Series: Web 2.0 for Forensics - Part I

I’ve been trying to incorporate a little more of the web 2.0 programs in my academic life, and this has led me to consider the way these same programs can be used for forensics.  So, I am going to start brainstorming ideas for using different tech to make our forensics lives easier and turn them into a series of blogs.  I’m sure that many of these are already being used by those who are more advanced in the web 2.0 experience than I am, but hopefully it may spark some ideas for you to expand your technological helpers for forensics.  Please feel free to post any additional items in the comments section and the series will continue on a weekly-or-so basis and as other items strike my fancy!

This first blog in the series will include wikis, facebook and del.icio.us.

WIKIS

I began using a wiki in my Argumentation and Debate class last semester to collect the evidence that students turned in.  I had them turn in the evidence on the wiki on a page with their name on it.  This allowed me to collect evidence without having to carry around a bunch of papers, make corrections to the materials electronically, and be sure that they were doing the evidence assignments electronically.  In addition, the students could search through all of the evidence from the class using the “search” function on the wiki.  So, when they were constructing affirmatives and negatives, they could easily do word searches on the topic they were working on and get all the different evidence found by their classmates.

I am also starting a wiki for our team.  This will be a clearinghouse of information, where I can post tournament invitations, articles for debate or speech topic ideas, results from tournaments, pictures from tournaments, etc.  Individuals on the team can have access to add things themselves.  It makes it so much easier than having a file cabinet in my office or an in-basket as everyone has immediate access from wherever they are. I think this will make things much easier on me and the students.

FACEBOOK

I was late coming to Facebook.  In all honesty, I avoided it like the plague for the past few years.  But, I am a convert.  I am convinced that this is the new email.  The listservs of the 90s changed the face of forensics, with national participants able to communicate with everyone else in the nation in one message and with quick response.  Facebook allows that same level of communication, but adds so much more of a personalized exchange and a way to access those who don’t even know you exist.  I am going to focus on using facebook as a recruiting and PR tool, because that has been my experience with it so far.

Facebook is one of the most popular social networking programs in the world.  If someone isn’t on Facebook at this point, they probably will be in the next five years.  One of the first things I did when I got on Facebook was form a group for “Past and Present Members of CSU Chico Forensics” and invite everyone I knew who was on or had been on the team in the past.  From there, they informed their friends and others requested membership.  Now, I have a single location to post information and requests for alumni whenever I have something.  In addition, I have been contacted by incoming freshman who found the group and are interested in joining the team when they get here in September.  Its an easy way to get the information out that used to require a ton of posters and flyers and visits to classrooms, etc.  I look forward to using Facebook as a PR tool next year as well.

DEL.ICIO.US

If you have not used del.icio.us, you probably have seen it on the bottom of an article or blog you have read.  It is a tool that appears across the web and allows you and your students easy access to collecting information.  It is a “social bookmarking” program, that allows one person to bookmark articles and then make those bookmarked articles available to a group of people.  The program uses “tags” to identify the important information in the article (answers the “why did you bookmark this article?”) so you can search by tags an find all the pertinent articles on that subject.  Using del.icio.us you and your students can create a “webliography” of speech topics or debate topic articles that can then be easily accessible by everyone on the team.

I have to admit I have not used del.icio.us much, but I just read a blog on using it as a learning tool and it inspired me to consider using it for the team this semester.

There are a TON of different tools out there for incorporating web 2.0 into education and therefore forensics.  I think the key is to consider a few things before starting to use any of these tools:

(1)  What is this going to SAVE me having to do in the future?  If the answer is nothing, than it may not be worth it.  After all, we all have way too much to do to be adding things on to that list.  But, if its going to save you some time and effort in the future (e.g. using the wiki to post invitations saves printing, copying, etc. of schedules for the students - they can just log on and get it themselves whenever they want - all I have to do is post a link) than its worthwhile to learn a new skill or introduce a new routine.

(2)  How difficult is this going to be to use?  Is this something you or your students are already using for other purposes.  So, Facebook makes sense to me versus finding another social networking program because most of my students are already there, most of my recruits will be on there and many of my colleagues are/will be on there.  So, why use a different program that requires an additional logon, an additional post, and learning new methods of posting, groups, etc.?

