Introduction

Using language for communication, both oral and written, is the ultimate aim of learners of other languages as foreign languages (FL) or second languages (SL). However, speaking and writing that involve creation are the two most demanding and complex skills for SL and FL learners. Each has its characteristic causes of difficulty and they intersect in other causes. In speaking, which happens in real time, there is no time to prepare (Bailey, 2003). Poor linguistic competence (Williams, 2006) and lack of exposure to the language outside the classroom in the FL setting which is “input poor” (Kouroago, 1993) make learners unwilling to speak in the FL. What makes speaking more challenging to FL learners is that it receives the least attention in the classroom (Richards, 2008) which may be the only place in many FL settings where learners can practice speaking the FL. Speaking is associated with the highest level of language learning anxiety because it lacks privacy and controllability (Kitano, 2001). This debilitative anxiety is caused by a variety of factors, the most prominent of which is lack of linguistic resources. Lack of motivation has also been reported as a reason for the “won’t talk” problem in the FL classroom (Nunan, 1999, p. 231).

Similarly, writing is very difficult even for first language (L1) learners (Negari & Rezaabadi, 2012). It is so difficult that only few learners can fully master it (Richards, 2008). Reflecting on the challenging nature of writing, Kroll (2003) asserts that writing is a complex process that entails the mastery of multiple skills. To create a good piece of writing, learners need to know a great deal of vocabulary and structures as well as principles of organization (Tangpermpoon, 2008). Writing is also associated with debilitative anxiety in the FL setting, even though this anxiety is less severe than anxiety associated with speaking (Cheng, 2002). In an empirical research, Rico (2014) documented unwillingness to use the target language, lack of knowledge and negative transfer as sources of difficulties that FL learners face with the productive skills of speaking and writing.

Debate is a language activity that can be utilized to improve FL learners’ oral and written performance. In fact, many researchers contend that debates can promote all the four main language skills (Alasmari & Ahmed, 2013; Krieger, 2005; Rybold 2006). Debaters need to understand what the opposing team is saying in order to rebut. They need to read many sources when collecting arguments supporting their position. They also practice speaking within the group and in public, which can improve their oral performance in terms of aspects such as word choice, fluency, and coherence. Debaters can also develop their writing performance by learning to organize their language production and focus on such aspects as coherence and persuasion, which are salient to writing in general and to argumentative writing in particular.

Researchers have reported several benefits of using debates in the FL classroom. To mention a few, debates can foster critical thinking skills which are important for language learning. They can also improve motivation which is a condition for successful language learning (Barkley et al., 2005). Debates develop teamwork skills, as debaters need to cooperate in their teams to triumph over the opposing team (Williams et al., 2001). They also develop research skills, as debaters need to collect data and arguments supporting their position. It is the author’s opinion that debates can be used as an integrative activity to develop learners’ oral and written performance.

Being a lively and exciting activity, debating can promote learners’ motivation and rid them of communication apprehension which is an undeniable phenomenon in FL learning. With sustained participation in debates, learners can gradually get rid of communication apprehension (Horwitz et al., 1986) and promote better ideal second language (L2) self (Dörnyei, 2009). This contention is supported by many researchers (e.g., Field, 2017; Ur, 1996). Nonetheless, it needs to be empirically grounded.

Statement of the Problem

Writing and speaking are the two most difficult language skills for English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners who have been reported elsewhere to have limited communicative competence. This limited competence has been attributed to several reasons that apply to most FL settings, e.g., limited linguistic competence, lack of exposure to the FL outside the classroom, inappropriate teaching methods, and high levels of anxiety (Al-Ghamari, 2004, Al-Nasser, 2015; Fageeh, 2011). English department students at Thadiq College of Sciences and Humanities, Shaqra University, Saudi Arabia are no exception. The author’s direct contact with these students has revealed their limited speaking and writing proficiency even after years of study in the English program. They show reluctance to speak in English and when obliged to do so, they stumble and produce just a few words. Furthermore, when they have to write essays, they cannot brainstorm sufficient evidence to support their arguments. Even when teachers help them with the ideational problem, they have the problem of organizing their ideas to produce well-developed compositions. Throughout direct contact with these students for several years, the author has repeatedly listened to them noting that they desire but are unable to improve their speaking and writing proficiency.

The English program at Thadiq College of Sciences and Humanities that grants the Bachelor of English Language and Literature includes three courses that are concerned with speaking: Listening and Speaking 1 (Eng 112) at the first level, Listening and Speaking 2 (Eng 122) at the second level, and Speech Styles (Eng 412) at the fifth level. In Eng 112 and Eng 122, students answer questions on listening material and discuss a topic related to it. In Eng 412, they are taught to give speeches. Students are not trained on debating in any of these courses. Nor is there a course for debates in the program. Regarding writing, the program includes four courses: Writing 1 (Eng 114) at the second level, Writing 2 (Eng 213) at the third level, Essay Writing (Eng 312) at the fourth level and Advanced Writing (Eng413) at the seventh level. In these courses, there is progression from sentence to essay writing. It is observed that students continue to have difficulty in writing well-developed essays even after completing these courses.

In this action research, the author attempted to train students on debating as an integrative activity that can be utilized to improve their oral and written performance. Debates have been proved to improve EFL students’ language skills, especially speaking and writing (Alasmari& Ahmed, 2013; Krieger, 2005; Rybold 2006). They can also foster students’ motivation (Barkley, et al., 2005) and reduce their communication apprehension (Setiawan, 2006). Hence, the present study aimed to explore the relative effect of training EFL students on debates on their oral and written performance. Another aim was to explore the effect of training on students’ ideal L2 self and communication apprehension. More specifically, the study attempted the following questions about training EFL students on debating:

• What is the effect of training on group debating performance?
• What is the effect of training on students’ oral performance?
• What is the effect of training on students’ written performance?
• Is there a difference in the effect of training on students’ oral and written performance?
• What is the effect of training on students’ ideal L2 self?
• What is the effect of training on students’ communication apprehension?

Significance of the Study

The significance of the current study stems from a number of considerations. First, as action research, the study dealt with poor oral and written performance of a group of EFL students by training them on debating. Second, it aimed to identify the relative effect of training EFL students on debating on their oral and written performance. It is the first research attempt, to the best of the author’s knowledge, to explore this relative effect. Third, the study explored the effect of the proposed training on EFL students’ ideal L2 self and communication comprehension, which are two of the most significant affective variables involved in FL learning.

Limitations

There are three limitations about this study. First, assessment of written and oral performance is limited to argumentative speaking and writing, as argumentation is the basic genre that debates address. Second, communication apprehension is assessed in terms of oral communication which is the most common type of apprehension among EFL learners. Finally, the study was conducted on an intact group of 32 college EFL students, which should be considered when generalizing results.

