THE INSTRUCTIONAL METHODS AND MATERIALS USED IN'TEACHING REASONING AND EVIDENCE TO. HIGH SCHOOL DEBATERS The“: for Ike Degree of M. A. MICHIGAN ”STATE UNIVERSITY John F. Kim 1961 LIBRARY Michigan State University ABSTRACT THE INSTRUCTIONAL METHODS AND MATERIALS USED IN TEACHING REASONING AND EVIDENCE TO HIGH SCHOOL DEBATERS by John F. Kirn The purpose of this study was to affirm or deny certain hypotheses which the writer developed as a result of his experience in teaching high school debate. The hy- potheses were as follows: (1) There are particular text- books used generally by experienced coaches. (2) Debate handbooks are used frequently as a teaching material. (3) Clinics and debate tournaments are major sources in teaching reasoning and evidence. (4) There are some unique methods and materials being used of which many coaches are unaware. (5) Experienced debaters are a prime factor in teaching reasoning and evidence. (6) The teaching of reasoning and evidence consumes more time than the teach— ing of other phases of debate. (7) A distinct pattern of the classifications of reasoning and evidence as taught by experienced debate coaches should be revealed by this study. John F. Kirn The survey was conducted in two parts. A ques- tionnaire based on the aforementioned hypotheses was sent to 78 Michigan high school debate coaches who had taught debate at least for a consecutive three-year period. Part I asked the coaches to check methods and materials corre- sponding to classifications of reasoning and evidence that were used in their teaching. Part II asked the coaches to explain the methods and materials used in instruction. In addition, several questions were asked relevant to the coaches' responsibilities in an effort to establish a cor- relation between the methods and materials used in teaching reasoning and evidence. Replies to the questionnaire, based on 40 respond— ents to Part I and 43 to Part II, were compiled, categor- ized, and analyzed and comprise the basis for the body of the thesis. The thesis embodies five chapters: Chapter I outlines the Michigan High School Forensic Program in ad— dition to introducing the study. Chapter II discusses the procedure used in conducting the survey. Chapter III tabu- lates and analyzes Part I of the survey, and Chapter IV tabulates and analyzes Part II. Chapter V presents a sum- mary and conclusions. I Conclusions to the hypotheses based on the 43 replies are (I) that there are n3 particular textbooks used generally by experienced debate coaches, (2) that debate John F. Kirn handbooks are frequently used in teaching reasoning and evidence, (3) that the debate clinics and tournaments are major sources in teaching reasoning and evidence, (4) that there are some unique methods and materials used in teach- ing reasoning and evidence, (5) that experienced debaters are a prime factor in teaching reasoning and evidence, (6) that first of all, the amount of time teaching reason- ing and evidence cannot be affirmed or denied and secondly, the amount of time varies according to individual cases, and (7) that there is no distinct pattern revealed of the classifications of reasoning and evidence as taught by ex- perienced debate coaches. Other findings revealed by the study were (I) that Teacher's Lecture and Teacher's Demonstration are the two most-frequently-used methods, (2) that Debate Handbooks and Practice Tournaments are the two most-frequently-used materials, (3) that analogy is the most-frequently-taught classification of reasoning, and (4) that statistics is the most-frequently—taught classification of evidence. Analogy and statistics, classifications of reasoning and evidence respectively, were taught by approximately 90 per cent of the coaches surveyed. In addition, the forms of causal reasoning were revealed to be used more often by the respondents than were the forms of syllogistic reason- ing. The study suggests that high school debate in John F. Kirn Michigan is a poorly planned activity, existing under nu- merous obstacles. It is with this in mind that the writer concluded by suggesting several areas for further study relevant to upgrading the Michigan debate program. THE INSTRUCTIONAL METHODS AND MATERIALS USED IN TEACHING REASONING AND EVIDENCE TO HIGH SCHOOL DEBATERS By John P. Kirn A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Speech 1961 WWI-’1" @MCWM c: / 5‘7 '7 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer is sincerely appreciative of the as- sistance through guidance and encouragement given by the director of this study, Dr. David Ralph. The writer also wishes to acknowledge and thank Dr. Frederick Alexander and Dr. Donald Ecroyd for their instruction and criticism. And to my wife, Alice, who encouraged, criticized, and worked valiantly in typing the drafts, I can only say, thank you from the depths of my heart. 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS AC liiq O I; LED ISA-El], T S O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 LIST OF TEXBLESO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 LIST OF APEENDIXESO e e e o o e e e e e e o e o e o eVii Chapter I. II. III. IV. NLRCDUCTION. e e e o o e o e o o e o e e e e 0 Philosophy of Forensics . Statement of the Problem. . . . . . . . . . . . Significance of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . Justification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plan of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pf LOCuDU} LE OF TTE SURVEY o e e o o o o o e e e e TABULATION AND ANALYSIS OF PAET I o o o o e e o Rankings of the Classifications of heasoning and Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Methods Used in Teaching the Classifications of Reasoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Materials Used in Teaching the Classifications of neasoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Methods Used in Teaching the Classifications of Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Materials Used in Teaching the Classifications of Evidence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Methods Used in Teaching Reasoning . Summary of Materials Used in Teaching Reasoning. Summary of Methods Used in Teaching Evidence. . Summary of Materials Used in Teaching Evidence. TABULATION AND ANALYSIS OF PART II. o o o o o 0 Debate Handbooks Review . . . . . . . . . . . . SWIary O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O 0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 0 o e e o e e e e o e 0 iii 24 27 54 41 47 55 55 56 57 58 66 76 81 Discussion of Stated Hypotheses . Additional Findings of the Survey . Questions Developed from the Survey Speculations and Implications . Areas for Further Study . BIBLIOGRAPHY. APPENDIX. iv 81 85 9O 93 95 98 ‘Eili’i c III .5 14. 15. l6. 17. 18. 19. 20. LIST OF TABLES Ranking the Classifications of Reasoning hanking the Classifications of Evidence. Tables of Methods Used in Teaching the Classifications of Reasoning Analogy. . . . . Cause to Effect. Example. . . . . Effect to Cause. Generalization . Effect to Effect Categorical Syllogism. Hypothetical Syllogism Disjunctive Syllogism. Enthymeme. . . . Sign Reasoning . Tables of Materials Used in Teaching Classifications of Reasoning Analogy. . . . . Cause to Effect. Example. . . . . Effect to Cause. Generalization . Effect to Effect Categorical Syllogism. Page 25 26 27 28 29 29 3O 31 31 32 33 33 34 33 35 36 36 37 37 38 Table 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. Hypothetical Syllogism . . . . . . . Disjunctive Syllogism. . . . . . . . Enthymeme. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sign Reasoning . . . . . . . . . . . Tables of Methods Used in Teaching the Classifications of Evidence Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . Example. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Authority. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Opinions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Primary or Original Sources. . .'. . Literal and Figurative Analogies . . Secondary Sources. . . . . . . . . . Circumstantial . . . . . . . . . . . Tables of materials Used in Teaching Classifications of Evidence Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . Example. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Authority. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Opinions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Primary or Original Sources. . . . . Literal and Figurative AnalOgies . . Secondary Sources. . . . . . . . . . Circumstantial . . . . . . . . . . . Other tables Library of Textbooks . . . . . . . . HandbOOkS. O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 71 39 39 4o 41 42 42 43 44 44 45 46 46 62 65 Appendix A. b: LIST OF APPEEDIXES Page Personal Letter and Instructions, the En- dorsements, and Part I of the Questionnaire. 98 rersonal Letter and instructions, the En- dorsements, and Part II of the Question- naire. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O 103 Debate Textbooks which the Coaches of this Study Used in Instructing their Debaters . . llO motion Pictures which Are Helpful in Pre- paring Debaters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lll vii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY Philosophy of Forensics A successful high school forensic program usually revolves around the school administration and the speech teacher. Assuming hat the school administration is in favor of, and supports, forensic activities, the program can become, with the teacher's direction, a vital force in the lives of students. \ The forensic program plays an important role by presenting Opportunities for additional experiences to high school students in the speech program. According to Dr. Douglas Ehninger, writing in The Speech Teacher, a worth- while forensios program has the following earmarks: l. A sound forensic program is integrated with curricular instruction in public speaking and the fundamentals of Speech. It should not be "extracurricular" but "co-curricular." 2. A sound forensic program is student centered. The program should exist for the bene— fit of the participants, not for the director's reputation or for . . . the prestige of the school. 3. In a sound forensic program participa- tion is regulated by educationally defensible principles: a. Participation should be Spread among many students. b. Training in debate and discussion, while admittedly valuable, must in no way be allowed to interfere with the student's general academic achievement. Certainly it does not justify either excessive absences or a low quality of class work. 0. . . . as an educator, the coach's concern is to build competent and well— rounded men and women, not to train a troop of highly specialized performers. 4. A sound forensic program teaches social responsibility. This should include speaking only after mature reflection, having a healthy respect for facts, and striving constantly for the public good rather than selfish ends. 5. A sound forensic program is progressive. The program is carefully planned in advance so as to provide a balance and fruitful sequence of ex— periences. 6. A sound forensic program is respected in the school, the community, and the region of the country in which it is carried on.1 The forensic program in Michigan is organized on a state level through the Michigan High School Forensic Association. This organization is governed by a state manag— er and a state forensic council consisting of two represent— atives from each of the following organizations: the Mich- igan Association of School Administrations, the Michigan Secondary School Association, the Michigan Speech Associa— tion, and the Michigan High School Forensic Association. The forensic program is divided into two phases. lDouglas Ehninger, "Six Earmarks of a Sound Foren— sic Program," The Speech Teacher, I (September, 1952), pp. 237-41. The first phase is devoted to discussion and debate. League competition in this area generally lasts throughout the first semester of the school year. The state discussion program calls for two meets which are usually held the lat- ter part of October and the first part of November. The meets include participants from three to five schools, the schools being determined by the state manager. A school is not required to participate in discussion in order to qualify for the debate program. The debate program is so organized that a school can be a member of a local league as well as a participant in the state schedule. The number of debates in which a school competes within the local league is left to the dis— cretion of the league members. In the state schedule a school competes against four other schools of similar student enrollment. This schedule is worked out by the state man— ager according to A and B divisions, A including a pupil enrollment of more than 499 and B including a pupil enroll- ment of less than 500. All schools, regardless of wins and losses, have the opportunity to be represented in the state eliminations which are held separately in the A and B divisions. All schools compete in district tournaments, winners of which compete in a series of eliminations until one school is considered champion in each division. The second phase of the forensic program is devoted to Spring Forensics. The Upper Peninsula competes in declamation, oratory, dramatic monologue, dramatic dia- logue, humorous reading, narrative reading, extempore speak— ing, lyric poetry reading, and radio news commentary. Pupils in the Lower Peninsula compete in declamation, interpreta- tive reading, humorous reading, oratory, and extempore speak- ing. The district organization for competition is handled by the state manager. Each school selects a maximum of two students per category for district competition. The two district winners in each category participate in the regional contest. Regional competition is the highest-rank- ing participation in which any forensic student can compete. Awards are presented to each student taking a first or second in the district and the regional tournaments. Having given an over-all view of the general foren- sic program, the writer wishes to outline the one specific area of forensics which is the major concern of this thesis: debate. J. Walter Reeves suggests what should be contained in a debate course: I. Proposition for Argumentation and Debate II. Means of Getting Material III. Means of Analyzing the Proposition IV. Brief Making V. Evidence VI. Reasoning VII. Means of Refutation VIII. The Nature of Persuasion IX. Style X. Delivery2 Other authorities writing in this field generally agree with Reeves. For instance, Karl F. Robinson and John W. Keltner present a very detailed course of study that includes these major units.3 In the book How to Debate 4 the authors definitely stress these areas. Although public speaking books on the secondary level do not stress debate as much as public speaking, one finds that the chapter on debate does include these topics in the preparation of a debate. Examples of such public speaking books are The New Better Speech,5 American Speech,6 and The Art of Speak- ing.7 Debate textbooks also cover these units. Some repre- sentative works are Argumentation and Debate edited by 2J. Walter Reeves, "A Secondary Course in Argu— mentation," Bulletin of the National Association of Second- ary School Principals, XXXVI (May, 1952), p. 58. 3Karl F. Robinson and John W. Keltner, "Suggested Units in Discussion and Debate for Secondary Schools," Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, XXXVI (Hay, 1952), pp. 72—78. 4Harrison B. Summers, Forest L. Whan, and T. A. Rousse, How to Debate (New York: H. W. Wilson Co., 1953), passim. 5Andrew T. Weaver, Gladys L. Borchers, and Charles H. Woolbert, The New Better Speech (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1941), pp. 339-62. 6Wilhelmina Hedde and William Brigance, American Speech (Chicago: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1955), pp. 230469. 7E. F. Elson and Alberta Peck, The Art of Speaking (New York: Ginn and Co., 1952), pp. 363—97. David Potter,8 Argumentationi_Discussion, and Debate by 9 A. Craig Baird, 10 and Argumentation and Debate by Lionel Crocker. Thus, a general conclusion may be drawn that debate should include those units as suggested by J. Walter Reeves. Statement of the Problem From the ten units suggested by Reeves, one could list numerous studies which should be conducted in order to improve the effectiveness of teaching debate to high school students. The writer has elected to limit his study to instructional methods and materials used in teaching reasoning and evidence. There are several reasons for doing this. In the first place, the subject is of primary interest to the writer. Secondly, reasoning and evidence provide the foundation for thought and, thus, are pertinent to de- bating. Thirdly, the writer feels, from his experience in the field of debate, that reasoning and evidence are 8David Potter (ed.), Argumentation and Debate (New York: The Dryden Press, 1954), passim. 9A. Craig Baird, Argumentationi DiscussionL and Debate (New York: McCraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1950), passim. loLionel Crocker, Argumentation and Debate (New York: American Book Co., 19447, passim. the least-effectively developed and taught of all phases of debate. The purpose of this study is to affirm or deny certain hypotheses that the writer formulated from his ex- perience in debate. It is hoped that the respondent's answers will stimulate improvement in the teaching of rea- soning and evidence. The hypotheses are: 1. 2. There are particular textbooks used gen- erally by the experienced debate coaches. Debate handbooks are used frequently as a teaching material. Clinics and debate tournaments are major sources in teaching reasoning and evidence. There are some unique methods and materials being used of which many coaches are un- aware. Experienced debaters are a prime factor in teaching reasoning and evidence. The teaching of reasoning and evidence consumes more time than the teaching of other phases of debate. A distinct pattern of the classifications of reasoning and evidence as taught by ex- perienced debate coaches should be revealed by this study. Significance of the Study Although there have been many studies conducted and numerous articles written disclosing the strengths and weaknesses of the debate program, the writer has been un- able to locate a study concerning the instructional methods and materials used in teaching reasoning and evidence. However, because of their significance and relationship, several studies and articles are referred to in the follow— ing paragraphs. The Speech Association of America has sponsored the writing of several articles in an attempt to provide helpful material for the improvement of debate instruction. One of these articles, "Practical Procedures in Coaching High School Debate," stresses the use of round table dis- cussions and practice debates as two methods of helping . l debaters learn reasoning and evidence. 