Prep time theory...

[SKOlson]

Ok, so its been noticed by a lot of judges that most discussion groups do not solve much (its true, sadly). I think that might have a part to do with poor research time allocation.
A task is usually made up of two things: find causes of problem and make solutions to solve the problem. The typical group takes a lump sum of about 5 minutes to do some initial research time. After that, the group typically makes a massive, thorough list of evidence supported causes. However, the solutions list is typically lacking in these areas. Could it be that the rest of the discussants are unprepared to solve the problems that others bring up? to help mitigate this, it would be really cool to try this type of agenda:

1. Research causation for 2.5 minutes
2. reclarify
3.list causes
4. Research for 2.5 minutes
5. solvency

That way, discussants might be able to prep themselves for the arguments and causes that would otherwise be unkonwn to them. Would anyone like to try it out with me sometime?

[*Ron-Marq*]

I like the idea alot b/c its hard to remember what you wanted from an article 40 mins later after you have gone through other articles and discussed other ideas.

[CT]

If you do your research ahead of time (and I don't mean find and print info) you won't have to worry about forgetting it! Second, the problem I have with discussion most often is that stupid lingo crap at the beginning, in this plan we would be doing it twice. At state last year it took 20 minutes for my group to come to a consensus to what the agenda would be, if you double that we get nothing done. (Side not: I'd like to see judges start ripping kids apart whom ramble on about what they might or could find in research)
Fighting over the agenda is just for those whom have little research and can't back up there thoughts with any rationle and reliable information. I think in most rounds all this plan would do is cause increased confussion and if a group has bad time management they will discuss the causes for 40 minutes and only have 20 or less to solve their problem, not going to work?

[SKOlson]

I think in most rounds all this plan would do is cause increased confussion and if a group has bad time management they will discuss the causes for 40 minutes and only have 20 or less to solve their problem, not going to work?


good points, however, I dont see the logic in not changing time allocation for fear of poor time management. if anything, I would say that it is the lack of effective, allocated prep time that misleads students in how they allocate time. I'll give the split allocation a shot at Flake and Eastview, and we'll see how it goes.

[*Ron-Marq*]

If you do your research ahead of time (and I don't mean find and print info) you won't have to worry about forgetting it!

I have read everything in my binder at least two times and have it all highlighted and I still sometimes forget to bring up an article. The problem is that after forty minutes of discussion it cna be hard to remember an article you were going to bring up or a good piece of evidence that you found during your research period. I really like Sean's idea because it divides the research periods into two sections which I think will make research time more effective. It does this because it narrows down what you have to look for. This is good b/c sometimes when you have a massive task it can be a little overwhelming to look through all of you evidence and Sean's idea splits it into smaller parts.

[DCdisco]

here's a warning from a well-respected Disco judge and former competitor (passed on by me)

Any judge that knows disco will rip you apart if you try a stunt like that. I quote "if you can't find what you need in the initial five minutes of research, then you don't deserve to get a decent score in the round" end quote.

I'm sorry, but I competely disagree with you, sean and aaron. I agree with CT when i say that this "split research period" would create mass confusion in discussion rounds, therefore wasting even MORE time than most groups already do.

Also.....if you have trouble remembering that one special article, write the title down on your paper and box it in, so you will see it and go "hey! i can use this!" or if it is no longer relevant, cross it out and disregard it. You don't need another 2.5 minutes just to get that one article back out, therefore, it would waste more time......and i can honestly say that ALREADY we don't have enough time sometimes....if i remember correctly, all rounds at the DC meet went nearly the full hour, give or take about 5 minutes.

So, i just thought I'd warn you guys before you go trying something new and radical like this: a good disco judge will slam you. The kid that KNOWS his research well should know what he needs when he goes into the research period, and doesn't NEED split time.

But if you want to disregard the warning, then go for it. It's your ranking, not mine :wink:

[JohnsRUs]

I'm not sure what to think of this. I see where Sean and Aaron are coming from, but i'm not sure it would get accomplished what it needed to. I don't think the point of trying this would be to find more research, but instead to find relevant research that has come up through the course of the discussion. The nature of discussion can take the group to different places depending on what articles are brought up. On the enviornment on broader tasks you could end up talking about everything from ANWR to coral reef decay. In the broader tasks, for that reason, i think it may be helpful.

I really don't think Kyle's (CT's) argument about adding more time applies. While before the first reseach period, its natural to clarify the task and set an agenda. (Getting bogged down in agenda setting is another topic that probobly should be discussed as well.) If we were to do what Sean suggests it wouldn't require the additional clarification or agenda setting, just a period to find articles that have become relevant.

