Abstract
Oral interpretation judges are both adjudicators and educators. Writing insightful educational ballots when little or no definitive standard for event descriptions or judging requirements are available compounds the difficulty. Using Littlefield et al.'s (2001) research on cognitive outcomes of ballots, as well as Cronn-Mills and Golden's (1997) study of “unwritten rules” in forensic competition, this study compared ballot commentary in interpretive events to pedagogical outcomes. Via a content analysis of 72 ballots, judges were found to use cognitive skills as an assessment tool, with an emphasis on physical skills, while incorporating “unwritten rules,” especially regarding book technique, into their assessments.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
