THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ASIAN PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE TECHNIQUE IN TEACHING SPEAKING AT THE SECOND GRADE STUDENTS OF SMA NEGERI 5 BANDAR LAMPUNG

(1)

i

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ASIAN PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE TECHNIQUE IN TEACHING SPEAKING AT THE SECOND GRADE

STUDENTS OF SMA NEGERI 5 BANDAR LAMPUNG Rio Sanjaya, Ari Nurweni, Hartati Hasan

Riosanjaya74@gmail.com University of Lampung

Abstract

The objectives of the research were to examine the process of the implementation of the Asian Parliamentary Debate technique, to find out the increase of the students’ speaking ability after being taught by using the Asian Parliamentary Debate technique, and to identify the students’ problems during the implementation of the technique. This research involved 30 students of XI IPA II Class of SMAN 5 Bandar Lampung academic year 2013/2014 and employed the one group pretest-posttest design. The result showed that there was a significant increase of the the students’ speaking ability after being taught by using the Asian Parliamentary Debate technique.The students’ mean score inthe pretest was 46.33, the mean score inthe posttest was 60.53, and t-ratio is higher than t-table (10.249> 2.045).It can be seen that there was an improvement of the pretest and postest results in the terms offluency, grammar, vocabulary,pronunciation ,and comprehension. Although there were many problems during the process of the implementation of the technique, overall the process of the implementation ran sucessfully with the indicator of students’ improvement in speaking English. The students’ mean score in pretest was 46.33, and the mean score in posttest was 60.53. The statistical calculation showed that the technique used gave a significant increase because t-ratio is higher than t-table (10.249> 2.045). From the students’ point of view, learning debate is quite difficult. They found many obstacles during the teaching and learning process such as difficulties in comprehending the role of each speaker, sharing their ideas by using their L1and arranging arguments systematically. The researcher believes that the factors that can hamper the teaching and learning process are students’mother tongue interference and their confidence. Furthermore, it is suggested that the English teachers should apply this technique in order to improve the students’ speaking ability because this technique can make students more confident to speak English and make them accustomed to speaking English.

Keywords:asian Parliamentary debate technique, hortatory exposition text, speaking ability


(2)

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

In the name of Alloh, the Beneficent and Merciful. All praise is merely to the Mightiest Alloh SWT, the Lord of the worlds, for the gracious mercy and tremendous blessings that enables me to accomplish this script.This script, entitledThe Implementation of Asian Parliamentary Debate Technique in Teaching Speaking at the Second Grade SMAN 5 Bandar Lampung, is submitted to fulfill one of the requirements for obtainingthe academic title of the Bachelor Degree of English Education, Department of Language and Arts, Teacher Training and Education Faculty, University of Lampung.

It is important to acknowledge that this script would never have come into existence without any supports, encouragements, and assistance by several generous persons.

Among many individuals who have generously offered suggestion for improving this script, first of all the writer would like to extend his sincere gratitude to Dr. Ari Nurweni, M.A., the writer’s first advisor and his co- advisor,Dra. Hartati Hasan, M.Hum,who have contributed and given their invaluable evaluations, comments, and suggestions during the completion of this script. The writer also would like to express his deepest gratitude and respect to Prof. Dr. Patuan Raja, M.Pd. as his examiner who has generously contributed his suggestion and criticism for the improvement ofthis script. Then, the writer is very thankful to Drs. Huzairin, M.Pd., as his academic advisor for his kindness and patience in guiding the writer during his study at English Department. The writer also would like to express his gratitude to Dr. Muhammad Sukirlan, M.A., Prof. Dr. Cucu Sutarysah, M.A., and Drs. Basturi Hasan, M.Pd., as the writer’s lecturers who always gave some advice and had a time discussing and sharing about the research in English teaching. The deepest appreciation is given to all lecturers of English Department, University of Lampung.

The writer also would like to extend his appreciation to Drs. Hi. Ahyauddin, M.Pd., the headmaster of SMAN 5 Bandar Lampung, for providing a place to conduct this research. Then, next appreciation is addressed toDra. Endang Tri Novianti, as the English teacher,for being so helpful during the process of the research in the class. Besides, the writer also extends his thankfulness to the students of XI IPA II class for their willingness, cooperation, and participation in this research.

Another appreciation to his best friend, Ahmad Novindri Adji Sukma, for his support and motivation that has opened the writer’s mind to be a successful student both in academic and non-academic aspects. The deepest gratitude is extended to Novi Setiawati, for her kindness, patience, and help in supporting the writer to accomplish his research and script. Sincere gratitude to his friendsRenita Violeta and Dani Saputrowho kindly lent him their printers and papers. The writer also would like to express his sincere gratitude to his best friends at English Department, Fadhil, Wisnu, Dika, Bedul, Luki, Ayin, Rima, Nia, Devi, Reza, Rani, Rizki, and Titik who always voluntarily help and support the writer during his study and the completion of his research. Sincere gratitude to colleagues at English Department 2010 who cannot be mentioned one by one. Next, the writer would like to appreciate UKM-U English Society members : Kak Tian, Kak Arif, Ria, Anwar, Vani, Fadlan, and those who cannot be mentioned. The writer extends his gratitude to his team in Indonesian Future Leaders: Deni,


(3)

vi

Last but not least, his special gratitude and indebtedness are dedicated to his beloved mother, Sri Lestariand his beloved father, Supardi, who always give their loves, prayers, supports, and encouragements for every single thing that has been done by the writer. It is truly undoubted that loves, cares, timeless prayers during days and nights, are everything for him.

Hopefully, this script will give a positive contribution to the educational development and also for those who want to carry out further research.The writer is completely aware that this script is far from the perfection. Therefore, constructive input and suggestion are expected to compose better script in the future.

Bandar Lampung, October 2014


(4)

(5)

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ASIAN PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE

TECHNIQUE IN TEACHING SPEAKING AT THE SECOND GRADE

STUDENTS OF SMA NEGERI 5 BANDAR LAMPUNG

(A Script)

By

RIO SANJAYA 1013042058

Advisors:

1. Dr. Ari Nurweni, M.A.

2. Dra. Hartati Hasan, M.Hum.

Examiner:

Prof. Dr. Patuan Raja, M.Pd.

ENGLISH EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACULTY LAMPUNG UNIVERSITY

BANDAR LAMPUNG 2014


(6)

ii

Starting from several failures, finally Rio Sanjaya, the writer of this script can take the values of his life experiences. The first child of a wonderful couple, Supardi and Sri Lestari, started his study by enrolling at SD Negeri 1 Garuntang in 1997. He graduated from his elementary school in 2003. Then, he continued his study at SMP Negeri 1 Bandar Lampung in 2003 and graduated in 2006. After graduating from SMP Negeri 1 Bandar Lampung, he continued his study at SMA Negeri 2 Bandar Lampung in 2006 and graduated in 2009.

After graduating from senior high school, he planned to continue his study to the university. At the first time studying in the university, he faced many obstacles in his first year of his study. In 2009, he enrolled at Physics Education, but he did not finish his study in physics education because he did not have a strong passion in physics. After studying two semesters in Physics Education, he decided to take an SNMPTN test again. He successfully enrolled at English Education Study Program at University of Lampung in 2010.

Since that time, he promised to his parents and made a commitment to himself that one day he would make his parents proud. He is strongly encouraged by his dreams to have a high dedication, discipline, strong commitment, totality, and consistency to do everything that benefits his life, parents, and also people near him. During his study in the university, he joined UKM-U English Society Unila and became the best member in 2010. He was promoted to be the head of creativity and financial support department in ESo. He often participated in English Debate competitions nationally. In 2012, He participated in Indonesian Model United Nations Conference in UI. In the same year, in cooperation with his friend, he established MUN Lampung Club. In 2013, he helped his friends to establish Indonesian Future Leaders Lampung. He often attended English Teaching Seminar and Linguistics Seminar which belong to his interest in academic. In 2013, he accomplished his KKN-KT (Kuliah Kerja Nyata Kependidikan Terintegrasi) program at SMPN 2 Bandar Negeri Suoh in west Lampung for three months. In 2014, he was entrusted by his lecturers to be the head coordinator of KIMLI (Konferensi Internasional Masyarakat Linguistik Indonesia). In the same year, the United Nations in a collaboration with Harvard University granted him a scholarship to attend the World Model United Nations conference in Brussels, Belgium. On October in the same year also, he had a chance to visit Australia National University (ANU) in Canberra to attend the National Capital Model United Nations conference.


