The Language Teacher

Developing Academic Language Skills and Fluency Through Debate Timothy Stewart and Gene Pleisch Miyazaki International College

Preparing for debate can promote proficiency in language development in ways that are challenging and exciting for students. However, most of the resources on debate are for American high school and college students. There is very little material available for teaching debate to second/foreign language learners (Le, 1995; Lubetsky, 1997; "Resolved," 1997). Of the scarce publications on debating for ESL/EFL students, many focus on the format and procedures of the debate event (Baker & Hudson, 1997; Lachowski & Plautz, 1994; Skevington, 1994). Teachers using such sources might conclude that learning a debating format must be the central focus. However, we see debate as a means for developing language fluency and academic study skills rather than as an end in itself. Consequently, we have sought to identify the reading, writing, speaking, listening, and research skills demanded by debate, and to create exercises that foster these skills. In this article, we describe our Audio Cassette Journal and five fluency activities that develop skills for our core debate activity. These activities can also be used to develop students' communication skills by language teachers who are not using debate.

The original context for these activities is unique: With the exception of Japanese Expression, all courses at our university are taught in English. In each of the first three semesters, the students are required to take one course in English communication. The debate sequence occurs in the second semester of the first year in a fifteen-week course consisting of two weekly 75-minute class sessions and one 50-minute lab. This article describes only a portion of the tasks and activities used in this course.

The Debate Format and Skill Development

We have developed a form of educational debate (Richards & Rickett, 1995) which combines aspects of standard and cross-examination debate formats (Goodnight, 1993; Le, 1995) (see Table 1). The introduction and conclusion, usually lengthy monologues, are de-emphasized in order to allow more time for the three to five team members to participate actively. The result is a more structured form of educational debate which enables instructors to easily assign appropriate tasks to all team members so as to ensure equal involvement. In order to encourage students to debate using notes and visual aids instead of simply reading from a manuscript, we inform them that part of our evaluation is based on these two aspects. To maintain the pace and overcome comprehension difficulties, we include three questioning periods: one spontaneous after each major argument, one after a period of consultation (initial focus questions), and one during the cross-examination section in which teams can ask follow-up questions.

Table1: Debate Format

INtrODUCTION

･Affirmative Team's Introduction	1 min
･Negative Team's Introduction	1 min

MAJOR ARGUMENTS

･Affirmative Team's First Argument (clarification/comprehension questions)	2 min
･Negative Team's First Argument (clarification/comprehension questions)	2 min
･Affirmative Team's Second Argument (clarification/comprehension questions)	2 min
･Negative Team's Second Argument (clarification/comprehension questions)	2 min
･Affirmative Team's Third Argument (clarification/comprehension questions)	2 min
･Negative Team's Third Argument (clarification/comprehension questions)	2 min

INITIAL FOCUS QUESTIONS

(break to prepare questions)	3 min
･3 Initial Focus Questions - Affirmative Team (clarification questions from Negative Team)	3 min
･3 Initial Focus Questions - Negative Team (clarification questions from Affirmative Team)	3 min

CROSS-EXAMINATION

(break to prepare responses)	5 min
･Affirmative Team's Responses (follow-up questions from Negative Team)	6 min
･Negative Team's Responses (follow-up questions from Affirmative Team)	6 min

CLOSING STATEMENT

･Affirmative Team's Closing Statement	1 min
･Negative Team's Closing Statement	1 min

At the beginning of this intermediate-level first-year course, we introduce integrated skills activities which simulate proficiency requirements for debate. Speaking is naturally the language skill used most, but as Table 2 indicates, competency in listening, note-taking, and writing are also essential. Debaters must be able to read and synthesize information, and then summarize and support their ideas. Once we introduce the language skills, we begin to make the tasks more complex and debate-specific, while varying the activities.

Table 2: Skills Related to Debate

Debate Sections	Language Skills	Tasks
Introduction	- writing, speaking, listening	･Introduce ･Clarify ･Summarize
Major Arguments	- reading, writing, speaking, listening, note-taking	･Define ･Support ･Validate
Focus Questions	- listening, speaking	･Explain ･Restate ･Synthesize
Cross-Examination	- speaking, listening, note-taking	･Query ･React ･Undermine
Closing Statement	- writing, speaking	･Restate ･Paraphrase ･Summarize

In the latter half of the course, the skills developed in the first part are reviewed and used as a springboard for increasingly complex tasks which in turn prepare students for the culminating formal debate. Control over the material shifts from teacher to student as the debate event draws near.