1 The author, how- ever, does not deal with particulars concerning the classi— fications of reasoning and evidence nor the techniques used in the teaching thereof. Another study compiled by Robinson and Keltner involves a detailed outline for a general discussion—debate unit.12 The outline does not, however, explain what clas- sifications of reasoning and evidence should be taught. Lillian G. Polk completed a study of the Louisi- ana debate program in 1939. The purpose of her study was 11Carney C. Smith, "Practical Procedures in Coach- ing High School Debaters,"quarterly Journal of Speech, XXIV (1943). pp. 222-34. 12Robinson and Keltner, op. cit., passim. to make specific recommendations for improvements in the high school debate program. The study was conducted through three means: 19 personal letters to departments of speech, the state high school debating associations, and the debat- ing societies; the study of 39 states' debate constitutions; and personal interviews with officers of the National Foren- sic League and directors of recognized debate programs. The study revealed that in order for Louisiana to improve its debate program, the following recommendations would have to be adopted: 1. Debate should be a part of the high school official course. 2. The need for trained debate directors is essential. 3. Coaches should be financially rewarded. 4. Colleges should sponsor clinics and tourna- ments. 5. Competent judges are needed. 6. Boys and girls should debate in one division. 7. A division between small and large schools would increase interest.13 James W. Parkerson's Master's thesis dealt with the analysis of eight representative works of argumentation, debate, and discussion in order to evaluate the principles 13Lillian G. Polk, "A Debating Program for Lou- isiana High Schools, Based on Current Debating League Prac- tices" (unpublished Master's thesis, Agricultural and Me- chanical College, Louisiana State University, 1939), pp. 106-108. 10 of logical reasoning as applied to these areas. The works were written on a general high school level and appeared between 1929 and 1944. The conclusions to this study were: 1. Debating performs a vital function in modern education. 2. Debating stresses argument, applied logic, rather than logic itself--the science of thinking. 3. Nevertheless, an understanding of syllogistic logic will enable the debater to handle more effectively the argumentative process. 4. Persuasion and conviction are equally appli- cable argumentative techniques. 5. Deduction and induction are important in argumentative discourse. 6. Deduction and induction are interdependent processes. 7. Induction is more applicable than deduction in argumentative techniques. 8. A knowledge of fallacies enables the debater to deal more effectively with logical reason- ing. 9. Treafment in text is essentially Aristotel- ian. In May, 1959, the Michigan High School Forensic Association surveyed the high school debate coaches in this state. The findings revealed that only 33 teachers had bachelor's degrees in speech, whereas 21 had majors in 14James W. Parkerson, "The Place of Logical Rea— soning in Representative Works of Argumentation, Debate, and Discussion, of the High School Level" (abstract of Master's thesis, Department of Speech, State University of Iowa, 1950), Speech Monographs XVII (August, 1950), p. 247. 11 English and 29 others had majors in fields of history, mathematics, French, social science, philos0phy, psychol- ogy, chemistry, and natural science. The survey also re- vealed that of those coaches who had both a bachelor's and a master's degree, only 8 had both degrees in speech, while 37 had neither degree in speech.15 Becker, Brown, and Murphy discovered that 70 per cent of the high school debate teams in Michigan were coached by teachers who do not teach the speech course.16 The Alexander-Thomas survey revealed that debate coaches would like assistance in solving coaching problems,17 and the Shug study revealed that 69 per cent of the school administrators and teachers other than debate coaches felt that "debate needs coaches with better training and a more wholesome philOSOphy of debate."18 15"Debate Questionnaire Precis," Forensic News, N00 1 (september 10, 1959), pp. 8-90 l6Albert Becker, Charles T. Brown, and Jack W. Murphy, "Speech Teaching in Michigan," The Speech Teacher, I (March, 1952), pp. 137-40. l7Frederick Alexander and Gordon Thomas, "The High School Speech Teacher in Michigan," The Speech Teacher, 1X (September, 1960), pp. 189-91. 18Clayton H. Shug, "A Study of Attitude Towards Debate," The Speech Teacher, I (November, 1952), pp. 242- 52. l2 Justification From the review of the preceding studies it ap- pears that there is need for further research in an effort to improve the training of high school debaters. Many debate coaches, especially the beginners, are confronted with the problem of developing an effective presentation of reasoning and evidence. In some school systems the debate program is an extracurricular activity that meets during the "spare" time of the coach. In other school systems the debate program is integrated into the academic schedule. There are still other situations in which the debate program is carried out through a related class, e.g., a public speaking class. The length of the debate program is also varied. In some schools debate is taught for one semester; in other schools, for an entire year. with various debate programs, one can imagine that there are many effective, in some instances ineffective, methods, as well as effective and ineffective materials used in the teaching of reasoning and evidence. It is believed that this study will be helpful to the inexperienced debate coach who would undoubtedly be interested in knowing something about the methods and mate- rials that are employed. It is believed that this study 13 will also be helpful in assisting the experienced coach in the evaluation of his program of teaching debate. It is hoped that this study will prove useful to colleges and universities which train speech teachers inasmuch as these institutions will be provided with infor- mation which should be of help in coping with some of the problems which so often confront a first-year coach. Plan of the Study The procedure of this study was to survey the debate coaches in the public and parochial schools in the state of Michigan in order to compile, categorize, and ana- lyze the classifications of reasoning and evidence taught and the methods and materials used in the teaching. In order to obtain tried-approved or effective methods, the survey was limited to debate coaches of the Michigan High School Forensic Association who had taught or coached de— baters for a consecutive three-year period. This limita— tion was made with the thought in mind that these instruc- tors may have a definite plan or course of study which has been found effective. 14 Definitions Several words which appear throughout the study are defined in the following paragraphs. The definitions are provided in order to make for a clear understanding of the survey. Methods.--The definition, taken from Webster‘s New World Dictionary of the American Language, is: "a way of doing anything; mode; procedure; or way of teaching, investigating, etc." The following parts of this study will be termed methods: Teacher's Lecture, Teacher's Dem- onstration, Debaters' Research, Debaters' Demonstration, Class Discussion, Panel Discussion, and Guest Expert. Materials.--The definition, taken from Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, is: "notes, visual aids, and ideas used in teaching." In this study Debate Handbooks, Assigned Class Textbook, Library of Text- books, Study_Sheets, Study Sheet Outlines, Movies, Film Strips, and Summer Clinics are considered materials. Reasoning.--The word is defined by Courtney and Capp in their book Practical Debatigg as "The process by . . . l which we infer a conclu81on from a premise." 9 19Luther W. Courtney and Glenn R. Ca p, Practical Debating (Chicago: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1949?, p. 114. l5 Evidence.—-The definition is taken from Practical Debating: "Any factual material or opinion used to estab- lish the truth or falsity of a given statement."20 Organization The study is divided into five chapters in order to present the findings in a comprehensible form. Follow- ing this chapter, Chapter II presents a description of the procedure used in the development of the survey. Chapter III tabulates Part I of the survey. Chapter IV is a tabu- lation of Part II of the survey. Chapter V presents the results, questions developed from the survey, speculations and implications, and suggested areas for further study. A bibliography and appendixes of related and useful mate- rials follows Chapter V. 20lbid., p. 84. CHAPTER II PROCEDURE OF THE SURVEY The 1958—59 directory of the Michigan High School Forensic Association listed 96 teachers who had coached debate for a consecutive three—year period or longer. Eighteen changes were discovered in checking the directory of tie 1959—60 school year. Consequently, in order to stay within the limitations of the study, 18 changes reduced the number of coaches qualifying for the survey to 78. These coaches represented class A, B, and C high schools, but not class D and E. Schools under the latter classifi- cations were not included since there were none that met the limitations, and, furthermore, in such schools there probably would be a lack of students and staff to carry out a successful debate program. The classifications of high schools were adopted from the Michigan High School Athletic Association. These classifications are determined by the enrollment of the school: A schools, 900 and over; B schools, 400 to 899; C schools, 200 to 399; D schools, 76 to 199, and E schools, 16 17 less than 75.1 There were 23 reSpondents in the A classification, 10 in the B classification, and 10 in the C classification. The forensic division combines the A and B schools into an A division and C and D schools into a B division; therefore, the A division is represented by 33 schools and the B divi- sion is represented by 10 schools. The classifications of reasoning and evidence used in the survey were compiled from the writer's train— ing and coaching experience and are based primarily upon four recognized textbooks on argumentation: Argumentation and Debate by Lionel Crocker;2 Argumentation, Discussion, and Debate by A. Craig Baird;3 Argumentation and Debate edited by David Potter;4 and Practical Debating by Luther w. Courtney and Glenn R. Capp.5 The questionnaire was constructed during the sum- mer of 1959 and was tested for reliability by Dr. Willard Warrington, a staff member of the Office of Evaluation Serv- ices at Michigan State University. It was tested for 1Bulletin of the Michigan High School Athletic Association, XXXVI (November, 19597, p. 97. 2Crocker, op, cit., passim. 3Baird, op. cit., passim. 4Potter, op. cit., passim. 5Courtney and Capp, op. cit., passim. 18 readability and continuity by three debate coaches in the Lansing area. With several subsequent alterations the ques— tionnaire was mimeographed, and mailed. The survey was mailed in two parts. Part I con— sisted of a form on which respondents checked the types of reasoning and evidence taught in relationship to the methods and materials used in the instruction. Included with the form were a personal letter of introduction and explanation, two letters of endorsement, and, in order to secure a higher percentage of returns, a stamped, self-ad- dressed enveIOpe. Part I was mailed early in October, 1959. Copies of the personal letter and instructions, the endorse- ments, and the form used may be found in Appendix A. Part II was divided into three categories: the debate program, methods and materials used, and the instruc- tor's over-all teaching program and duties. Although the questions were not arranged specifically under one of the three categories, in order to conserve space, the questions are treated as such in Chapter IV. Part II consisted of 28 questions. With the ques- tions were mailed a personal letter of introduction and explanation, two endorsements, and a stamped, self-addressed envelope. Part II was mailed the latter part of October, 1959. A copy of the personal letter, the endorsements, and the questionnaire may be found in Appendix B. Where there was no return of Part I, that form, 19 along with an appropriate personal letter, was enclosed with the second mailing. By the end of November, 1959, the writer felt that there were not as yet sufficient returns from which to draw conclusions; therefore, a last attempt to secure a higher percentage of returns was made the first part of December, 1959. Endorsements were included in two of the three mailings, presupposing that influential and well-known speech educators' recommendations would result in a greater return. The endorsements were written by Dr. Fred Alexander, member of the Department of Speech at Michigan State University and an active member of the Michigan Speech Association; Dr. Moyne Cubbage, Manager of the Michigan High School Fo- rensic Association; and Dr. Emil Pfister, Head of the De- partment of Speech and Drama at Central Michigan University, and a member of the Board of the hichigan High School Fo- rensic Association. Part I brought in a 55.84 per cent return, and Part II brought in a 55.12 per cent return. As a result of the three mailings, 54.45 per cent of those questioned responded to the total questionnaire. The results of the survey were carefully tabu- lated on specially prepared forms; responses to questions were tabulated numerically; that is, all replies to a par- ticular question were tabulated before progressing to 20 another question. The results of Part I are tabulated and presented in Chapter III, those of Part II,in Chapter IV. Chapter V presents the summary and conclusions to the study. CHAPTER III TABULATION AND ANALYSIS OF PART I This chapter presents a tabulation and analysis of the results of Part I of the survey. Although there were 42 respondents to Part I, tabulations will be made from only 40, since two replies did not conform to the questionnaire. One respondent indicated that he could not fill out the forms as requested because, "I seriously question the value‘m debating of such extensive logic instructions." Another respondent stated: I cannot answer this. I just don't work this way. I do not believe you can effectively teach these things by conscious effort; it must flow out of the activity. My emphasis has been on subject matter and knowledge of the subject and we Spend a great deal of time on just learning the facts. Then we strip away the non—essentials and try to come up with a consolidated logical case which will carry the mail because it is true and is fundamental in approach. Years of experience have taught me practical matters of logical approach, analysis of evidence and rebuttal methods--a1ways based on the practical- ities of the situation. I have never analyzed my methods. . . . 21 22 Both of these replies are important, for they suggest that some coaches teach more from an "inspirational" than from an analytical point of view. The survey, however, was not designed to distinguish and evaluate the methods or philos0phies of teaching reasoning and evidence. The purpose of the survey was only to discover what types of reasoning and evidence were used and what instructional methods and materials were employed in the teaching. The terms used in the Tables referring to the classifications of reasoning and evidence were derived from standard debate and argumentation textbooks, e.g., Argumen- tation and Debate by Crocker,l Practical Debating by Courtney 2 and Argumentation and Debate edited by David and Capp, Potter.3 No definitions for the terms were provided within the survey. It was assumed that debate teachers who had taught for at least a three-year consecutive period would be familiar with the terms, and it was felt that further insight would be gained from the study if respondents were free to reply in light of their own training and teaching experience. Several coaches, however, indicated an unfamiliar- ity with the terms and, consequently, did not complete Part I. lCrocker, 0p. cit., passim. 2 . . Courtney and Capp, op. c1t., paSSlm. 3Potter, op. cit., passim. 