(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

LIST OF GRAPHS

Page Graph

1. The Students’ Five Aspects of Speaking Score in the pretest ... 72 2. The Students’ Five Aspects of Speaking Score in the Posttest ... 74 3. The Increase of Students’ Speaking Scores in Five Aspects from

Pretest to Posttest ... 76 4. The Increase of Students’ Five Aspects of Speaking... 79


(11)

MOTTO

Man Jadda Wajada


(12)

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Table of Specification for Speaking Test ... 35

2. Table of Linguistic Evaluation Form of the Speaking Test in the Pretest and Posttest... 38

3. Table of the Students’ Activity in Three Times Treatment... 39

4. Table of Learning Effectiveness (Teacher Evaluation)... 39

5. The Table of the Scores in Adjudicating the Debate... 46

6. The Result of the Students’ Activity in Three Times Treatments.... 53

7. The Result of the Learning Effectiveness (Teacher Evaluation)... 66

8. Distribution of Pretest Score ... 73

9. Distribution of Posttest Score ... 75


(13)

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendices Page

1. Surat Keterangan Penelitian... App 1 2. The List of the Students XI IPA II Class 2013/2014... App 2 3. Research Schedule... App 3 4. The Observation sheets of the Result of the Students’ Activity... App 4 5. The Observation sheets of the Result of the Result of Learning

Effectiveness (Teacher Evaluation) ... App 5 6. The Samples of the Results of Questionnaires... App 6 7. Direction for Pretest ... App 7 8. Direction for Posttest ... App 8 9. Lesson Plan 1 ... App 9 10. Lesson Plan 2 ... App 10 11. Lesson Plan 3 ... App 11 12. The Result of Students’ Pretest among Two Raters ... App 12 13. The Result of Students’ Posttest among Two Raters ... App 13 14. List of Students’ Average Score in Pretest and Posttest ... App 14 15. The Students’ Debating Scores in the First Meeting... App 15 16. The Students’ Debating Scores in the Second Meeting... App 16 17. The Students’ Debating Scores in the Third Meeting... App 17 18. The Comparison of Students’ Debating Scores in the Three

Treatments... App 18 19. The Result of Students’ Pretest among the Inter-Raters ... App 19 20. The Result of Students’ Posttestamong the Inter-Raters... App 20 21. T-test Computation ... App 21 22. Inter-rater Reliability of Pretest Score ... App 22 23. Inter-rater Reliability of Posttest Score ... App 23 24. T-table ... App 24 25. The Sample of the Transcription of Students’ During the Debate … App 25


(14)

iii

DEDICATION

By offering my praise and gratitude to Allah SWT for His abundant blessing to me, this script is proudly dedicated to:

The greatest inspirations of my life: my beloved Father and Mother, Supardi and Sri Lestari.

My beloved Brother: Roynaldy, ZN. and all my big family who cannot be mentioned directly in this script.

My Almamater, English Education Study program, Lampung University UKM-U ESo (English Society), Lampung University


(15)

CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT ... i

CURRICULUM VITAE ... ii

DEDICATION ... iii

MOTTO ... iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... v

CONTENTS ... vi

MOTTO ... vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... ... viii

CONTENTS ... ix

LIST OF TABLES ... x

LIST OF GRAPHS ... xi

LIST OF APPENDICES ... xii

I. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of the Problems ... 1

1.2Formulation of the Problems ... 6

1.3Objectives of the Research ... 6

1.4 Uses of the Research ... 7

1.5 Scope of the Research ... 7

1.6 Definition of Key Terms ... 8

II. LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1Speaking ... 9

2.1.1 Concept Speaking ... 9

2.1.2 Components of Speaking ... 11

2.1.3 Concept of Teaching Speaking ... 12

2.2Concept of Asian Parliamentary Debate ... 15

2.3 The Assessment of Asian Parliamentary Debate ... 19

2.4 Debate In the Teaching of Speaking...21

2.5Procedures of the Implementation of Asian Debate Parliamentary In the Teaching of Speaking ... 22

2.6The Advantages and Disadvantages of Debate in the Teaching of Speaking ... 28

2.7Theoretical Assumption ... 29

2.8 Hypotheses ... 30

III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1 Research Design ... 31

3.2 Subjects ... 32


(16)

3.4.3 Questionnaire ... 40

3.5 Criteria of Evaluating Students’ Speaking ... 41

3.5.1 Reliability ... 42

3.5.2 Validity ... 43

3.6Data Collecting Technique ... 44

3.7 Research Procedures ... 48

3.8 Analyzing the Data ... 49

3.9Data Analysis ... 50

3.10 Hypotheses Testing ... 50

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1. The Process of Implementation ... 52

4.1.1. Students Activities in the Teaching and Learning Process ... 53

4.1.2. The Evaluation of the Teaching and Learning Effectiveness .. 66

4.2.The students’ speaking ability ... 71

4.2.1. Result of Pretest ... 72

4.2.2. Result of Posttest ... 74

4.2.3. The Increase of the Students’ Speaking Ability after being taught by using the Asian Parliamentary Debate technique .... 75

4.2.4. Result of Hypotheses Test ... 80

4.3. The Students’ Problem ... 80

4.4. Finding and Discussion ... 86

4.4.1. Finding and Discussionof the Process of the Implementation .. 86

4.4.2. Finding and Discussionof the Product ... 93

V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS 5.1. Conclusions ... 100

5.2. Suggestions ... 101

REFERENCES ... APPENDICES ...


(17)

1. INTRODUCTION

This chapter discusses several substantives relating to the reasons in conducting the research: The background of the problem, formulation of the problems, objectives of the research, uses of the research, scope of the research as well as the definition of key terms, discussed as follows.

1.1. Background of the Problem

Nowadays, speaking has become increasingly important to be mastered by senior high school students. They are expected to be able to speak English in order to achieve the goals of the curriculum implemented by the government. They also need to master speaking in order to be able to use it for the communicative purposes. According to Burns and Joyce (1997), speaking is an interactive process of constructing meaning that involves producing, receiving as well as processing information. Its form and meaning are dependent on the context in which they occurs, including the participants themselves, their collective experiences, the physical environment, and the purposes for speaking. Speaking requires the learners not only know how to produce specific points of language such as grammar, pronunciation, or vocabulary (linguistic competence), but also that they understand when, why, and in what ways to produce language (sociolinguistic competence).


(18)

If we withdraw several statements from the theories above, it can be seen that speaking does not only encompass the ability of delivering feelings or thoughts in spoken language. Speaking is an activity done by people in order to communicate and interact with other people, and aspirate their voice and ideas in spoken language. This is a two-way process where the people have to consider delivering their verbal ideas comprehensively, understanding interlocutors’ ideas and giving the understandable and relevant responses towards the topics given by the interlocutor. In the context of teaching and learning process specifically in the teaching of speaking, the English teacher has to encourage students to be more aware to develop their communication skill. The students are required to establish a good speaking by considering several aspects. In example, the aspect on how they deliver ideas and refute others’ ideas (students’ attitude), on how they overcome their deficiency in speaking skill (students’ communication strategies), on how they gather ideas (brainstorming) before they speak, and so on. Therefore, in teaching and learning process actually students are required and expected to have sufficient skill in speaking.

