A Study On Speaking Proficiency And Logical Thinking Construction

A Study On Speaking Proficiency And Logical Thinking Construction Of

InstitutTeknologiSepuluhNopember Debate Society Members

DAVID DWI SETYAWAN

English Education, Language and Art Faculty, State University of Surabaya
davidds9319@gmail.com
ESTI KURNIASIH, S.Pd., M.Pd.
English Education, Language and Art Faculty, State University of Surabaya
Estikurniasih87@yahoo.com

Abstrak.
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengelaborasi kecakapan berbicara dan konstruksi berpikir logis dari anggota Institut
Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember Debate Society. Penelitian ini juga bertujuan untuk menganalisa factor-faktor yang
mempengaruhi kecakapan berbocara dan konstruksi berpikir logis Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember Debate
Society. Dasar peneitian ini adalah menggunakan deskriptif kualitatif sebagai desain penelitian dan selebihnya
mengelaborasi dengan menggunakan observasi dan wawancara. Untuk dapat berdebat dengan cakap, siswa perlu
mempelajari tiga aspek utama yaitu sikap, materi, dan metode yang dapat diperoleh melalui pajanan bahasa Inggris
yang baik. Meskipun siswa Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember tidak memiliki pajanan bahasa Inggris yang
maksimal, mereka mampu mengungguli mahasiswa yang berasal dari jurusan bahasa Inggris.Berdasarkan hasil
wawancara, faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi kecapakan berbicara and konstruksi berpikir logis dari anggota
Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember Debate Society adalah pembiasaan. Aktifitas pembelajaran dengan teman
sebaya membuat proses belajar menjadi lebih menyenangkan dan minim tekanan. Selebihnya, mengandalakan
materi tidaklah cukup hanya dari penyampaian lewat kelas. Kesungguhan untuk berlatih secara mandiri dengan
meneliti beberapa materi melalui jaringan terpercaya membuat mereka lebih berilmu and selalu cakap informasi.
Selebihnya, untuk memperluas pengalaman dan menambah kepercayaan diri, kompetisi menjadi penting sebagai
bahan pertimbangan. Mereka secara ruitn menambah wawasan dan pengalaman mereka.
Kata kunci:kecakapanberbicara, konstruksipemikiranlogis, debat
Abstract
This research focuses on elaborating the speaking proficiency and logical thinking construction of Institut Teknologi
Sepuluh Nopember Debate Society members. This research also aims to analyze the factors influencing the speaking
proficiency and logical thinking construction of Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember Debate Society members. The
fundamental of this research employs descriptive qualitative as the research design and proceeds the further
elaborations with observations and interview. To debate well, students need to encompass the three major categories
which are manner, matter and method which is achieved through the good exposures of English. Even if the students
of Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember do not engage with maximum closures of English, they can outstand those
who come from English Department. Based on the result of interview, the factors influencing the speaking
proficiency and logical thinking construction of ITS Debate society members are merely caused by the habituation.
The activities of learning with peers make the process of learning more enjoyable and less pressed. Furthermore, it is
not enough to always rely on the materials which are addressed during the learning sessions. The intentions to
practice independently by researching some materials through trusted websites make them more knowledgeable and
always updated. Furthermore, to broaden the experience and add their confidence, competitions become the
important thing to be considered too. They regularly join competitions to extend the knowledge and experience.
Key words: Speaking proficiency, logical thinking construction, debate