This leads me to believe that it would be helpful in specific rounds where the discussion is really broad. I'm not sure it would fly as well if you set it in the agenda though. Maybe setting a 2.5 minute research time then leaving a slot where we can have another 2.5 minutes ONLY if the group needs them.

Laura's comment about any "good" judge shooting the idea, while greatly exaggerated, is a valid criticism. A really "good" judge would have an open mind to breaking down the norms of discussion. At the same time, i could see judges marking you low because they don't feel its necessary or because it's not normal. Overall, maybe it'd be useful with specific tasks, but i wouldn't recommend making that your base agenda to propose.

[Ashley*MHS*]

I would have to disagree with Laura and her comments from a "good" judge.


So, i just thought I'd warn you guys before you go trying something new and radical like this: a good disco judge will slam you. The kid that KNOWS his research well should know what he needs when he goes into the research period, and doesn't NEED split time.

I would have to consider myself a humble, yet good judge of discussion and I would never slam someone for trying something new in a round. Shaking things up is not always a bad idea. I don't think in all scenarios a 5 minute research period gets the job done anyways. And what about the 20 something minutes most groups waste doing clarifcations, better known as "look at how much babble I can spew out".

I think that a split research period would not work in every circumstance, but I applaud Sean and Aaron for attempting to find another way of coming at a discussion task. If someone actually found and implemented a creative and time effective way to solve a task, I think I would stand up and cheer for them at the end of the round.

I've seen a lot of discussion rounds in my day and I'm prepared to see a whole lot more. It looks like this is going to be an extremely competitive season and I am excited to see who emerges on top this year :D

Ashley Frerich

[DBrennan]

I think there's been enough discussion on this for me to throw my opinion in.

Not only do I think splitting the research time is not valuable, it would also never happen in a good round. Once a round starts, no one wants to shut up. I can't find it feasable that good discussants would actually stop talking to do more research.

You should be able to search your research properly to find what you need in those 5 minutes.

Not that any of this really matters to me, since I'll never judge a disco round again in my life.

[SKOlson]

I dont think that the split research time should become the norm for all discussions. However, it might be an option for rounds in which the task is extremely broad, and will require some narrowing throughout the discussion. We'll see how it works this weekend--if I go full 15, then I'll come back to the 5 minute system with open arms, lol.

[CT]

"Good Discussant" - someone who doesn't shut up.

I know this is a little off topic but may I ask what you all think about this. Would everyone agree that evidence is or should be the most important part of the round? I can't stand when I get a group of people that chooses not to cite sources, decides evidence takes a back seat to refrasing everyone else's info and the only thing that they have to add to the round is "I think it would be a good idea if the group..."-complete garbage!!!
Is it just me or shouldn't discussion be won by the person who has a wealth of information and works with the group towards the goal of finishing the task to the best of their ability(b/c to often it's not)?

[JohnsRUs]

Is it just me or shouldn't discussion be won by the person who has a wealth of information and works with the group towards the goal of finishing the task to the best of their ability(b/c to often it's not)?

It's just you. :roll: :wink:

A discussion should be won not only by contributing lots of info and reaching the goal, but also from facilitating and leading the group. A group needs a leader or the discussion wanders like crazy. While the attributes you mentioned should be present with the winner, thats not the only important thing in the discussion.

[CT]

Well I agree that the group needs someone facilitate, this gets nothing accomplished if you don't have information. From my brief experience usually the person that "leads" doesn't give all that much in terms of info back to the group. And as it says in your article John "while the leader keeps things moving, this person (evidence bearer) is what the integrity of the discussion relies on. Without evidence, all your ideas are just claims, not supported fact."
I have been in rounds where there is no real leader, just where everyone works together for the good of the task, and in rounds with no evidence. Groups can get along just fine without a "leader", but groups are hard pressed to have a good round without someone with a wealth of information.
I understand its not the only important thing, but evidence bearing is the most important thing.

[SKOlson]

CT, I'm sorry for being ignorant, but who are you?

[CT]

I'm Kyle Ernst, from Hermantown, a smaller school from just outside of Duluth. I compete against schools like Walker, Grand Rapids, Ely which all have excellent discussants and made it to state last year in my first year of speech, finishing 9th :cry: . I guess that's my speech bio. :)

[JohnsRUs]

How'd it go Sean?

[SKOlson]

Actually, I didnt run it, because most of the tasks were pretty straight forward. I'll try it Eastview next week, when we look at ALL 3 sections of the outline

[DBrennan]

See John, look...all three sections at Eastview next weekend. So stop complaining about all 3 being at MSU in 2 weeks.