View in EDS

A Taxonomy of CEDA Debate Critics.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: A Taxonomy of CEDA Debate Critics.
Language: English
Authors: Dudczak, Craig A., Day, Donald L.
Peer Reviewed: N
Page Count: 31
Publication Date: 1989
Document Type: Speeches/Meeting Papers
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Classification, Communication Research, Correlation, Criteria, Debate, Interrater Reliability, Judges, Models, Persuasive Discourse, Philosophy, Questionnaires, Speech Communication
Abstract: To develop a taxonomy of Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) critics, a study associated professed judging philosophy and responses to survey questions with ballot behavior and elaborated judging profiles. Subjects were debate critics who judged rounds at CEDA tournaments in the Northeast during the Spring 1989 season. In all, 13 critics had sufficient quantities of all three measures (questionnaire, philosophy statement, and ballots) to be included in the pilot study. First, analysis revealed that traditional paradigms are associated more strongly to key discriminators than are merged or new profile types. Second, the criteria discriminators, despite their limitations, were associated with relatively clearly defined profile types; however, these profile types are not conceptually coherent. Third, the present analysis suggests that at least the following profile types should be considered as targets of future research in CEDA paradigm use: value-comparison and argument skills, argument skills and hypothesis testing, argument critic, stock issues, and analytic centered. Finally, the descriptive boundaries between paradigms are porous and unreliable. The low correlation distinctiveness between profile types indicated that paradigm adherence by critics is not a highly valued behavior. Elaboration of criteria discriminators should reveal whether the traditional or profile candidates do support taxonomic elements which would inform debaters of real differences existing among their judge-critics. (One figure and nine tables of data are included; 19 endnotes and 14 references are attached.) (MG)
Entry Date: 1990
Accession Number: ED318071
Database: ERIC
FullText Text:
  Availability: 0
CustomLinks:
  – Url: https://eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED318071
    Name: ERIC Full Text
    Category: fullText
    Text: Full Text from ERIC
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: ED318071
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Conference
PubTypeId: conference
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: A Taxonomy of CEDA Debate Critics.
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Dudczak%2C+Craig+A%2E%22">Dudczak, Craig A.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Day%2C+Donald+L%2E%22">Day, Donald L.</searchLink>
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: N
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 31
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 1989
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Speeches/Meeting Papers<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Classification%22">Classification</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Communication+Research%22">Communication Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Correlation%22">Correlation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Criteria%22">Criteria</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Debate%22">Debate</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interrater+Reliability%22">Interrater Reliability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Judges%22">Judges</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Models%22">Models</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Persuasive+Discourse%22">Persuasive Discourse</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Philosophy%22">Philosophy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Questionnaires%22">Questionnaires</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Speech+Communication%22">Speech Communication</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: To develop a taxonomy of Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) critics, a study associated professed judging philosophy and responses to survey questions with ballot behavior and elaborated judging profiles. Subjects were debate critics who judged rounds at CEDA tournaments in the Northeast during the Spring 1989 season. In all, 13 critics had sufficient quantities of all three measures (questionnaire, philosophy statement, and ballots) to be included in the pilot study. First, analysis revealed that traditional paradigms are associated more strongly to key discriminators than are merged or new profile types. Second, the criteria discriminators, despite their limitations, were associated with relatively clearly defined profile types; however, these profile types are not conceptually coherent. Third, the present analysis suggests that at least the following profile types should be considered as targets of future research in CEDA paradigm use: value-comparison and argument skills, argument skills and hypothesis testing, argument critic, stock issues, and analytic centered. Finally, the descriptive boundaries between paradigms are porous and unreliable. The low correlation distinctiveness between profile types indicated that paradigm adherence by critics is not a highly valued behavior. Elaboration of criteria discriminators should reveal whether the traditional or profile candidates do support taxonomic elements which would inform debaters of real differences existing among their judge-critics. (One figure and nine tables of data are included; 19 endnotes and 14 references are attached.) (MG)
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 1990
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: ED318071
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=ED318071
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 31
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Classification
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Communication Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Correlation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Criteria
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Debate
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interrater Reliability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Judges
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Models
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Persuasive Discourse
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Philosophy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Questionnaires
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Speech Communication
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: A Taxonomy of CEDA Debate Critics.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Dudczak, Craig A.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Day, Donald L.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 11
              Type: published
              Y: 1989
ResultId 1