23 From those who did complete Part I, it is inferred that a few were not always certain as to the terminology employed. In spite of this, the writer feels that the survey had a considerable degree of reliability. There are definite reasons to believe that the respondents did not check or answer the questions in the two-fold survey in a haphazard or random manner. For example: Part II was designed to explain specifically the methods and materials listed in Part I. The relationship between the two parts reflects the respondents' ability to understand the terminology used in Part I. For instance, in Part I the respondents checked as to whether or not they used the various classifications of methods and materials. In Part II the respondents elaborated as to how specific methods and materials were organized for teaching the clas— sifications of reasoning and evidence. The two parts com— plement each other. To substantiate further the reliability of the survey, the writer reviewed representative materials used by the respondents in order to detect just how comprehen- sively reasoning and evidence was covered. Textbooks, though varying in their discussion of reasoning and evi- dence, did cover the two areas. Movies, too, were found to be helpful in teaching reasoning and evidence. For example, a movie entitled How to Judge Facts deals specifi- cally with common fallacies of reasoninw. The debate 24 handbooks used by the coaches and debaters should be use— ful and in certain instances are directly helpful in teach- ing reasoning and evidence (see page 66). The writer also reviewed the materials and the program of the fall clinics which are sponsored by various colleges and universities and found that they definitely attempt to aid debaters in learning reasoning and evidence (see page 69 for further information). It seems reasonable to conclude, therefore, that the terminOIOgy used in the questionnaire was consistently meaningful, and that the items reported did represent to the answerer much the same thing that they did to the ques- tioner. It was the variety of ideas provided by respond— ents which proved of relevant value and which probably would not have resulted had limited definitions been posed. There— fore, throughout the study each classification of material and method used in teaching reasoning and evidence will be referred to by its special term. Rankings of the Classifications of Reasoning and Evidence Tables 1 and 2 contain the rankings of the clas— sifications of reasoning and evidence respectively. The figure following each classification indicates the number of coaches teaching that particular form of reasoning and 25 evidence as indicated by the questionnaire. The second figure following each classification indicates the percent- age of coaches teaching that particular form of reasoning and evidence. Both the number of coaches and the percent- ages are based upon the 40 responses to Part I of the survey. TABLE 1: RANKING THE CLASSIFICATIONS OF REASONING Number of Per cent of Classification Coaches Coaches Analogy..........................37...............92.5 Cause to Effect..................35...............85.5 Example..........................33...............82.5 EffeCt t0 cause.-cono...o.ocoo0.0310000000000000007705 Generalization...................30...............75.0 EffeCt to EffeCtoooooooocoocoo00.27.00.000000000006705 Categorical Syllogism............24...............60.0 Hypothetical Syllogism...........21...............52.5 Disjunctive Syllogism............l3...............32.5 Enthymeme........................ 7...............17.2 SignOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO... 6.00.00.00.000001500 Table 1 indicates that analogy was taught by 37 or 92.5 per cent of the coaches, cause to effect was taught by 55 or 85.5 per cent of the coaches, and example was taught by 53 or 82.5 per cent of the coaches. The follow- ing five classifications, effect to cause, generalization, effect to effect, categorical syllogism, and hypothetical syllogism, were taught by at least 50 per cent of the coaches. Disjunctive syllogism, enthymeme, and sign rea- soning were the least-taught classifications. None of the classifications was taught by all 40 coaches. 26 Table 2 indicates that the most-prevalent clas- sifications of evidence taught by coaches surveyed were statistics, examples, authority, and opinions. These four classifications were taught by at least 80 per cent of the coaches, and all of the classifications were taught by at least 50 per cent of the coaches. As in Table 1, Table 2 reveals that none of the classifications was taught by all of the coaches. TABLE 2: RANKING THE CLASSIFICATIONS OF EVIDENCE Number of Per cent of Classification Coaches Coaches Statistics...0.0.0.000...0OO0.00.36.00000.0.0....9000 Example..........................35..............85.5 Authority........................35..............85.5 OpinionSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.032.0.0.0.00000008000 Primary or Original Sources......27..............67.5 Literal and Figurative Analogies.25..............62.5 Secondary Sources................23..............57.5 Circumstantial...................20..............50.0 Explanation of Tables 3—40 After having ranked the types of reasoning and evidence, the writer's next step was to tabulate the methods and materials used in the teaching process. Tables 3-40 contain in parenthesis after their titles the number of coaches teaching the particular classification of reasoning 27 and evidence. methods and materials are ranked according to the number of coaches using each. No tabulation was made to indicate whether a coach used one or several methods and materials. The figures indicate only the sum number of times that a coach or coaches checked a particular method and/or material. The percentage after each method and ma— terial is based on the number of coaches who taught the particular classification of reasoning and evidence and is not based on the number of respondents to the survey. Methods Used in Teaching the Classifications of Reasoning The first phase of Part I consists of ranking the instructional methods used in teaching each classification of reasoning. The methods are defined as Class Discussion, Teacher's Lecture, Teacher's Demonstration, Panel Discussion, Debaters' Demonstration, Debaters' Research, and Guest Expert. TABLE 3: ANALOGY (37) Number of Per cent of Method Coaches Coaches Class Discussion................27................73.0 Teacher's Lecture...............25................62.2 Teacher's Demonstration.........23................62.2 Panel Discussion................18................48.6 Debaters' Demonstration.........ll................29.7 Debaters' Research..............ll................29.7 Guest Expert.................... l................ 2.7 28 As the tabulations for Table 3 indicate, Class Discussion, Teacher's Lecture, and Teacher's Demonstration ranked the highest, being used by at least 62.2 per cent of the coaches. Panel Discussion was used by 18 coaches, and Debaters' Demonstration and Debaters' Research were each used by 11 coaches. Only 1 coach used Guest Expert. TABLE 4: CAUSE TO EFFECT (35) Number of Per cent of Method Coaches Coaches Teacher's Lecture................25...............71.4 Class Discussion.................l7...............48.6 Teacher's Demonstration..........l5...............42.9 Debaters' Research...............l5...............42.9 Panel Discussion.................13...............37.l Debaters' Demonstration..........lO.......... ..... 28.6 Guest Expert..................... 3............... 8.6 The Teacher's Lecture ranked well above the other methods in teaching cause to effect reasoning, as listed in Table 4. Class Discussion ranked second and was used by 17 of the 35 coaches. eacher's Demonstration and De- baters' Research tied for third place and were methods used by 42.9 per cent of the coaches. Panel Discussion and 23- baters' Demonstration were used by 37.1 and 28.6 per cent respectively of the coaches. The least—used method was Guest Expert. 29 TABLE 5: EXAMPLE (33) Number of Per cent of Method Coaches Coaches Teacher's Demonstration..........25...............75.8 Class Discussion.................24...............72.7 Teacher's Lecture................20...............60.6 Panel Discussion.................18...............51.1 Debaters' Research...............l6...............48.8 Debaters' Demonstration..........15...............45.5 Guest Expert..................... l............... 3.0 More than seventy-five per cent of the coaches taught example by means of Teacher's Demonstration. Three other methods, Class Discussion, Teacher's Lecture, and Panel Discussion, were used by more than half of the coaches. Guest Expert, as in previous classifications, was the least used. TABLE 6: EFFECT TO CAUSE (31) ‘ Number of Per cent of Method Coaches Coaches Teacher's Lecture................22...............71.0 Class Discussion.................15...............48.4 Teacher's Demonstration..........l3...............41.9 Debaters' Research...............l3...............4l.9 Panel Discussion.................ll...............35.5 Debaters' Demonstration..........ll...............35.5 Guest Expert..................... 3............... 9.7 Table 6 lists the Teacher's Lecture as the method used by 71 per cent of the coaches in teaching effect to o a n .. o v . o . . . . u . w o . n c n . 0 C . o o o . c o n u u I . o o o o n e . a . I - O - . . o c c _ c o a a n . . o n . Q a . o e . . a n e o . o . . . o . O I 30 cause reasoning. Class Discussion ranked second, being used by 48.4 per cent of the coaches. Teacher's Demonstra- tion and Debaters' Research tied for third place with 41.9 per cent of the coaches using these methods. Panel Discus- sion and Debaters' Demonstration were used by 35.5 per cent of the coaches. Guest Expert as a teaching method ranked lowest. TABLE 7: GENERALIZATION (30) Number of Per cent of Method Coaches Coaches Class Discussion.................2l................70.0 Teacher's Demonstration..........l9................63.6 Teacher's Lecture................18................60.0 Panel Discussion.................15................50.0 Debaters' Demonstration..........lO................33.3 Debaters' Research...............lO................33.3 Guest Expert..................... l................ 3.3 Table 7 reveals that 70 per cent of the coaches taught generalization by Class Discussion. Teacher's Demon— stration, Teacher's Lecture, and Panel Discussion were methods used by at least 50 per cent of the coaches. The methods Debaters' Demonstration and Debaters' Research were used by 33.3 per cent of the coaches. Only 1 coach used Guest Expert. 31 TABLE 8: EFFECT TO EFFECT (27) Number of Per cent of Method Coaches Coaches Teacher's Lecture................20...............74.l Class Discussion.................l3...............48.l Debaters' Research...............l3...............48.l Teacher's Demonstration..........lO...............37.0 Panel Discussion................. 9...............33.3 Debaters' Demonstration.......... 9...............33.3 Guest Expert..................... 3...............11.1 The third form of causal reasoning, effect to effect (Table 8), was taught most widely with Teacher's Lecture. Teacher's Lecture was also the most-used method in cause to effect and effect to cause reasoning. A dif- ference of 7 coaches between Teacher's Lecture and the second and third methods is approximately the same for all three forms of causal reasoning. It is significant that Debaters' Research ranked third or higher as a method used in teach- ing all forms of causal reasoning. TABLE 9: CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM (24) Number of Per cent of Method Coaches Coaches Teacher's Demonstration..........18...............75.0 Teacher's Lecture................l6...............66.7 Debaters' Demonstration.......... 9...............37.5 Debaters' Research............... 6...............25.0 Class Discussion................. 5...............l9.2 Panel Discussion................. 4...............l6.7 Guest Expert..................... 2............... 8.3 32 The categorical syllogism was the most-prevalent form of the three types of syllogistic reasoning, but it ranked only seventh in relation to the other classifications of reasoning. The two methods of teaching it given the most tallies in Table 9 were Teacher's Demonstration, used by 75 per cent of the coaches, and Teacher's Lecture, used by 66.7 per cent of the 24 coaches. Table 9 reveals the first area in which Debaters' Demonstration has ranked at least third. Guest Expert ranked last. TABLE 10: HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM (21) Number of Per cent of Method Coaches Coaches Teacher's Lecture................14...............66.6 Teacher's Demonstration..........lO...............47.6 Class Discussion................. 9...............42.9 Debaters' Demonstration.......... 7...............33.3 Debaters' Research............... 6...............28.6 Panel Discussion................. 2............... 9.5 Guest Expert..................... 2............... 9.5 Teacher's Lecture ranked first as a method of teaching the hypothetical syllogism (Table 10), being used by 66.6 per cent of the 21 coaches. Teacher's Demonstra- tion was used by 47.6 of the coaches. 33 TABLE 11: DISJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISM (13) Number of Per cent of Method Coaches Coaches Teacher's Lecture................10...............76.9 Teacher's Demonstration.......... 7...............53.8 Class Discussion................. 5...............38.5 Debaters' Demonstration.......... 5...............38.5 Debaters' Research............... 3...............23.1 Guest Expert..................... 2...............15.6 Panel Discussion................. l............... 7.7 The first five methods in Tables 10 and 11 ranked in the same order. Disjunctive syllogism (Table 11), how- ever, was taught by fewer coaches. TABLE 12: EETHYEEEE (7) ‘Number of Per cent of Method Coaches Coaches Teacher's Lecture................6................85.7 Teacher's Demonstration..........5................7l.4 Class Discussion.................3................42.9 Debaters' Demonstration..........2................28.6 Panel Discussion.................1................14.3 Debaters' Research...............O................ 0.0 Guest Expert.....................0................ 0.0 The enthymeme (Table 12) was taught by only 7 of the 40 coaches. Six of the 7 coaches used Teacher's Lecture and 5 used Teacher's Demonstration. Debaters' Research and Guest Expert were not used. 34 TABLE 13: SIGN HEASONING (6) Number of Per cent of Method Coaches Coaches Teacher's Lecture................6...............100.0 Teacher's Demonstration..........4............... 66.7 Class Discussion.................3............... 50.0 Panel Discussion.................3............... 50.0 Debaters' Demonstration..........2............... 33.3 Debaters' Research...............1............... 16.7 Guest EXPertOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.00...0.00.0000... OOOO Sign reasoning (Table 13) was taught by only 6 coaches. All 6 coaches used Teacher's Lecture and supple- mented it with another method other than Guest Expert. Materials Used in Teaching the Classifications of Reasoning The second phase of Part I consists of ranking the instructional materials used in teaching each type of rea- soning. The materials are defined as Assigned Class Text- book, Debate Handbooks, Film Strips, Library of Textbooks, Movies, Study Sheets, Study Sheet Outlines, and Summer Clinics. 35 TABLE 14: ANALOGY (37) Number of Per cent of Material Coaches Coaches Debate Handbooks.................l4...............37.8 Assigned Class Textbook.......... 7...............18.9 Study Sheet outlineSOOOOOOOOOOOOO 40.00.00.00000001008 Study Sheets...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 4.00.000000000001008 Library of Textbooks............. 3............... 8.1 MOVieSOOOOOOOOOO0000......0...... lOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. 207 Summer Clinics................... l............... 2.7 Film Strips...................... 0............... 0.0 AS Table 14 reveals, Debate Handbooks ranked first in teaching analogy, being used by 37.8 per cent of the coaches. Assigned Class Textbook was used by 7 coaches; Study Sheet Outlines and Study Sheets were each used by 4 coaches. Three coaches used a Library of Textbooks. Movies and Summer Clinics were each used by l coach. TABLE 15: CAUSE TO EFFECT (35) Number of Per cent of Material Coaches Coaches Debate Handbooks.................l2...............34.3 Assigned Class Textbook..........ll...............3l.4 Study Sheets..................... 5...............14.3 Study Sheet Outlines............. 4...............ll.4 Library Of TextbOOkSOOOOOOOOOOOOO 3.000.000.000000 806 Movies........................... l............... 2.9 Summer Clinics................... l............... 2.9 Film StriPSOOOOOOOOOO0.00.0000... OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 0.0 36 Debate Handbooks was a material used by 12 of the 35 coaches teaching cause to effect reasoning. Assigned Class Textbook was used by 11 coaches. Each of the other materials was used by 5 or fewer of the coaches. TABLE 16: EXAMPLE (33) Number of Per cent of Material Coaches Coaches Debate Handbooks................l3................39.4 Assigned Class Textbook......... 8................24.2 Library of Textbooks............ 7................21.2 Study Sheets.................... 4................12.1 Study Sheet Outlines............ 3................ 9 MOVieSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 1.00.000000000000 3 Summer Clinics.................. l................ 3 Film Strips..................... 0................ O In Table 16 Debate Handbooks, used by 13 of the 33 coaches teaching example, ranks first. Eight of the coaches (24.2 per cent) used Assigned Class Textbook; 7, Librarypof Textbooks. Fewer than 5 coaches used any one of the other materials. TABLE 17: EFFECT TO CAUSE (31) Number of Per cent of Material Coaches Coaches Assigned Class Textbook.........ll................35.5 Debate Handbooks................10................32.3 Study Sheets.................... 5................l6.l Study Sheet Outlines............ 3................ 9 7 Library of Textbooks............ 2................ 6.5 Movies.......................... 2................ 6.5 Summer Clinics.................. 2................ 6.5 Film Strips..................... O................ 0.0 37 Out of the 31 coaches in Table 17 who taught ef- fect to cause reasoning, 11 (35.5 per cent) used Assigned Class Textbook and 10 (32.3 per cent) used Debate Handbooks. No more than 5 Coaches used any one of the other materials. TABLE 18: GENERALIZATION (30) Number of Per cent of Material Coaches Coaches DBbate HandbOOkSOOOOOOOOOOO0.000130000000000.000004303 Assigned Class Textbook......... 7................23.3 Study Sheet Outlines............ 5................l6.6 Library of Textbooks............ 2................ Study Sheets.................... 1................ Movies.......................... 1................ Summer Clinics.................. l................ Film StripSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. OWWWO OWWWN In Table 18, 13 (43.3 per cent) of the 30 coaches teaching generalization used Debate Handbooks; 7, Assigned Class Textbook; 5, Study Sheet Outlines; 2, Library of Text- books; and 1 each used Study Sheets, Movies, and Summer Clinics. No coaches supplemented instruction with Film Strips. TABLE 19: EFFECT TO EFFECT (27) Number of Per Cant of Material Coaches Coaches Assigned Class Textbook..........9................33.3 Debate Handbooks.................7................25.9 StUdy SheetSOOOOOOO00......O0.00.4...0.0.00.0000001408 HOV-168......