High school student perceptions of the efficacy of debate participation.

AuthorLittlefield, Robert S.
PositionStatistical Data Included

Robert S. Littlefield (*)

Over the past twenty years, the nature and benefits of interscholastic debate have come under scrutiny from administrators and others who question whether the investment of time, effort, and resources is justified. While some argue that debate improves a student's ability to communicate with an audience, conduct research, think quickly and critically, construct persuasive arguments, and successfully transfer these skills to other settings (Bellon, 2000), the question of whether or not debaters perceive the debate activity as enabling them to accomplish these objectives has received limited attention.

Williams et al. (2001) sought to ascertain the perceptions of collegiate debaters regarding the benefits and disadvantages of participating in competitive debate at a time characterized by the emergence of a variety of debate-sponsoring organizations. (1) They concluded that debaters, across all formats, perceived participation in collegiate debate to produce the same benefits and disadvantages as those found by debaters in earlier studies before the expansion of formats. (2) However, missing from their discussion of perceived benefits and disadvantages of debate was the inclusion of perceptions from high school debaters. In fact, very few manuscripts dealing with high school debate have been published in academic journals.

The absence of much recent scholarship pertaining to the high school debate community is perplexing, given the fact that similarities and relationships between high school and collegiate debate exist. (3) However, the limited scholarship about high school debate during the last twenty years should not suggest that the high school debate community was not of interest to earlier scholars in the field of speech communication and/or forensics. While not excessive, early communication scholars investigated the nature of high school debate (Konigsberg, 1935; Turner, 1941; Larson, 1952; Barber, 1954, and Simonson & Strange, 1961), the characteristics of high school debaters (Thompson, 1931; Hargis, 1934; Hetlinger & Hildreth, 1961; Patton, 1962; Semlak and Shields, 1977; and Anderson & Matlon, 1974), relationships between high school and collegiate debate environments (Lewis, 1942; Hetlinger & Hil dreth, 1961; Tucker, Koehler, & Mlady, 1967; King & Phifer, 1968; Stewart & Merchant, 1969; and Schug, 1954), and percep tions of high school debaters about the activity (Fine, 2000; and Fine, 1999).

Only two studies provided a methodology surveying high school debaters about their perceptions toward debate. Thomas (1965) surveyed coaches in selected Michigan high schools, and 70 debaters at the Michigan State University Forensic Institute, regarding their perceptions about participation in debate, the amount of time spent working alone or with a coach, and specific practice-related issues. The second study used a population of students participating in a summer debate institute at the University of Georgia (Pruett, 1972). Both sets of respondents inferred that experience at debate institutes contributed to their positive educational development and self-enhancement. While these two studies established a model for further exploration of the perceptions of high school debaters, no subsequent investigations resulted. In the absence of comparative studies considering the similarities and differences between the perceptions of high school and collegiate debaters about debate, this examination is timely and us eful.

METHOD

The current study assessed high school student perceptions of debate and compared these perceptions with those generated at the collegiate level. The survey instrument modeled the one described by Williams et al. (2001) and included 15 items requesting demographic data and prior speech experience, experience in policy and Lincoln Douglas formats, perceptions of collegiate debate, and perceived advantages and disadvantages of debate. (4)

High school students in the National Forensic League were identified as a source of data since the NFL is a national high school organization with a significant number of debaters included among its members and the NFL has been a source of data for several earlier studies (Klopf & Rivers, 1965; Hensley, 1972; Anderson & Matlon, 1974; G. A. Fine, 2000). Following approval from the National Forensic League to collect data at its National Tournament held June 10-15, 2001, at the University of Oklahoma, surveys were made available to any high school student who met the requirements of the study. (5)

The population from which the sample was drawn included the 400 policy debaters and 229 Lincoln Douglas participants registered for competition at the 2001 NFL National Tournament. To attract as many of these debaters as possible to complete the survey, collection tables were set up in the areas where they picked up ballots and waited for results during the late afternoon and early evenings at the tournament site. In addition, during the times immediately preceding the final rounds for the CX Policy Debate, Lincoln Douglas, and the Barbara Jordan Debates, additional subjects meeting the requirements were offered the opportunity to participate. Ultimately, 193 surveys provided data for this study. (6)

All subjects completing the survey qualified to participate in the NFL National Tournament in debate or another forensic event. As such, their responses may reflect those of a highly successful and competitive group of forensic participants. The demographic data support the suggestion that the subjects had considerable experience as debate participants.

