). iiThe iistudents iiproblem iiin iicomprehension, iifluency, iivocabulary,
ii pronunciation, iiand iigrammar iiwere iisolved iiand iithe iispeaking iiscores iiwere
ii significantly iiimproved. iiFirst, iithe iiaverage iiscores iiof iicomprehension iiwere
ii increased iiafter iipracticing iiclassroom iidebate. iiStudents iino iilonger iifelt iidifficult
ii following iiwhat iiwas iisaid iiand iithey iicould iiunderstand iieverything iiat iinormal iispeed.
ii They iican iiunderstand iiEnglish iiexpression iiand iino iimore iirepetition iito iiunderstand
ii the iimessage. iiSecond, iithe iiaverage iiscores iiof iifluency iiwere iiincreased. iiStudents
ii were iino iilonger iihesitate iito iispeak iiand iithey iidid iinot iishow iilapses iior iihalting. iiThey
ii improved iitheir iibraveness iiso iithey iiproduced iilonger iispeech iifluently. iiThird, iithe
ii average iiscores iiof iivocabulary iiwere iiincreased iithat iistudents iihad iino iimisused
ii vocabulary. iiThey iiproduced iilonger iispeech iiwith iicorrect iiand iivaried iiwords.
ii Fourth, iithe iiaverage iiscores iiof iipronunciation iiwere iiincreased iithat iistudents’
ii pronunciation iiwere iimuch iibetter iiand iimore iicorrect. iiTheir iispeeches iicould iibe
ii more iiunderstood iieventhough iithey iihave iidifferent iiacceents. iiFifth, iitheir iiaverage
ii score iiof iigrammar iiwere iiincreased iithat iistudents iihad iiless iigrammatical iierror.
ii They iican iiproduced iibetter iigrammar iiso iitheir iispeeches iicould iibe iimore
ii comprehended. iiFinally, iiit iican iibe iiseen iithat iithere iiwas iisignificance iiimprovement
ii after iithe iistudents iilearnt iiand iipracticed iiclassroom iidebate.
The iiresearch iiresult iiperformed iithe iimean iiscore iiof iiexperimental iiclass iiwas
ii greater iithan iithe iimean iiscore iiof iicontrol iiclass iiin iithe iipost-test. iiThe iiexperimental
ii class iireceived iitreatment iiof iiclassroom iidebate iiwhile iithe iicontrol iiclass iidid iinot.
ii The iiresult iiof iistatistical iihypothesis iitest iion iithe iilevel iiof iisignificance ii5% iifound
ii that iitvalue iiwas i i 4.37 i i while i i ttable i i was i i 1.68 i i or i i tvalue i i > i i ttable. i i Thus, i i the i i H0
ii (Null i i Hypothesis) i i was
 72

rejected iiand iithe iiH1 ii(Alternative iiHypothesis) iiwas iiaccepted. iiIt iican iibe iiseen iifrom
ii the iiacceptance iiof iialternative ii(H1) iihypothesis iithat iithere iiis iia iisignificant
ii difference iiin iithe iimain iigains iibetween iithe iistudents’ iispeaking iiscore iitought iiby
ii classroom iidebate iiand iistudents iitaught iiwithout iiit. iiIt iimeant iithat iithe
ii implementation iiof iiclassroom iidebate iiin iithe iiexperimental iiimproved iistudents’
ii speaking iiscore. iiThere iiwas iia iipositive iieffect iiof iiusing iiclassroom iidebate iitowards
ii the iistudents’ iispeaking iiskill. iiTherefore, iiclassroom iidebate iiis iieffective iito iiimprove
ii students’ iispeaking iiskill.
B. Suggestion
This iiresearch iiproved iithat iiclassroom iidebate iiis iian iieffective iitechnique iito
ii teach iispeaking. iiIt iihas iibeen iitested iiby iithe iidata iigained iiduring iithe iiresearch.
ii However, iithe iiresearcher iiwould iilike iito iigive iisome iisuggestion iias iifollows:
1. Since iiEnglish iiis iia iiforeign iilanguage iibut iithe iineeds iito iibe iiable iito iispeak
ii Engish iiright iinow iiis iivery iidemanded, iiteacher iishould iibe iimore iicreative iiin
ii teaching iiEnglish. iiClassroom iidebate iiis iihighly iirecommended iito iiteach
ii speaking iisince iiit iihas iibeen iiexperimentally iistudied iiand iitested iiin iithis
ii scientific iiresearch.
2. Classroom iidebate iiis iia iinew iitechnique iito iibe iiused iiin iithe iiclass iiso iiteacher
ii should iigive iimore iiexplanation iiabout iihow iito iirun iithemselves iiin iithe
ii debate iicourt iito iimake iisure iithey iiknow iiwhat iito iido.
3. Teacher iishould iipay iimore iiattention iion iithe iiprogress iifive iispeaking
ii components ii(comprehension, iifluency, iivocabulary, iipronuciation, iiand
ii grammar) iiwhile iiteaching iispeaking. iiTeacher iimay iigive iifeedback iito iithe
ii students iiintensely iiby iireporting iitheir iiprogress iiof iifive iispeaking
ii components iiso iistudents iiwill iiknow iiwhat iito iiimprove iimore iion iitheir
ii speaking. iiTeacher iishould iialso iigive iitime iifor iithe iistudents iito iievaluate iifive
ii speaking iicomponents iiwith iitheir iipartners iiso iiit iiwill iitrain iithe iistudents
ii able iito iicorrect iitheir iimistakes iiand iicreate iia iistudent iicentre iilearning.
4. Teacher iishould iibring iiinteresting iiand iicurrent iitopics iito iibe iithe iimotion iion
ii the iiclassroom iidebate.
5. For iithe iifuture iiresearch iiabout iidebate, iiit iimay iibe iipossible iito iiimplement
ii debate iifor iijunior iihigh iischool iistudents.
 73

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, iiKenneth., iiet iial., iiStudy iiSpeaking iia iiCourse iiis iiSpoken iiEnglish iifor
iiAcademic iiPurposes iiSecond iiEdition. iiCambridge: iiCambridge iiUniversity

iiPress, ii2004.

Arikunto, iiSuharsimi. iiProsedur iiPenelitian iiSuatu iiPendekatan iiPraktik. iiJakarta:

iiPT. iiRineka iiCipta, ii2010.

Badan iiStandar iiNational iiPendidikan, iiKurikulum. iiStandar iiIsi iiuntuk iiSatuan

iiPendidikan iiDasar iidan iiMenengah. iiJakarta: iiBadan iiStandar iiNational

iiPendidikan, ii2006.

Brown, iiH. iiDouglas. iiLanguage iiAssessment: iiPrinciples iiand iiClassroom iiPractices.

New iiYork: iiPearson iiEducation, iiInc., ii2004.

Brown, iiH. iiDouglas. iiTeaching iiby iiPrinciples: iiAn iiInteractive iiApproach iito
iiLanguage iiPedagody iiSecond iiEdition. iiCalifornia: iiLongman: ii2000.

C. , iiChan. iiAssessment: iiDebate. iiHong iikong: iiUniversity iiof iiHong iiKong, ii2009.

ii Creswell, ii ii J.W. ii ii Educational ii ii Research; ii ii Planning, ii ii Conducting, ii ii and ii

i i Evaluating
Quantitative ii ii iiand ii ii iiQualitative ii ii iiResearch. ii ii iiThird ii ii iiEdition. ii ii iiNew
i i Jersey:

Pearson iiEducation iiInc., ii2008.

Davidson, ii iiKaren., ii i i et ii iial., Guide ii iito Introducing iiSpeech iiand iiDebate iiin iithe
iiClassroom, iiAlberta: iiAlberta iiDebate iiand iiSpeech iiAssociation, ii2012.

Fraenkel, iiJack. iiR iiand iiWallen, iiNorman iiE. iiHow ii iito ii iiDesign ii iiand ii iiEvaluate
iiResearch iiin iiEducation iiFifth iiEdition. iiNew iiYork: iiMcGraw- iiHill, i i 2003.

Gerald, iiKelly. iiHow iito iiTeach iiPronunciation. iiHarlow: iiLongman, ii2000.

Harmer, iiJeremy. iiThe iiPractice iiof iiEnglish iiLanguage. iiNew iiYork: iiLongman,

ii 2001. iiHasanah, iiUswatun. iiThe iiImpelementation iiof iiDebate iiTechnique iito

ii Improve iithe
Students’ iiSpeaking iiSkill. iiSalatiga: iiSTAIN iiSalatiga, ii2012.

Heaton, iiJ.B. iiWriting iiEnglish iiLanguage iiTests. iiNew iiYork: iiLongman iiInc., ii1988.

ii Hooley, iiDiana. iiSpeaking iiMy iiMind: iithe iiimportance iiof iihigh iischool iidebate, iiThe
English iiJournal. ii96, ii2007.

Http://ezinearticles.com/?How-to-Organize-a-Classroom-Debate&id=4132815,
iiaccessed iion iiMarch ii31 ii4102, ii18:04.
st
 74

Http://library.thinkquest.org/C005627/Learn/Instruction/HOWADE_1/howade_1.
HTM?tql-iframe ii- ii4. iiAccessed iioN iinovember ii19th, ii2013.

Hughes, iiArthur. iiTesting iifor iiLanguage iiTeacher. iiCambridge: iiCambridge

iiUniversity iiPress, ii2003.

Kennedy, iiRuth. iiIn-Class iiDebates: iiFertile iiGround iifor iiActive iiLearning iiand iithe
iiCultivation iiof iiCritical iiThinking iiand iiOral iiCommunication iiSkills,

iiInternational iiJournal iiof iiTeaching iiand iiLearning iiin iiHigher iiEducation.

ii19, ii2007.

Leuser, iiDavid iiM. iiClassroom iiDebate. iiNew iiHampshire: iiPlymouth iiState

iiUniversity, ii2003.

Louma, iiSari. iiAssessing iiSpeaking. iiCambridge: iiCambridge iiUniversity iiPress, ii2004.

iiMGMP iiBahasa iiInggris. iiEnglish iiSyllabus. iiSouth iiTangerang: iiSMAN ii3 iiSouth

Tangerang, ii2013.

Mulholland, iiJoan. iiThe iiLanguage iiof iiNegotiation. iiLondon: iiRoutledge, ii2002.

ii Neuman, iiW. iiLawrence. iiBasic iiof iiSocial iiResearch: iiQualitative iiand

ii Quantitative
Approaches iiSecond iiEdition. iiCalifornia: iiPearson/ iiAllyn iiand iiBacon, ii2007.

Osborne, iiAnne. iiDebate iiand iiStudent iiDevelopment iiin iithe iiHistory iiClassroom,
iiNew iiDirectios iifor iiTeaching iiand iiLearning. ii103, i i 2005.

Purpura, iiJames. iiAssessing iiGrammar. iiCambridge: iiCambridge iiUniversity iiPress,

ii2004.

Quinn, iiSimon iiR. iiDebating. ii Brisbane: ii International ii Debate ii Education

ii Association, ii2005.

Rubiati, iiRicha. iiImproving iiStudents’ iiSpeaking iiSkill iithrough iiDebate iiTechnique.

Semarang: iiIAIN iiWalisongo iiSemarang, ii2010.

Sellnow, iiDeanna. iiD. iiConfident iiin iiPublic iiSpeaking. iiDakota: iiThomson iiLearning
iiInc., ii2005.

Students iiCouncil iiof iiMadrasah iiAliyah iiNegeri iiInsan iiCendekia iiSerpong. iiEnglish
iiDebate: iiSonic iiLinguistic ii2010. iiSouth iiTangerang: iiMadrasah iiAliyah

iiInsan iiCendekia, ii2010.

The iiDebating iiSA iiTeam. iiDebating: iiA iiBrief iiIntroduction iifor iiBeginners.
iiBrisbane: iiDebating iiSA iiIncorporated, ii2008.
 75

Thornbury, iiScott. iiHow iito iiTeach iiSpeaking. iiEdinburgh iiGate: iiPearson iiEducation
iiLimited, ii2005.

Tim iiPenyusun iiPedoman iiPenulisan iiSkripsi iiFITK, iiPedoman iiPenulisan iiSkripsi.

Jakarta: iiFITK, ii2013.

U.S.D., iiSan iiJose., iiStudent iiOral iiLanguage iiObservation iiMatrix. iiCalifornia:

iiBilingual iiEducation iiOffice iiof iithe iiCalifornia iiDepartment iiof iiEducation,

ii2013.

