I would think that the criticisms brought by Ken's group are valid. An introduction to a discipline should be just that--an introduction to the discipline, not a watered down version to pique the interest of possible future students of the area. As such, it needs to have content: all the basic vocabulary and issues to be learned at that level.
It sounds to me like Bok's comment via Annette about developing the types of thinking skills that will serve the student over the course of a lifetime cannot be generated in a single 'lite' course, nor do I think we should attempt to do so. I do think that to think 'critically' about a discipline assumes a knowledge base with which to work, and so Bok's recommendation I would also say puts the cart before the horse as Ken's group commented on. To the degree that such thinking skills can be taught divorced from a specific field sounds like what we do with introductory philosophy. The aim of this course is proper argumentation. So, if one wants students trained in 'critical thinking' per se, then this sounds like the ideal place to insert the philosophy course on argumentation. Also, does it necessarily indicate a failure in thinking ability that students may leave an intro psych course with most of their preconceptions still in place (assuming his interpretation of the data is valid)? Could it not also be that some students do not want to change their view in spite of the opinions of some psychologists that conducted some 'studies'. Should we really expect most people to change a cherished belief or a worldview that has been maintained for one's whole life (maybe all of 18 years when they get to intro psych) based on a prof telling you about some 'studies' in an intro psych class? I think psychology itself indicates that this would be an unreasonable expectation. Psychology may be interesting, but it ain't religion. --Mike --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
