JURE 2012 Programme book - EARLI Jure 2012

Tuesday, July 24 JURE 2012 Conference Programme
Motivated lie detection: The effect of directional goals on credibility judgments among
teachers and teacher students
Tamara Marksteiner
Marc-­‐André Reinhard, Oliver Dickhäuser, & Karl Ask
Three experiments investigated the effect of lie or truth goal-­‐directed (i.e., the desire to
disbelieve or believe a statement) processing on credibility judgments (Experiment 1 and 2) and
detection accuracy (Experiment 3) among pre-­‐ and in-­‐service teachers. It was assumed that
information is processed in line with a judgment goal and that a goal-­‐inconsistent (vs.
consistent) cue would lead to a goal-­‐directed systematic processing. In all three experiments
participants' judgment goal (truth vs. lie judgment goal) was manipulated experimentally. In
Experiment 2 and 3, a goal-­‐inconsistent vs. consistent cue was also presented, and participants
judged the credibility of an ambiguous statement (Experiment 2) or of 8 videotaped statements
(Experiment 3). Experiment 1 shows that participants process ambiguous statements in line
with their judgment goal. Experiment 2 shows that participants who received a judgment goal-­‐
inconsistent cue processed the statement in a more biased or goal-­‐directed systematic way than
participants who received a consistent cue. Experiment 3 shows that participants’ accuracy rate
is higher after having received an inconsistent cue. The results of all three studies give an insight
into the process underlying biased lie detection. Practical implications of these findings are
discussed.
PA.3.3. Investigations and Explorations into Assessment and Feedback
Paper Session, 15.15-­‐16.15, Room: VG 1.36
Chair: Markus Hirschmann
‘Good’ and ‘bad’ feedback: Content, discontent and the contingent value of feedback
Laura Morosanu
Jill Millar, & Margaret Price
Despite growing efforts to improve the provision of feedback, recent evidence suggests that
feedback still raises significant dissatisfaction amongst students. However, relatively little is
known about how students make sense of written feedback and what sort of feedback they find
useful. Our paper contributes to this under-­‐researched area by undertaking an analysis of
student-­‐selected feedback scripts versus students’ evaluations of them in order to obtain a more
nuanced understanding of what constitutes ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feedback in students’ perception.
The findings confirm some of the previous research showing that feedback offered to students
generally contained low levels of explanation and suggestions for improvement, and that
demotivational comments had a negative effect upon students. However, contrary to
assumptions that higher levels of explanation may improve the reception of feedback, our study
shows that explanatory comments per se did not necessarily make feedback more ‘valuable’ in
students’ eyes. The analysis of the in-­‐depth interviews revealed that students valued feedback
more in the context of generally favourable comments, although not containing more
explanation. Second, students’ agreement or disagreement with tutors’ explanation significantly
shaped their views on the usefulness of feedback. Our study shows that student evaluations of
‘good’ or ‘bad’ feedback are dependent on the broader context of assessment, including more or
less successful pre-­‐assessment dialogues between students and tutors. By showing how students
interpret feedback as ‘useful’ or not, we argue that efforts to improve feedback have partly been
misplaced. Contrary to common attempts to improve the qualities of written feedback as an end
product, we support an understanding of feedback as a ‘dialogic’ process, and emphasise the role
of pre-­‐assessment discussions on the content and substance of the assignment in order to
increase students’ knowledge of the subject and minimise ensuing disagreement between
student and tutor interpretations of the assessed work.
46