However, according to Byrne (1977), the senior high school students often have difficulties in speaking although they have studied English for three years in junior high school. If I see statement proposed by Byrne, I have a notion that there might be a systematically inappropriate system in our education. Even if our curriculum demands English teachers to develop appropriate and creative techniques in the teaching of speaking in order to encourage students to achieve the required competencies established by the ministry of education, the implementation of the curriculum is still problematic. It can be found in English


(19)

teaching and learning process in Indonesia specifically in Lampung. Subjectively, I have experienced teaching in the class where the time allocation given for conducting speaking class is insufficient. It means that speaking is not a priority in the teaching of English. Some teachers allocate a bigger portion to the written exercises than the spoken exercises. They prioritize students’ results in answering the written tests. The students’ achievements in the mid semester test, national examination and the preparation test to enter state universities are being English teachers’ concern. It is not anomalous if most students of senior high school find many difficulties in speaking. Most of them usually feel hesitated and ashamed to speak up because they are not accustomed to the circumstances that require them to communicate orally. They also cannot overcome their lack of ability in speaking.

In accordance with the School-Based Curriculum (Kurikulum tingkat Satuan Pendidikan/KTSP), the goal of teaching language in the senior high school is that the students are expected to get involved in the communication using English, spoken as well as written, not only for transactional and interpersonal purposes but also for accessing information and delivering their ideas in this developing global information, communication, and technology era. In order to achieve the goals of the curriculum in English teaching and learning process, integrating students’ knowledge and attitude in speaking should be taken into account considering the needs of senior high school students in the future. It means that students of senior high school are required to have sufficient competencies in oral communication that covers negotiation skill, critical thinking, public speaking skill, and so forth. Therefore, in order to achieve those goals and accommodate


(20)

students’ needs in the future, one of techniques that can be implemented by teachers in English classroom particularly in speaking class is debate.

In the practical use, debate is conducted to solve some problems in the parliamentary or governmental level. In the parliament, the proposed policies by the government cannot be easily approved without any tough debate between government side and opposition side. The government side needs to persuade the parliament members to approve the policies. In the debate, the government side usually consists of several speakers to persuade the parliament members and the opposition side has their speakers to oppose government’s policies. Thus, generally there are two sides consisting of government and opposition sides in the parliamentary debate. Specifically, there are several formats in the parliamentary debate such as British Parliamentary Debate and Asian Parliamentary Debate. The history of the country and the geographical location of the country usually become the consideration of the country to implement certain formats of debate.

Nowadays, debate is getting more popular among the senior high school students. In Indonesia specifically in Lampung, there are many senior high school debate competitions conducted annually. This should be a momentum for English teacher to encourage students to learn debate. Through debate, students can sharpen and explore their verbal communication skill. They can exercise their argumentation skill among friends, critical thinking, and their skill in negotiation and public speaking. In the teaching of English especially speaking, this technique is appropriate to be introduced in senior high school level considering the characteristics of senior high school students’ cognitive development that is


(21)

described by Piaget. According to Piaget (1973), most high school students have achieved the formal operational stage. These students can think abstractly and need fewer concrete examples to understand complex thought patterns. Generally speaking, most students share the following characteristics:

1. Need to understand the purpose and relevance of instructional activities 2. Are both internally and externally motivated

3. Have self-imposed cognitive barriers due to years of academic failure and lack self-confidence

4. May have “shut down” in certain cognitive areas and will need to learn how to learn and overcome these barriers to learning

5. Want to establish immediate and long-term personal goals

6. Want to assume individual responsibility for learning and progress toward goals.

Davidson (1996) states that with practice, many students show obvious progress in their ability to express and defend ideas in debate and they often quickly recognize the flaws in each other's arguments. Nisbett (2003) declares that debate is an important educational tool for learning analytic thinking skills and for forcing self-conscious reflection on the validity of one's ideas. In addition, the researcher also has conducted a pre-observation in one of senior high schools in Bandar Lampung that was SMAN 5 Bandar Lampung. He found that the implementation of the debate technique in that school was very potential to develop students’ speaking. Therefore, based on some theories, and several previous findings, the researcher was very interested in conducting the research


(22)

and he entitled the script “The Implementation of Asian Parliamentary Debate Technique in Teaching Speaking at the Second Grade Students of SMAN 5

Bandar Lampung.”

1.2. Formulation of Problems

Based on the background that has been discussed above, the researcher formulated the problems as follows:

1. How is the implementation of the Asian Parliamentary debate in the teaching of speaking?

2. Is there any increase of the students’ speaking ability after being taught by using the Asian Parliamentary Debate technique?

3. What problems do the students face in the implementation of Asian Parliamentary Debate in the teaching of speaking?

1.3. Objectives of the Research

The objectives of this research comprise:

1. To examine the process of the implementation of the Asian Parliamentary Debate technique in the teaching of speaking.

2. To find out the increase of the students’ speaking ability after being taught by using the Asian Parliamentary Debate technique.

3. To identify the problems faced by students in the implementation of Asian Parliamentary Debate in the teaching of speaking.


(23)

1.4. Uses of the Research

The uses of this research are:

1. Theoretically, the result of this research is expected to provide a reference to readers who would like to conduct further research about the implementation of Asian Parliamentary debate technique in teaching speaking.

2. Practically, this research can be used as information and reference by English teachers to apply the same technique in encouraging students’ critical thinking and developing students’ speaking ability in the teaching of speaking.

1.5. Scope of the Research

This research was conducted in SMAN 5 Bandar Lampung, academic year 2013/2014. The subject of this research was XI A II class. The focus of this research was to investigate and examine the process of the implementation of the Asian Parliamentary Debate technique during the teaching and learning process in the classroom. It also examined the influence of the tecnique towards the students’ speaking ability and the students’ perception. The main reason why the researcher chose SMAN 5 Bandar Lampung was that this school was one of senior high schools in Bandar Lampung which had a strong commitment in introducing spoken English to the students. Thus, this condition gave a contributive contribution towards the research.


(24)

1.6. Definition of Key Terms

In order to avoid misunderstanding from the readers, definition or terms are provided as follows:

Speaking is an ability of the student in delivering and responding ideas and thoughts orally.

Debate is a form of speaking activity where the students give their arguments towards related topics and rebuttal towards opposite’s arguments.

Asian Parliamentary Debate is a form of a debate that consists of two groups or teams and each team or group consists of three speakers. Those two groups are the positive team which proposes certain topics and the negative team which opposes the topics.

Implementation is the process of applying the Asian Parliamentary Debate technique during the teaching of speaking.


(25)

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter discusses about literature review used in this research such as: concept of speaking, component of speaking, concept of teaching speaking, concept of Asian Parliamentary debate technique, the assessment of the Asian Parliamentary debate, procedures of using Asian Parliamentary debate technique in teaching speaking, the advantages and disadvantages of debate in teaching speaking, theoretical assumption, and hypothesis.

2.1. Speaking

2.1.1. Concept of Speaking

Scott in Johnson and Morrow (1981) defines speaking as an activity involving two (or more) people, in which the participants are both hearer and speaker having reaction to what they hear and make the contribution at high speed. In other words, each participant must have an intention or a set of intentions he wants to achieve in the interaction. Each participant has to be able to interpret what is said, and reply with the language he has which reflects his own intention.

Harris (1974) defines speaking as the encoding process whereby we communicate our ideas, thought, and feeling orally. It means that we produce spoken message to someone. The spoken message includes ideas,


(26)

thought and feeling that we want to share, influence, or interact to other people.

Lado (1961) describes speaking as the ability to express oneself in life situation, or the ability to report acts or situations in precise words, or the ability to converse, or to express a sequence of idea fluently. These ideas mean that speaking emphasizes more the ability of an individual to convey something whether it is in the form of expression, report with the language he has.

Biber (1999) states that spoken language takes place in real time, and are subject to the limitations of working memory so that its principles of linear construction are adapted to that purpose. A researcher can retract a sentence and it can be as if it never existed for the reader.