Review of Literature

Debate: Definition, benefits and research results

Ericson et al. (2003) define debate as “systematic presentation of opposing arguments on a selected topic.” (p. 120) According to Martin et al. (2009), it is an instructional activity that actively engages students in critical thinking and requires the use of multiple perspectives. Krieger (2005) considers it “an excellent activity for language learning because it engages students in a variety of cognitive and linguistic ways.” (p.1) The debate activity fits learning-centered classrooms, as it fosters the role of students as active learners and the role of teachers as facilitators of learning. Stressing its significance for active learning, Oros (2007) suggests that “active learning involves greater activity on the part of the student through such methods as collaborative learning, simulations, structured debates, or other forms of group and individual work.” (p. 295)

Debates offer vast learning experiences. They can be utilized to promote all language skills, not only listening and speaking. Debaters practice the four language skills (Alasmari & Ahmed, 2013; Krieger, 2005; Rybold 2006). They read many sources when collecting arguments supporting their position. They discuss with other members in the team during the mock debate. During the scheduled debate, they practice listening and speaking in public. They also practice writing when they take notes during debates. Furthermore, they can be asked to write essays about topics using the arguments offered in debates. What is more important is that students learn to organize their language production and focus on such aspects as word choice, coherence, fluency, development of ideas and persuasion, which are all salient to oral and written communication. It is safe then to describe debating as a multi-task activity (Allison, 2002).

Students’ gains from debates are not limited to linguistic aspects. The activity can help students with high levels of communication apprehension. The main cause of communication apprehension is fear of self-revealing or negative evaluation (Horwitz, et al., 1986). With sustained participation in debates, students can gradually overcome their communication apprehension and gain confidence in their ability to speak in public. Debates can get students accustomed to public speaking and gradually overcome the fear of public speaking, which is the most common fear for FL students (Keaten & Kelly, 2000). Furthermore, debates can boost FL students’ motivation (Barkley, et al., 2005). Dörnyei (2001) identified 35 motivational strategies that teachers are advised to use to boost their students’ motivation. Here are some of these strategies:

• Create a pleasant and supportive atmosphere.
• Promote the development of group cohesiveness.
• Increase the students’ expectation of success in particular tasks and in learning in general.
• Make learning stimulating and enjoyable by breaking the monotony of classroom events.
• Make learning stimulating and enjoyable by increasing the attractiveness of tasks.
• Make learning stimulating and enjoyable by enlisting them as active task participants.
• Present and administer tasks in a motivating way.
• Provide students with regular experiences of success.
• Increase student motivation by promoting cooperation among the learners.
• Increase student motivation by actively promoting learner autonomy.
• Increase learner satisfaction.

The debate activity can meet all the previously mentioned motivation boosting strategies. Debates can create a pleasant and supportive atmosphere where group work and focus on learning replace individual work and focus on teaching. They can break the monotony of classroom events and assign students’ active roles. They can also increase learners’ satisfaction and promote their autonomy. In fact, learner autonomy is among the most important benefits of training on debates. Students do most of the work from preparation to delivery of debates in public. Ur (1996) identified characteristics of successful activities that are all met in the debate activity. First, the activity should urge students to talk a lot. In debates, students do most of the talking. Second, participation should be even. This is met in debates where all team members are assigned equal roles. Third, motivation should be high. Several studies explored students’ perceptions of the debate activity after interventions and students reported positive attitudes towards debating that they found both motivating and beneficial (Mumtaz & Latif, 2017; Williams et al., 2001).

Cinganotto (2019) asserts that debating promotes an array of skills, e.g., research and documentation of sources, oral interaction, argumentative skills, critical thinking skills, team work, conflict control, respect for others’ opinions, persuasion, and controlling emotions. Similarly, Barkley, et al., (2005) state that there are three benefits of debating for students. It can boost students’ motivation to speak the FL, foster their critical thinking, and develop their acceptance of friends’ opinions. Hering (2007) describes debate as a challenging and rewarding activity with a wide range of benefits for students. First, debate is fun as reported by thousands of students who competed in debate tournaments. Second, the activity allows for building friendships with teammates. Third, it enhances public speaking skills. Most people are uncomfortable with public speaking, but debate provides a nonthreatening atmosphere for practicing it. Fourth, it develops students’ analytical skills as they need to critically analyze the resolution in question. Fifth, it promotes research skills, as debaters need to refer to outside sources to document their position with arguments. Osborne (2005) asserts that students learn to think analytically and critically by developing positions in debates. Debates increase students’ responsibility for their learning and encourage them to tutor one another. (Firmin et al., 2007).

Debates have different formats and procedures which vary in complexity. Halvorsen (2005) identified a number of steps that seem easy to apply in the FL classroom. First, debatable topics should be selected and assigned to teams (critics and supporters). Second, students should be given an opportunity to research topics and collect supporting arguments. Third, students debate the topics in public where arguments and rebuttals are shared. Fourth, the teacher should summarize the opinions and views expressed by all sides and give an assessment of their strengths and weaknesses. Fifth, the teacher and other students may comment on how the position of a particular side can be presented more convincingly.

Research revealed positive effects of training on debates on several aspects of students’ learning. After an intervention that female medical sophomores at Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Saudi Arabia received, 69% of the participants agreed that debate was useful for improving their communication ability. Seventy-eight percent reported that participation in debates promoted their critical thinking. The debate sessions were also reported to help 61% of the participants to be familiar with argumentative topics. Furthermore, 71% agreed that debate promoted their ability to generate and interpret ideas. The majority of the participants reported that debates promoted their logical decision-making and communication skills (Mumtaz & Latif, 2017). A similar intervention had a strong effect on all aspects of critical thinking and speaking skills of EFL students (Iman, 2017).

Yulia and Aprilita (217) trained 12 EFL students at Baturaja University on the British Parliamentary Debate. Results of paired t-test revealed a significant improvement in the students’ speaking ability in favor of the posttest. In an action research (Fauzan, 2016) done in two cycles, trainees reached criteria of success in cycle 2. Trainee’s mean scores on the speaking test increased from 60 in the pretest to 69 and 75 in cycle 1 and cycle 2 respectively. That is, students’ level in speaking changed from ‘fair’ to ‘good’. The classroom atmosphere also showed positive changes. An experimental group of Nigerian EFL students who received training on debates outperformed a control group in the speaking ability (Elmiyati, 2019). Students reported positive perceptions about training.

