Psychology Learning & Teaching
ISSN 1475-7257

CONTENTS [click on author's name for abstract and full text]

Editorial

http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/plat.2011.10.3.226

This issue of Psychology Learning and Teaching contains a varied mix of papers, in addition to the usual abstracts from other journals and book reviews.

Three of the papers concern the evaluation of the effectiveness of novel teaching methods. Ward and Dodd used student-led online discussions in a counselling programme. The aim was to get students discussing topics relating to the course in an active way, though their contributions could be made at any time – the discussions did not take place in real time. While the students performed reasonably well on the assessment associated with this course, they expressed negative attitudes to this mode of learning, preferring for the most part face-to-face contact. Given the popularity of online learning, it is important to realise that it has its positive as well as negative aspects: the art is to ascertain which are which, and the present study helps to clarify this.

Also in the area of counselling, Sullivan used a simple yet potentially extremely useful method of enabling his students to obtain first-hand experience of using a psychometric test. The students conducted a personality test on themselves and then scored, interpreted and criticised the results. The students reported that this was an effective way of developing their psychometric skills. While it avoids the ethical problems associated with practising on real patients, it also brings ethical issues of its own which the authors point out and discuss.

Goldstein used a novel method of active learning in her media psychology course. She asked students to develop multimedia material in this area to be used by an instructor, and also to develop a classroom activity. Students then gave a presentation on their chosen topic. The students reported that this had helped their learning, not just of media psychology, but also of other skills such as giving presentations and providing helpful feedback, and that they would support further use of this method. An additional advantage might be that the materials developed would be of use to the instructor in future classes!

Newman and McKenzie report on one of the thorniest problems for psychology teachers: how to combine teaching and research. They surveyed clinical psychology teachers in the UK and found that many of them were dissatisfied with their ability to carry out research and that many of them had low levels of publication. While this is a universal problem in psychology, it may be particularly acute among professional psychologists, most of whom have to balance professional updating and practice in their speciality with their teaching and other duties. Not surprisingly, the respondents indicated that lack of time was the main obstacle to their doing research. In light of these findings it is of concern that many of the rewards attached to staff in higher education, in the UK and elsewhere, result from research productivity.

Howell-Carter, Nieman-Gonder, Goodstone, and Robertson address an issue which has intrigued me for some time: whether it is possible to pick up from students the extent to which they are interested in and learning from a class. My own interest stems from an informal instance many years ago when I asked students to assess one of my lectures and completed the same assessment myself. My own assessment of my performance was not very accurate, though fortunately the students rated my lecture more highly than I did!

Howell-Carter et al. followed up a field study they had conducted earlier with a lab-based study. The aim was to determine how well teachers were able to assess students’ interest and learning. There was a reasonable correlation with interest, since students’ own ratings of their interest corresponded reasonably well with their lecturers’ ratings, though some lecturers were rather better at assessing interest than others. However, there was little relationship with perceptions of learning – exactly as had been found in the field study. Perhaps one of the most thought-provoking aspects of this study is that students’ ratings of their learning did not correlate with their actual learning as determined by a multiple-choice test.

McNamara, Williamson, and Jorgensen’s paper addresses the extent of learning in an introductory psychology course. They were interested in whether some subject areas are learned better than others. They found that memory, physiological psychology and sensation and perception all showed improvement but other areas – cognition and development – showed little or no improvement. One reason for this might be that students come into introductory courses in psychology with background knowledge in some of these areas, meaning that their initial scores are higher. While this seemed to be a possible explanation for the lack of improvement in development it cannot explain the lack of effect for cognition.

Steve Newstead
Emeritus Professor of Psychology, University of Plymouth, United Kingdom

Research Activity in British Clinical Psychology Training Staff: do we lead by example?

EMILY F. NEWMAN & KAREN McKENZIE University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom

http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/plat.2011.10.3.228

Sixty-two members of staff from clinical psychology doctoral training programmes across Britain completed a survey about their level of research output, the extent to which they felt this met their own expectations and job requirements, and how it influenced promotion prospects. In addition, they listed perceived barriers to and facilitators of research activity. There was wide variation in research activity, such that many participants had limited or no publications while a smaller proportion had many. Respondents were as, or more, dissatisfied than satisfied with their publications, submissions and grant applications and over half felt that the number of grant applications failed to meet their expectations. Support from and collaboration with colleagues was the main facilitator for research, while a lack of time was viewed as the main barrier.

