Resourcd File


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Resourcd File

  1. 1. Lesson Plan Teacher: Observer: SEN: Class: Time: G&T: Level/Grade Boundaries: A2 – Mixed ability Learning Objectives (what are they learning?): Are activities closely matched to individual needs? Are objectives referred back to throughout the lesson?  Students will learn about the Cognitive Interview Technique and Geiselman & Fisher’s research.  They will be able to critique the technique and the research.  Students will apply this knowledge to exam style essay questions Success Criteria (The students will be able to..?)  All students will have a basic understanding of the Cognitive Interview Technique  Most will be able to apply these concepts successfully to exam style essay questions.  Some will have a sophisticated understanding of these concepts and be able to apply them to other aspects of forensic psychology. Prior Learning: How does this lesson reflect progress from last lesson?  Students have already learnt about the issues with leading questions and the reconstructive nature of memory at AS. They have also learnt about issues with Eye Witness Testimony. Future Learning: How will students make further progress next lesson?  Students will learn to apply this knowledge to essay questions and will learn how the cognitive interview technique fits into the ‘Making a Case’ topic. Future lessons will move onto interviewing suspects.
  2. 2. Resources: Are resources clear, imaginative and engaging?  Making a Case booklet  PowerPoint presentation  Film Clip of Cognitive Interview Technique  Post it notes  Mini white boards Assessment for Learning: How will I ensure excellent progress within & over lessons? Are learners involved in the assessment of their own work? Does questioning engage all students? Does marking inform students how to improve their work?  Teacher will move around and question students  Students will self and peer assess by discussing answers  Homework task will ensure students apply their knowledge Creativity/variety: How will the lesson motivate and engage all learners?  Individual task  Class discussion  Pair discussion  PowerPoint  Film Clip  Role-play Plenary: Does the plenary engage all students in reviewing learning?  A plenary after the main activity will ensure all students have understood the main concepts.  The final plenary and homework task will check that students have understood how to apply their knowledge to exam questions. Homework/ILP: Do appropriate and regular tasks have a significant impact on learning? Complete essay plan: - a) Outline any relevant research which can inform us about how a witness should be interviewed (10) b) Evaluate the methodology used to investigate the interviewing of witnesses (15)
  3. 3. ACTIVITIES Timing Teacher Activity Student Activity 5 mins 10 mins 10 mins 5 mins 10 mins 10 mins 5 mins Starter – False memory Activity. Lesson Objectives shared. Show DVD clip. Short quiz on main points. Show rest of DVD. Mini plenary. Two students (HAs) to role-play interview. Circulate and answer questions. Plenary: - Give Homework task Students to memorise words on board (should induce false memory of ‘Sweet’ in some). Q & A session to assess previous understanding of false memory and its link to EWT. Students to watch closely and try to remember key points. Students to answer questions and discuss their answers. Students to take structured notes. Students to chant 4 principles of cognitive interview technique. Students to make notes and discuss errors in interview technique. Students to read studies in hand out and complete evaluation table. (If time is short this will be incorporated into homework task). Students paired according to ability (HA, MA, LA). Students to write one thing they have learnt today on a post it note to stick on board. Evaluation What worked well? What would I need to modify for future lessons?
  4. 4. Cognitive Interview Worksheet 1) What were the two groups in the experiment and how many participants were in each group? 2) What common mistake do police make when interviewing witnesses? 3) What are the four techniques used in the cognitive interview technique? 4) In the laboratory experiment how many more factswere recalled? 5) In the field experiment how much more information was gathered?
  5. 5. Cognitive Interview – What not to do Witness: Hello officer, thank you for coming Police Officer: No problem. Glad to help. W: Are you going to take my statement? PO: Of course. First I must tell you that I have been trained in the use of the cognitive interview technique. W: Cognitive? PO: It’s one of those fancy psychology words. It just means that I will be doing things a little different from how you might have been interviewed before. W: Oh, ok. PO: First I want you to put yourself back into the situation. Close your eyes and visualise where you were when the incident happened. Are you doing that? W: Eyes closed Yes. PO: So where were you? W: In the classroom PO: Can you describe it to me? W: Um yeah. Opens eyes it’s here. We’re in it. PO: Please just answer the question. Quickly now! W: It’s a classroom. It has about 20 chairs and 10 tables, a whiteboard. PO: Good good. Tell me what happened first? W: I heard a noise outside... PO: Excited A noise?! Describe it to me. Was it footsteps? Two sets of footsteps? Perhaps one of them sounded like a Caucasian man in his late forties with an eye patch? W: Um, maybe. I... PO: Sounds just like the man we have in custody. Do continue.