In the Egyptian context, the debate activity had a positive impact on English vocabulary and decision making of 30 French department students at Al-Arish faculty of education (Ahmed, 2018). Sabbah (2015) used debates with English majors at University of Palestine. Significant differences in pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary were reported in the posttest. Finally, in a longitudinal study, Combs and Bourne (1994) trained senior-level students studying marketing on debating. After training, students reported perceived improvement in their oral communication and their classmates’. Additionally, 88.3% of the students rated the effectiveness of debates as high or excellent and 77.5% reported that they learned better compared to lecture-oriented classes.

Aspects of oral and written performance assessed in the present study

Because one of this study’s aims was to identify the relative effect of training in debates on students’ oral and written performance, the same assessment criteria were used with oral and written performance. A 4-point scale (from 1 to 4) was developed to rate students’ oral and written performance in terms of vocabulary, cohesion, fluency, relevance and adequacy of content and adequacy and strength of arguments. Organization was not included in the assessment criteria because its role is not as evident in speech as it is in written compositions. Students were not to give extended pieces of speech, but they were to give extended pieces of writing (essays). Thus, organization would apply to writing and not to speaking. For this reason, it was not used as a performance criterion, as the same criteria had to be used with the two modes of communication in order to identify the differential effect of training on both modes. Group debating performance was also assessed in terms of adequacy of supporting evidence, clarity and persuasiveness of presentations, speakers’ comprehensibility, and groups’ dynamic and effective delivery. This formative assessment aimed to rate group’s debating performance at different times of training (at debates 1, 5 and 8) in order to trace changes, if any, in students’ performance with progression in training.

Ideal L2 self

Motivation is a key factor in L2 and FL learning and one of the most influential sources of individual differences (Dörnyei, 2010). Gardner's (2001) socio-educational model has dominated research on motivation for decades. This model classifies motivation into integrative and instrumental, with integration being regarded as the orientation that leads to better language learning. A learner with integrative orientation desires to identify with the target language community (Gardner, 2001). However, the notion of integrativeness as identification with the target language community was later questioned. Gardner’s view of integrative motivation as desire to integrate with the target language group was based on studies conducted in the Canadian environment where the target language community existed in the same environment and learners had opportunities to communicate with its members. This does not apply to EFL settings where the FL is taught “without any direct contact” with members of the target language community (Dörnyei, 2009, p. 24). In such settings, the desire to be valued members of the target language community seems to be unrealistic. Furthermore, the idea of connecting English to a particular group or people is changing (Ushioda, 2013; Ushioda & Dörnyei, 2009) with English becoming a global language that cannot be associated with a particular community (Dörnyei, 2005). Because it has become a lingua franca, ownership of the English language is no longer restricted to a given community (Dörnyei, 2010; Ushioda & Dörnyei, 2009).

The criticism leveled against Gardner’s integrativeness was supported by research. Yashima (2000) found that Japanese college students desired to learn English as a lingua franca to interact with various communities other than the members of Anglo-American culture, i.e., learners did not desire to be identified with the target language groups. In many other studies, Japanese university students showed positive attitude toward the target language community, but not in terms of assimilating into them (Irie, 2003). In an attempt to propose a more realistic and viable model of motivation, Dörnyei (2009) developed his L2 motivational self-system which is based on Gardner’s (2001) revised model of motivation, Ushioda’s (2001) model and Deci and Ryan’s (2002) self-determination theory. Dörnyei’s model is also rooted in two psychological theories: The Theory of Possible Selves (Markus & Nurius, 1986) and the Discrepancy Theory (Higgins, 1998). The underlying idea of the system is that “the motivationally important identifications are not with others but with future versions of the self” (Lamb, 2013, p. 1000).

Possible selves pertain to how individuals see themselves in the future (Markus & Nurius, 1986). They include the selves we wish to become and the selves we wish to avoid. Higgins (1987) presented two similar possible selves: ideal self and ought-to self. The self we ourselves would like to become is the ideal shelf, whereas the self we would like to become to meet others’ expectations is ought-to self like parents. Thus, a learner may be motivated to learn the language to realize the desired self or to avoid the dreaded self. The desire to move from current self to ideal L2 self is what shapes motivation to learn a language (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015; Williams et al., 2016).

Influenced by the previously mentioned visualizations, Dörnyei’s L2 motivational self-system shifted the focus of integration from an external community to the learner’s inner self-concept (Ushioda & Dörnyei, 2009). Dörnyei’s motivational self system is based on three main components. These are ideal L2 self, ought-to L2 self and L2 learning experience. The ideal L2 self, which is one of the present study’s dependent variables, refers to “the attributes that someone would ideally like to possess” (Dörnyei, 2010, p. 78). In other words, it refers to a learner’s internal image of a target language user who he or she hopes to become in the future. The ideal self of imagining oneself as someone who speaks an L2 can be a highly motivating factor to learn that language (Dörnyei, 2010; Dörnyei & Chan, 2013). An insufficient level of ideal L2 self can be one of the reasons why a learner does not have high levels of L2 motivation (Dörnyei, 2014). It is obvious that this self is similar to Gardner’s integrative motivation, but integration is with one’s desired self, not with an external community (Ibrayeva & Fuller (2014). This closeness was confirmed in a study conducted on EFL learners in Japan, China, and Iran (Taguchi et al., 2009) where the ideal L2 self and integrativeness correlated positively in all three samples.

Communication apprehension

McCroskey (1984) defines communication apprehension as “an individual’s level of fear or anxiety associated with either real or anticipated oral communication with another person or persons” (p. 13. MacIntyre (1995) suggests that “anxiety becomes reliably associated with any situation involving the second language”. Once established, this association leads students to become anxious at the prospect of second language learning or communication” (p. 92). Researchers assert that communication apprehension can manifest itself as a permanent personality trait or it may arise in response to particular situations (Pappamihiel, 2002). Individuals who have what is called trait communication apprehension tend to feel anxious in any and all contexts. Those suffering from state or situational communication apprehension feel tense only in given contexts like conversing in a FL. The kind of communication apprehension experienced in the language classroom is speculated to be state rather than trait anxiety (Ganshow et al., 1994). Daly (1991), for instance, regards communication apprehension as situational apprehension experienced due to characteristics of the speaking situation, e.g., evaluation, novelty and ambiguity.

There is a consensus that speaking is the most anxiety provoking language skill (Kitano, 2001; Horwitz, et al., 1986; MacIntyre & Gardner 1991; Young, 1986) and this why we soon think of anxiety over speaking whenever we hear the term language anxiety. Young (1992) surveyed the opinion of four renowned language teaching experts - Krashen, Hadley, Terrell, and Rardin - about the language skill they believed caused the most anxiety. They all agreed that speaking was the most anxiety provoking language skill. Fear of self-revelation and fear of negative evaluation, defined as “apprehension about others’ evaluations, avoidance of evaluative situations, and the expectation that others would evaluate oneself negatively” (Horwitz, et al., 1986, p. 128), are two main sources of communication apprehension. Horwitz et al. (1986) attribute these fears to the fact that the teacher, the only fluent speaker in the EFL classroom, is required to continually evaluate students who may also be sensitive to real or imagined evaluations of their peers. This explains the deep self-consciousness students feel “when asked to risk revealing themselves by speaking the foreign language in the presence of other people”.