Visnja iiPavicic iiTakac, iiVocabulary iiLearning iiStrategies iiand iiForeign iiLanguage

iiAcquisition. iiOntario: iiMultilingual iiMatters, ii2008.

Weir, iiCyril iiJ. iiLanguage iiTesting iiand iiValidation: iiAn iiEvidence-based iiApproach.
Hampshire: iiPalgrave iiMacmillian, ii2005.

Wilson, iiJ.F. iiand iiArnold, iiCarroll. iiC. iiPublic iiSpeaking iias iia iiLiberal iiArt. iiBoston:
iiAllyn iiand iiBacon, ii2000.

Yule, iiGeorge. iiThe iiStudy iiof iiLanguage. iiCambridge: iiCambridge iiUniversity iiPress,
ii2010.
 76

Table ii1.1. iiThe iiStudents iiOral iiLanguage iiObservation iiMatrix ii(SOLOM)

ii (The iicriteria iiwas iiadapted iifrom iiStudents iiOral iiLanguage iiObservation
ii Matrix.1
The iirating iiwas iiadapted iifrom iiTesting iifor iiLanguage iiTeachers
ii
2
) iiRated iiby : Class i i :
Date : Test :
Below ii62 63-72 73-82 83-92 93-99
Level ii1 Level ii2 Level ii3 Level ii4 Level ii5
Cannot Has iigreat Understand Understands Understand
understand difficulty most iiof nearly everyday
even iisimple following what iiis iisaid everything conversatio
conversation. what iiis iisaid. at iislower- at iinormal n iiand
Comprhension

can than-normal speed. normal

comprehend speed iiwith Although classroom
only ii“socal repetition. occasional discussions
conversation” repetition without
spoken may iibe difficulty.
slowly iiand necessary.
with iifrequent
repittition
Speech iiis iiso Usually Speech iiin Speech iiin Speech iiin
halting iiand hesiatant; everyday everyday everyday
fragmentary often iiforced communicat communicat conversatio
as iito iimake into iisilence ion iiand ion iiand n iiand iiin
conversation by iilanguge classroom classroom classroom
virtually limitations. dicussion iiis discussion discussion
impossible. frequently in iigenerally is iifluent iiand
disrupted iiby fluent, iiwith effortless
Fluenc

the occasional approximati

y

student’s lapses iiwhile ng iithat iiof iia

search iifor the iistudents native
the iicorrect searches iifor speaker.
manner iiof the iicorrect
expression. manner iiof
expression

1 ii
San iiJose iiU.S.D., iiStudent iiOral iiLanguage iiObservation iiMatrix, ii(California: iiBilingual
iiEducation iiOffice iiof iithe iiCalifornia iiDepartment iiof iiEducation, ii2013), iip. ii2
2 ii
Arthur iiHughes, iiTesting iifor iiLanguage iiTeachers, ii(Cambridge: iiCambridge
iiUniversity, ii2003), iip.131-133
 77

Below ii62 63-72 73-82 83-92 93-99

Level ii1 Level ii2 Level ii3 Level ii4 Level ii5
Vocabulary Misuse iiof Frequently Occasionall Use iiof
limitations iiso words iiand uses iithe y iiuses Vocabulary
extreme iias iito very iilimitedwrong inappropriat and iiidioms
make vocabulary words e iiterms iior approximate
Vocabulary

conversation make conversatio must s iithat iiof iia

virtually comprehensi n rephrase native
impossible. on iiquite somewhat ideas speaker.
difficult. limited because iiof
because iiof inadequate
inadequte vocabulary.
vocabulary.
Pronunciatio Very iihard iito Pronunciati Always Pronunciati
n iiproblem iiso understand on iiproblems intelligible, on iiand
severe iias iito because necessitate though iione intonation
Pronunciation

make iispeech pronunciation concentratio is iiconcious approximate

virtually problem, n iion iithe of iia iidefinite s iithat iia
unintelligible. must part iiof accent iiand native
frequently iibe listener iiand occasinal speaker.
asked iito occasionally inappropriat
repeat iiin lead iito e iiintonation
order iito iibe misundersta patterns.
understood. nding.
Errors iiin Grammar iiand Makes Occasionall Grammatica
grammar iiand word iiorder frequent y iimake l iiusage iiand
word iiorder iiso error iimake errors iiof grammatical word iiorder
severe iias iito comprehensi grammar or iiword approximate
Grammar

make iispeech on iidifficult. and iiword order iierrors a iinative

virtually Must iioften order iiwhich which iido speaker’s.
unintelligible. rephrase iior occasionally not iiobscure
restrict iiwhat obscure meaning.
is iisaid iito meaning.
basic
patterns.
 78

Appendix 2 ii

The Students’ Score (Inter-Rater Reliability)

ii ii ii ii

C: iiComprehension, iiF: iiFluency, iiV: iiVocabulary, iiP: iiPronunciation, iiG: iiGrammar

A. The iiPre-test iiScore iiof iiExperimental iiClass
1. Scorer iiI
NO STUDENTS’ iiCODE C F V P G
1 AL 65 65 65 65 65
2 AN 73 70 70 76 73
3 AK 65 63 70 65 65
4 AZ 68 68 70 60 65
5 AR 78 76 75 65 65
6 AP 78 70 70 76 70
7 AC 80 78 76 80 75
8 AY 70 65 65 70 65
9 BA 68 65 65 63 65
10 DC 65 63 70 60 60
11 DW 80 80 75 70 75
12 DK 65 67 70 65 65
13 DR 76 73 65 63 65
14 ER 65 60 67 65 60
15 FR 65 65 65 74 65
16 GH 65 63 60 76 65
17 GA 68 65 67 60 60
18 GT 76 76 70 65 65
19 IM 70 65 70 76 65
20 KP 76 70 70 70 70
21 KA 65 70 65 67 65
22 LN 70 70 75 72 65
23 LS 65 65 68 65 60
24 NV 68 60 65 65 65
25 PX 90 91 90 90 87
26 RD 63 65 65 68 70
27 RN 76 73 65 70 65
28 YP 65 60 65 63 60
 79

2. Scorer iiII

NO STUDENTS’ iiCODE C F V P G
1 AL 68 68 67 63 65
2 AN 70 75 77 73 70
3 AK 70 65 70 67 68
4 AZ 67 68 73 63 65
5 AR 80 78 75 75 73
6 AP 76 74 70 75 75
7 AC 85 80 78 83 77
8 AY 73 65 67 75 65
9 BA 70 73 68 62 68
10 DC 65 65 70 67 63
11 DW 78 83 85 75 75
12 DK 70 65 70 65 65
13 DR 75 70 70 65 65
14 ER 65 65 65 68 65
15 FR 65 65 67 70 65
16 GH 67 68 68 73 70
17 GA 70 63 70 65 63
18 GT 75 73 75 70 65
19 IM 73 70 67 70 65
20 KP 78 73 70 75 70
21 KA 65 73 65 65 65
22 LN 73 70 75 70 65
23 LS 65 63 68 65 63
24 NV 70 63 70 65 65
25 PX 90 90 95 90 88
26 RD 63 67 65 67 73
27 RN 75 70 68 67 65
28 YP 67 65 70 65 65
 80

3. Final iiscore

Final
NO STUDENTS’ iiCODE C F V P G
Scor
ii

e
1 AL 66 66 66 65 65 66
2 AN 72 72 74 74 72 73
3 AK 68 64 70 66 66 67
4 AZ 68 68 71 62 65 67
5 AR 79 77 75 70 69 74
6 AP 77 72 70 75 72 73
7 AC 82 79 77 81 76 79
8 AY 71 65 66 73 65 68
9 BA 69 69 66 63 66 67
10 DC 65 64 70 64 61 65
11 DW 79 82 80 73 75 78
12 DK 68 66 70 65 65 67
13 DR 76 72 67 64 65 69
14 ER 65 63 66 66 63 65
15 FR 65 65 66 72 65 67
16 GH 66 66 64 75 67 68
17 GA 69 64 69 63 63 66
18 GT 75 74 73 67 65 71
19 IM 72 68 68 73 65 69
20 KP 77 72 70 73 70 72
21 KA 65 72 65 66 65 67
22 LN 72 70 75 71 65 71
23 LS 65 64 68 65 62 65
24 NV 69 62 67 65 65 66
25 PX 90 90 93 90 88 90
26 RD 63 66 65 68 72 67
27 RN 75 71 66 68 65 69
28 YP 66 63 68 64 63 65
Mean iiScore 71,21 69,5 70,17 69,32 67,32 69,67
Total iiScore 1951
 81

B. The iiPre-test iiScore iiof iiControl iiClass

1. Scorer iiI
NO STUDENTS’ iiCODE C F V P G
1 AH 70 70 68 70 67
2 AS 65 67 63 70 67
3 AA 76 80 75 83 84
4 AW 75 78 83 83 75
5 AF 65 67 64 68 65
6 BW 75 80 77 80 80
7 BD 60 65 65 60 65
8 DZ 75 75 78 65 70
9 DA 78 80 78 70 70
10 DF 80 78 78 73 75
11 EP 75 77 75 75 70
12 GW 77 75 80 73 73
13 GI 68 70 72 70 70
14 HS 78 75 73 76 72
15 HR 67 70 65 68 70
16 HB 75 76 75 70 78
17 MR 75 73 73 68 70
18 NS 80 78 75 75 70
19 NF 73 68 70 73 70
20 PL 80 75 75 78 70
21 PP 70 73 70 75 68
22 QM 65 70 65 64 65
23 RT 73 75 70 75 70
24 RA 70 65 68 73 65
25 RM 65 70 68 65 70
26 RA 70 75 70 77 70
27 RW 75 67 70 68 65
28 ZF 80 76 78 70 70
 82

2. Scorer iiII

NO STUDENTS’ iiCODE C F V P G
1 AH 73 68 74 70 70
2 AS 70 70 65 73 65
3 AA 75 77 80 77 80
4 AW 77 73 83 78 75
5 AF 65 70 70 67 65
6 BW 70 75 80 75 73
7 BD 65 70 65 68 65
8 DZ 73 70 68 63 65
9 DA 80 75 70 75 65
10 DF 78 70 78 80 75
11 EP 77 78 80 73 76
12 GW 75 70 75 68 70
13 GI 74 65 75 65 75
14 HS 75 73 74 75 68
15 HR 65 65 65 68 72
16 HB 78 75 75 70 73
17 MR 70 75 75 65 67
18 NS 80 73 80 76 74
19 NF 75 70 73 75 70
20 PL 78 73 73 77 70
21 PP 70 71 75 78 65
22 QM 63 68 68 60 65
23 RT 73 70 77 70 65
24 RA 75 70 70 65 65
25 RM 65 73 70 65 74
26 RA 75 78 75 75 73
27 RW 78 70 75 65 68
28 ZF 83 78 70 65 73
 83

3. Final iiscore

Final
NO STUDENTS’ iiCODE C F V P G
Scor
ii

e
1 AH 71 69 71 70 69 70
2 AS 68 69 64 72 66 68
3 AA 76 79 78 80 82 80
4 AW 80 76 83 81 75 79
5 AF 65 69 67 68 65 67
6 BW 76 78 79 78 77 78
7 BD 63 68 65 64 65 65
8 DZ 74 73 73 64 67 70
9 DA 79 78 74 73 68 74
10 DF 79 74 78 77 75 77
11 EP 76 78 78 74 73 76
12 GW 76 73 77 70 72 74
13 GI 71 67 74 67 72 70
14 HS 76 74 73 76 70 74
15 HR 66 68 65 68 71 68
16 HB 77 76 75 70 76 75
17 MR 72 74 74 66 69 71
18 NS 80 76 77 76 72 78
19 NF 74 69 72 74 70 72
20 PL 79 74 74 78 70 76
21 PP 70 72 73 77 67 72
22 QM 64 69 67 62 65 67
23 RT 73 73 73 73 68 72
24 RA 73 68 69 69 65 70
25 RM 65 72 69 65 72 69
26 RA 73 77 73 76 72 75
27 RW 77 69 73 67 67 71
28 ZF 81 77 74 67 71 74
Mean 73,35 72,82 72,92 71,5 70,39 72,57
Total iiScore 2032
 84

