Workshops: A Direct and Interactive Forum for Forensics Coaches/Judges

Forensics is an educational function set in an educational environment While the obligations and concomitant responsibilities are many, forensics personnel preeminently are serving a teaching function ... (McBath, 1975, p. 47) Most would agree with the assumption that forensics serves primarily a pedagogical function. Consequently, forensics personnel often utilize opportunities for professional growth by actively participating in professional associations and contributing to research in the field. The unique concerns and opportunities in forensics, however, present a need for a more direct and interactive forum, such as workshops for forensics personnel. A search of the literature has revealed very little emphasis concerning the use of workshops for coaches (Ross, 1984) Additionally, workshops for college individual events coaches are limited in number and scope. Despite this apparent dearth of workshops and discussion concerning them, the fact remains that workshops can provide an effective pedagogical and experiential laboratory for the exchange of theories, ideas, and practices regarding issues in forensics. This paper will present a rationale for the use of coaches\u27 workshops, and offer several proposals for the implementation of these workshops. It should be noted, however, that the intent of the authors is to be descriptive, rather than prescriptive in this discussion

An evaluation of labeling-then-doing with moderately handicapped persons: acquisition and generalization with complex tasks.

We conducted two experiments in which moderately mentally retarded persons were trained first to label and then to enter characters into a computer, calculator, or checkbook (label-then-do) within a multiple baseline design. In Experiment 1, 5 young adults were trained to enter statistical programs into computers in an office setting. Following training, all subjects' use of verbal labels and key-entry skills generalized across tasks (programs) and settings (offices and computer terminals). In Experiment 2, 3 junior high school students were trained with self-labeling procedures to complete a key-entry task and to balance a checkbook. The performance of all students generalized across tasks and settings, and the use of labels generalized for 2 of the students. Results are discussed relative to mediated generalization and to establishing verbal control over behavior