Related to these fears is a fear of making mistakes. According to Shumin (1997), the fear of making mistakes, which EFL students consider a public display of ignorance, is the explanation for their inability to speak English without hesitation. EFL students avoid oral communication because they fear losing face if the say something stupid. What can also cause communication apprehension is lack of control of the communicative situation (McCroskey, 1987). Communication apprehension has affective, cognitive and behavioral components. The affective component encompasses the feelings of uneasiness and fear. The cognitive component is manifested in such effects as fear of failure and a reduced ability to process information. Inhibited actions and unwillingness to communicate are among the behavioral manifestations of anxiety. MacIntyre (1995) asserts that communication apprehension impairs performance by dividing the student’s attention, “Language learning is a cognitive activity that relies on encoding, storage and retrieval, and anxiety can interfere with each of these by creating a divided attention scenario for anxious students…Anxious students are focused on both the task at hand and their reactions to it” (p. 96).

Persons who are communicatively apprehensive tend to avoid communication because of their negative experiences from anxiety that affect their performance. They lack willingness to communicate (Heidari et al., 2017). Symptoms of communication apprehension include freezing in class, going blank when asked to talk in public, nervousness, trembling, sweating, etc. Witt and Behnke (2006) found that the level of communication apprehension had a profound impact on learners’ oral communication, social skills, and self-esteem. Communication apprehension has adverse effects on EFL learners’ speaking proficiency because apprehensive learners abstain from participating in speaking activities and do whatever possible to avoid communication (Ahadzadeh et al., 2015; Ilias et al., 2013).

Method

Participants

An intact group of 32 sixth level male EFL students at Thadiq College of Sciences and Humanities, Shaqra University, KSA participated in the study. They were similar in terms of the length of their language experience and exposure to the language. All participants were males because male and female Saudi students are taught in separate colleges. The English program that students study comprises skill courses, literary courses, theoretical and applied linguistics courses and general courses. Prior to the sixth level, students take three speaking courses (no speaking courses are included in the remaining two levels): Listening and Speaking 1 (Eng 112) in the first level, Listening and Speaking 2 (Eng 122) in the second level and Speech Styles (Eng 412) in the fifth level. In Eng 112 and Eng 122, students answer questions on listening material and discuss a topic related to it. In Eng 412, they are taught to present speeches. Students are not trained on debating in any of these courses. As to writing, students take three courses: Writing 1 (Eng 114) in the second level, Writing 2 (Eng 213) in the third level, Essay Writing (Eng 312) in the fourth level. There is one more writing course they will take in the seventh level (Advanced Writing, Eng 413) where they are trained on argumentative writing. The participants received the proposed training on debates in the first term of the academic year 2020. For the intervention, they were divided into eight groups, each having four students.

Instruments

The speaking test

A debatable issue was used for the speaking pretest and posttest (Are you for or against early marriage?). Individually, students were asked to take one side of the issue and defend it with as many arguments as they could. They were given three minutes to prepare for answers. A researcher-developed four-point scale was employed to rate students' responses in terms of vocabulary, cohesion, fluency, relevance and adequacy of content, and adequacy and strength of arguments (See Appendix). The speaking test with the rating scale was content validated by three specialists who were asked to comment on whether (1) the questions could elicit sufficient speech samples that could be used to assess students’ speaking proficiency and (2) the rating scale was appropriate.

Students’ responses were rated by two assistant professors based on the researcher-developed rating scale. Raters attended the testing sessions and assessed students independently. Correlations between the two raters’ scores of students’ responses in the pretest and posttest were as follows: vocabulary (pre-test r=0.77; post-test r=0.76), cohesion (pre-test r=0.81; post-test r=0.76), fluency (pre-test r=0.71; post-test r=0.63), relevance and adequacy of content (pre-test r=0.70; post-test r=0.84), and adequacy and strength of arguments (pre-test r=0.78; post-test r=0.68). All correlations were significant at the 0.01 level.

Furthermore, the two raters assessed group debating performance in the first, fifth, and eighth debates for every group. The aim of that procedure was to explore changes in students’ group performance with progression in training. For this type of assessment, raters were asked to give groups a score from 1 to 5 in terms of four criteria: adequacy of supporting evidence, clarity and persuasiveness of presentations, speakers’ comprehensibility, and groups’ dynamic and effective delivery. These aspects relate to the performance of groups, not individuals, which need to be assessed and used to judge the effectiveness of training on debates (Oros, 2007).

The writing test

A debatable issue was used for the writing pretest and post-test (Are you for or against replacing traditional education with E-education?). Students were asked to take one side of the issue and defend it with as many arguments as they could. Students’ written compositions were assessed by the same two assistant professors based on the same rating scale used to assess their oral productions. Correlations between the two raters’ scores of students’ responses in the pre-test and post-test were as follows: vocabulary (pre-test r=0.56; post-test r=0.62), cohesion (pre-test r=0.61; post-test r=0.69), fluency (pre-test r=0.60; post-test r=0.52), relevance and adequacy of content (pre-test r=0.63; post-test r=0.79), and adequacy and strength of arguments (pre-test r=0.74; post-test r=0.64). All correlations were significant at the 0.01 level.

The questionnaire

An 18-item questionnaire was used to assess students’ ideal L2 self and communication apprehension. The ideal L2 self-included ten items taken from the measure developed by Dörnyei and Taguchi (2010). The communication apprehension part included eight items taken from FLCAS (Horwitz et al., 1986). The questionnaire was administered to students in their native language, so language would not interfere with results. For this purpose, the questionnaire was translated into Arabic by the author. Back-translation into English was then used to validate the Arabic version of the questionnaire. The questionnaire was given to students before and after the intervention. It yielded good Alpha Cronbach reliability indices in the two applications. Reliability coefficients of the before-intervention application were 0.91 and 0.97 for ideal L2 self and communication apprehension respectively. The after-intervention application reliability coefficients were 0.93 and 0.94 for ideal L2 self and communication apprehension respectively. These high values indicated that the questionnaire was reliable.