From the concepts of speaking stated above, it can be brought about a conclusion that speaking is a complex oral activity that is done by two or more people in order to express or deliver one’s ideas, respond other’s idea, and share information involving our cognitive and affective. The cognitive domain covers our skill in brainstorming, producing analytical and critical thinking, and delivering ideas systematically and logically. The affective domain covers our attitude in responding and delivering ideas, respecting other’s ideas, using polite utterances, and so forth. Therefore, the cognitive and affective domain of students can be developed better by practicing an


(27)

appropriate technique in example debate. By practicing debate, their affective and cognitive domain can be activated and they can be supportive towards students’ speaking skill development.

2.1.2. Aspects of Speaking

According to Harris (1974), speaking covers several aspects. The aspects of speaking are:

1. Fluency

Fluency can be defined as the ability to speak fluently and accurately. Fluency includes a reasonable fast speed of speaking and only a small numbers of pauses. It means that when a person make a dialogue with another person, the other person can give respond well without difficulty. 2. Grammar

Heaton (1991) defines grammar as the students’ ability to manipulate structure and to distinguish appropriate grammatical form in appropriate ones. In other words, grammar is a structured form to create good sentences. 3. Vocabulary

Nobody can communicate effectively if they do not have sufficient vocabulary. So, vocabulary means the appropriate diction which is used in communication.

4. Pronunciation

Pronunciation refers to the ability to produce easily comprehensible articulation. In other definition, pronunciation is the intonation pattern.


(28)

5. Comprehension

Syakur (1987) defines comprehension for oral communication that requires a subject to respond to speech as well as to initiate it. Comprehensibility denotes the ability of understanding the speakers’ intention and general meaning. This idea means that if a person can answer or express well and correctly, it shows that he/she comprehends or understands well.

2.1.3. Concept of Teaching Speaking

According to Yorkey (1990), speaking skill is a skill and like other skill, it must be practiced continuously. The teacher role is becoming important for students later. There are many keys to support speaking skill by listening cassette, watching TV, watching film, practicing with foreigners, practicing with partners. In judging whether students are speaking in correct statements, there are two criteria which the teacher must take:

1. The students have to understand the meaning of words that they use and associate them into the objects of their represent.

2. The students have to pronounce the words properly in order to arise the same perception and they understand each other.

Chaudron (1998) said that the essence of human language is human activity on the part of the individual to make him understand by another. Using language is also an activity that allows people to communicate with each other. So it is clear that language is very important. The teacher teaches speaking by carrying out the students in certain situation when the topic is


(29)

being talked about. It should be familiar for the students, so that they can understand about their language needs.

Harris (1974) stated that achievement test indicates the extent to which an individual has mastered the specific information. To help the students develop communicative efficiency in speaking, the teacher can use a balanced activities approach that combines language input, structured output, and communicative output. Language input comes in the forms of teacher talk, listening activities, reading passages, and the language heard and read outside the class. It gives students the material they need to begin producing language themselves. Structured output focuses on correct forms. In structured input, students may have options for responses, but all of the options require them to use the specific form or structure that the teacher has just introduced. Structured output is designed to make students comfortable producing specific language items recently introduced, sometimes in combination with previously learned items.

Instructors often use structured output exercise as a transition between the presentation stage and the practice stage of the lesson plan. Textbooks exercise also often makes good structured output practice activities. In communicative output, the students’ main purpose is to complete a task, such as obtaining information, developing a travel plan, and creating a video. To complete a task, they may use the language that the instructor has just presented, but they also may draw on any other vocabulary, grammar,


(30)

and communication strategies that they know. In communicative output activities, the criterion of success is whether the student gets the message across. Accuracy is not a consideration unless the lack of it interferes with the message.

According to Harmer (1990), the aim of teaching speaking is to train students for communication. Therefore, language activities in speaking class should focus on language use individually. This requires the teacher not only to create a warm and humanistic classroom atmosphere, but also to provide a chance for each student to speak.

According to Nunan (2003), there are five principles for teaching speaking:

1. Be aware of difference between second language and foreign language in learning context.

2. Give students chance to practice with both fluency and accuracy.

3. Provide opportunities for students to talk by using group work or pair work.

4. Plan speaking task that involves negotiation for meaning.

5. Design classroom activities that involve guidance and practice in both transactional and interaction speaking.

Therefore, if the aspects of teaching speaking are elaborated to the debate tecnique, those aspects above actually correlate with debate. The teacher can implement the debate technique in teaching speaking since the debate covers


(31)

those principles. The natures of the debate which require the students to deliver their ideas orally and respond other’s ideas in the end will create a students-centered learning process. The students will be dominant during the process of teaching and learning. The teacher will act as the facilitator and source of learning and he or she guides the students to achieve the goals or objectives of the tasks given.

2.2. Concept of Asian Parliamentary Debate

In Asian Parliamentary debate, there are several concepts that should be known by the debaters. Birshan (2010) in his Debating Handbook proposes several concepts that can be seen as follows:

1. Basics of Debating

In the basics of the debating, the first principle of the debate is the model of the debate. In the debate, there are the affirmative/government and negative/opposition team led by a chairperson and no interruption is allowed during the debate. The speech duration order is as follows:

Affirmative Negative

1st Speaker (7 minutes) 1st speaker (7 minutes) 2nd speaker (7 minutes) 2nd speaker (7 minutes) 3rd speaker (7 minutes) 3rd speaker (7 minutes)


(32)

2. Motion/topic

There must be a motion or topic for each debate. After the topic or motion is given, those two teams of debaters are given 10 up to 30 minutes to prepare for their case (sets of arguments supported by evidence).

3. Case

After the topic is choosen, the debaters should gather some ideas that relate to the topic. The debaters should determine the thesis argument, and set of arguments supported byevidences with the elements:

a. Definition (clarification of motion)

A definition clarifies the motion and gives the clear boundaries to the motion, limiting what the debate will be about into a focus area of discussion. Definition should cover the whole motion and present the debatable and reasonable to the link of the motion in order to avoid the confusing among the two teams.

b. Theme line (core argument or basic idea)

Theme line consists of logic arguments that will be presented as the idea to strengthen the team. The team line in the team must heavily imbue each speech of every team members. It is the main idea that link together the first, second and third speakers, ensuring consistency among all speeches.


(33)

Argument should have A-R-E-L, where A as Assertion; statement of the argument, R as Reasoning; explanation of the arguments, E as Evidence; facts, statistics, L as Link back. The distribution is given to the first and the second speaker. The second speaker usually gets more split than the first speaker because the first speaker has motion, the theme line and the team split.

d. Rebuttal

Rebuttal is the way on how the opposing team shows the irrelevant topic with the proof that is given by the speaker. Rebuttal is usually done by the opposing team when they determinate the illogical idea from the opponent.

4. Roles of speakers

1st speaker of affirmative must:  Define the motion

 Presents the affirmative team line

 Outline briefly what each speaker in their team will talk about  Present the first half of the affirmative case

1st speaker of negative must:

 Accept or reject the definition. If you don’t do this it is assumed that you accept the definition.

 Present the negative team line

 Outline briefly what each of the negative speaker will say  Rebut a few of the main points of the first affirmative speaker


(34)

 The 1st speaker of negative team should spend about one quarter of their time rebutting

Present the first half of the negative team’s case 2nd speaker of affirmative must:

 Reaffirm the affirmative team line

 Rebut the main points presented by the 1st negative

 The 2nd affirmative should spend about one third of their time rebutting  Present the second half of the affirmative case

2nd speaker of negative must:

 Reaffirm the negative team line

 Rebut some points of the affirmative’s case

 The 2nd negative should spend about one third of their time rebutting  Present the second half of the negative’s case

3rd speaker of affirmative must:

 Reaffirm of the affirmative team line

 Rebut all the remaining points of the negative’s case

 3rd speaker should spend about two third of three quarters of their time rebutting

 Present a summary of the affirmative’s case  Round off the debate for the affirmative 3rd speaker of negative must:

 Reaffirm the negative team line


(35)

 3rd speaker should spend about two third of three quarters of their time rebutting

Present a summary of the negative’s case  Round off the debate for the negative.