C. The iiPost-test iiScore iiof iiExperimental iiClass

1. Scorer iiI

NO STUDENTS’ iiCODE C F V P G
1 AL 78 75 77 75 75
2 AN 83 87 87 80 85
3 AK 75 73 75 75 73
4 AZ 75 78 75 75 73
5 AR 85 85 85 75 80
6 AP 85 80 78 78 75
7 AC 90 89 88 90 89
8 AY 85 83 80 75 75
9 BA 87 87 85 80 78
10 DC 78 75 78 78 75
11 DW 89 85 88 80 85
12 DK 80 78 77 78 75
13 DR 88 85 85 78 83
14 ER 78 80 75 80 75
15 FR 80 80 83 78 78
16 GH 80 78 80 78 75
17 GA 78 75 78 73 75
18 GT 85 80 80 78 78
19 IM 80 80 84 83 80
20 KP 83 80 83 85 83
21 KA 75 75 78 73 73
22 LN 80 78 80 75 75
23 LS 80 77 78 75 77
24 NV 85 80 80 78 80
25 PX 95 93 95 95 91
26 RD 80 78 80 78 80
27 RN 85 80 83 80 80
28 YP 77 75 75 75 73
 85

2. Scorer iiII

NO STUDENTS’ iiCODE C F V P G
1 AL 80 78 75 75 75
2 AN 85 85 85 85 85
3 AK 78 75 78 75 75
4 AZ 78 78 80 75 75
5 AR 85 87 85 78 78
6 AP 85 80 80 78 75
7 AC 88 87 88 87 87
8 AY 85 85 83 75 75
9 BA 86 85 83 80 80
10 DC 80 78 80 75 70
11 DW 88 87 85 80 85
12 DK 83 78 80 75 78
13 DR 87 87 85 76 80
14 ER 80 76 76 80 75
15 FR 83 83 80 80 78
16 GH 80 80 80 78 75
17 GA 78 76 75 73 73
18 GT 85 78 80 80 76
19 IM 85 78 80 83 80
20 KP 83 80 85 83 80
21 KA 76 73 78 73 75
22 LN 83 77 80 78 77
23 LS 80 77 80 75 75
24 NV 85 83 80 80 78
25 PX 95 90 90 93 93
26 RD 80 80 80 77 80
27 RN 85 80 85 80 78
28 YP 78 75 78 75 73
 86

3. Final iiscore

Final
NO STUDENTS’ iiCODE C F V P G
Scor
ii

e
1 AL 79 76 76 75 75 76
2 AN 84 86 86 83 85 85
3 AK 76 74 76 75 74 75
4 AZ 76 78 77 75 74 76
5 AR 85 86 85 76 79 82
6 AP 85 80 79 78 75 79
7 AC 89 88 88 88 88 88
8 AY 85 84 81 75 75 80
9 BA 86 86 84 80 79 83
10 DC 79 77 79 77 73 77
11 DW 88 86 86 80 85 85
12 DK 82 78 78 76 76 78
13 DR 87 86 85 77 81 83
14 ER 79 78 76 80 75 76
15 FR 81 81 81 79 78 80
16 GH 80 79 80 78 75 78
17 GA 78 75 76 73 74 75
18 GT 85 79 80 79 77 80
19 IM 82 79 82 83 80 81
20 KP 83 80 84 84 82 83
21 KA 76 74 78 73 74 75
22 LN 81 77 80 76 76 78
23 LS 80 77 79 75 76 77
24 NV 85 82 80 79 79 81
25 PX 93 92 92 93 92 92
26 RD 80 79 80 78 80 79
27 RN 85 80 84 80 79 82
28 YP 77 75 76 75 73 75
Mean 82,35 80,42 81 78,57 78,17 79,96
Total iiscore 2239
 87

D. The iiPost-test iiScore iiof iiControl iiClass

1. Scorer iiI

NO STUDENTS’ iiCODE C F V P G
1 AH 78 75 77 75 75
2 AS 75 70 73 73 75
3 AA 75 80 80 78 80
4 AW 85 83 77 78 80
5 AF 73 70 73 75 70
6 BW 85 85 80 80 80
7 BD 70 72 70 65 70
8 DZ 73 78 75 77 70
9 DA 75 78 78 77 75
10 DF 80 75 73 72 73
11 EP 75 75 76 77 73
12 GW 80 78 80 78 77
13 GI 80 80 80 78 75
14 HS 75 78 76 76 73
15 HR 75 75 73 75 75
16 HB 75 76 73 75 75
17 MR 73 75 80 75 73
18 NS 85 83 80 78 80
19 NF 78 75 80 78 75
20 PL 73 75 78 75 73
21 PP 77 73 77 73 70
22 QM 76 73 75 70 75
23 RT 77 70 75 73 72
24 RA 75 73 76 75 73
25 RM 70 70 73 71 70
26 RA 72 72 70 75 73
27 RW 77 75 78 75 73
28 ZF 80 78 75 75 78
 88

2. Scorer iiII

NO STUDENTS’ iiCODE C F V P G
1 AH 80 75 80 75 75
2 AS 75 70 70 73 73
3 AA 83 78 80 78 78
4 AW 85 85 78 78 80
5 AF 73 70 73 75 73
6 BW 85 85 85 80 78
7 BD 73 73 73 70 70
8 DZ 73 75 75 78 73
9 DA 75 76 78 78 75
10 DF 80 78 75 73 73
11 EP 77 75 75 75 73
12 GW 80 80 80 77 75
13 GI 83 80 80 75 77
14 HS 78 75 75 77 75
15 HR 75 75 75 78 73
16 HB 77 76 75 73 73
17 MR 76 75 80 75 74
18 NS 85 80 85 80 80
19 NF 80 75 80 79 75
20 PL 77 75 80 75 75
21 PP 75 73 75 70 73
22 QM 77 73 73 73 70
23 RT 75 73 76 72 73
24 RA 75 73 78 75 73
25 RM 73 70 73 70 70
26 RA 73 70 70 76 73
27 RW 75 76 76 75 75
28 ZF 80 78 78 78 78
 89

3. Final iiscore

Final
NO STUDENTS’ iiCODE C F V P G
Scor
ii

e
1 AH 79 75 79 75 75 77
2 AS 75 70 72 73 74 73
3 AA 79 79 80 78 79 79
4 AW 85 84 78 78 80 81
5 AF 73 70 73 75 72 73
6 BW 85 85 82 80 79 82
7 BD 72 72 72 68 70 73
8 DZ 73 77 75 77 71 75
9 DA 75 77 78 78 75 77
10 DF 80 76 74 72 73 75
11 EP 76 75 75 76 73 75
12 GW 80 79 80 78 76 79
13 GI 82 80 80 77 76 79
14 HS 76 76 76 77 74 76
15 HR 75 75 74 76 74 75
16 HB 76 76 74 74 74 75
17 MR 75 75 80 75 74 76
18 NS 85 82 82 79 80 82
19 NF 79 75 80 79 75 78
20 PL 75 75 79 75 74 76
21 PP 76 73 76 72 71 74
22 QM 77 73 74 72 73 74
23 RT 76 72 76 73 73 74
24 RA 75 73 77 75 73 72
25 RM 72 70 73 71 70 74
26 RA 72 71 70 75 73 72
27 RW 76 76 77 75 74 76
28 ZF 80 78 76 76 78 79
Mean 77,10 75,67 76,5 75,32 74,39 76,10
Total iiScore 2054
 90

E. The iiComparison iiof iiFinal iiScore iiPre-test iiand iiPost-test

1. Pre-test iiand iiPost-test iiScore iiof iiExperimetal iiClass

NO STUDENTS’ iiCODE PRE-TEST POST-TEST

1 AL 70 76
2 AN 68 85
3 AK 80 75
4 AZ 79 76
5 AR 67 82
6 AP 78 79
7 AC 65 88
8 AY 70 80
9 BA 74 83
10 DC 77 77
11 DW 76 85
12 DK 74 78
13 DR 70 83
14 ER 74 76
15 FR 68 80
16 GH 75 78
17 GA 71 75
18 GT 78 80
19 IM 72 81
20 KP 76 83
21 KA 72 75
22 LN 67 78
23 LS 72 77
24 NV 70 81
25 PX 69 92
26 RD 75 79
27 RN 71 82
28 YP 74 75
Mean 69,67 79,96
Total iiScore 1951 2239
 91

2. Pre-test iiand iiPost-test iiScore iiof iiControl iiClass

NO STUDENTS’ iiCODE PRE-TEST POST-TEST

1 AH 70 77
2 AS 68 73
3 AA 80 79
4 AW 79 81
5 AF 67 73
6 BW 78 82
7 BD 65 73
8 DZ 70 75
9 DA 74 77
10 DF 77 75
11 EP 76 75
12 GW 74 79
13 GI 70 79
14 HS 74 76
15 HR 68 75
16 HB 75 75
17 MR 71 76
18 NS 78 82
19 NF 72 78
20 PL 76 76
21 PP 72 74
22 QM 67 74
23 RT 72 74
24 RA 70 72
25 RM 69 74
26 RA 75 72
27 RW 71 76
28 ZF 74 79
Mean 72,57 76,10
Total iiScore 2032 2054
 92

Appendix 3 ii

The Frequency Distribution Calculation of Pre-test

ii ii ii ii ii

A. The iiCalculation iiof iiFrequency iiDistribution, iiMean, iiVariance,

ii and iiStandard iiDeviation iiof iiExperimental iiClass iiPre-test
1. The iiTotal iiof iiSamples ii(n) ii= ii28
2. Score iidistribution

65 65 65 65 66 66 66 67 67 67 67 67 67 67

68 68 69 69 69 71 71 72 73 73 74 78 79 90

Class iiRange ii(R) iiR ii= iiXmax ii- iiXmin

3. = ii90 ii– ii65
= ii25
The iiNumber iiof iiClass ii(K) iiUsing iiSturgess iiRule iiK ii= ii1 ii+ ii3.3 iilog ii(n)
= ii1 ii+ ii3.3 iilog ii28
= ii1 ii+ ii3.3 iilog ii(1.45)
= ii1 ii+ ii4.79
4. = ii5.79
≈ ii6 ii(Upper iiintegration)

5. iiThe iiLength iiof iiInterval ii(P)

ii
P ii= ii
ii

ii ii
= ii ii

= ii4.17
≈ ii5 ii(Upper iiintegration)
 93

Table ii3.1. iiScore iiFrequency iiDistribution iiof iithe iiExperimental iiClass iiPre-test

Low
Up iiClass
No Interval ii Clas Xi fi fk Xi2 fi.Xi fi. iiXi2
ii Boundar
s
y
Boundary
1 65-69 64.5 69.5 67 19 19 4489 1273 85291
2 70-74 69.5 74.5 72 6 25 5184 432 31104
3 75-79 74.5 79.5 77 2 27 5929 154 11858
4 80-84 79.5 84.5 82 0 27 6724 0 0
5 85-89 84.5 89.5 87 0 27 7569 0 0
6 90-94 89.5 94.5 92 1 28 8464 92 8464
Total 28 1951 136717

6. Mean ii( iiX ii)

∑ ii ii ii ii ii ii
X ii= ii∑ ii ii ii

X ii= ii ii ii ii ii
ii ii

X ii= ii69.68
Variance ii(S2)
7.
ii ii∑ ii(∑ ii) ii
S2ii= ii( ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii)
ii ii( ii) ii( ii) ii

ii ii( ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii)
S2ii=

2 ii ii ii ii ii ii
S = ii ii ii ii
S2 ii= ii28.67
8. iiStandard iiDeviation ii(Sd)
ii Sd ii= i i √ ii ii
Sd ii= ii√ ii ii ii ii ii
Sd ii= ii5.35
 94

B. The iiCalculation iiof iiFrequency iiDistribution, iiMean, iiVariance,

ii and iiStandard iiDeviation iiof iiControl iiClass iiPre-test
1. The iiTotal iiof iiSamples ii(n) ii= ii28
2. Score iidistribution

65 67 67 68 68 69 70 70 70 70 71 71 72 72

72 74 74 74 74 75 75 76 76 77 78 78 79 80

3. Class iiRange ii(R)

ii R ii = ii Xmax ii -
ii Xmin
= ii80 ii– ii65
= ii15
4. The iiNumber iiof iiClass ii(K) iiUsing iiSturgess
ii Rule iiK ii= ii1 ii+ ii3.3 iilog ii(n)
= ii1 ii+ ii3.3 iilog ii28
= ii1 ii+ ii3.3 iilog ii(1.45)
= ii1 ii+ ii4.79
= ii5.79
≈ ii6 ii(Upper iiintegration)
5. The iiLength iiof iiInterval
ii(P)

ii
P ii= ii
ii

ii ii
= ii ii

= ii2.5
≈ ii3 ii(Upper iiintegration)
 95

Table ii3.2. iiScore iiFrequency iiDistribution iiof iithe iiControl iiClass iiPre-test