Processing Skills: Introducing Fluency Activities

The Audio Cassette Journal

As part of the preparation for the in-class fluency activities, we require our students to create and maintain an Audio Cassette Journal (ACJ) throughout the course. The five or more ACJ assignments help build the four skills and serve as a record of progress. All students possess their own 90-minute cassette tape and they are asked to record prepared arguments on them, as well as to listen and respond to arguments made by their peers and teacher. The ACJ enables teachers to provide their learners with practice outside the classroom combining reading, writing, speaking, and listening. ACJ tasks completed outside the classroom provide a base of common background knowledge about a topic, thereby maximizing students' in-class fluency practice.

Many students find the process of creating an ACJ difficult at first. Therefore, we always lead our students through the recording procedure in the listening lab until they are familiar with it. Teachers should set aside one-to-two hours of class time for a workshop on recording the ACJ. At the start, teachers also need to carefully discuss the purpose and general procedure for using the ACJ.

Procedure

1. Have students do a reading on a topic with an appropriate length and level of difficulty. For debate, topics on which students can take definite stands, such as capital punishment, work best (McLean, 1990).
2. Assign students a position on the reading topic (e.g., in favor of capital punishment), or ask them to choose their own position.
3. Give them time to write a brief argument with two or three main points supporting their position. Make it clear that these arguments need to introduce the topic and their stance, include exemplification and details, and have a closing.
4. Have students practice reading their arguments to a partner a few times, then record them on their tapes.
5. Collect the tapes for comments or assessment.

Five Fluency Activities

These activities, adapted from Cohen, et al., (1996) are useful for organizing ideas gleaned from readings and for formulating written arguments, as well as for developing confidence in listening and speaking and thus, fluency. They are generic discussion activities that can be used in any communication course. We concentrate on the first three fluency activities in the first part of the course, introduce the fourth activity toward mid-term, and the fifth activity prior to the formal debate.

Figure 1

Activity 1: For and Against Fluency Pairs

This simple pair speaking activity helps learners build confidence and fluency by recycling familiar material orally without the aid of notes. Students work over material a number of times so that they gain confidence in talking about the topic. Each topic is introduced with a short reading, vocabulary expansion exercises, comprehension questions, and note-taking practice. Then, students prepare written arguments; some are recycled as ACJ assignments. Even students at a basic proficiency level can participate in this activity after completing these assignments, although lower level students will likely have mostly one-way communication at first with one speaker and one listener (see Figure 1, Activity 1). Intermediate or advance learners should be able to engage in exchanges which are more like discussions/arguments.

Procedure

1. Explain the purpose of the activity which is to express opinions and recognize contrasting arguments.
2. Seat the students in pairs facing one another or back-to-back, in two rows or concentric circles.
3. Assign the positions based on their ACJ assignments ("for" or "against").
4. Tell either the "for" or the "against" side to begin by stating their argument to their partner. Stress eye contact for students facing each other and comprehension check questions (e.g., Pardon me?) for those sitting back-to-back. If partners need clarification or further explanation, they must ask the speaker.
5. Use a stopwatch and set a time limit or allow the speakers to continue until everyone arguing for one side has finished.
6. Change partners and repeat steps four and five, after both partners have had a chance to speak. Continue with this rotation until the students can state their arguments with reasonable fluency. By reducing the length of speaking time after each rotation, students must restate the same information in increasingly shorter time periods.

Figure 2

Activity 2: Classification Tree

The classification tree (Figure 1) has many uses as an organizational tool. For example, teachers who use brainstorming as a pre-writing technique will find it can help students organize their thoughts during brainstorming sessions. In addition, it can be used for both writing and speaking exercises once students have organized ideas in a classification tree structure. When organizing their writing, students can be shown that the classification tree is a schematic representation of the paragraph.

Procedure

1. Assign some reading, writing, or ACJ recording of their opinions on a familiar topic, such as school uniforms (McLean, 1990), before introducing the tree organization activity.
2. Pose a question to the class on the topic they have studied and write it at the top of the board (e.g., "Should high school students be required to wear uniforms?"). Assign half of the students to the "yes" side, and half to the "no" side. Give them time to generate arguments.
3. Group students according to their position on the issue. Ask the "yes" side to supply one of their main points and write this on the board below "yes." Then, they should give supporting details to exemplify/clarify this point (e.g., "Yes, uniforms should be required. Uniforms help make student's lives easier because there is no need to decide which clothes to wear."). As in this example, each main point must have at least one supporting detail.
4. Write up two or three points like this for both sides. With this information organized on the board as a classification tree, explain how the tree structure can be used to organize ideas in brainstorming sessions, and how it mirrors the organization of a paragraph. The question at the top of a classification tree can easily become the topic of a topic sentence for a paragraph. A stated position ("yes" or "no") becomes the controlling idea. Then, the paragraph is filled out with one or more main points along with supporting information.
5. Divide the class into small groups of three or four, tell them that they will develop a classification tree for a new topic (e.g., divorce). Pass out a new reading and address any comprehension problems.
6. Begin the construction of another classification tree on the board by writing up a question for the new topic. Assign half of the students to the "yes" side and the other half to the "no" side or have them choose sides. Ask them, either as a group, or individually, to construct a classification tree by looking at the reading again for main points and supporting details. They should also try to come up with at least one idea of their own.
7. Have them complete their tree diagram and write a paragraph based on it for homework. Collect them for assessment and/or discussion in student-teacher conferencing sessions.