RETAIN. Volume 05 Nomor 01 Tahun 2017, 173 - 180

INTRODUCTION
There are two major elements which are
considered important in English debate, speaking
proficiency and logical thinking construction ability.
Quinn (2005) stated that to debate well, students need
to encompass the three major categories which are
manner, matter and method. Manner represents the
proficiency of the students to speak precisely, while
matter and method cover the ability of the students to
construct the arguments logically. These elements
become important since they ensure that debate can
go smoothly and well-accepted. Moreover, speaking
proficiency also determines the quality of debate
manner and guarantees the clarity of the speaker, and
it is the medium to deliver the issues being discussed.
As speaking is one of the influential factors in a
debate, debaters need to accustom themselves with
English speaking environment. It provides students a
way to practice and sharpen their English speaking
proficiency because counterparts are available as
well.
Meanwhile, logical thinking construction
ability projects the way of the debaters to analyze a
variety of issues which is being debated. The range of
issues which is substantially chosen is very wide,
thus, it is inevitable that students who want to
criticize issues logically should have initial
framework to begin with. Having the ability to
understand the materials in debate is important since
it will finally become a fundamental step to establish
a sequence of logical thinking. Besides mastering the
knowledge or issue which are relatable to logical
thinking construction, students should also
understand the practical way to arrange the structure
of logical thinking.
In common, University debaters come from
English majors which are either English education or
English literature. They simultaneously undergo
English speaking environment because all the
subjects they take are delivered through English.
Also, they take specific speaking courses that are
commonly distinguished into several stages, for
example, transactional and interpersonal speaking,
speaking for discussion, public speaking and so forth

are administered to English Department students in

UNESA. These speaking classes, of course, give
students majoring English Department better closures
to improve their speaking proficiency. The
standardization of prominent language achievement
is almost a truly portrayal of the capability to fulfill
the parameter of contextual purpose through active
and even participation with other particular
counterparts in their environment (Brown, 2001). It
describes how important the roles of counterpart in
learning
a
language,
including
speaking.
Furthermore, students coming from English majors
are habituated with particular courses to exercise
their logical thinking construction ability, for
instance, in UNESA also, they are obliged to take the
course namely expository and argumentative writing.
This course enables and triggers their ability to
construct arguments logically. They are taught and
given several ways and tricks on how to create
logical explanation through the sequences of courses
that they study regularly. Lubetsky (1999) stated that
students are required to put different point of view in
a debate and appy it into a logical chains and
processes. It implies that students should not
necessarily dissipate the way to construct the
arguments, yet they should manage to establish a way
of thinking which makes sense. In more simplistic
manner, English Department students actually have
better coverage regarding the provision to develop
their speaking proficiency and logical thinking
construction.
This case is unique because prior to nonEnglish Department student success, they are not
familiarized with the way of sharpening their
speaking proficiency and of exercising their logics
through formal courses in the classrooms like what
English Department students experience. Their daily
courses merely talk about engineering issues,
chemistry, physics, and other sebjects beyond
English. As an alternative way to learn about English
Debate, they establish a community namely ITS
Debating Society. This community is not binding
because it is not obligatory for them to put it in their
studies. Because of being not obligatory, students
may have the option themselves and may choose
whether they want to focus on it or not. It holds true
that there are also no lecturers which guide them to
learn English debating, even if they realize that they
should build their speaking proficiency and logical

A Study On Speaking Proficiency And Logical Thinking Construction

thinking construction ability well. The way they use
to learn it is through having peer tutors, or sometimes
their seniors can guide them to study.
In short, the case which occurs in
Debate Society members attracts the interest
further research. Due to several distinctions,
development of their speaking proficiency
logical thinking construction is exclusive.

ITS
for
the
and

METHOD
The researcher applied descriptive
research and used qualitative approach. The
descriptive research aims to describe, explain and
interpret conditions of the present i.e. what is and
the purpose of a descriptive research is to examine a
phenomenon that is occurring at a specific place(s)
and time (Creswell, 2002). Another expert, Wyk
(2000) says in his journal that the main aim of
descriptive research is to provide an accurate and
valid representation of (encapsulate) factors or
variables that pertain or are relevant to the research
questions. Then if descriptive research is done
qualitatively on its analysis, it is called descriptive
qualitative design (Lambert & Lambert, 2012). They
said in their journal that the goal of descriptive
qualitative
studies
is
a
comprehensive
summarization, in every day terms, of specific events
experienced by individuals or groups of individuals.
Descriptive qualitative studies are the least
theoretical of all of the qualitative approaches to
research. In addition, descriptive qualitative studies
are the least encumbered studies, compared to other
qualitative approaches, by a pre-existing theoretical
or philosophical commitment, for example,
phenomenology, grounded theory, and ethnographic
are based on specific methodological frameworks
that emerge from specific disciplinary traditions. By
comparison, descriptive qualitative studies tend to
draw from naturalistic inquiry, which purports a
commitment to studying something in its natural state
to the extent that is possible within the context of the
research arena. Thus, there is no pre-selection of
study variables, no manipulation of variables, and no
prior commitment to any one theoretical view of a
target phenomenon. Although descriptive qualitative
studies are different from the other qualitative
research designs, descriptive qualitative studies may

have some of the overtones of the other approaches.

