The Jama legal narrative. Part II: A foray into concepts of improbability

In judicial decision making, the doctrine of chances takes explicitly into account the odds. There is more to forensic statistics, as well as various probabilistic approaches which taken together form the object of an enduring controversy in the scholarship of legal evidence. In this paper, we reconsider the circumstances of the Jama murder and inquiry (dealt with in Part I of this paper: "The Jama Model. On Legal Narratives and Interpretation Patterns"), to illustrate yet another kind of probability or improbability. What is improbable about the Jama story, is actually a given, which contributes in terms of dramatic underlining. In literary theory, concepts of narratives being probable or improbable date back from the eighteenth century, when both prescientific and scientific probability was infiltrating several domains, including law. An understanding of such a backdrop throughout the history of ideas is, I claim, necessary for AI researchers who may be tempted to apply statistical methods to legal evidence. The debate for or against probability (and especially bayesian probability) in accounts of evidence has been flouishing among legal scholars. Nowadays both the the Bayesians (e.g. Peter Tillers) and Bayesioskeptics (e.g. Ron Allen) among those legal scholars whoare involved in the controversy are willing to give AI researchers a chance to prove itself and strive towards models of plausibility that would go beyond probability as narrowly meant. This debate within law, in turn, has illustrious precedents: take Voltaire, he was critical of the application or probability even to litigation in civil cases; take Boole, he was a starry-eyed believer in probability applications to judicial decision making (Rosoni 1995). Not unlike Boole, the founding father of computing, nowadays computer scientists approaching the field may happen to do so without full awareness of the pitfalls. Hence, the usefulness of the conceptual landscape I sketch here.

The Jama legal narrative part II: A foray into concepts of improbability

In judicial decision making, the doctrine of chances takes explicitly into account the odds. There is more to forensic statistics, as well as various probabilistic approaches, which taken together form the object of an enduring controversy in the scholarship of legal evidence. In this paper, I reconsider the circumstances of the Jama murder and inquiry (dealt with in Part I of this paper: 'The JAMA Model and Narrative Interpretation Patterns'), to illustrate yet another kind of probability or improbability. What is improbable about the Jama story is actually a given, which contributes in terms of dramatic underlining. In literary theory, concepts of narratives being probable or improbable date back from the eighteenth century, when both prescientific and scientific probability were infiltrating several domains, including law. An understanding of such a backdrop throughout the history of ideas is, I claim, necessary for Artificial Intelligence (AI) researchers who may be tempted to apply statistical methods to legal evidence. The debate for or against probability (and especially Bayesian probability) in accounts of evidence has been flourishing among legal scholars; nowadays both the Bayesians (e.g. Peter Tillers) and the Bayesio-skeptics (e.g. Ron Allen), among those legal scholars who are involved in the controversy, are willing to give AI research a chance to prove itself and strive towards models of plausibility that would go beyond probability as narrowly meant. This debate within law, in turn, has illustrious precedents: take Voltaire, he was critical of the application of probability even to litigation in civil cases; take Boole, he was a starry-eyed believer in probability applications to judicial decision making. Not unlike Boole, the founding father of computing, nowadays computer scientists approaching the field may happen to do so without full awareness of the pitfalls. Hence, the usefulness of the conceptual landscape I sketch here.

What students can tell about lecturers when they are teaching: manifestations of confident and under-confident lecturers

Delivering a lecture requires confidence, a sound knowledge and well developed teaching skills (Cooper and Simonds, 2007, Quinn and Hughes, 2007). However, practitioners who are new to lecturing large groups in higher education may initially lack the confidence to do so which can manifest itself in their verbal and non-verbal cues and the fluency of their teaching skills. This results in the perception that students can identify the confident and non-confident teacher during a lecture (Street, 2007) and so potentially contributing to a lecturer’s level of anxiety prior to, and during, a lecture. Therefore, in the current educational climate of consumerisation, with the increased evaluation of teaching by students, having the ability to deliver high-quality, informed, and interesting lectures assumes greater significance for both lecturers and universities (Carr, 2007; Higher Education Founding Council 2008, Glass et al., 2006). This paper will present both the quantitative and qualitative data from a two-phase mixed method study with 75 nurse lecturers and 62 nursing students in one university in the United Kingdom. The study investigated the notion that lecturing has similarities to acting (Street, 2007). The findings presented here are concerned with how students perceived lecturers’ level of confidence and how lecturers believed they demonstrated confidence. In phase one a specifically designed questionnaire was distributed to both lecturers and students and a response rate of 91% (n=125) was achieved, while in phase two 12 in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with lecturers. Results suggested that students in a lecture could identify if the lecturer was confident or not by the way they performed a lecture. Students identified 57 manifestations of non-confidence and lecturers identified 85, while 57 manifestations of confidence were identified by students and 88 by lecturers. Overall, these fell into 12 main converse categories, ranging from body language to the use of space within the room. Both students and lecturers ranked body language, vocal qualities, delivery skills, involving the students and the ability to share knowledge as the most evident manifestations of confidence. Elements like good eye contact, smiling, speaking clearly and being fluent in the use of media recourses where all seen as manifestations confidence, conversely if these were poorly executed then a presentation of under confidence was evident. Furthermore, if the lecturer appeared enthusiastic it was clearly underpinned by the manifestation of a highly confidence lecturer who was secure in their knowledge base and teaching abilities: Some lecturers do appear enthusiastic but others don’t. I think the ones that do know what they are talking about, you can see it in their voice and in their lively body language. I think they are also good at involving the students even. I think the good ones are able to turn boring subjects into lively and interesting ones. (Student 50) Significantly more lecturers than students felt the lecturer should appear confident when lecturing. The lecturers stated it was particularly important to do so when they did not feel confident, because they were concerned with appearing capable. It seems that these students and lecturers perceived that expressive and apparently confident lecturers can make a positive impact on student groups in terms of involvement in lectures; the data also suggested the reverse, for the under confident lecturer. Findings from phase two indicated that these lecturers assumed a persona when lecturing, particularly, but not exclusively, when they were nervous. These lecturers went through a process of assuming and maintaining this persona before and during a lecture as a way of promoting their internal perceptions of confidence but also their outward manifestation of confidence. Although assuming a convincing persona may have a degree of deception about it, providing the knowledge communicated is accurate, the deception may aid rather than hinder learning, because enhances the delivery of a lecture. Therefore, the deception of acting a little more confidently than one feels might be justified when the lecturer knows the knowledge they are communicating is correct, unlike the Dr Fox Effect where the person delivering a lecture is an actor and does not know the subject in any detail or depth and where the deception to be justified (Naftulin, et al., 1973). In conclusion, these students and lecturers perceive that confident and enthusiastic lecturers communicate their passion for the subject in an interesting and meaningful manner through the use of their voice, body, space and interactions in such a way that shows confidence in their knowledge as well as their teaching abilities. If lecturers, therefore, can take a step back to consider how they deliver lectures in apparently confident ways this may increase their ability to engage their students and not only help them being perceived as good lecturers, but also contribute to the genuine act of education.