More Like this

1. Ultra-Short Presentations with Immediate in-Class Public Feedback to Enhance Skill Development with Low Class Time and Instructor Time

   https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2021.1913395  

   Heideman, Paul D. ; Laury, Jessica. E. ( May 2021 , College Teaching)

   The development of oral presentation skills requires multiple opportunities to present and receive focused feedback. In typical discipline-based and general-education courses, class time is precious, and even when oral presentations are part of a course, students may receive only one or two opportunities to present with feedback. Here we describe an approach to develop presentation skills with ultra-short, one-minute presentations followed immediately by brief, supportive, focused, public in-class instructor feedback. Feedback is offered as one positive comment (one thing I liked) and one targeted goal for improvement (one thing to work on). The short time frame maximizes the number of iterative cycles of practice, feedback, and implementation of feedback. This approach was used with students in several semester-long courses offering three to eight opportunities to present. Students took anonymous surveys immediately after the experience and again up to two and a half years post-experience. Over 95% reported that they learned a great deal about how to improve their own presentations by watching other presentations and hearing the instructor’s immediate feedback. Respondents reported lasting gains in skills, increased confidence in their public speaking abilities, and all would recommend the experience to others. 

   more » « less
2. What We Can Learn from Jury Note Taking: A Content Analysis

   Denne, E. ( March 2020 , Annual Conference of the American Psychology-Law Society.)

   Abstract: Jury notetaking can be controversial despite evidence suggesting benefits for recall and understanding. Research on note taking has historically focused on the deliberation process. Yet, little research explores the notes themselves. We developed a 10-item coding guide to explore what jurors take notes on (e.g., simple vs. complex evidence) and how they take notes (e.g., gist vs. specific representation). In general, jurors made gist representations of simple and complex information in their notes. This finding is consistent with Fuzzy Trace Theory (Reyna & Brainerd, 1995) and suggests notes may serve as a general memory aid, rather than verbatim representation. Summary: The practice of jury notetaking in the courtroom is often contested. Some states allow it (e.g., Nebraska: State v. Kipf, 1990), while others forbid it (e.g., Louisiana: La. Code of Crim. Proc., Art. 793). Some argue notes may serve as a memory aid, increase juror confidence during deliberation, and help jurors engage in the trial (Hannaford & Munsterman, 2001; Heuer & Penrod, 1988, 1994). Others argue notetaking may distract jurors from listening to evidence, that juror notes may be given undue weight, and that those who took notes may dictate the deliberation process (Dann, Hans, & Kaye, 2005). While research has evaluated the efficacy of juror notes on evidence comprehension, little work has explored the specific content of juror notes. In a similar project on which we build, Dann, Hans, and Kaye (2005) found jurors took on average 270 words of notes each with 85% including references to jury instructions in their notes. In the present study we use a content analysis approach to examine how jurors take notes about simple and complex evidence. We were particularly interested in how jurors captured gist and specific (verbatim) information in their notes as they have different implications for information recall during deliberation. According to Fuzzy Trace Theory (Reyna & Brainerd, 1995), people extract “gist” or qualitative meaning from information, and also exact, verbatim representations. Although both are important for helping people make well-informed judgments, gist-based understandings are purported to be even more important than verbatim understanding (Reyna, 2008; Reyna & Brainer, 2007). As such, it could be useful to examine how laypeople represent information in their notes during deliberation of evidence. Methods Prior to watching a 45-minute mock bank robbery trial, jurors were given a pen and notepad and instructed they were permitted to take notes. The evidence included testimony from the defendant, witnesses, and expert witnesses from prosecution and defense. Expert testimony described complex mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) evidence. The present analysis consists of pilot data representing 2,733 lines of notes from 52 randomly-selected jurors across 41 mock juries. Our final sample for presentation at AP-LS will consist of all 391 juror notes in our dataset. Based on previous research exploring jury note taking as well as our specific interest in gist vs. specific encoding of information, we developed a coding guide to quantify juror note-taking behaviors. Four researchers independently coded a subset of notes. Coders achieved acceptable interrater reliability [(Cronbach’s Alpha = .80-.92) on all variables across 20% of cases]. Prior to AP-LS, we will link juror notes with how they discuss scientific and non-scientific evidence during jury deliberation. Coding Note length. Before coding for content, coders counted lines of text. Each notepad line with at minimum one complete word was coded as a line of text. Gist information vs. Specific information. Any line referencing evidence was coded as gist or specific. We coded gist information as information that did not contain any specific details but summarized the meaning of the evidence (e.g., “bad, not many people excluded”). Specific information was coded as such if it contained a verbatim descriptive (e.g.,“<1 of people could be excluded”). We further coded whether this information was related to non-scientific evidence or related to the scientific DNA evidence. Mentions of DNA Evidence vs. Other Evidence. We were specifically interested in whether jurors mentioned the DNA evidence and how they captured complex evidence. When DNA evidence was mention we coded the content of the DNA reference. Mentions of the characteristics of mtDNA vs nDNA, the DNA match process or who could be excluded, heteroplasmy, references to database size, and other references were coded. Reliability. When referencing DNA evidence, we were interested in whether jurors mentioned the evidence reliability. Any specific mention of reliability of DNA evidence was noted (e.g., “MT DNA is not as powerful, more prone to error”). Expert Qualification. Finally, we were interested in whether jurors noted an expert’s qualifications. All references were coded (e.g., “Forensic analyst”). Results On average, jurors took 53 lines of notes (range: 3-137 lines). Most (83%) mentioned jury instructions before moving on to case specific information. The majority of references to evidence were gist references (54%) focusing on non-scientific evidence and scientific expert testimony equally (50%). When jurors encoded information using specific references (46%), they referenced non-scientific evidence and expert testimony equally as well (50%). Thirty-three percent of lines were devoted to expert testimony with every juror including at least one line. References to the DNA evidence were usually focused on who could be excluded from the FBIs database (43%), followed by references to differences between mtDNA vs nDNA (30%), and mentions of the size of the database (11%). Less frequently, references to DNA evidence focused on heteroplasmy (5%). Of those references that did not fit into a coding category (11%), most focused on the DNA extraction process, general information about DNA, and the uniqueness of DNA. We further coded references to DNA reliability (15%) as well as references to specific statistical information (14%). Finally, 40% of jurors made reference to an expert’s qualifications. Conclusion Jury note content analysis can reveal important information about how jurors capture trial information (e.g., gist vs verbatim), what evidence they consider important, and what they consider relevant and irrelevant. In our case, it appeared jurors largely created gist representations of information that focused equally on non-scientific evidence and scientific expert testimony. This finding suggests note taking may serve not only to represent information verbatim, but also and perhaps mostly as a general memory aid summarizing the meaning of evidence. Further, jurors’ references to evidence tended to be equally focused on the non-scientific evidence and the scientifically complex DNA evidence. This observation suggests jurors may attend just as much to non-scientific evidence as they to do complex scientific evidence in cases involving complicated evidence – an observation that might inform future work on understanding how jurors interpret evidence in cases with complex information. Learning objective: Participants will be able to describe emerging evidence about how jurors take notes during trial. 

