Hi Marc: Realizing that most student will never ever carry out a formal research project still doesn't stop me from teaching a traditional research methods course. For two reasons: (1) In all of the courses in the major the students are exposed to material which was gleaned from research; it's my belief that they understand the material better if they understand how we came about to have this material-- i.e., the research process. My limited evidence for this comes from the observation that invariably if I allows students to take my upper division cognitive course concurrently with the research methodology course, they perform worse, and have a more difficult time understanding some of the paradigms. I can come up with about a half dozen alternate hypotheses about why this might be but the bottom line is that they simply learn the upper division course material better after completing the methods course. (2) You have alluded to the second reason in your email. Being a good scientific thinker helps them to be good critical thinkers and that is reflected in their ability to digest the scientific literature--whether psychological or other science. Throughout their life times they will need to be good scientific thinkers, especially in our increasingly technological society. (this is coming you from a wireless connection in my neighborhood coffee shop and I am still awed at the prospect!)
So when I teach the course I am sure to constantly and consistently incorporate those two themes throughout my lectures. And, when I teach the upper division courses I always constantly and consistently reinforce that. Too often, I believe, faculty teach the methods course and then never again allude directly and specifically to the methods used to infer the knowledge that we have about human behavior. One little thing that has helped me a lot recently is being on the PESTS list because Jeff is always posting interesting articles where a failure to recognize an opportunity to think scientifically has led people astray. I use his posting often and frequently in class! Anyway, my 2 cents, not horribly concrete other than to reinforce an emphasis on strong teaching the methods course. Annette Quoting mpress <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Dear Colleagues, > > Like many of you, we've struggled with the teaching of research methods and > experimental psychology for many years. We have one of the largest majors > in our smallish college, but few of our students intend to go on to doctoral > programs. Most either wind up in education; in social work, school > psychology or other master's level programs; or in areas totally unrelated > to psychology. A few students each year, mostly men, go on to doctoral > work. All students are required to take experimental psych for the major, > and most don't particularly like it. Our faculty who teach the course vary, > from deeply committed scientists who are prominent researchers to those who > would be happy to train students to read and analyze research critically but > have no realistic expectation that students will do, much less enjoy, > serious research. The more serious they are about research, the less > popular they are likely to be with students. > > I've decided to try to teach some sections of the course myself (for the > first time in many years) and see whether I can arrive at some combination > of intellectual honesty, understanding of research and a sense of excitement > about its value while adequately preparing those of our students who go on > to grad school. This may be an impossible goal, and we are also considering > offering a second course for those planning graduate work. I've begun to > review the available texts and have been struck by the high quality of many > of them and also how different the various approaches taken are, whether in > terms of length, depth, actual experimentation, coverage of theory vs. > substantive areas, etc. I'd appreciate hearing from those of you who've > worked on this problem over the years. I'd especially like to know what > forms of class structure, balance of literature analysis and actual lab > work, theory vs. practice, etc. worked in institutions that were teaching > colleges rather than research universities. Back channel replies are fine. > > Thanks in advance for your help. > > Mark > > M. Press, Ph.D. > Professor of Psychology and Chair, Touro College > 1602 Avenue J, Brooklyn, NY 11230; 718-252-7800, x 275 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph. D. Department of Psychology University of San Diego 5998 Alcala Park San Diego, CA 92110 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