In other words, a descriptive qualitative study may
have grounded theory overtones, because it uses
constant comparative analysis when examining the
data. However, a descriptive qualitative study is not
grounded theory, because it does not produce a theory
from the data that were generated (Lambert &
Lambert, 2012).
According to some definitions about
descriptive qualitative research above, the researcher
chose to conduct descriptive qualitative research in
obtaining the data on the research field. The
researcher had natural research on the field and
obtained some data through some prepared
procedures. Those mentioned explanations and
definitions about descriptive qualitative were in a line
with what the researcher wanted in conducting this
study. As the first research question in Chapter One
had been stated, the researcher wanted to know how
the speaking proficiency and logical thinking
construction of ITS Debate Society members were.
Descriptive qualitative research design was
compatible with exploration stage. The second
research question in Chapter One required the
researcher to find out the factors which influence
speaking proficiency and logical
thinking
construction of ITS Debate Society members. The
same holds true for justifying that the second
research question fit with the characteristics of
descriptive qualitative research design. Both of those
research questions can be answered by examining the
phenomena on the field without any interferences of
the researcher to gain valid and authentic data and the
researcher also did not produce new theory to analyze
and explain the data to answer those research
questions in Chapter One. This study was applied
within the collaboration of InstitutTeknologiSepuluh
November Debate Society members, one of the
student activity unit in ITS. This student unit activity
comprises the training for English debate which is
regularly conducted. The activities which the students
experience is fully independent since there are no
lecturers involved and only peer-tutors and seniors
are responsible for it. This study practically only
observed both speaking proficiency and logical
thinking construction of ITS Debate Society
Members and attempted to see the distinction on how
those two parts are developed and applied. The

RETAIN. Volume 05 Nomor 01 Tahun 2017, 173 - 180

debaters were observed and their speeches were
recorded in order to obtain the data which are
described as their oral production, then these data
were eventually analyzed to give a breakthrough how
speaking proficiency and logical
thinking
construction of non-English Department students are
different from the students who are currently
studying in English Department major. The
researcher chose InstitutTeknologiSepuluh November
(ITS and specifically pointed ITS Debate Society
Members Student Unit, Surabaya as the place where
this study was conducted to obtain the data. ITS
Debate Society Members Student Unit encompasses
several students coming from different majors and a
variety of grade ranges. This student unit activity
focuses on developing the ability of its members in
English debate and eventually specifies the activities
into sharpening their speaking proficiency and logical
thinking construction. People might assume that this
English Debate Society is actually similar to others,
yet this English Debate Society is exactly different
from other English Debate Society in other
Universities due to its different process of debate
learning. If the members of English Debate Society
from other Universities come from English
Department students, the members of ITS Debate
Society are holistically coming from various
engineering majors which have less closures of
English environment in the classrooms. It is clear that
there is significant difference between the members
of ITS Debate Society and other English Debate
Society because their starting point was set
differently. Surprisingly, even as a cursory glance the
members of ITS Debate Society cannot fully equip
great English environment, they have good speaking
proficiency and logical thinking construction. This
student unit activity also becomes more special
because all the training sessions are executed through
peer-tutors and are not conducted in formal
classroom activities. For special mention, three
members of this English Debate Society managed to
represent East Java in National University Debate
Champhionship 2015 in Pontianak. Based on the
description above, the researcher concluded that this
English Debate Society was appropriate to be the
setting of this study.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