   more » « less
3. From Hoping to Expecting: Cochlear Implantation and Habilitation in India

   https://doi.org/10.14506/ca37.1.10  

   Friedner, Michele Ilana ( February 2022 , Cultural Anthropology)

   While scholars have attended to disability as a new normal that is increasingly present as a category and experience in public spheres, this essay argues that technologies such as cochlear implants and accompanying therapeutics make it possible for children to “become normal.” Parents come to expect, rather than hope, that interventions will work. An analysis of habilitating children with cochlear implants in India—and habilitation as a process and practice in general—foregrounds the ways that potentiality attaches to certain kinds of devices, therapeutic methods, and people because of the presumed existence of malleability. Habilitation in the case of cochlear implants means developing a hearing brain and becoming a listening and speaking person. Potentiality and ideal habilitative trajectories wane with age and families must negotiate expectations in relation to sharply etched ideas of what is normal. This essay stresses that just as scholars have critically attended to rehabilitation, habilitation too is an important process of activating what is perceived to be latent and has future-oriented stakes.सारांशशोधकर्ताओं ने विकलांगता की खोज सार्वजनिक क्षेत्रों में तेजी से फैलता हुआ एक वर्ग एवं “ नये साधारण “ अनुभव के रूप में की हैं ।इस निबंध में यह तर्क दिया है कि “ कॉक्लियर इम्प्लांट “ जैसी टेकनोलोजि और उसके सहयोगी उपचारात्मक तंत्र बच्चो के नॉर्मल बनने की संभावना निर्माण करते हैं। माता-पिता आशा करने की बजाय अपेक्षा करने लगते हैं कि इस प्रकार के हस्तक्षेप सफल होंगे। भारत में “ कॉक्लियर इम्प्लांट “ का उपयोग करने वाले बच्चो के हॅबिलिटेशन एवं आम हाबिलिटेशन की प्रक्रिया और कार्यप्रणाली का विश्लेषण क्षमता विस्तार के उन विविध मागों को सामने लाता है , जो संस्कारक्षम प्रभाव का अस्तित्व मानने से , विशिष्ट प्रकार के उपकरण , उपचारात्मक तंत्र , मानव संसाधन के साथ जुड़े हुए हैं|“ कॉक्लियर इम्प्लांट “ के संदर्भ में हॅबिलिटेशन का मतलब श्रवणक्षम दिमाग विकसित करना एवं सुनने और बोलने वाली व्यक्ती बनाना । क्षमता विस्तार और हॅबिलिटेशन के आदर्श मार्ग उम्र के साथ धीरे-धीरे घटते हैं परिवार वालों ने इस बात को ध्यान में रखते हुए “नॉर्मल” की संकल्पना के बारे में अपनी धारणा तय करनी चाहिए ।इस निबंध में यह बात अधोरेखित की है: शोधकर्ताओं ने रिहॅबिलिटेशन संकल्पना को गंभीरता से परखा हैं| हॅबिलिटेशन एक ऐसी प्रक्रिया है जो , हम जिसे कथित रूप में अव्यक्त समझते हैं उसे सक्रिय करता है और इसका भविष्य में महत्वपूर्ण योगदान हैं । 

   more » « less
4. Exploring the Effects of a Targeted Program on Student Social Capital

   Rynearson, Anastasia ; Gartner, Jacqueline ; Miller, Michele ( July 2021 , ASEE Annual Conference proceedings)

   null (Ed.)

