I know there are institutions where such non-major classes are taught as
general life-skills course with several instructors from varied disciplines.
Perhaps this is something that Bok/Annette has in mind? To answer Annette, in
my view, such a class would not have to have different objectives for majors or
non-majors, but it would not/should not be soley a Gen. Psych class and not
substitute for a foundation Intro Psych required for those going on in psych or
taking advanced psych classes. Our Gen. Psych class is composed of largely
non-majors, but is the foundation class for our psych curriculum and also
provides Gen. Educ. credit. We have full-time and adjunct faculty teaching
these classes with varied interests and little real coordination. Approx
30-40% do not pass or make it to the final, which is typical given incoming
skills/motivation.
I am increasingly stressing critical thinking and misconceptions of psych
as a major theme of the class. I typically do not get to cover therapies,
social, or life-span, but do cover psych disorders. I do also try to bring in
issues of judgment, consumer behavior, problems of pseudoscience, etc. that are
relevant to students in education, clinical/social work, CJ, business, etc.,
but the focus is to provide a foundation that students might build on with
later psych classes in abnormal, child, and so on. I am sure a good life-skill
kind of class could be developed,where psych knowledge and viewpoints (among
others) could be represented. This might be a valuable general educ. class,
but to be really effective, it should be integrated in a curriculum/institution
where students have opportunity and encouragement to practice their critical
thinking and apply what they learn throughout their time in college! I don't
know of places like that, but am sure it's possible. I am guessing that this is
what Bok has in mind. It would be nice to have faculty equally skilled and
capable of critical thinking, all themselves having a good general education
and dedicated to, and sharing an understanding of, the importance of a liberal
education. Anyone who has been on General Educ. committees or similar groups
will surely smile at this ideal! In either case, such a life-skills gen.
psych class would not be (for majors and those wishing to take more advanced
psych classes) a substitute for General Psychology, but rather in addition to,
and complementing Gen. Psych. Ok, I am going back to more pleasant summer
reading, and preparing my rhubarb pie! Finished a fascinating account of
mesmerism (thanks Chris G) and some mystery novels ;-) Gary
Gerald L. (Gary) Peterson, Ph.D.
Professor, Department of Psychology
Saginaw Valley State University
University Center, MI 48710
989-964-4491
[email protected]
----- Original Message -----
From: [email protected]
To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 1:26:50 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [tips] Intro to psych for nonmajors
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])
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill Southerly ([email protected])