The third speakers of both teams may not introduce any new parts of their team’s case. Reply speaker must show the weaknesses of the opponent team and convince the adjudicators that their team’s arguments are better than the opponent. The reply speakers also have to provide a summary or overview of the debate, identify the issued by both sides and provide a biased adjudication of the debate.

5. Adjudication

In adjudicating the debate, the adjudicator uses three criteria. They are matter (content 40%), manner (delivery 40%), method (structure 20%).

2.3. The Assessment of Asian Parliamentary Debate

In adjudicating the debate, D’Cruz (2003) defines three criteria of the debate assessment. The three criteria of the debate assessment are explained as follows:

1. Matter

D’cruz (2003) defines that matter is the content of the speech. It can be contrasted with the presentation style of the speech (manner) and the structure of the speech (method). Matter includes arguments, evidence presented to support those arguments, examples and analysis. Matter


(36)

includes substantive matter, rebuttal and points of information. In debates in which points of information are used, both the content of the question and the content of the answer are considered matter.

2. Manner

D’cruz (2003) classifies the elements in adjudicating a manner in debate. They are defined as follows:

a. Body language

The body language of a speaker is a very important element of their speaking style. As the expression indicates, body language is a language of its own. It can have a significant impact on an audience and can create powerful impressions such as confidence, trust and credibility.

b. Vocal style

The second element of manner is the vocal style of the speaker. All speakers must have their message heard and understood. Vocal style is central to this goal. Some of the elements of vocal style are volume and pace, tone, clarity and the use of language.

3. Method

D’ cruz (2003) states that method is the structure and organization of the speech. An average reasonable person will be more likely to grasp and recall structured and organized arguments. Method is also about


(37)

responsiveness: any strategy adopted by a speaker or team should be adapted to the dynamic nature of the debate.

2.4. Debate in the Teaching of Speaking

The goal of the learning and teaching English in the senior high school is communicative competence. Based on TEFL high school syllabus and KTSP, English teacher should teach English to the students communicatively, and encourage the students to have communicative competence by creating the atmosphere of the class that is rich in communication. According to Bashir, Azeem, and Dogar (2011) there are five stages in teaching speaking. They are:

1. Pre-production stage

This stage is also called the silent period. In this stage, the students just only imitate what the teacher says.

2. Early production stage

At the second stage, the students use short language expressions, but they cannot always use them correctly.

2. Speech emergence stage

At this stage, the students have a good vocabulary and can use simple phrases and sentences when they communicate with their friends. They have an initiative to try a short conversation with their classmate.


(38)

3. Intermediate fluency

At this stage, the students are able to use complex sentences in speaking and share their feeling and expression. They are able to ask questions and clarify what they learn in class. They are able to work with some teacher’s supports.

4. Advance fluency

In this stage, the students have increasing facility in discussion using their vocabulary without any proper preparation.

In conclusion, teaching speaking is started at teaching the students how to speak in English as their foreign language, and then ask them to be able to pronounce the new language accurately. At this point, the teacher could introduce the students the Asian Parliamentary Debate technique considering their ability and cognitive stage are on the appropriate state. In the English speaking classroom, the debate can accomodate the goals of the learning and teaching English in the senior high school.

2.5. Procedures of The Implementation of Asian Parliamentary Debate in

the Teaching of Speaking

In teaching speaking using Asian Parliamentary Debate, it is important to determine the procedures used in order to assure that the activities run and be conducted well. The Asian Parliamentary debate technique used in the teaching of speaking is a derivation of the communicative approach. In teaching speaking using Asian Parliamentary debate, we have to determine


(39)

the procedures and method used. According to Brown (1994), a method is the practical realization of an approach. The originators of a method have arrived at decisions about types of activities, roles of teacher and learners, the kinds of material which will be helpful, and some model of syllabus organization. Method includes various procedures and techniques. When method has fixed procedures, informed by clearly articulated approach, they are easy to describe. The more all embracing they become, however, the more difficult it is to categorize them as real methods in their own right. Different researchers have suggested different sets of procedures in the classroom that can support the goal of communicative teaching. The following principles are tips worth considering in communicative teaching suggested by Larsen – Freeman (1986):

1. Whenever possible language as it is used in real context should be introduced.

2. The target of language is vehicle for classroom communication, not just the object of study.

3. Students should work with language.

4. Games are important because they have in common with real communicative events.

5. Student should be given an opportunity to express their ideas and opinions.

6. One of the teacher’s major responsibilities is to establish situations likely to promote communication.


(40)

7. The social context of the communicative event is essential in giving meaning to utterances.

8. Learning to use language forms appropriately is an important part of communicative competence.

9. The teacher acts as an advisor during communicative activities.

10. Student should be given opportunities to develop strategies for interpreting language as it is actually used by native speakers.

Developing a method of teaching in speaking ability needs an activity to support the method running active in learning process. The interesting activity that was implemented by the researcher in this script was the Asian Parliamentary debate.

Therefore, based on theories above, the researcher made the procedures of teaching speaking through Asian Parliamentary debate as follows:

a. Pre-activity

1. Teacher greets the students.

2. Teacher asks students to pray together. 3. Teacher checks attendance list.

4. Teacher begins the lesson by doing a warming up activity and asks students about their experience correlating to the subject e.g.What do you feel when you are facing with national examination in high school? Do you agree with national examination? (apperception)


(41)

5. Teacher encourages students by asking things that correlate to the subject and giving example topics to encourage students to deliver ideas and to defend their stances e.g. what is your stance regarding National Examination? Should national examination be implemented by our government? (Brainstorming).

b. While activity :

6. Teacher explains the material of the hortatory exposition.

7. Teacher gives the example in delivering ideas, and determining stances towards the topics in a form of oral hortatory exposition.

8. Teacher introduces the technique used in learning the material of oral hortatory exposition for speaking which will be the Asian Parliamentary Debate.

9. After explaining the concepts of Asian Parliamentary Debate, the teacher conducts an exhibition and chooses eight students randomly. Three students belong to the positive team, three students belong to the negative team, and two students accompany the teacher to be the adjudicators. The rest of the students in the class observes the simulation or exhibition of the Asian Parliamentary debate activity. 10. In the exhibition, the teacher acts as the main Adjudicator or

Adjudicator core. The teacher guides students to perform the Asian Parliamentary Debate.

11. Teacher gives 10 minutes for positive team and negative team to do a brainstorming or case building.


(42)

12. After 10 minutes, the teacher calls students to go back to their seats. After that, the teacher opens the debate.

13. The teacher obliges all students to introduce theirselves in their turns before delivering arguments.

14. Teacher gives 7 minutes for the time allocation for each speaker except the reply speakers (reply speakers will be allocated 5 minutes).

15. Teacher asks the first speaker from positive group to deliver his or her arguments in the debate.

16. After the turn of first positive group speaker is over, the teacher calls the first speaker from the negative group to give his or her responds towards the first positive speaker’s arguments.

17. After the first speaker of negative group ends his or her turn, the teacher asks the second speaker from the positive group to deliver his or her arguments.

18. Then, the teacher asks the second speaker from negative to deliver arguments.

19. Teacher asks the third speaker from the positive team to deliver the arguments.

20. Teacher asks the third speaker from the negative team to deliver the arguments.

21. Teacher calls the reply speaker from the negative team to summarize their team arguments. They reply speaker of each group can be the first or the second speaker.


(43)

22. After that, the teacher asks the students adjudicator to give their verbal adjudication.

23. The teacher asks the main adjudicator also gives verbal adjudication. 24. After conducting the debate exhibition, the class will be divided into

three chambers, each chamber consists of one positive group, one negative group, and one adjudicator group. Then, the teacher forms groups and each group consists of three students.

