Four considerations important in devising the curriculum for a Debates and Public Speaking course are 1) the forms of speaking (eg, interview, or presentation), 2) the topics spoken about (eg,Students shouldn't own cars), 3) assessment of the speaking, and perhaps most importantly, 4) the students who are speaking.
1) Speaking subgenres
It would be my intention to do debates, roundtable discussions, interviews, individual presentations, and public meetings.
I have been very successful with debate competitions each week in my Speaking classes over the last 4 years at National United University, and I don't know why. The debaters spoke English to each other all the time, something I have not been able to get them consistently to do in Conversation classes, where my attempts to set up conversation competitions have not been successful. Students don't like to do activities which tell them that their English is not as good as their partner's, or that their partner's English is not as good as theirs, upsetting their (or others') views of their English ability. For this reason, it is hard to understand the enthusiasm with which they approached the debates. Perhaps it is because they are focusing on the topic, and forgetting that it is a competition with an outcome determined by their ability as English speakers. Their willingness to debate in English may not have been my doing, but in any case it has been gratifying.
For 25-45 minutes each week over the course of a 4-week session, a different member of each 4-member group is the group's "champion" and debates either the champion of the group to their left or to their right. So in a 32-member class there would be 4 simultaneous debates, with 2 active debaters and 6 listeners in each debate. First the champions get together and agree on a topic (87 topics that groups have debated are at the link, "Topics for Debate," at http://web.nuu.edu.tw/~greg/speaking.) The other members can help the champion prepare, but not speak publicly. After the champions present their arguments and respond to each other's arguments, the six listeners vote on the winner. The members of the winner's group gets 3 points each, and members of the loser's group get 2 points. If no member of the 2 groups is willing to "cross the floor" and vote for the other group's champion, I will adjudicate. Not having heard the debate, I speak not to the champions, but instead ask the 6 listeners why they voted as they did. I decide in favor of the group with more reasons that focus on their champion's ability as a debater, rather than on the views he/she presented.
For the rest of the 2-hour class, I would do roundtable discussions, interviews or individual presentations. Speaking can be threatening, especially as a single speaker presenting to a large audience. The fear that speakers have of embarrassing themselves (and their partners in dialogue situations) suggests that the course start with one of the least anxiety-provoking forms, round-table discussions, where groups of speakers give short individual presentations to an audience on a topic before exchanging views about it. Round-table discussions, and informal self-introductions in the "hot seat" at the front as the class starts and before everyone is present, or to other small groups in the main part of the class, should constitute, with debates, the main content of the first 4 weeks of the class.
The second 4 weeks (Weeks 5-8) should be given over, though not exclusively, to interviews (and debates) before an audience. The practice of interviews as homework assignments, however, should start earlier, in Week 3 even. As a 2-person (rather than 4-person) activity, the threat of performing in public can be expected to be greater. However, having gotten used to the procedures of the class and gotten to know their classmates to some degree, the fear they earlier felt can be expected to be converted into the excitement of performance before an audience.
For the last 4 years at NUU in my Speaking classes, I have assigned interview partners on the basis of group membership, doing inter-group and intra-group interviews. I put students into groups on the basis of their grades, so there is a mix of abilities in each group. But these students from the AFL department knew each other before the class started. In this present class, where students might not be expected to know each other, I would break up the class into 3- or 4-member groups on the basis of interests (eg basketball, or music, etc) or of department, with all the mechanical engineers in one group, and all the computer science students in another group. I might also have to be flexible on who interviews who, if as is possible, students still feel fear about speaking before others.
In any case, I would reassign students to groups at least once in the semester, and probably 3 times at the end of each of the 4 4-week sessions. I think it is important to practice with the widest possible range of partners and before many different audiences.
In the 3rd session from Weeks 10-13, I would do individual presentations. This is the most threatening form of public speaking, so from Week 1 I would be preparing them for this by requiring a sound file uploaded to, for example, http://wretch.cc, of a very short presentation (eg, 1 minute) on topics that constitute a natural progression. For example, the first week's sound file would be a 1-minute self introduction. The second week's might be about why they are taking the class, and what they expect from it. (I would also ask groups to do 4 one-minute roundtable discussions, each student in the group taking responsibility for one sound file, ahead of the assessment in Week 5.) So students would be preparing for the 3rd session's individual presentations from Week 1. The threat posed by individual presentations would also be lessened for the students by giving them before small groups, rather than the whole class.
In the 4th session, from Weeks 15-17, while continuing to do small inter-group debates as in sessions 1, 2, and 3, I might also do larger-scale debates. Or I might do presentations again with topics not chosen by the speakers but assigned to them by their peers or chosen randomly from a list of topics produced by the class. I may seek the views of the class about which option to choose. This provides an opportunity for the last sub-genre of public speaking, public meetings. where participants have to perform similar speech acts to those required in debates, like presenting positions, and reacting to others' positions, but where the situation is cooperative rather than competitive. Summarizing and interpreting of the different participants' contributions is also more important as the discussion in smaller groups is shared in a larger-group, or whole-class, situation.
