NGHIÊN cứu về HOẠT ĐỘNG TRANH LUẬN của SINH VIÊN BẰNG kép năm 2

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION GRADUATION PAPER AN INVESTIGATION INTO DEBATES OF DOUBLE-MAJOR SOPHOMORES Supervisor: Vũ Thị Việt Hương Student: Hứa Kim Ngân Course: QH2014.F1.E2 HÀ NỘI - 2018 ĐẠI HỌC QUỐC GIA HÀ NỘI TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ KHOA SƯ PHẠM TIẾNG ANH KHÓA LUẬN TỐT NGHIỆP NGHIÊN CỨU VỀ HOẠT ĐỘNG TRANH LUẬN CỦA SINH VIÊN BẰNG KÉP NĂM Giáo viên hướng dẫn: Vũ Thị Việt Hương Sinh viên: Hứa Kim Ngân Khóa: QH2014.F1.E2 HÀ NỘI - 2018 ABSTRACT Debate is a notable activity applied in different fields, especially in teaching and learning English as a second language Henceforth, this research scrutinized into the debate activity of 59 double-degree sophomores in FELTE, ULIS After a long process of data analysis and synthesis with the assistance of qualitative and quantitative methods (via observation, questionnaire and interview), it has been unveiled that there were a large number of not only plus points but also drawbacks when implementing debate on these kinds of participants Students claimed that their language skills, idea brainstorming skill, argumentation skill, critical thinking skills, several language elements, soft skills, vocabulary, background knowledge, polite manner and bias reduction were significantly improved On the other hand, external factors such as the lack of technological devices, heavy workload along with internal factors, namely the students’ lack of confidence, limited background knowledge, time management skill, bias towards subject matter, weak non-verbal languages or weak language proficiency, led to numerous challenges for the students involved LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONS CLT: Communicative Language Teaching FELTE: Faculty of English Language Teacher Education SPAR: Spontaneous Argumentation ULIS: University of Languages and International Studies VNU: Vietnam National University %: percent REFERENCES Colbert, K R., & Biggers, T (1986) Why should we support debate? Journal of the American Forensics Association, 14, 14-35 Colbert, K R (1993) The effects of debate participation on argumentativeness and verbal aggression, Communication Education Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634529309378928 Dahlberg, L & McCaig, C (2010) Practical research and Evaluation: A Start-tofinish Guide for Practitioners Los Angeles: Sage Dickson (2004) Developing “Real-world intelligence”: Teaching argumentative writing through debate English Journal, 21, 50-52 Dörnyei, Z (2007) Research methods in applied linguistics New York: Oxford University Press Facione, P A (1990) Critical Thinking: As Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242279575_Critical_Thinking_A_St atement_of_Expert_Consensus_for_Purposes_of_Educational_Assessment_an d_Instruction Faculty of English Language Teacher Education, ULIS (2015) Course guide: English for Academic Purposes Hua, P L (2017) Using debates to promote sophomores’ engagement in a speaking classroom of academic English Victoria University, Melbourne Australia Iberri-Shea, G (n.d.) Teaching English through debate in classroom contexts Retrieved from http://d2ivco2mxiw5i2.cloudfront.net/app/media/5223 Karakaş, A (2013) Is Communicative Language Teaching a Panacea in ELT? Student and Teacher Perspectives Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272493331_Is_Communicative_Lan guage_Teaching_a_Panacea_in_ELT_-_Student_and_Teacher_Perspectives Le, T P A (2012) An Introduction to Research Methodology in Foreign Language Education Hanoi: Vietnam National University Lewis, L M & Wakefield, J A (1983) Teaching psychology through an instructordebate format Teaching of Psychology Mackey, A., & Gass, S M (2005) Second language research: Methodology and design Retrieved from http://npu.edu.ua/!ebook/book/djvu/A/iif_kgpm_Mackey_Second%20Languag