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

REFERENCES

• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Arnold, W. E. (1996). Debate and the lawyer. Journal of the American Forensic Association , 3, 26–28.
   Google Scholar
• Babbie, E. R. (1992). The practice of social research (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
   Google Scholar
• Bartanen, M. D. , & Frank, D. A. (1994). Nonpolicy debate. (2nd ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick.
   Google Scholar
• 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 Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
   Google Scholar
• Bradley, E. E. , & Mulvaney, A. (1964). Logical reasoning and success in speech contests. The Forensic , 50, 9–15.
   Google Scholar
• Brembeck, W. (1947). The effects of a course in argumentation on critical thinking ability. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
   Google Scholar
• Brooks, J. (1984). Current problems in college debate. Debate Issues , 18, 14–16.
   Google Scholar
• Colbert, K. (1987). The effects of CEDA and NDT debate training on critical thinking ability. Journal of the American Forensic Association , 23, 194–201.
   Google Scholar
• Colbert, K. , & Biggers, T. (1985). Why should we support debate? Journal of the American Forensic Association , 21, 237–240.
   Google Scholar
• 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 Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Utah.
   Google Scholar
• Epstein, S. (1996). What about research?: How to be well-read. Parliamentary Debate , 4, 3–13.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Freeley, A. J. (1996). Argumentation and debate: Critical thinking for reasoned decision making (9th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
   Google Scholar
• Herbeck, D. (1990). Debate scholarship: A needs assessment. National Forensic Journal , 8, 1–16.
   Google Scholar
• Hill, B. (1982). Intercollegiate debate: Why do students bother? Southern Speech Communication Journal , 48, 77–88.
   Google Scholar
• Hill, B. (1993). The value of competitive debate as a vehicle for promoting development of critical thinking ability. CEDA Yearbook , 14, 1–22.
   Google Scholar
• Hollihan, T. A. , & Baaske, K. T. (1994). Arguments and arguing: The products and process of human decision making. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Howe, J. H. (1981). CEDA's objectives: Lest we forget. CEDA Yearbook , 2, 1–3.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Howell, W. S. (1943). The effects of high school debating on critical thinking. Speech Monographs , 10, 96–103.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Huseman, R. C. , & Goodman, D. M. (1976). BYD Congressional questionnaire. Journal of the American Forensic Association , 12, 225–228.
   Google Scholar
• Inch, E. S. , & Warnick, B. (1998). Critical thinking and communication: The use of reason in argument. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Jackson, T. (1961). The effects of intercollegiate debating on critical thinking. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
   Google Scholar
• Jensen, K. K. , & Williams, D. E. (1998). Teaching the honors public speaking course. Basic Communication Course Annual , 10, 133–156.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, K. T. (1994). Cerebral gymnastics 101: Why do debaters debate? CEDA Yearbook , 15, 65–75.
   Google Scholar
• Kruger, A. N. (1973). Are debate coaches becoming misologists? Journal of the American Forensic Association , 10, 47–48.
   Google Scholar
• Loge, P. (1991). An examination of black participation in CEDA debate. CEDA Yearbook , 12, 79–87.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• McGee, B. R. , & Simerly, G. (1994). Intuition, common sense, and judgment. CEDA Yearbook , 15, 86–97.
   Google Scholar
• McGlone, E. L. (1974). The behavioral effects of forensics participation. Journal of the American Forensic Association , 10, 140–146.
   Google Scholar
• McKean, D. D. (1934). Debate or conference? Quarterly Journal of Speech , 20, 222–236.
   Google Scholar
• Morello, J. T. (1979). Intercollegiate debate: Ten years of sound and fury signifying nothing. Speaker and Gavel , 77, 39–42.
   Google Scholar
• Murphy, S. K. , & Samosky, J. A. (1993). Argumentation and debate: Learning to think critically. Speaker and Gavel , 77, 39–45.
   Google Scholar
• Murphy, T. L. (1992). A survey of top CEDA programs-1989-90. CEDA Yearbook , 13, 44–55.
   Google Scholar
• Olsen, D. O. (1971). A survey of attitudes on the spread. Speaker and Gavel , 8, 66–69.
   Google Scholar
• Porter, S. (1990). Forensics research: A call for action. National Forensic Journal , 8, 95–103.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Rowland, R. C. , & Deatherage, S. (1988). The crisis in policy debate. Journal of the American Forensic Association , 24, 246–250.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, W. A. (1955). Reliability of content analysis: The case of nominal scale coding. Public Opinion Quarterly , 19, 321–375.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Sharp, H., Jr. , & Johnstone, C. (1969). Independent study for undergraduates. Speech Teacher , 18, 308–311.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Swinney, J. P. (1969). The relative comprehension of contemporary tournament debate speeches. Journal of the American Forensic Association , 5, 16–20.
   Google Scholar
• Towne, R. (1974). Rat-a-tat-tat. Speaker and Gavel , 12, 8–10.
   Google Scholar
• Ulrich, W. (1991). Reflections on the 1991 CEDA Assessment Conference. CEDA Yearbook , 12, 106–107.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Watt, J. H. , & Van Den Berg, S. A. (1995). Research methods for communication science. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Watt, W. M. (1991). Exploring some possible success variables in CEDA debate programs. The Forensic , 76, 1–11.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, D. (1951). The effects of training in college debating on critical thinking ability. Unpublished master's thesis, Purdue University.
   Google Scholar
• Wood, S. , & Rowland-Morin, P. A. (1989). Motivational tension: Winning vs. pedagogy in academic debate. National Forensic Journal , 7, 81–97.
   Google Scholar