Doable Debate in the ESL/EFL Classroom TESOL Boston March 25, 2010 WORKSHOP
-
Upload
lana-hoover -
Category
Documents
-
view
36 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Doable Debate in the ESL/EFL Classroom TESOL Boston March 25, 2010 WORKSHOP
3/25/20103/25/2010 11
Doable Debate in the ESL/EFL ClassroomDoable Debate in the ESL/EFL Classroom
TESOL Boston TESOL Boston March 25, 2010March 25, 2010
WORKSHOPWORKSHOP
Harry HarrisHarry Harris
Hakuoh UniversityHakuoh University
3/25/20103/25/2010 22
OutlineOutline
Why debate?Why debate? IssuesIssues Judging Criteria Judging Criteria Score SheetScore Sheet Debate FallaciesDebate Fallacies
Student Student RemindersReminders
Sample Student Sample Student worksheetworksheet
Debate ScheduleDebate Schedule Suggested Suggested
ReadingReading
3/25/20103/25/2010 33
WHY DEBATE?WHY DEBATE?
Language usage:Language usage: improve vocabulary/other skillsimprove vocabulary/other skills
Critical thinking:Critical thinking: evaluate what read and hearevaluate what read and hear
Reasoned discourse:Reasoned discourse: speak logically & control speak logically & control emotionsemotions
Cooperative efforts:Cooperative efforts: improve social skillsimprove social skills
Research:Research: access/select informationaccess/select information
3/25/20103/25/2010 44
IssuesIssues
Debate structureDebate structure
Knowledge of topicKnowledge of topic
Language fluencyLanguage fluency
3/25/20103/25/2010 55
Judging CriteriaJudging CriteriaOrganizationOrganization Info presented clearly with Info presented clearly with
transitionstransitions
DefinitionsDefinitions ““DifficultDifficult”” words defined words defined
Consistency,Consistency,
RelevanceRelevanceArguments consistent/related to the Arguments consistent/related to the propositionproposition
Body LanguageBody Language Debaters sit up, use gestures, and Debaters sit up, use gestures, and make eye contact.make eye contact.
VoiceVoice Debaters speak clearly/audibly.Debaters speak clearly/audibly.
Example, Facts,Example, Facts,
Statistics, Statistics, SourcesSources
Support provided and/or serious Support provided and/or serious thought done on propositionthought done on proposition
EffectivenessEffectiveness Opponent ideas are used well in Opponent ideas are used well in refutation.refutation.
3/25/20103/25/2010 66
Score SheetScore Sheet PROPOSITION:PROPOSITION:
PROPRO 0-0-55
NOTESNOTES NOTESNOTES 0-50-5 CONCON
Org.Org. Org.Org.
Def.Def. Def.Def.
Cons./Cons./Rel.Rel.
Cons./Cons./Rel.Rel.
Body Body Lang.Lang.
Body Body Lang.Lang.
VoiceVoice VoiceVoice
Ex., etc.Ex., etc. Ex., etc.Ex., etc.
Effective.Effective. Effective.Effective.
TOTALTOTAL
3/25/20103/25/2010 77
DEBATE FALLACIESDEBATE FALLACIES
OVERGENERALIZATIONOVERGENERALIZATIONEx. Cell phones are useless and should be banned.Ex. Cell phones are useless and should be banned.
IGNORING THE ISSUEIGNORING THE ISSUE– AD HOMINEMAD HOMINEM– FALSE APPEALS TO AUTHORITY FALSE APPEALS TO AUTHORITY (Momma said(Momma said……))
– APPEALS TO IGNORANCEAPPEALS TO IGNORANCE
FALSE CAUSESFALSE CAUSES– AFTER THIS, THEREFORE, BECAUSE OF THISAFTER THIS, THEREFORE, BECAUSE OF THIS– EITHER/OREITHER/OR
3/25/20103/25/2010 88
Student RemindersStudent Reminders1. Team members take turns.1. Team members take turns.
2. Debates are timed.2. Debates are timed.
3. During argument periods, 3. During argument periods, opponents listen & take opponents listen & take notes.notes.
4. During question prep period, 4. During question prep period, prepare requests for prepare requests for explanations etc.explanations etc.
5. During question period, go on 5. During question period, go on to next request if opponents to next request if opponents are slow to respond.are slow to respond.
6. During refutation prep, teams 6. During refutation prep, teams work alone or with other work alone or with other PRO/CON teams.PRO/CON teams.
7. During refutation period, 7. During refutation period, opponents listen & take notes.opponents listen & take notes.
8. During final appeal period, 8. During final appeal period, review notes in prep for final review notes in prep for final speech to judge.speech to judge.