The quality of the sample was high for a number of reasons. First, the level of debate experience was substantial. 106 subjects claimed to have debated in the CX Policy division and 111 students claimed LD experience during the 2000-2001 school year. (7) The data suggest that 77 (72.64%) of the policy debaters and 73 (65.76%) of the LD debaters had more than 40 rounds of experience in their respective divisions during the 2000-2001 school year. Further, 67 (56.30%) of the 119 listing policy experience in previous years and 48 (47.05%) of the 102 listing Lincoln Douglas debate experience in previous years claimed more than 100 additional rounds of debate experience. 54 (27.97%) of the 193 respondents indicated that they competed in a debate division at a prior NFL National Tournament. As a reflection of their commitment to debate, 118 (61.13%) of the 193 subjects claimed to have attended at least one summer debate institute. The sample reflected the preponderance of male competitors entered in the debate categ ories at the National Tournament (135 males, 69.94%; 57 females, 29.53%; and one subject, .5%, who declined to self-identify sex).

The sample also was diverse in that it represented a wide range of schools and geographic areas. A total population of 313 schools were listed as having at least one debate participant competing in the 2001 NFL National Tournament. The sample for this study included 116 (37%) of these schools. (8) Of the 44 states comprising the total population represented at the 2001 NFL National Tournament, 33 states (75%) were included in the study. (9)

The final two open-ended questions of the survey provided the data for this study: "Identify three perceived benefits gained by participation in debate" (Question 14) and "identify three perceived disadvantages resulting from participation in debate" (Question 15). To allow for the themes from the comments to emerge, the researcher combined similar responses into more general subject areas. For example, "better speaking skills" and "improved communication skills" were combined under the benefit category of Improved Speaking/Communication. Similarly, "more stress" and "pressure to live up to the standards of my coach" were combined into the disadvantage category of Causes Stress/Tension. Following the coding of the 645 benefit responses and the 562 disadvantage responses, coding reliability was checked with two independent coders. (10) The data were entered into a SAS program for tabulation and statistical analysis. The following research questions emerged:

RQ1: What benefits do high school students perceive from their participation in debate?

RQ2: What disadvantages do high school students perceive from their participation in debate?

RQ3: How do high school students' perceived benefits compare to those revealed in studies of collegiate debaters' perceptions?

RQ4: How do high school students' perceived disadvantages compare to those revealed in studies of collegiate debaters' perceptions?

FINDINGS

Benefits of High School Debate Participation

Question 14 asked participants to list three benefits of participation in debate. There were 645 responses compiled into 28 categories. Thirteen of the categories had more than one response. The ten most frequently cited benefits of debate participation are listed.

Improving Communication/Speaking Skills was the most frequently cited benefit of participation in debate with 144 responses (22.32%) of the total. Responses included comments, such as: "increased speaking skills" and "better ability to speak in public." There were sufficient responses to this item to justify further examination. Of the 144 responses, a nearly equal number of policy debaters (69) and Lincoln Douglas debaters (75) mentioned this benefit, suggesting that despite the delivery differences perceived by debaters and judges between policy and Lincoln Douglas divisions, a similar number of policy and Lincoln Douglas respondents noted that improved communication and speaking skills was a benefit of participation in debate.

The second highest category among the high school debaters, accounting for 111 responses (17.20%) of the total, was increased Knowledge/Education resulting from debate. The responses included in this category came from three related groups of comments: Increased knowledge, education...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT