Pfundetal - vgfg PDF

Preview

Summary

vgfg...

Description

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325476537

Introduction to Psychology: Course Purposes, Learning Outcomes, and Assessment Practices ArticleinTeaching of Psychology · May 2018 DOI: 10.1177/0098628318779257

CITATIONS

READS

7

7,098

5 authors, including: Rory A Pfund

John C. Norcross

University of New Mexico

University of Scranton

28 PUBLICATIONS279 CITATIONS

313 PUBLICATIONS23,369 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Working on new editions of: Psychotherapy Relationships That Work, Handbook of Psychotherapy Integration, Leaving It at the Office View project

The Psychologists' Desk Reference View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rory A Pfund on 20 June 2018. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Topical Article

Introduction to Psychology: Course Purposes, Learning Outcomes, and Assessment Practices

Teaching of Psychology 2018, Vol. 45(3) 213-219 ªThe Author(s) 2018 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0098628318779257 journals.sagepub.com/home/top

Rory A. Pfund1, John C. Norcross2, Robin Hailstorks3, Karen E. Stamm3, and Peggy Christidis3

Abstract A robust literature has explored multiple facets of the introductory psychology course, but few studies have examined its purposes, student learning outcomes (SLOs), and assessment practices. The second iteration of the Undergraduate Study in Psychology gathered data on these facets in a nationally representative sample of associate (n ¼ 62) and baccalaureate psychology programs (n ¼ 161). Most department chairs indicated that their intro course served as both an introduction to the major and a general education function. Approximately one third of programs incorporated the American Psychological Association Guidelines for the Undergraduate Psychology Major 2.0 in their entirety or with minor changes to develop their SLOs for the introductory course. Written assignments and professor-developed quizzes/exams were the most frequently used assessment methods. Discussion centers on how these results may be used by teachers of introductory psychology. Keywords introductory psychology, undergraduate education, teaching psychology, student learning outcomes, assessment practices

Between 1.2 and 1.8 million undergraduate students enroll in the introductory psychology course each year (Gurung et al., 2016). “Intro” is the second most popular course on college campuses and is taken by approximately 60% of undergraduates who have earned 10 or more credits (Adelman, 2004). Students are routinely required to complete this course as a prerequisite for higher level psychology courses and other undergraduate programs (Hyers & Shivde, 2013; Norcross et al., 2016). Thus, the intro course is one of the most frequent and important courses for psychology majors and nonmajors alike. Considerable research has been conducted on multiple facets of this lynchpin psychology course. Investigators have examined the content of intro textbooks and syllabi (e.g., Griggs, 2014; Griggs & Bates, 2014; Homa et al., 2013). Other investigators have explored students’ knowledge of content (e.g., Landrum & Gurung, 2013; McNamara, Williamson, & Jorgensen, 2011) and the structure and sequence of the course (e.g., Mandernach, Mason, Forrest, & Hackathorn, 2012; Stoloff et al., 2010). In the initial Undergraduate Study of Psychology (USP) survey in 2014, several questions were directed at the intro experience. Program directors/department chairs indicated that virtually all (99%) undergraduate psychology programs offered the intro course, which in 94% of programs served as a prerequisite for higher level psychology courses. The vast majority of both associate and baccalaureate programs (92%) taught the

intro course in a single semester. While the intro course was universally offered, its lab was not. Ninety percent of undergraduate programs did not offer a lab for their intro course. Calls for accountability from regional accrediting bodies have driven the articulation and measurement of student learning outcomes (SLOs) at the course level, accentuating the need for systematic assessment of the intro course (e.g., American Psychological Association [APA], 2016; Gurung et al., 2016). The APA (2007) promulgated Guidelines for the Undergraduate Psychology Major and a second version in 2013, which outlined five SLOs representing “reasonable departmental expectations for the undergraduate psychology major across different kinds of educational contexts” (APA, 2013, p. 3). An assessment cyberguide accompanied the first set of guidelines, and a repository of assessment tools is being created as a companion to the most recent version of the APA Guidelines for the Undergraduate Major (APA, 2013; herein referred to as Guidelines 2.0). This repository is based on work emanating