Low
Up iiClass
No Interval ii Clas Xi fi fk Xi2 fi.Xi fi. iiXi2
ii Boundar
s
y
Boundary
1 65-67 64.5 67.5 66 3 3 4356 198 13068
2 68-70 67.5 70.5 69 7 10 4761 483 33327
3 71-73 70.5 73.5 72 5 15 5184 360 25920
4 74-76 73.5 76.5 75 8 23 5625 600 45000
5 77-79 76.5 79.5 78 4 27 6084 312 24336
6 80-82 79.5 82.5 81 1 28 6561 81 6561
Total 28 32571 2034 148212

6. Mean ii( iiX ii)

∑ ii ii ii ii ii ii
X ii= ii∑ ii ii ii

X ii= ii ii ii ii ii
ii ii

X ii= ii72.64
Variance ii(S2)
7.
ii ii∑ ii(∑ ii) ii
S2ii= ii( ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii)
ii ii( ii) ii( ii) ii

ii ii( ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii)
S2ii=

2 ii ii ii ii ii ii
S = ii ii ii ii
S2 ii= ii16.90
8. iiStandard iiDeviation ii(Sd)
ii Sd ii= i i √ ii ii
Sd ii= ii√ ii ii ii ii ii
Sd ii= ii4.11
 96

Appendix 4 ii

The Frequency Distribution Calculation of Post-test

ii ii ii ii ii

A. The iiCalculation iiof iiFrequency iiDistribution, iiMean, iiVariance,

ii and iiStandard iiDeviation iiof iiExperimental iiClass iiPost-test
1. The iiTotal iiof iiSamples ii(n) ii= ii28
2. Score iidistribution

75 75 75 75 76 76 76 77 77 78 78 78 79 79

80 80 80 81 81 82 82 83 83 83 85 85 88 92

Class iiRange ii(R) iiR ii= iiXmax ii- iiXmin

3. = ii92 ii– ii75
= ii17
The iiNumber iiof iiClass ii(K) iiUsing iiSturgess iiRule iiK ii= ii1 ii+ ii3.3 iilog ii(n)
= ii1 ii+ ii3.3 iilog ii28
= ii1 ii+ ii3.3 iilog ii(1.45)
= ii1 ii+ ii4.79
4. = ii5.79
≈ ii6 ii(Upper iiintegration)

5. iiThe iiLength iiof iiInterval ii(P)

ii
P ii= ii
ii

ii ii
= ii ii

= ii2.83
≈ ii3 ii(Upper iiintegration)
 97

Table ii4.1. iiScore iiFrequency iiDistribution iiof iithe iiExperimental iiClass iiPost-test

Low
Up iiClass
No Interval ii Clas Xi fi fk Xi2 fi.Xi fi. iiXi2
ii Boundar
s
y
Boundary
1 75-77 74.5 77.5 76 9 9 5776 684 51984
2 78-80 77.5 80.5 79 8 17 6241 632 49928
3 81-83 80.5 83.5 82 7 24 6724 574 47068
4 84-86 83.5 86.5 85 2 26 7225 170 14450
5 87-89 86.5 89.5 88 1 27 7744 88 7744
6 90-92 89.5 92.5 91 1 28 8281 91 8281
Total 28 41991 2239 179455

6. Mean ii( iiX ii)

∑ ii ii ii ii ii ii
X ii= ii∑ ii ii ii

X ii= ii ii ii ii ii
ii ii

X ii= ii79.96
Variance ii(S2)
7.
ii ii∑ ii(∑ ii) ii
S2ii= ii( ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii)
ii ii( ii) ii( ii) ii

ii ii( ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii)
S2ii=

2 ii ii ii ii ii ii
S = ii ii ii ii
S2 ii= ii15.37

8. iiDeviation iiStandard ii(Sd)

ii Sd ii= i i √ ii ii
Sd ii= ii√ ii ii ii ii ii
Sd ii= ii3.92
 98

B. The iiCalculation iiof iiFrequency iiDistribution, iiMean, iiVariance,

ii and iiStandard iiDeviation iiof iiControl iiClass iiPost-test
1. The iiTotal iiof iiSamples ii(n) ii= ii28
2. Score iidistribution

72 72 73 73 73 74 74 74 74 75 75 75 75 75

76 76 76 76 77 77 78 79 79 79 79 81 82 82

3. Class iiRange ii(R)

ii R ii = ii Xmax ii -
ii Xmin
= ii82 ii– ii72
= ii10
4. The iiNumber iiof iiClass ii(K) iiUsing iiSturgess
ii Rule iiK ii= ii1 ii+ ii3.3 iilog ii(n)
= ii1 ii+ ii3.3 iilog ii28
= ii1 ii+ ii3.3 iilog ii(1.45)
= ii1 ii+ ii4.79
= ii5.79
≈ ii6 ii(Upper iiintegration)
5. The iiLength iiof iiInterval
ii(P)

ii
P ii= ii
ii

ii ii
= ii ii

= ii1.67
≈ ii(Upper iiintegration)
 99

Table ii4.2. iiScore iiFrequency iiDistribution iiof iithe iiControl iiClass iiPost-test

Low
Up iiClass Xi2
No Interval ii Clas Xi Fi Fk fi.Xi fi. iiXi2
ii Boundar
s
y
Boundary
1 72-73 71.5 73.5 72.5 5 5 5256.25 362.5 26281.25
2 74-75 73.5 75.5 74.5 9 14 5550.25 670.5 49952.25
3 76-77 75.5 77.5 76.5 6 20 5852.25 459 35113.5
4 78-79 77.5 79.5 78.5 5 25 6162.25 392.5 30811.25
5 80-81 79.5 81.5 80.5 1 26 6480.25 80.5 6480.25
6 82-83 81.5 83.5 82.5 2 28 6806.25 165 13612.5
Total 28 36107.5 2130 162251

6. Mean ii( iiX ii)

∑ ii ii ii ii ii ii
X ii= ii∑ ii ii ii

X ii= ii ii ii ii ii
ii ii

X ii= ii76.07
Variance ii(S2)
7.
∑ ii(∑ ii) ii
ii ii

S2ii= ( ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii)
ii

ii ii( ii) ii( ii) ii

ii ii( ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii)
S2ii=

2 ii ii ii ii ii
S = ii ii ii ii
S2 ii= ii8.11
8. iiStandard iiDeviation ii(Sd)
ii Sd ii= i i √ ii ii
Sd ii= ii√ ii ii ii ii
Sd ii= ii2.85
 100

Appendix 5 ii

The Normality of Pre-test

ii ii ii

A. The iiNormality iiTest iiCalculation iiof iiExperimental iiClass iiPre-test

There iiwere iisome iisteps iiin iitesting iinormality iiin iithis iiresearch.
1. Determining iithe iihypothesis; iiH0: iiThe iisamples iiof iiexperimental iiclass iicame
ii from iia iinormal iidistributed iipopulation, iion iithe iicontrary, iiH1: iiThe iisamples
ii of iiexperimental iiclass iidid iinot iicome iifrom iia iinormal iidistributed
ii population.
2. Determining iiLtable. iiBased iion iiLiliefors iitest iifor ii(n) ii= ii28 iiand iithe
ii significance iilevel ii(α) iiwas ii5%, iithe iiLtable iiwas ii0.1641.
3. Calculating i i the i i Lvalue. i i Before i i gaining i i Lvalue, i i it i i should i i be i i calculated i i the
i i Zi

by iiformulation iiZi ii= iiX ii. iiLvalue iiwas iigained iiby iiformulation iiF(Zi)-S(Zi),

then, iichoose iithe iigreatest iivalue iion iitable ii(See iithe iitable ii3.1). iiThe iigreatest
ii value iion iitable iiwas ii0.0494 iiand iittable iiwas ii0.1641 ii(Annotation: iiX: iiThe

students’ iiscore iifrom iithe iipre-test iiof iiexperimental iiclass iiinterval. iiX ii: iiThe
ii mean iiscore iiof iithe iiexperimental iiclass iipre-test ii= ii69.68 iiand iithe iiSd:
ii Standard iiof iideviation ii= ii5.35).
Table ii5.1. iiThe iiNormality iiof iiExperimental iiClass iiPre-test
X f Zi F(Zi) fk S(Zi) F(Zi)-S(Zi)
NO
65 4 -0,87 4 0,1428 0,0494
1
66 3 -0,69 7 0,2500 0,0111
2
67 7 -0,50 14 0,5000 -0,1915
3
68 2 -0,31 16 0,5714 -0,1929
4
69 3 -0,13 19 0,6785 -0,2302
5
71 2 0,25 21 0,7500 -0,1513
6
72 1 0,43 22 0,7857 -0,1193
7
73 2 0,62 24 0,8571 -0,1247
8
 101

X f Zi F(Zi) fk S(Zi) F(Zi)-S(Zi)

NO
74 1 0,81 25 0,8928 -0,1018
9
78 1 1,56 26 0,9285 0,0121
10
79 1 1,74 27 0,9642 -0,0051
11
90 1 3,79 28 1 -0,0001
12
4. Testing i i the i i criteria. i i The i i testing i i criteria i i of i i normality iitesting i i were: i i If
i i Lvalue

< iiLtable. iihence iiH0 iiwas iiaccepted iiand iiH1 iiwas iirejected. iiOn iithe iicontrary, iiIf
ii Lvalue ii> iiLtable, iihence iiH0 iiwas iirejected iiand iiH1 iiwas iiaccepted.
5. Comparing iiLvalue iiand iiLtable. iiBased iion iithe iistatistical iicalculation, iithe iiresult
ii was:
Lvalue ii< iiLtable ii↔ ii0.0494 ii< ii0.1641
6. Conclusion
In iithis iiresearch, iifor iiLvalue ii< iiLtable ii↔ ii0.0494 ii< ii0.1641, iihence, iiH0 iiwas
ii accepted iiand iiH1 iiwas iirejected. iiThus, iithe iisamples iidata iiof iiexperimental
ii class iicame iifrom iia iinormal iidistributed iipopulation.
B. The iiNormality iiTest iiCalculation iiof iiControl iiClass iiPre-test
There iiwere iisome iisteps iiin iitesting iinormality iiin iithis iiresearch.
1. Determining iithe iihypothesis; iiH0: iiThe iisamples iiof iiexperimental iiclass iicame
ii from iia iinormal iidistributed iipopulation, iion iithe iicontrary, iiH1: iiThe iisamples
ii of iiexperimental iiclass iidid iinot iicome iifrom iia iinormal iidistributed
ii population.
2. Determining iiLtable. iiBased iion iiLiliefors iitest iifor ii(n) ii= ii28 iiand iithe
ii significance iilevel ii(α) iiwas ii5%, iithe iiLtable iiwas ii0.1641.
3. Calculating i i the i i Lvalue. i i Before i i gaining i i Lvalue, i i it i i should i i be i i calculated i i the
i i Zi

by iiformulation iiZi ii= iiX ii. iiLvalue iiwas iigained iiby iiformulation iiF(Zi)-S(Zi),

then, iichoose iithe iigreatest iivalue iion iitable ii(See iithe iitable ii3.2). iiThe iigreatest
ii value iion iitable iiwas ii-0.0017 iiand iittable iiwas ii0.1641 ii(Annotation: iiX: iiThe

students’ iiscore iifrom iithe iipre-test iiof iiexperimental iiclass iiinterval. iiX ii: iiThe
ii mean iiscore iiof iithe iiexperimental iiclass iipre-test ii= ii72.64 iiand iithe iiSd:
ii Standard iiof iideviation ii= ii4.11).
 102

Table ii5.2. iiThe iiNormality iiof iiControl iiClass iiPre-test

NO X f Zi F(Zi) fk S(Zi) F(Zi)-S(Zi)

