NotesFAQContact Us
Search Tips
ERIC Number: ED229823
Record Type: RIE
Publication Date: 1983-Apr-7
Pages: 13
Abstractor: N/A
Reference Count: 0
Judging Criteria for Intercollegiate Limited Preparation Speaking Events.
Preston, C. Thomas, Jr.
To gain insight into whether debate judges actually do treat impromptu speaking as miniextemporaneous speaking, a study compared the comments judges wrote to extemporaneous speakers with those they wrote to impromptu speakers during the first two rounds of a forensic tournament. Approximately 1,000 comments from 152 ballots (102 impromptu and 50 extemporaneous) were recorded and broken down into the following categories: (1) delivery, (2) specific analysis (content), (3) organization, (4) analysis (general), (5) introduction, (6) supporting material, (7) conclusion, (8) generally positive (related to encouragement for overall performance), (9) time allocation, and (10) miscellaneous. Results indicated that judges gave students similar if not nearly identical feedback for extemporaneous and impromptu speaking. Although judges balanced their comments among the various criteria for effective speech, if it is desirable for judges not to treat an impromptu event as a miniextemporaneous one, then they failed. However, it would be inappropriate to place all the blame on the judges when the national forensic committees have not proposed a clear distinction between the two types of events besides time limits. (JL)
Publication Type: Reports - Research; Speeches/Meeting Papers
Education Level: N/A
Audience: N/A
Language: English
Sponsor: N/A
Authoring Institution: N/A
Identifiers: Extemporaneous Speeches; Impromptu Speeches
Note: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Central States Speech Association (Lincoln, NE, April 7-9, 1983).