The intervention

The intervention was implemented in the first term of the academic year 2020. The 32 students were divided into eight groups of four students each. One student from each group was appointed as the group’s coordinator. Four 40-minute debate sessions were held in two separate days per week, i.e., four groups per day. This way, there were 32 debates throughout the treatment with every group doing eight debates and writing eight argumentative essays. In sessions where they were no debaters, students attended debates as audience who participated by judging the strength of the arguments offered by debating groups. In the first session students were shown videotaped debates to get an idea about the notion and procedure of debating. The author commented on the videotaped debates and told students about arguments and counter-arguments. He explained to them how to use the internet to search for arguments to support their position in debates. He also told them about the importance of holding mock debates to prepare for scheduled debates. Coordinators were told that they were to assign arguments to peers in mock debates and organize their contributions during scheduled debates.

Every week four issues were presented and assigned to the eight groups. For each debate, a group was assigned as the affirmative side and the other the negative side based on their own choice. Groups were then asked to research the issue to collect data and arguments to support their position. They were also told to hold mock debates before the scheduled debates to discuss arguments and organize contributions during debates through the mediation of coordinators. During scheduled debates, the author organized the activity following these steps:

1. The issue was presented to the debaters and the audience.
2. The affirmative position presented their first argument. One or more than one student presented the first argument and evidence(s) supporting it.
3. The negative position rebutted with counter-arguments and supports.
4. The procedure in (2) and (3) was repeated for all arguments and counter-arguments.
5. Each group’s coordinator summed up the arguments of his group.
6. Students from the audience were asked to voice their opinion about which group was more convincing.
7. Based on the feedback given by the audience, a group was nominated as winner.
8. Debaters were asked to write an essay about the issue and submit it within three days.
9. After announcing the first writing assignment, the author explained to the students how to organize an argumentative essay using either the block pattern or the point-by-point pattern. The author also gave them a model essay for each pattern.
10. Students’ essays were edited by the author and given back to students so that they could benefit from the feedback.

Results

The effect of training on group debating performance

Group debating performance was assessed by the averages of the two raters’ scores of the first, fifth, and eighth debates in order to find out if there was improvement in debating performance with progression in training. These changes are illustrated in Figure 1.

Criterion 1: adequacy of supporting evidence; Criterion 2: clarity and persuasiveness of presentations;Criterion 3: speakers’ comprehensibility; Criterion 4: groups’ dynamic and effective delivery

Figure 1: Improvement in group debating performance

It is clear from Figure 1 that there was improvement in group debating performance from the first, fifth to the eighth debates in the four criteria: Adequacy of supporting evidence, clarity and persuasiveness of presentations, speakers’ comprehensibility, and groups’ dynamic and effective delivery. Three observations can be made about the achieved improvement. First, there were variations in the amount of improvement achieved by the various groups, with all groups achieving progressive improvement in all four criteria. Second, the highest improvement in all four criteria was in the eighth debate. This indicates that group performance increased with progression in training. Third, the lowest improvement was in groups’ dynamic and effective delivery. It seems that this aspect of debating performance needs more time and familiarity with the activity on the part of students.

The effect of training on students’ oral performance

The paired samples t-test was used to explore differences between students’ oral performance before and after intervention. These data are

Table 1: The effect of training on students’ oral performance

It can be observed from Table 1 that students made statistically significant improvement in all five criteria of oral performance from pretest to posttest. This indicates that training had a positive effect on students’ oral performance.

The effect of training on students’ written performance

To explore differences in students’ written performance from pretest to posttest, the paired samples t-test was computed; the results are shown in Table 2.

Table 2: The effect of training on students’ written performance

It is clear from Table 2 that students made statistically significant improvement in all five criteria of written performance from pretest to posttest. This means that training improved students’ written performance.

The relative effect of training on students’ oral and written performance

To identify if there were significant differences in the effect of training on students’ oral and written performance, the independent samples’ t-test was first computed for students’ oral and written performance in the pretests. These results are presented in Table 3.

Table 3: Differences between students’ oral and written performance in the pretests

Data in Table 3 shows that there were no significant differences between students’ oral and written performance in the pretests in any of the five criteria of assessment or total performance. That is, students’ oral and written performance in the pretests was homogeneous.

The independent samples t-test was then computed for students’ oral and written performance in the posttests to explore the differential effect, if any, of training on students’ oral and written performance. These results are presented in Table 4.

Table 4: Differences between students’ oral and written performance in the posttests

Data in Table 4 reveals that there were no significant differences between students’ oral and written performance in the posttests in terms of coherence, relevance, and adequacy of content. However, significant differences were found between students’ oral and written performance in the posttests in terms vocabulary, fluency, adequacy and strength of arguments, and total performance in favour of written performance. It means that the training affected written performance significantly higher than it did with oral performance.

The effect of training on students’ ideal L2 self

The effect of training on students’ ideal L2 self was explored by computing the paired samples t-test for their scores on the before-intervention and after-intervention application of the questionnaire assessing ideal L2 self. Table 5 lists these results.

Table 5: Differences between students’ ideal L2 self before and after the intervention

It is obvious from Table 5 that there was significant improvement in students’ ideal L2 self from pretest to posttest. Students improved significantly in all items and the total score. This indicates that training students on debates had a positive reflection on their ideal L2 self.

The effect of training on students’ communication apprehension

The effect of training on students’ communication apprehension was explored by computing the paired samples t-test for their scores on the before-intervention and after-treatment application of the questionnaire assessing communication apprehension. Table 6 lists these results.

Table 6: Differences between students’ communication apprehension before and after the intervention

From Table 6, it is clear that there was significant reduction in students’ communication apprehension in terms of individual items and the total score. That is, training on debates significantly reduced students’ communication apprehension.

Discussion

Results of this study revealed that training EFL students on debates enhances their oral performance in terms of vocabulary, cohesion, fluency, relevance and adequacy of content, and adequacy and strength of arguments. This finding is in line with all previous studies (e.g., Elmiyati, 2019; Fauzan, 20016; Iman, 2017; Mumtaz & Latif, 2017; Sabbah, 2015; Yulia & Aprilita, 2017). In fact, speaking is the language skill most addressed by the debate activity. Students participate in discussions during mock and scheduled debates. They learn how to defend their positions with arguments. Furthermore, training students on debates has been reported to promote their critical thinking skills, which are essential to all language skills, especially speaking. Participation in debates helps students to gradually get rid of their fear about speaking in public. With perceived feelings of self-efficacy acquired through sustained participation in activities like debates, students focus only on the task at hand. They do not approach the task with what MacIntyre (1995) calls “a divided attention scenario” that causes anxious students to focus on both the task and their reactions to it (p. 96). The debating activity is highly motivating. Students in the present study liked the idea of debating issues and were very enthusiastic in the debate sessions.

