Study 2. 1 3 Klinické hodnocení The clinical study known as A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind, Xxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxx Xxxxx 0
Study 2. 1 3 Klinické hodnocení The clinical study known as A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Phase 3
Study 2. Non-Treatment Seeking Sample
Study 2. Question 12 from study 2 provided some ideas to make the games even better. These ideas are listed in Table 21. Formulation of questions (only one answer should be possible in order to avoid any discussion with pupils) 4 Formulation of questions (only one answer should be possible in order to avoid any discussion with pupils) 3 Less applicable in large groups 5 Time pressure 5 More variation in the different kinds of questions 2 Preparation for an examination / temporary evaluation 2 Some pupils might lose their motivation in the second round 4 An equal amount of questions for each team 5 Time pressure 1 Pupils will shout the answers or cheat 2 Pupils have to think about posing the right question (perceived as more difficult, good exercise) 2 In regards to Bingo, many teachers recommended to include an extra round of questions during the second round with the same numbers in order to avoid a lack of motivation for the students who were not able to answer every question right. Another solution for this problem was to let students shout ‘bingo’ after obtaining a full row instead of the whole card. We think that the teachers had a valid point and we would take the second solution into consideration. Timing also seemed to be an issue for some teachers: they found that the time was not used efficiently because it took a lot of time to spin the wheel. This problem might be solved by using a bowl with numbers in it or to call out random numbers. There was even a teacher that already used Bingo in their class. Another teacher came up with the idea to include a score that would reflect the level of the individual pupils, this might be a good idea especially when the teacher wants to find out who is struggling and which parts of the material are perceived to be more difficult. One teacher found Xxxxx ideal for the last class before a recess and another one suggested to let pupils play the game at home. In regard to the Jeopardy game, the teachers also pointed out the importance of the formulation of questions. It is important that there is only one possible answer in order to avoid any discussion with pupils. We on the other hand think that the different answers of the students show that they have gained insight in the material, which is exactly one of our purposes that were achieved for both studies. Furthermore, Xxxxxxx and Xxxxx (1991) found that discussion is preferred above a normal lecture. Two teachers had the impression that the Jeopardy game had a higher in...
Study 2. Teachers Table 14 – Descriptive Statistics Teachers and One-Sample T-Test with Test Value = 3 General questions N Mean Maximu m Minimu m SD T p-value (one- sided) Table 15 – Results General Questionnaire Teachers General questions 1 = Never 2 = Less than once per month 3 = 1 to 3 times per month 4 = Weekly 5 = Each class
Study 2. In Study 1, participants viewed the employment of a relative as less deserving than the employment of an unrelated target, regardless of the relative’s described competence. This is incongruent with the principle of meritocracy, which is frequently referred to in opposition to nepotism. The meritocracy principle reflects distributive fairness, which revolves around the fairness of outcome distributions (Son Hing et al., 2011). In a distributively fair world, the ratio between a person's input (e.g., competence) and outcome (e.g., employment) should equate the ratio of input and outcome for relevant comparison others (Xxxxx, 1965). Based on this principle of fairness, people should only view the employment of kin as less distributively fair when involving incompetent kin (Hypothesis 3), because competent kin is as deserving as competent people without family ties. However, as shown in Study 1, the fact that people viewed the employment of kin as undeserving regardless of competence suggests that there is more than meritocracy when people evaluate the employment of kin. From the perspective of the group engagement model of procedural justice (Xxxxx & Blader, 2003), people would evaluate the employment of kin not only in light of meritocracy but also in terms of the procedure by which such employment decisions are made. Employees need a sense of procedural fairness because it conveys their belongingness to the organization. Belongingness is important because it provides employees with a sense of meaning, connectedness, self-esteem, and certainty (Xxxxxxxx & Xxxx, 1989; Xxxx et al., 2008). The extent to which organizational members are treated in a procedurally fair way by their organization reflects the degree to which they are valued by the organization (xxx xxx Xxx et al., 2001). If employees do not feel being valued by—and belong to—the organization they work for, they are more likely to exhibit counterproductive behaviors as means of protest, they are less willing to engage in extra-role behaviors (e.g., help co- workers), and they are likely to show low job satisfaction and commitment to the organization (Xxxxxx & Xxxxx, 2009; Xxxxxxx, 2005). Such negative consequences make it imperative that we learn more about the impact of nepotism on employees perceived procedural fairness. The literature on in-group favoritism suggests that people expect and believe that members of a group (including a family) would favor their own members over non-members (Xxxxxxx ...
