Re: CEDA-L digest 500

[Terrence Winebrenner <twinebre@tuba.aix.calpoly.edu>]

I agree with Jim Hanson's comment that a judge evaluation system should 
give debaters time to reflect before committing to an evaluation.  We 
have a system for Peer Speaker Awards at the SLO tournament which might 
be adapted for this use.  Ranking ballots are distributed with the last 
prelim round, debaters rank the top five debaters they competed against 
in the tournament, and rankings are accumulated.  (It would be hard to 
test the fidelity of the system, but the fact that more than half of the 
peer determined top ten speakers appear in the list of the traditionally 
determined top ten speakers implies that the system gets at the "best" 
speakers.)  Having debaters rank-order the individuals who judged them -- 
perhaps adding a 25 point quality rating -- could give you the kind of 
data you want.

As to how to USE that data, I have less to contribute.  I'm not sure that 
I like the idea of published rankings -- but what good does it do if 
information does not filter back to judges?  I know I don't like the idea 
of awarding "top" judges -- the lure of pursuing popularity can be 
inconsistent with honest evaluation and instruction (and yes, I do have 
the same objection to standard student evaluations).

T. Winebrenner

---

• Prev by Date: Syracuse Needs Your HELP!!
• Next by Date: Re: Syracuse Needs Your HELP!!
• Prev by thread: Re: Syracuse Needs Your HELP!!
• Next by thread: I need a partner...
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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