NSDA Student Judging Guidelines: A Comprehensive Guide
The National Speech & Debate Association (NSDA) plays a vital role in fostering communication, critical thinking, and creativity among students. A key component of this is the judging process, which provides valuable feedback and helps students improve their skills. This article serves as a comprehensive guide to student judging within the NSDA framework, covering various aspects from general guidelines to specific event considerations.
The Role of the NSDA Judge Board
The NSDA provides a judge board as a service to tournament directors, schools, teams, and judges. It is important to note that the NSDA does not endorse or vouch for any judges listed. Each school is responsible for following its own district and institutional policies regarding the hiring and vetting of judges. Additionally, the NSDA is not involved in any financial agreements between schools and judges; payment rates are determined individually between schools and judges. Judges listed have signed up during the current academic year, and anyone who has graduated from high school is welcome to sign up as a judge. Signing up simply adds your name to the public judge board.
General Judging Expectations
All judges are expected to type comments in electronic ballots while students are speaking; judges may NOT write comments by hand and transcribe them later.
Judges should assign one and only one win and one and only one loss in each debate such that one team is assigned a win and the other is assigned a loss. Each debater should be assigned speaker points on a .1 scale with no ties between debaters. A recommended speaker points scale will typically be provided. Judges are asked to provide written feedback on their Tabroom ballots. At minimum, judges are expected to provide a basic written summary of their reason for decision. Judges in all divisions are expected to disclose their decision and provide oral comments to the debaters after submitting their electronic ballot on Tabroom.
Eligibility and Requirements for Student Judges
The NSDA welcomes participation from experienced student debaters as judges. Tournaments often have specific requirements for student judges, including:
Read also: Student Accessibility Services at USF
- Experience Level: Students who are entered as judges should have a minimum of one full year of varsity debate experience (minimum of 30 varsity rounds) and should be very familiar with the resolutions (either having debated or judged during the season). Only debaters in their fourth year of debate may judge in Second Year divisions. Experienced debaters in their third year may judge in First Year only.
- Coach Responsibility: Students attending the tournament as either participants or judges must be the responsibility of the debate coach at the school the student attends. If a coach wishes to hire another school's student to judge, the coach must contact the coach of that school to ensure they are willing and able to be responsible for the student for the duration of the event.
- Conflict of Interest: With many student-judges in the pool, it is particularly important that judges be appropriately constrained from adjudicating debates in which they have a conflict of interest. Coaches determine what constitutes a conflict but it is best to err on the side of caution and add constraints for students with whom a judge has a personal relationship. In the past, complaints have been received after a pairing is released in the second year division from teams who are being judged by a student-judge that they have previously debated (and therefore may feel cannot impartially adjudicate the round).
Judging Congress
All Congress Judges (Scorers + Parliamentarians) have specific responsibilities each round:
- Scorers: Each award 1-6 points (where 1=poor; 6=excellent) for each speech and hour of presiding as well as rank-order their choices of top eight (8) performing delegates -- including the student presiding officer if they're worthy -- (where 1=top choice, 2=next choice… 8=eighth choice).
- Parliamentarian: A parliamentarian provides holistic feedback without awarding points, rank-orders all delegates in the room, in order of preference. The parliamentarian remains in the same chamber for preliminary rounds.
Judging Informative Speaking
Informative Speaking is a 10-minute presentation written and performed by the student. Informative requires students to balance that content with delivery and style. Students in Informative must be articulate, engaging, and smooth with their delivery at both a vocal and physical level. The purpose of the event is to inform and educate the audience on a topic of significance.
Key Evaluation Criteria
- Relevance: Assess the relevance of the speaker’s Informative, focus on the timeliness of their topic. Gauge whether the student has done an adequate job of explaining why this topic should be discussed at this point in time. This can happen in a multitude of ways. Pay attention to how the topic is framed within the speaker’s introduction.
- Relatability: Relatability is how the speaker connects the audience to the topic. The speaker should use inclusive rhetoric, giving the audience the sensation that they are affected by the topic. Logical evidence supporting this sentiment should be given throughout the speech.
- Originality: When evaluating originality, it is important to note that there are few truly original topics. Instead, consider how inventively the speaker addresses the topic.
- Structure: While Informatives are all different, the structure should provide a framework for the audience to understand the topic. Each main point should explore a specific aspect of the topic the student is presenting.
- Evidence: Research is a very important component in Informative. All claims should be backed up with evidence that verifies the information the speaker is conveying.
- Visual Aids: Students may or may not use visual aids within their Informative speech. If used, the student is expected to set up visual aids in an expedient manner. Students cannot use electronic equipment or any banned material (guns, controlled substances, etc.) as a visual aid, nor can they use live animals or another person. Visual aids should contribute to the audience’s understanding, emphasize information, and provide a creative outlet that augments the content of the Informative speech.
Providing Feedback
Judges write on the ballot how the speaker can improve-e.g., eye contact, clarity, emotion, etc., and what the student did well.
Judging Program Oral Interpretation (POI)
Program Oral Interpretation is a 10-minute performance that can include some combination of prose, poetry, and drama. All students must have at least two out of the three genres included in their performance. The use of a manuscript is required.
Key Evaluation Criteria
- Programming: The process of piecing together different types of literature into one cohesive performance.