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.COBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIlOO Study Sheet Outlines.............3................ll.0 Summer Clinics...................3................11.0 Library of Textbooks.............2................ 7.4 Film Strips......................0................ 0.0 38 The Assigned Class Textbook ranks first in Table 19, and Debate Handbooks, second, being used by 33.3 and 25.9 per cent respectively of the coaches teaching effect to effect reasoning. Study Sheets were used by 4 coaches; Movies, Study Sheet Outlines, and Summer Clinics were each used by 3 coaches. Two coaches used Library of Textbooks. Film Strips were not used. TABLE 20: CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM (24)l Number of Per cent of Material Coaches Coaches Debate Handbooks.................5................20.8 Library of Textbooks.............5................20.8 Assigned Class Textbook..........4................l6.7 Study Sheet 0utlines.............2................ 8.3 Study Sheets.....................l................ 4.2 Summer Clinics...................l................ 4.2 Film Strips......................0................ 0.0 Movies...........................0................ 0.0 Debate Handbooks and Library of Textbooks were each used by 5 coaches in teaching the categorical syllogism as indicated in Table 20. This included only 20.8 per cent of the 24 coaches. Assigned Class Textbook was used by 4 coaches; Study Sheet Outlines, 2 coaches; and Study Sheets and Summer Clinics each, 1 coach. 1The number of materials does not equal the num— ber of coaches since a coach or coaches sometimes used a method in place of a material and vice versa. 39 TABLE 21: HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM (21) Number of Per cent of Material Coaches Coaches Debate Handbooks..................5...............23.8 Library of Textbooks..............5...............23.8 Study Sheets......................5...............23.8 Assigned Class Textbook...........3...............l4.3 Film StripSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOO OOO MOVieSOOOO0..0.00.0.00....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 0.0 Study Sheet Outlines..............O............... 0.0 sum-mer CliniCSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.000.00.00000.000 OOO Table 21 indicates that Debate Handbooks, Library of Textbooks, and Study Sheets were each used by 5 of the coaches (23.8 per cent) in teaching the hypothetical syl— logism. Three coaches used Assigned Class Textbook. The other materials were not used in teaching this particular type of reasoning. TABLE 22: DISJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISM (13) Number of Per cent of Material Coaches Coaches Debate Handbooks.................4.................30.8 Assigned Class Textbook..........3.................23.l Library of Textbooks.............3.................23.l Study Sheet Outlines.............2.................15.4 Study Sheets.....................1................. Film Strips......................0................. MOVieSOOOOOOOO00.000.000.00.00000000000000000000000 sum-mer CliniCSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00000000000000000000 OOOx] OOOQ 40 Only 13 coaches taught the disjunctive syllogism, and Table 22 reveals that none of the coaches used more than one material. Debate Handbooks was used by 4 coaches (30.8 per cent); Assigned Class Textbook and Library of Textbooks each, 3 coaches; Study Sheet Outlines, 2 coaches; and StudypSheets, l coach. Film Strips, Movies, and Summer Clinics were not used. TABLE 23: EJTHYBB (7) Number of Per cent of Material Coaches Coaches Assigned Class Textbook..........4................57.l Library of Textbooks.............2................28.6 Debate Handbooks.................l................14.3 Film Strips......................0................ 0.0 Movies...........................0................ 0.0 Study Sheet Outlines.............O................ 0.0 Study Sheets.....................0................ 0.0 Summer Clinics...................0................ 0.0 Seven coaches taught the enthymeme; Table 23 re- veals that 57.1 per cent of these coaches used Assigned Class Textbook as a material. Library of Textbooks was used by 2 coaches, and Debate Handbooks was used by l coach. Other materials listed were not used. 41 TABLE 24: SIGN REASCNING (6) Number of Per cent of Material Coaches Coaches Debate Handbooks.................2................33.3 Assigned Class Textbook..........l................l6.7 Library of Textbooks.............l................l6.7 Study Sheet Outlines.............l................l6.7 summer Clinics...oooooooooooo0000100..0000000000001607 Film StripS0.0..0....00......OOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOO. OOO MOVieSOOOOO.’....0......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.... 0.0 Study Sheets.....................0................ 0.0 Table 24 indicates that of the 6 coaches teach- ing Sign reasoning, 2 used Debate Handbooks and 1 each used Assigned Class Textbook, Librarypof Textbooks, Study Sheet Outlines, and Summer Clinics. Methods Used in Teaching the Classifications of Evidence The third phase of Part I deals with ranking the instructional methods used in teaching the classifications of evidence. The methods of teaching evidence are defined as Class Discussion, Debaters' Demonstration, Debaters' Research, Guest Expert, Panel Discussion, Teacher's Demon- stration, and Teacher's Lecture. 42 TABLE 25: STATISTICS (36) Number of Per cent of Method Coaches Coaches Debaters' Research...............24...............66.7 Teacher's Lecture................22...............6l.l Class Discussion.................20...............55.6 Panel Discussion.................18...............50.0 Teacher's Demonstration..........l8...............50.0 Debaters' Demonstration..........l8...............50.0 Guest Expert..................... 7...............l9.4 Debaters' Research was used by 66.7 per cent of the coaches teaching statistics, as revealed in Table 25. Teacher's Lecture, used by 61.1 per cent of the coaches, ranked second. Class Discussion was used by 55.6 per cent. Panel Discussion, Teacher's Demonstration, and Debaters' Demonstration tied for fourth place, each being used by 50 per cent of the coaches. Only 19.4 per cent of the coaches used Guest Expert. TABLE 26: EXAMPLE (35) Number of Per cent of Method Coaches Coaches Debaters' Research...............26...............74.3 Class Discussion.................2l...............60.0 Teacher's Demonstration..........2l...............60.0 Teacher's Lecture................l7...............48.7 Panel Discussion.................16...............45.7 Debaters' Demonstration..........l3...............37.l Guest Expert..................... 5...............14.3 43 Table 26 reveals Debater's Research as the method used by 74.3 per cent of the coaches. Class Discussion and Teacher's Demonstration were each used by 60 per cent of the coaches. Teacher's Lecture, Panel Discussion, and Debaters' Demonstration were used respectively by 48.7, 45.7, and 37.1 per cent of the coaches. Five coaches, or 14.3 per cent, used Guest Expert as a method in teaching example. TABLE 27: AUTHORITY (35) Number of Per cent of Method Coaches Coaches Class Discussion.................23...............65.7 Debaters' Research...............21...............60.0 Teacher's Demonstration..........18...............51.4 Panel Discussion.................17...............48.6 Teacher's Lecture................17...............48.6 Debaters' Demonstration..........15...............42.9 Guest Expert..................... 7...............20.0 In teaching authority Class Discussion was used by 65.7 per cent of the coaches as indicated in Table 27. Debaters' Research and Teacher's Demonstration were used respectively by 60 and 51.4 per cent of the coaches. Papal Discussion and Teacher's Lecture tied for third place, being used by 48.6 per cent of the coaches. Debaters' Demonstra- pipp and Guest Expert were used respectively by 42.9 and 20 per cent of the coaches. 44 TABLE 28: OPINIONS (32) Number of Per cent of Method Coaches Coaches Debaters' Research...............22...............68.8 Class Discussion.................2l...............65.6 Teacher's Lecture................18...............56.3 Debaters' Demonstration..........l6...............50.0 Teacher's Demonstration..........l6...............50.0 Panel Discussion.................l3...............40.6 Guest Expert..................... 6...............16.7 Debaters' Research ranked first in Table 28, being used by 68.8 per cent of the coaches teaching opinions. Class Discussigp was used by 65.6 per cent of the coaches; Teacher's Lecture, 56.3; Debaters' Demonstration and Teach- er's Demonstration each, 50; Panel Discussion, 40.6; and Guest Expert, 16.7. TABLE 29: PRIMARY OR ORIGINAL SOURCES (27) Number of Per cent of Method Coaches Coaches Debaters' Research...............18...............66.7 Class Discussion.................l7...............63.3 Teacher's Lecture................l7...............63.3 Teacher's Demonstration..........l2...............44.4 Panel Discussion.................1l...............40.7 Debaters' Demonstration.......... 8...............29.6 Guest Expert..................... 4...............14.8 Debaters' Research was used by 66.7 per cent of the coaches as a method in teaching primary or original 45 sources as Shown in Table 29. Class Discussion and Teacher's Lecture each were used by 63.3 per cent of the coaches. Teacher's Demonstration and Panel Discussion were used re- spectively by 44.4 and 40.7 per cent of the coaches. Only 4 coaches, or 14.8 per cent, used Guest Expert. TABLE 30: LITERAL AND FIGURATIVE ANALOGIES (25) Number of Per cent of Method Coaches Coaches Class Discussion.................15...............60.0 Teacher's Demonstration..........l3...............52.0 Teacher's Lecture................ll...............44.0 Debaters' Demonstration.......... 9...............36.0 Debaters' Research............... 9...............36.0 Panel Discussion................. 8...............32.0 Guest Expert..................... 3...............l2.0 Table 30 reveals Class Discussion, Teacher's Demon- stration, and Teacher's Lecture, used respectively by 60, 52, and 44 per cent of the coaches, to be the prevailing methods in teaching literal and figurative analogies. ‘22- baters' Research, which ranked first or second in the five previous classifications of evidence, tied with Debaters' Demonstration for fourth place and was used by only 36 per cent of the coaches. Thirty-two per cent of the coaches used the Panel Discussion; 12 per cent, Guest Expert. 46 TABLE 31: SECONDARY SOURCES (23) Number of Per cent of Method Coaches Coaches Class Discussion.................l7...............73.9 Teacher's Lecture................l6...............69.6 Debaters' Research...............l3...............56.5 Teacher's Demonstration..........l2...............52.2 Panel Discussion................. 9...............39.l Debaters' Demonstration.......... 7...............30.4 Guest Expert..................... 5...............2l.7 As indicated in Table 31, the methods most used in teaching secondary sources were Class Discussion and Teacher's Lecture, being used respectively by 73.9 and 69.6 per cent of the coaches. Debaters' Research and Teach- er's Demonstration were used respectively by 56.5 and 52.2 per cent of the coaches. Panel Discussion, Debaters' Demon- stration, and Guest Expert were the least used with respec— tive percentages of 39.1, 30.4, and 21.7. TABLE 32: CIRCUMSTANTIAL (20) Number of Per cent of Method Coaches Coaches Class Discussion.................l4...............70.0 Teacher's Lecture................l2...............60.0 Debaters' Research...............lO...............50.0 Teacher's Demonstration.......... 9...............45.0 Panel Discussion................. 8...............40.0 Debaters' Demonstration.......... 7...............35.0 Guest Expert..................... l............... 5.0 47 Table 32 reveals that of the 20 coaches teaching circumstantial evidence, 70 per cent used Class Discussion, 60 per cent used Teacher's Lecture, and 50 per cent used Debaters' Research. Teacher's Demonstration and Panel Dis— .cussion were methods used by 45 and 40 per cent of the coaches respectively. Seven coaches, or 35 per cent, used Debaters' Demonstration; and only 1 coach used Guest Expert. Materials Used in Teaching the Classifications of Evidence The fourth phase of Part I ranks the instructional materials used in teaching the classifications of evidence. The materials are defined as Assigned Class Textbook, 22f bate Handbooks, Film Strips, Library of Textbooks, Movies, Study Sheet Outlines, Study Sheets, and Summer Clinics. TABLE 33: STATISTICS (36) Number of Per cent of Material Coaches Coaches Debate Handbooks.................20...............55.6 Assigned Class Textbook.......... 8...............22.2 Library of Textbooks............. 8...............22.2 Study Sheet Outlines............. 4...............ll.l Study Sheets..................... l............... 2.8 Film Strips...................... O............... 0.0 Movies........................... O............... 0.0 Summer Clinics................... 0............... 0.0 48 Out of the 36 coaches teaching statistics, 20, or 55.6 per cent, used Debate Handbooks as pointed out in Table 33. The ranking of Debate Handbooks first may have resulted from respondents considering it, not as a source for teaching evidence, but as a source for finding statis— tical evidence for debating. This may also be true in other tables. Less than 25 per cent of the coaches used any one of the other materials. Assigned Class Textbook and Library of Textbooks were each used by 8 coaches. Four coaches used Study Sheet Outlines, and l coach used Study Sheets. The other materials listed were not used. TABLE 34: EXALLBLE (35) Number of Per cent of material Coaches Coaches Debate Handbooks.................2l...............60.0 Assigned Class Textbook.......... 8...............22.9 Library of Textbooks............. 7...............20.0 Study Sheet Outlines............. 6...............17.1 Study SheetSOOOOOOOOO0.00.0000... 300.000.0000.... 806 Film Strips...................... O............... 0.0 Movies........................... O............... 0.0 Summer Clinics................... O............... 0.0 In Table 34 Debate Handbooks was used by 21 coaches and was the only material used by more than 50 per cent of the coaches teaching example. Eight coaches used Assigned Class Textbook; 7, Library of Textbooks; 6, Study Sheet Outlines; and 3, Study Sheets. Film Strips, Movies, and Summer Clinics were not used. 49 TABLE 35: AUTHORITY (35) Number of Per cent of material Coaches Coaches Debate Handbooks.................l7...............48.6 Assigned Class Textbook..........lO...............28.6 Study Sheet Outlines............. 5...............l4.3 Library of Textbooks............. 3............... IflOVies00....0......00...000...... 10.000.....0.0.. Study Sheet800...0..0.0......0... 1.0....000...0.. summer CliniCSoooo00000000000000. l0.....00..0.... Film Strips.0.....0O000....0..00. O0...0..000...00 ONNNO) o o o o OKOKOKOON None of the materials listed in Table 35 was used by 50 per cent or more of the coaches teaching authority. Debate Handbooks was used by 17 of the 35 coaches. Assigned * Class Textbook was used by 10 of the coaches; Study Sheet Outlines, 5; Library of Textbooks, 3; Movies, Study Sheets, and Summer Clinics each, 1. No coaches used Film Strigs. TABLE 36: OPINIONS (32) Number of Per cent of Material Coaches Coaches Debate Handbooks.................l6...............50.0 Assigned Class Textbook.......... 8...............25.0 Study Sheet Outlines............. 5...............15.6 Library of Textbooks............. 3............... 9 3 Study Sheets..................... 2............... 6.3 Film Strips...................... O............... 0.0 0.0 0.0 lflOVieSooooooooooooooooooooooooooo O0...0.0...0.00. summer Clinics.000......00..0..00 O...0.......00.. 50 In Table 36 Debate Handbooks was the only material used by at least 50 per cent of the coaches teaching Opin- ions. Sixteen of the 32 coaches used Debate Handbooks. Assigned Class Textbook ranked second and was used by only 8 of the coaches. Five coaches used Study Sheet Outlines; 3, Library of Textbooks; and 2, Study Sheets. Other mate— rials listed were not used. TABLE 37: PRIMARY OR ORIGINAL SOURCES (27) Number of Per cent of Material Coaches Coaches Debate Handbooks................12................44.4 Assigned Class Textbook......... 6................22.2 Study Sheet Outlines............ 4................l4.8 Library of Textbooks............ 3................ll.l Study Sheets.................... 3................ll.l Film Strips..................... O................ 0.0 Movies.......................... O................ 0.0 Summer Clinics.................. O................ 0.0 Of the 27 coaches teaching primary or original sources (Table 37), 12, or 44.4 per cent, used Debate Hand— books. Assigned Class Textbook was used by only 6 coaches; Study Sheet Outlines, 4; Library_of Textbooks and Study Sheets each, 3. Film Strips, Movies, and Summer Clinics were not used. 51 TABLE 38: LITERAL AND FIGURATIVE ANALOG ES (25) Number of Per cent of Material Coaches Coaches Debate Handbooks.................6................24.0 Assigned Class Textbook..........5................20.0 Library of Textbooks.............3................12.0 Study Sheet Outlines.............3................l2.0 Study Sheets.....................2................ 8.0 Film Strips......................O................ 0.0 MOVieS00..0.....000..0..0..00....00..00..0..0..0.. 0.0 Summer Clinics...................O................ 0.0 Of the 25 coaches teaching analogies, only 19 used materials listed in Table 38. No one material was used by more than 24 per cent of the coaches. As in pre- vious tables, Film Strips, Movies, and Summer Clinics were not used at all. TABLE 39: SECONDARY SOURCES (23) Number of Per cent of Material Coaches Coaches Debate Handbooks.................9................39.1 Assigned Class Textbook..........4................l7.4 Study Sheets.....................2................ Study Sheet outlines...0.00......20000000.....0... Library of Textbooks.............l................ Film Strips......000...0...000..0O.......0....0... MOViGSooooooooooooo00.0.00.ooooooOoooooooooooooooo sum-mer CliniCSoooooooooooooooooooOoooooooooooooooo OOO~F>CDCI> O . 