Abstract
Given the recent proliferation of undergraduate psychology and law courses, there is an increased need to empirically evaluate effective methods of teaching psycholegal material. The current study used a between- and within-subject design across four higher education institutions (N = 291 students) to evaluate the effectiveness of incorporating experiential learning activities in undergraduate psychology and law courses. Students who participated in the experiential activities performed significantly better than did control students on exam questions related to some, but not all, of the activities. In addition, experiential students consistently rated aspects of the course as more enjoyable than did control students. Results suggest that the inclusion of experiential learning activities has the potential to improve student performance and increase interest and motivation.
Over the last 20 years, there has been a substantial increase in the number of course offerings and training opportunities in psychology and law in undergraduate university curricula (DeMatteo, Marczyk, Krauss, & Burl, 2009; Otto & Goldstein, 2013). As more courses, trainings, and seminars are offered, it is important to empirically evaluate effective ways of teaching psycholegal content. Theory, pedagogy, and prior research suggest that the inclusion of experiential learning activities effectively addresses the targeted outcomes of course material acquisition, practicing critical thinking skills, and maintaining or increasing student interest (e.g., Balch, 2012; Banyard & Fernald, 2002; Clements, 1995; Fass, 1999; Schwarzmueller, 2011).
The field of psychology has employed experiential learning in the classroom for years as a means to actively engage students in the subject matter (see, e.g., Fleming, Piedmont, & Haim, 1990; Larsen, 1987). Experiential, or active learning, processes require students to not only memorize and comprehend the information presented but also evaluate, analyze, and apply course-related concepts (Benjamin, 1991; Kolb, 1984). This hands-on approach goes beyond the mere availability of information and demands that students find patterns, organize these patterns into meaningful concepts, and understand under what conditions such knowledge is useful (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000). Experiential learning activities achieve this by immersing students in a content-related activity—such as a demonstrated psychology experiment, real-world simulation exercise or role play, or an actual behavioral observation—and then asking students to reflect on their experiences. Such active learning fosters the development of critical thinking (Berman & Platania, 2007).
Experiential Learning in Psychology and Law
Teaching at the intersection of psychology and law requires that the instructor incorporate various ideas, theories, and abstract principles from both disciplines. Even the name of this field breeds complexity, as the same class may have different titles depending on the academic institution—psychology and the law, forensic psychology, or legal psychology are often used interchangeably (Otto & Goldstein, 2013). Including experiential activities in the classroom can serve to deepen student knowledge of core psycholegal theories and concepts as well as improve their understanding of how to apply this knowledge in complex real-world situations. This latter benefit, the development of critical thinking skills, has been stated as a primary goal of higher education (Jones et al., 1995; Karantzus et al., 2013). Encouraging and teaching such skills are necessary for students to apply psycholegal analyses in experiential activities that simulate the real-world context where the answer to many questions will be “it depends.”
Previous practitioners (and researchers) have offered descriptions of psychology and law-related experiential activities (e.g., Schumacher & Brodsky, 1988), and some have sought to demonstrate the efficacy of active learning instruction. Previous findings suggest that the inclusion of experiential activities affects knowledge of class content, critical thinking skills, and student engagement. For example, Perry, Huss, McAuliff, and Galas (1996) implemented four projects, including an oral argument and mock trial. They reported increased student understanding of class content and critical thinking skills; however, these conclusions were based on instructor observation (Perry, Huss, McAuliff, & Galas, 1996). Fass (1999) developed a role-playing exercise focused on the insanity defense. Although no systematic evaluation was completed, students self-reported that the exercise was helpful in providing a better understanding of the insanity defense and the majority reported the exercise to be enjoyable. Similarly, Miller (1997) observed that students who engaged in applied exercises building up to a mock trial that focused on the accuracy of eyewitness testimony self-reported both content-based benefits and overall enjoyment.
Student Interest and Motivation
Maintaining student interest in the field of psychology and law is another unique undertaking. Students may initially become interested in the topic after watching one of the many movies or television dramas depicting gripping and complex scenarios where law enforcement, attorneys, or mental health professionals employ psychological principles to help solve a crime (or series of crimes) and, subsequently, obtain a difficult conviction or acquittal. Unfortunately, the excitement derived from sensationalized media coverage is not easily replicated or maintained in the classroom (or through a textbook).
Actively participating in experiential exercises not only impacts students’ ability to retain knowledge but has also been shown to increase interest in course material and in students’ intrinsic motivation. When students perceive course material as interesting and believe they can successfully understand and apply such information, they are more motivated to engage in the cognitive processes required for knowledge acquisition and, thereby, more likely to learn (Pintrich, Marx, & Boyle, 1993; Strike & Posner, 1992). For example, Clements (1995) found that including an experiential or field component positively affected developmental psychology students’ attitudes regarding both interest and perceived value of the related subject matter. Notably, students who engaged in field components also viewed the instructor as more courteous and considerate (Clements). Similarly, undergraduate students who participated in an extensive mock trial of a controversial case “stated unequivocally that the mock trial was the most interesting part of the class” (Werth et al., 2002, p. 22). Furthermore, students appear to consistently suggest the continued use of experiential activities as a pedagogical component (e.g., Bornstein, 2006; Werth et al., 2002).
Despite these encouraging findings, there are several methodological limitations in prior research that the current study sought to address. First, prior studies mainly utilized within-subject designs. Studies evaluating the use of experiential activities within psychology and law classes as well as other psychology courses (e.g., developmental psychology) have not included the use of a control group. Further, study outcomes have primarily been based on students’ subjective self-report (e.g., Clements, 1995; Fass, 1999; Miller, 1997) or instructor observation/anecdotal perceptions (e.g., Perry et al., 1996). This is the first study to systematically evaluate the impact of experiential class activities within a psychology and law undergraduate course using a control group to conduct between-group comparisons and including both subjective (i.e., student self-report) and objective (i.e., student exam performance) outcome measures.
Current Study
We sought to examine whether the inclusion of experiential learning activities in undergraduate psychology and law/forensic psychology 1 classes increased students’ knowledge of the specific class content and whether it impacted their subjective overall class experience. This is the first controlled study to empirically evaluate the effectiveness of incorporating experiential learning in psychology and law courses, using both a between- and within-subjects design. Control sections were included that were identical in course content and structure but did not include the experiential activities. Both groups (i.e., control and experiential) received the same lectures, accompanying PowerPoint slides, and exams. Evaluation and comparison included both formal assessment methods and student feedback related to engagement, interest, and motivation.
We expected that students would have improved knowledge of class content when they engaged in the experiential learning activities. Specifically, students would demonstrate a better understanding of the specific topics covered in the activities (i.e., jury selection, competency to stand trial, and expert testimony) after engaging in the experiential learning activities. First, we expected their understanding to be significantly better than that demonstrated by students who did not engage in the activities as evidenced by their performance on targeted exam questions. Second, we expected their understanding of these specific topics to be better than their knowledge of psycholegal topics that were not the focus of the experiential activities. Finally, we hypothesized that students who engaged in the experiential learning activities would report a more enjoyable overall class experience.
Method
Participants
Participants were 291 students from four higher education institutions in the United States. About half (53%) of the participants attended a large urban university in the northeast, and the remainder attended a large southern university, a medium-sized Midwestern university, or a small liberal arts college in the northeast. See Table 1 for a full description of participants by category. Participants ranged in age from 19 to 61 years. The majority were women (73%; note: nationally, about 75% of psychology majors are women), psychology majors (74%), and college seniors (47%). The study sample was comprised of all students who completed one of the selected psychology and law course sections offered at their respective institution during the study period (May 2013–June 2014).
Demographic Characteristics.
Note. Totals for each variable may not add up to the overall N of 291, given that not all participants responded to all demographic questions.
Procedure and Design
As part of the current study, a total of eight psychology and law course sections were taught across the four institutions, five experiential sections (n = 191 students), and three control sections (n = 100 students). A total of four instructors participated in the study. The five experiential sections were taught by three instructors (one consistent instructor at each institution), and the three control sections were taught by two instructors, with one of the instructors teaching two separate control sections (again, instructor was consistent for all sections at each institution). All primary course content (i.e., lecture notes and slides, audio and video clips shown in class, the major writing assignment, exams, and grading rubrics) was created prior to the commencement of the first section included in the study and standardized across all four instructors and institutions. The standardized course content and structure and the same textbook (Greene & Heilbrun, 2013) were used for all eight sections, regardless of whether a section was deemed experiential or control. Both groups received the same lectures, accompanying PowerPoint slides (all of which were cocreated by the study authors, independent of the textbook), supplemental readings, major writing assignment, and exams. The only exception to the consistency with which course content was delivered was the timing and pace of delivery, as course sections varied between condensed summer-intensive (i.e., 5–6 weeks) and traditional semester-length (i.e., 14–15 weeks) formats. For the experimental sections, two (40%) of the five sections were intensive 6-week courses. For the control sections, one (33%) of the three sections was an intensive 6-week course. Regardless of semester structure, student engagement time was essentially the same within experiential and control sections. Because experiential sections included the activities during class time, there was some variability in how class time was spent. The implementation of an experiential activity encouraged more student preparation outside class, as class time was spent doing the activity; whereas in the control section that class session would have consisted of the same lecture content and an expanded discussion about the material. In addition, the four instructors likely varied slightly in their individual style and delivery of the standardized course material. These differences were minimized by the use of standardized lecture slides and notes.
In addition to the primary course content received by all students, students in the five experiential sections participated in three activities focused on the following psycholegal topics: (1) jury selection, (2) evaluation of a juvenile defendant’s competence to stand trial, and (3) expert testimony. The purpose of these exercises (described in further detail below) was to provide an experiential learning opportunity that would allow students to apply what they had learned through course readings and lectures. Specifically, the activities gave students the opportunity to consider and answer the inevitable “it depends” and engage in the subsequent analysis inherent in addressing many psycholegal issues. For each of these activities, students participated in preliminary preparation for the exercise (e.g., reading reports or case summaries, brainstorming strategies as a class or in small groups, etc.), played an active role in the simulation, and debriefed the exercise verbally and in writing via feedback surveys, following their participation. 2 Again, with the exception of these three experiential activities, the control and experiential courses were almost identical in content and structure.
Experiential Activity Descriptions
Jury selection
For this activity, students were divided into two groups to serve as trial consultants for the prosecution or defense, respectively. All students were given a brief description of a hypothetical criminal trial case scenario, as well as a list of potential jurors, with accompanying brief biographical statements (e.g., two to three sentences) for each potential juror. Each group was then given the opportunity to participate in a voir dire process, in which they could consider which jurors would likely be favorable to their side of the case and assert peremptory challenges and challenges for cause accordingly. Students drew on information from lecture, discussion, and their readings to apply what the social science research suggests about jury decision-making.
Juvenile competence to stand trial evaluation
This activity consisted of students first viewing a videotaped mock forensic interview of a juvenile accused of a crime. As in real clinical interviewing, students were challenged to take clear notes to provide a basis for their written report. The students were then asked to assess the juvenile’s competence to stand trial, using the information obtained from the interview, as well as from additional mock collateral records that were provided to them (e.g., school records, previous psychiatric report). The students then completed a written report in which they applied their state legal standard for juvenile competence to stand trial and summarized their findings, including making links between observed functional competency deficits and the juvenile’s mental health, intellectual, and developmental deficits.
Expert testimony
For this activity, students were assigned to play either a fact witness or an expert witness in a mock civil case and were provided with mock records corresponding to that role (e.g., professional resume, psychological evaluation report, and therapy records). Students were asked to familiarize themselves with the records in order to provide competent and effective testimony, applying not only the content of the mock case but also the class reading and discussion of the “how” skills of effective testimony. Each student was then given an opportunity to “testify” and respond to a mock attorney’s questions in either direct examination or cross-examination scenarios.
Measures
Several measurement methods were used to allow the planned between- and within-group comparisons.
Baseline knowledge assessment
All students were administered a baseline knowledge assessment prior to the first-class session. Along with self-reported grade point average (GPA), this assessment was intended to detect any preexisting group differences in psychology and law-related knowledge between the experiential and control groups that might confound results.
Midterm and final evaluations
The primary means of comparing student performance were the standardized midterm and final examinations. In addition to providing a measure of students’ comprehension and retention of class material, these exams were carefully designed to include a relatively equal number of questions about (1) experiential activity topics (i.e., jury selection, competence to stand trial, expert testimony) and (2) control topics. Similarly, complex psycholegal topics that received comparable attention in lectures and course materials (e.g., criminal responsibility/insanity, trial process, criminal profiling, eyewitness identification), but were not the topic of an experiential learning activity in the current course, were used as control questions. Four questions were included on each experiential topic. The inclusion of these questions allowed us to conduct both between-group comparisons (i.e., did students in the experiential sections perform better than control section students on questions related to experiential activity topics?) and within-group comparisons (e.g., did students in the experiential section perform better on experiential topics than on control topics?). In addition to assessing student performance, student motivation and interest were assessed.
Course evaluations
Upon completion of the course, all students in both the control and the experiential sections completed an anonymous overall course evaluation, which included quantitative and qualitative questions about the course content, structure, and instructor as well as specific ratings of all course components.
Experiential activity evaluations
Students in the experiential sections completed written feedback surveys following each of the three experiential activities. These evaluations included both quantitative (i.e., Likert-type scale ratings) and qualitative questions (i.e., open-ended questions about aspects of the activity they liked/disliked).
Results
Baseline Group Differences
A total of 191 (66%) students participated in the experiential course, in five separate class sections. One hundred (34%) students participated in the control course (three class sections). In order to check for baseline differences between the groups, self-reported GPA (range 1.80–4.00) and scores on the baseline knowledge assessment (range 22.73%–86.36%) were compared between the experiential and the control groups (see Table 2). The t tests revealed no significant differences between the groups for either self-reported GPA, t(243) = −0.22, p = .83, d = −0.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) [−0.09, 0.03], or baseline knowledge score, t(273) = −0.21, p = .83, d = −0.03, 95% CI [−1.36, 1.31].
Scores on Baseline and Performance Measures.
a% scores out of 100. bExperiential group performed significantly better than the control group on these domains. cTotal number of question type. dGroup performed significantly better on experiential topic questions than matched control questions.
Student Performance
Overall class performance
Independent samples t tests were conducted to compare overall test performance in the experiential and control groups. There was not a significant difference between the two groups’ performance on either the midterm, t(254) = −0.83, p = 0.41, d = 0.12; 95% CI [−0.56, 0.79], or the final, t(268) = −1.54, p = 0.12, d = 0.19; 95% CI [−0.55, 0.95], examinations.
Content-specific questions
When questions related to the specific experiential topics were examined, students who participated in the experiential activities performed significantly better than the control group, t(244) = −2.19, p = .03, d = 0.31, 95% CI [0.06, 0.56]. Follow-up analyses were conducted to examine performance patterns for each of the three experiential content areas (i.e., jury selection, competency to stand trial, and expert testimony). Specifically, an independent samples t-test revealed no significant difference in the two groups’ demonstrated understanding of jury selection, t(258) = −1.60, p = .11, d = 0.22, 95% CI [0.12, 0.33], or competency to stand trial, t(268) = −1.71, p = .09, d = 0.22, 95% CI [0.12, 0.32]. However, the experiential group performed significantly better than did the control group on questions related to expert testimony, t(268) = −2.03, p = .04, d = 0.27, 95% CI [0.14, 0.39].
In addition to comparing performance between experiential and control courses, we examined how students’ understanding of the experiential topics compared to their own understanding of other psycholegal topics (e.g., the insanity defense). Paired samples t-tests compared student performance on questions related to the experiential activities to preselected control questions on topics where no experiential activity was utilized. Overall, both the experiential group, t(177) = 2.53, p = .01, d = 0.38, 95% CI [0.00, 0.40], and the control group, t(67) = 2.34, p = .02, d = 0.27, 95% CI [−0.07, 0.60], scored significantly higher on questions about the experiential topics than those asking about other similarly complex concepts.
Next, each experiential topic was individually analyzed. Paired samples t-tests revealed that experiential students scored significantly better on questions related to jury selection than on control questions, t(186) = 4.09, p < .001, d = 0.37, 95% CI [0.28, 0.46], while no significant difference between questions was observed with the control group, t(72) = 0.33, p = .74, d = 0.04, 95% CI [−0.10, 0.19]. On competency-related questions, both the experiential, t(179) = 4.72, p < .001, d = 0.42, 95% CI [0.34, 0.51], and the control students, t(89) = 5.91, p < .001, d = 0.72, 95% CI [0.61, 0.83], scored significantly higher on competency to stand trial-related questions than control questions. Interestingly, the experiential students’ performance was significantly worse on expert testimony-related questions, t(179) = −3.18, p = .002, d = 0.28, 95% CI [0.12, 0.38], than on control questions, but no difference was observed for control students’ performance, t(89) = −1.11, p = .27, d = 0.15, 95% CI [0.01, 0.28]. It is worthwhile to note that, although there was no difference in overall exam performance between the two groups, the experiential students scored significantly higher on the experiential questions (see above) and the control topic questions, t(244) = −2.81, p = .005, d = 0.40, 95% CI [0.16, 0.64], than did the control students.
Student Course Evaluations and Feedback
Although the control and experiential courses were identical (e.g., received the same lectures, accompanying PowerPoint slides, and exams), with the exception of the actual experiential activities and instructor/institution differences, students evaluated the courses differently. Aspects of the experiential course were rated significantly higher in student end-of-term evaluations than the same aspects of the control course (see Table 3). This included significantly higher ratings of the helpfulness and added value of course components such as the major writing assignment completed by both groups. In addition, experiential students rated the workload as significantly more reasonable, despite the extra writing, participation, and preparation required by the experiential activities. The only ratings that did not differ between groups were those related to the assigned readings and exams, which, again, were nearly identical for both experiential and control courses.
Descriptives and t-Test Comparison of Control and Experimental Course Evaluations.
aEvaluations completed by experiential students only.
*p < .05. **p < .001.
When completing evaluations, experiential students also rated their instructor more positively than did control students (see Table 3). Students in the experiential courses rated their instructors as significantly more knowledgeable, interesting, and available than did control students and were more likely to want to take another course with the same instructor.
In their evaluations of the experiential activities, students in the experiential courses consistently rated the juvenile competency to stand trial assessment as the most helpful of the three activities (46%, n = 70). However, there was not a clear favorite or preferred activity across students. When asked to rank order the three activities from most to least interesting, their rankings varied. Thirty-six percent rated the juvenile competency assessment as the most interesting, while 32% selected the jury selection exercise, and the remaining 32% selected the expert testimony exercise. Rankings for the second and third favorite activities were similarly evenly distributed.
Students in the experiential course rated various aspects of the experiential activities highly. On a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), students reported they agreed to strongly agreed that the activity helped them to understand the material, helped them to understand the material better than other course concepts, was enjoyable, and was a good way to learn about the concept (see Table 3). Ratings were not significantly different across activities, with the exception of ratings of the enjoyableness of the activity, F(2, 246) = 8.59, p < .001, ηp 2 = .07, 95% CI [0.02, 0.13]. Students rated their enjoyment of the jury selection exercise significantly higher than enjoyment of the competency assessment, t(147) = 3.71, p < .001, d = .41, 95% CI [0.31, 0.51], or the expert witness activity, t(133) = −3.32, p = .001, d = .39, 95% CI [0.30, 0.48].
When asked about their experience participating in the exercises, there were significant differences in how “nervous” students reported feeling about participation in the activity. Specifically, students were asked about the extent to which they agreed (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) with the statement “I was nervous or anxious about participating in this activity” (see Table 3), F(2, 262) = 85.86, p < .001, ηp 2 = .40, 95% CI [0.30, 0.47]. They reported feeling significantly more nervous for the expert witness activity than for the competency assessment, t(139) = −9.24, p < .001, d = .92, 95% CI [0.78, 1.06], or the jury selection activity, t(141) = 13.37, p < .001, d = 1.28, 95% CI [1.15, 1.41], and significantly more nervous for the competency assessment than the jury selection activity, t(153) = −3.67, p < .001, d = .34, 95% CI [0.46, 0.21].
Discussion
Student Performance
The inclusion of experiential learning activities had an impact on both student performance and student feedback. This is consistent with previous research suggesting active learning exercises impact student knowledge of class content, critical thinking skills, and student engagement (see e.g., Fass, 1999; Perry et al., 1996). When the three experiential exercises were utilized, students showed a better understanding of the overall activity-related content compared to both students who did not participate in such exercises and to their own understanding of class content unrelated to the exercises. Although these results generally support our hypotheses, different patterns were found for each of the specific psycholegal content areas: jury selection, competency to stand trial, and expert testimony.
The inclusion of the jury selection and competency to stand trial exercises did not improve student exam performance on those specific topics when compared to those students who were not provided the experiential activities; however, these students did show a better understanding of both jury selection and competency to stand trial than other psycholegal content unrelated to the experiential activities as reflected in their performance on exam questions specific to these content areas. These findings may have been related to student motivation and engagement with the topic. The inclusion of active learning exercises may have motivated students to put more time and effort into these content areas than others, thus improving their understanding and related exam performance on jury selection and competency to stand trial questions. With regard to jury selection specifically, the exercise may not have significantly improved understanding between groups, as jury selection is not a novel concept. It is possible that some, if not all of the students involved, may have had prior experience with jury selection through the media (e.g., high-profile criminal cases), entertainment (e.g., movies or television shows), or personal experience as an actual or potential juror. When students have prior knowledge, exposure, and/or experience with a concept, active learning exercises may not have as big of an impact on student learning. Furthermore, although attorneys use complex strategies in jury selection, the actual rules surrounding jury selection (e.g., use of challenges to potential jurors) are relatively concrete and typically manageable for students to recall. Experiential activities may have a bigger impact on students’ understanding of complicated topics with multiple contingencies.
Expert testimony proved to be a challenging topic for students. This is not surprising given that these psychology and law classes were likely the first time students were introduced to this more novel and complex psycholegal concept. Overall, none of the students performed as well on expert testimony questions as they did on other content areas. That said, participating in the expert testimony exercise did have an impact on students’ understanding of this difficult concept, as those who participated scored higher on related exam questions than students who did not. Again, this is consistent with the idea that experiential activities are especially beneficial when teaching more complicated topics.
Student Feedback
Student ratings of the experiential activities were consistently positive. The activities were purposefully varied in format requiring in-class group work (jury selection exercise), individual work outside class meetings (the competency to stand trial assessment), and in-class, individual performance (expert testimony exercise) and had broad appeal. This format variation is an important component of designing experiential activities. Different activities appealed to different students, successfully engaging a wide range of students with varied strengths and abilities, as evidenced by students’ rankings of activity preference. A clear trend was observed in how “nervous” students reported feeling. Students consistently reported feeling more nervous for the expert testimony exercise that required individual performance in front of the class than for the jury selection activity in which students could work in groups. Inclusion of some, but not all, activities of this type may provide a positive challenge for students and an impetus to engage and adequately prepare for the activity.