Of course, researching issues to collect data and arguments expands students’ vocabulary. When much of this vocabulary is used repeatedly, it becomes productive, which helps learners to build up a repository of vocabulary that they use in subsequent interactions. In this respect, Ahmed (2018) reported a positive effect of training EFL students in debates on their vocabulary acquisition. Another important reason why training students in debates improves their oral performance is that students have the opportunity to talk a lot during mock and scheduled debates. This does not apply to whole-class speaking activities where the possibility to talk is not that high. Students talk in their groups, trying to negotiate meaning and convince each other. Training not only improved individual students’ oral performance, but also improved their group debating performance in terms of adequacy of supporting evidence, clarity and persuasiveness of presentations, speakers’ comprehensibility, and groups’ dynamic and effective delivery. This seems natural as groups exhibited better group dynamics with progression in training.

The training that students received also improved their written performance. This finding is consistent with some researchers’ theoretical claims. Moore and Parker (2004) assert that with enhanced critical thinking achieved through participation in debates, students learn to organize their thoughts, state their claims clearly and avoid ineffective and counterproductive language. Cotton (2002 as cited in Iwamoto, 2010) contends that the skills that students improve through debating apply to writing as they apply to speaking. That is, students can employ the skills of stating arguments clearly and providing meaningful support points in both modes of communication. This topic has not received much research attention, with most emphasis placed on the effect of debating on speaking. However, this finding is consistent with the few studies that explored the effect of debating on EFL writing. Kayashima (2009 as cited in Iwamoto, 2010) used debates in an essay writing class for university freshmen. After training, students were better at stating their theses clearly and supporting them with well-grounded arguments. Kimura (1998) compared the written performance of two university writing classes, one of which was control group that had traditional writing practices such as grammar and translation, and the other was the experimental group that received training on debates. Comparing the essays written by both groups, Kimura reported that the experimental group students’ essays were significantly better in argument, organization, and communicative quality.

Surprisingly, training in the present study had significantly stronger effect on students’ writing than on their speaking. It is surprising because what comes to mind when the word debate is mentioned is speaking, not writing. An explanation for this is that writing and speaking are the two main modes of communication, but students seem to be more privileged in writing where they are free from the fear of being exposed to others. For this reason, they can be more focused on the writing task. In the writing task, they may have a better chance to use appropriate vocabulary, cohesive devices, and development of ideas. Furthermore, students wrote essays on debate issues after being taught how to organize an argumentative essay using the block pattern or the point-by-point pattern. Debates provided them with vocabulary and ideas. In this sense, debates can be said to serve as a pre-writing activity. Students wrote essays with sufficient ideas in mind and sense of how to organize essays and develop ideas. Furthermore, students received written and sometimes oral feedback on their essays. This formative feedback might have contributed to the improvement of students’ written performance.

Training EFL students on debates in the present study also improved their ideal L2 self. A number of previous studies reported a positive effect of training students on debates on their intrinsic motivation (Field, 2017; Mumtaz & Latif, 2017; Ochoa et al., 2016). For instance, Ecuadorian EFL Students and teachers who participated in the study conducted by Ochoa, et al. (2016) reported communicative activities as highly motivating because they enhance fluency, pronunciation, and performance in the use of English in a realistic context. The debate activity includes eleven of the 35 motivational strategies that Dörnyei (2001) proposed for boosting students’ motivation, e.g., promoting the development of group cohesiveness, making learning stimulating and enjoyable by breaking the monotony of classroom events, making learning stimulating and enjoyable by increasing the attractiveness of tasks, making learning stimulating and enjoyable by enlisting students as active task participants, increasing student motivation by promoting cooperation among the learners, and increasing motivation by actively promoting learner autonomy. Students’ motivation increases when they experience success (Dörnyei, 2001). According to Bandura (1997), students’ motivation increases when they experience success in their own achievements or notice it in others’ achievements. It was obvious during the intervention that students’ motivation increased with progression in training. During their interactions with the author, they gave favorable comments about the activity that broke monotony in the classroom.

Finally, results showed that students reduced their communication apprehension significantly after the intervention. This finding is consistent with previous studies where communicative activities like debate reduced students’ communication apprehension or speaking anxiety (Al-Duwaile, 2015; Anthony et al,, 2017; Setiawan, 2006). Tutyandari (2005) attributed FL learners’ communication apprehension and unwillingness to communicate to their lack of self-confidence or prior knowledge about topics. Thus, she recommended that teachers brainstorm students’ prior knowledge by questions relevant to discussion topics and give them tasks in small groups. Anthony et al. (2017) found that students with low critical thinking ability were more anxious than students whose critical thinking was moderate or high. At the beginning of the debate-based training they delivered to a group of FL students, students were very anxious about participation in the activity, but this anxiety decreased with progression with the treatment. Yaseen (2018) contended that students fear oral communication because they are afraid of committing errors in front of their peers and asserted that this fear can be dissipated by involving students in interactive tasks like debates. Yaseen also recommended that teachers adopt group work to help anxious students to gradually get rid of their anxiety.

Researchers attribute communication apprehension to a number of factors, e.g., fear of public speaking and negative evaluation and lack of linguistic competence. Training students in debates can help them to gradually overcome their fears and gain confidence in speaking ability. Debates can get students accustomed to public speaking and gradually overcome the fear of public speaking, which is the most common fear for FL students (Keaten & Kelly, 2000). Furthermore, by researching issues before debating them, students come to the activity linguistically and psychologically prepared. In fact, the debate activity can help students overcome linguistic and affective factors causing communication apprehension. Reduction of communication apprehension, which was found to be negatively connected to oral performance (Park & Lee, 2005), can result in a higher willingness to communicate. This can partly explain the significant improvement that participants of this study attained in their oral and written performance.

Conclusion and Implications

Training EFL students on debating in the present study proved to significantly enhance their oral and written performance, improve their ideal L2 self and reduce their communication apprehension. It was also found to have stronger effect on writing than on speaking. Teachers are therefore advised to use debates in their EFL classrooms. Debates should not be used as an extracurricular activity, but should be incorporated in the curriculum. Incorporation of debates in the curriculum is important, so the use of debates is not left to the teacher’s preference. In fact, debates can be used as an approach to the integrative teaching of the four main language skills. With a course designed around debates, students can first listen to and read texts. Then they can be assigned to debate relevant issues in writing and speech. The use of activities like debates is crucial in EFL settings where students cannot practice the FL outside the classroom. Not only can debates be used in skill-based courses, but they can also be used in academic areas like literature. This can enhance students’ understanding of the academic content and at the same time promote their communicative ability.

