Students’ performance and perceptions of mock trials as a teaching and assessment activity over three years at two institutions
Open accessAbstract
Background: This study aimed to evaluate students’ performance and perception of a mock-trial teaching, learning, and assessment activity over three years at two institutions. Methods: A mock trial (courtroom-style debate) implemented over three years (2017-2019) in a first professional year (P1) course at two institutions offered active learning in literature critique and evaluation, critical thinking, communication, teamwork, professionalism, and self-awareness. Student teams researched, prepared, and debated controversial topics as counsels, witnesses, or jurors for alternate mock trials. Descriptive analyses evaluated judge and juror trial scores and the 2019 Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) survey. Results: The mock trials involved 319 student participants (Programme A: 136; Programme B: 183). Faculty-judge scores ranged from 83.3% to 97%, while student-juror scores ranged from 87.5% to 100%. Most student groups in all programmes reported comparable faculty-judge scores and student-juror scores, irrespective of trial positions (pro or con) or topics. The TAM survey assessed 96 student participants’ perceptions of Blackboard Collaborate® for peer collaboration in 2019. Items assessing students’ attitudes toward mock trials reported an average rating above 5 on a 7-point Likert scale. Conclusion: A three-year retrospective evaluation of students’ performance and perceptions of mock trials at two institutions demonstrated the effectiveness of mock-trial innovation and the feasibility of cross-institutional student engagement and faculty collaboration.
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
A mock-trial project implemented as a team-based courtroom-style debate in required first-professional-year pharmacy courses at two institutions over 2017–2019 produced consistently high faculty-judge and student-juror performance ratings and generally favorable student perceptions. In 2019, students also reported moderate-to-high acceptance of Blackboard Collaborate for cross-programme collaboration, with the lowest mean for intention to use the platform for other collaborations.
Key findings
- Across 2017–2019, 319 students participated (136 Programme A; 183 Programme B). Faculty judge scores ranged from 83.3% to 97%, and student juror scores ranged from 87.5% to 100%; faculty judges rated all but one student group above 85%, and student jurors rated most mock trials at ≥90%, with three exceptions at 85%, 87.5%, and 87.5%.
- In the 2019 Technology Acceptance Model survey, 96 students completed the survey (Programme A: n=31; Programme B: n=65), a 99% response rate. Most items had a mean >5 on a 7-point scale; the highest ease-of-use items were Statement 7 (5.57±1.75), Statement 10 (5.65±1.69), and Statement 11 (5.57±1.76), while the lowest mean was Statement 17 on intending to use Blackboard Collaborate for other collaborations (4.75±2.02).
- TAM category means were perceived usefulness 5.07, perceived ease of use 5.51, attitude toward using 5.12, and behavioural intention 4.95. Pearson correlation coefficients above 0.8 were obtained between various categories (p < 0.001).
- Students rated the mock trial itself favorably: critical thinking enhancement was 5.26 (Programme A) and 5.60 (Programme B), and recommendation of the mock trial was 5.16 (Programme A) and 5.49 (Programme B); satisfaction with interinstitutional collaboration was 5.13 (Programme A) and 4.57 (Programme B).
Methods
- A mock trial (courtroom-style debate) was implemented in a required course for first-professional-year Pharm.D. students at two institutions over three years (2017–2019). Each year had two separate mock trials with different controversial topics; students were randomly assigned to petitioner or respondent teams, enacted counsel and witness roles, and served as jurors in the alternate mock trial.
- The project used a self-directed learning approach with formative assessment of outlines/evidence and summative assessment during the mock trials. Faculty judges (5–6 per trial) and student jurors (10–12 per trial) rated performance using a standardized evaluation rubric.
- In 2019, the TAM survey included 20 statements adapted from existing instruments, with 17 items aligned to four TAM constructs and three items on collaboration and the mock trial; responses used a 7-point Likert scale. Descriptive statistics were calculated for judge/juror scores and TAM responses, and Pearson correlations were run using SPSS Statistics version 26.
Limitations
- The authors state that student performance was based on summative scores; although affective-domain criteria were in the rubric, specific affective-domain performance scores were not presented.
- The authors note that TAM is only one theory for studying online learning and collaboration, and that the two institutions and courses differed substantially (Programme A: private, for-profit; Programme B: public, HBCU; Evidence-Based Practice vs. Public Health for Pharmacists), so results may not replicate elsewhere and more evidence is needed.
- Evident from the text: the 2019 TAM survey had a much smaller Programme A sample (n=31) than Programme B (n=65), and the analysis is descriptive/correlational without inferential comparisons across programmes or years.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
7 of 23 cited sources checked · 2 supported · 1 flagged · accuracy not yet measured
- Findingown data
Throughout the three years, faculty judge scores and student juror scores were comparable between Programmes A and B for most student groups, irrespective of trial positions or topics.