In this study, the findings which were gained

by the researcher through the data collection process
on the research field are explained into the standard
of speaking proficiency and logical thinking
construction of ITS Debate Society (IDS) members in
relation to the factors influencing their speaking
proficiency and logical thinking construction. This
finding section explained how the speaking
proficiency and logical thinking construction of ITS
Debate Society were and what factors influencing
their speaking proficiency and logical thinking
construction.
On the other hand, fluency is defined as a flow
measurement of the speech. To begin, there are some
characteristics to make ideal fluency of oral
production. The characteristics include:
a). Understandable statements
This point means that the utterances spoken out by
the speaker should have clarity in meaning, so that
the counterpart can understand what the speaker
means clearly.
b). Correct pronunciation
Pronunciation also determines the fluency of the
speech. When a word is pronounced correctly, it
avoids speakers to deliver the messages in a wrong
context. It also avoids misunderstanding to happen.
c). Accurate messages in return
Fluency is measured by the return of the messages
accurately. If a conversation has good connection one
another, the fluency is, then, considered ideal.
The outcome of oral production to determine the
level of speaking proficiency of IDS members are
described as follows:
Speaking proficiency and logical thinking
construction are the influential elements that need to
be put into consideration. Both aspects are playing
different roles, so that they should be executed in
tandem, and they cannot be taken alone. The success
of debate, initially, is presented through convincing
delivery which is determined by reliable speaking
proficiency and sufficient logical thoughts which are
represented by good logical thinking construction. As
these aspects become the majority of debate
composition, students participating in English debate
need to own simultaneous closures about English

A Study On Speaking Proficiency And Logical Thinking Construction

speaking environment and logical thinking activities.
These occasions happen, only if, students are
compulsory to take those subjects (speaking and
logical thinking) in formal classrooms. However,
particular students such as, students of Institut
Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember, can also be superior in
English debate even if they do not necessarily
proceed to the formal subjects in the classrooms. It is
crystal clear that formal lesson activities cannot
become the only pre-requisites to ensure that
capabilities of speaking and logical thinking are
excellent. There, of course, exist external factors to
substitute the pre-dominant elements which most
people have believed.
Fluency can be thought of the ability to keep
going when speaking spontaneously. When speaking
fluently, students should be able to get the message
across with whatever resources and abilities they
have got, regardless of the grammatical errors and
other mistakes. Brown (1994) defines distinction
between accuracy and fluency. Accurate means clear,
articulate, grammatically and phonologically
correct .The result of recording shows that the
students of Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember (all
of them are majoring engineering) are proficient in
speaking, up to the level of average to above average.
This conclusion is written due to the facts that the
facets of speaking proficiency which are accuracy
and fluency are partially or fully completed by them.
In the aspect of accuracy, some students showed that
their grammatical competency is good. There are
only minimum fallacies were made by them. The
most dominant mistakes that they carried out are in
the use of to be paired with the subjects (he/ she/it
is and you/ they/ we are), in the use of additional s/
es in simpe present tense, and the use of ing in
present continuous tense. These grammatical errors
can be still considered tolerated because listeners can
still catch the major meanings of the substantial
speeches. Moreover, those students never did errors
which are prone to change the meaning of the
sentences like the errors of using passive voice,
squirreling word order, and so on. In the researchers
assumption, these errors were because the debaters
spoke fast or too fast, so they prefer to prioritize the
substantial content better than the grammatical
aspects. Even if so, the choice that they took is also
still reasonable because they did not change the