References

Ahadzadeh, A. S., Sharif, S. P., Wei, K. K. & Emami, H. (2015). Narcissism, self-esteem, communication apprehension, and need for affiliation: difference between social networking site users and non-users. Taylor's Business Review (TBR), 4(2). https://doi.org/10.7603/s40932-014-0002-z

Ahmed, A. E. (2018). The impact of debate strategy on developing English vocabulary and decision making of French department students at Al-Arish Faculty of Education. Journal of Scientific Research in Education, 19(1), 657-697. https://dx.doi.org/10.21608/jsre.2018.7958

Alasmari, A & Ahmed, S. (2013) Using debate in EFL classes. English Language Teaching, 6(1), 147-152. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n1p147

Al-Duwaile, D. A. (2015). The effectiveness of using specific teaching strategies in reducing EFL learners’ speaking anxiety. [Unpublished Master’s thesis]. Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic University. https://awej.org/images/Theseanddissertation/DanahAlDuwaile/thesis.pdf.pdf

Al-Ghamari, T. (2004). Integrating writing with other skills. Muscat Message, 78- 81.

Allison, S. (2002). Debating with talented and gifted students. School libraries in Canada, 22(1), 13-14.

Al-Nasser, A. S. (2015). Problems of English language acquisition in Saudi Arabia: An Exploratory-cum-remedial study. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(8), 1612-1619. http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0508.10

Anthony, N. Z. A., Othman, M., & Lilliati, I. (2017). Anxiety and critical thinking in debate. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 7(4), 428-439. http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v7-i14/3679

Bailey, K. (2003). Speaking. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Practical English language teaching (pp. 47-66), McGraw-Hill.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Worth Publishers.

Barkley, E. F., Major, C. H., & Cross, P. (2005). Collaborative learning techniques: A handbook for college faculty. Jossey-Bass.

Cheng, Y.-S. (2002). Factors associated with foreign language anxiety. Foreign Language Annals, 35(6), 647-656. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2002.tb01903.x

Cinganotto, L. (2019). Debate as a teaching strategy for language learning. Lingue Linguaggi, 30, 107-125. https://doi.org/10.1285/i22390359v30p107

Combs, H. W., & Bourne, S. G. (1994). The renaissance of educational debate: Results of a five-year study of the use of debate in business education. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 5(1), 57-67.

Daly, J. A. (1991). Understanding communication apprehension: An introduction for language educators. In E. K. Horwitz & D. J. Young (Eds.), Language Anxiety: From theory and research to classroom implications (pp. 3-13). Prentice Hall.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of self-determination. University of Rochester Press.

Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge University Press.

Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum

Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 Motivational Self System. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 9-42). Multilingual Matters.

Dörnyei, Z. (2010). Researching motivation: From integrativeness to the ideal L2 self. In S. Hunston & D. Oakey (Eds.), Introducing applied linguistics: Concepts and skills (pp. 74-83). Routledge.

Dörnyei, Z. (2014). Motivation in second language learning. In M. Celce-Murcia, D. M. Brinton, & M. A. Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 518-531). National Geographic Learning/Cengage Learning.

Dörnyei, Z., & Chan, L. (2013). Motivation and vision: An analysis of future L2 self-images, sensory styles, and imagery capacity across two target languages. Language Learning, 63(3), 437-462. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12005

Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited. Routledge.

Dörnyei, Z., & Taguchi, T. (2010). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration, and processing (2^nd ed.). Routledge.

Ericson, J. M., Murphy, J. J., & Zeuschner, R, B. (2003). The debater’s guide. (3^rd ed.). Southern Illinois University Press.

Elmiyati, E. (2019). Improving students’ speaking ability through debate in the classroom (A case study for students at second year students of SMAN 3 Kota Bima in academic year 2017/2018). International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding, 6(1), 229-239. https://doi.org/10.18415/ijmmu.v6i1.561

Fageeh, A. I. (2011). EFL learners’ use of blogging for developing writing skills and enhancing attitudes towards English learning: An exploratory study. Journal of Language and Literature, 2(1), 31-48.

Fauzan, U. (2016). Enhancing speaking ability of EFL students through debate and peer assessment. EFL Journal, 1(1), 49-57. http://dx.doi.org/10.21462/eflj.v1i1.8

Field, K. (2017). Debating our way toward stronger thinking. Gifted Child Today, 40(3), 144-153. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217517707235

Firmin, M. W., Vaughn, A., Dye, A. (2007). Using debate to maximize learning potential: A case study. Journal of College Teaching and Learning 4(1), 19-32. https://doi.org/10.19030/tlc.v4i1.1635

Ganschow, L., Sparks, R. L., Anderson, R., Javorshy, J., Skinner, S. & Patton, J. (1994). Differences in language performance among high-, average-, and low-anxious college foreign language learners. The Modern Language Journal, 78(1), 41-55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1994.tb02013.x

Gardner, R. C. (2001). Integrative motivation and second language acquisition. In Z. Dörnyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition (pp. 1-19). University of Hawai'i.

Halvorsen, A. (2005). Incorporating critical thinking skills development into ESL/EFL course. The Internet TESL Journal, 9(3). http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Halvorsen-CriticalThinking.html

Heidari, F., Moradian, N., & Arani, D. K. (2017). Investigating the relationship between willingness to communicate with teacher communication behavior and learning style among Iranian EAP students. The Asian ESP Journal, 13(1), 77-109. https://www.elejournals.com/1550/2017/asian-esp-journal/asian-esp-journal-volume-13-issue-1-june-2017

Hering, T. (2007). Learning classic debate: A student’s guide to classic debate competition. https://cdn4.sportngin.com/attachments/document/0108/6997/Learning_Classic_Debate.pdf

Higgins, E. (1987) Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94(3), 319-340. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.94.3.319

Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 30, 1-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60381-0

Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 125-132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1986.tb05256.x

Ibrayeva, L., & Fuller, K. (2014). The L2 motivational self system among Kazakh learners of ESP. The Asian ESP Journal, 10(2), 40-63. https://www.elejournals.com/406/2014/asian-esp-journal/asian-esp-volume-10-issue-2-december-2014

Ilias, A., Razak, M., & Yunus, N. (2013). Communication apprehension (CA): A case of accounting students. International Journal of Independent Research and Studies - IJIRS 2(1), 16-27

Iman, J. N. (2017). Debate instruction in EFL classroom: impacts on the critical thinking and speaking skill. International Journal of Instruction, 10(4), 87-108. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2017.1046a

Irie, K. (2003). What do we know about the language learning motivation of university students in Japan? Some patterns in survey studies. JALT Journal, 25(1), 86-100. https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTJJ25.1-4

Iwamoto, N. (2010). The use of debate in English writing class. JAELL.