(3)  Is this really adding value?  Sometimes I tend to use tech for tech’s sake.  I’m just fascinated by new things and since I can remember a time when most people didn’t own a computer, I am amazed at the access to information and different gadgets/programs we now have.  But, I often have to ask myself whether what I’m doing is really adding value to my life/academic experience or whether it is just something that is catching my eye.  I guess this is kind of the same as #1, but I think of it more as asking if it adds something of value to my life.  So, even if it doesn’t save me having to do something, if its something I find enjoyable or attractive or fun, I am more likely to continue doing it in the future.  If it doesn’t do any of that for me, than I’m probably going to spend a bunch of time learning how to use it, etc. and then not come back to it often enough to make it worth my while.

Look for Part II, where I’ll go googly over Google - docs, reader and calendar!

Economist online debates

Looking for a way to get your debaters and/or argumentation students involved in a debate outside the walls of the classroom or tournament setting?  The Economist is hosting a series of online debates between experts and inviting online readers to participate in the debates as well as the evaluations of those debates.  The current debate is whether governments and universities should compete to attract qualified students, regardless of nationality or residence.  The reason I really like these debates is they offer a “real-time” results report, with comments from contributors and online readers.

I think this type of online debate offers students some insight into the way that experts put their arguments together and present them.  It also offers them a way of applying some of the evaluation skills that they have been learning through the participation in debate, without having to actually “judge” at a debate tournament. 

Another thing this is great for is seeing how more “lay” audiences evaluate the debates.  One of the complaints I often hear about our activity is its lack of availability to the lay audience.  This is a way of getting students used to some of the responses that more lay audiences may have and can function as an inspiration for a follow-up on-campus debate.  The information resources are all there, as well as some of the issues that professionals think are important, which provides a relatively easy way of constructing an on-campus debate.  Something I often struggle with when designing on-campus debates is taking the time to find the information about the arguments on both sides and getting the students to think about what issues may arise.  All of that is done for them through these Economist debates.

Finally, I think it is a good thing to see that a publication with the respect that the Economist garners thinks that public debate and deliberation on key issues is not only important, but also can be interesting and entertaining.  It provides our activity with some real-world applications, albeit online instead of in-person.  Because of this, I would like to encourage you to support the Economist’s efforts and get your students involved in the online debates!

The next debate will be on the topic of social network sites and education and will begin in early 2008.  This is the final debate scheduled in this series, but hopefully with interest, they will continue to have sponsor these types of activities.

If you know of other online debate resources, please post a comment with the url information!

Importance of research on forensics - A DOF Perspective

A few posts ago, I posted the link to an article discussing the importance of research to the graduate student assistants who work with forensics teams.  In that same issue of the National Forensic Journal, an article discussed the importance of research from a Director of Forensics perspective.  Robert C. Aden, former Director at University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire included the following reasons that research in speech and debate is valuable for reasons other than just achieving tenure:

• “…forensics research assists coaches by offering perspectives for approaching the various events.”   I think this is of particular importance to someone like me.  I have competed at least a few times in every type of event, but I have obviously invested much more time in debate than any of the individual events.  This puts me at a disadvantage when coaching IE competitors in the same way that having a primarily IE background puts someone at a disadvantage when coaching debate, even if they have a limited debate background.  I think that there are some great panels at conferences and coach’s workshops on much of this, but I would love to have access to that same material in print or online via video.  Although many do not think of this as “research” - doing a comprehensive examination of judge’s preferences for certain arguments or speech structures would produce really valuable information.  We make a lot of assumptions about what judges want from our competitors, but in the end, they are just that - assumptions.  And we all know what assumptions make us.
• “…forensics research provides a valuable resource for students.”   Although this particular point is not as important in the age of internet and listservs, I do think that a more formal outlet for some of the discussions that take place in online forums would be helpful.  For example, there are some really valuable conversations (some might say arguments) that take place about debate theory on both edebate and netbenefits, but many of those discussions seem to fade away without offering anyone but the most avid and dedicated reader any conclusive advice on argumetnative choices.  Someone who was able to take those discussions and structure them into a useful article would be providing an invaluable service to the community.  Even better, someone who could take those discussions and pull out key areas for exploration via a more structured research effort could have a lasting effect on our community. 
• “…forensics research enhances student and coach understanding of the connection between theory and practice.”  As the author points out, this was particularly important for debate at that time, although some individual events did include this type of discussion.  There is much grumbling about forensics having “lost its way” from some administrations across the country.  Some programs are having to do “hard sells” to continue funding or bring back funding that has been lost in the past.  Being able to provide quality, up-to-date research tied to other areas of the Communication field can not hurt in these discussions.  Through a demonstration of current forensics and the way that current theory is being applied in the activity, one may have an easier time justifying Communication departments handing over some of those difficult-to-come-by dollars. 

These are pretty general ideas, but they are good reminders of WHY we should continue our efforts at research in the different areas of forensics. 

Research on forensics - a little inspiration

A few days ago, I posted an article from the National Forensic Journal on how to effectively do research on forensics.  Although the article was from 1990, I thought much of it was still valuable information.  Another article in that same issue of the Journal also has some valuable insights into doing research on forensics, so I thought I would include it here as well.  Written by The Head Jayhawk, Donn Parson, this article updates information that came out of a conference from the 1970s, “The Sedalia Conference”.  The article, “On publishing and perishing: Some approaches in forensic research,” does an excellent job of recognizing and identifying what Parson refers to as, “non-traditional circumstances” that are experienced by forensic coaches and adminstrators (and often not at all understood by academic peers).  The next time someone says, “I just don’t get what you do,” it might be good to excerpt this article.

The other thing I liked about the article is that it is written by someone in charge of a very respected graduate studies program in Communication (University of Kansas) and very clearly identifies the benefits and importance of debate in both the careers of undergraduates and graduates.  If nothing else, perhaps this article can serve as an inspiration to someone who is teetering on the edge of a debate position in graduate school or a debate career in academia.  I will certainly be putting it in my files under “inspiration” to remind me why I do the things I do and what makes it worthwhile!

Forensics Research - What NOT to do (and some things you should do)

Research is important.  It is important to our activities, it is important to our professional positions and it is particularly important to our graduate students.  Many students who devote a significant amount of time to this activity look to include the activity in their graduate research projects.  After all, it offers them an easy audience from whom to collect data, it is something that interests them and sometimes they even see some value to others in having answers to the questions that have been rattling around in their heads.  I definitely think research on our activity is important.  Many of us make assumptions about what “we know to be true” without having any real data to back those assumptions up.  In my argument class, as well as the debates I judge most weekends, this would not pass muster.  So, we need studies to be done.  But, I think its important that we consider those studies and make sure that academic research within our area are just as (or even more) legitimate as that being done in other areas.  I came across this (somewhat old) article and thought it might be useful in guiding research for both graduate students and professionals in debate. 

The four areas for focusing research:  (1) real world application, (2) argumentation theory, (3) forensics pedagogy, and (4) tournament practice.  It seems to me that many edebate discussions are rife with information to spur some research in these areas.  Using the archives, perhaps one can find something that interests them and use it as a jumping off point to create a study and complete that study in such a way that it has real world and meaningful application theory, pedagogy and/or practice.

Online Resource - PBS Point of View series

I am searching for interesting material to use in my Argumentation and Debate class next semester and came across the PBS website for their Point of View series.  I’ve used Frontline material in my classes before and thought it was great, but I haven’t used any of the POV stuff.  But, it seems perfect for both debate classes and parliamentary debate teams for background information on a bevy of issues.  The topics seem what would be interesting to students and PBS supplies suggestions for using the materials in classes.  They even refer to using the forensics coach on campus to access “ballots” for evaluating in-class debates.  There are a number of shows on varying subject matter, both domestic and international.

CEDA 40 - A Research Initiative

This post went out on edebate in early September, but I missed posting it here on the blog.  Gordon Stables, 2nd VP for CEDA as of this year, is rallying our members for research on our activity.  In the interest of maintaining his message, I am simply pasting it below.  It is my intent to provide in this space research ideas for such efforts.  I have posted a couple of old published articles that I think would be interesting to revisit via research and I’m sure there are a ton more of those.  The activity has also gone through dramatic changes in the past decade, so there is ripe material for new and different examinations.  Gordon provides some great categories for people to consider.  I encourage you all, students and coaches alike, to consider getting involved in proposing and completing some research.  I was lucky enough to have this type of encouragement from Pat Gehrke (Grad Asst coach at Chico when I was competing, now faculty member at U. of South Carolina) when I was an undergraduate and it helped me to get onto panels as an undergraduate and even get an article published in a forensics journal as an undergraduate.  This is great material for those graduate school applications and great practice for professional presentations in the future.  Here begins Gordon’s email:

If past practice is any indication, once the topic is announced the discussion will focus on more immediate questions and analysis. Before we, as a group, make that adjustment let me introduce a significant research and analysis process to our membership. In just a few years (2011) CEDA will celebrate its 40th anniversary. One of the primary tasks of the 2nd VP is to coordinate research conducted at the CEDA Nationals tournament and through the organization’s efforts. It is my belief that my beginning an organized campaign now we will have a process that will allow the organization to have acted on those ideas before it turns 40. That project is something called CEDA-40.