1

Department of Psychology, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, USA Department of Psychology, University of Scranton, Scranton, PA, USA 3 American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, USA 2

Corresponding Author: Rory A. Pfund, Department of Psychology, University of Memphis, 202 Psychology Building, Memphis, TN 38152, USA. Email: [email protected]

214

Teaching of Psychology 45(3)

Table 1. Institutional Strata and Response Rates for the 2016 Undergraduate Study in Psychology.

Institutional Strata Associate degrees only or dominant Bachelor’s degrees only Bachelor’s degrees plus master’s degrees Bachelor’s degrees plus doctoral degrees Total

Number of Invited Institutions That Responded

Percentage of Invited Institutions That Responded

Total Number of Institutions

Number of Institutions Invited to Participate

Percentage of Institutions Invited to Participate

1,174

264

22.4

62

23.4

807 718

160 187

19.8 26.0

48 80

30.0 42.8

289

82

28.4

33

40.2

2,988

693

23.2

223

32.2

from the 2016 APA Summit on National Assessment in Psychology held at the University of Wisconsin–Green Bay (Accountability, 2016). This repository will include assessments for the five SLOs in Guidelines 2.0 and the intro psychology course. Few studies have been conducted on the SLOs of the intro course, and specifically those that reflect the SLOs in Guidelines 2.0., Homa et al. (2013) examined course syllabi to determine the use of the first iteration of the APA Guidelines and found that approximately 78% of syllabi included at least one SLO. However, that study did not examine the differential use of APA Guidelines between associate and baccalaureate programs. Furthermore, their results became dated with the publication of Guidelines 2.0, and they did not examine the specific assessment practices used to measure these SLOs. Despite the importance of the intro psychology course and the voluminous research conducted on it, there is insufficient knowledge about the purposes, SLOs, and assessment of the introductory course (Gurung et al., 2016). The 2016 USP focused on these lacunae in the research literature for the intro psychology course. Specifically, we asked program directors of undergraduate psychology programs about the purposes of the intro psychology course, whether their program adopted SLOs consistent with the APA Guidelines 2.0 for the intro course, and how many undergraduate students enrolled in the intro course participated in a variety of assessment methods.

Method The APA Education Directorate launched the second iteration of its biennial USP (Norcross et al., 2016) in fall 2016. The 2016 USP questionnaire was a multipage, electronic survey comprised of a cover letter and two main sections. The cover letter explained the purpose of the study, guaranteed the confidentiality of participants’ responses, and stated that the results would be reported in the aggregate only. The first section asked program directors/department chairs about the faculty characteristics and online degrees of their undergraduate psychology programs (Hailstorks, Stamm, Norcross, Pfund, & Christidis, 2018). The second section, summarized in this article, was devoted to the intro course. Specifically, this section asked about the purposes of the course, whether their undergraduate

psychology program formally adopted SLOs for all sections of the intro course, the extent to which those SLOs relied on Guidelines 2.0, whether their undergraduate psychology program would use a standardized measure to assess student performance in the intro psychology course, and how many students taking intro participated in 12 assessment methods. Five strata captured the institutional contexts in which undergraduate psychology is typically awarded: (1) associate degrees only institutions, (2) associate degrees dominant with bachelor’s degrees, (3) bachelor’s degrees only, (4) bachelor’s degrees plus master’s degrees, and (5) bachelor’s degree plus doctoral degrees. These strata encompassed nonprofit, regionally accredited U.S. colleges and universities included in the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education (2010) database. We used the variables 2010 Basic Classification and the 2010 Undergraduate Instructional Program Classification from this database and drew an equal proportion of institutions from each stratum. Special focus (e.g., theological seminaries and law schools) and for-profit institutions were not sampled. Tribal colleges were recoded into strata based on the level of degrees they awarded. We combined the two strata in which associate degrees were offered (i.e., 1 and 2) for all analyses because of the small number of programs (25 in sample, 6 responses) in the second stratum. Table 1 displays the response rates for the institutional strata. The population of interest was 2,988 nonprofit institutions offering psychology programs. A random number was generated for each institution, and a list of those random numbers was sorted by each stratum. A random stratified sample of 773 institutions with e-mail addresses were selected, representing approximately one quarter of the population of psychology departments and programs in nonprofit, nonspecialized regionally accredited institutions of higher education in the United States. We sent personalized e-mails containing individualized links to 773 department chairs or program directors inviting them to complete the USP. We identified 40 e-mail addresses as undeliverable and another 40 as duplicates, leaving 693 institutions in the total sample. Nonrespondents received several follow-up reminders by e-mail and telephone requesting their participation.

215

Pfund et al.

40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Entirely

Minor changes

Most Associate

Some

None

Other

Baccalaureate

Figure 1. Associate and baccalaureate programs’ use of the APA Guidelines for the Undergraduate Psychology Major 2.0 in developing SLOs for the introductory course. APA ¼ American Psychological Association, SLOs ¼ student learning outcomes.

We received 223 completed surveys for a response rate of 32.2%. These responses represented undergraduate psychology programs from 47 states. As shown in Table 1, the response rate was generally higher as the level of degrees awarded by an institution increased.

Results Course Goals The introductory course in the psychology curriculum serves multiple purposes including as an introduction to the major, as a general education service, and as a public education about the discipline. Directors of psychology programs at associate (n ¼ 62) and baccalaureate (n ¼ 161) institutions indicated which purpose(s) best applied to the introductory psychology course at their respective institutions. The course served as a general education service course for 86% of all programs, an introduction to the major for 78%, and as public education about the discipline for 16%. At the same time, the type of psychology program bores a significant relation to these multiple purposes. A greater percentage of programs at associate institutions (93%) indicated that the introductory course served general education than did programs at baccalaureate institutions (84%; p < .001). Eightyeight percent of programs at baccalaureate institutions reported that the course introduced the psychology major compared to 54% of programs at associate institutions (p < .001). There was a statistically nonsignificant trend for more programs at associate (21%) than at baccalaureate (14%) institutions to indicate that intro psychology served to educate the public about the discipline. We also examined potential differences in course purposes within institutional strata for the baccalaureate institutions. A greater percentage of bachelor’s only (94%) and bachelor’s plus doctoral (90%) institutions indicated that the purpose of the course was to introduce the psychology major compared to bachelor’s plus master’s institutions (82%; p < .001). The

introductory course served general education for bachelor’s plus master’s (91%) more frequently than bachelor’s only (81%) and bachelor’s plus doctorate institutions (71%; p ¼ .01).

Learning Outcomes Program directors indicated how their faculty members selected SLOs for intro psychology sections. Overall, 68% of psychology programs used the same SLOs for all sections of introductory psychology, 16% of programs used some of the same SLOs across sections, and the remaining 16% allowed each instructor to select his or her own SLOs for the introductory course. The same learning outcomes for all intro sections were adopted more frequently by programs at associate institutions (88%) than programs at baccalaureate institutions (61%; p < .001). Within baccalaureate institutions, bachelor’s plus master’s institutions (65%) adopted the same learning outcomes for all intro sections at a higher rate than bachelor’s only (56%) and bachelor’s plus doctorate institutions (55%; p < .001). Directors were also asked to indicate to what extent their SLOs for the introductory course relied on Guidelines 2.0. Figure 1 displays these results. About one third of programs at associate (34%) and baccalaureate institutions (31%) relied on them in their entirety or with minor changes. No statistical differences were found in the use of the Guidelines 2.0 by institutional strata.