65 1 -1.86 0.0314 1 0.0357 -0.0043
1
67 2 -1.37 0.0853 3 0.1071 -0.0218
2
68 2 -1.13 0.1292 5 0.1785 -0.0493
3
69 1 -0.89 0.1867 6 0.2142 -0.0275
4
70 4 -0.64 0.2611 10 0.3571 -0.096
5
71 2 -0.39 0.3483 12 0.4285 -0.0802
6
72 3 -0.16 0.4364 15 0.5357 -0.0993
7
74 4 0.33 0.6293 19 0.6785 -0.0492
8
75 2 0.57 0.7157 21 0.7500 -0.0343
9
76 2 0.82 0.7939 23 0.8214 -0.0275
10
77 1 1.06 0.8554 24 0.8571 -0.0017
11
78 2 1.30 0.9032 26 0.9285 -0.0253
12
79 1 1.55 0.9394 27 0.9642 -0.0248
13
80 1 1.79 0.9633 28 1.0000 -0.0367
14

4. Testing i i the i i criteria. i i The i i testing i i criteria i i of i i normality iitesting i i were: i i If

i i Lvalue

< iiLtable. iihence iiH0 iiwas iiaccepted iiand iiH1 iiwas iirejected. iiOn iithe iicontrary, iiIf
ii Lvalue ii> iiLtable, iihence iiH0 iiwas iirejected iiand iiH1 iiwas iiaccepted.
5. Comparing iiLvalue iiand iiLtable. iiBased iion iithe iistatistical iicalculation, iithe iiresult
ii was:
Lvalue ii< iiLtable ii↔ ii-0.0017< ii0.1641
6. Conclusion
In iithis iiresearch, iifor iiLvalue ii< iiLtable ii↔ ii-0.0017< ii0.1641, iihence, iiH0 iiwas
ii accepted iiand iiH1 iiwas iirejected. iiThus, iithe iisamples iidata iiof iicontrol iiclass
ii came iifrom iia iinormal iidistributed iipopulation.
 103

Appendix 6 ii

The Normality of Post-test

ii ii ii

A. The iiNormality iiTest iiCalculation iiof iiExperimental iiClass iiPost-test

There iiwere iisome iisteps iiin iitesting iinormality iiin iithis iiresearch.
1. Determining iithe iihypothesis; iiH0: iiThe iisamples iiof iiexperimental iiclass iicame
ii from iia iinormal iidistributed iipopulation, iion iithe iicontrary, iiH1: iiThe iisamples
ii of iiexperimental iiclass iidid iinot iicome iifrom iia iinormal iidistributed
ii population.
2. Determining iiLtable. iiBased iion iiLiliefors iitest iifor ii(n) ii= ii28 iiand iithe
ii significance iilevel ii(α) iiwas ii5%, iithe iiLtable iiwas ii0.1641.
3. Calculating i i the i i Lvalue. i i Before i i gaining i i Lvalue, i i it i i should i i be i i calculated i i the
i i Zi

by iiformulation iiZi ii= iiX ii. iiLvalue iiwas iigained iiby iiformulation iiF(Zi)-S(Zi),

then, iichoose iithe iigreatest iivalue iion iitable ii(See iithe iitable ii3.3). iiThe iigreatest
ii value iion iitable iiwas ii0.0156 iiand iittable iiwas ii0.1641 ii(Annotation: iiX: iiThe

students’ iiscore iifrom iithe iipre-test iiof iiexperimental iiclass iiinterval. iiX ii: iiThe
ii mean iiscore iiof iithe iiexperimental iiclass iipre-test ii= ii79.96 iiand iithe iiSd:
ii Standard iiof iideviation ii= ii3.92).
Table ii6.1 iiThe iiNormality iiof iiExperimental iiClass iiPost-test
X f Zi F(Zi) fk S(Zi) F(Zi)-S(Zi)
NO
75 4 -1.27 0.1020 4 0.1428 -0.0408
1
76 3 -1.01 0.1582 7 0.2500 -0.0918
2
77 2 -0.76 0.2236 9 0.3214 -0.0978
3
78 3 -0.50 0.3085 12 0.4285 -0.1200
4
79 2 -0.24 0.4052 14 0.5 -0.0948
5
80 3 0.01 0.5040 17 0.6071 -0.1031
6
81 2 0.27 0.6064 19 0.6785 -0.0721
7
82 2 0.52 0.6985 21 0.7500 -0.0515
8
 104

X f Zi F(Zi) fk S(Zi) F(Zi)-S(Zi)

NO
83 3 0.78 0.7823 24 0.8571 -0.0748
9
85 2 1.29 0.9015 26 0.9285 -0.0270
10
88 1 2.05 0.9798 27 0.9642 0.0156
11
92 1 3.07 0.9989 28 1.0000 -0.0011
12

4. Testing i i the i i criteria. i i The i i testing i i criteria i i of i i normality iitesting i i were: i i If

i i Lvalue

< iiLtable. iihence iiH0 iiwas iiaccepted iiand iiH1 iiwas iirejected. iiOn iithe iicontrary, iiIf
ii Lvalue ii> iiLtable, iihence iiH0 iiwas iirejected iiand iiH1 iiwas iiaccepted.
5. Comparing iiLvalue iiand iiLtable. iiBased iion iithe iistatistical iicalculation, iithe iiresult
ii was:
Lvalue ii< iiLtable ii↔ ii0.0156 ii< ii0.1641
6. Conclusion
In iithis iiresearch, iifor iiLvalue ii< iiLtable ii↔ ii0.0156< ii0.1641, iihence, iiH0 iiwas
ii accepted iiand iiH1 iiwas iirejected. iiThus, iithe iisamples iidata iiof iiexperimental
ii class iicame iifrom iia iinormal iidistributed iipopulation.

B. The iiNormality iiTest iiCalculation iiof iiControl iiClass iiPost-test

There iiwere iisome iisteps iiin iitesting iinormality iiin iithis iiresearch.
1. Determining iithe iihypothesis; iiH0: iiThe iisamples iiof iiexperimental iiclass iicame
ii from iia iinormal iidistributed iipopulation, iion iithe iicontrary, iiH1: iiThe iisamples
ii of iiexperimental iiclass iidid iinot iicome iifrom iia iinormal iidistributed
ii population.
2. Determining iiLtable. iiBased iion iiLiliefors iitest iifor ii(n) ii= ii28 iiand iithe
ii significance iilevel ii(α) iiwas ii5%, iithe iiLtable iiwas ii0.1641.
3. Calculating i i the i i Lvalue. i i Before i i gaining i i Lvalue, i i it i i should i i be i i calculated i i the
i i Zi

by iiformulation iiZi ii= iiX ii. iiLvalue iiwas iigained iiby iiformulation iiF(Zi)-S(Zi),

then, iichoose iithe iigreatest iivalue iion iitable ii(See iithe iitable ii3.1). iiThe iigreatest
ii value iion iitable iiwas ii0.0297 iiand iittable iiwas ii0.1641 ii(Annotation: iiX: iiThe
ii students’ iiscore iifrom iithe iipre-test iiof iiexperimental iiclass iiinterval. iiX ii: iiThe
 105

mean iiscore iiof iithe iiexperimental iiclass iipre-test ii= ii76.07 iiand iithe iiSd:
ii Standard iiof iideviation ii= ii2.85).
Table ii6.2. iiThe iiNormality iiof iiControl iiClass iiPost-test

NO X F Zi F(Zi) fk S(Zi) F(Zi)-S(Zi)

72 2 -1.43 0.0764 2 0.0714 0.0050
1
73 3 -1.08 0.1401 5 0.1785 -0.0384
2
74 4 -0.73 0.2327 9 0.3214 -0.0887
3
75 5 -0.38 0.3520 14 0.5000 -0.1480
4
76 4 -0.02 0.4920 18 0.6428 -0.1508
5
77 2 0.33 0.6293 20 0.7142 -0.0849
6
78 1 0.68 0.7518 21 0.7500 0.0018
7
79 4 1.03 0.8485 25 0.8928 -0.0443
8
81 1 1.73 0.9582 26 0.9285 0.0297
9
82 2 2.08 0.9803 28 1.0000 -0.0197
10

4. Testing i i the i i criteria. i i The i i testing i i criteria i i of i i normality iitesting i i were: i i If

i i Lvalue

< iiLtable. iihence iiH0 iiwas iiaccepted iiand iiH1 iiwas iirejected. iiOn iithe iicontrary, iiIf
ii Lvalue ii> iiLtable, iihence iiH0 iiwas iirejected iiand iiH1 iiwas iiaccepted.

5. Comparing iiLvalue iiand iiLtable. iiBased iion iithe iistatistical iicalculation, iithe iiresult
ii was:
Lvalue ii< iiLtable ii↔ ii0.0297 ii< ii0.1641
6. Conclusion
In iithis iiresearch, iifor iiLvalue ii< iiLtable ii↔ ii0.0297 ii< ii0.1641, iihence, iiH0 iiwas
ii accepted iiand iiH1 iiwas iirejected. iiThus, iithe iisamples iidata iiof iiexperimental
ii class iicame iifrom iia iinormal iidistributed iipopulation.
 106

Appendix 7 ii

The Homogenity of Pre-test

ii ii ii

There iiwere iisome iisteps iiin iitesting iihomogenity.

2 ii 2 ii
1. Determining iithe iihypothesis; iiH0: iiσ1ii = iiσ ii (Variance iiof iiboth iipopulation
ii in iithe iiexperimental iiand iithe iicontrol iiclass iiwere iihomogeneous), iion iithe
2 2
other iihand,1 iiH1: iiσ ≠ iiσ (Variance iiof iiboth iipopulation iiin iithe
ii ii
ii ii ii

ii experimental iiand iithe iicontrol iiclass iiwere iinot iihomogeneous).

2. Determining iiFtable iiand iithe iicriteria iiof iitesting. iiFor iin ii= ii28 iiand iithe
ii significance iilevel iiwas ii5% iior iithe iisignificance iilevel iiα ii= ii0.05, iithen: iithe
ii quantifier: iin-1 ii= ii28-1= ii27 iiand iithe iidenominator: iin-1 ii= ii28-1 ii= ii27.
ii Searching iithe iiFtable iiwas iiby iityping iiFINV ii(0.05;27;27) iithen iiclick iienter iion
ii Microsoft iiexcel iiand iithe iiresult iiof iithe iiFtable iiwas ii1.904.
3. Determining iithe iitesting iicriteria iifor iihomogenity iitesting.
The iicriteria iiwere: iiIf iiFvalue ii< iiFtable, iihence iiH0 iiwas iiaccepted iiand iiH1 iiwas
ii rejected, iion iithe iiother iihand, iiIf iiFvalue ii> iiFtable, iihence iiH0 iiwas iirejected iiand
ii H1 iiwas iiaccepted.
4. Calculating iiof iiFvalue.
ii

The iiformulation iiwas iiFvalue ii= ii ii ii ii

ii

S2 ii= ii ii ∑ ii2 ii(∑ ii)2

ii ( ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii)

It iiwas iigained iibefore iithat iiS1 ii= ii28.67 iiand iiS2 ii=
ii16.90 ii ii ii ii ii ii
F = ii
va ii ii ii ii ii
= ii1.696
Annotation:
S12= ii The ii greatest
ii variance ii S22= ii The
ii smallest iivariance iin= iiThe
ii total iistudents
fi = Cumulative frequency
ii ii ii

xi= The middle score

ii ii ii
 107

5. Testing i i Criteria. i i The i i testing i i criteria i i of i i homogenity i i testing i i were: i i If

i i Fvalue

<Ftable, iihence iiH0 iiwas iiaccepted iiand iiH1 iiwas iirejected, iion iithe iiother iihand iiIf
ii Fvalue ii>Ftable, iihence iiH0 iiwas iirejected iiand iiH1 iiwas iiaccepted.
6. Comparing iiFvalue iiand iiFtable. iiBased iion iithe iistatistical iicalculation, iithe iiresult
ii was: iiFvalue ii< iiFtable ii↔ ii1.696 ii< ii1.904
7. Conclusion
2 ii 2 ii 2
For iiFvalue ii< iiFtable ii↔ ii1.696 ii< ii1.904, iior iiH0: iiσ1 = iiσ2 is iiaccepted iiand iiH1: iiσ1

≠ ii i i σ22 was rejected. Thus, the variance of both population in the

ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii

ii experimental iiand iithe iicontrol iiclass iiwere iihomogeneous.

 108

Appendix 8 ii

The Homogenity of Post-test

ii ii ii

There iiwere iisome iisteps iiin iitesting iihomogenity.