I am not a fan of totalizing historical comparisons about debate, but it is hard to dispute we do precious little to analyze our own activity in any organized form and then share those insights with the larger community. Throughout the history of organized intercollegiate debate a variety of written forms existed to let the community learn and share from each other. Some were formal, refereed journals and some took the form of articles in handbooks. I suspect among many of us learned not only from the people we interacted with, but also by reading the work of some very talented people. In order to have a truly proud celebration of CEDA we need to take the time to apply our impressive analytical and research skills inward, even if just for a short time.

I do not romanticize the idea that we can, or should, encourage our diverse community to narrow their efforts into a single rigid professional discipline. The fact that we all have different professional relationships to debate does not, however, mean we cannot take time to examine the activity we care do deeply about and then share those conclusions. When I first became involved in the topic process I was amazed how much research and analysis our community produces each year. Last year on the court topic, for example, dozens of folks contributed hundreds upon hundreds of pages of research analysis. Ever had that moment where you google a debate subject and find a wording or controversy paper? I think it is time for the community to google our practices, institutions, and goals and have the same success. It doesn’t matter if you are a student, alum, professor, professional coach, volunteer, attorney, parent or just an interested party - we need to rebuild our collective community knowledge base.

For easy reading here are some questions and answers about this initiative.

What is CEDA 40?
A collection of community research and opinion organized into a strategic planning document. The document will:
1. Conceptualize important challenges and opportunities confronting the CEDA community
2. Begin to develop reforms designed to promote the organization’s goals in time for the organization’s 40th anniversary (in 2011)
In other words, it is a collection of original perspectives and research by the CEDA community. This document is an organized means of allowing the community to learn to the experiences, perspectives and research by other community members.

What kind of topics should people research and analyze?
This is the question to be determined by you as members of our community. Instead of relying on informal conversation, momentary chats on edebate or other informal forms, this process gives people the opportunity to take a more orderly and well-developed assessment. Some of the possible areas for analysis include:

· The Organizations that make up the community (CEDA, NDT, ADA, AFA, etc.)

The procedures, practices, leadership structure, schedules, etc.
· Our Competitive Practices

Tournaments, Judging, Argumentative Practices
· Membership (The CEDA Community)

Schools, Coaches, Debaters - Who are these populations? How are they changing?
What form should these efforts take?
· Summaries of current practices

Once upon a time vicious battles raged over debate theory in journals and other sites. There are occasional posts, but we could certainly use some contemporary means of assessing the desirability of argumentative trends.
· Statistical analysis (metrics or surveys)

How much debate is there in a given season? Do we know much bigger or smaller a region is in the last decade? Do shorter topic wordings produce greater novice retention? Are there positive or negative trends in nature of gender participation? We see lots of opinions, but much less in the way of orderly analysis. We have the wonderful tool of debateresults to allow folks to build these research questions from several years worth of data. There are, of course, earlier records that may provide interesting points of comparisons.
· Case studies

There are plenty of occasions where conventional wisdom is produced by the most basic of information. We have amazing folks in the community who have started programs, re-started programs, helped them expand, and yes, seen programs wither and die. What happened? What makes the difference? I know there are about 1,000,000,000 edebate posts on the subject but what about a 5 page detailed explanation about how the successes or failure took place by a debater or coach involved in that effort?
· Reaction (editorial) essays

Perhaps you would like the opportunity to write a lengthy defense of the organizations goals, missions, or trends. Perhaps you have experiences with teaching, recruitment or recruitment that you would like to share. Maybe you just want to rant. Here is your chance.
· Reform proposals

When I witnessed the discussion of NDT redistricting a few years ago one I was unprepared to appreciate how much of our planning is directed at short-term efforts. By necessity we are all worried about the next topic, the next season, the next tournament, the next class, the next meeting, the next paycheck, time with our family, sleep, etc. There are plenty of items that can and should be debated for reform in the near-term, but there are also some fundamental questions that cannot (and shouldn’t be) done at the last minute. Do you think we should fundamentally revisit some form of how we organize, compete or teach? We need the type of developed proposals that can serve as the foundation for important efforts.

Submitted materials will be organized and included in an edited volume that thematically organizes the materials. It will be produced as a free, publicly available e-book. Thanks to the cooperation of incoming CEDA journal editor Al Louden, outstanding submissions will be considered for inclusion in a future issue of Contemporary Argumentation and Debate: The Journal of the Cross Examination Debate Association.
The deadline for submissions in December 15, 2008. This gives everyone almost 18 months to develop, plan and produce research. This also allows individuals, or groups, to conduct research at the 2007 CEDA Nationals tournament. This will allow a number of 2009 events to be influence by this research product. It will be available in time to influence the development of the 2009 NCA Panels, the 2009 Summer Argument in Alta (which is bi-annual) as well as the business meetings of both CEDA and the NDT.

This is a call for everyone involved with the CEDA community to find the time between now and December of 2008 to stop, reflect and add to the body of knowledge that makes up our activity. Maybe you like summarizing and explaining current practices. Great. Maybe you want to analyze the demographics of a specific tournament or region. Awesome. Maybe you have some ideas abut how to restructure our organizational or regional processes. Wonderful.

Tomorrow the topic will be out and the next set of urgencies will fill all of our lives. I am not asking anyone to write a report this weekend. I am asking that everyone stop and assess if you can add to the body of knowledge that our community relies upon. I will regularly post and encourage participation, but please consider taking part. This is your community and it needs a small fraction of the research and analytical skills that we possess.

Thanks for reading.

Gordon
Gordon Stables, Ph.D.
Director of Debate and Forensics
Annenberg School for Communication
University of Southern California
Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913
http://usctrojandebate.com

Happy National Constitution Day!

Today is National Constitution Day.  As educators of advocacy and civic engagement, today offers us a reason to celebrate and to remind our students of the importance in being able to vocalize the importance of the principles protected in this document, as well as being willing and able to take advantage of the opportunities this document affords us.  CSU Chico’s free speech area includes a large scale constitution that students can either sign or “refuse to sign” (I’m not sure if this goes along with providing a reason why or not…) the document. 

Although this holiday is something that comes around every year, and often slides by without notice, recent events in our nation make it something I want to highlight more.  It seems to me that the Constitution was certainly a flawed document on many levels, but the interpretation of that document over the years as well as the balancing of rights that find their foundation in that document makes it an important thing to know, understand, challenge and continue to keep in the forefront of our minds, our educations and our advocacies.  In teaching a Mass Media Law class over the past couple of years, it has come to my attention that many do not realize the POWER this document can either be interpreted to give to us, the citizens OR to the government.  And looking at things like the Patriot Act, the Wiretapping scandal, the recent problems with the Attorney General, it seems to me we can’t afford to be uneducated (or even undereducated) on these issues or the foundation for questioning these items. 

So, if you have a chance today, talk to students, peers, friends and/or family about the Constitution.  Visit the official Constitution Day website and see if you can learn something new about this document!  If you teach, visit The Constitution Center for lesson plans for all ages.  If you are a student, you can visit their Student Pages for videos, articles, etc.  Learn something new and share the information with others!

Have a great Constititution Day!

Speech and Debate for Information Literacy

Hello all!  I’m getting ready for my first week of school and I finally have all my tech up and running.  I thought I would do a quick post this morning on something I’ve been thinking about for a while now, but have not actually acted on to this point.  While working with the UDL and searching for different ways to justify speech and debate team funding in the incredibly tight budgets of high school district officials and principals, I discovered the focus on “information literacy” in many secondary and post-secondary school goals.  This is an area that has only accelerated in importance as online learning environments, electronic information sharing and technology in the workplace has exploded in past years.  It is my thought that the demands of competitive speech and debate programs are the same demands for mastering information literacy.  Take this excerpt from a recent presentation given by David Warlick of the The Landmark Project:

“Being a reader today means being able to: find the information, decode it, critically evaluate it, and organize it into personal digital libraries.” 

Gee - that sounds like what our students do for every speech/argument they produce during the season! 

 Many institutions of higher education have information literacy/competence goals.  Perhaps you may be able to use these to justify expanded programming, more funding or cross-curriculum cooperation with the speech and debate team activities.  There are also grant programs for information literacy projects at some institutions.  This may be a way for you to access some additional funding and be awarded with a grant. 

I’m sure I will be revisiting this issue in the future, but would love to hear if anyone out there has used this connection on their campus already and if so, how it worked out for them. 

Laws get tangled up in lawmakers’ words

As a communication professor who coaches policy debate, I am always fascinated to find “real-world” examples of how important the debate basics are to being effective. For example, defining terms so everyone is on the same page; being specific in your advocacy so others understand exactly what they are supporting or rejecting, etc.  The attached article provides some ofthe frustrations that can occur without these basics being met.

read more | digg story