“Notably, throughout the three years, faculty judge scores and student juror scores were comparable between Programmes A and B for most student groups, irrespective of the trial positions (pro or con) or topics.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Faculty judge and student juror scores are valid measures of student performance in the mock trial.
- Rests on an assumption: The two Pharm.D. programmes and their mock trial cohorts are comparable enough to compare performance scores.
- Findingown data
A Pearson correlation coefficient above 0.8 was obtained between various TAM categories (p < 0.001).
“A Pearson correlation coefficient above 0.8 was obtained between various categories (p < 0.001).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The TAM survey items adequately measure the intended constructs of perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, attitude toward using, and behavioural intention.
- Findingown data
The study results indicated that the consistent performance outcome held true irrespective of the trial topic.
“The study results also indicated that this outcome held true irrespective of the trial topic.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The standardised evaluation rubric and faculty judges/student jurors provide valid and reliable assessments of student competencies.
- Findingown data
Faculty judge evaluation scores during the three years ranged from 83.3% to 97%.
“Faculty judge evaluation scores during the three years ranged from 83.3% to 97%.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Faculty judge and student juror scores are valid measures of student performance in the mock trial.
- Rests on an assumption: The two Pharm.D. programmes and their mock trial cohorts are comparable enough to compare performance scores.
- Findingown data
Over consecutive iterations and expansion (2017-2019), the mock trial project successfully demonstrated evidence of consistently high student performance across the various iterations, courses (2), and topics (6).
“Over consecutive iterations and expansion (2017)(2018)(2019), this mock trial project successfully demonstrated evidence of consistently high student performance across the various iterations (successive years), courses (2), and topics (6) (Tables I & II).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The standardised evaluation rubric and faculty judges/student jurors provide valid and reliable assessments of student competencies.
- Findingown data
Results from the series of mock trials over three years (2017-2019) at Programmes A and B demonstrated that students at both institutions performed consistently well over the years.
“Results from the series of mock trials over three years (2017)(2018)(2019) at Programmes A and B demonstrated that students at both institutions performed consistently well over the years.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The standardised evaluation rubric and faculty judges/student jurors provide valid and reliable assessments of student competencies.
- Findingown data
Student juror evaluation scores during the 3-year span ranged from 87.5% to 100%.
“The student juror evaluation scores during the 3-year span ranged from 87.5% to 100%.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Faculty judge and student juror scores are valid measures of student performance in the mock trial.
- Rests on an assumption: The two Pharm.D. programmes and their mock trial cohorts are comparable enough to compare performance scores.
- Findingown data
As assessed by faculty judges and student jurors in the mock trial, student participants demonstrated an ability to perform well insofar as developing affective domain competencies.
“As assessed by faculty judges and student jurors in the mock trial, student participants demonstrated an ability to”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The standardised evaluation rubric and faculty judges/student jurors provide valid and reliable assessments of student competencies.
- Findingown data
The exception to faculty judges rating higher than 85% was Trial I Petitioners from Programme A in 2018, which had a student performance score of 83.3%.
“The exception was the Trial I Petitioners from Programme A in 2018, which had a student performance score of 83.3% (Table III).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Faculty judge and student juror scores are valid measures of student performance in the mock trial.
- Rests on an assumption: The two Pharm.D. programmes and their mock trial cohorts are comparable enough to compare performance scores.
- Findingown data
Two questions assessing students' attitudes toward the mock trial project itself showed an average rating above 5, irrespective of the school.
“Two questions assessing students' attitudes toward the mock trial project itself showed an average rating above 5, irrespective of the school (Table II, Statements 19 and 20).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Student jurors rated student performances at or above 90% for most mock trials, with three exceptions.
“Student jurors rated student performances ≥ 90% for most mock trials, with three exceptions.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Faculty judge and student juror scores are valid measures of student performance in the mock trial.
- Rests on an assumption: The two Pharm.D. programmes and their mock trial cohorts are comparable enough to compare performance scores.
- Findingown data
Most survey items assessing technology acceptance reported a mean greater than 5 on a 7-point Likert scale.
“Most survey items assessing technology acceptance reported a mean >5 on a 7-point Likert scale (Table II).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The TAM survey responses reflect students' actual perceptions and usage behaviour.
- Findingown data
For Trial II in 2017, Respondents at Programme A received a student juror performance score of 87.5%.
“Also, for Trial II in 2017, the Respondents at Programme A received 87.5% as performance scores (Table III).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Faculty judge and student juror scores are valid measures of student performance in the mock trial.
