University Student Perceptions of the Efficacy of Debate Participation: An Empirical Investigation

Argumentation and Advocacy

Volumn 37, Issue 4, 2001, Pages 198-209

  Williams, David E ^a   McGee, Brian R ^a   Worth, David S ^b  

^a TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 28044461817     PISSN: 10511431     EISSN: 25768476     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00028533.2001.11951670     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Allen, M., Berkowitz, S., Hunt, S., & Louden, A., (1999). A meta-analysis of the impact of forensics and communication education on critical thinking. Communication Education, 48, 18–30.
2. Allen, M., Berkowitz, S., & Louden, A., (1995). A study comparing the impact of communication classes and competitive forensics on critical thinking. The Forensic, 81, 1–7.
3. Arnold, W. E., (1996). Debate and the lawyer. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 3, 26–28.
4. Babbie, E. R., (1992). The practice of social research (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
5. Bartanen, M. D., & Frank, D. A., (1994). Nonpolicy debate. (2nd ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick.
6. Beckman, V., (1955). An investigation of the contribution to critical thinking made by courses in argumentation and discussion in selected colleges. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
7. Bradley, E. E., & Mulvaney, A., (1964). Logical reasoning and success in speech contests. The Forensic, 50, 9–15.
8. Brembeck, W., (1947). The effects of a course in argumentation on critical thinking ability. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
9. Brooks, J., (1984). Current problems in college debate. Debate Issues, 18, 14–16.
10. Colbert, K., (1987). The effects of CEDA and NDT debate training on critical thinking ability. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 23, 194–201.
11. Colbert, K., & Biggers, T., (1985). Why should we support debate? Journal of the American Forensic Association, 21, 237–240.
12. Cross, G., (1971). The effects of belief systems and amount of debate experience on the acquisition of critical thinking. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Utah.
13. Epstein, S., (1996). What about research?: How to be well-read. Parliamentary Debate, 4, 3–13.
14. Frank, D. A., (1993). Debate as rhetorical scholarship: Changing delivery practices in CEDA. In D. A., Thomas & S. C., Wood (Eds.), CEDA 1991: 20th Anniversary Assessment Conference Proceedings (pp. 75–95). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
15. Freeley, A. J., (1996). Argumentation and debate: Critical thinking for reasoned decision making (9th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
16. Herbeck, D., (1990). Debate scholarship: A needs assessment. National Forensic Journal, 8, 1–16.
17. Hill, B., (1982). Intercollegiate debate: Why do students bother? Southern Speech Communication Journal, 48, 77–88.
18. Hill, B., (1993). The value of competitive debate as a vehicle for promoting development of critical thinking ability. CEDA Yearbook, 14, 1–22.
19. Hollihan, T. A., & Baaske, K. T., (1994). Arguments and arguing: The products and process of human decision making. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
20. Horn, G., & Underberg, L., (1993). Educational debate: An unfulfilled promise. In D.A., Thomas & S.C., Wood (Eds.), CEDA 1991: 20th Anniversary Assessment Conference Proceedings (pp. 37–75) Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
21. Howe, J. H., (1981). CEDA's objectives: Lest we forget. CEDA Yearbook, 2, 1–3.
22. Howe, J., & Brownlee, D., (1993). The founding principles of CEDA. In D.A., Thomas & S.C., Wood (Eds.), CEDA 1991: 20th Anniversary Assessment Conference Proceedings (pp. 249–262). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
23. Howell, W. S., (1943). The effects of high school debating on critical thinking. Speech Monographs, 10, 96–103.
24. Hunt, S. B., & Inch, E. S., (1993). The top fifty forensics programs in the U.S.: A twenty year retrospective. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Speech Communication Association, Albuquerque.
25. Hunt, S. K., Garard, D., & Simerly, G., (1997). Reasoning and risk: Debaters as an academically at-risk population. Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, 18, 48–56.
26. Huseman, R. C., & Goodman, D. M., (1976). BYD Congressional questionnaire. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 12, 225–228.
27. Inch, E. S., & Warnick, B., (1998). Critical thinking and communication: The use of reason in argument. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
28. Jackson, T., (1961). The effects of intercollegiate debating on critical thinking. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
29. Jensen, K. K., & Williams, D. E., (1998). Teaching the honors public speaking course. Basic Communication Course Annual, 10, 133–156.