e%20Methodology%20and%20Design.pdf Mark, T., Canale, S., & Baker, J (1997) Impacts of using debate in a speaking classroom ELT Journal, 36, 99 Ministry of Education and Training (2008) National Foreign Languages 2020 Project Retrieved from http://p2020.ehou.edu.vn/de-an-ngoai-ngu-quoc-gia/ Najafi, M , Motaghi, Z., Nasrabadi, H.B & Heshi, K.N (2016) "Debate" learning method and its implications for the formal education system Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1094430.pdf National Forensic League (2009) Guide to Public Forum Debate Retrieved from https://debate.uvm.edu/dcpdf/PFNFL.pdf National Science Foundation (2002) The User-Friendly Handbook for Project Evaluation Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2002/nsf02057/nsf02057_4.pdf Parcher , J (1998) The Value of Debate: Adapted from the Report of the Philodemic Debate Society, Georgetown University, 1998 Retrieved from http://www.pbcfl.net/curriculum/coaching/60general/gc01.pdf Scott, S (n.d.) Perceptions of Students’ Learning Critical Thinking through Debate in a Technology Classroom: A Case Study Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.537.6417&rep=rep1 &type=pdf Snider, A., & Schnurer, M (2006) Many Sides: Debate Across the Curriculum New York: International Debate Education Association Snider, A C (n.d.) Debate: Key to better academic achievement Retrieved from https://debate.uvm.edu/dcpdf/DEBATE%20KEY%20TO%20BETTER%20ACADEMIC%20ACHIEVEMENT.pdf Vangelisti, A L., Daly, J A., & Friedrich, G W (2009) Teaching Communication: Theory, Research, and Methods (2nd ed.) New York: Routledge Vargo, S P (2012) Teaching by debate Retrieved from http://www.usma.edu/cfe/literature/vargo_12.pdf Vo, H X & Morris, R L (2006) Debate as a tool in teaching economics: Rationale, technique, and some evidence Journal of Education for Business, 20, 88 Watson, G & Glaser, E (1980) Critical thinking appraisal manual for forms A and B New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Želježič, M (2017) Debate in the EFL Classroom http://revije.ff.uni-lj.si/elope/article/download/7290/7097 Retrieved from LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Skill description (Course guide: English for Academic Purposes 4) 12 Table 2: Debate sequence (Course guide: English for Academic Purposes 4) 13 Table 3: Teacher evaluation form for inclass debate (Course guide: English for Academic Purposes 4) 14 i LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Public Forum Debate Format (National Forensic League, 2009) Figure 2: Spontaneous Argumentation 10 Figure 3: Roundtable discussion 11 Figure 4: Listening skills and Reading skills 21 Figure 5: Idea brainstorming skill 22 Figure 6: Argumentation skill 22 Figure 7: Critical thinking skills 23 Figure 8: Soft skills 24 Figure 9: Vocabulary 25 Figure 10: Pronunciation 25 Figure 11: Grammar 26 Figure 12: Fluency and Coherence 26 Figure 13: Non-verbal languages 27 Figure 14: Other benefits 28 Figure 15: Listening skills and Reading skills 29 Figure 16: Idea brainstorming skill 30 Figure 17: Argumentation skill 30 Figure 18: Critical thinking skills 31 Figure 19: Soft skills 32 ii Figure 20: Vocabulary 33 Figure 21: Pronunciation 34 Figure 22: Grammar 34 Figure 23: Fluency and Coherence 35 Figure 24: Non-verbal languages 35 Figure 25: Other difficulties 36 Figure 26: Teamwork 37 Figure 27: The opponent team 38 Figure 28: Other difficulties 39 iii No VII VIII Component Eye contact     Facial expression     Confidence of public speaking     Background knowledge of topic     Polite attitude (towards others‟ opinion)     Bias reduction towards subject matter         Other benefits Others 56 Question 2: To what extent you agree that the following difficulties challenged you during debate activity? Put a cross (x) in the appropriate column  EXTERNAL FACTORS No I Component Totally disagree Teamwork Little online discussion Little face-to-face discussion