Annette said: "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."
Doesn't everyone (or most) already do that? Wasn't "critical thinking" the buzzword back in the day? And most intructors responded to the call by including thinking about the issues presented (through assignments, class discussions, etc)? So no, I don't think there would or should be a different agenda for non-majors as distinct from majors in psych. Again, I would maintain that if students leave an intro psych course with their biases intact, it probably doesn't have much to do with instructors not encouraging students to think about the issues (and guiding them in that thinking). Not to sound too negative, but could the background noise of student complaints about this or that course being too hard or too much work be feuling this type of reflection about course content (not intending to point a finger at anyone in particular)? I don't think a decent instructor ignores thinking skills and biases inherent in the human condition in their psychology courses, including intro. I do have a suspicion that "re-focusing" course objectives could be in part feuled by student complaints about the amount of work in courses. If so, then such "re-focusing" is, I think, on the whole unnecessary and misguided. Unnecessary because I think competent instructors do not focus on content to the exclusion of biases in/and thinking, and misguided because all university level courses should be hard work, that's why they are university level courses. Time to stop bowing to the lowest common denominator and insist everyone student rise to the occassion. --Mike On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 11:26 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > 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])