   This study focuses on a new engineering program in a rural, liberal arts university. The engineering program has a number of veteran, underrepresented minority, transfer, and nontraditional students. Many students are also first-generation college students. The institution and engineering program matriculate a number of under-served populations, students who may have needs that are not well understood in the typical engineering education literature. Due to the unique nature of this program, exploring the social capital networks of the students in the first four years of the program will offer insight into the students in this context. This study will use Lin’s model of social capital as a framework. Social capital can be defined as the resources that are gained from relationships, or “it’s not what you know, it’s who you know”. The knowledge that is found within a student’s social network are a form of capital. Students must not only have people within their network that provide cultural, economic, and human capital, but also be able to access those resources and be able to purposely activate those resources. The instrument used in this survey is based on Martin’s work with the Name and Resource Generator as adapted by Boone in work focusing on first-generation college students. In this instrument, students are asked to name up to eight people who have had an influence on their engineering-related decisions. They are asked to provide some background on each person, including their relationship, what they know of the person’s career and educational background, and how long they have known this person. Students may offer as little as one or as many as eight influencers. Additionally, students are asked to list relationships of people who have provided them with a number of resources related to engineering knowledge, activities, and advice. The department and especially the first-year curricular requirements and extracurricular offerings have been designed using a community of practice model. It is hoped that as part of the focus on creating this community within engineering that all students’ networks will expand to include faculty, peers, and others within the engineering community of practice. Faculty and peers within the school of engineering will be identified and will be an additional focus of this study. At this time, analysis has begun on a subset of the survey responses. Initial results are consistent with social capital literature, finding that first-generation college students are more likely to have smaller networks focusing on family, with one student in the study listing a single person as having an impact on their engineering decisions. Most students have also listed at least one faculty or peer at the university as well. Results presented will include typical network analysis to understand how the students in this unique context compare to published studies. We will also generate map of student networks focusing on department-specific connections including peers and faculty. Additional results of interest include discrepancies between the interview and the follow-up survey. 

   more » « less
5. An Inquiry into the Use of Intercoder Reliability Measures in Qualitative Research

   Wilson-Lopez, A. ; Minichiello, A. ; Green, T. ( July 2019 , ASEE Annual Conference proceedings)

   In this theory paper, we set out to consider, as a matter of methodological interest, the use of quantitative measures of inter-coder reliability (e.g., percentage agreement, correlation, Cohen’s Kappa, etc.) as necessary and/or sufficient correlates for quality within qualitative research in engineering education. It is well known that the phrase qualitative research represents a diverse body of scholarship conducted across a range of epistemological viewpoints and methodologies. Given this diversity, we concur with those who state that it is ill advised to propose recipes or stipulate requirements for achieving qualitative research validity and reliability. Yet, as qualitative researchers ourselves, we repeatedly find the need to communicate the validity and reliability—or quality—of our work to different stakeholders, including funding agencies and the public. One method for demonstrating quality, which is increasingly used in qualitative research in engineering education, is the practice of reporting quantitative measures of agreement between two or more people who code the same qualitative dataset. In this theory paper, we address this common practice in two ways. First, we identify instances in which inter-coder reliability measures may not be appropriate or adequate for establishing quality in qualitative research. We query research that suggests that the numerical measure itself is the goal of qualitative analysis, rather than the depth and texture of the interpretations that are revealed. Second, we identify complexities or methodological questions that may arise during the process of establishing inter-coder reliability, which are not often addressed in empirical publications. To achieve this purposes, in this paper we will ground our work in a review of qualitative articles, published in the Journal of Engineering Education, that have employed inter-rater or inter-coder reliability as evidence of research validity. In our review, we will examine the disparate measures and scores (from 40% agreement to 97% agreement) used as evidence of quality, as well as the theoretical perspectives within which these measures have been employed. Then, using our own comparative case study research as an example, we will highlight the questions and the challenges that we faced as we worked to meet rigorous standards of evidence in our qualitative coding analysis, We will explain the processes we undertook and the challenges we faced as we assigned codes to a large qualitative data set approached from a post positivist perspective. We will situate these coding processes within the larger methodological literature and, in light of contrasting literature, we will describe the principled decisions we made while coding our own data. We will use this review of qualitative research and our own qualitative research experiences to elucidate inconsistencies and unarticulated issues related to evidence for qualitative validity as a means to generate further discussion regarding quality in qualitative coding processes. 

   more » « less