9. Final appeal points out own 9. Final appeal points out own strengths and opponent strengths and opponent weaknesses.weaknesses.
10. After debate, judge evaluates 10. After debate, judge evaluates and determines winner.and determines winner.
3/25/20103/25/2010 99
SAMPLE STUDENT SAMPLE STUDENT WORKSHEETWORKSHEET
Name: Taro KondoName: Taro Kondo Date: March 25, Date: March 25, 20102010
Proposition:Proposition: Cats make betters pets than Cats make betters pets than dogs.dogs.
PROPRO CONCON1. Cats are more 1. Cats are more
independent.independent.
2. Cats are generally 2. Cats are generally quieter.quieter.
3. Cats are cleaner and 3. Cats are cleaner and easier to take care of.easier to take care of.
1. Dogs can guard 1. Dogs can guard homes.homes.
2. Dogs offer closer 2. Dogs offer closer companionship.companionship.
3. Dogs can be taught 3. Dogs can be taught tricks.tricks.
3/25/20103/25/2010 1010
DEBATE SCHEDULE 1DEBATE SCHEDULE 1
PROPRO CONCON
11stst Affirmative Affirmative argumentargument
1 minute1 minute
22ndnd Affirmative Affirmative argument argument
1 minute1 minute
33rdrd Affirmative Affirmative argumentargument
1 minute1 minute
11stst Negative argument Negative argument
1 minute1 minute
22ndnd Negative argument Negative argument
1 minute1 minute
33rdrd Negative argument Negative argument
1 minute1 minute
3/25/20103/25/2010 1111
DEBATE SCHEDULE 2DEBATE SCHEDULE 2
PROPRO CONCON
5-MINUTE BREAK 5-MINUTE BREAK TOTO
PREPARE QUESTIONSPREPARE QUESTIONS
3-MINUTE QUESTION3-MINUTE QUESTION
PERIODPERIOD3-MINUTE QUESTION3-MINUTE QUESTION
PERIODPERIOD
5-MINUTE BREAK 5-MINUTE BREAK TOTO
PREPARE PREPARE REFUTATIONSREFUTATIONS
3/25/20103/25/2010 1212
DEBATE SCHEDULE 3DEBATE SCHEDULE 3
PROPRO CONCONRefutation of Con’s 1Refutation of Con’s 1stst argumentargument
1 minute1 minute
Refutation of Con’s 2Refutation of Con’s 2ndnd argumentargument
1 minute1 minute
Refutation of Con’s 3Refutation of Con’s 3rdrd argumentargument
1 minute1 minute
Refutation of Pro’s 1Refutation of Pro’s 1stst argumentargument
1 minute1 minute
Refutation of Pro’s 2Refutation of Pro’s 2ndnd argumentargument
1 minute1 minute
Refutation of Pro’s 3Refutation of Pro’s 3rdrd argumentargument
1 minute1 minute
3/25/20103/25/2010 1313
DEBATE SCHEDULE 4DEBATE SCHEDULE 4
PROPRO CONCON
2-MINUTE BREAK2-MINUTE BREAK TO PREPARE FINAL TO PREPARE FINAL SPEECHSPEECH
FINAL SPEECHFINAL SPEECH
1 minute1 minuteFINAL SPEECHFINAL SPEECH
1 minute1 minute
JUDGE ANNOUNCEMENTJUDGE ANNOUNCEMENT OF WINNERSOF WINNERS
3/25/20103/25/2010 1414
Suggested ReadingSuggested Reading
Hansen, J. (2007). Hansen, J. (2007). Teaching Debate in Japan: A Teaching Debate in Japan: A Review of Resources and Materials to Meet the Review of Resources and Materials to Meet the Demands of Teaching Japanese English LearnersDemands of Teaching Japanese English Learners..http://www.wilmina.ac.jp/ojc/edu/kiyo_2007/kiyo_37_PDF/05.pdf
Harris, H. (2006). English Debate in the Japanese Harris, H. (2006). English Debate in the Japanese Classroom: An Introductory Outline. Classroom: An Introductory Outline. Hakuoh Hakuoh University Ronshu, 21(1University Ronshu, 21(1), 47-74.), 47-74. http://ci.nii.ac.jp/vol_issue/nels/AN10016387/ISS0000365365_en.html
IDEA: International Debate Education Association.IDEA: International Debate Education Association. (n.d.).(n.d.). http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_index.phphttp://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_index.php
Whitman, G. (2005). Whitman, G. (2005). DebateDebate. (n.d.).. (n.d.). http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/dgwdebate.htmlhttp://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/dgwdebate.html