2 ii 2 ii
1. Determining iithe iihypothesis; iiH0: iiσ1ii = iiσ ii (Variance iiof iiboth iipopulation
ii in iithe iiexperimental iiand iithe iicontrol iiclass iiwere iihomogeneous), iion iithe
2 2
other iihand,1 iiH1: iiσ ≠ iiσ (Variance iiof iiboth iipopulation iiin iithe
ii ii
ii ii ii

ii experimental iiand iithe iicontrol iiclass iiwere iinot iihomogeneous).

2. Determining iiFtable iiand iithe iicriteria iiof iitesting. iiFor iin ii= ii28 iiand iithe
ii significance iilevel iiwas ii5% iior iithe iisignificance iilevel iiα ii= ii0.05, iithen: iithe
ii quantifier: iin-1 ii= ii28-1= ii27 iiand iithe iidenominator: iin-1 ii= ii28-1 ii= ii27.
ii Searching iithe iiFtable iiwas iiby iityping iiFINV ii(0.05;27;27) iithen iiclick iienter iion
ii Microsoft iiexcel iiand iithe iiresult iiof iithe iiFtable iiwas ii1.904.
3. Determining iithe iitesting iicriteria iifor iihomogenity iitesting.
The iicriteria iiwere: iiIf iiFvalue ii< iiFtable, iihence iiH0 iiwas iiaccepted iiand iiH1 iiwas
ii rejected, iion iithe iiother iihand, iiIf iiFvalue ii> iiFtable, iihence iiH0 iiwas iirejected iiand
ii H1 iiwas iiaccepted.
4. Calculating iiof iiFvalue.
ii

The iiformulation iiwas iiFvalue ii= ii ii ii ii

ii

S2 ii= ii ii ∑ ii2 ii(∑ ii)2

ii ( ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii)

It iiwas iigained iibefore iithat iiS1 ii= ii15.37 iiand iiS2 ii= ii8.11

Fvalue ii ii ii ii ii
= ii ii ii ii ii

= ii1.895
Annotation:

S 1
ii
2
= ii The ii greatest
ii variance
2
ii S ii
2
= ii The
ii smallest iivariance iin= iiThe
ii total iistudents
fi = Cumulative frequency
ii ii ii

xi= The middle score

ii ii ii
 109

5. Testing i i Criteria. i i The i i testing i i criteria i i of i i homogenity i i testing i i were: i i If

i i Fvalue

<Ftable, iihence iiH0 iiwas iiaccepted iiand iiH1 iiwas iirejected, iion iithe iiother iihand iiIf
ii Fvalue ii>Ftable, iihence iiH0 iiwas iirejected iiand iiH1 iiwas iiaccepted.
6. Comparing iiFvalue iiand iiFtable. iiBased iion iithe iistatistical iicalculation, iithe iiresult
ii was: iiFvalue ii< iiFtable ii↔ ii1.895 ii< ii1.904
7. Conclusion
2 ii 2 ii 2
For iiFvalue ii< iiFtable ii↔ ii1.895 ii< ii1.904, iior iiH0: iiσ1 = iiσ2 is iiaccepted iiand iiH1: iiσ1

≠ ii i i σ22 was rejected. Thus, the variance of both population in the

ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii

ii experimental iiand iithe iicontrol iiclass iiwere iihomogeneous.

 110

Appendix 9 ii

The Statistical Hypothesis Test Calculation

ii ii ii ii

There iiwere iisome iisteps iiin iitesting iistatistical iihypothesis.

1.
Determining iithe iihypothesis; iiH0 ii= iiX ii1 ii≤ iiX ii2 iior iiX ii1 ii> iiX i i 2
Annotation:

X 1 = The mean score of experimental class

ii
ii
ii ii ii ii ii ii

X 2 = The mean score of control class

ii
ii
ii ii ii ii ii ii

2.
Determining iicriteria iiof iitesting iiand iittable. iiThe iicriteria iiof iitesting iiwere: iiIf iitvalue
ii < iittable, iiH0 iiwas iiaccepted iiand iiH1 iiwas iirejected, iion iithe iiother iihand, iiIf iitvalue ii>
ii ttable, iiH0 iiwas iirejected iiand iiH1 iiwas iiaccepted.
3.
After iidetermining iithe iicriteria iiof iitesting, iithe iiresearcher iidetermined iithe
ii significance iilevel iiα ii= ii0.05, iiit iimeant iithis iiresearch iiwas ii95% iitrusted.
ii Moreover, iithe iiresearcher iidetermined iithe iidegree iiof iifreedom iiby iiformulation
ii df ii= iin1 ii+ iin2 ii–
2. iiFor iidf ii= ii28 ii+ ii28 ii– ii2 ii= ii54 iion iithe iisignificance iilevel iiα ii= ii0.05,
ii furthermore, iithe iittable iiwas ii1.676 ii(see iiit iion iithe iiappendix iitable-t).

Table ii9.1. iiVariable, iiMean, iiDeviation iiStandard iiand iiVariance iiof iithe iipost-test
Deviation
Variable (n) Mean ii( iiX Standard Variance ii(S2)
ii)
ii (Sd)
The iiExperimental
28 79.96 3.92 15.37
Class
The iiControl 28 76.07 2.85 8.11
iiClass

4.
Calculating iiof iitvalue. iiBecause iiboth iisamples iiof iithe iiexperimental iiand iithe
ii controlled iiclass iiwere iihomogeneous, iihence iithe iihypothesis iitesting iiused iit-test
ii formulation.
 111

ii X iiX ii ii ii
tvalue ii=
ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii
ii
ii ii ii
√ ii ii

Scom ( ii) ii( ii) ii ii

= ii√ ii
ii
ii
ii ii ii
ii
ii ii

Annotation:
X ii
1 : iiThe iimean iiscore iiof iithe iipost iitest iiof iithe iiexperimental iiclass

X ii
2 : iiThe iimean iiscore iiof iipost-test iiin iicontrolled iiclass
Scom iiS1:iiiiS2
Variance iicombination
n12 : iiVariance iiin iiexperimental iiclass
n2 : iiVariance iiin iicontrolled iiclass
2
: iiTotal iistudents iiin iiexperimental iiclass
: iiTotal iistudents iiin iicontrolled iiclass

Based on iithe iitable ii6.1 iithat:

n1 ii: ii28 X 1: 79.96

ii ii S12ii: ii15.37
X 2: 76.07
ii ii

n2 ii: ii28 S22ii: ii8.11

ii ii

Scom = ii√( ii) ii( ii) iiiiiiii ii ii ii ii ii ii

Scom = ii√( ii)( ii) ii( ii)(iiii)ii ii ii ii ii ii ii

Scom ii= ii√ ii ii ii ii ii ii

ii ii

Scom ii= ii√ ii ii ii ii ii

Scom ii= ii3.43

ii X iiX ii ii ii
tvalue ii=
ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii
ii
ii ii ii
√ ii ii

ii ii
tvalue ii= ii iiiiii iiiiii iiii√iiii iiii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii
ii ii
ii ii ii

ii ii
ii ii ii ii
tvalue i i =
( ii) ii( ii)
ii ii ii ii
tvalue ii= ii

tvalue ii= ii4.37

 112

5.
Comparing iitvalue iito iittable. iiBased iion iithe iistatistical iicalculation, iithe iiresult
ii was: iitvalue ii> iittable ii↔ ii4.37 ii> ii1.676
6.
Conclusion

For iitvalue ii> iittable ii↔ ii4.37 ii> ii1.676, iior iiH0 ii= ii iiX ii1 ii ii ii≤ ii iiX ii2 iiwas iirejected, iiand iiH1 ii=
iiX ii ii
1

> iiX ii2was iiaccepted. iiThus, iithe iimean iiscore iiof iithe iiexperimental iiclass iipost-test
iiwas iihigher iithan iithe iimean iiscore iiof iithe iicontrolled iiclass iipost-test, iion iithe
students’ iispeaking iiskill.
iiother iiwords, i i there i i was i i a i i positive i i effect i i of i i using i i Classroom

i i Debate i i towards i i the

 113

Appendix 10 ii

The Instrument of Post-test and Pre-test

ii ii ii ii ii

A. Speakers’ iiJob iiDescription iiof iiClassroom iiDebate

(Adapted iifrom iiDebating: iiIntroduction iifor iiBeginners1, iimodified iiby iithe iiwriter ii)
1st iiSpeaker iiof iiPositive iiTeam

Presentation
Opening
 Good iimorning iiLadies iiand iiGentlemen, iiwelcome iito iithis iidebate.
ii Today’s iimotion iiis...
 Welcome iifrom iithis iiside iiof iithe iihouse. iiOur iimotion iiis...
 The iimotion iifor iidebate iitoday iiis...
Introduction
 Let iime iiintroduce iimy iiteam, iimy iiname iiis. as iithe iifirst iispeaker iiand iimy
partner iiis.. .as iithe iisecond iispeaker, iiwe iiare iifrom iithe iipositive iiteam.
Introducing iia iipoint iiof iiteam iiside
 It iiseems iiquite iiclear iithat iiour iiteam iicompletely iiagree iiwith iithe
ii motion iithat....
 I iibelieve iithat iiwe iiare iias iithe iipositive iiside; iiwe iisupport iithe iimotion iiof
ii this iihouse.
Defining iiand iiinterpreting iimotion
 Now iiwe iiare iias iipositive iiteam iistrongly iibelieve iithat iithis iiis iitrue, iibut
ii before iiwe iicome iito iiour iiactual iiargumentation, iilet iius iifirst iidefine
ii some iiimportant iiterms iiin iithis iidebate.
 As iithe iipositive iiside, iiwe iiwould iilike iito iibegin iiwith iidefining iithe
ii following iimotion
 We iiwould iilike iito iiintroduce iiour iistand iiby iigiving iithe iifollowing
definitions....

1
, iiThe iiDebating iiSA iiTeam, iiDebating: iiA iiBrief iiIntroduction iifor iiBeginners ii(Australia:
iiDebating iiSA iiIncorporated, ii2008), iipp. ii10 ii– ii11
 114

Introduction iiof iispeakers ii(also iicalled iiteamline)

 We iias iitodays iipositive iiside iihave iistructured iiour iicase iias iifollows:
 I, iias iithe iifirst iispeaker, iiwill iibe iitalking iiabout ii...
 Our iisecond iispeaker, ii..., iiwill iielaborate iion iithe iifact iithat ii...
Giving iiargument, iireasons iiand iievidence
 Let iime iicome iito iimy iifirst/second/.../next iiargument. iiIn
ii my iiopinion....because.....
 Welcome iito iimy iiarguments. iiMy iifirst/... iiargument iiis....i iistrongly
believe iithat...
 The iifirst/...reason iiwhy iiwe're iiprop/opposing iithis iimotion iiis
 What iiI iiparticulary iilike iifrom iithe iimotion iiis iibecause iiI’m iisure......
 The iimotion iiis......and iiit’s iilovely iito iisupport iiwith iimy iireasons, iithat....
Giving iiexamples
 There iiare iimany iiexamples iifor iithis/for. ., iifor iiinstance.
 In iifact, iiyou iican iifind iimany iiexamples iifor iithis iiin iireal iilife. iiJust iithink
iiof...

 And iithere iiare iisimilar iicases, iisuch iias ii..., ii...