Assessment Practices Psychology directors estimated how many students (none, very few, some, about half, and most, all) taking introductory psychology participated in 12 types of assessments. The response options for use of the assessments were adapted from the National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment (Ewell, Paulson, & Kinzie, 2011), which asked program directors about

216

Teaching of Psychology 45(3)

Table 2. Program Directors’ Estimates of the Percentage of Introductory Course Students Participating in 12 Types of Assessments for Associate (N ¼ 62) and Baccalaureate Programs (N ¼ 161). Type of Assessment Items from publisher’s test bank Professor-developed quizzes/exams Written assignments Oral presentations Portfolio assignments Other class projects (e.g., PPT presentations and group research) National standardized assessments Locally developed and formally scored rubrics for class assignments Embedded in-class assessments AAC&U VALUE rubrics Department-developed exams College-wide assessments

(Uncertain)

None

Very Few

Some

About Half

Most

All

(9) (16) (7) (11) (9) (9) (14) (16) (21) (14) (15) (14) (9) (9) (3) (14) (14) (18) (22) (23) (5) (7) (10) (7)

56 22 01 10 14 26 54 7 14 69 79 12 20 79 38 52 51 69 43 74

16 43 02 7 22 28 20 5 13 12 8 11 7 46 9 10 52 94

9 14 10 13 7 11 36 28 18 7 35 26 51 25 16 23 26 12 4 76 14 3

16 12 15 11 59 96 71 7 13 01 54 16 8 01 11 01

39 24 36 28 22 20 15 6 03 16 12 31 26 20 17 19 12 6 75 10 3

21 22 26 32 57 48 98 01 15 8 21 18 19 19 14 74 24 10 14 8

Note. Results for students in associate programs shown in roman; results for students in baccalaureate program presented in italics. AAC&U VALID ¼ Association of American Colleges and Universities (2009) Valid Assessment of Learning in Undergraduate Education.

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Definitely yes

Probably yes

Maybe Associate

Probably no

Definitely not

Need more information

Baccalaureate

Figure 2. Percentage of department chairs indicating their associate (n ¼ 62) and baccalaureate (n ¼ 161) programs would use a standardized assessment to assess student performance in introductory psychology.

their program assessment practices. Our results are summarized in Table 2, separately for programs at associate and baccalaureate institutions. Written assignments assessing student work emerged as the most frequent assessment practice, with 79% of programs at associate institutions and 68% of programs at baccalaureate institutions using them with most or all students. Professordeveloped quizzes/exams and items from publishers’ test banks were used in about half of the psychology programs with most or all students to assess outcomes of the introductory course. Less than 5% of students in the intro course completed a national standardized assessment or portfolio assignment for evaluative purposes. Considerable similarity was evident in the reported use of the 12 categories of assessment among the four institutional strata. Only two statistically significant differences emerged: The percentage of students participating in college-wide assessments and in portfolios assignments was higher in

programs at associate than in baccalaureate institutions (Table 2; ps < .001). Finally, we inquired whether undergraduate psychology programs would use a standardized assessment, if one was available, to evaluate student performance in the intro course. Figure 2 presents their responses by program type. About one third of programs at associate (31%) and baccalaureate institutions (32%) responded “definitely yes” or “probably yes.” Even more program directors responded “maybe,” which constituted the modal response for both programs at associate (27%) and baccalaureate (51%) institutions. There were no significant differences on this item across institutional strata.

Discussion This study revealed that the core purposes of the introductory course were, for approximately 8 of the 10 undergraduate psychology programs, simultaneously to serve as a general

Pfund et al. education service course and an introduction to the major. These dual and occasionally competing goals raise important considerations for teachers and students in the introductory course. APA’s Board of Educational Affairs Working Group on Strengthening the Common Core of the Introductory Psychology Course (APA, 2014) recommended that the intro course provides similar content for both psychology majors and nonmajors. However, the dialectical tension between research rigor, career preparation, and content demands for the psychology major, on the one hand, and general education, personal enlightenment, and practical application for the nonmajor, on the other, proves difficult. A smaller portion, about 16%, of psychology programs specified that the introductory course served to e...