In addition to impacting their demonstrated understanding of psycholegal topics, participation in the experiential activities significantly, and consistently, impacted students’ evaluation of the course. Consistent with prior research, students reported more class enjoyment and gave higher feedback ratings when the experiential exercises were incorporated in classroom learning. This is particularly important for two reasons. First, when students perceive course material to be interesting, they are more motivated to engage in the cognitive processes required for knowledge acquisition (Pintrich et al., 1993; Strike & Posner, 1992). Students in the experiential course rated both the course and their professors as more interesting and engaging. The experiential activities also shifted students’ perception of the workload and their attitude toward challenging assignments, such as the major writing assignment. For example, although the experiential course required significantly more preparation and work, including the writing of a lengthy competency assessment report, students in the experiential course rated the workload as more manageable and appropriate than did students in the control course. Second, student feedback about both the course and the instructor is carefully evaluated within the higher education system and may impact college/university ratings, course offerings, and faculty performance evaluations (e.g., tenure decisions). The inclusion of experiential learning activities not only increases students’ learning of complex topics but also impacts students’ enjoyment and rating of the course and the individual instructor.
As discussed, the use of experiential learning activities did not appear to impact overall class performance, that is, total scores on the midterm or final examinations. This finding, however, does not undermine the other benefits outlined above: a better understanding of the specific topics and content areas reviewed in such exercises, students reporting more class enjoyment, and the likely impact on overall student motivation. Although no significant differences were observed in exam total scores, differences were observed when we examined questions on the experiential topics and comparison control topics. When interpreting comparisons between performance on experiential topic questions and control questions, it is important to note that students in the experiential classes scored significantly higher on both sets of questions. That is, experiential students scored significantly higher than students in the control sections on both experiential and control topic exam questions. Although students in the experiential classes did not consistently demonstrate the expected stronger understanding of experiential topics that we expected across the board, they did appear to benefit from experiential activities and consistently demonstrated a stronger understanding of all topics when compared to students in the control sections.
Future Considerations
This systematic evaluation of three experiential activities supports the use of such exercises within a psychology and law classroom. As instructors, it is common to ask ourselves whether we are getting an adequate return on our investment, given the amount of time and preparation that goes into designing, facilitating, and evaluating experiential learning activities. In other words, are the learning tools and techniques we are utilizing in the classroom having a real impact on student performance and other important outcomes, such as class interest, motivation, and engagement? The current study suggests that utilizing these three activities—particularly the juvenile competency and expert testimony exercises—are worth the time, effort, preparation, and resources required of both the instructor and the student.
Use of experiential activities may be particularly important when responding to a variety of students’ learning styles and abilities. In studies evaluating the effectiveness of flipped classrooms (i.e., pedagogical model in which the typical lecture and out-of-class assignments are reversed such that students review materials or recorded lectures ahead of time so that class sessions are devoted to completing exercises and activities), the incorporation of active learning exercises seems to be particularly beneficial for weaker or underprepared students (e.g., Flumerfelt & Green, 2013; Sankoff, 2014). Although examinations of student performance in flipped and blended classrooms have yielded mixed performance outcomes, the results have consistently suggested increased student engagement and interest in these settings (Goodwin & Miller, 2013). The experiential course sections in this study were not intended to be flipped classrooms; rather, they more closely simulated a blended model in which students reviewed materials prior to the class session in which an experiential activity was conducted for three selected topics. In a disciplinary area in which very little empirical research has examined the effectiveness of active learning techniques (i.e., psychology and law/forensic psychology), we began with a systematic evaluation of the effectiveness of several activities before evaluating an entirely flipped classroom. The results of this study suggest that the incorporation of several experiential activities into a traditional lecture-based course may have similar benefits to those resulting from a flipped classroom.
Future research should examine these and related questions, including whether and to what extent using a completely flipped classroom may be more or less beneficial than incorporating experiential activities into a traditional lecture-based course. In addition, the exercises included in this study should be further evaluated for effectiveness in varying class sizes, lengths (e.g., semester, quarter, and condensed), and formats (e.g., traditional, online, and hybrid). Given the rapid growth in psychology and law course offerings at the undergraduate level, there is a substantial need for more systematic evaluations of teaching methods and techniques in this increasingly popular interdisciplinary field. Specific follow-up research questions could include whether the experiential exercises increased students’ interest in the specific topic and perhaps even newfound interest in pursuing a related career. In addition, more enhanced performance and outcome assessment methods, including analyses related to the level of individual exam question difficulty, could be incorporated into future study designs.
