Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3136267059> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 61 of
61
with 100 items per page.
- W3136267059 endingPage "40" @default.
- W3136267059 startingPage "31" @default.
- W3136267059 abstract "Purpose: It is widely accepted that debate is an effective educational tool that promotes development of a variety of essential skills for students. However, institutions attempting to newly implement it as part of their curricular and extracurricular programs face the challenge of adjudication quality assurance, which can harm the end product and slow effective distribution. While research establishing the broad educational value of debate has been conducted extensively, there is a lack of literature on how to effectively promote debate programs in new areas, especially in the area of building adjudication proficiency. And while there is a plethora of research in the field of international business and marketing about how new products can successfully enter new markets and provide quality assurance, there is a lack of literature in the field of debate education as a product.Research design, data, and methodology: This article adopts a qualitative examination utilizing three criteria that has a direct effect in promoting quality adjudication and developing adjudication proficiency in nascent communities where strong, experienced adjudicators are difficult to find: 1) adjudication paradigm, 2) adjudication evaluation, and 3) adjudication procedure. Different practices and schools of thought for each of these criteria are discussed, examined through an analysis of implementation in international tournaments, and best practices identified.Results: In terms of adjudication paradigms, after examining checklist, holistic, and balanced methods, a balanced paradigm is identified as most suited for promoting adjudication proficiency. In terms of adjudication evaluation, institutionalization of evaluation methods before and during tournaments are identified as being necessary for building adjudication proficiency. In terms of adjudication procedure, after examining independent and conferral processes, conferral judging is identified as most suited for promoting adjudication quality.Conclusions: Following the examination of common and best practices, this article provides practical recommendations for refining the quality of adjudication and the educational experience within nascent and developing debating communities. While limited by the dearth of existing literature directly relevant to the field, this article provides an initial qualitative survey that should provide groundwork for future researchers to rigorously test some of the propositions provided via further qualitative or quantitative measures." @default.
- W3136267059 created "2021-03-29" @default.
- W3136267059 creator A5054322938 @default.
- W3136267059 date "2019-10-01" @default.
- W3136267059 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
- W3136267059 title "A Study on Improving the Quality of Debate Program Distribution in New Markets by Building Adjudication Proficiency" @default.
- W3136267059 hasPublicationYear "2019" @default.
- W3136267059 type Work @default.
- W3136267059 sameAs 3136267059 @default.
- W3136267059 citedByCount "0" @default.
- W3136267059 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
- W3136267059 hasAuthorship W3136267059A5054322938 @default.
- W3136267059 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
- W3136267059 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
- W3136267059 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
- W3136267059 hasConcept C204434341 @default.
- W3136267059 hasConcept C2524010 @default.
- W3136267059 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
- W3136267059 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
- W3136267059 hasConcept C55587333 @default.
- W3136267059 hasConcept C90673727 @default.
- W3136267059 hasConceptScore W3136267059C127413603 @default.
- W3136267059 hasConceptScore W3136267059C17744445 @default.
- W3136267059 hasConceptScore W3136267059C199539241 @default.
- W3136267059 hasConceptScore W3136267059C204434341 @default.
- W3136267059 hasConceptScore W3136267059C2524010 @default.
- W3136267059 hasConceptScore W3136267059C33923547 @default.
- W3136267059 hasConceptScore W3136267059C39549134 @default.
- W3136267059 hasConceptScore W3136267059C55587333 @default.
- W3136267059 hasConceptScore W3136267059C90673727 @default.
- W3136267059 hasIssue "5" @default.
- W3136267059 hasLocation W31362670591 @default.
- W3136267059 hasOpenAccess W3136267059 @default.
- W3136267059 hasPrimaryLocation W31362670591 @default.
- W3136267059 hasRelatedWork W110162142 @default.
- W3136267059 hasRelatedWork W1262060974 @default.
- W3136267059 hasRelatedWork W159267968 @default.
- W3136267059 hasRelatedWork W1967829187 @default.
- W3136267059 hasRelatedWork W2017735442 @default.
- W3136267059 hasRelatedWork W2057292926 @default.
- W3136267059 hasRelatedWork W2069640583 @default.
- W3136267059 hasRelatedWork W2101432354 @default.
- W3136267059 hasRelatedWork W2122219932 @default.
- W3136267059 hasRelatedWork W2149249752 @default.
- W3136267059 hasRelatedWork W2153547614 @default.
- W3136267059 hasRelatedWork W2529268462 @default.
- W3136267059 hasRelatedWork W2575176042 @default.
- W3136267059 hasRelatedWork W2895548890 @default.
- W3136267059 hasRelatedWork W2991065927 @default.
- W3136267059 hasRelatedWork W3165859506 @default.
- W3136267059 hasRelatedWork W631798453 @default.
- W3136267059 hasRelatedWork W641726252 @default.
- W3136267059 hasRelatedWork W78431900 @default.
- W3136267059 hasRelatedWork W2335949484 @default.
- W3136267059 hasVolume "22" @default.
- W3136267059 isParatext "false" @default.
- W3136267059 isRetracted "false" @default.
- W3136267059 magId "3136267059" @default.
- W3136267059 workType "article" @default.