25. Teacher provides numbered small papers. The papers consist of number 1-9. Then, teacher makes a lottery. Each group should take a paper in the lottery. Those who get number 1 will get the first turn, respectively. 26. Teacher calls the representatives of each group to draw the stance of

their group whether being affirmative or negative team.

27. Teacher provides a coin. Then, the teacher asks them to choose bird or number.

28. Teacher tosses the coin. When the tossed coin shows the right guess, the group which guesses the same symbol that appeared on the tossed coin, will have a right to choose their stance whether they are affirmative or negative team.

29. Teacher gives 10 minutes for students to do a brainstorming.

30. After that, the teacher asks the students to arrange their seats into U shape.

31. Teacher gives the adjudication sheets and asks the adjudicator team to give the score to their friends’ performances in the debate. The students


(44)

who seat in the middle in the adjudicators’ seat, will be the adjudicator core.

32. Teacher asks the students to begin the debate and all of students in the class perform the debate contemporaneously.

33. The teacher asks the adjudicator team to record the debate activity, and obliges all of them to decide the winner, conclude the debate, give the comment or verbal adjudication.

34. Teacher asks one of positive or negative team member to record the verbal adjudication delivered by the adjudicator team.

35. Teacher observes the debate activity done by the students in the class. 36. Teacher collects the video recordings from the students.

c. Post-activity

37. Teacher concludes and gives the feedback toward the teaching and learning activities.

38. Teacher asks students’ comments about their difficulties in doing debate.

39. The teacher closes the class and greets the students.

2.6. The Advantages and Disadvantages of Debate in the Teaching of

Speaking

Chan (2009) states that using debate as a teaching tool in the classroom has many advantages and disadvantages. It can be seen as follows:

a. Advantages of Debate


(45)

 Improve students’ communication and expression skills in a public setting.

 Enhance techniques of searching information.

 Improve skills for gathering, evaluating and synthesizing data from various sources in order to develop arguments.

 Foster appreciation of opposing viewpoints.

 Enhance debating/arguing techniques against opposing opinions.  Allow more interactive exchange among students and teachers.

b. Disadvantages of Debate

 Students may not be familiar with debates as an assessment method.  Debates are time-consuming (e.g. time for research and preparation, time

for presentation of each group).

 Students who do not like public speaking would be less motivated in participating.

2.7. Theoretical Assumption

Relating to the discussion of the literature review and the previous findings, the researcher believes that practicing speaking English through debate makes the students accustomed to speaking in formal way. This also can make them become critical and confident to speak in the public. Therefore, the researcher puts on an assumption that the implementation of Asian Parliamentary debate will increase their speaking ability spesifically their fluency, comprehension, vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation in speaking English.


(46)

2.8. Hypothesis

Based on the theories and theoretical assumption, the researcher formulated the hypothesis that the students’ speaking ability increased after being after being taught by using the Asian Parliamentary Debate technique.


(47)

III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter discusses about the methods of the research that was used in the research such as: research design, subject, variables, instruments, criteria of evaluating students’ speaking, data collecting technique, research procedures, analyzing the data, data analysis, and hypothesis testing.

3.1. Research Design

As the researcher stated in the previous chapters, his research focused on the implementation of debate. This research was conducted in order to answer the problems: (1) to examine the process of the implementation of Asian Parliamentary debate in the process of teaching of speaking, (2) to find out the increase of the the students’ speaking ability after being taught by using the Asian Parliamentary Debate technique, and (3) to identify the problems faced by students in the implementation of Asian Parliamentary Debate in the teaching of speaking. Therefore, in order to answer the problems, the researcher applied the pre-experimental design in his research. Theone group pretest-posttest design was applied and the speaking test was administered to the students in order to know how good their speaking ability was. Then, the researcher randomly chose one class of second grade by using lottery and the students of XI A II class were the subjects. In the teaching process, the treatment given to the students was debate. The model of the debate implemented by the researcher was the Asian


(48)

Parliamentary Debate. The researcher conducted a pretest in a form of a speaking test, three times treatments, and the posttest.

The design of the research is as follows:

T1 X T2

Where:

T1 : Pretest

T2 : Posttest

X : Treatment

(Setiyadi, 2004)

The reason why the research applied this method was that he would like to holistically examine and observe the natural phenomenon that occured in the debate activity done by the 2nd grade students of senior high school. He also

would like to know whether the Asian Parliamentary Debate was applicative and significant towards the teaching of speaking process.

3.2. Subjects

The subjects of this research were the students of XI A II class, SMAN 5 Bandar Lampung academic year 2013/2014. The research was conducted in five meetings, one meeting for the pretest, three meeting for the treatments, and one meeting for the posttest. The sources of the data were the teacher, students as well


(49)

as the students’ performances in the debate. Then, the researcher was observing the students when they performed the debate in front of the class.

3.3. Variables

Hatch and Farhady (1982:12) states that variable as an attribute of person or of an object which varies from person to person or from object to object. In order to assess the influence of the treatment in the research, variable can be defined as independent and dependent variables.

According to Hatch and Farhady (1982:15), types of variable are as follows:

1. The independent variable is the major variable that was investigated by the researcher.

2. Dependent variable is the variable that the researcher observed and measured to determine the effect of the independent variable.

In this research, the independent variable is known as the treatment variable. The writer proposed two variables in this research, as follows:

1. Asian Parliamentary Debate technique as independent variable (X) because this variable was the major and investigated.

2. Development of students’ speaking components was the dependent variable (Y) because this variable determined the effect of the Asian Parliamentary Debate technique.


(50)

3.4. Instruments

In conducting the research, the researcher applied three instruments. The researcher used the test of speaking, observation sheets, and questionnaire in the research.

3.4.1. Test of Speaking

This research used speaking test that was giving arguments towards the topic given as the instrument to collect the data. In this speaking test, the procedures were: the students were given a topic in a form of a hortatory text. The topic was about “Banning senior high school students to drive a car to the school”. In the beginning of the test, the researcher gave the students the same topic. Then, the teacher asked the students to work in pair. The teacher gave the questions list, the first student had to play a role as an interviewer and ask those questions to their pair. The teacher asked the interviewers to record it. Here, the students were required to state their stances and give their arguments based on the given topic. To make the activity interesting, all students were required to perform their speaking at the same time.

Before giving arguments, firstly they had to introduce their self. Secondly, They had to deliver their ideas or opinion relating to the topic given.Then, this activity was done independently and they had to record their pair’s performance by sound or video recorders. Each student had five minutes to deliver his or her opinion. This activity was done alternately with pair and respectively until the last student ended his or her turn. After completing


(51)

their turns in speaking, then the researcher collected all students speaking data from their gadgets. After that, the researcher in collaboration with the English teacher assessed the students’ speaking ability. In order to make a clear assessment towards students’ speaking ability, the researcher used the oral rating sheet proposed by Harris.

Harris (1974) proposes oral rating sheet in the teaching of speaking. During the process of teaching and learning, the researcher was assisted by the teacher. The teacher acted as the rater 2 to evaluate students’ speaking skill. In evaluating and scoring the students’ speaking score, the researcher and teacher considered following aspects of speaking.

Table 3.1 Table of Specification for Speaking Test

No. Speaking Aspects Definition Percentage

1 Comprehensibility

(1-5)

Comprehensibility for oral communication requires a subject to respond to speech

as well as to initiate it.

20%

2 Vocabulary

(1-5)

The appropriate diction which is used in communication.

20%

3 Pronunciation

(1-5)

The way for students’ to produce clearer language

when they speak.

20%

4 Grammar

(1-5)

Student’s ability to manipulate structure and to

distinguish appropriate grammatical form in

appropriate ones.