Limitations
This study is the first systematic and controlled evaluation of the effectiveness of incorporating experiential learning activities in an undergraduate psychology and law course, and several limitations are important to note. First, this was a quasi-experimental design. Random assignment of participants to courses was not possible. Instead, each instructor’s course sections were used as preexisting groups, which were then assigned to be either experiential or control sections. This method of group assignment to condition inherently limits the experimenter’s control over group differences. However, this method provided ecological validity to the current study, using naturally occurring class groups to study the effectiveness of a classroom methodology (i.e., experiential activities). Importantly, in the current study, no statistically significant differences in baseline assessment data or GPA were observed between the experiential and control groups.
Another potential limitation is variation in course content delivery across the academic institutions and instructors. Although substantial efforts were made to ensure standardization of lecture content and delivery across instructors, institutions, and semesters, it is possible that the nature and scope of class discussions may have varied somewhat across course sections, depending on the instructor’s particular style, student engagement, and course format. For example, one instructor may have allowed for a lengthier tangential discussion on a course-related current event (e.g., a legal case in the news) during one course section than another or more often than did other course instructors. Given that we were not able to specifically control for this individual instructor/institution variance, these minor differences could possibly serve a mediating and/or moderating role in the effectiveness outcomes. Although instructor difference introduces more variation to the study, it is notable that consistent effects of experiential activities were observed despite difference in course instructors. These findings suggest that experiential activities have the potential to be a valuable addition to any course, and their success does not hinge on the personal attributes or style of a specific instructor.
Conversely, we were not able to ensure that each instructor taught the same number of control and experiential sections in the study. This is a significant limitation to the overall study design, but one that is certainly common and, arguably, often unavoidable in teaching effectiveness studies (Grauerholz & Main, 2013). Given that, it is possible that the differences in instructor ratings were not attributable to the inclusion of experiential activities but, rather, were attributable to the specific instructor. If that is the case, then it may also be possible that a potential ceiling effect exists; specifically, if the instructor is especially effective, then the inclusion of experiential activities may not have much additive value. These are empirical questions that the current study was not able to address, given the logistical limitations on assigning instructors and course sections to experiential versus control formats.
In the current study, we did not control for the amount of time spent on the experiential activities, which could beg the question of whether it was, in fact, the experiential activities that increased performance or just the extra time that experiential students spent on a particular topic. Future studies could examine this question by spending equal amounts of time on experiential and control topics, utilizing nonexperiential methods (e.g., watching a related movie) to increase the time spent on control topics.
Finally, our method used to evaluate student performance was limited. Student performance on each of the experiential content areas was limited to four questions on an exam, and performance on these questions was compared to performance on control questions. It is possible that questions varied unintentionally in their complexity or difficulty. Post hoc item analyses indicated that some of these questions were especially difficult in comparison to other exam questions; thus, these questions may not have adequately assessed the construct as intended. Future studies examining the effect of experiential activities should utilize more in-depth assessment of student performance in the relevant domains.
Conclusion
Although the findings of the current study must be interpreted within the confines of its methodological limitations, this study represents the first empirical evaluation of experiential learning activities in the psychology and law classroom. Results suggest that experiential learning activities have the potential to not only improve students’ understanding of complex psycholegal topics, they may also increase students’ enjoyment of the course and engagement with the course material. The experiential activities made students view increased work and course demands as more manageable, reporting enjoyment of the process despite additional course assignments. These results suggest that experiential learning activities can be a valuable course component and are worth the time, effort, and resources required to facilitate such activities.
Footnotes
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Ashley Batastini, Kirk Heilbrun, Edie Greene, David DeMatteo, Naomi Goldstein, Jennifer Winquist, and Kieth Carlson for their consultation and assistance. In addition, we are grateful to the many research assistants and student participants who were involved at various stages of the project.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.