0 0 O . OOOWQN As indicated in Table 39, 9 of the 23 coaches teaching secondary sources used Debate Handbooks, as a 52 material; 4, Assigned Class Textbook; 2, Study Sheets; 2, Study Sheet Outlines; and 1, Library of Textbooks. A total of 18 out of 23 coaches used the materials listed. TABLE 40: CIRCUMSTANTIAL (20) Number of Per cent of Material Coaches Coaches Debate Handbooks.................6................30.0 Assigned Class Textbook..........4................20.0 Library of Textbooks.............3................15.0 Study Sheet Outlines.............2................l0.0 MOVieS.0...00..00000.00..0...0..0l0000..0..00.0... 5 Study Sheets.....................l................ 5 Film StripSoooooocoo...coo.cocoooOoooooooooooooooo 0 Summer Clinics...................O................ O Table 40 reveals the first time that movies was used as a material in teaching evidence. (See page]JJ.for details on the use of movies as a material in teaching cir- cumstantial evidence.) Other materials ranking above Movies include Debate Handbooks, Assigned Class Textbook, Library of Textbooks, and Study Sheet Outlines, and Study Sheets. None of the materials was used by more than 30 per cent of the coaches. No coaches used Film Strips or Summer Clinics. 53 Summary of Methods Used in Teaching Reasoning Syllqgistic reasoning.--As a whole, categorical syllogism ranked seventh, hypothetical syllogism ranked eighth, and the disjunctive syllogism ranked ninth out of eleven classifications of reasoning. According to this study approximately 60 per cent of the coaches taught the hypothetical syllogism, and 30 per cent taught the disjunc- tive syllogism. In teaching the syllogisms the two preva- lent methods were Teacher's Lecture and Teacher's Demonstra- tion. Class Discussion, Debaters' Demonstration, and 22- baters' Research were of significance. The methods least used were Panel Discussion and Guest Expert. The enthymeme was ranked tenth as a classification of reasoning, being taught by only 7 coaches, or 17.2 per cent. The first- and second-ranking methods used in teaching the enthymeme were Teacher's Lecture and Teacher's Demonstration respec- tively. Causal reasoning.--According to the survey, cause to effect ranked second, effect to cause ranked fourth, and effect to effect ranked sixth in the eleven classifi- cations of reasoning. In teaching causal reasoning the top-ranked method was Teacher's Lecture, followed by Class Discussion. The seven methods were ranked in the same order for effect to cause and cause to effect. If Debaters' Research and Teacher's Demonstration had not been in 54 contraposition in the rankings of effect to effect, it (effect to effect) would have been ranked identically with the other causal reasonings. Beginning with the most—fre- quently—used method for teaching syllogistic reasoning, the order was as follows: Teacher's Lecture, Class Dis- cussion, Teacher's Demonstration, Debaters' Research (the last two methods being ranked in contraposition for effect to effect), Panel Discussion, Debaters' Demonstration, and Guest Expert. Sign reasoning was taught by only 6 coaches. All 6 coaches used Teacher's Lecture, supplemented by an— other method or methods other than Guest Expert. AnalogngExample, and Generalization.--The three most-prevalent methods used in teaching these classifica— tions of reasoning were Class Discussion, Teacher's Lecture, and Teacher's Demonstration. In each table the fourth-ranked method was Panel Discussion. The methods, Debaters' Research and Debaters' Demonstration, were tied for fifth place in teaching analogy and generalization. In teaching example, however, Debaters' Research ranked fifth and Debaters' Demonstration ranked sixth, being separated by a difference of only 1 coach. Guest Expert ranked last in all three tables. Summary of Materials Used in Teaching Reasoning SyIIOgistic Reasoning.—-All the materials used in teaching the categorical, hypothetical, and disjunctive syllogisms were utilized in one table or another. Debate Handbooks ranked first in the teaching of these classifi- cations, being tied for first once by Library of Textbooks. The use of Assigned Class Textbook, Library of Textbooks, Study Sheets and Study Sheet Outlines was very prominent in the totals and, therefore, these materials are assumed to be instrumental in the teaching process. In only 1 in- stance, the categorical syllogism, did a coach indicate the use of Summer Clinics as a method of teaching syllogis- tic reasoning. Film Strips and Movies were not used. The teaching of the enthymeme involved three materials: Assigned Class Textbook, Library of Textbooks, and Debate Handbooks. Of the 40 respondents, 7 taught the enthymeme. Causal Reasonin .-—The prevalent materials used in teaching cause to effect, effect to cause, and effect to effect were Assigned Class Textbook and Debate Handbooks. Film Strips was not used. The other materials did not form any pattern in the rankings; however, all seemed to be useful to some extent. Sign reasoning was taught by 6 coaches: 2 used Debate Handbooks, and 4 coaches each used one material from Assigned Class Textbook, Library of Textbooks, Study Sheet Outlines, and Summer Clinics. 56 Analogy, Example, and Generalization.--The most— frequently-used material for teaching analogy, generaliza- tion, and example was Debate Handbooks. In all three tables the second-ranked material was Assigned Class Textbook. No pattern of rank develOped in using Study Sheet Outlines, Study Sheets, and Library of Textbooks. Movies and Summer Clinics were each used by l coach. None of the coaches used Film Strips. Summary of Methods Used in Teaching Evidence In comparing the classifications of evidence to the methods used in the instruction, one can observe a closely—ranked number of methods for teaching each classifi- cation. The study reveals that all methods were well used with the exception of Guest Expert. Debaters' Research ranked first in the categories of example, opinions, primary sources, and statistics, whereas Class Discussion was ranked first in teaching anal— ogies, circumstantial, authority, and secondary evidence. The next six methods were closely and interchangeably ranked in the tables. Individual preference seems to be the de— terminant since no consistent pattern could be deciphered. Although Guest Expert ranked last in all tables, it should be emphasized that the figures represent a sizeable 12 to 20 per cent of the coaches surveyed. Summary of Materials Used in Teaching Evidence Debate Handbooks ranked first in teaching the eight classifications of evidence. Assigned Class Textbook ranked or tied for second in all tables. Study Sheet Out- lines ranked third in teaching authority, statistics, anal— ogies, opinions, primary or original sources, and secondary sources; Study Sheet Outlines ranked fourth in the teaching of example and circumstantial evidence. Library of Text- books tied for second in teaching statistics; ranked third in teaching example, circumstantial, secondary sources, and analogies; and ranked fourth in teaching authority, Opinions, and primary or original sources. The use of Study Sheets in teaching statistics, examples, authority (tied with Hovies and Summer Clinics), opinions, analogies, and circumstantial (tied with Iovies), ranked fifth. Study Sheets ranked third (tied with Study Sheet Outlines) in the teaching of primary or original sources and fourth in teaching secondary sources. Movies was used in the teaching of authority and circumstantial evidence only; each was used by only 1 coach. Summer Clinics was used once, in the teaching of authority. None of the coaches indicated the use of Film Strips in teaching evi- dence. CHAPTER IV TABULATION AND ANALYSIS OF PART II This chapter presents a tabulation and analysis of the results of Part II of the Survey. The answers to these questions provide insight into and an understanding of the high school debate program and present detailed in- formation on the methods and materials used by the coaches surveyed in teaching reasoning and evidence. The number appearing in parenthesis is identical to its number in the questionnaire. It is hoped that this procedure will allow for efficient and exact reference to the questionnaire which is located in Appendix B. Question I (I): Do your debaters meet daily during the academic school schedule solely as a debate class? This question was asked to discover if there were a special class for debaters or if debate were taught under other circumstances. Eighteen responded "yes" to this ques— tion, and 25,"no." One coach stated that he had a class composed of debaters and general speech students. 59 Question 2 (2): Is debate taught solely as an extracurricular activity? Of the 43 responses, 20 answered in the affirma- tive and 22 answered negatively. In 1 instance students had a choice of taking debate as a class or as an extra- curricular activity. Another response indicated that stu- dents after the first year were allowed to take debate only as an extracurricular activity. The coach in the latter case stated that debate during the first year was part of the general speech course. Question 3 (3): Is debate taught as a unit in/or through another course? In 28 cases debate was not taught through another class, but was purely extracurricular or a class in itself. Of the 14 affirmative replies, 12 stated debate was taught in connection with a general speech class; 1, an English class; 1, an English—speech class; and in 1 other instance debate was a part of a "Performing Arts Curriculum" for advanced students. Question 4 (4): If debate is taught in another course, what is the title of the course? There were 31 coaches who did not instruct de- baters through another course. Of the 13 who did, 8 taught debaters through beginning speech; 2, through advanced 6O speech; 1, through "Special English"; 1, through an English course; and l coach allowed the students to choose between either a beginning speech or an advanced speech class. Question 5 (5): How many days a week do you meet with your debaters? In 19 programs debate was taught five days a week. In 43 programs debate was taught three days a week. In 3 programs debate was taught two days a week. In 5 programs debate was taught one day a week. In 3 instances the de- bate instruction varied from week to week. One school had a diversified program with freshmen meeting during the sev— enth hour of the school day for a half hour daily, while the upper classmen met after school one day a week for an hour and a half. Two schools scheduled debate for one or two days; 1 school averaged one to three days; 3 schools averaged two to three days; 1 school averaged two to four days; and l coach met with the debaters three to four days. Question 6 (6): How long are the periods when you meet? Where the debaters met as a class five days a week, the class period averaged anywhere from forty minutes to sixty minutes in length. In tabulating the other data, no general pattern could be formed as to the amount of time 61 spent on debate outside the scheduled academic school day. Where the debaters met as an extracurricular activity, coaches responded in various ways: "extremes," "odd times," "five to twenty minutes," "an hour and a half," "five times a week," and "several hours a week in evening sessions." Question 7 (7): Do your debaters receive credit towards graduation for taking debate? The purpose in asking this question was to obtain understanding of how the administration felt towards debate. Of the 24 replies indicating "yes," 8 schools gave credit even though debate was extracurricular. Eighteen schools answered "no," and 1 school stated that credit was given "sometimes." The coach in the latter case did not elaborate. Question 8 (8): On what grade level do you begin to coach debaters? This question was asked with the feeling that the length of time a student spends on debate could help determine the teaching methods and materials. It is inter— esting to note that in the schools surveyed 19 approached the students in the ninth grade, 18 schools began the de— bate program in the tenth grade, and only 4 schools waited until the eleventh grade to develop their debaters. There were no schools that had a beginning debate class for seniors only. This does not mean, however, that seniors could not 62 take debate. One unusual reply read, "We have a reserve coach for the ninth and beginning tenth graders; I coach the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth graders." Another coach stated, "Whenever we can recruit them." Question 9 (10): Do your debaters use a library of textbooks? Yes No If so, please list the three books most widely used. The replies to this question were mainly in the negative. Only 10 schools used a library of textbooks; 30 schools did not. Three respondents misinterpreted the ques- tion to mean evidence used in supporting debate cases. There was no definite pattern as to what books were most commonly used. Twelve books were mentioned, and no one book received more than 4 nominations. A thirteenth book, Argumentation and Debate, was listed, but its author was not given. Table 41 lists the books in alphabetical order with their number of nominations. A bibliography appears in Ap— pendix C. TABLE 41: LIBRARY OF TEXTBOOKS Title Number of Nominations Argumentation and Debate--Crocker........................l Argumentation and Debate-—McBurney.......................3 Argumentation and Debate-~Potter.........................l Argumentation and Debate—~Foster.........................2 Contest Debating--Summers................................l Competitive Debating—-Musgrave........................... Debate Coaching—~Lahman.................................. Discussion and Debate-~Sattler........................... Discussion Guidebook for High School Debaters—-Pfister... Essentials of Discussion and Debate—-Gulley.............. How to Debate: A Textbook for Beginners--Summers........ The New American Speech-—Hedde........................... Principals and Types of Speech—-Honroe... ....... ......... HNWHH#HH to some of the tables in Part I because some coaches failed to fill out both Parts I and II. “A. ,-. -L-»- ~-, w .. - I: , k + ‘ . 4 l '. ‘ qacetion 10 (ll): Do your deaauers use an Seeigned -L' ‘34-7‘ ‘\f\‘ UCAUHUUK? The replies to this question were emphatically "no!" Out of the 43 returns onlv 3 r suondents indicated d .L "yes." Two coaches listed So You Want to Discuss and De— “. 1 .~, - n l 1 '1 ‘1 sate! by DroOks quimby as the text used, and another coacn . ,. v . . . 2 indicated how to Desate by Summers, .nan, and Rouse as the text. Question ll (l2): Do you use film strips? All respondents answered "no." Perhaps this would be a worthy area to develop. Question 12 (13): Do you use movies? In only 4 instances did coaches use movies; 39 coaches did not use them. The movies used were obtained from visual aids departments of the University of Iichigan l_ . - W brooks QUlmby, So You Jant t 19 .0 Portland, Maine: J. Heston Jalch, 34). 2” q. . summers, Jnan, and Rousse, on. Cit. Discuss and Debate! 64 and Michigan State University. One coach used ten short movies pertaining to public speaking, research, outlining, composition, and debate and discussion. In checking with the University of Michigan and Michigan State University, the writer secured a bibliography of appropriate films which are listed in Appendix D. Although the question was not asked, 1 respondent mentioned that tape recordings were used. The respondent did not elaborate as to the title or the source from which the tape was obtained. Question l3 (14): Do you use debate handbooks? Yes No . If so, please rank in order of preference (In case of tie use the same number-- 1 is highest) ___evidence abstracts, ___strategy, ___briefs, ___bibliography of authorities, or others . In response to the first part, 42 stated "yes," and 1 did not reply. Therefore, the writer safely concludes that debate handbooks are an integral part of debate instruc- tion as indicated by these coaches. The second part of the question received only 23 answers, the smallest number of replies of all the ques- tions included in the survey. Since it was not a separate question, non—respondents were probably not aware of it. Of the coaches who did respond, however, the rank- ing of the units within the handbooks was as follows: the unit "briefs" ranked first with 11 first—place votes; 65 "evidence abstracts" and "bibliography of authorities" tied for second with 7 first-place votes each; and "strategy" ranked last with 6 first-place votes. The total number of first-place votes exceeds the number of respondents to this question due to some units being ranked equally. Question 14 (15): Check the handbooks that you use: Emil Pfister's , Hid—West , NUE , Reference Shelf , Walch , and Others . Forty-one responded to this statement; 2 did not. One of the respondents stated, "different books different years." No differential was made between debate handbooks and discussion handbooks. It was assumed by the writer that since the questionnaire pertained to the use of debate methods and materials that the respondents would interpret the statement as such. The debate handbooks are listed in Table 42 according to the number of nominations. TABLE 42: HANDBOOKS Handbooks Number of Nominations J. Weston Walch........................................36 NUEA...................................................3l Mid-West...............................................22 Reference Shelf........................................21 Dr. Pfister's Discussion Guide Book for Debaters.......lO Marquette.............................................. National Debate Research............................... Allan Dale............................................. Hope Varsity's Manual.................................. Cambridge................ ....... ....................... Chicago Research....................................... Michigan High School Forensic Pamphlet................. Nebraska............................................... HHHwa## Totaling the noninations in Table 41 and divid- ing them by the nunber of coaches, one finds that each coach 3.4 different published d bate hand- C) H3 18 v (‘0 "‘ :3 r- . “n LLLa “V61 used on LOOLiS 0 Debate Handbooks Review A brief review of the debate handbooks receiving 3 nOminations or more is given in order to draw particular conclusions in Chapter V. The J. fieston Walch Company publishes several manuals. One entitled So You Want to Discuss and Debate! is Specifically written to explain the different types of discussions and debates, the role of discussants and debat- ers, and the classifications of reasoning and evidence that 3 Another annual manual are used in develOping the case. presents briefs, a bibliography, evidence abstracts, and a "Who's Who."4 No mention is made of reasoning and evi- dence. The National University Extension Association publishes yearly two volumes on the debate proposition. The volumes present authoritative speeches on the history 3Quimby, op. cit. 4J. Weston Walch, Debate Handbook on Labor—Han- agement Relations, Vol. II (Portland, Maine: J. Weston Halch, 1959). 67 and possible issues of the prOposition, quotations, and a bibliography from which materials for evidence may be se— cured.5 The mid-West Debate Bureau's annual handbook6 contains no specific information on the classifications of reasoning and evidence that might be used. The author, however, devotes approximately 38 pages to special methods of refutation, the role of debaters, and fallacies in rea- soning. The book also contains sample briefs, a bibliog- raphy, and evidence abstracts. H. W. Wilson Company is the publisher of The Hef— erence Shelf.7 The work is published several times a year on timely subjects. The volumes do not give formal instruc— tion in the teaching of reasoning and evidence, but present background information and representative points of view on each topic. The books also contain comprehensive bib- liographies that are helpful in the construction of a debate case. Discussion Guidebook for High School Debaters, by Dr. Emil Pfister,8 a yearly publication, contains a 5Bower Aly (ed.), Discussion and Debate Manual, 2 vols. (Columbia, missouri: Artcraft Press, 1959). 6The Debate Review (Normal, Ill.: Hid-West De- bate Bureau, 1959. 7The Reference Shelf (New York: H. W. Wilson COO, nod-O). 8. . -0. ii. . . . Emil Pfister, Discussion Guidebook for High School Debaters (Mt. Pleasant, mich.: Central hichigan College Press, 1958). survey summary of the fundamentals of discussion and debate. The handbook presents the duties of discussants and debat- ers, an annotated bibliOgraphy, significant points of the present proposition, and the rules for planning and judging a debate. The primary purpose of the guidebook is to as- sist debaters in organizing the "footwork" that is neces- sary for successful debating. There is little information pertaining to reasoning and evidence as used in building the debate brief. Marquette University publishes an annual debate handbook.9 The authors stress the importance of groundwork or research in understanding the proposition. The handbook covers in a very illustrative way the duties and responsi- bilities of the affirmative and negative teams, evidence abstracts, and roles and tactics of the debate cases. No material pertaining to reasoning and evidence is included. Allen W. Dale publishes two volumes. Volume I is designed with the annual debate and discussion topics 10 in mind. Volume II is designed "to acquaint pupils with ."11 the basic principles of debate. . The books contain 9Hugo Hellman and Joseph B. Laine, The Labor Prob— lem (Milwaukee: marquette University, 1959). 10Allen W. Dale, Education Problem, Vol. I: D3- bate Handbook (Kansas City: Dale Publishing Co., 1957). 11Allen W. Dale, Education Problem, Vol. II: Advanced Handbook (Kansas City: Dale Publishing Co., 1957), p. l. 69 classifications of reasoning and evidence as well as tests for each. The National Debate Research Company publishes two kinds of handbooks. In addition to a traditional de- bate handbook,12 a discussion and debate textbook13 is also published. The textbook discusses the "tools of reasoning" as fact, opinion, example, and statistics. Question 15 (16): Please check the following institutions where your debaters attend, fall clinics, fall tournaments, and summer clinics. The purpose of this request was not to discover that one clinic is more pOpular than another but to obtain evidence that the clinics and tournaments are or are not useful in teaching reasoning and evidence. After the tabu- lations were made, the writer wrote to four of the insti- tutions sponsoring clinics or tournaments for materials which he evaluated. The fall clinics are pOpular. Only 4 schools did not attend any fall clinic during the 1959-60 school year. The remaining 39 schools attended on the average of 1.77 per school. The greatest number of clinics 12Jack Solomon, Jr., Labor Management Relations (Chicago: National Debate Research Co., 1959). l5William Buys, Jack Lurphy, and Bruce Kendall, Discussion and Debate (Chicago: National Debate Research 00-9 1957)- 7O attended by any one school was five. Seven fall clinics were sponsored by colleges and universities in the state of Michigan during the 1959-60 school year. In analyzing materials from four of these clinics, the writer found that the primary purpose of each was to introduce high school debaters to the discussion and debate topics. There was a definite secondary purpose, however, which was to introduce debaters to areas such as "Character— istics of Good Debating," "Effective Arguing," "Building the Debate Case," and "Refutation and Rebuttal." Twenty-six of the 43 schools attended fall tourna- ments. At only one of the five tournaments held during the l959-6O school year was a winner chosen. The primary pur- pose of the other tournaments was to give the novice and the experienced debater practice in using the elements of debating. Summer clinics were attended by only 9 of the 43 schools surveyed. The schools attended clinics sponsored by Michigan State University, Montana University, Northwest- ern University, and the West Ohio District of the Rational Forensic League. Question 16 (27): How do guest experts assist in teaching reasoning and evidence? This question brought several varied and interest- ing replies. Some coaches interpreted it to mean guests brought into the classroom, while others interpreted it to 71 mean outside Speakers, and still others thought it to mean debate judges. Of the 12 replies to this question, 5 re- spondents stated that "Our only guest experts are those judges whom we expect to give an oral critique." In 2 cases, the teacher asked the debaters to analyze and evalu— ate speakers in public speaking situations. In 1 instance a local parish Father lectured on reasoning and evidence, and in another instance the coach invited a college debate team to demonstrate reasoning and evidence through an actual debate and to answer questions. Two respondents stated that the professional personnel at fall clinics were very help- ful in teaching reasoning and evidence. One respondent's penmanship could not be deciphered. Question l7 (18): Do your experienced debaters assist in the instruction of reasoning and evi— dence? In response to this question 32 coaches answered "yes," 7 answered "no," and 4 did not answer. Some of the typical comments were: "By having the less experienced present their arguments and then by having the experienced debaters acting as critics-judges;" "By explaining to the rest of the class the reasoning used in the construction of their cases;" "Through demonstration and lecture;" "Dis- cussion groups and sessions where they are leaders;" "Point out weaknesses of argument, choices of authority;" "They work with individuals giving them illustrations and tell 72 them what to look for in evidence"; "By assigning an experi- enced debater to a group of inexperienced, and by putting a varsity debater with a beginner in class teams"; "The buddy system"; "By coaching debaters." Question 17 (25): Briefly describe the study sheet outlines that you use in teaching reason- ing and evidence. Question 18 (26): Please describe the study sheets that are used in teaching reasoning and evidence. The two classifications of study sheets were given to enable the respondents to answer more accurately. How- ever, since no distinction was made between the two clas- sifications, the questions will be answered together. Typ- ical explanations among the 11 who replied were: "Simple make-believe cases, usually on simple everyday subjects"; "The different types are indicated with several examples under each"; "We prepare cases and discuss these"; "I use materials developed from speech courses that I have taken and found to be helpful"; "As outlined in teaching speech in Florida public schools"; "Taken from texts"; "Use Crocker's fallacies, etc., in ditto form"; ". . . I prepare sets of examples and have students choose the correct answer. I point out errors in reasoning or value of evidence"; "The University of Michigan provides additional outline sheets which we use." The study sheets, thus, were composed from 73 personal training and experiences, from materials found in textbooks, and from speech departments of higher institu— tions. Question 19 (28): Briefly describe demonstrations that are used by the coach in teaching reasoning and evidence. Eighteen of the 43 returns brought a response in this area. Some of the replies were: "drawing on the blackboard to explain certain types of reasoning (e.g., deductive and inductive)"; "trips to the library"; and "making posters to emphasize or explain a point." Some unusual methods as explained by one coach are: I use the book How Well Do You Rate? which has many suggestions in it. Also observation test: In advanced plan with two boys, they start an arg ment in the middle of the class session, ending with a blow being struck by one. Then explanation by each member of the class is given as to what happened. The jury trial is an ex- cellent device too. We make up our own. At times our trials have created a great deal of interest in the school and it is never hard to find an audience when a class wishes to organize one. At times it is particularly interesting when our student lawyers have an opportunity to check cases with professional lawyers, who are most interested and willing to help, in our own area. Other explanations were: "By examples from past and current debate topics, and everyday situations"; "Teams misuse various techniques and debaters try to spot them"; "Impromptu constructive talks on each side"; "Presentation in logical step by step form from outlines written on the 74 board"; "Taping and analyzing advertisements." One comment that was related to this study, but which cannot be classified under any question within the questionnaire is: My varsity debaters will participate in over one hundred and fifty debates a year. We develop our own cases and cases are developed only through discussion. I never prepare or give a case directly to my debaters. I stress clear thinking, extempore ability, a great deal of research. . . . My people have training in P.A. announcing, radio work, plays, and talent shows. Question 20 (19): Approximately how much money per year is spent on materials? In order to find out if there was a correlation between money spent on materials and instructional procedure the question was asked. This question was misinterpreted or not stated clearly, for the amount listed included sea- sonal expenses other than for teaching reasoning and evi- dence. The high was $500, and the low was $10. The average as compiled from the 43 replies was $44.45 per school. Question 21 (17): Of the total time devoted to the training of debaters, approximately what per cent is allotted to the teaching of reasoning and evidence? The question was asked in order to secure addi- tional information about the importance of these areas to the general field of debate. Twelve respondents had no 75 idea as to the time devoted to these areas. The extremes of time spent were from 10 to 75 per cent. Fourteen respond- ents stated that they felt about 50 per cent of the time was spent in these areas. Eight returns indicated at least 75 per cent of the time was spent teaching reasoning and evidence. Ten respondents stated that they felt approxi- mately 25 per cent of the time was spent teaching reasoning and evidence. 0ne respondent stated 60 per cent, while another stated approximately 10 per cent. In combining the figures given by the respondents, it was found that an average of 47.7 per cent of the instructional time was spent on teaching reasoning and evidence. Question 22 (20): Do your debaters have a spe- cific summer debate assignment? The response was that ll schools had summer as— signments, but that 33 did not. Question 23 (21): If so, what is the assignment? The assignment in all 11 cases was to read and become familiar with the following year's debate topic. No coach indicated that the summer assignment was to im- prove the debaters' reasoning ability, although some coaches felt that the summer clinics were of value in teaching rea- soning and evidence. 76 Question 24 (22): Is coaching your only speech activity? To this question only 9 of the respondents had debate coaching as their sole speech assignment, 32 had other responsibilities, and 2 did not answer the question. Question 25 (23): What other activities are your responsibility? The two major speech activities were directing plays and coaching spring forensics. There were 17 whose added responsibility was the directing of at least one play. Of these 17, 9 directed two plays, and 2 directed three plays. There were 31 coaches responsible for the spring forensics. Of these 31 coaches, 16 also were involved in the directing of at least one play. Other duties involving debate coaches were class advising, producing assemblies, supplying community programs, and coaching community-sponsored speech contests. Summary Coacnes' Environment.--Eighteen of the coaches surveyed taught debate classes which were a part of the regular curriculum; 14 respondents taught debate through another class; and 11 respondents taught debate as an 77 extracurricular activity. It cannot be said that the debate coach has a dull moment. Along with teaching a regular load, 32 of the coaches surveyed also had other responsibilities. Seven- teen debate coaches were responsible for the directing of at least one school play, approximately 53 per cent of these coaches directed two productions, and approximately 11 per cent (2 coaches) were in charge of three productions. Along with the directing of plays, 31 coaches were delegated the responsibility of directing the spring forensics. Some of the coaches, in addition, were responsible for providing community programs and serving as class advisers. In 24 instances respondents indicated that the Board of Education felt debate so worthwhile that credit should be given towards graduation. Eight of the schools represented by these respondents gave credit even though debate was considered extracurricular. Nineteen of the schools gave no credit. Eighty-six per cent of the coaches indicated that the training of interested students in debate began in grades nine and ten. There were only 4 schools that waited until the students' junior year before approaching them. None of the schools developed their debaters in the senior year. This does not mean, however, that seniors were not allowed to debate. Many of the respondents misinterpreted the question 78 concerning the amount of money spent for materials in teach- ing reasoning and evidence. However, it is interesting to note that some schools spent as little as 310, other schools, as much as $500, in promoting debate activities. Materials.--Debate handbooks were used by 42 of the 43 coaches. Twenty-three coaches answered only the second part of the two-fold question. The preferential ranking of the debate handbook units by the coaches were "briefs," "evidence abstracts" and "bibliography" (tied), and "strategy." Thirteen different handbooks were used. Those used by 10 or more coaches were the handbooks pub- 14 15 Mid-West,16 H. w. 18 lished by J. Weston Walch, l7 HUEA, Wilson Company, and Central Michigan University. Only 13 schools used either a Library of Textbooks or Assigned Class Textbook. There was a wide variety of textbooks of which the Michigan High School Forensic book- 20 let19 and the books, How to Debate and Argumentation and l4Wa1ch, op. cit. l5Aly, Op. cit. 16 The Debate Review, 0p. cit. l7The Reference Shelf, op. cit. 18Pfister, on. cit. l m. . . . 9William M. Sattler, and H. Edd Miller, Discus— sion and Debate (Ann Arbor, hichigan: Michigan High School Forensic Association, 1959). 20 Summers, Whan, and Rousse, on. cit. 79 Debate21 were the most pOpular. It can be generally assumed that both the teacher and the debaters referred to these books and others which are listed in Appendix C. Many ideas were mentioned for developing the Study Sheets and Study Sheet Outlines. Some of them were "examples of classifications of reasoning and evidence"; "information taken from textbooks on classifications of reasoning and evidence"; "simple make-believe cases"; and "outline sheets from the University of Michigan." None of the coaches used Film Strips. However, 4 coaches used a variety of movies, and l coach utilized the tape recorder. Methods.--The role of the experienced debater was an important method in the instructional program. Thirty-two respondents indicated that the "buddy" system, special demonstrations, and the coaching of inexperienced debaters were the most helpful techniques in teaching rea- soning and evidence to the novice as well as to the experi- enced debater. As the study indicates, 39 out of 43 schools at— tended the fall clinics and over 50 per cent attended prac- tice tournaments. These high figures probably indicate that coaches felt practice and listening to judges' 21James H. HcBurney, James M. O'Neill, and Glen E. Hills, Argumentation and Debate (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1951). 