20%

5 Fluency

(1-5)

The ability to speak fluently and accurately


(52)

Then, the researcher and the teacher gave the score in each speaking aspect based on the following explanation below.

Pronunciation

Score Interpretation

5 Has few traces of foreign accent.

4 Always intelligible though one is conscious of a definite accent.

3 Pronunciation problems necessitate concentrated listening

occasionally lead to miss understanding.

2 Very hard to understand because of pronunciation problems must frequently be asked to repeat.

1 Pronunciation problems to serve as to make speech virtually unintelligible.

Grammar

Score Interpretation

5 Make few (if any) noticeable errors of grammar of word order.

4 Occasionally makes grammatical and/ or word order which do

not, however, obscure meaning.

3 Make frequent errors of grammar and word order errors,

obscure meaning.

2 Grammar and word orders make comprehension difficult must

often rephrase sentences and/ or restrict him to basic pattern.

1 Errors in grammar and word order to severe as to make speech

virtually unintelligible.

Vocabulary

Score Interpretation

5 Use of vocabulary and idioms is virtually that of native speaker. 4 Sometimes uses inappropriate terms and / or must rephrase

ideas because of lexical inadequacies.

3 Frequently uses the wrong words, conversation somewhat

limited because of inadequate vocabulary.

2 Misuses of words and very limited vocabulary make

comprehension quite difficult.

1 Vocabulary limitation to extreme as to make comprehension virtually impossible..


(53)

Fluency

Score Interpretation

5 Speed as fluent and effortless as that of native speakers problems.

4 Speed of speech seems to be slightly affected by language problems.

3 Speed and fluency are rather strongly affected by language problems.

2 Usually hesitant, often forced into silence by language

problems.

1 Speech is as halting and fragmentary as to make conversation virtually impossible.

Comprehension

Score Interpretation

5 Appears to understand everything without difficulty.

4 Understand nearly everything at normal speed although

occasionally repetition maybe necessary.

3 Understand most of what is said at lowers that normal speed with repetition.

2 Has great difficulty following what is said. The students can comprehend only “social conversation” spoken with frequent repetition.

1 Cannot be said understand even simple conversation of English.

The score of each point in the tables above should be multiplied by four. Thus, the highest score should be 100. In example if the student get 4 in pronunciation, 3 in grammar, 3 in vocabulary, 2 in fluency, and 3 in comprehension. Thus, his final score would be:

Pronunciation : 4X4= 16


(54)

Vocabulary : 3X4= 12

Fluency : 2X4= 8

Comprehension : 3X4=12 +

Final score : 60

Table 3.2 Linguistic Evaluation Form of the Speaking Test in the Pretest and Posttest

St. code

Fluency Gramm. Vocab. Pronunc. Comprehen. Total

score 1...

2... 3... 4...

3.4.2. Observation Sheet

During the process of teaching and learning, the researcher also observed the activities done by the students in the classroom. The researcher applied the observation sheet adapted from APKG (Alat Penilaian Kemampuan Guru). In order to establish the same and valid perception towards the effectiveness of the teaching and learning process as well as the activities done by the students in the classroom, the researcher used two formats of the observation sheet during the three time treatments. The first format was the researcher observed the students by using the students’ activities observation sheet. The second format was the teacher evaluated the researcher using the teaching effectiveness observation sheet.


(55)

Table 3.3 The Students’ Activity in Three Times Treatment

No The Aspects Observed

1st Treatment 2nd Treatment 3rd Treatment

Yes No Yes No Yes No

1

Following the lesson

seriously

2

Involving in analyzing &

remarking on the

problems

3

Delivering the argument

& response actively

4

Asking question clearly

and bravely

5

Following the learning

process well

6

Being communicative in

solving a problem

7

Behaving not to force

their argument

8

Being cooperative in their

group

9

Being confident in

learning process

10

Being creative in learning

process

Table 3.4 Learning Effectiveness (Teacher Evaluation) The Aspects Observed

1st Treatment 2nd Treatment 3rd Treatment

Yes No Yes No Yes No

LEARNING MATERIAL

Material is clear and specific

Providing some variations

The relevance with material is

clear

Need the high level thinking of

students

Teacher relates learning with the

students' knowledge

Definitions given as vocabulary

Pre-activity is interesting

Giving the steps learning activity


(56)

Lesson plan is organized well The conclusion refers to the

learning process

Relating the review with the

learning before

Relating the review with the next

learning

Offering the questions with some

question levels

Giving enough time

The students ask something

The feedback is informative

Teacher responds student's

response well

Teacher's language is

understandable

Teacher's pronunciation is clear

Teacher teaches fluently without “eee...” etc

Teacher speaks not so fast/slow

Speed of explaining the material

is precise

The volume can be heard by all

students

Gesture is effective

There is an eye contact to the

students

Being confident

USAGE OF MEDIA

Using whiteboard and organized well

The media used can be read easily

Providing outline/handout More effective if using computer

3.4.3. Questionnaire

After conducting the pretest, treatments, and posttest, the researcher gave a questionnaire to the students. The format of the questionnaire given was an open-ended questionnaire. The researcher intended to see the students’


(57)

perspective and analyze the students’ problems or difficulties in practicing the Asian Parliamentary debate. The researcher intended to give the students a freedom to express their responses regarding the implementation of the Asian Parliamentary debate. The feedbacks from students were very helpful for developing the quality of the research. The researcher gave following questions to students.

No. Questions Substantives

1. What kind of difficulties that faced by you when you try to fulfill the role of speaker as the first speaker, second speaker, and third speaker? How do you overcome those difficulties?

Role of Speaker

2. When you are given 10 minutes to do a case building or brainstorming (arranging ideas before debating), how do you discuss the ideas with the team and how do you explain the ideas in front of your team?”

Brainstorming

3. In your opinion, from three components of debate: Matter(comprehending material/ideas),

Manner (Gestures/Body Language), and

method (the structures of the argument). What kind of components that is the most difficult to master and comprehend, why?

Components of Debate

4. In your opinion, how is your improvement in

speaking after practicing the Asian

Parliamentary Debate?

Students’ perception after practicing

debate

3.5. Criteria of Evaluating Students’ Speaking

In evaluating the students’ speaking ability, the researcher in the collaboration with the English teacher gave the scores for the students. The researcher used sound or video recording to improve the quality and the objectivity of the research. The test of speaking was measured based on two principles; reliability and validity.


(58)

3.5.1. Reliability

There were three instruments used during the process of the implementation of the technique. The first instrument was the observation sheet that was used to answer the first research question, the second instrument was the test of speaking that was used to find out the increase of the students’ speaking abilit, and the third instrument was the questionnaire that was used to answer the third research question. The researcher has tested the validity and reliability of those instruments. The researcher has proven the reliability of the speaking test by analyzing the results of the coefficient values of two raters.

Reliability is used to describe the overall consistency of a measure. A measure is said to have a high reliabilityif it produces similar results under consistent conditions. In this research, the researcher used inter-rater reliability to assess students’ performance. There were two raters in this research, they were the researcher and one of the English teachers in SMAN 5 Bandar Lampung. They gave the scores toward the students’ performance in the pretest and posttest. The scores of the two raters proved the consistency of the instrument.

The statistical formula for counting the reliability is as follows :

R = 1 - )

Where :


(59)

N : Number of Students

D : The different of Rank Correlation

1-6 : Constant Number

After finding the coefficients between raters, the researcher then analyzed the coefficient reliability with standard reliability below:

a. A very low reliability (range from 0.00 to 0.19)

b. A low reliability (range from 0.21 to 0.39)

c. An average reliability (range from 0.40 to 0.59)

d. A high reliability (range from 0.60 to 0.79)

e. A very high reliability (range from 0.80 to 0.100)

Slameto (1998: 147)

3.5.2. Validity

Validity is defined as the extent to which the instrument measures what it purposes to measure. It means that validity is related directly to the purpose of the test. Content of validity, the test is a good reflection of what has been taught and the knowledge which the teacher wants her students to know. Construct validity concerns with whether the test is actually in line with the theory of what it means to the language (Shohamy, 1985:74) that is being measured. It will be examined whether the test actually reflect what it means


(60)

to know a language. It means that the test measured certain aspect based on the indicator. Therefore, in this research the researcher applied the content and construct validity to validate the speaking test. The Asian Parliamentary Debate implemented in the teaching of speaking was based on the modification of English teaching and learning material. The test of speaking was based on hortatory exposition texts. Therefore, the researcher applied the content validity to validate the speaking test. The researcher also tested the students’ speaking ability based on oral rating sheet proposed by Harris (1974) and the researcher applied debating chart proposed by D’cruz (2003). Here, the researcher applied the construct validity.