The Accuracy of Instructor Perceptions of Student Interest and Learning: an exploratory study

MARYA HOWELL-CARTER, JENNIFER NIEMAN-GONDER, MICHAEL S. GOODSTONE, & ROMMEL ROBERTSON Farmingdale State College, USA

http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/plat.2011.10.3.239

Instructors adjust pace, methods, and other aspects of instruction based on their perceptions of student interest and learning. The current study is an exploratory investigation of the congruence between faculty and student perceptions within a single class session. The study examined the degree to which faculty could predict each student’s self-reported interest, perceived learning and actual learning. Overall, instructors are more accurate in reading their students’ level of interest than their perceived or actual learning. There is, however, great inconsistency between faculty in their ability to accurately predict interest and learning. Personal characteristics of the instructor may significantly impact predictive accuracy. Results suggest that faculty should assess the accuracy of their own student perceptions in the classroom.

Evaluation of a Final-Year Module Using Online Asynchronous Discussion

TONY WARD University of the West of England, United Kingdom
LORNA DODD Newman University College, United Kingdom

http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/plat.2011.10.3.246

This report evaluates the use of online asynchronous discussions as a main delivery strategy in a third (final) year undergraduate counselling psychology module. These discussions were student-facilitated and the discussion assessment criteria emphasised analysis, critique, application and originality. Students were assessed through the production of a written critique of one of the discussions, again using similar criteria. Students’ judgments of their progress and attitudes to the online components were assessed, and both of these measures were significantly positively related to module outcomes. Students were asked for their comments about the module, and the results were analysed using thematic analysis. Overall the results suggest that whilst such a novel delivery strategy has much to commend it, many students perceive it negatively. This seems to be due to the novelty of the strategy, and a belief that traditional lectures and assignments are preferable.

Assessment of Differential Learning by Topic in Introductory Psychology

CORINNE L. McNAMARA, ADRIENNE L. WILLIAMSON & TERRENCE D. JORGENSEN Kennesaw State University, USA

http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/plat.2011.10.3.253

Introductory psychology students typically perform better on posttests compared to pretests; however, not all topics are learned equally well. To measure how much information students learned overall and to determine whether the level of knowledge gained differed by topic, 932 undergraduates enrolled in introductory psychology completed a multiple-choice pretest-posttest assessment. The tests included questions about 11 topics typically taught in introductory psychology. Student-, instructor-, and assessment-related variables that could affect learning were also examined. As expected, posttest scores were significantly higher than pretest scores. Importantly, there were significant differences among topics in terms of posttest scores as well as in the level of improvement. Students were most likely to answer posttest questions correctly about introduction and research methods, memory, and development, and least likely to answer questions correctly about physiological psychology. Scores improved on 9 of the 11 topics, with the greatest improvement for memory, physiological psychology, and sensation and perception. No improvement occurred for cognition and development. Regarding variables that could potentially affect learning, a significant effect for type of final exam, type of credit granted, and instructor was found. This is the first time that a pretest-posttest design has been used to demonstrate differential learning of topics in introductory psychology. Results may inform instructors’ course planning regarding time allotted and techniques used to facilitate student learning.

Creating Instructor Resources as a Student Project

SUSAN B. GOLDSTEIN University of Redlands, USA

http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/plat.2011.10.3.261

A media psychology course for third- and fourth-year (upper division) undergraduates was designed around a semester-long active learning project aimed at developing instructor resources. Fifteen students worked both independently and collaboratively to create lecture and discussion modules on 30 topics in media psychology, each supplemented by a set of multimedia resources and a classroom activity with handouts. Students presented their materials to the class and participated in in-depth peer reviews. Through the process of developing instructor resources, students were expected to become familiar with the literature of a specific subdiscipline, and to learn how to (1) evaluate the relative importance of research topics within an academic literature, (2) assess the validity of information sources, (3) simplify complex concepts and research findings for a student audience, (4) make effective presentations, (5) give constructive feedback to peers, (6) identify and avoid subtle forms of plagiarism, and (7) apply advanced aspects of American Psychological Association (APA) format. Students evaluated the project quite favourably and were unanimous in their preference for developing instructor resources over writing a standard term paper.

Using the NEO-PI-R to Teach Assessment Concepts in a Graduate-Level Psychological Assessment Course

JEREMY R. SULLIVAN University of Texas at San Antonio, USA

http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/plat.2011.10.3.267

The purpose of this brief report is to describe the use of a hands-on project designed to enhance graduate students’ understanding of assessment-related concepts. The project involves students taking the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R), scoring their responses, and interpreting their scores. Students also are asked to describe the psychometric properties of the NEO-PI-R in addition to other characteristics, and to consider how the test scores might be used in treatment planning. This paper will describe the instructional objectives and components of the project, and will present data from student evaluations to support its continued use.

© SYMPOSIUM JOURNALS Ltd
PO Box 204, Didcot, Oxford OX11 9ZQ, United Kingdom
info@symposium-journals.co.uk
www.symposium-journals.co.uk