Member‟s dominance Member‟s uncooperativeness II The opponent team Impoliteness towards my team‟ ideas Unclear questions Unclear pronunciation III Other difficulties Topic‟s lack of supporting information Heavy workload 57 Disagree Neutral Agree Totally agree No Component Totally disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Disagree Neutral Agree Totally agree Insufficient support from teacher Insufficient technological devices (projection screen, loudspeakers…) Others IV  INTERNAL FACTORS No Component I Totally disagree Language skills Listening skills Listening for main idea Listening for details Reading skills Reading for main idea Reading for details 58 Totally agree No Component II Idea brainstorming skill III Argumentation skill IV Critical thinking skills Interpretation Analysis Evaluation Inference Explanation Self-reflection V Totally disagree Soft skills Communication skill Team-working skill Problem-solving skill Decision-making skill Time management skill 59 Disagree Neutral Agree Totally agree No VI Component Note-taking skill Presentation skill Information searching skill Totally disagree Language elements Vocabularies Vocabulary accuracy usage Vocabulary range Pronunciation Intonation Sentence stress Word stress Individual sounds Word pronunciation Ending sound pronunciation (-es, -s, -ed, -t, d….) Linking sounds 60 Disagree Neutral Agree Totally agree No Component Totally disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Grammar Grammar accuracy Grammar range Fluency Coherence Non-verbal language Posture Gesture/movement Eye contact Facial expression VII Other difficulties Bias towards subject matter Limited background knowledge about topic Fear of public speaking VIII Others Are you willing to participate in a follow-up interview? 61 Yes No Totally agree APPENDIX INTERVIEW QUESTIONS Could you walk me through the steps of taking part in Debate project? How you understand the terms proponent and opponent? Interviewer shows their questionnaires What were the skills that you improved the most after the Debate Project? Please give an example to specify how you have improved those skills What were other components that you improved the most after the Debate Project? Please give an example to specify What were the skills that you improved the least after the Debate Project? Please give an example to specify how you have improved those skills What were other components that you improved the least after the Debate Project? What are the reasons that prevent you from polishing those components in the Debate Project? What changes you think should be made in this Debate project? What are the reasons for your recommendation? Based on the questionnaires of students, researchers may ask further questions to clarify the results 62 APPENDIX INTERVIEW NOTES S1:  Doc hieu kha len rat nhieu  Vocab hoc duoc rat nhieu vi phai tim hieu nhieu ve topic  Bat dc y chinh, tim tai lieu tren mang  nhanh hieu y ho Take note dung thi hieu dung cua ca doan  Phat am, co y thuc ve viec phai phat am dung Ko co nhieu thoi gian, ko phai debate ma gioi hon dc Sentence stress + linking sounds nho nhat qua nen ko chu  Inference, Explanation + Self-reflection  Thay doi tich cuc, tu moi rat kem  Presentation improve vi tap luyen nhieu  Phan bien: tim dc idea, lap luan cho thuyet phuc Rao can ngon ngu, ko ns het dc y cua minh Ko dat nang phat am, vi ns la ngta hieu dc ms quan  Cuc tot cho critical thinking Cach bao ve quan diem Nhung Inference, Explanation + Self-reflection thi ko dung den nen ko cai thien  Public speaking: ko thay gi thay doi, van so nhu the Auto len bang noi la so  Polite manner: co y de phan bien nen rat nong long muon noi, phai binh tinh hon  Biet nhin su viec tu nhieu phia 63  Teamwork: chi qua fb, qua mang, it thoi gian gap nhau, kho co the gap tat ca mng nen hd ko tot  Techno prob Ko co loa, screen de cac ban nghe video hay, de ho bi thuyet phuc vs