substantial meaning of the words or sentences in their

speeches. In another way, the choice of sentences in
their speeches is mostly in form of simple sentences.
This is actually a strategy to support speech clarity in
order to make their speeches easy to be understood.
The second part of assessment detail in
speaking proficiency is fluency. To categorize, the
fluency of these students are above average. There
were only very minimum obstacles that the students
faced when they were delivering the speeches. The
obstacles in form of gap fillers and short or long
pauses are rarely found in the speech extracts. In
common, gap filler like emm..eh.. oo.. become the
most probable obstacle when someone would like to
utter particular expressions or speeches through oral
production. This happens because a speaker has
insufficient vocabulary storage or they mostly think
in the process of uttering the expressions. In the
recording extracts, it shows that most students did not
face these encounters. They delivered the arguments
with smooth flows of manner and there were only
few gap filler found, which was mostly in the
beginning of the speech. The smooth and fluent
delivery arguments of theirs make the researcher
categorize that in the assessment of fluency, they can
outstand the others, including those who are studying
in English Department. Surprisingly, the delivery of
the speeches was not only fluent but also in
consistent knocks and intonation. This can actually
become additional points because it indicates that the
debaters understand what they are talking about.
Meanwhile, short or long pauses can also turn to be
another blockade to hinder the greatness of an art of
speaking. These pauses occur possibly because of the
factors of competency or beyond the factors of
competency such anxiety or confidence. The factor of
competency happens due to the lack of English
mastery such vocabulary, sentence structure or
minimum closures to English speaking environment.
On the other hand, the factor of non-English
competency may be caused because the students feel
nervous since they are not accustomed to English
speaking activities. Again, in four extracts of the
recordings and from the recordings, the researcher
concluded that the speeches which were delivered by
the students were full of confidence and sureness.
The speech sounds so convincing, so that people who

RETAIN. Volume 05 Nomor 01 Tahun 2017, 173 - 180

listen to the speech can be directly persuaded and
accept what the students delivered.
Logics construction is actually a conformist
standard that people need to habituate in order to get
prominent structures and orders (Sonnerich, 2012).
Common logics, which are determined by assertion,
reasoning, evidence/ example, and link back, is
paramount to be applied in the process of making
arguments. The structure of AREL makes those
making the arguments easier to result well-accepted
structure of logics. Based on the extracts, it can be
said that the members ITS Debate Society have
fulfilled the parameter to establish good logics. In the
beginning of the speech, they always initiate it by
introducing the background and problems which the
motion requires. It is crystal clear that, they wanted to
assert the motion before they went to more complex
explanation. After providing the assertion, they gave
the reasons behind their assertion that they have
mentioned before. The reasons executed were put
into layers and were not assumptive at all. The layers
of reason are actually powerful weapon to persuade
listeners that the argument is worth it. The third order
of logics, example, was also completed by the IDS
members. They were successful to portray relevant
examples with the motion written on the board. These
examples are used to prove that the arguments are
possible to be applied, not imaginary and assumptive.
As final execution, link back is important to be said.
In the extracts, link back, indeed, does not always
appear, yet only some speakers managed to reveal the
link backs.
Based on the result of interview, the factors
influencing the speaking proficiency and logical
thinking construction of ITS Debate society members
are merely caused by the habituation. The activities
of learning with peers make the process of learning
more enjoyable and less pressed. Furthermore, it is
not enough to always rely on the materials which are
addressed during the learning sessions. The intentions
to practice independently by researching some
materials through trusted websites make them more
knowledgeable and always updated. Furthermore, to
broaden the experience and add their confidence,
competitions become the important thing to be
considered too. They regularly join competitions to
extend the knowledge and experience.

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

According to complex analysis, research, explanation
and elaborative statements from the data on Chapter
Four in this study, it can be said that the triumph of
speaking proficiency and logical
thinking
construction are not always on the hands of English
Department students, yet they belong to those who
practice consistently and encompass correct method
to practice. Moreover, to be proficient in speaking
and to be good in constructing logics, the students
need to place themselves in the situation where they
feel relax and enjoyable to learn, not within the
boundaries of pressure and blockade. These binary
conclusions are set into two explanations. Firstly,
students who are in need to enhance their speaking
proficiency and logical thinking constructions can
find other ways to boost up their competence. They
can either practice with peers, study independently
through the use of possible media, join
extracurricular activities, or become the members
who actively utilize English as their language daily. It
results in zero zone, if students majoring English
Department do not deal with these ideas because the
sessions of formal lessons in the classroom is timelimited. Secondly, the atmosphere of learning also
becomes the standard of success in achieving the goal
of being proficient in speaking and being good in
constructing logics. The proper atmospheres to learn
both speaking and logical thinking well are by having
the conditions where students feel relax and
enjoyable to study and there is no extreme pressure,
so that students can freely share one another.
Teaching technique and materials in speaking and
logical thinking should not be monotonous and outdated. Teachers must possess a variety of materials
which is not limited to daily and subject-related
context. Majors and backgrounds do not become the
reasons to limit the materials into particular topics.
Because speaking is about improvement, not
memorization, teachers should also provide medium
to make sure that the materials they provide are
possible to be elaborated and do not limit the
exploration capacity of the students. Classroom
atmosphere should also be constructed as fun as
possible in order to support the learning sessions.