  6. 6. W: Like I said, I heard a noise. I looked out of the window. I saw a man in a green coat. He was trying to break in through the door. PO: What colour is the door? W: What? PO: Part of the cognitive interview technique is that we have to get every detail. So what colour is the door? W: Burgundy, I think. PO: And the handles? W: Silver? PO: Excellent. And your mother’s maiden name? W: Goddard. Anyway, I saw that he was trying to get in, so I went to the classroom next door to get help, but Mrs Smith wasn’t there. PO: If Mrs Smith was there, what would she have seen? W: I’m sorry? PO: Part of the cognitive interview is that we have to encourage the witness to see things from another person’s perspective. W: But I was alone. PO: I know, but what would he have seen, if she was there? W: Um, I don’t know. Me coming in through the door? PO: Excellent. Now I am going to ask you to state the order of events in reverse. What happened last? W: I saw him running away with my laptop, and I called the police. PO: But what happened after that? W: Nothing really, I just waited for the police to arrive, and they did. PO: But what was the very last thing that happened? W: We started this conversation? PO: Very good. Now, one last question. Judging by the perpetrator’s verbosity, would one presume that he was domiciled within the local environs?
  7. 7. W: What? PO: Judging by the perpetrator’s verbosity, would one presume that he was domiciled within the local environs? W: I have no idea what you mean. PO: A simple yes or no would be sufficient. W:......yes? PO: Fantastic. Well, thanks for your time. We will be in touch shortly. W: Is there any chance of getting my laptop back? PO: Why? What happened to it? W: Sigh slaps head The Cognitive Interview (CI) This was based largely on the work of Elizabeth Loftus and other psychologists, following their theoretical work into memory and EWT. Forensic psychologists combined various ideas and designed a more effective way of questioning witnesses that has been shown to produce more reliable recall of events. Fisher and Geiselman (1992) designed the cognitive interview. The technique is based around four main components: Stages of the interview Why they might work 1. Report everything: It encourages witnesses to report all detail that they can remember regardless of how trivial it may appear Points one and two are designed to reinstate context. They get the witness to mentally revisit the scene and mentally reconstruct the incident in their mind. 2. Context reinstatement: It tries to recreate the scene of the incident in the mind of the witness, this includes the sights, sounds and smells but also
  8. 8. crucially it attempts to model the emotions and feelings of the person at the time. This is based on the concept of cue dependent memory. Evidence suggests that we are more likely to recall information if it is in a similar context to when it was first experienced or learned, so putting ourselves in a similar state of mind should aid recall. 3.Recall in reverse order: It encourages witnesses to recall events in different orders, for example starting half way through a sequence of events and then working backwards Points three and four are based on the idea that once a memory has been stored there is more than one way of getting at it or retrieving it. If one route fails then try another. So if working through from start to finish hasn’t worked try to accessing the memory by sneaking up on it from a different angle e.g. backwards. 4. Recall from a different perspective: It encourages witnesses to view the scene as others present may have seen it, for example as other witnesses, the victim or the perpetrator may have seen the incident. Also, police should not interrupt the witness, use open questions and try to develop a rapport (relationship) with the witness Geiselman & Fisher (1985) Laboratory Test of the Cognitive InterviewTechnique Aim: - To test the Cognitive Interview Technique Procedure: - 240 participants watched a video of a store robbery. 120 were interviewed using the standard police interview and 120 using the Cognitive Interview Technique. Results: - Participants interviewed using the Cognitive Interview Technique recalled 35% more facts. Conclusion: - The Cognitive Interview Technique is a more effective method of interviewing witnesses. Geiselman & Fisher (1989) – Field-test of the cognitive interview Aim: - To test the cognitive interview in the field
  9. 9. Procedure: - A field experiment was carried; using interviews with real witnesses by 16 detectives from the Robbery division of Dade County, Florida, police. Seven of the detectives were trained in the cognitive interview technique (CI). The interviews were recorded and analysed by a team at the University of California, who were blind to the conditions (i.e. they didn’t know if the interview they were analysing was by a trained CI detective or not). The amount of information gathered by the two groups of detectives was collated. Findings: - 63% more information was obtained by the detectives trained in CI. Conclusion: - Cognitive Interview Techniques do seem to work, more information is gathered. This could help the Police solve more crimes. Evidence for the cognitive interview Kohnken et al (1999) carried out a meta-analysis of 53 other studies and found that the CI could elicit an average of 34% more detail than the standard interview. This supports Geiselman & Fisher. Interestingly, when the four components of the interview are used individually, e.g. recall in a different order, there is little gain over the standard interview. It’s only when two or more components are used that there is significant improvement in recall. Milne and Bull (2002). The report everything and context reinstatement combinations appear most effective. But: it is difficult to compare studies carried out in different countries and even between different police forces within a country since there are now so many variations on the CI. For example in the UK the Merseyside force use pretty much the original Fisher and Geiselman design whereas Thames Valley Police (Inspector Morse and Lewis no doubt) tend to drop the ‘reinstating context.’ One criticism of the technique is that it tends to be too time-consuming and costly in practice. Young children seem to find the instructions confusing and as a result produce less reliable recall than with standard police interviews. Geiselman (1999) recommends that the CI is only used on children aged eight and over.
  10. 10. Evaluation: - Does this study have ecological validity? What are the strengths and weaknesses of laboratory experiments? Why is it important that Geiselman & Fisher also did a field experiment? What are the practical applications (usefulness) of this research? What does it tell us about the reliability of EWT? Can we generalise from the sample?