30. Jones, K. T., (1994). Cerebral gymnastics 101: Why do debaters debate? CEDA Yearbook, 15, 65–75.
31. Kruger, A. N., (1973). Are debate coaches becoming misologists? Journal of the American Forensic Association, 10, 47–48.
32. Loge, P., (1991). An examination of black participation in CEDA debate. CEDA Yearbook, 12, 79–87.
33. Matlon, R.J., & Keele, L. M., (1984). A survey of participants in the National Debate Tournament, 1947–1980. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 20, 194–205.
34. McGee, B.R., (1990). Debate as dialogic communication: Implications of Martin Buber's thematics in communicology for academic debate. Paper presented at the meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Chicago.
35. McGee, B. R., & Simerly, G., (1994). Intuition, common sense, and judgment. CEDA Yearbook, 15, 86–97.
36. McGlone, E. L., (1974). The behavioral effects of forensics participation. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 10, 140–146.
37. McKean, D. D., (1934). Debate or conference? Quarterly Journal of Speech, 20, 222–236.
38. Morello, J. T., (1979). Intercollegiate debate: Ten years of sound and fury signifying nothing. Speaker and Gavel, 77, 39–42.
39. Murphy, S. K., & Samosky, J. A., (1993). Argumentation and debate: Learning to think critically. Speaker and Gavel, 77, 39–45.
40. Murphy, T. L., (1992). A survey of top CEDA programs-1989-90. CEDA Yearbook, 13, 44–55.
41. Olsen, D. O., (1971). A survey of attitudes on the spread. Speaker and Gavel, 8, 66–69.
42. Porter, S., (1990). Forensics research: A call for action. National Forensic Journal, 8, 95–103.
43. Rogers, J. E., (1991). What do they have that I haven't got?: Comparison survey data of the resources and support systems of top CEDA programs and directors. CEDA Yearbook, 12, 95–105.
44. Rogers, J. E., (1997). A community of unequals: An analysis of dominant and subdominant culturally linked perceptions of participation and success within intercollegiate competitive debate. Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, 18, 1–22.
45. Rowland, R. C., & Deatherage, S., (1988). The crisis in policy debate. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 24, 246–250.
46. Scott, W. A., (1955). Reliability of content analysis: The case of nominal scale coding. Public Opinion Quarterly, 19, 321–375.
47. Semlak, W. D., & Shields, D. C., (1977). The effect of debate training on students participating in the Bicentennial Youth Debates. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 13, 192–196.
48. Sharp, H., Jr., & Johnstone, C., (1969). Independent study for undergraduates. Speech Teacher, 18, 308–311.
49. Simerly, G., (1991). The utility of IE participation for teaching public speaking skills to intercollegiate debaters. Paper presented at the meeting of the Central States Communication Association, Chicago.
50. Simerly, G. S., Hunt, S. K, Gerard, D., McGee, B. R., & Stepp, P., (1996, November). Sexual harassment in intercollegiate debate II: The nationals survey. Paper presented at the meeting of the Speech Communication Association, San Diego.
51. Simerly, G., & McGee, B. R., (1991). A conceptual schema for assessing the educational functin of a forensics program. Speech and Theatre Association of Missouri Journal, 21, 5–14.
52. Stanfield, S. J., (1993). A response to Frank, Horn and Underberg. In D. A., Thomas & S. C., Wood (Eds.), CEDA 1991: 20th Anniversary Assessment Conference Proceedings (pp. 97–101). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
53. Steinberg, D. L., (1993). Some thoughts on debate in the 90's. In D. A., Thomas & S. C., Wood (Eds.), CEDA 1991: 20th Anniversary Assessment Conference Proceedings (pp. 97–101). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
54. Swinney, J. P., (1969). The relative comprehension of contemporary tournament debate speeches. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 5, 16–20.
55. Towne, R., (1974). Rat-a-tat-tat. Speaker and Gavel, 12, 8–10.
56. Ulrich, W., (1991). Reflections on the 1991 CEDA Assessment Conference. CEDA Yearbook, 12, 106–107.
57. Vasilius, J. M., & DeStephen, D., (1979). An investigation of the relationship between debate tournament success and rate, evidence, and jargon. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 15, 197–204.
58. Watt, J. H., & Van Den Berg, S. A., (1995). Research methods for communication science. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
59. Watt, W. M., (1991). Exploring some possible success variables in CEDA debate programs. The Forensic, 76, 1–11.
60. Williams, D., (1951). The effects of training in college debating on critical thinking ability. Unpublished master's thesis, Purdue University.
61. Wood, S., & Rowland-Morin, P. A., (1989). Motivational tension: Winning vs. pedagogy in academic debate. National Forensic Journal, 7, 81–97.