Let me re-focus this discussion: Would one have different learning objectives for majors and for non-majors taking the intro to psychology course.
Now let me respond to previous emails that lead me to this refocusing: I disagree with some of the sentiments expressed about critical thinking. I think that we can teach general principles of thinking biases and build a course, with the usual content, around those biases. After all, that is what psychologists study, so it would be what we should/could focus on--thinking biases. Second, I do believe, as a cognitive psychologist, that students who only take one course in psychology in their lives will certainly NOT remember all the literally hundreds if not thousands of factoids we throw at them. Why have students memorize for a test all the minute brain parts and their functions--wouldn't it be better to "know" general principles of how the brain operates? Or all the developmental stages for each developmental area such as social, cognitive, etc--wouldn't it be better for students to first of all understand the pros and cons of stage theories, and then to understand the global picture, as well as the current state of acceptance or criticism of these frameworks? Etc. etc throughout the field. We CAN teach students how to evaluate evidence of psychological phenomena: what the different sources of evidence can and cannot tell us. We can teach students to examine their beliefs in light of the search for evidence. There are things that are NOT relative based on evidence. In the end, at least half of the students we teach in an intro to psych course will have a high probabability of needing psychological services over the course of their lifetime (if the stats I teach in the abnormal chapter are correct--and shouldn't the students know how to make sense of those stats?) and so they should know something about how to evaluate the evidence for treatments and outcomes, shouldn't they? What is more important to teach in intro: memorizing subcategories of DSM or a basic understanding of statistical probability of something occurring? Predisposition versus destination? In the end, what do we want to teach? I am DEFINITELY NOT saying we water down or dilute the normal intro to psych course so students want to major in psych. I never ever said that. Go back and read the first post if anyone thought so. I AM saying maybe we should think about what our objectives are in teaching the course, and that maybe those objectives should be less about having non-major students memorize things they will soon forget and more about general principles and themes as well as ways to think about psychology from a scientific method perspective. As to the comment about Bok suggesting that a single course could do much to develop lifelong critical thinking, of course he doesn't suggest that at all. That would be impossible. He makes a very nice, reasoned argument and and I strongly suggest reading his book to get the flavor of it. Also, he says nothing about any one discipline in particular. He examines the entire liberal arts curriculum as a whole, with each discipline doing its share to make it cohesive and comprehensive in achieving particular goals. No single course can do much; and without a coherent curriculum students won't have much at the end of 4 years except a paper to hang on their wall. I don't remember seeing the word, "psychology" even once in the book. Also, I note that Ken presented how others' counter the types of suggestions made about critical thinking, not that he adheres to their argument. He provided feedback he has heard from others. I have no idea where Ken stands, nor would it be important in providing an answer to my question. Where I would like to correct Ken's response is that Bok never suggests a "lite" version of anything at all. He says nothing, and if I read between the lines, he might advocate for perhaps the opposite of a "lite" version! The tasks of critical thinking, improved written and oral communication skills, civic engagement, global awareness, building character, etc., as embedded in a content course make the course anything but "lite"! Finally, I guess we have a different experience in that at our institution no one other than psych majors take our content courses. We don't have other programs that would need to be served by our courses. So it is only the intro course at our institution that would be affected by change. Anyway, these are just things I am thinking about and wanted feedback on. Annette Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology University of San Diego 5998 Alcala Park San Diego, CA 92110 619-260-4006 [email protected] --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