2) Topics
The list at the link, "Topics for Debate," at http://web.nuu.edu.tw/~greg/speaking, includes few heavy topics. I think if the students are happy discussing everyday issues that arise in the course of their daily lives, then this is the right focus for the class. Language learning must be based on the concerns of the student, as expressed in action in the world. Of course, I can accommodate the students' wish to attack heavier, controversial issues also, if there is a range of opinion in the class that allows debate to take place, and if the debaters are able to disagree with each other and be defeated in argument without ill feeling remaining after the debate is finished.
Other lists, eg for presentation topics, could be generated in the public meetings described above.
3) Assessment
Because speaking is performance, and because it is adversely affected by the stress of high-stakes exams, I would make exams only 20 percent of the grade.
Homework, a 1-minute weekly sound file (taking the form of a presentation with slides, or interview, or roundtable discussion, or debate) uploaded to a public website would constitute 40 percent of the grade. See the FLA0028, FLA0022, FLA0027, FLB0002 albums on http://www.wretch.cc/ where I required students to upload their sound files. Unfortunately, many of the sound files themselves seem to have disappeared. The simple slides accompanying the sound files which I required some weeks were uploaded to the NUU CMS.
The final 40 percent of the grade would be the results of the debates in class. With individuals getting 2 points or 3 points each week, the average classwork grade would be about 80 percent. Most students in the class could expect a classwork grade not far from this point, because it is a group grade. Total overall grades for the 40 NUU students last year: A: 8%, B: 49%, C: 28%, D: 15%, F: 0%
My student evaluations over the last 4 years:
Although the 4 exams in Weeks 4, 9, 13, and 18 do not contribute much to the grade, they are an important part of the class, because there the students demonstrate their abilities as speakers to as many people as possible and because the situation most closely approximates the public speaking one. However, the 2-hour class time is not sufficient to give each person or group the time they should be allowed to speak if they speak in front of the whole class. Also, most of the students are not able to show interest in the performances of all the other students in the class over a 2-hour period. So I divide the classroom up into 2 or more "rooms" (collections of groups) and have simultaneous exams going in the 2 rooms. In much the same way as I adjudicate the debates on the basis of the responses of the listeners, in the exams I grade the performances on the basis of what I can hear of the discussion AND the reactions shown by their audiences. This judgement of interest is primarily based on non-verbal cues, eg eye contact, smiling, interaction with the speaker, appearing to be thinking about what the speaker is saying, an "air of electricity," etc.
4) The students
I taught able students in Korea. The students I have taught in Taiwan have been less motivated. Of course there are exceptions. I am sure I would find a similar range of speaking abilities, albeit further up the scale, if I taught this course. But, the biggest concern is whether they will enjoy disagreeing with each other and challenging each other, before they have gotten to know each other. This willingness to argue is perhaps the hallmark of Western academic traditions, so it is an important attitude to acquire. (One possibility, if they find it difficult challenging their partner's opinions, is to randomly assign them the positions they are to argue for. This will encourage them to think the view they are arguing against is not actually the view of the other debater.) In any case, I hope the students will be as enthusiastic about debating as my AFL students at NUU have been.
Weekly schedule
- Debates: Groups 2i and 2i+1, Champions: A
- Homework: Self-introductions
- Debates: Groups 2i and 2i-1, Champions: B
- Homework: Expectations of class, personal speaking goals
- Debates: Groups 2i and 2i+1, Champions: C
- Homework: One classmate interview per student
- Debates: Groups 2i and 2i-1, Champions: D
- Homework: One roundtable discussion per student
- Room 1: Groups 1 to n/2
- Room 2: Groups 1+n/2 to n
- Homework: None
- Debates: Groups 2i and 2i+1, Champions: A
- Homework: Interview of corresponding member in group i+1
- Debates: Groups 2i and 2i-1, Champions: B
- Homework: Presentation on subject of personal interest
- Debates: Groups 2i and 2i+1, Champions: C
Groups 2i and 2i-1, Champions: D - Homework: Interview by classmate interviewed in Week 6 on own topic
- Room 1: Groups 1 to n/2. A interviews B, B C, etc.
- Room 2: Groups 1+n/2 to n
- Homework: None
- Debates: Groups 2i and 2i+1, Champions: A
- Homework: Presentation with slides
- Debates: Groups 2i and 2i-1, Champions: B
- Homework: Interview/debate with self
- Debates: Groups 2i and 2i+1, Champions: C
- Homework: Presentation with slides
- Debates: Groups 2i and 2i-1, Champions: D
- Homework: Presentation on assigned topic
- Room 1: Groups 1 to n/2
- Room 2: Groups 1+n/2 to n
- Homework: None
- Debates: Groups 2i and 2i+1, Champions: A
- Homework: Ideas about Exam 4
- Debates: Groups 2i and 2i-1, Champions: B
- Homework: Interview about ideas for topics
- Debates: Groups 2i and 2i+1, Champions: C
Groups 2i and 2i-1, Champions: D - Homework: A report on the debate in Week 17
- Room 1: Groups 1 to n/2
- Room 2: Groups 1+n/2 to n
- Homework: None