 So iiin iithis iisimple iiexample iiwe iican iiclearly iisee iithe iieffect iiof ii...
Giving iian iiexpert iiopinion
 According iito…
 To iiquote…
Summary iiof iiown iicase
 So iiLadies iiand iiGentlemen, iiwhat iihave iiI iitold iiyou iitoday? iiFirstly ,
Secondly..and iifor iiall iiof iithese iireasons, iithe iimotion iimust iistand.
 So iias iiwe iihave iiseen iithat.....(the iiargument) iiand iitherefore ii(motion).
Now iibecause iiof iithis..., iifinally iiwe iihave iito iisupport iithis iimotion.
 115

Response
Give iiresponse iiof iirebuttal
 But iibefore iiI iicome iito iimy iiown iirebuttal, iiI iiwant iito iirespond iithe
ii rebuttal iifrom ii1st iispeaker iiof iipositive iiside iithat iisaid. let iius
ii first iihave iia iilook. iiI
can’t iibelieve iito iiwhat’s iigoing iion iito iiyour iirebuttal iibut iiI’m iisure...(your
response)
 I iiwill iicontinue iiour iicase iiin iia iiminute, iibut iibefore iithat iithere iiare iisome
ii things iiabout iithe iirebuttalt iifrom iinegative iiteam iishe/he iisaid....
ii actually....
(your iiresponse)
Giving iirebuttal: iireason iiand iievidence
 I’m iigoing iito iirebut iithe ii1st/2nd iispeaker iiof iinegative iiteam iithat iisaid.
in
my iiopinion....
 The iispeaker iiof iinegative iiside iihas iitold iius ii...; iion iithe iicontrary ii...
 He/she iialso iisaid iithat ii...; iibut iiin iifact...
Convincing iithe iiteam iiside
 It iiseems iiquite iiclear iithat iiour iiteam iicompletely iiagree iiwith iithe
ii motion iithat....
 I iibelieve iithat iiwe iiare iias iithe iipositive iiside; iiwe iimust iisupport iithe
motion iiof iithis iihouse
ii

No iinew iiargument 1st iiSpeaker iiof iiNegative iiTeam

Presentation
Opening
 Good iimorning iiLadies iiand iiGentlemen, iiwelcome iito iithis iidebate.
ii Today’s iimotion iiis...
 Welcome iifrom iithis iiside iiof iithe iihouse. iiOur iimotion iiis...
 The iimotion iifor iidebate iitoday iiis...
 116

Introduction
 Let iime iiintroduce iimy iiteam, iimy iiname iiis. as iithe iifirst iispeaker iiand iimy
partner iiis.. .as iithe iisecond iispeaker, iiwe iiare iifrom iithe iinegative iiteam.
Introducing iia iipoint iiof iiteam iiside
 It iiseems iiquite iiclear iithat iiour iiteam iicompletely iidisagree iiwith iithe
ii motion iithat....
 I iibelieve iithat iiwe iiare iias iithe iinegative iiside; iiwe iiare iiagaints iithe
ii motion iiof iithis iihouse.
Redpond iithe iidefinition iifrom iipositive iiteam: iiagree iior iireject iidefinition
ii of iipositive. iiIf iireject iithen iijustify.
Agree iithe iidefinition
 Ladies iiand iigentlement, iithe iidefinition iisaid iiby iipositive iiside iiis iiquite
ii clear iihowever, iiwe iineed iito iihave iia iilook iithe iireasons iibecause iithey
ii don’t iihave iistrong iievidence iito iiprove iitheir iiside.
Reject iithe iidefinition
 Ladies iiand iigentlement, iiit’s iivery iitragic iito iiaccept iidefinition iifrom
ii the iipositive iiteam iibecause iithey iigave iius iiunclear iidefinition, iithat’s
ii why iiI iiwould iilike iito iipresent iiour iidefinition iithat ii.....(the iimotion).
ii We iidefine...
Rebuttal iifor ii1st iispeaker
 Ladies iiand iigentlement, iiI’m iiextremely iidispleased iithe iiargument
ii from iipostive iiteam iithat......so iicomes iito iimy iirebuttal, iiI iibelieve
(your
rebuttal).
 The iifirst iiprop/opposition iispeaker iihas iitold iius ii...; iion iithe iicontrary ii...
Introduction iiof iispeakers ii(also iicalled iiteamline)
 We iias iitodays iinegative iiside iihave iistructured iiour iicase iias iifollows:
- I, iias iithe iifirst iispeaker, iiwill iibe iitalking iiabout ii...
- Our iisecond iispeaker, ii..., iiwill iielaborate iion iithe iifact iithat ii...
Giving iiargument, iireasons iiand iievidence
 Let iime iicome iito iimy iifirst/second/. /next iiargument. iiIn iimy
opinion....because.....
 117

 Welcome iito iimy iiarguments. iiMy iifirst/... iiargument iiis.. . .I iistrongly

believe iithat...
 The iifirst/...reason iiwhy iiare iiagaints iithis iimotion iiis
 What iiI iiparticulary iilike iifrom iithe iimotion iiis iibecause iiI’m iisure......
 The iimotion iiis.....and iiI iicannot iitake iithe iireasons iianymore iifrom iithe
positive iiteam. iiI iibelieve iiin iithis iicase...(your iiargument)
Giving iiexamples
 There iiare iimany iiexamples iifor iithis/for. ., iifor iiinstance.
 In iifact, iiyou iican iifind iimany iiexamples iifor iithis iiin iireal iilife. iiJust iithink
iiof...

 And iithere iiare iisimilar iicases, iisuch iias ii..., ii...

 So iiin iithis iisimple iiexample iiwe iican iiclearly iisee iithe iieffect iiof ii...
Giving iian iiexpert iiopinion
 According iito…
 To iiquote…
Giving iisolution iias iithe iialternative iiway
 We iihave iiseen iithat iithe iimotion iiis iiclearly iifailed, iito iisolve iithe iiproblem,
ii we iihave iia iisolution iisuch iias iithe iigoverment iishould. explanation
ii and iidetail
example.
Summary iiof iiown iicase
 So iiLadies iiand iiGentlemen, iiwhat iihave iiI iitold iiyou iitoday? iiFirstly ,
Secondly..and iifor iiall iiof iithese iireasons, iithe iimotion iimust iifall.
 So iias iiwe iihave iiseen iithat.....(the iiargument) iiand iitherefore ii(motion).
Now iibecause iiof iithis..., iifinally iiwe iidont iifeel iicomfortable iito iithis
iimotion.

 To iiconclude, iiwe iimust iiemphasize iiour iimotion iiis iirejected, iihence

ii the iipositive iiteam’s iiargument iican iino iilonger iibe iisupported.
 118

Response
Give iiresponse iiof iirebuttal
 But iibefore iiI iicome iito iimy iiown iirebuttal, iiI iiwant iito iirespond iirebuttal
ii from ii1st iispeaker iiof iipositive iiside iithat iisaid....let iius iifirst iihave iia iilook
ii at iiwhat ii... iihas iisaid.
 I iiwill iicontinue iiour iicase iiin iia iiminute, iibut iibefore iithat iithere iiare
ii some iithings iiabout iithe ii... iispeech iithat iineed iito iibe iiaddressed.
Giving iirebuttal, iireason iiand iievidence
 I’m iigoing iito iirebut iithe ii1st/2nd iispeaker iiof iipositive iiteam iithat iisaid.
in
my iiopinion....
 The iipositive iispeaker iihas iitold iius ii...; iion iithe iicontrary ii...
 He/she iialso iisaid iithat ii...; iibut iiin iifact...
Convincing iithe iiteam iiside
 It iiseems iiquite iiclear iithat iiour iiteam iiis iicompletely iiagaints iithe iimotion
ii that iiwe iishould....
 I iibelieve iithat iiwe iiare iias iinegative iiteam; iiwe iicannot iitake iithe iimotion
ii any iilonger.
No iinew iiargument.

2nd iiSpeaker iiof iiPositive iiTeam

Rebuttal
Introduction
 My iiname iiis...as iithe iisecond iispeaker iipositive iiteam iiand iithe iimotion
today iiis....
Introducing iia iipoint iiof iiteam iiside
 It iiseems iiquite iiclear iithat iiour iiteam iicompletely iiagree iiwith iithe
ii motion iijust iilike iimy iifirst iispeaker iisaid.
 I iibelieve iithat iiwe iiare iisupport iithe iimotion iiof iithis iihouse.
 119

Give iiresponse iiof iirebuttal

 But iibefore iiI iicome iito iimy iiown iirebuttal, iiI iiwant iito iirespond iithe
ii rebuttal iinegative iiside iithat iishe/he iisaid. let iius iifirst iihave iia iilook.
ii I iican’t iibelieve
to iiwhat’s iigoing iion iito iiyour iirebuttal iibut iiI’m iisure....(your iiresponse)
 I iiwill iicontinue iiour iicase iiin iia iiminute, iibut iibefore iithat iithere iiare iisome
ii things iiabout iithe iirebuttalt iifrom iinegative iiteam iishe/he iisaid....
ii actually....
(your iiresponse)
Giving iirebuttal: iireason iiand iievidence
 I’m iigoing iito iirebut iithe ii1st/2nd iispeaker iiof iinegative iiteam iithat iisaid.
in
my iiopinion....
 The iispeaker iiof iinegative iiside iihas iitold iius ii...; iion iithe iicontrary ii...
 He/she iialso iisaid iithat ii...; iibut iiin iifact...
Support iithe ii1st iispeaker iiargument
I iiwould iilike iito iiturn iiour iiattention iito iibelieve iimy iifirst iispeaker iiopinion
iithat...

Giving iiargument: iireasons iiand iievidence

 Let iime iicome iito iimy iifirst/second/. /next iiargument. iiIn iimy
opinion....because.....
 Welcome iito iimy iiarguments. iiMy iifirst/... iiargument iiis....i iistrongly
believe iithat...
 The iifirst/...reason iiwhy iiwe're iiprop/opposing iithis iimotion iiis
 What iiI iiparticularly iilike iifrom iithe iimotion iiis iibecause iiI’m iisure......
 The iimotion iiis......and iiit’s iilovely iito iisupport iiwith iimy iireasons, iithat....
Giving iiexamples
 There iiare iimany iiexamples iifor iithis/for. ., iifor iiinstance.
 In iifact, iiyou iican iifind iimany iiexamples iifor iithis iiin iireal iilife. iiJust iithink
iiof...

 And iithere iiare iisimilar iicases, iisuch iias ii..., ii...

 So iiin iithis iisimple iiexample iiwe iican iiclearly iisee iithe iieffect iiof ii...
Giving iian iiexpert iiopinion
 According iito…
 To iiquote…
 120

Summary iiof iiown iicase

 So iiLadies iiand iiGentlemen, iiwhat iihave iiI iitold iiyou iitoday? iiFirstly
ii ..., iiSecondly..and iifor iiall iiof iithese iireasons, iithe iimotion iimust
ii stand.
 So iias iiwe iihave iiseen iithat.....(the iiargument) iiand iitherefore ii(motion).
Now iibecause iiof iithis..., iifinally iiwe iihave iito iisupport iithis iimotion
Summary
Summarize iithe iiwhole iiteam iicase.
 Ladies iiand iiGentlemen, iiwelcome iifor iithe iilast iitime iifrom iipositive iiteam.
ii It iiis iinow iimy iipleasure iito iisummarize iithis iidebate, iitake iia iilook iiat iiwhat
ii both iisides iihave iisaid iiand iisee iiwhat iithe iioutcome iiof iithis iidebate iiactually
ii is.
The iimotion iitoday iiis...
Our iiteam iiabsolutely iisupport iithe iimotions iiby iithe
ii reasons: iiFirst..
Second...
Regarding iito iiall iithe iireasons, iiI iibeg iiyou iito iisupport iithe iimotion.
Convincing iithe iiteam iiside
 It iiseems iiquite iiclear iithat iiour iiteam iicompletely iiagree iiwith iithe iimotion
iithat....

 I iibelieve iithat iiwe iiare iias iithe iipositive iiside; iiwe iimust iisupport iithe
ii motion iiof iithis iihouse
No iirebuttal iiin iisummary
2nd iiSpeaker iiof iiNegative iiTeam

Rebuttal
Introduction
 My iiname iiis...as iithe iisecond iispeaker iipositive iiteam iiand iithe iimotion
today iiis....
Introducing iia iipoint iiof iiteam iiside
 It iiseems iiquite iiclear iithat iiour iiteam iicompletely iidisagree iiwith iithe
ii motion iijust iilike iimy iifirst iispeaker iisaid.
 I iibelieve iithat iiwill iinot iisupport iithe iimotion iiof iithis iihouse.
 121

Give iiresponse iiof iirebuttal

 But iibefore iiI iicome iito iimy iiown iirebuttal, iiI iiwant iito iirespond iithe
ii rebuttal iifrom iithe iipositive iiside iithat iishe/he iisaid. let iius iifirst iihave iia
ii look. iiI iican’t
believe iito iiwhat’s iigoing iion iito iiyour iirebuttal iibut iiI’m iisure.. .(your
response)
 I iiwill iicontinue iiour iicase iiin iia iiminute, iibut iibefore iithat iithere iiare
ii some iithings iiabout iithe iirebuttal iifrom iipositive iiteam iishe/he iisaid....
ii actually....
(your iiresponse)
Giving iirebuttal: iireason iiand iievidence
 I’m iigoing iito iirebut iithe ii1st/2nd iispeaker iiof iipositive iiteam iithat iisaid.
in
my iiopinion....
 The iispeaker iifrom iithe iipositive iiside iihas iitold iius ii...; iion iithe iicontrary ii...
 He/she iialso iisaid iithat ii...; iibut iiin iifact...
Support iithe ii1st iispeaker iiargument
I iiwould iilike iito iiturn iiour iiattention iito iibelieve iimy iifirst iispeaker iiopinion
iithat...