3.6. Data Collecting Technique

The researcher used several methods to gain the data; the researcher applied several method as follows:

1. Pretest

In order to know how far the students’ ability in speaking English was, a pretest was conducted before implementing the treatment in the classroom. The purpose of the pretest given to the students was to convince the researcher whether the students had the same ability or not. The researcher administered the pretest to all students. The form of the pretest was giving arguments towards the topic given as the instrument to collect the data. In this speaking test, the procedures were: the students were given a topic in a form of a hortatory text. The topic was about “Banning senior high school


(1)

101

the Implementation of the Asian Parliamentary Debate technique ran sucessfully with the indicator of students’ improvement in speaking English. 2. Learning speaking by using the Asian Parliamentary Debate is appropriate for

the senior high school at the second grade and significant for developing their speaking ability. Considering their cognitive development, personality development, and also their experience at the first grade in speaking English, it is important to introduce them the formal and critical speaking. The students need to speak critically in a good attitude and they have to know the context or the situation when they speak. Therefore, this technique is very effective not only to improve the students’ speaking ability based on five aspects of speaking but also their awareness and critical thinking in speaking.

3. Although the students perceived that their confidence and ability in speaking English improved, some students considered that learning debate is quite difficult. It is believed that it was triggered by the complexity of the rules of the debate. The students need more time to learn debate. Not all senior high school students could learn the debate comprehensively. There were some low achievers who were difficult to master the debate. Even if, in the end this problem could be solved and the low achievers were given more attention to overcome the problems.

5.2. Suggestions

Some suggestions that the researcher would like to propose based on the conclusion are as follows:


(2)

102

1. The English teachers are suggested to use the Asian Parliamentary Debate technique in the teaching of speaking in order to improve students’ speaking ability. This technique can be used by the teachers who want to explore students’ speaking ability and stimulate students’ critical thinking. This tecnique is a complete package which covers the combination of speaking, discussion, character building, and critical thinking.

2. English teachers who want to use Asian Parliamentary Debate technique are suggested to be able to make some variations in teaching so that the students do not feel that speaking by using the debate is difficult to learn. Besides that, the teachers should pay attention toward the problems which might occur in the teaching and learning process as what has been explained in this research. They should always give the students some motivation so that the students are confident to speak English in the classroom, especially in delivering arguments in front of their friends.

3. In teaching speaking through Asian Parliamentary debate, the teacher should make sure that the students are able to deliver arguments by using their own words, not as the result of memorizing the sentences. This will cause the technique that is used will not be effective in improving students’ speaking ability.

4. For those who would like to conduct a further research, it is important to pay attention for the time allocation. It is a consequence to allocate our time to implement the debate because the debate is time consuming. If you would like to get a better result, make sure you allocate two until three months to teach this technique to the students with a better and more significant result.


(3)

103

5. In conducting a further research, it is also important to know that the debate development is very dynamic. Every single day, the knowledge of the debate is developed with several new terms, topics, rules, mechanism, and even the models. What should be the priority in teaching speaking by using the Asian Parliamentary Debate is the improvement of the students’ ability in speaking English. Therefore, it is very important to master the debate itself before this technique is introduced to the students.


(4)

REFERENCES

Biber, Douglas .1999. Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.

Birshan, Michael .2010. Debating Handbook. Monash: Monash University Press. Bowman, M. D. 1993 Children’s Use of Computer-based Interactive Stories.

Research Report: University of Paisley (Craigie Campus).

Brown, G and Yule, G. 1999. Teaching Spoken Language: An Approach Based on the Analysis of Conversational English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, H. D. 1994. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.

Burns, A., and Joyce, H. 1997. Focus on Speaking. Sydney: National Center for English Language Teaching and Research.

Byrne, Done. 1984. Teaching Oral Language. New Jersey: Longman.

Chan C. 2009. Assessment: Debate, Assessment Resources@HKU, University of Hong Kong [http://ar.cetl.hku.hk]: Available: Accessed: 11.36 PM, May 14th 2014.

Chaudron, C. 1998. Second Language Classroom – Research on Teaching and Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Davidson, Bruce .1996. Critical Thinking Education Faces the Challenge of Japan. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines. XIV (3).

Dobson, M. Julia. 1987. Effective Techniques for English Conversation Groups. Washington.

D’cruz, Ray .2003. The Austalia-Asia Debating Guide 2nd Edition. North Melbourne: Australian Debating Federation.

Edwards, A. D. and Westgate, D. P. G. 1987. Investigating Classroom Talk. Lewes: Falmer Press.


(5)

Fukuda, Shinji. 2003. Attitudes Toward Argumentation in College EFL Classes in Japan. Proceedings of the First Asia TEFL International Conference. Pusan, Korea. pp. 417-418.

Hamzah, Intan.2003. The Implementation of Debate Technique in Teaching Speaking at the Second Grade of SMA YP Unila Bandar Lampung. Unpublished Bachelor’s Thesis. Bandar Lampung: Lampung University. Harmer, Jeremy 1990 The Practice of English Language Teaching. New York:

Longman Inc.

Harmer, J. 2003. How to Teach English. New York: Longman.

Harris, David P. 1974. Testing English as a Second Language. New Delhi: Tata Mc Graw-Hill Publishing.

Harris, D.P 1994. Testing English as a Second Language. New York: Mc.Grow hill.

Hatch, E and Farhady, H.1982. Research Design and Statistics for Applied Linguistics.London: New Bury House.

Heaton, J.B.1991. Writing English Language Testing. New York. Longman Inc. Hetrakul, K. 1995. The Second Language.

http://eserver.org/courses/spring95/76-100g/KavinHetrakul.html

Hornby, A. 1995. Oxford Advance Learner Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Horwitz, E. K. , Horwitz, M. B. and Cope, J. 1986. Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety. The Modern Language Journal. Vol. 70. No. 2. Page 125-192. Johnson, K. and K. Morrow. 1981. Communication in the Classroom. London:

Longman.

Lado, R. 1961. Language Teaching a Scientific Approach. New Delhi: Grow Hill Publishing Company.

Larsen-Freeman, Diane. 1986. Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

LeBeau, Charles and Harrington, David and Lubetsky, Michael .2000. Discover Debate: Basic Skills for Supporting and Refuting Opinions. New York: Language Solutions.

Nisbett, Richard E. 2003. The Geography of Thought. Washington: The Free Press.


(6)

Nunan, D., 2003. Practical English Language Teaching. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B.1973.Memory and Intelligence. London.

Richard C Yorkey. 1990. Study Skill for Students of English as a Second Language. New York: MC.Grow Hill, Inc.

Richards, Jack and Rogers, Theodore S, 1992. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching .Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Setiyadi, Ag. Bambang. 2004. Metode Penelitian untuk Pengajaran Bahasa Asing:Pendekatan Kuantitatif dan Kualitatif. Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu. Shohamy, E.1985. A Practical Handbook in Language Testing for Second

Language Teacher. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.

Syakur. 1987. Language Testing and Evaluation. Surakarta: Sebelas Maret University Press.

Universitas Lampung. 2006. Format Penulisan Karya Ilmiah. Bandar Lampung: Universitas Lampung.