- Rests on an assumption: The two Pharm.D. programmes and their mock trial cohorts are comparable enough to compare performance scores.
- Findingnone given
The characteristics of the two institutions (Programme A: private, for-profit and Programme B: public, HBCU) and the courses (Evidence-Based Practice and Public Health for Pharmacists) where the mock trials were implemented were quite different.
“Admittedly, the characteristics of the two institutions (Programme A: private, for-profit and Programme B: public, HBCU) and the courses (Evidence-Based Practice and Public Health for Pharmacists) where the mock trials were implemented were quite different.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Irrespective of trial topic, position, and programme, faculty judges consistently rated student performance higher than 85% for all but one student group.
“Irrespective of the trial topic, position, and programme, faculty judges consistently rated student performance higher than 85% for all but one student group.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Faculty judge and student juror scores are valid measures of student performance in the mock trial.
- Rests on an assumption: The two Pharm.D. programmes and their mock trial cohorts are comparable enough to compare performance scores.
- Premisecitation
Smaller mock trial teams encouraged the more reserved or timid students to become more active participants on their respective teams over the term-long project.
“Smaller mock trial teams also encouraged the more reserved or timid students to become more active participants on their respective teams over the term-long project (Rosenberg et al., 2018).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Rosenberg et al., 2018 source
- Rests on an assumption: Mock trials are an effective teaching and assessment activity for developing affective domain skills in pharmacy students.
- Premisecitation
Limited use of mock trials was identified in pharmacy education.
“However, limited use of mock trials was identified in pharmacy education.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
Participation in the mock trial project offered students the opportunity to practise and refine foundational competencies deemed vital to the pharmacy profession, including literature evaluation (critical thinking), argument (communication), collaboration (teamwork), professionalism (court decorum), and presentation of evidence.
“Participation in the mock trial project offered students the opportunity to practise and refine foundational competencies deemed vital to the pharmacy profession, including literature evaluation (critical thinking), argument (communication), collaboration (teamwork), professionalism (court decorum), and presentation of evidence.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The standardised evaluation rubric and faculty judges/student jurors provide valid and reliable assessments of student competencies.
- May combine two claims. 21
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 25
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationBefore this project, historically, mock trials were scarcely employed in pharmacy education, found only in isolated instances, and without repeated and deliberate assessment for competencies and outcomes; only one study previously reported having students as active participants in a mock trial albeit with roles that were scripted for the students by faculty or actual court cases.
“Before this project, historically, mock trials were scarcely employed in pharmacy education, found only in isolated instances, and without repeated and deliberate assessment for competencies and outcomes; only one study previously reported having students as active participants in a mock trial albeit with roles that were scripted for the students by faculty or actual court cases (van Dusen, 1998;”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked- cites van Dusen, 1998 source
- cites Broeseker & Jones, 1999 source
- cites Spies, 2008 source
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 1 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationRecent literature investigated mock trial use in various healthcare contexts and practice areas, such as simulation learning, to offer experience in evidence-based practice.
“Indeed, recent literature investigated mock trial use in various healthcare contexts and practice areas, e.g.simulation learning, to offer experience in evidence-based practice (Song & Jang, 2023).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites Song & Jang, 2023 source
The Introduction describes mock trials as simulations that let students experience how evidence-based practice is applied in clinical settings, and the Discussion mentions uses with clinical nurses. However, the Results say the scoping review included only one eligible study, involving undergraduate nursing students in an interprofessional ethics simulation; the claim overstates the range of healthcare contexts and practice areas it investigated. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
PremisecitationMock trials were used as a learning tool in medical residency, nursing education for competency development, continuing education, professional development, psychiatry law, and even advanced medical studies for fellows and surgeons.
“They were used as a learning tool in medical residency (Drukteinis et al., 2014;Lennon et al., 2020), nursing education for competency development (Troxel, 2012), continuing education (Centrella-Nigro & Flynn, 2012), professional development (White, 2015), psychiatry law (Glancy, 2016), and even advanced medical studies for fellows (Foley et al., 2017) and surgeons (Juo et al., 2019).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checkedProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationDebates have been employed in pharmacy education for active learning and assessment activities in various contexts, including advocacy on ethical and legal issues, controversial policy issues in the US healthcare system, critical thinking and communication skills, evidence-based analysis and evaluation, and pharmacotherapy.
