[tips] Intro textbooks
Many questions have arisen recently on the other teaching list about intro textbooks. I have not recommended any to anyone because I am sort of floundering with my own musings on this topic of what is going on in the intro textbook domain. I remember my intro textbook I used in college in 1969 (gasp!) and I still have my high school text book from around 1967... VERY MUCH of what was in those text books is what is in modern textbooks--and not a whole lot more beyond the 1970's/1980's in terms of how psychologists THINK :( I am beginning to bothered by the notion that much of what we are teaching in intro seems to me to be a history of the overview of the field of psychology rather than a brief overview and into the current state of affairs. In addition I think that history is a bit revisionist. I mean was Freud EVER a central figure for PSYCHOLOGISTS? Not psychiatrists or clinicians--and my impression is that even at that time experimental psychology was a much larger field than clinical. Yet the way most intro psych texts portray this it seems that clinical psychology and Freud and psychoanalysis DOMINATED the 1930's-1950's. See the developmental and personality and therapy chapters! But those texts from the late 60's were completely focused on the current state of affairs of their time. It's very sad for me to think that most chapters on developmental, in intro have massive amounts of memorizable factoids on Piaget, Erikson, Freud, but little if nothing on important later theorists such as Bronfenbrenner and other modern developmental researchers who are doing good, quality work. The old stuff can now be nicely compartmentalized for easy memorization of facts but I'm not sure it teaches students how to think about the field. Same for Personality. That has to be the worst offender in modern intro textbooks with very little about the newest work that is being done--and admittedly this is an area with less newer work than some other areas. Even cognitive, my area, is better than most but still has little to nothing on neural network explanations of cognitive phenomena. The focus still seems to be on c. 1970's information processing. I wonder if anyone on this list has been thinking about this. Annette Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph. D. Professor, Psychological Sciences University of San Diego 5998 Alcala Park San Diego, CA 92110-2492 tay...@sandiego.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=38219 or send a blank email to leave-38219-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Intro textbooks
I do explore/think about this as I am teaching a required class for prospective majors that uses K. Stanovich's text Thinking Straight About Psychology. In his preface he goes over similar problems we all encounter when dealing with students who completed Gen. Psych. They still believe Freud was the father of Psych, and still maintain many popular misconceptions/myths such as memory as tape recording, schizophrenia as multiple personalities, even ten percent myth. Many recall nothing (assuming it was covered) about scientific principles or basic methods. Most still think psychologists are all like Dr. Phil, and that clinical/mental health interests define the field. I personally don't think it's the text really, but the approach and perspective taken by the instructor. Just one view... G.L. (Gary) Peterson,Ph.D Psychology@SVSU On Sep 5, 2014, at 1:42 PM, Annette Taylor tay...@sandiego.edu wrote: Many questions have arisen recently on the other teaching list about intro textbooks. I have not recommended any to anyone because I am sort of floundering with my own musings on this topic of what is going on in the intro textbook domain. I remember my intro textbook I used in college in 1969 (gasp!) and I still have my high school text book from around 1967... VERY MUCH of what was in those text books is what is in modern textbooks--and not a whole lot more beyond the 1970's/1980's in terms of how psychologists THINK :( I am beginning to bothered by the notion that much of what we are teaching in intro seems to me to be a history of the overview of the field of psychology rather than a brief overview and into the current state of affairs. In addition I think that history is a bit revisionist. I mean was Freud EVER a central figure for PSYCHOLOGISTS? Not psychiatrists or clinicians--and my impression is that even at that time experimental psychology was a much larger field than clinical. Yet the way most intro psych texts portray this it seems that clinical psychology and Freud and psychoanalysis DOMINATED the 1930's-1950's. See the developmental and personality and therapy chapters! But those texts from the late 60's were completely focused on the current state of affairs of their time. It's very sad for me to think that most chapters on developmental, in intro have massive amounts of memorizable factoids on Piaget, Erikson, Freud, but little if nothing on important later theorists such as Bronfenbrenner and other modern developmental researchers who are doing good, quality work. The old stuff can now be nicely compartmentalized for easy memorization of facts but I'm not sure it teaches students how to think about the field. Same for Personality. That has to be the worst offender in modern intro textbooks with very little about the newest work that is being done--and admittedly this is an area with less newer work than some other areas. Even cognitive, my area, is better than most but still has little to nothing on neural network explanations of cognitive phenomena. The focus still seems to be on c. 1970's information processing. I wonder if anyone on this list has been thinking about this. Annette Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph. D. Professor, Psychological Sciences University of San Diego 5998 Alcala Park San Diego, CA 92110-2492 tay...@sandiego.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: peter...@svsu.edu. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13445.e3edca0f6e68bfb76eaf26a8eb6dd94bn=Tl=tipso=38219 or send a blank email to leave-38219-13445.e3edca0f6e68bfb76eaf26a8eb6dd...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=38221 or send a blank email to leave-38221-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Intro textbooks
I do every 2 years. Every 2 years we switch intro books. I have chaired this committee for many a year and we have barely ever used the same books twice. Because I have looked at so many for so long, I am way more familiar with intro to psych books than I dare say most. I have complained about this for ages - to book reps, executives in book companies during focus groups, review of intro books, etc. Do other sciences do this? I just recently joked about this with a coworker - I have older copies of psych text (including one by woodworth) and the topics really haven't changed that much. Deb Deborah Briihl Dept of psych and counseling Valdosta state university dbri...@valdosta.edu ,Sent from my iPad On Sep 5, 2014, at 1:41 PM, Annette Taylor tay...@sandiego.edu wrote: Many questions have arisen recently on the other teaching list about intro textbooks. I have not recommended any to anyone because I am sort of floundering with my own musings on this topic of what is going on in the intro textbook domain. I remember my intro textbook I used in college in 1969 (gasp!) and I still have my high school text book from around 1967... VERY MUCH of what was in those text books is what is in modern textbooks--and not a whole lot more beyond the 1970's/1980's in terms of how psychologists THINK :( I am beginning to bothered by the notion that much of what we are teaching in intro seems to me to be a history of the overview of the field of psychology rather than a brief overview and into the current state of affairs. In addition I think that history is a bit revisionist. I mean was Freud EVER a central figure for PSYCHOLOGISTS? Not psychiatrists or clinicians--and my impression is that even at that time experimental psychology was a much larger field than clinical. Yet the way most intro psych texts portray this it seems that clinical psychology and Freud and psychoanalysis DOMINATED the 1930's-1950's. See the developmental and personality and therapy chapters! But those texts from the late 60's were completely focused on the current state of affairs of their time. It's very sad for me to think that most chapters on developmental, in intro have massive amounts of memorizable factoids on Piaget, Erikson, Freud, but little if nothing on important later theorists such as Bronfenbrenner and other modern developmental researchers who are doing good, quality work. The old stuff can now be nicely compartmentalized for easy memorization of facts but I'm not sure it teaches students how to think about the field. Same for Personality. That has to be the worst offender in modern intro textbooks with very little about the newest work that is being done--and admittedly this is an area with less newer work than some other areas. Even cognitive, my area, is better than most but still has little to nothing on neural network explanations of cognitive phenomena. The focus still seems to be on c. 1970's information processing. I wonder if anyone on this list has been thinking about this. Annette Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph. D. Professor, Psychological Sciences University of San Diego 5998 Alcala Park San Diego, CA 92110-2492 tay...@sandiego.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: dbri...@valdosta.edu. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13162.50de294b9d4987a3c89b4a5cc4bdea62n=Tl=tipso=38219 or send a blank email to leave-38219-13162.50de294b9d4987a3c89b4a5cc4bde...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=38231 or send a blank email to leave-38231-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
