Is Extensive Coaching Uneducational

[James Michael Dumas <jmd9@crux5.cit.cornell.edu>]

In the thread recently started by Professor Frank several posters, 
Professor Frank included, have asserted that the type of coaching 
represented by Todd Graham in the anecdote Professor Frank relates is 
clearly uneducational (I will call this "extensive coaching" for lack of 
a better term).  My question is:  Why is this so obvious?

Looking at the results would lead someone, I think, to the opposite 
conclusion.  The teams who "do the best" (at least in terms of success at 
nationals, and other "national tournaments") tend to use extensive 
coaching.  Further, from my perspective, the most sought after debaters 
turned young coaches or grad students tend to have "learned" under 
extensive coaching practices (including at least one of the North West 
debaters Professor Frank describes).  If this type of coaching isn't 
educational then why are these debaters expected to be better coaches, 
and why are they more successful?

I think philosophical differences and misunderstandings lead to quick 
condemnations of extensive coaching -- at least a combination of these 
two explains why I use to look down on extensive coaching.  

I think most of those who criticize extensive coaching believe that 
debaters will learn more if they are left to do it on their own -- and 
the problem of extensive coaching is that a coach is doing it for the 
debaters (whether cutting the cards, writing the blocks, or deciding on 
the strategy).  BUT, I don't think that this accurately represents what 
is happening -- from my perspective, debaters on the teams who are 
extensively coached are not doing less research, developing fewer 
positions, or learning less about strategy -- if anything they do much 
much more of all of those things than most debaters on "non-extensively 
coached squads."  On these squads coaches are just like other debaters 
adding to the net output of the squad, while in the process being able to 
use their efforts (researching, writing, and strategizing) as object 
lessons for others to follow, ask questions about, and learn from.

I very much agree with Professor Frank et al., that when the effort of 
non-debaters replaces the effort of debaters (instead of adding to it), 
the result is uneducational.  Debaters who have simply been handed a 
block, or told an argument rarely understand the positions and (from my 
experience not so long ago) are easily defeated in the round -- their 
positions may sound nice but when the second and third line answers never 
appear the rebuttals become easy even for a debater, like me, who wasn't 
extensively coached.  :-)

I think the deliniation shouldn't be made between the amount of coaching 
that occurs, but between coaching and "winding up."  Coaching (whether 
done by a coach or another student) invovles working together, sharing 
knowledge, and teaching.  "Winding up" simply entails mindless recital of 
preprogrammed arguments.  Coaching can be minimalist, such as occuring 
only in the squad room and never at a tournament; or extensive, such as 
indepth discussion of strategy and theory before a round.  At the same 
time, "winding up" can also be minimalist, such as "topicality is always 
a voter" without any explanation; or extensive, such as "just do what I 
say -- run these five positions, this counterplan..."

I don't think that what is most important is represented by a code of 
ethics or agreements reached by those who were chosen to and could attend 
a summer conference.  Instead, I think what is important is why we do 
this and what we want to get out of it.  For me, the more that students 
are able to take away from the activity the better.  And, I don't 
think that Matt Roskowski sitting down with RJ and Michelle before a 
round against Cornell necessarily means that they are learning less -- 
indeed, I think when done well they can be learning a lot more than the 
students of a coach who refuses to discuss the cases they saw at the 
tournament because it is "the debaters activity."

Peace, Love, and Sunshine,

--Jamey Dumas
  Cornell

---

• Prev by Date: Re: participant consensus
• Next by Date: mutual prefs again
• Prev by thread: ...and now, a reply to Frank in defense of gaming (part one)
• Next by thread: mutual prefs again
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page