“Debates, however, have been employed in pharmacy education for active learning and assessment activities in various contexts (e.g.advocacy on ethical and legal issues, controversial policy issues in the US healthcare system, critical thinking and communication skills, evidence-based analysis and evaluation, and pharmacotherapy) (Lin & Crawford, 2007;”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim3 of 3 sources checked- cites Lin & Crawford, 2007 source
Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites Charrois & Appleton, 2013 source
The Introduction (page not provided) says debates have been used in pharmacy curricula in courses on health systems, legislation and regulatory issues, and describes evidence appraisal and critique as part of debating. The paper also studies online pharmacotherapy debates as an assessment intended to encourage critical thinking. Our copy does not specifically establish the claimed advocacy on ethical issues or debates about controversial US healthcare policy. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites Hanna et al., 2014 source
The Introduction and Summary (pages unavailable) describe debates used to teach ethical issues to pharmacy students and to develop critical thinking, communication, and evaluation of evidence. The References also list a pharmacy-education use in pharmacotherapy. The paper does not establish the claimed pharmacy-education use for advocacy on legal issues or controversial US healthcare policy; its cited healthcare-policy debate concerned residents, not pharmacy students. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
May combine two claims.
Study design and conductcitationFaculty judges and student jurors evaluated competencies based on a standardised evaluation rubric (Appendix A), which paralleled the competencies described in CAPE 2013 and ACPE Standards 2016, including cognitive and affective domain outcomes such as critical thinking, teamwork, communication, and professionalism.
“Faculty judges and student jurors evaluated competencies based on a standardised evaluation rubric (Appendix A), which paralleled the competencies described in CAPE 2013 (Medina et al., 2013) and ACPE Standards 2016 (Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education, 2015), including cognitive and affective domain outcomes such as critical thinking, teamwork, communication, and professionalism.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked- cites Medina et al., 2013 source
- cites Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education, 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe average rating for perceived usefulness was higher in Programme A (5.27 vs 4.98), while Programme B had a higher rating in perceived ease of use (5.22 vs 5.65).
“The average rating for”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The TAM survey items adequately measure the intended constructs of perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, attitude toward using, and behavioural intention.
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataStudents from Programme B reported an average rating of 4.57 for satisfaction with the general process and their experience of interinstitutional collaboration, while students from Programme A recorded 5.13 as their average satisfaction rating.
“However, students from Programme B reported an average rating of 4.57 for satisfaction with the general process and their experience of interinstitutional collaboration, while students from Programme A recorded 5.13 as their average satisfaction rating (Table II, Statement 18).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataDifferences greater than 0.5 between Programme A and Programme B were found in Statements 8, 10, and 11, concerning clarity of interactions with Blackboard Collaborate, ease of learning to operate its functions, and ease of becoming skilled at using it.
“Differences greater than 0.5 between the two programmes were found in the following statements: (1) Statement 8: interactions with the Blackboard Collaborate platform were clear and understandable; (2) Statement 10: Learning to operate the Blackboard Collaborate functions was easy; (3) Statement 11: it would be easy, in general, to become skilled at using the Blackboard Collaborate.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataIn 2017, Trial I Petitioners and Respondents at Programme A received student juror performance scores of 85% and 87.5%, respectively.
“In 2017, the Trial I Petitioners and Respondents at Programme A received performance scores of 85% and 87.5%, respectively.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Faculty judge and student juror scores are valid measures of student performance in the mock trial.
- Rests on an assumption: The two Pharm.D. programmes and their mock trial cohorts are comparable enough to compare performance scores.
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataStudents evaluated favourably both the collaboration process and the mock trial experience.
“Students also evaluated favourably both the collaboration process and the mock trial experience.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The TAM survey items adequately measure the intended constructs of perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, attitude toward using, and behavioural intention.
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataA total of 319 students participated in mock trials from 2017 to 2019, with 136 from Programme A and 183 from Programme B.
“A total of 319 students participated in mock trials from 2017 to 2019, with 136 being from Programme A and 183 from Programme B.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Findingown dataNinety-six students from the 2019 mock trial cohort completed the TAM survey (Programme A: 31; Programme B: 65), yielding a response rate of 99%.
“Ninety-six students from the 2019 mock trial cohort completed the TAM survey (Programme A: 31; Programme B: 65), yielding a response rate of 99%.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The TAM survey responses reflect students' actual perceptions and usage behaviour.
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe evaluations of faculty judges and student jurors consistently indicated that students performed well in presenting their trial arguments and positions and that they actively demonstrated the knowledge and skills needed to evaluate and critique literature.
“The evaluations of faculty judges and student jurors consistently indicated that students performed well in presenting their trial arguments and positions and that they actively demonstrated the knowledge and skills needed to evaluate and critique literature.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The standardised evaluation rubric and faculty judges/student jurors provide valid and reliable assessments of student competencies.