minh  tiec nuoi + kho chiu  Argumentation skill kho qua  Non-verbal lang: ko cai thien may vi neu tap trung vao cai thi quen mat argument vs cai mach structure noi  Problem solving skill, decision making skill, time management skill dc luyen o nhieu thu #  ko cai thien  Phai phan chia cu the EG Rebuttal co 1‟ dat cau hoi, 3‟ tl  Opponent hoi impolite, nhg may la em ko bi anh hg gi S2:  Doc hieu kha len nhieu  Vocab hoc duoc rat nhieu vi phai tim hieu nhieu ve topic  Ko take note toan bo vid Chi nghe den doan nao co cai minh can  Net mat  Argument tot len nhieu vi phai prepare ki, du no sieu kho luon  Presentation improve vi tap luyen nhieu  Brainstorm idea rat kho Nhieu voi qua ko nghi duoc gi ca, nhat la rebuttal  Em thich side ben hon, ban dau von la ung ho idea ben day nhg lai phai theo team nguoc lai nen thay kho chiu  tim hieu vat va, ko thoai mai  Phai tim hieu sau, ko ap dat cai ban dau cua minh 64  Thoi gian # nen ko trao doi dc nhieu  Conflict, co ban muon lam phan nay, ng lai thich phan # Minh cx co xu huong introvert nen cang met moi, ko cai lai duoc  Xem so vid ve chu de nay, dinh lam so clip Muon co may chieu  Giam so lg member  Muon nghe nhieu nhan xet hon tu co giao sau debate Co nen noi ro role cac team vi ko hieu lam format  Thay debate rat hay, muon co nhieu debate thoi gian sau  Ap luc, thu vi va dong luc Tim hieu ki  Techno prob In tai lieu cho cac ban doc can than, nhg lang phi giay to vs tien qua Nhg vi muon bai noi tron ven nen co gang  Opponent: ok S3:  Vocab hoc duoc nhieu Trc thi vocab rat yeu nen kho khan viec doc, nghe hieu tai lieu lien quan  Search info theo cam tinh, ko biet cai nao la uy tin  Critical: phai hieu vde tu phia  debate co ich Inference, Explanation + Self-reflection ko cai thien vi ko su dung  Doc hieu kha len rat nhieu trc day thi doc kha la te  Tiep xuc vs nhieu nguon info Hoc cach phan chia idea, cai nao qtrong nhat  Mock debate:doi phg ns ko co dan chung thi van vao de phan bien  Argument tot len nhieu vi phai prepare ki cang 65  Trong debate: hoi hop, so vi quen y phat am ko chuan Tich cuc: debate thi cbi ki hon Tieu cuc: hoi cang thang qua  Non-verbal lang: ko phat trien gi  Biet nhin su viec tu nhieu phia  Chu de can kho tg dg  De xuat: nhom it nguoi di, de mng co the cbi argument, cau hoi va tl nhieu co hoi noi hon De hoa hop vs cac members  Techno prob Noi chay so lieu  gay nham chan ko dang cho audience  Opponent: ok  Mock debate nen serious hon nua Nen lam nhu real debate S4  Khong co idea gi topic Nho debate, thi tim moi thu ca thu tieng, co hieu biet, nho lau ve topic  Doc hieu tot hon Du trc day thi doc rat la kho Skim vs scan ko de ti nao  Vocab hoc duoc rat nhieu vi em kha la kem  Sentence stress + linking sounds nho nhat qua nen ko chu Chac co giao cung khong quan tam nen ko lo  Grammar hoc dc nhieu cau truc hay + cach su dung phu hop  Nghe kem nen kho nam bat idea, mat thoi gian nhieu  Viec giao vien dua info  ko co an tg lam  Video bi dai qua  kho nghe kho hieu Nen shorter 66  Muon co trao doi truc tiep vs co de dc chua loi Dc co sua cho phan day vs cac member thi se tu tin hon  Hd nhom: weak Ko co buoi nao lam viec truc tiep vs Qua fb thi tien, nhg ko hieu qua Lap group, ko truc tiep gap, ko hieu y nhau,co ban da viet trc idea nen phai follow Ai nhanh tay se lay dc slot easy, ko cong bang Ko thong nhat ve format trinh bay  Introvert  ko raise duoc quan diem cua minh Cam thay bi dominate boi member #, ca chuan bi + showcase  Ko ho tro nhieu Co ban present, ban so da viet san idea, minh phai follow idea day So sut me tinh ban  Kha nang ngon ngu chua tu tin Vi phat am kem, tham te, ki hoc vs thay ABC thi cai thien nhieu Thay i rat hay dong vien  tu tin hon, ns nhieu hon Nhg den mon hoc sau thi kho hon, ko dien dat dc idea = TA  Vde ko phai em nghe kem, ma doi ban co member question rat mo ho, cach dien dat co vde nen bon e y/c ban hoi lai lan  Techno prob Ro la phong hoc ko co may chieu…, co ma bon e