Figure 3

Activity 3: Argument/Counter-Argument

This is a pair speaking activity that prepares students for exchanges more like actual discussions/arguments.

As in Activity 1, the students first read a short passage on some controversial topic, accompanied by a vocabulary exercise and comprehension questions. Then the instructor prepares a four-to-five point argument on the topic (either pro or con), records and copies it onto each student's ACJ tape. The students listen to the argument at home and take notes. Then, they select two or three main points and write counter-arguments to them. Students should link their responses to specific points they have heard on the tape. One useful technique to promote this transfer is while students are taking notes from the tape, to have them focus on the key words they hear. Then, they can use these same key words in their counter-arguments, which they record as part of an ACJ assignment.

Once they complete this individual assignment, they do it again in class. Therefore, students apply the language that they generated at home to spontaneous, face-to-face exchanges.

Procedure

1. Review the purpose of this activity which is to build fluency in speaking and listening without the aid of notes by listening to opinions, developing counter-arguments, and responding.
2. Pair off students. One student will present arguments and the other will counter those arguments. Later, they can switch roles. Students may not read the arguments but may consult notes. One very simple but effective technique to use is to have students put their notes underneath their chairs, and review them only while standing up. When they are finished, they sit down and resume their exchange. Clarification questions can also be asked at any time during this activity. Set a time limit in which the exchange should be completed (e.g., 3 minutes for an exchange of two arguments and two counter-arguments).
3. Rotate pairs and reduce the time limit until students can engage in this exchange with increased fluency.

This activity bridges the preceding two basic fluency organization activities and the advanced debate-specific activities which now follow.

Recycling Skills: Advanced Fluency Activities

The fluency activities described above are recycled in the second part of the course. The focus now shifts to the debate topics which can be chosen by teams from a teacher-supplied list. From this point in our course, student teams begin to manage these activities themselves. Strategies developed earlier from, reading controversial topics, identifying main ideas and arguments, and building and presenting counter-arguments, prepare students for the final debate. Opposing teams each submit a proposition for their topic and together they discuss and select one.

Specific research tasks are designed in consultation with the instructor according to the debate proposition selected. Each team member is responsible for individual research tasks related to the topic. Students collect information on both sides of the issue in order to heighten their awareness of the topic and proposition. The decision by teams to choose a position on their proposition should be delayed until they have adequate information to form a rounded picture of the topic.

As students gather this information, the instructors introduce additional skill building activities. The skills developed in the preceding activities prepare the students for the more demanding fluency Activities 4 and 5: Paraphrase and Counter, and The Hot Seat. Because these activities simulate the complex interactions of the debate event, care must be taken to model their use thoroughly.

Figure 4

Activity 4: Paraphrase and Counter

This discussion activity helps students in three important ways. First, it helps students learn to control the language needed to present material effectively. Second, it allows team members to clarify their research findings with their peers. Finally, it is a debate simulation activity that forces team members to synthesize information and react quickly.

We introduce this activity by modeling a short dialogue we create using material from the latest ACJ assignment. Teachers should introduce this activity using familiar topics and allow students a few practice sessions to become accustomed to it.

Procedure

1. Students form groups of three or four. Lists of arguments for and against an issue should be available somewhere in the classroom for students to consult if needed.
2. S1 makes an argument.
3. S2 paraphrases this argument, checks for comprehension, then disagrees by stating a counter-argument to S3. ( Note: Incorrect paraphrases require that S1 explain the point again.)
4. S3 paraphrases S2's argument and presents a counter-argument to S4. The pattern is repeated by circling back to S1.
5. This rotation continues for two or three rounds or until all arguments have been exhausted.

Figure 5

Activity 5: The Hot Seat

The final activity is conducted after the teams have decided on the position they will take concerning the debate proposition and have worked on their topic using Paraphrase and Counter (Activity 4). As a final debate simulation activity, The Hot Seat develops academic language skills, fosters peer collaboration and trains students to perform under pressure. The Hot Seat encourages the spontaneity required to participate effectively in the cross-examination section of the debate event (see Table 1). Students practice formulating as well as anticipating and responding to possible debate questions. They review their knowledge of the topic and their arguments while practicing in a debate-like format (Figure 1).