Keaten, J. A. , & Kelly, L. (2000). Reticence: An affirmation and revision. Communication Education, 49(2), 165-177. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520009379203

Kimura, M. (1998). Exploring relationships between oral and written communication: How speaking effects writing?. Eibeibinka: Studies in English Language, Literature and Culture, 28. 23-35. https://doi.org/10.20802/eibeibunka.28.0_23

Kitano, K. (2001). Anxiety in the college Japanese language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 85(4), 549-566. https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00125

Kouroago, P. (1993). Language learning strategies in input-poor environments. System, 12(2), 165-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(93)90039-J

Krieger, D. (2005). Teaching debate to ESL students: a six-class unit. The Internet TESL Journal, 6(2). http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Krieger-Debate.html

Kroll, B. (2003). Exploring the dynamics of second language writing. Cambridge University Press.

Lamb, M. (2013). A self system perspective on young adolescents’ motivation to learn English in urban and rural settings. Language Learning, 62(4), 997–1023. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00719.x

Mumtaz, S., & Latif, R. (2017). Learning through debate during problem-based learning: An active learning strategy. Advances in Physiology Education, 41, 390-394. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00157.2016

MacIntyre, P. D. (1995). How does anxiety affect second language learning? A reply to Sparks and Ganschow. The Modern Language Journal, 79(1), 90-99. https://doi.org/10.2307/329395

MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1991). Methods and results in the study of anxiety and language learning: A review of literature. Language Learning, 41(1), 85-117. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1991.tb00677.x

Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41(9), 954-969. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.9.954

Martin, M., Moran, K. A., & Harrison K. (2009). Utilizing debates in athletic training education. International Journal of Athletic Therapy and Training, 14(1), 31-34. https://doi.org/10.1123/att.14.1.31

McCroskey, J. C. (1984). The communication apprehension perspective. In J. A. Daly & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.). Avoiding communication: Shyness, reticence, and communication apprehension (pp. 13-38). Sage.

McCroskey, J. C. (1987). Willingness to communicate. In J. C. McCroskey & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Personality and interpersonal communication(pp. 129-156). Sage.

Moore, B. N., & Parker, R. (2004). Critical Thinking. McGraw Hill.

Negari, G. M., & Rezaabadi, O. T. (2012). Too nervous to write? The relationship between anxiety and EFL writing. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(12), 2578-2586. https://doi.org/10.4304/TPLS.2.12.2578-2586

Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. Heinle & Heinle.

Ochoa, C., Cabrera, P., Quiñónez, A., Castillo, L.,& González, P. (2016). The effect of communicative activities on EFL learners’ motivation: A case of students in the Amazon region of Ecuador. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 18(2), 39-48. https://doi.org/10.14483/calj.v18n2.10018

Oros, A. L. (2007). Let's debate: Active learning encourages student participation and critical thinking. Journal of Political Science Education, 3(3), 293-311. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512160701558273

Osborne, A. (2005). Debate and student development in the history classroom. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 103, 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.202

Pappamihiel, N. E. (2002). English as a second language students and English language anxiety: Issues in the mainstream classroom. Research in the Teaching of English, 36(3), 327-355. https://library.ncte.org/journals/rte/issues/v36-3/1750

Park, H., & Lee, A. (2005). L2 learners’ anxiety, self-confidence and oral of performance. Proceedings of the 10^th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics (PAAL). (p. 107). http://www.paaljapan.org/resources/proceedings/PAAL10/pdfs/hyesook.pdf

Richards, J. (2008). Second language teacher education today. RELC Journal, 39(2), 158-177. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0033688208092182

Rico, L. (2014). Identifying factors causing difficulties to productive skills among foreign languages learners. Opening Writing Doors Journal, 11(1), 65-86.

Rybold, G. (2006). Speaking, listening and understanding. debate for Nonnative-English speakers. International Debate Education Association.

Sabbah, S. R. M. (2015). The effectiveness of using debates in developing speaking skills among English majors at University of Palestine[Unpublished masters thesis]. University of Palestine. http://dspace.alazhar.edu.ps/xmlui/handle/123456789/2521

Setiawan, R. (2006). Debate as a means to improve communication strategy. Jurnal ilmu-ilmu Sosial, 2(1), 1858-2265.

Taguchi, T., Magid, M., & Papi, M. (2009). The L2 motivational self-system among Japanese, Chinese and Iranian learners of English: A comparative study. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 66-97). Multilingual Matters.

Tangpermpoon, T. (2008). Integrated approaches to improve students’ writing skills for English major students. ABAC Journal, 28(2). http://www.assumptionjournal.au.edu/index.php/abacjournal/article/view/539/485

Tutyandari, C. (2005). Breaking the silence of the students in an English language class [Conference session] 53rd TEFLIN International conference, Yogyakarta, Indonesia. https://lib.atmajaya.ac.id/default.aspx?tabID=61&id=285888&src=a

Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching: Practice and theory. Cambridge University Press.

Ushioda, E. (2001). Language learning at university: Exploring the role of motivational thinking. In Z. Dörnyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language learning (pp. 91-124). University of Hawaii Press.

Ushioda, E. (2013). Motivation and ELT: Global issues and local concerns. In Ushioda, E. (Ed.), International perspectives on motivation(pp.1-17). Palgrave. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137000873_1

Ushioda, E., & Dörnyei, Z. (2009). Motivation, language identities and the L2 self: A Theoretical Overview. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 1-8). Multilingual Matters.

Williams, D., McGee, B., & Worth, D. (2001). University student perceptions of the efficacy of debate participation: An empirical investigation. Argumentation & Advocacy, 37(4), 198-209. https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2001.11951670

Williams, J. (2006). Combining communication strategies and vocabulary development. The Internet TESL Journal, 12(2).http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Williams-CommunicationStrategies.html

Williams, M., Mercer, S., & Ryan, S. (2016). Exploring psychology in language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.

Witt, P. L., & Behnke, R. R. (2006). Anticipatory speech anxiety as a function of public speaking assignment type. Communication Education, 55(2), 167-177. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520600566074

Yaseen, N. B. (2018). Factors negatively affecting EFL students’ speaking skills at Jordanian private schools. [Unpublished master’s thesis], Middle East University.

Yashima, T. (2000). Orientations and motivation in foreign language learning: A study of Japanese college students. JACET Bulletin, 31, 121-133. https://dl.ndl.go.jp/view/download/digidepo_10501315_po_ART0004891483.pdf?contentNo=1&alternativeNo=

Young, D. J. (1986). The relationship between anxiety and foreign language oral proficiency ratings. Foreign Language Annals, 19(5), 439-445. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1986.tb01032.x

Young, D. (1992). Language anxiety from the foreign language specialist's perspective: Interviews with Krashen, Omaggio Hadley, Terrell, and Rardin. Foreign Language Annals, 25(2), 157-172. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1992.tb00524.x

Yulia, H., & Aprilita, C. (2017). The implementation of British parliamentary debate style training to improve second semester student’s speaking ability at English education study program of Baturaja University. International Journal of English Language and Teaching, 1(1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.22437/ijolte.v1i1.4585