van bi tinh diem phan day (co visual…) ? E kha hoang mang  Problem solving skill, decision making skill, time management skill dc luyen o nhieu thu #  ko cai thien Muon noi nhieu y nhung ma chi co it thoi gian, ko kiem soat duoc ban than nen sa da qua, lan man qua Problem solving skill + decision making skill ko gioi nhg ma cx ko thay kho khan gi may  Opponent: ok  Giam vien nhom uong mem Se dc ca pre + phan bien S5  Doc hieu kha len rat nhieu 67  Vocab hoc duoc rat nhieu vi phai tim hieu nhieu ve topic Ngay xua rat duoi khoan  Lam nhieu thi len Nghe hieu, cac ban ns kho nghe  Nghe dc 70%, nam dc info  Argumentation kho lam vi phai khien ngta ko the beat lai minh  Nhin vde o ca sides Ngay trc rat bao thu, thich gi la lam Von ung ho side khac nhung lai phai follow team minh nen cung hoi thieu thoai mai  Ca nhan thi vua phai thoi  Teamwork co anh hg gi den debate: ko hai long lam, vi mng ko chu dong vs nhau, cac mem ko hang hai lam Co ban ko thich ns nhieu nen chi lam du  Techno prob Uc che vi ko dc show hinh anh, example lquan  Problem solving skill, decision making skill, time management skill ko cai thien may  Opponent: ok  Mock debate nen serious hon S6  Tang kha nang hieu speakers #  Doc hieu kha len rat nhieu  Vocab nang cao nhieu  Grammar hoc dc nhieu cau truc hay + cach su dung phu hop  Trc day cha bh note take Debate thi bat buoc vi tri nho kem  Teamwork: rat troi chay va an y phan chia noi rat deu 68  Vui, bo ich vi cung cap nhieu info Co cac topic minh cha bh quan tam Nho debate ma biet nhieu hon  Problem solving skill, decision making skill (2 cai co ve la on san roi), time management skill dc luyen o nhieu thu #  ko cai thien Ko biet phan bo thoi gian lam gi qtrong hon len dau Luc rebuttal thi cuong qua phai hoi y voi teammates  Critical thinking: Inference, Explanation, Self-reflection ko cai thien  Argument kho nhung van benefit duoc nhieu  Biet nhin su viec tu nhieu phia Tolerant vs cac quan diem #  Ki nang phan xa: trc day thi ko phan hoi gi vi thay vde nao cx co ly Soi loi loi noi cua cac ban  Non-verbal lang: ko cai thien  Phai thay doi quan diem vi debate, co thay n co li hon  Techno prob Noi chay phan statistics luon, nghe nan lam vi cac ban nhu the ko hieu gi  Opponent: ok  Nen tiep tuc debate N giup minh cai thien nhieu ki nang ma presentation ko giup dc S7  Ki nang nghe kem, ko thich nghe  Doc hieu kha len rat nhieu  Vocab hoc duoc nhieu  Ki nang search info, sx lai info tot 69  Argumentation skill ko de, nhg tot len nhieu vi phai prepare ki cang  Non-verbal lang: ko cai thien Mat em hay kieu cang thang ko the chua dc, ngta co the nghi la em dang lep ve/ aggressive Ko kiem soat duoc  Teamwork: ho tro cho qtrinh phan bien Hd qua fb la chu yeu Cac ban rat chu dong, skill dong deu  Presentation improve vi tap luyen nhieu  Public speaking thi van so lam  Problem solving skill, decision making skill, time management skill ko cai thien vi tu thay minh tot khoan  Opponent: ok  De xuat: tu dau dc xd la phai co debate Debate can cai nay… Trong tung buoi hoc Ko thich: nen boc tham chon nhom agree hay disagree Chu ko muon co chon nhom  tu: hd tich hop dc nhieu skills, hon presentation  ban la hop li, ko muon giam  Techno prob Phai in dong handout  ton tien qua ma ko kieu visual dep dc  Manner: co polite hon Rat qtrong  Biet nhin su viec tu nhieu phia 70 ... TIẾNG ANH KHÓA LUẬN TỐT NGHIỆP NGHIÊN CỨU VỀ HOẠT ĐỘNG TRANH LUẬN CỦA SINH VIÊN BẰNG KÉP NĂM Giáo viên hướng dẫn: Vũ Thị Việt Hương Sinh viên: Hứa Kim Ngân Khóa: QH2014.F1.E2 HÀ NỘI - 20 18 ABSTRACT... sub-skills during debate procedure 23 4.1.6 Soft skills 60 50 40 30 20 10 22 20 Not at all 26 12 14 14 15 22 22 12 25 10 Least 19 30 Moderately 17 20 Highly 28 14 11 14 5 Extremely highly Figure... vocabularies appropriately 60 50 40 30 20 10 26 12 Not at all 10 27 26 15 13 Least 14 22 13 Moderately 30 26 11 4 Highly Figure 10: Pronunciation 25 2 17 12 15 30 Extremely highly In terms of pronunciation,