A Study On Speaking Proficiency And Logical Thinking Construction

REFERENCES
Akerman, Rodie. 2011.Debating the evidence: an

Dunn, Dr. Randy J. 2004.English Language

international issue of current stuation and

Proficiency Standard for Learners. Illinois : The

perception. London : CfBT Education Trust., 2011.

Illinois State Board of Education, 2004.

Atkinson, William Walker. 2011.The Laws of

FAJARIYAH, DWI NURUL. 2009.IMPROVING

Reasoning. Hollister : YOGeBooks, 2011.

STUDENTS SPEAKING PROFICIENCY USING

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative

Research for Education: An introduction to

GAMES. Surakarta : SEBELAS MARET

UNIVERSITY, 2009.

Theories and Methods (4th ed.). New York:

Flach, Peter. 1994.Simply Logical. Tilburg :

Pearson Education group.

University of Bristol, United Kingdom, 1994.

Butler, S., Urrutia, K., Buenger, A., Gonzalez, N.,

Hunt, M., & Eisenhart, C. (2010). A Review
of the Current Research on Vocabulary

Harvey, Neill. 2011.British Parliamentary Style. New

York : International Debate Education Association,
2011.

Instruction.

National

Reading

Technical

Hoge, A.J. 2005.Powerful English Speaking.

Assistance

Center,

RMC

Research

Adelaide : King Ave Press, 2005.

Corporation, 1.

Hornby, A. S. (1995). Oxford Advanced Learners

Dictionary of Current English. London:

Byrnes, Heidi. 1999.ACTFL PROFICIENCY

Oxford University Press.

GUIDELINES SPEAKING. New York : Department

of Education International Research and Studies
Program United States, 1999.

Second Language. Chicago : Oxford University

Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational Research,

Planning,
Quantitative

Conducting,
and

IWASHITA, NORIKO. 2008.Assessed Levels of

and

Qualitative

Evaluating
Research.

University of Netvaska: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Press, 2008.
Johnson, Steven L. 2009.Winning Debates A Guide
to Debating in the Style of the World Universities
Debating Championships. New York : International
Debate Education Association, 2009.

Dowden, Bradley H. 2011.Logical Reasoning.

California : California State University Sacramento,
2011.

Jong, Nivja H. de. 2010.Facets of Speaking

Proficiency. s.l. : Cambridge University Press, 2010.

RETAIN. Volume 05 Nomor 01 Tahun 2017, 173 - 180

Lambert, V. A., & Lambert, C. E. (2012). Qualitative
Descriptive Research: An Acceptable Design.
Pacific Rim International Journal.

Salmon, Merrilee H. 2013.Introduction to Logic and

Critical Thinking. Boston : Clark Baxter, 2013.
Sonnreich, Tim. 2012.Tips, Tactics and First
Principles. s.l. : Freehills, 2012.

McInerny, M.Q. 2004.Being Logical. A Guide to

Good Thinking. New York : Random House, 2004.
BC71.M37 2004.
Mclnerny, D. Q. 2004.Being logical: a guide to good
thinking. Toronto : Random House, Inc, 2004.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994).
Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded
Sourcebook: SAGE Publications Inc.

Quinn, Simon. 2005.DEBATING. Brisbane : Gitlow v

The State of New York, 2005.

Speaking: A Critical Skill and Challenge. Egan,

Kathleen B. 1998. Education, s.l. : Federal Language
Learning Laboratory, 1998, Vol. 16.
Tsou, Wenli. 2008.Oral Classroom Participation.
Beijing : National University of Tainan, 2008.
Wyk, B. v. (2000). Research design and methods.
Post Graduate Enrollment and Throughput - New
York University, June I.