RE: variety with instructional format
alexia elliott wrote: could anyone give me thier defintions of antisocial personality or pyschopathic personality what difference is between the two types.. thankyou alexia elliott In my Criminal Justice Psychology classes, I tend to define the difference between the antisocial personality and the psychopathic personality as one of behavior and perspective, rather than as different subjects. An individual who manifests an antisocial personality disorder has, by definition, violated the laws, taboos, and/or mores of his/her society--i.e.., the sociopath. The person who demonstrates a psychopathic personality, on the other hand, may have the same neuro-psychological and cognitive differences from the rest of society (i.e., high stimulus needs, lack of affect, thrill seeking behaviors, above average intelligence, etc.) but may never have violated--or even wished to violate--social norms. In our society, those meeting the definitions of a psychopath, but not the clinical criteria for antisocial personality disorder undoubtedly outnumber those who _do_ meet the APD criteria by quite a bit. Some studies have indicated that a fairly substantial number of individuals working in high risk or high stress positions meet the criteria for the psychopath (i.e., Law Enforcement Officers, Pediatric Oncologists, Fire Fighters, Politicians [but, of course, they usually meet the criteria for APD as well ;-], etc.), which--given the stimulus needs coupled with lack of affect--makes a lot of sense. Of course, my areas of expertise are in the CRJ Psychology and Sociology/Criminology areas, not in clinical psychology, my definitions may vary considerably from those of a clinician. Rick -- Rick Adams Department of Social Sciences Jackson Community College Jackson, MI [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... and the only measure of your worth and your deeds will be the love you leave behind when you're gone. --Fred Small, Everything Possible --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: variety with instructional format
could anyone give me thier defintions of antisocial personality or pyschopathic personality what difference is between the two types.. thankyou alexia elliott - Original Message - From: David B. Daniel, Ph.D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 12:18 PM Subject: Re: variety with instructional format Personally, I don't think it is my job to keep student interest. I feel that it is my job not to punish people for offering interest! Rod describes a very pragmatic philosophy: My perspective is that some instructional formats are more conducive to particular classes. As long as students are mastering the material, this is probably an effective strategy and you state appropriate rational. My Rant: Relying on research for teaching techniques is very instructive, with one caveat: your own style. The implementation of teaching techniques is, by necessity, an interaction between teaching style and method. Yet, too few studies in teaching methods recognize the instructor as a variable. I would encourage you to evaluate student learning as a function of your personal implementation of particular methods. Luckily, I have to interrupt this rant to teach a research seminar. Take Care, David \\|// (o o) oOOo-(_)-oOOo David B. Daniel, Ph.D. Department of PsychologyAssociate Research Scientist University of Maine at Farmington New England Research Institutes 234 Main Street Farmington, ME 04938 207-778-7411 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
variety with instructional format
Hi folks: How much variety do you all have in your classroom instructional techniques? The other day I had a 2 students tell me that they found one of my previous classes boring and monotonous because I used the same instructional format throughout the semester (why these students felt the need to tell me this is perhaps another thread altogether). It was a theories of counseling class. We spent about three class sessions for each of the major theories. The first class session was generally a lecture and large group discussion on the particular counseling theory and techniques. The second class session was usually devoted to watching a video demonstrating the counseling theory (usually stopping the video at several points to discuss how the theory and techniques were being applied). The third class session was usually devoted to a more in-depth study of some aspect of the theory. This third class session usually revolved around small group activities and discussions followed by large group processing of the small group experiences. I've been wondering about the validity of this student's criticism and deciding what, if anything, I should do about structuring my classes. I realized that most of my classes have a fairly consistent structure. My large intro classes usually involve lectures with powerpoint assistance with activities and demonstrations interspersed. But there are very few small group discussions when I teach large intro classes. I'm teaching an upper-level child psychology course right now with 6 students that consists almost exclusively of small group interactions. My abnormal psychology class usually consists of lecture, discussion, and watching a video for each disorder. In other words, depending on the nature and size of the class, I find that there is usually one particular type of instructional format. My questions for you: Do you have variety in your instructional formats or do you follow a particular instructional format for each class throughout the semester. I can see that having some flexibility can keep student interest, but I can also see that not having a consistent format or structure could create confusion or anxiety for other students. My perspective is that some instructional formats are more conducive to particular classes. What does the research show about this? Rod winmail.dat--- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: variety with instructional format
Personally, I don't think it is my job to keep student interest. I feel that it is my job not to punish people for offering interest! Rod describes a very pragmatic philosophy: My perspective is that some instructional formats are more conducive to particular classes. As long as students are mastering the material, this is probably an effective strategy and you state appropriate rational. My Rant: Relying on research for teaching techniques is very instructive, with one caveat: your own style. The implementation of teaching techniques is, by necessity, an interaction between teaching style and method. Yet, too few studies in teaching methods recognize the instructor as a variable. I would encourage you to evaluate student learning as a function of your personal implementation of particular methods. Luckily, I have to interrupt this rant to teach a research seminar. Take Care, David \\|// (o o) oOOo-(_)-oOOo David B. Daniel, Ph.D. Department of PsychologyAssociate Research Scientist University of Maine at Farmington New England Research Institutes 234 Main Street Farmington, ME 04938 207-778-7411 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