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataOverall, the behavioural intention to use category recorded a mean of 4.95, while the other three TAM categories each had a mean above 5.
“Overall, the”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The TAM survey items adequately measure the intended constructs of perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, attitude toward using, and behavioural intention.
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataA difference of greater than 5% was observed between the two programmes in four areas: faculty judge scores for Trial I Petitioners in 2018; student juror scores for Trial I Petitioners in 2017; student juror scores for Trial II Petitioners in 2018; and student juror scores for Trial II Respondents in 2019.
“Nonetheless, a difference of > 5% was observed between the two programmes in the following four areas: (1) faculty judge scores for Trial I Petitioners in 2018; (2) student juror scores for Trial I Petitioners in 2017; (3) student juror scores for Trial II Petitioners in 2018; and (4) student juror scores for Trial II Respondents in 2019 (Table III).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Faculty judge and student juror scores are valid measures of student performance in the mock trial.
- Rests on an assumption: The two Pharm.D. programmes and their mock trial cohorts are comparable enough to compare performance scores.
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataOverall, students from both programmes reported the highest agreement on the questions asking whether Blackboard Collaborate was easy to use for collaborating with peers (Statement 7; 5.57±1.75), whether learning to operate Blackboard Collaborate functions was easy (Statement 10; 5.65±1.69), and whether it would be easy to become skilful at using Blackboard Collaborate (Statement 11; 5.57±1.76).
“Overall, students from both programmes reported the highest agreement on the questions asking whether the Blackboard Collaborate was easy to use for collaborating with peers (Statement 7; 5.57± 1.75), whether learning to operate the Blackboard Collaborate functions was easy (Statement 10; 5.65±1.69)and whether it would be easy to become skilful at using the Blackboard Collaborate (Statement 11; 5.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The TAM survey responses reflect students' actual perceptions and usage behaviour.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). The quote only partly states this claim.
Findingown dataThe survey item with the lowest mean was Statement 17, about intending to use Blackboard Collaborate as often as possible for other collaborations with peers, with a mean of 4.75±2.02.
“The survey item with the lowest mean was Statement 17:”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductcitationStandards for reporting qualitative research (SRQR) were used.
“Standards for reporting qualitative research (SRQR) were used (O' Brien et al., 2014).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites O' Brien et al., 2014 source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductnone givenThe Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) is only one option among various theories for studying online learning and collaboration.
“The authors also acknowledge that the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) is only one option among various theories for studying online learning and collaboration.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningSince the project was self-directed throughout the term, students were practising skills in communication (written and verbal), collaboration, and advocacy.
“Since the project was self-directed throughout the term, students were practising skills in communication (written and verbal), collaboration, and advocacy.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Mock trials are an effective teaching and assessment activity for developing affective domain skills in pharmacy students.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductnone givenThe present study was based on investigations at two institutions.
“Additionally, the present study was based on investigations at two institutions.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationIn contrast to a traditional debate, a mock trial presented opportunities to identify sufficient speaking roles for each student in the final assessment.
“Further rationale provided that in contrast to a traditional debate, a mock trial presented opportunities to identify sufficient speaking roles for each student in the final assessment (the mock trial) (Rosenberg et al., 2018).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Rosenberg et al., 2018 source
- Rests on an assumption: Mock trials are an effective teaching and assessment activity for developing affective domain skills in pharmacy students.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningThe mock trial project took place in the second term of the first professional year (P1), which enabled students' active learning in the cognitive and affective domains well before their exposure to interprofessional teams in an experiential setting.
“The mock trial project took place in the second term of the first professional year (P1), which enabled students' active learning in the cognitive and affective domains well before their exposure to interprofessional teams in an experiential setting.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Mock trials are an effective teaching and assessment activity for developing affective domain skills in pharmacy students.
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationThe mock trial offered students different roles with varying emphasis on communication and delivery and time limits for each speaking role, ensuring that all students get a chance to develop their individual communication skills.
“The mock trial offered students different roles with varying emphasis on communication and delivery (counsel: opening statement; direct exam; cross-exam; closing argument; witness: lay witness; expert witness; juror) and time limits for each speaking role, ensuring that all students get a chance to develop their individual communication skills (Rosenberg et al., 2018).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Rosenberg et al., 2018 source
- Rests on an assumption: Mock trials are an effective teaching and assessment activity for developing affective domain skills in pharmacy students.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationA literature review at the time documented mock trials as a common active learning strategy in graduate study, particularly in law schools, as well as in a broad variety of other educational contexts.