- Blocking: The movements a performer makes to convey space, emotion, and action. Blocking should enhance the performance, not distract from the story. Movements should be motivated by either internal or external factors. Internal motivation stems from how the character is feeling, while external motivation comes from a physical reaction to external factors.
- Characterization: Reveals the personality of the character through line delivery, vocal, and facial expression, and varying levels of levity and intensity. Each piece of literature in a student’s POI should have unique and engaging characters that can be distinguished from other pieces in the program. Additionally, each character should adequately represent the genre of literature from which they are drawn.
- Dramatic Structure:
- Exposition: Sets the scene and gives background information. Exposition occurs throughout the cutting and enhances the audience’s understanding of what the characters in the program are experiencing.
- Inciting Incident: Sets a conflict into motion and represents the beginning of the Rising Action, which complicates the plot.
- Climax: The point of greatest intensity and the turning point of the plot.
- Falling Action: Resolves the conflict
- Denouement: Gives a glimpse of life after the conflict.
Providing Feedback
When critiquing a program, judges ought to reference areas of the Dramatic Structure that were strong or weak and suggest ways in which the student can improve upon the cutting, in addition to focusing on how the student’s selections of literature fit with each other. Judges should consider if they could easily identify which selection the student was performing. If the performer’s blocking is ineffective, the judge ought to indicate ways the performer can improve on the ballot. Critiquing characterization requires the judge to consider whether the character’s response to a situation is believable. The ultimate goal of blocking, programming, and characterization is to create a fullyrealized performance that moves the audience.
Read also: Guide to UC Davis Student Housing
- Are you able to follow the plot of the piece?
- Is the theme or narrative effectively conveyed?
- Does the presenter’s use of physicality, facial expression, and gestures enhance the performance?
- Does the overall blocking contribute to the interpretation of the material?
- Does the speaker avoid distracting and unmotivated movement?
- Consider whether the speaker clearly distinguishes each of the characters in the selection.
- Are the character(s) and their attitudes clear?
Judging Expository Speaking
Expository is an informative speech in which the speaker will provide insights and explore interesting implications on a topic of their choice. Speeches are memorized and up to 5 minutes in length with a 30 second grace period. There are no visual aids in Expository.
Key Evaluation Criteria
- Relevance: To assess the relevance of the speaker’s Expository, focus on the timeliness of their topic. Gauge whether the student has done an adequate job of explaining why this topic should be discussed at this point in time. This can happen in a multitude of ways. Pay attention to how the topic is framed within the speaker’s introduction.
- Relatability: Relatability is how the speaker connects the audience to the topic. The speaker should use inclusive rhetoric, giving the audience the sensation that they are affected by the topic. Logical evidence supporting this sentiment should be given throughout the speech.
- Originality: When evaluating originality, it is important to note that there are few truly original topics. Instead, consider how inventively the speaker addresses the topic.
- Structure: While Expository speeches are all different, the structure should provide a framework for the audience to understand the topic. Each main point should explore a specific aspect of the topic the student is presenting.
- Evidence: Research is an important component. All claims should be backed up with evidence that verifies the information the speaker is conveying.
Providing Feedback
The judge writes on the ballot how the speaker can improve (e.g., eye contact, clarity, emotion, etc.) and what the student did well. Please make sure the feedback is constructive and not merely critical. When writing feedback, consider:
- Is the topic timely?
- Is the thesis clearly established?
- Does the delivery assist in establishing the importance of the topic?
- Can the audience relate to the topic?
- Is the delivery personable?
- Does the speaker establish how others are impacted by the topic?
- Does the speaker do a good job informing?
- Does the speaker address the topic in a unique, inventive way?
Other NSDA Events
The NSDA encompasses a wide range of events beyond those detailed above. Here's a brief overview of some others:
- Prose (PRO): Performances require that the speaker uses a binder or booklet. The time limits for Prose differ in many states, so check with your tournament director! At the high school level for the NSDA National Tournament, there is a 5-minute time limit with a 30-second grace period.
- Poetry (POE): Performances require that the speaker uses a binder or booklet. The time limits for Poetry differ in many states, so check with your tournament director! At the high school level for the NSDA National Tournament, there is a 5-minute time limit with a 30-second grace period.
- Pro Con Challenge (PCC): Typically an online event. It features a pro and a con speech performed within a 10-minute time limit with a 30-second grace period.
- Original Spoken Word Poetry (OSW): A memorized event.
- Impromptu (IMP): Students have 7 minutes to select a topic, write a speech, memorize the speech, and deliver it. Students typically draw their Impromptu topic from an envelope that the judge receives before they go to their room.
- Declamation: A memorized event.
- Extemporaneous Commentary (COM): Students will report to the “prep room” 20-minutes before their round begins to select a topic, prepare a speech, memorize it, and come to the room to perform it. Extemp Commentary speeches are memorized and delivered from a seated position behind a table or desk.
- Storytelling: A memorized event.
Resources for Judges
The National Speech & Debate Association (NSDA) offers free courses with accreditation you can add to your Tabroom.com judge profile. Each course listed below takes about 15 minutes to complete. The Harvard Debate Council has created an additional free course in serving as a parliamentarian; it takes about a half hour to complete.
Judges can access these courses on the NFHS Learning Center. You must first register for or sign in to an NFHS account. Navigate to a course using the links provided, select your state, and “Order Course.” Each of the following courses are free, and the checkout page will show a $0 charge.
Read also: Investigating the Death at Purdue
tags: #student #judging #guidelines #nsda
