On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 07:49:15 -0700, Patrick Dolan >Mike- this sounds like a great topic for a paper. I have several >"lab manuals" dating back to the teens I think (though most are >from the '30s), as well as many Experimental Psych. texts spanning >from ~1912 to the present-- would be interesting to see how the >field evolved.
It would be great if there was some way to have these materials scanned in and made available in PDF format *hint-hint* :-) One question that I have about the "lab manuals" is whether they are commercial publications (e.g., I believe Bob Fried of Hunter College had a commercially published lab manual back in the 1960s) or home-grown (when I started grad school in the 1970s at SUNY-Stony Brook there was no formal lab manual, only handouts for specific experiments; over time a more or less formal lab manual was produced or at least I compiled one when I did a visiting prof there in the late 1980s). I think it would be interesting to see how lab manuals changed over the 20th century. This could produce a paper or, at the very least, a poster presentation, not to mention an interesting display that could be coordinated with appropriate equipment (anyone remember Hunter Klockounters?). -Mike Palij New York University [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> On 10/23/2008 at 10:33 AM, "Mike Palij" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I wanted to thank Chris for identifying some of the texts > that would have been used in the early 20th century for the > experimental psychology lab course. I still have a copy of > Woodworth & Schlossberg (2nd ed) text but have somehow > lost the Kling & Riggs (3rd ed) update. I also remember the > Underwood text though by the time I took exp psych lab, > we were using D'Amato's book. > > I also have two questions of secondary concern: > > (1) Historically, what was the division in terms of time and > coverage of "human" topics (e.g., psychophysics, verbal > learning, etc.) and "animal" topics (i.e., baseline behavior > frequency measure, shaping, continuous reinforcements, > different schedules of reinforcement, etc.) for the general > experimental psych lab (I realize that there may have been > specialized labs but I assume that these were fewer in number > than the general experimental lab course0 . It's my impression > that in the 1960-1980s it was a 50-50 split but in the 1990s > the animal component dwindled in general experiment psych > course and/or were relegated to specialized animal labs. > Does this sound accurate? Does anyone know what the split > was like before the 1960s? Has anyone examined whether > the animal component is disappearing in recent years? > > (2) The development of PC and web-based experiments > seem to be signaling a new phase of teaching the experimental > psych lab. Has anyone examined/researched/written on this? > > -Mike Palij > New York University > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 20:55:07 -0400, Christopher D. Green wrote: >> Mike Palij wrote: >>> I was wondering if anyone knew of any articles or writings on the >>> history of teaching of experimental psychology, particularly as a >>> laboratory course, over the course of the past century. I'm >>> interested in what was covered is such courses, the target enrollment >>> size, and the "mission" of such courses. Any help would be >>> appreciated. TIA. >> >> Mike, >> >> There have been a number of "classic" textbooks on experimental >> psychology over the decades. They will give you some idea of how the >> course was taught historically. Of course student numbers, exact >> assignments, orientations, etc. would have varied widely from school to >> school over the decades. You'd have to dig into the archives at several >> places to get a good handle on that. >> >> First (in English) was E. C. Sanford's textbook (first issued in a >> series of articles in /Am J Psych/, 1891-1893). >> >> Titchener's "Manuals" were the "gold standard" in the early 20th century >> (even among many who rejected Titchener's specific theoretical >> perspective). >> >> Henry Garrett (the avowed segregationist, eugenicist, white supremacist, >> and -- oh yes! -- APA President) wrote a "Great Experiments" book in the >> 1930s that was well known. >> >> The experimental psychology text first written in 1938 by R. S. >> Woodworth (& H. Schlosberg, in later editions) came to be so widely used >> that it was known informally as "The Columbia Bible." >> >> B. J. Underwood's had a popular textbook in the 1950s (orig ed. 1949) >> that came to be preferred (as I understand it) by those who thought >> Woodworth to be not rigorously behavioristic enough to suit their taste. >> >> And allow me to put in a good word for fellow-TIPSter Stuart McKelvie's >> course on human experimental psychology as, perhaps, the single >> best-designed and information-rich course I took in my more-than-a >> decade as a course-taking psychology student. (Fortunately for me, it >> came near the start of my psych student career.) >> --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