“A literature review at the time documented mock trials as a common active learning strategy in graduate study, particularly in law schools, as well as a broad variety of other educational contexts (economics, education, management, communication, public speaking, critical thinking, and ethical decisionmaking) (Rosenberg et al., 2018).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Rosenberg et al., 2018 source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductnone givenThe evaluation of the implementation and impact of the mock trial received exempt approval from both programmes' Institutional Review Boards.
“The evaluation of the implementation and impact of the mock trial received exempt approval from both programmes' Institutional Review Boards.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationThe TAM tool developed by Davis aims to explain an individual's intention to adopt information technology.
“The TAM tool developed by Davis aims to explain an individual's intention to adopt information technology (Davis, 1989).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Davis, 1989 source
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
InterpretationreasoningThe mock trial activities in the Pharm.D. curriculum served as a mechanism to introduce student pharmacists to working collaboratively in teams toward shared goals such as searching the literature and identifying and advancing their team's best evidence-based arguments at trial.
“The mock trial activities in the Pharm.D. curriculum served as a mechanism to introduce student pharmacists to working collaboratively in teams toward shared goals such as searching the literature and identifying and advancing their team's best evidence-based arguments at trial.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Mock trials are an effective teaching and assessment activity for developing affective domain skills in pharmacy students.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
InterpretationcitationBased on the authors' investigations and experiences, the mock trial project has been and is adaptable to different contexts and modalities, such as integration within a course, as a co-curricular or extracurricular activity, and implementation in a virtual environment.
“Based on the authors' investigations and experiences, the mock trial project has been and is adaptable to different contexts and modalities, such as integration of a mock trial within a course, as a co-curricular or extracurricular activity, and implementation in a virtual environment (Broeseker & Jones, 1999).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Broeseker & Jones, 1999 source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationWith the emergence of technological advances, mock trial use has even reached the metaverse, which bridges reality and virtual reality.
“With the emergence of technological advances, mock trial use has even reached the metaverse, which bridges reality and virtual reality (Lee et al., 2023).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Lee et al., 2023 source
May combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningStudent pharmacists successfully delved into the literature for evidence, marshalling that evidence in support of their team's position and developing counterarguments against their opponents.
“In other words, student pharmacists successfully delved into the literature for evidence, marshalling that evidence in support of their team's position and developing counterarguments against their opponents.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The standardised evaluation rubric and faculty judges/student jurors provide valid and reliable assessments of student competencies.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
PremisecitationMock trials have also been used to promote interprofessional education in health sciences and teach child abuse or ethics in medical education.
“Mock trials have also been used to promote interprofessional education in health sciences (Ghimouz et al., 2021) and teach child abuse (van Wylick & Davidson, 2011) or ethics in medical education (Coelho et al., 2017).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checkedProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).
InterpretationreasoningThe integration of technology, which enabled the collaboration between students of two separate institutions, provided additional opportunities for both sets of students to practice and further develop skills in affective domains such as teamwork, communication, and professionalism.
“The integration of technology, which enabled the collaboration between students of two separate institutions, provided additional opportunities for both sets of students to practice and further develop skills in affective domains such as teamwork, communication, and professionalism.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Mock trials are an effective teaching and assessment activity for developing affective domain skills in pharmacy students.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductnone givenStudent performance in the mock trials was based on their summative scores.
“In considering study limitations, the authors note that student performance in the mock trials was based on their summative scores.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).
InterpretationreasoningTherefore, as a teaching and learning tool, the mock trial project remains a viable active learning strategy, whether in-person or in a virtual format.
“Therefore, as a teaching and learning tool, the mock trial project remains a viable active learning strategy, whether inperson or in a virtual format.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Several virtual programme offerings in pharmacy education have emerged during the pandemic and continue to this day.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductnone givenWhile criteria in the affective domain were incorporated within the scoring rubric (Appendix A), student performance scores relating to a specific affective domain were not presented.
“Moreover, while criteria in the affective domain were incorporated within the scoring rubric (Appendix A), student performance scores relating to a specific affective domain were not presented.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).
InterpretationreasoningThe differences between the two institutions suggest the mock trial project could be adapted to different instructional environments.
“The differences between the two institutions suggest the mock trial project could be adapted to different instructional environments.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningBased on the experience with the three described phases, the authors believe that the mock trial can be replicated or adapted, and implemented in other courses or institutions to support faculty teaching and student learning.
“Based on the experience with the three described phases, the authors believe that the mock trial can be replicated or adapted, and implemented in other courses or institutions to support faculty teaching and student learning.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductown dataCronbach's alpha values were greater than 9 for the four TAM categories, suggesting excellent internal consistency within each scale.
“Cronbach's alpha values were > 9 for these four TAM categories, suggesting excellent internal consistency within each scale.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
The paper relies on this without support.