Procedure

1. Each debate team selects one of their members to sit in the "hot seat."
2. Debate team members ask questions or present an argument to the person in the hot seat which they anticipate their opponents will use in the debate. One can leave the hot seat only after giving suitable responses.

Summary

Debate does not need to be an objective for teachers to use the activities described in this article. Since all of the activities in Figure 1 deal with the full range of language skills, they can be used flexibly in the language class. We have found that the complexity of the tasks set by teachers using any of these activities can be adjusted to suit learner needs. These are generic discussion formats and can be used in most classes and settings.

By gradually introducing these activities and recycling them throughout the term using familiar discussion topics, student anxiety is reduced since their control of the content is assured. As a result, they become increasingly confident and willing to attempt more complex activities.

Once opposing debate teams jointly agree on propositions and begin researching both sides of the topic, we take the scaffolding of teacher control away from these proficiency development activities. Ultimately, teams familiarize themselves with the debate format in preparation for the final debate event, while practicing skills by using Paraphrase and Counter, and The Hot Seat. They also use what they learned about essay writing from the Tree Organization activity to complete a short research paper about some aspect of their team's debate proposition. Teams decide how best to use this research in their debate presentation. Clearly, as students encounter each of these activities, they move to higher levels of language processing.

Conclusion

Interest in using debate in Japan as a language teaching tool is growing because students are motivated by debate ("Resolved," 1997). The Ministry of Education's new English language curriculum dictates that high schools must offer courses in one of situational conversations, aural competence, or discussion and debate (Carter, Goold, & Madeley, 1993). Our experience reveals that the fluency activities presented in this article encourage even passive students to actively participate in class and perform admirably in the debate event. They enjoy working on the language tasks, doing research, and writing papers in preparation for debates.

These observations have been substantiated in our class evaluation forms over the last four years. Course surveys (1994-1997) show debate consistently at an approval rating above eighty percent as being "the best/most interesting course activity." We have had many comments from students about the debate activity over the years. Not one student in four years has recommended that debate be eliminated from the course. Comments typically are that debate is "interesting," "motivating," and that it "increased [their] English skill." Some also mentioned that they liked the "speaking and thinking practice" and they "liked the preparation" involved in "constructing arguments and presenting" them. Others said they enjoyed researching their topic because "through the research for debate, I could learn a lot of things" including, "[the] importance . . . to research from various reference." Many others have echoed this statement on group work: "I think the debate was best because I could work with classmates and that made me proud of myself."

It is clear that our students enjoy discussion and debate activities. Debate develops academic language skills along with fluency and skills in public speaking which help prepare ESL/EFL students for effective academic study. In addition to language proficiency development, it also promotes teamwork and cooperation, while encouraging critical thinking. Our hope is that more language teachers will begin using debate in their classes.

Acknowledgement

The final version of this article was shaped by the constructive comments of several colleagues. Our thanks go to the JALT volunteers and others who made suggestions on earlier drafts.

References

Baker, P., & Hudson, F. (1997, March). How and why do a class room debate? Demonstration presented at the annual meeting of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc., Orlando, FL.

Carter, N., Goold, R., & Madeley, C. (1993). The new Monbusho guidelines, part two. The Language Teacher, 17(11), 3, 5, 7, 39.

Cohen, R., Een, J., Ferree, T., May-Landy, L., Sanabria, K., & Schlam, L. (1996, March). Debate from A-Z: Strategies for all levels. Demonstration presented at the annual meeting of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc., Chicago, IL.

Goodnight, L. (1993). Getting started in debate, (2nd Ed.). Chicago, IL: National Textbook Company.

Lachowski, J., & Plautz, G. (1994, March). On the firing line: Debate in the ESL classroom. Demonstration presented at the annual meeting of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc., Baltimore, MD.

Le, V. (1995). Doable debates. The Language Teacher, 19(7), 12-16.

Lubetsky, M. (1997). Make your point! Tokyo: Harcourt Brace.

McLean, P. (1990). Writing: For and against. Tokyo: Macmillan Language House.

McLean, P. (1996). My opinion, your opinion. Tokyo: Macmillan Language House.

Payne, J., & Prentice, D. (1990). Getting started in public speaking. Chicago,IL:National Textbook Company.

Resolved: That debate works. (1997, March 3). The Daily Yomiuri, 17.

Richards, J. R., & Rickett, C. S. (1995). Debating by doing: Developing effective debating skills. Chicago, IL: National Textbook Company.

Skevington, T. (1994, October). Teaching debate to college students. Demonstration presented at the annual meeting of The Japan Association for Language Teaching, Matsuyama, Japan.