Matching Items (3)
Filtering by

Clear all filters

137029-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
Collaborative learning is a potential technique for teachers to use to meet the diverse learning needs of the students in their classrooms. Previous studies have investigated the contexts in which the benefits of collaborative learning show greater presence. The most important factor found was the quality of the interactions. Studies

Collaborative learning is a potential technique for teachers to use to meet the diverse learning needs of the students in their classrooms. Previous studies have investigated the contexts in which the benefits of collaborative learning show greater presence. The most important factor found was the quality of the interactions. Studies have suggested that high achieving students are capable of improving the quality of interactions. This bears the question if prior knowledge plays an influence in the learning outcome of students in collaborative learning. Results show that high prior knowledge students do not face a detriment in having low prior knowledge students as a partner comparing to having another high prior knowledge student and that low prior knowledge students show significantly higher learning outcome when partnered with a high prior knowledge partner than with another low prior knowledge student. It is therefore likely that having a high prior knowledge student within a dyad improves the quality of interaction, resulting in greater learning outcome through collaborative learning.
ContributorsKeyvani, Kewmars (Author) / Chi, Michelene (Thesis director) / Wylie, Ruth (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / Department of Psychology (Contributor) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor)
Created2014-05
141344-Thumbnail Image.png
Description

The knowledge of experts presumably affects their credibility and the degree to which the trier of fact will agree with them. However, specific effects of demonstrated knowledge are largely unknown. This experiment manipulated a forensic expert’s level of knowledge in a mock trial paradigm. We tested the relation between low

The knowledge of experts presumably affects their credibility and the degree to which the trier of fact will agree with them. However, specific effects of demonstrated knowledge are largely unknown. This experiment manipulated a forensic expert’s level of knowledge in a mock trial paradigm. We tested the relation between low versus high expert knowledge on mock juror perceptions of expert credibility, on agreement with the expert, and on sentencing. We also tested expert gender as a potential moderator. Knowledge effects were statistically significant; however, these differences carried little practical utility in predicting mock jurors’ ultimate decisions. Contrary to hypotheses that high knowledge would yield increased credibility and agreement, knowledge manipulations only influenced perceived expert likeability. The low knowledge expert was perceived as more likeable than his or her high knowledge counterpart, a paradoxical finding. No significant differences across expert gender were found. Implications for conceptualizing expert witness knowledge, credibility, and their potential effects on juror decision-making are discussed.

ContributorsParrott, Caroline Titcomb (Author) / Neal, Tess M.S. (Author) / Wilson, Jennifer K. (Author) / Brodsky, Stanley L. (Author)
Created2015-03
141323-Thumbnail Image.png
Description

This study sought to investigate the relation between expert witness likeability and juror judgments of credibility and sentencing. Two actors playing expert witnesses were trained to present themselves as high and low in likeability in a standard testimony scenario involving capital trial sentencing. The effects of extraversion and gender in

This study sought to investigate the relation between expert witness likeability and juror judgments of credibility and sentencing. Two actors playing expert witnesses were trained to present themselves as high and low in likeability in a standard testimony scenario involving capital trial sentencing. The effects of extraversion and gender in mock jurors in attending to expert testimony were also examined. The dependent variables were the perceptions of the witnesses’ credibility and agreement with testimony and the participants were 210 psychology undergraduates. Likeability of expert witnesses was found to be significantly related to judgments of trustworthiness of the experts, but not related to confidence or knowledge of the experts or to the mock juror sentencing decisions. Women participants rated high likeable experts as more credible than low likeable experts; men did not. For men jurors, agreement with testimony increased as extraversion increased. However, for women jurors, agreement with testimony decreased as extraversion increased. The results suggest that likeability can be an important element of source credibility, and that attorneys and trial consultants now have an empirical foundation for addressing likeability as part of witness preparation.

ContributorsBrodsky, Stanley L. (Author) / Neal, Tess M.S. (Author) / Cramer, Robert J. (Author) / Ziemke, Mitchell H. (Author)
Created2009