Mock trials are an effective teaching and assessment activity for developing affective domain skills in pharmacy students.
“The mock trial activities in the Pharm.D. curriculum served as a mechanism to introduce student pharmacists to working collaboratively in teams toward shared goals such as searching the literature and identifying and advancing their team's best evidence-based arguments at trial.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Faculty judge and student juror scores are valid measures of student performance in the mock trial.
“Faculty served as judges (faculty judges), while student teams on the second trial topic served as jurors (student jurors) for the alternate mock trial.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The two Pharm.D. programmes and their mock trial cohorts are comparable enough to compare performance scores.
“Notably, throughout the three years, faculty judge scores and student juror scores were comparable between Programmes A and B for most student groups, irrespective of the trial positions (pro or con) or topics.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The TAM survey responses reflect students' actual perceptions and usage behaviour.
“Ninety-six students from the 2019 mock trial cohort completed the TAM survey (Programme A: 31; Programme B: 65), yielding a response rate of 99%.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Several virtual programme offerings in pharmacy education have emerged during the pandemic and continue to this day.
“The use of mock trials in the virtual realm should come as no surprise since several virtual programme offerings in pharmacy education have emerged during the pandemic and continue to this day.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The standardised evaluation rubric and faculty judges/student jurors provide valid and reliable assessments of student competencies.
“Faculty judges and student jurors evaluated competencies based on a standardised evaluation rubric (Appendix A), which paralleled the competencies described in CAPE 2013 (Medina et al., 2013) and ACPE Standards 2016 (Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education, 2015), including cognitive and affective domain outcomes such as critical thinking, teamwork, communication, and professionalism.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The TAM survey items adequately measure the intended constructs of perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, attitude toward using, and behavioural intention.
“Overall, the”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Student-juror score range excludes an 85% score
MinorThe stated minimum student-juror score is 87.5%, but Table III reports 85% for Programme A's 2017 Trial I Petitioners.
“The student juror evaluation scores during the 3-year span ranged from 87.5% to 100%.”
“2017 Trial I (Shortage) Petitioner 88 90 85 100”
Student-juror panel sizes differ between text and table
MinorThe results text says 10-12 student jurors rated each trial, while the Table III heading gives a range of 9-11 per trial.
“5-6 faculty judges and 10-12 student jurors rated the student performance for both the Petitioner and Respondent teams (Table III).”
“Average juror evaluation (%) (Range 9-11 student jurors/ trial)”
Cites
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483 · see citing works
Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research: A Synthesis of Recommendations
O’Brien, B. C., Harris, I. B., Beckman, T. J., Reed, D. A., & Cook, D. A. (2014) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000000388 · Cited by 12,211 · see citing works
Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001) · American Journal of Distance Education · doi:10.1080/08923640109527071 · Cited by 3,044 · see citing works
Center for the Advancement of Pharmacy Education 2013 Educational Outcomes
Medina, M. S., Plaza, C. M., Stowe, C. D., Robinson, E. T., DeLander, G., Beck, D. E., Melchert, R. B., Supernaw, R. B., Roche, V. F., Gleason, B. L., et al. (2013) · American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education · doi:10.5688/ajpe778162 · Cited by 951 · see citing works
Alharbi, S., & Drew, S. (2014) · International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications · doi:10.14569/ijacsa.2014.050120 · Cited by 591 · see citing works
Shroff, R. H., Deneen, C. C., & Ng, E. M. W. (2011) · Australasian Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.14742/ajet.940 · Cited by 367 · see citing works
Using Debate to Teach Pharmacy Students About Ethical Issues
Hanna, L.-A., Barry, J., Donnelly, R., Hughes, F., Jones, D., Laverty, G., Parsons, C., & Ryan, C. (2014) · American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education · doi:10.5688/ajpe78357 · Cited by 66 · see citing works
An Online Debate Series for First-Year Pharmacy Students
Lin, S.-J., & Crawford, S. Y. (2007) · American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education · doi:10.5688/aj710112 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
Active Learning through a Debate Series in a First-Year Pharmacy Self-Care Course
Lampkin, S. J., Collins, C. M., Danison, R., et al. (2015) · American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education · doi:10.5688/ajpe79225 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
The use of debates as an active learning tool in a college of pharmacy healthcare delivery course
Peasah, S. K., & Marshall, L. L. (2017) · Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning · doi:10.1016/j.cptl.2017.01.012 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Exploring the potential use of the metaverse in nurse education through a mock trial
Lee, H., Yi, Y., Moon, W., & Yeo, J.-Y. (2023) · Nurse Education Today · doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2023.105974 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Drukteinis, D. A., O’Keefe, K. P., Sanson, T. G., & Orban, D. J. (2013) · Journal of Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.jemermed.2013.08.017 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Online Debates to Enhance Critical Thinking in Pharmacotherapy
Charrois, T. L., & Appleton, M. (2013) · American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education · doi:10.5688/ajpe778170 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Debate as an alternative method for medical literature evaluation
Toor, R., Samai, K., & Wargo, R. (2017) · Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning · doi:10.1016/j.cptl.2017.01.009 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Implementation and lessons learned from a mock trial as a teaching-learning and assessment activity
Rosenberg, E., Truong, H.-A., Hsu, S.-Y., & Taheri, R. (2018) · Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning · doi:10.1016/j.cptl.2018.05.014 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Mock Trial: Revisiting a Valuable Training Strategy.