Giving iiargument: iireasons iiand iievidence

 Let iime iicome iito iimy iifirst/second/. /next iiargument. iiIn iimy
opinion....because.....
 Welcome iito iimy iiarguments. iiMy iifirst/... iiargument iiis....i iistrongly
believe iithat...
 The iifirst/...reason iiwhy iiwe're iiopposing iithis iimotion iiis
Giving iiexamples
 There iiare iimany iiexamples iifor iithis/for. ., iifor iiinstance.
 In iifact, iiyou iican iifind iimany iiexamples iifor iithis iiin iireal iilife. iiJust iithink
iiof...

 And iithere iiare iisimilar iicases, iisuch iias ii..., ii...

 So iiin iithis iisimple iiexample iiwe iican iiclearly iisee iithe iieffect iiof ii...
Giving iian iiexpert iiopinion
 According iito…
 To iiquote…
 122

Summary iiof iiown iicase

 So iiLadies iiand iiGentlemen, iiwhat iihave iiI iitold iiyou iitoday? iiFirstly
ii ..., iiSecondly..and iifor iiall iiof iithese iireasons, iithe iimotion iimust iifall
 So iias iiwe iihave iiseen iithat.....(the iiargument) iiand iitherefore ii(motion).
Now iibecause iiof iithis..., iifinally iiwe iiare iiagaints iithe iimotion.
Summary
Summarize iithe iiwhole iiteam iicase.
 Ladies iiand iiGentlemen, iiwelcome iifor iithe iilast iitime iifrom iinegative iiteam.
ii It iiis iinow iimy iipleasure iito iisummarize iithis iidebate, iitake iia iilook iiat iiwhat
ii both iisides iihave iisaid iiand iisee iiwhat iithe iioutcome iiof iithis iidebate iiactually
ii is.
The iimotion iitoday iiis...
Our iiteam iiabsolutely iidisagree iiwith iithe iimotions iiby iithe iireasons:
ii First..
Second...
Regarding iito iiall iithe iireasons, iiI iibeg iiyou iito iireject iithe iimotion.
Convincing iithe iiteam iiside
 It iiseems iiquite iiclear iithat iiour iiteam iicompletely iidisagree iiwith iithe iimotion
ii so iithe iigoverment iishould iinot...
 I iibelieve iithat iiwe iiare iias iithe iinegative iiside; iiwe iimust iireject iithe iimotion iiof
ii this iihouse
No iirebuttal iiin iisummary
 123

B. The iiMotions ii(Topics) iiof iiPre-test iiand iiPost-test

Experimental iiClass Control iiClass

Round Motions Round Motions
This iihouse iiWould iiBan iiSchool This iihouse iiWould iiBan
1 1
Uniforms School iiUniforms
This iiHouse iiwould This iiHouse iiwould iimake
2 ii ban iihomework 2 ii sex iieducation
ii mandatory
in iischools
This iiHouse iiwould iimake iisex This iiHouse iiwould
3 education iimandatory iiin 3 ii ban iihomework
ii schools
This iiHouse iibelieves This iiHouse iiwould
4 ii reality iitelevision iidoes 4 ii censor iithe iiinternet
ii more iiharm
than iigood
This iiHouse iiWould iilegalize This iiHouse iiWould
5 5
prostitution legalize iiprostitution
This iihouse iisupports iihome This iihouse iiwould iiallow
6 6
schooling gay iicouples iito iimarry
This iihouse iiwould iiallow This iiHouse iibelieves
7 ii gay iicouples iito iimarry 7 ii reality iitelevision iidoes
more iiharm iithan iigood
 124

Example iiof iiStudents’ iiMotion

ii elaboration iiThis iiHouse iiwould iiban

Homework iiis iia iiiihomework

task ii(often iicalled iian iiassignment) iiset iiby iiteachers iifor
ii students iito iido iioutside iinormal iilessons ii– iiusually iiat iihome iiin iithe iievening.
ii Schools iihave iibeen iisetting iihomework iiin iideveloped iicountries iifor iiover iia
ii century, iibut iiuntil iithe iipast iifew iidecades iiusually iionly iiolder iistudents iihad iito
ii do iiit. iiMore iirecently iiyounger iistudents iihave iialso iibeen iigiven iihomework iiby
ii their iiprimary iior iielementary iischools. iiIn iiEngland iithe iigovernment iidoes iinot
ii make iischools iigive iihomework iibut iiit iidoes iiset iiguidelines. iiAmerican iistudies
ii report iithe iiamount iiof iihomework iibeing iiset iifor iiyounger iistudents iidoubling
ii over iithe iipast iitwenty-five iiyears iior iiso, iialthough iisome iidoubt iithese iifindings.
Countries, iischools iiand iisubjects iidiffer iia iilot iion iihow iimuch iihomework iiis
ii set, iiand iiat iiwhat iiage, iibut iialmost iiall iihigh iischool iistudents iihave iito iido iiat iileast
ii some iimost iinights. iiMost iichildren iihave iinever iiliked iihomework iibut iifrom iitime
ii to iitime iiit iiis iialso iidebated iiby iipoliticians, iiparents iiand iiteachers. iiSometimes
ii there iiare iidemands iifor iimore iihomework, iias iipart iiof iia iidrive iifor ii“higher
ii standards”. iiAt iiother iitimes iithere iiare iicalls iifor iiless iihomework iito iibe iiset,
ii especially iiin iiprimary/ iielementary i i schools. i i This i i topic i i looks i i at i i whether
ii homework i i should i i be i i banned
altogether.
PRO CONTRA
- Homework iihas iilittle iieducational - Homework iiencourages

iiworth, iiand iitherefore iiis iia iiwaste iistudents iito iiwork iimore

iiof iistudents' iitime iiindependently ii(by iithemselves)

- Homework iireduces iithe iiamount - Homework iiensures iithat iistudents

iiof iitime iifor iistudents iito iido iiother iipractise iiwhat iithey iiare iitaught iiat

iiactivities iiHomework iiputs iischool iiHomework iiprovides iia

iistudents iioff iilearning iilink iibetween iichild, iischool iiand

- Homework iiis iiabout ii'winning' iithe iihome

iion iitests, iinot iilearning - Homework iiis iian iiessential iipart

iiof iieducation, iiallowing iistudents

iito iilearn iiinformation iibeyond

iithat
 125

This iihouse iiWould iiBan iiSchool iiUniforms

In iisome iicountries, iilike iithe iiU.K., iiJapan, iiHong iiKong, iiand iiseveral iiAfrican
ii countries, iischool iiuniforms iiare iiworn iiin iialmost iievery iischool. iiIn iiother
ii countries, iilike iiFrance iiand iiGermany, iischool iiuniforms iiare iionly iiworn iiin iia iifew
ii schools, iior iieven iinone. iiHowever, iiin iisome iiof iithese iicountries iiopinions iiare
ii changing. iiFor iiexample, iiboth iiFrance iiand iiGermany iihave iirecently iiconsidered
ii bringing iischool iiuniforms iiback, iiand iiin iithe iiU.S.A. iithe iipercentage iiof iipublic
ii schools iiin iiwhich iichildren iiwear iia iiuniform iihas iiincreased iifrom ii11.8 iiin ii1999-
2000 iito ii17.5 iiin ii2007- ii2008. iiOn iithe iiother iihand, iisome iischools iiin iithe iiU.K.
ii have iigotten iirid iiof iischool iiuniform. iiWith iisuch iidifferent iirules iiin iithese
ii different iicountries, iiit iiis iiimportant iito
think iiabout iiwhether iior iinot iischool iiuniforms iiare iireally iinecessary, iiand iiwhy.
PRO CONTRA
- Students iishould iibe iiallowed iito - School iiuniforms iicreate iia iisense iiof
ii wear iireligious iidress ii equality
- Dress iiCodes iiinstead iiof iischool - School iiuniforms iicontribute iito iithe
i i uniform ii sense iiof iischool iiunity
- School uniforms are often - School uniforms encourage
ii impractical iior iiuncomfortable ii discipline
- School uniforms are often
ii expensive
 126

C. Rules iiof iiClassroom iiDebate

These iifollowing iirules iiare iiadapted iifrom iiEnglish iiDebate iiSonic iiLinguistic
ii 2010 iiand iiconsidered iiwith iithe iiterms iiof iiclassroom iidebate.2
a) Classroom iidebate iiconsists iiof iidebate iiteams ii(positive iiand iinegative
ii team), iijury, iichairperson, iiaudience iiand iitime iikeeper.
b) The iitopic iiis iicalled iimotion iiand iiit iiwill iibe iidecided iiafter iithe iiteams iisettled
c) The iidebate iiwill iirun:
- Presentation ii(1st iispeaker) ii: ii4 iiminutes
- Rebuttal ii(2nd iispeaker) : ii4 iiminutes
- Response ii(1st iispeaker) : ii2 iiminutes
- Summary ii(2nd iispeaker) : ii2 iiminutes
d) The iiteams iihave iito iiwrite iitheir iiteam iimembers iiand iispeaker iiposition
ii in iia iipaper iithen iigive iiit iito iithe iichairperson
e) Time iikeeper iiwill iicatch iithe iitime iiof iispeaker iiand iiannounce iiit iiafter
ii the iispeaker iidone iithe iispeech
f) The iidebaters iihave ii10 iiminutes iifor iicase iibuilding ii(actually iithey iiare iialso
ii already iiknow iithe iimotion iiseveral iidays iibefore iithe iidebate)
g) Any iiPrint iimaterial, iidata, iinewspaper, iibooks iiare iiallowed iiduring iithe iicase
ii building iibut iithese iiare iinot iiallowed iito iibe iibrought iiwith iiwhile iithe iidebaters
ii are iispeaking
h) Any iikind iiof iicommunication iitools iishould iibe iiturned iioff iior iiin iisilent iimode
i) Debaters iiare iinot iiallowed iito iiuse iitheir iicell iiphones iiduring iithe iidebate
j) POI ii(Point iiof iiInformation) iiis iiallowed iiafter ii1 iiminute iispeech iiand iiit iihas
ii 15 iiminutes iilength.
k) POI iiis iionly iiallowed iiduring iipresentation, iirebuttal iiand iiresponse iistages, iiby
ii raising iihands.
l) Debaters iihave iito iigive iiresponse iito iiPOI iigiven iiwhether iirejecting iior
ii accepting.

2 ii
Students iiCouncil iiof iiMadrasah iiAliyah iiNegeri iiInsan iiCendekia iiSerpong, iiEnglish
iiDebate: iiSonic iiLinguistic ii2010, ii(South iiTangerang: iiMadrasah iiAliyah iiInsan iiCendekia, ii2010),
iip. ii3
 127

m) Note iithat iino iinew iiinformation iimay iibe iiintroduced iiduring iithe iisummary.
ii Doing iiso, iimay iiresult iiin iidisqualification iiof iithe iioffending iigroup.
n) Debaters iiare iinot iiallowed iito iihumiliate iior iiproducing iibad iiwords iiin iitheir
ii speech.
o) The iiwinner iiwill iibe iidetermined iiby iivoting iifrom iithe iiaudience iiand
ii decision iifrom iijury.
p) Every iistudent iiin iithe iiclass iiis iipleased iito iibe iicooperated iito iiflow iithe iidebate iiwell.
q) The iidebate iishould iisportively iirun iia iifriendly iicompetition.

D. Classroom iiDebate iiRecord iifor iiTime iiKeeper iiand iiChairperson

1. iiThis iiHouse iiWould iiBan iiSchool iiUniform
Positive iiTeam Negative iiTeam
1 1
2 2
1 1
2 2
2. iiThis iiHouse iiWould iiBan iiHomework
Positive iiTeam Negative iiTeam
1 1
2 2
1 1
2 2
3. iiThis iiHouse iiWould iiMake iiSex iiEducation iiMandatory iiin iiSchools
Positive iiTeam Negative iiTeam
1 1
2 2
1 1
2 2