80 critiques were beneficial in teaching reasoning and evidence. Nine coaches sent representatives to summer clinics. Eighteen respondents indicated the use of demon- strations in teaching reasoning and evidence. Examples given by the coaches included "writing on the blackboard," "using posters for explanation purposes," "setting up class situations," "taping advertisements for analyzations," and "trips to the library." Twelve respondents indicated the use of Egggt Expert. In the majority of these cases, the critic—judge was considered the guest eXpert. A parish priest and a college debate team were used as guest experts by some of the respondents. In 2 instances assembly speakers were guest experts whom the debaters were assigned to analyze. Summer assignments consisted of having the debater obtain evidence for the following year's debate and discus- sion topics. Coaches did not mention how the summer assign- ment was used in order to improve the debaters' understand- ing of reasoning and evidence. CHAPTER V SUJQAHY AND CONCLUSIONS The purpose of this chapter is to consider the hypotheses stated in Chapter I in light of the study, to present additional findings, to raise questions provoked by the study, to point out implications of the study, and to offer suggestions for further research aimed at improving michigan's high school debate program. Discussion of the Stated Hypotheses The survey, as indicated in Chapter I, was lim- ited to Michigan high school debate coaches who had taught debate for at least three years consecutively. The survey, consisting of two parts, was mailed to 78 coaches, 40 of whom returned Part I and 43 of whom returned Part II. Tabu- lations were made of the responses to the questionnaire in order to determine the methods and materials used in teaching reasoning and evidence. The hypotheses and find- ings are as follows: 1. There are_particu1ar textbooks used generally 81 82 by the experienced debate coaches. The survey revealed that 15 of the 43 respondents used either Assigned Class Textbook or Library of Textbooks. The total number of different textbooks used by these 15 coaches was 14; no pattern of book preference could be detected. Of the 28 coaches not using textbooks, 28 used Debate Handbooks; 25, Class Discussion; 22, Debaters' Demonstration; 22, Teacher’s Lecture; 21, Fall Clinics and Tournaments; 20, Debaters’ Research; 19, Panel Discussion; 15, Teacher's Demonstration; 5, Summer Clinics; 4, Guest Expert; 3, Study Sheets or Study Sheet Outlines; and 2, movies. The hypothesis was not sub- stantiated. 2. Debate handbooks are used frequently as a teaching material. This hypothesis was upheld since all the respondents used handbooks. An average of 3.4 different publications of debate handbooks was used by each coach. Handbooks ranked no lower than third (predominately first) as a material used in teaching reasoning and evidence. Preferred units within the handbooks were ranked by the coaches as follows: (1) "briefs," (2) "evidence abstracts" and "bibliography" (tied), and (3) "strategy." 3. Clinics and debate tournaments are major sources in teaching reasoning and evidence. Approximately 85 per cent of the schools represented in the survey attended one or more of the seven clinics conducted in 1959. More than 60 per cent of the schools participated in at least one of the five sponsored practice tournaments. The materials distributed by the various sponsors of the clinics empha- size the value and role of reasoning and evidence to suc- cessful debating. Thus, the hypothesis was affirmed. 4. There are some unique methods and materials being used of which many coaches are unaware. The hypoth- esis is answered subjectively, since the writer has defined the phrase unique methods and materials to include those which are unusual, different, and individually used. The methods and materials suggested are unique because only two coaches mentioned them. Among the unique ideas pre- sented, one coach indicated usage of the book How Do You ‘Rgig? in testing a debater's critical thinking. Another coach employed an actual courtroom situation in which the debaters applied skills. One coach stated that his debaters participated in more than 150 debates, and in another in- stance a coach mentioned that his students debated at every opportunity. By these examples it is shown that coaches do use unique methods and materials in training their de- baters. 5. Experienced debaters are a prime factor in teaching reasoning and evidence. The respondents as a whole supported this hypothesis. Thirty—two coaches listed ways in which experienced debaters served to strengthen the teaching of reasoning and evidence. By presenting debate demonstrations, by coaching inexperienced debaters, by 84 explaining the analytical development of cases, and by lead- ing discussions, experienced debaters assisted their coaches. 6. The teaching of reasoning_and evidence con- sumes more time than the teaching of other phases of debate. First of all, this hypothesis cannot be affirmed or denied. The survey indicated that the average debate coach spends approximately 40 per cent of his time teaching reasoning and evidence through the various methods and materials. Secondly, the amount of time that one coach devotes to reasoning and evidence may be considered insufficient or excessive by others. There are many variables such as the number of experienced or inexperienced debaters, the ex- perience of the coach, the organization of the debate pro- gram, and others which help determine the amount of time allotted to reasoning and evidence. 7. A distinct pattern of the classifications of reasoning and evidence as taught by experienced debate coaches should be revealed by this study. In Table 1 it is revealed that 92.5 per cent of the coaches taught analogy, the first-ranked classification of reasoning. The next two classifications, cause to effect and example, were taught by approximately 80 per cent of the coaches. Ef- fect to cause and generalization were taught by approxi- mately 75 per cent. One classification, effect to effect, was taught by 67.5 per cent. The classifications of syl— logistic reasoning were taught from a high of 60 per cent 85 to a low of 32 per cent of the coaches. The two lowest- ranked classifications of reasoning, enthymeme and sign, were taught by less than 20 per cent of the coaches. In Table 2 statistics, the first-ranked classifi— cation of evidence, was taught by 90 per cent of the coaches. Examples and authority were each taught by 85.5 per cent of the coaches. Eighty per cent taught Opinions. Primary or original sources, literal and figurative analogies, secondary sources, and circumstantial were all taught by at least 50 per cent of the coaches. Thus, the percentages for the classifications of reasoning and evidence did not reveal particular classifications that should be taught. Additional Findings of the Survey The methods and materials used by the 43 respond- ents according to frequency of usage appear as follows. The first-ranked method was Teacher's Lecture, followed by Teacher's Demonstration, Class Discussion, Debaters' Research, Debaters' Demonstration, Panel Discussion, and Guest Expert in that order. The highest-ranked material was Debate Handbooks, followed by Practice Tournaments, Study Sheet Outlines and Study Sheets, Library of Textbooks, Summer Clinics, Movies, and Assigned Class Textbook. However, if Library of Textbooks 86 and Assigned Class Textbook were combined, the percentage would be as great or greater than Debate Handbooks in teach— ing the three forms of causal reasoning, sign reasoning, example, and the four forms of syllogistic reasoning. On the other hand, Debate Handbooks would still rank first in teaching analogy and generalization. The combined per- centage of Library of Textbooks and Assigned Class Textbook was greater than Debate Handbooks in teaching analogy and circumstantial evidence, but less for example, authorita- tive opinion, primary or original sources, and secondary sources. A possible explanation is that debate handbooks contain many classifications of evidence other than analogy and circumstantial and, therefore, are useful in explaining and instructing students. Debate handbooks generally do not have as many examples of analogous and circumstantial evidence as they do other types. Over-all, the causal forms of reasoning were checked more frequently by the coaches than were the forms of syllogistic reasoning. Cause to effect was ranked second; effect to cause, fourth; and effect to effect, sixth; out of the eleven classifications. The two most-frequently- used materials for teaching both types of reasoning were Assigned Class Textbook and Debate Handbooks. The classifications of syllogistic reasoning ranked seventh, ninth, tenth, and eleventh for categorical, hypothetical, disjunctive, and the enthymeme, respectively. 87 The two most—frequently—used methods were Teacher's Lecture and Teacher's Demonstration, and the two most-frequently— used materials were Debate Handbooks and Libragy of Text- bggkg for the teaching of syllogistic reasoning. Ana10gy ranked first as a classification of rea- soning. Approximately 90 per cent of the respondents taught analogy. Of the two classifications that have not been discussed, example ranked third, being taught by 80.5 per cent of the respondents. Generalization ranked fifth, being taught by 75 per cent of the respondents. The most—frequent- ly-used methods for teaching analogy, example, and general- ization were Class Discussion and Teacher's Lecture, and the most-frequently-used materials were Debate Handbooks and Assigned Class Textbook. It is much more difficult to summarize the data on evidence than on reasoning, as the methods and materials used in teaching evidence are more closely ranked. The most—frequently-used method was Debaters' Research in teach— ing example, opinions, primary sources, and statistics. Class Discussion ranked first for teaching analogies, authority, and secondary evidence. The most-frequently- used materials were Debate Handbooks and Assigned Class Textbook. However, it should be noted that Library of Textbooks tied Assigned Class Textbook for second place in teaching statistics. Of the coaches surveyed, 18 had debate classes. 88 The survey revealed that only 7, or less than one third, used an Assigned Class Textbook or Library of Textbooks. The reason for this is not determined since the writer's purpose was to discover what particular textbooks were being used and whether or not a pattern of preferred books could be found. Of the 43 respondents, only 9 sent their debaters to summer clinics. It would be interesting to know why more of the experienced coaches do not take advantage of this material in teaching reasoning and evidence. Questions Developed from the Survey This particular survey raised as many questions as it revealed findings. Therefore, the writer thought it wise to present the questions, answers to which may be helpful in improving the debate program in Michigan. The questions are listed under four headings: Inconsistency in the Answers to the Survey, Teaching Reasoning and Evi- dence, Materials for Teaching Reasoning and Evidence, and Administrative Matters. Inconsistency in the Answers to the Survgy.--Why was the enthymeme taught by only 7 coaches? Why did analogy rank as the most—frequently—taught classification of rea- soning? Why were not all the forms of sleOgistic reasoning 89 taught by an equal number of coaches? Why did not an equal number of coaches teach primary and secondary evidence? Teaching Reasoning_and Evidence.—-Since no pat- tern of reasoning and evidence could be detected, should all the classifications be taught to high school debaters? If not,what classifications should be taught? Is it bet— ter to instruct reasoning and evidence to high school de- baters tlrough the "inspirational" or the more traditional "lecture" method? Which should be taught first, reasoning or evidence? Or, should they be taught concurrently? The writer has serious doubts about the classifications of rea- soning and evidence which he employed in this study, and about those he has found in textbooks. Are they meaning- ful or useful? Do they convey the same meaning to most coaches? Materials for Teaching Reasoning and Evidence.-- Is there a commendable textbook for high school debaters? If not, why not? What should be the contents of such a textbook? Why did not more coaches use the materials listed in the survey? Why did handbooks rank so high as a teach- ing material? Administrative Matters.--What are the feelings of administrators toward debate as a co-curricular activity and/or as a course having equal status in the regular aca- demic curriculum? Should the state or national speech or- ganizations promote the certification of debate coaches in order to raise the quality of coaching and debating? 9O Speculations and Implications The study seems to illuminate very definite weak- nesses in the high school debate program. The existence and effect of the weaknesses, however, cannot be substan- tially proven, nor was it the purpose or design of the study to prove them. The reason for mentioning them is to acquaint the reader with a deeper understanding of the debate progran and to stimulate him into serious thinking and possible action which may assist in alleviating the problems and in strengthening the program. Related debate studies conducted in Michigan have revealed that the typical debate coacn is not trained in the field of speech and is, therefore, probably lacking in the formal knowledge and background necessary for ef- fective coaching.l That, tOgetner with the fact that coaches are responsible for other curricular and co-curricular ac- tivities as revealed by this study, probably explains the teaching methods-—Teacher's Lecture and Teacher's Demonstra- tion--most frequently used as well as the material--Debate Handbooks--most frequently used. Considering these facts, the question comes to mind, "How beneficial are the lectures and demonstrations if the majority of coaches do not use lBecker, Brown, and Murphy, op. cit., pp. 137-40, and Alexander and Thomas, op. cit., pp. 189—91. 91 materials (other than handbooks), if they lack sufficient training in debate and speech, and if they are responsible for other activities?" A related question is "How do de— baters really learn to use reasoning and evidence correctly?" Akin to the idea of poor preparation on the part of the coach is the variety of methods and materials used. The variety used even by the eXperienced coaches may sug— gest that some standardization should be developed in order to raise the quality of instruction. In order to allow more time for teaching reasoning and evidence and to strengthen the role of debate and discussion in society, the writer wishes to suggest a plan. The writer knows of several experienced debate coaches who do not participate in discussion due to the time required for preparing the debate team, who use only inexperienced and less—capable debaters for discussion pur- poses, who regulate the information that is to be used in discussion so as not to disclose pertinent debate informa— tion. It is with this situation in mind that the writer's plan would include a semester for discussion and a semester for debate. This would allow time for the coach to teach reasoning and evidence as well as permit time for discus- sion which is a preliminary tool necessary for debate. This plan, however, does not suggest that spring forensic activities lack value, but it does suggest that the present organization of the forensic program hinders the aims and 92 objectives of discussion and debate. what are some other ways in which the level of instruction and debate could be upgraded? The general lack of visual aids used in teaching reasoning and evidence seems to indicate that an investigation should be conducted to evaluate their practicality in teaching these phases of debate. Perhaps departments of speech in institutions of higher learning should develop teams of "experts" who would be able to present demonstrations to high school de- baters. Possibly a study could be made of summer insti- tutes that are sponsored by colleges and universities to seek information as to what they feel debaters should know. From this, possibly, standardization of course content could develop. It seems to the writer that debate in Michigan is at a low ebb quality-wise. Perhaps the members of the michigan Speech Association and the faculties of college and university speecn departments should begin to think and act concerning their role and responsibility to the high schools in the state. The writer seriously feels that all professional speech educators interested in this par- ticular phase of communication should stimulate action in the revision of speech methods and curricula which train teachers for the coaching of debate and other aspects of the forensic program. 93 Areas for Further Study The implications mentioned seem to allow room for related studies which should help improve the caliber of debate coaching and strengthen its relationship to other academic subjects. Since the respondents to this survey did not agree on any particular textbook, and since the importance of the classifications of reasoning and evidence was not de— termined, it would be advisable for the Speech Association of America to sponsor the writing of a textbook designed specifically for the high school debater and debate coach. The textbook should be written so as to be adaptable to either a regularly scheduled class or a co—curricular class. Another interesting and valuable study would be to determine how the college or university department of speech could better serve the high school in upgrading the level of high school debating. A third suggestion for further study would be to conduct depth interviews of debate coaches whose programs are considered excellent. These suggestions, if carried out, could effect a strengthening of the debate program as a whole and of the skills in reasoning and evidence as exercised by each stu— dent. Debate and its allied fields are needed in order 94 to sustain and promote the welfare of society in a demo- cratic nation and in a free world. BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Aly, Bower. (ed.) Discussion and Debate Manual. 2 vols. Columbia, missouri: Artcraft Press, 1959. Baird, A. Craig. Argumentation,_Discussion, and Debate. New York: mcdraw-Hill Book Co., 1950. Buys, William, Murphy, Jack, and Kendall, Bruce. Discus- sion and Debate. Chicago: National Debate Re- search Co., 1957. Cosper, Russell. Teaching Debate in Secondary School. Ann Arbor, michigan: George Wahr, 1940. Courtney, Luther N., and Capp, Glenn R. Practical Debating. Chicago: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1949. Crocker, Lionel. Argumentation and Debate. New York: American Book Co., 1944. Dale, Allen J. Education Problem. Vol. 1: Debate Hand- book. Vol. 11: Advanced Handbook. Kansas City: Dale Publishing Co., 1957. The Debate heview. Normal, Illinois: hid-West Debate Bur— eau, 1959. Elson, E. E., and Peck, Alberta. The Art of Speaking. New York: Ginn and Co., 1952. Hedde, Wilhelmina, and Brigance, William. American Speech. Chicago: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1955. Hellman, Hugo E., and Laine, Joseph B. The Labor Problem. Milwaukee: Marquette University, 1959. McBurney, James E., and Hance, Kenneth G. Discussion in Human Affairs. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1950. McBurney, James H., O'Neill, James M., and Mills, Glen E. Argumentation and Debate. New York: The Nacmil- 1an Co., 1951. 95 96 Hichigan Department of Public Instruction. Handbook of the hichigan High School Athletic Association 1959-b0. Lansing, hichigan. Pfister, Emil 3. Discussion Guidebook for High School De- baters. mt. Pleasant, michigan: Central michi- gan College Press, 1958. Potter, David. (ed.) Argumentation and Debate. New York: The Dryden Press, 1954. Quimby, Brooks. So You Want to Discuss and Debate! Port- land, Maine: J. deston Nalch, 1954. The heference Shelf. New York: H. W. Wilson Co., n.d. Sattler, William 4., and miller, N. Edd. Discussion and Debate. Ann Arbor, hichigan: Michigan High School Forensic Association, 1959. Solomon, Jr., Jack. Labor Ianagement Relations. Chicago: National Debate Research 00., 1959. Summers, Harrison E., Jhan, Forest L., and Rousse, T. A. How To Debate. New York: H. w. Wilson Co., 1955. walch, J. deston. Debate Handbook on Labor-management Re— lations. Vol. II. Portland, maine: J. Weston availCAl, 19590 weaver, Andrew T., Borchers, Gladys L., and Woolbert, Charles A. The New Better Speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1941. Articles and Periodicals Alexander, Frederick, and Thomas, Gordon. "The High School Speech Teacher in Michigan," The Speech Teacher, 1X (September, 1960), 189—91. Becker, Albert, Brown, Charles T., and Murphy, Jack W. ”Speech Teaching in michigan," The Speech Teacher, 1 (march, 1952), 137-40. Bulletin of the michigan High School Athletic Association, kXXVI (November, 19597} 97. "Debate Questionnaire Precis," Forensic News, No. 1 (Sep- 97 Discussion and Debate. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Hichigan Bureau of School Services (September, 1959)- Ehninger, Douglas. "Six Earmarks of a Sound Forensic Pro- gram," The Speech Teacher, I (September, 1952) 257-41. Parkerson, James W. "The Place of Logical Reasoning in Representative Works of Argumentation, Debate, and Discussion, of the High School Level," Speech Monographs, XVII (August, 1950), 247. (Abstract of master's Thesis, Department of Speech, State University of Iowa, 1950) Reeves, J. Walter. "A Secondary Course in Argumentation," Bulletin of the National Association of Second- ary School Principals, XXXVI (Hay, 1952), 58. Robinson, Karl E., and Keltner, John W. "Suggested Units in Discussion and Debate for Secondary Schools," Bulletin of the National Association of Second- ary School Principals, XXXVI (may, 1952), 72—78. Shug, Clayton A. "A Study of Attitude Towards Debate," The Speech Teacher, I (November, 1952), 242—52. Smith, Carney C. "Practical Procedures in Coaching High School Debaters," Quarterly Journal of Speech, XXIV (1943), 222—34. Unpublished Material Polk, Lillian Graham. "A Debating Program for Louisiana High Schools, Based on Current Debating League Practices." Unpublished Master's thesis, Agri- cultural and Mechanical College, Louisiana State University, 1959. APPENDIX A Personal Letter and Instructions, the Endorsements, and Part I of the Questionnaire Muskegon Senior High School Muskegon, Michigan October 6, 1959 Dear Colleague: I am conducting a survey to find out what mate- rials and methods debate coaches use in teaching reasoning and evidence to their debaters. This questionnaire is the basis for my master's thesis. The survey is being conducted in two parts. You will receive Part II the latter part of October. Each part of the survey takes approximately fifteen minutes to com- plete. Your answers will be kept confidential. You will receive a special copy of the results for your assistance in helping a graduate student complete his master's requirements. Here are the instructions for Part I of the sur— vey: l. The tOp list consists of types of reason- ing and evidence that you probably teach. You may add other types. 2. The left-hand column consists of possible teaching methods and materials that are used. Please feel free to add more or clarify your answers. 2. For each type of reasoning and evidence that you teach, check the methods and materials that are used in your instruc- tion. 98 99 mxample: hiltlfio m <$o era: dCLm (DECO Sci- (DC at Pb +5 (D 0 d- Panel Discussion Class Textbook x x Class Discussion x x Film Strips x I want to thank you for your cooperation. certainly is appreciated. Sincerely yours, John F. Kirn, Debate Coach It 100 MICHIGAN HIGH SCHOOL FORENSIC ASSOCIATION UNIVERSITY OF HIGH GAN 5501 Administration Building Ann Arbor, michigan September 25, 1959 Dear Debate Coach: I wish to add my endorsement of the study on the teaching of reasoning and evidence being conducted by one of our fellow debate coaches, Mr. John Kirn. The results of this undertaking will be significant only if each debate coach carefully completes Hr. Kirn's ques- tionnaire. I urge your cooperation. Thank you. Yours sincerely, Hoyne L. Cubbage' Manager ADC/m1 101 CENTRAL HICHIGAN UNIVERSITY Mount Pleasant, Michigan September 25, 1959 To Whom It May Concern: John F. Kirn is an alumnus of Central Michigan University and is at present a director of forensics at Muskegon. For his graduate thesis he is making a survey of teaching methods and materials used in instructing high school de- baters. This study, if completed, will have real value to speech teachers. Therefore, I am urging that you take the time to complete his questionnaire and thus be of fur- ther service to our profession. Sincerely, Emil Pfister, Head Department of Speech & Drama EP:bb 8%? mamSPO mammpo mammpo 1 Atom-SE: moaSQm hamwmoomm moaaom Hmmflmflao mo mamaflam hwflaomps< - 111 1 1.1-1.1111 1.111 1- 11.1-1.11L1 1 1. - M 41 . mmaxo T.a; mafia- l l . 1.....ng Hm”.- TL .W m... H0. an .‘- 1M _i... ...... .. -.. a. ...-n .- Hc m.:pfiwmnahoanmo 1 1 1 I .. --- -.1... -.-- _. ...- 1......1w 1 ‘- ...“...__.,. -—--—-~—.-’.- drna— -—.. . m . .11- _ -. J. 2.-. ..x. v 4 «1 .fikhzz 1.. \ UWUFCva . / _. k a l w .11. 1' .11.; 1.0.) 1r .. 1.. r 1 fl 1.1!? 7’ii _ gowpnap 3a 1 . - 1 1 1T - g . l _ - . . .1 11 1 1.- .... 1 -111 11-1111 1111 11 _r..-1 1 ...1-1_r1-1...11...11r.1 . J. 11 \u... x. J _ 11 . .. _ . I «A. . _ . . .r 1r\ .7 r 1 . . l . 1 a l . . z 1 1 1 -.. . \ -.. , .. _ . _ -11----1-211111111111111111.111111M r .1 H U. 1 2 A < L . n\ ... 1.,V * _ . A ... 10. 1. .... O 3111.11.11 11. ..., 1.. I 1 1 I In 1 )1 I 11.61:: 10:1 11:. 1 .l 11%.1. 101 1.111 I .11, I91~1ICI 1-1.3.1- 1- 16 1 _ \ . , 1.x. :4 C .1. k . 1* ‘ g F. v 0 1 1 11 .11 .1 4111 11 1.11! 1 1 1J 1'111.L.111o 1111 11%rl L 1' .vil'. .'.lvv'x \IL w . 1 \J. \ . 1 17.” a. / .-. (x 4. 4. O u C , III 1 11' I. 111‘1. 1 1 1 ' 1. Ir. 11‘) Ir ’1' 1... .0 10111.. L7 ‘Vifi-.'l A +1.\,. LC” (.4 .Ivr 71. _ 1.1111. -1111... 1.-.- 1. 1.11.31.11111 111... 1 . “..--.11.... ...... “VA ‘v ..- *— u11. ...... \\. * \Qfilrr . ., 11 1- 1-11- 11 -1. 1-11- - 1 1 1.1-1.1411 .1 1 x) ) . 2 ..-? he... ._ . . , a . 1 -.- -...-11 111-111 1-1.1.111V11Lr1 S... H W . ”1...-..“ 1 1...... pm..- .- . 1 ~1- . 1 1 1 4-4-- _..... + 1.. 1 TL, 1 -1 1 1 *“1‘” 1 1 1 --.. 1 .- T ----13;.- .. - 1 1 .. . m I i. - - 11.. I .1 1‘11]... 311.9111 ,. .0 .1111 1 10 394.11 III 11- . I .l1hgs ’1 1|. ll”. 1.» ‘l 0:11.- I‘lj 11¢” 1 -4 1;... 3 .. _ . w , r ._ r «Ci. _ M w M . m 1 p1 1 1111--111111111111. - i11g111111 . l . f-.. E., 2.. ......t...m_+ QC: . 0H,... «m. 4 «1.1.1 _ .. - . 11-1.1 111.111.11.111 1-1-11-111181 -1111? 111.111.- -1 h 11.1? 1.1 1 11 _.pm.cams: m era-a+<,\ . u M l .'1.0 .1! 1 1.111 In 1 11. 1 I1 1.‘ 1.111911 1 1111.. ,o 011.1 1.0 _ O. ’1‘T.‘ 1.1Lr111 10.0.1011: fit. 1.1.111 1111 w ‘ ~ CH. :fi-#-.....,\,.ul flCCfioHQ LDLC. M .1 (I .1 . w . 11" 1‘11. I . £11 1-: 1’11. . .- 0' 141. 1 .lo ’10... I'II’I...I'II 1"! .‘9 ‘4 . . a: .- .1. .14. _ KWFT ‘1 A ......1. ... . .7... ...- . _... "-... A1. 21-... 71C .11 I ~OM'J' ? K o 11 _J II ‘. b; It 1‘ Uri . \ 1:»- you ~1~ ‘1 1—-. 1‘" A‘ ~.": D W 2 ’ J» IL. .1111; - 1"; H3 BY I -UAL11 1 -~. EXTBOOKS ob 00"’S 1 TS 1 .L 1 :9 e S . 1 1Q .|\£ I_ - Hy ' .L‘L 1 .1 J B D 05510} D U” 10 BY DEBATVRS .1. .1. r1 J. T 1‘ ULA‘ 1311’ stem, 0 F 1 BY TEAC 1 or _(‘(_, £ L1 1 a..L ’.1 k. 5: A. I 11113 13110 00 ULDDU. 1 . ;r' ’1': ". 1‘1151 W {11 S d SThlPS C N ....u 3, .11.. .1. . .1 ....Q .11 m 3 «1 L m Tfl AU _1. C ml 71 ...1. .. 1.... g -1 .. G e «D .. 1 ""1: .1 .4 ..LJ L 'S :S 1) .LL i evidtw C3 5 L i 1:. QOt 1 T? . .-.‘.‘ 211,1 ' 1 1‘ WEE. DE “SSIGNmD A E 1L GUEST EXP *1 B ‘Iln. “UVI +1436 T U11. 3 ....C. O _.....r..1* ..3 _nT. DALI... 1;).LM bii- 1) . IUDY 11-1.1 CIA I: a 1} 1411‘- 1 As 1 p D 1. A L E APPENDIX B Personal Letter and instruction, the Endorsement, and Part II of the Questionnaire Muskegon Senior High School Auskegon, Michigan October 30, 1959 Dear Colleague: I want to thank you for your c00peration on Part I of the survey. At the moment I do not have sufficient returns to draw conclusions, but I am sure that is only a tempor— ary problem. Enclosed is Part II of the survey. It is necessary to have sufficient returns from both parts before conclusions can be drawn. The instructions are included on the survey. Please feel free to add or clarify your answers. Yours truly, John F. Kirn 103 104 mlCHIdAK HIGH SCHOOL FOhENSIC ASbOCIATIOH UHIVEfiSITY CF alCHIGAN 3501 Administration Building Ann Arbor, Hichigan September 23, 1959 Dear Debate Coach: I wish to add my endorsement of the study on the teaching of reasoning and evidence being conducted by one of our fellow debate coaches, Mr. John Kirn. The results of this undertaking will be significant only if each debate coach carefully completes hr. Kirn's ques— tionnaire. I urge your cooperation. Thank you. Yours sincerely, Moyne L. Cubbage Manager MLC/ml mICdlaAh STATS ’KIVERSITY East Lansing College of Communication Arts - Department of Speech September 4. 1959 To Whom It May Concern: I am pleased to endorse the research efforts of hr. John Kirn and to say that the results of this survey will un- doubtedly be of great value to debate coaches throughout michigan. I know that they will be made available to coacnes in all Michigan high schools and will serve to answer some of the persistent problems that one faces in this job. mach individual response will, of course, be important in increasing the reliability of the study. Your co-operation will be most valuable. Sincerely yours, Frederick Alexander Associate Professor Department of Speech Michigan State University FA/jma 106 Questionnaire, Part II The following questionnaire will be used in gathering infor- mation for purposes of improving the teaching of reasoning and evidence to debaters. Your answers will be kept con- fidential. Thank you for your co-operation. Name High School City Please check the answer or fill in the blank that applies to your situation. 1. Do your debaters meet daily during the academic school schedule solely as a debate class? Yes No 2. Is debate taught solely as an extracurricular activity? Yes No 3. Is debate taught as a unit in - or through another course? Yes No 4. If debate is taught in another course, what is the title of the course? 5.' How many days a week do you meet with your debaters? 6. How long are the periods when you meet? 7. Do your debaters receive credit towards graduation for taking debate? Yes No 8. On what grade level do you begin to coach debate? 9. Is evidence taught before the instruction of reasoning? Yes No Concurrently 10. Do your debaters use a library of textbooks? Yes No If so, please list the three books most widely used. Title Author Title Author Title Author 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 170 107 Do your debaters use an assigned textbook? Yes No Title Author Do you use film strips? Yes No Title Company Do you use movies? Yes No Title Company Do you use debate handbooks? Yes___ No If so, please rank in order of preference. (In case of tie use the same number--#l is highest) ___evidence ab- stracts, ___strategy, ___briefs,I___bibliography of authorities, or others Check the handbooks that you use: Emil Pfister's Mid-West NUEA heference Shelf Walch Others Please check the following institutions where your debaters attend. Summer Fall Clinics Fall Tournaments Clinics Albion Alma Central hichigan Eastern Michigan Ferris Institute Michigan State U. Northern michigan U. of Detroit U. of Michigan Wayne State U. Western Michigan Others Cf the total time devoted to training debaters, approx- imately what per cent is allotted to the teaching of reasoning and evidence? ’ 25/o_ 507a__ 75-7é__ or 7’6. 16. 21. 22. 23. *26. 27. 28. 108 Do your experienced debaters assist in the instruction of reasoning and eVidence? Yes No How? Approximately how much money per year is spent for materials? Do your debaters have a Specific summer debate assign— ment? Yes No If so, what is the assignment? Is coaching debate your only speech activity? Yes No What other activities are your responsibility? a. Plays: Yes No How many? b. Forensic: Yes No All Categories? Yes No 0. Others: What size school do you teach in? Circle: A, B, C, D, or E Briefly describe the study sheet outlines that you use in teaching reasoning and evidence. Please describe the study sheets that are used in teaching reasoning and evidence. How do guest experts assist in teaching reasoning and evidence? Briefly describe demonstrations that are used by the coach in teaching reasoning and/or evidence. 109 *Copies of the study sheets and/or outlines would be of value to the writer. Just return the questionnaire. Thank you for your co—Operation. A copy of the results will be mailed to you in the immediate future. Sincerely, John F. Kirn APPENDIX C Debate Textbooks which the Coaches of this Study Used in Instructing their Debaters Crocker, Lionel. Argumentation and Debate. New York: American Book Co., 1944. Foster, William T. Argumentation and Debating. Boston: Houghton hifflin Co., 1945. Culley, Halbert E. Essentials of Discussion and Debate. New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1955. Hedde, Wilhelmina, and Brigance, N. N. The New American Speech. Chicago: J. B. Lippincott Co., l957. thurney, James E., O'Neill, James E., and hills, Glen B. Argumentation and Debate. New York: Kacmillan Co., 1951. monroe, Alan H. Principles of Speech. 4th ed. Chicago: Scott, ForeSman and Co., 1951. husgrave, George n. Competitive Debate: Rules and Tech- nigues. 3d ed. new York: The H. W. Wilson Co., 1957. Pfister, Emil 3. Discussion Guidebook for High School Debaters. mt. Pleasant, michigan: Central michigan College Press, 1958. Potter, David (ed.). Argumentation and Debate. New York: denry Holt and Co., 1954. Quimby, Brooks. So You Want to Discuss and Debate.. Port- land, Maine: J. weston Jalch, 1954. Sattler, William m., and miller, N. Edd. Discussion and Debate. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Michigan nigh School Forensic Assoc., 1959- Summers, Harrison B. Contest Debating. A Textbook for Beginners. Few York: H. w. Wilson Co., 1934. Summers, Harrison B., Whan, Forest L., and Bousse, Thomas A. How To Debate. 5d. ed. revised. 1953. 110 APPEKDIX D Motion Pictures which Are Helpful in Preparing Debaters Below is an annotated bibliography of movies taken from the co—catalog of Michigan State University and the University of Michigan audio—visual aids depart- ments. How to Judge Authorities (1 reel, 11 min.) Collaborator: William G. Brink, PhD., Professor of Education, Northwest— ern University. When Bill encounters a puzzling conflict between statements of "authorities," he considers the "in- ternal evidence" on each authority, the experience from which each speaks, and the evidence of his own experience to reach sound decisions. 350 B & W--é100 Color. Junior and Senior High.1 How to Judge Facts (1 reel, 11 min.) Collaborate: William G. Brink, PhD., Professor of Education, Northwestern Univer- sity. This film teaches common errors in thinking to show the value of dependable information. It helps students guard against assumptions, false analogies, irrelevant facts, and words with double meaning. 350 B & W-—3100 Color. Junior and Senior High. $2.00 mSU-UM. How to Think (1f reels, 15% min.) Collaborate: Carter Davidson, PhD., Chancellor of Union University. A traffic ticket gives Dick cause to do a lot of straight thinking. By following the film's suggested procedure for clear and careful thinking, he is able to solve his problem. The important elements of concentration, logic, observation, memory, imagination, and judgment are all presented as part of the correct "way to think." $75 B & W-—$157.50 Color. Junior and Senior High. $2.50 MSU-UM. Importance of makinngotes (1 reel, 11 min.) Collaborator: Harl h. Douglass, PhD., Director, College of Education, 1Obtained only from Coronet Films, Coronet Build— ing, 65 B. So. Water Street, Chicago 1, Illinois. 111 112 University of Colorado. Students will see how good notes are taken in oral instruction period and during reading. They see how to find the key ideas for notes, what sorts of materials should be taken down verbatim, and when notes should not be taken at all. 360 B a W-—5110 Color. Junior and Senior High. $2.00 mSU-UH. Library Organization (1 reel, 11 min.) Collaborator: Alice Lonrer, Assistant Professor of Library Science, University of Illinois. A detailed understanding of library organi- zation effects better use of study time. By explaining the card catalog system and the Dewey Decimal System in use in one typical library, the film provides students with the means for making their library a treasure of in— formation. ®60 B & W—-m110 Color. Junior, Senior, and College. $2.00 mSU—Um. Learn to Argue Effectively (1 reel, 11 min.) Collaborator: nilliam E. Utterback, PhD., Director, Discussion Service, Ohio State University. This film clarifies the role of persuasive argument. It shows when arguments are purpose- ful, what subjects are good and bad, and what is a basis for a profitable argument. It contrasts the serious use of good argument against that of irrelevant, unsound argu— ment. J60 B & N——w110 Color. Junior and Senior High. «’2 0 OO hiSU-Uu]: o ”'Tl’iti‘flfljl'hfijfijfliuiimuilfimfinim:fulfill?!“ 03142 4991