Glancy, G. (2016) · PubMed · Cited by 14 · see citing works
An Innovative Approach to Pharmacy Law Education Utilizing a Mock Board of Pharmacy Meeting
Bess, D. T., Taylor, J., Schwab, C. A., et al. (2016) · INNOVATIONS in pharmacy · doi:10.24926/iip.v7i1.419 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
An Interdisciplinary Mock Trial Involving Pharmacy, Law, and Ethics
Broeseker, A. E., & Jones, M. M. (1999) · Annals of Pharmacotherapy · doi:10.1345/aph.18355 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
An Innovative Approach for Familiarizing Surgeons with Malpractice Litigation
Juo, Y., Lewis, C. E., Hanna, C., Reber, H. A., & Tillou, A. (2018) · Journal of surgical education · doi:10.1016/j.jsurg.2018.06.002 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Plaintiff or Defendant: Using Legal Cases to Teach Students Pharmacy Law
Spies, A. R. (2008) · American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education · doi:10.1016/s0002-9459(24)00465-0 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Teaching Evidence-Based Practice Using a Mock Trial
Flynn, D. (2012) · The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing · doi:10.3928/00220124-20120917-27 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Mock Trial as a Learning Tool in a Family Medicine Residency
Lennon, R. P., Clebak, K. T., Stepanian, J. B., & Riley, T. D. (2020) · Family Medicine · doi:10.22454/fammed.2020.405328 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Expert Witness Training for Geriatric Medicine Fellows Using Courtroom Simulation
Foley, K. T., Ferency, M. J., & Sarzynski, E. M. (2017) · PRiMER · doi:10.22454/primer.2017.468087 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Using a Mock Trial Method to Enhance Effectiveness of Teaching Evidence-Based Practice in Nursing
White, C. T. (2015) · Journal for Nurses in Professional Development · doi:10.1097/nnd.0000000000000214 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Song, C., & Jang, A. (2023) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0289789 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Utilization of the Mock Event for Classroom Demonstration Purposes
Dusen, V. V. (1998) · American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education · doi:10.1016/s0002-9459(24)02007-2 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Staging a Mock Trial: Educating Nurses on the Importance of Documenting Critical Values
Troxel, D. (2012) · Nursing for Women's Health · doi:10.1111/j.1751-486x.2012.01736.x · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Teaching about child abuse with a mock trial: really good stuff
van Wylick, R., & Davidson, L. (2011) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.03956.x · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Teaching about ethics with an interprofessional mock trial
Peixoto, R. A. C., Rolim, J. M. O., Machado, S. L. N., et al. (2017) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/medu.13447 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Ghimouz, R., O’Sullivan, S., Baltatu, O. C., & Campos, L. A. (2021) · Advances in Physiology Education · doi:10.1152/advan.00171.2020 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Rosenberg, E., Hsu, S.-Y., Truong, H.-A., & Taheri, R.
- Affiliations
- West Coast University (US)
- University of Maryland Eastern Shore (US)
- Chapman University (US)
- Venue
- Pharmacy Education
- Published
- 2024-01-12
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 29-39
- ISSN
- 1477-2701 (ISSN-L)
- 1560-2214
- OpenAlex
- W4390814112
- Semantic Scholar
- 443aec418234ea34fd6cbc322f6f7de624920bfb
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 30
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- dx.doi.org
- Locations
- Pharmacy Education (publishedVersion)
- Chapman University Digital Commons (Chapman University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
- Social Sciences › Education › Innovative Teaching Methods
- Social Sciences › Education › Problem and Project Based Learning
- Keywords
- mock trial, active learning, student perceptions, student performance, critical thinking, teamwork, professionalism, self-awareness, technology acceptance model, Blackboard Collaborate, peer collaboration, cross-institutional collaboration
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-29.
Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-29.
Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
