These are exciting times to be a teacher because so much is
happening. If these haven't affected you or your campus, yet, expect them
soon.
Outcomes Assessment. How do you know that students have
learned what you want them to learn? Many of us are becoming involved in the
creation of MGO statements (mission, goals, and objectives statements) for our
campuses, divisions, departments, and courses. We have high aspirations for
Psychology majors. They should learn about the major issues, theories, methods,
and principles of the discipline. They should be able to analyze real-world
problems and create well-reasoned solutions based on psychological principles.
They should develop insight about their own and others' behavior, and they
should be able to function as group members and leaders. They should value
diverse perspectives, and they should understand and be able to apply ethical
principles in their professional and personal lives. They should understand how
science works, and they should be able to critically evaluate information and
the rationale for our own and others' conclusions. They should be able to
locate, analyze, and communicate psychological information. Work on outcomes
assessment can be at the macro level of the campus or department, or at the
micro level of courses and individual course components. If you haven't already
done so, give classroom assessment a try (Angelo & Cross, 1993, Classroom
Assessment Techniques, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass) to enrich your
classes.
Learner-Focused Instruction. Psychologists, in
cooperation with APA's Board of Educational Affairs, have developed 14
learner-centered principles for teachers. If you want more information, contact
the Center for Psychology in Schools and Education, Education Directorate,
American Psychological Association, 750 First Street, NE, Washington, DC
20002-4242, (202) 336-6126, E-mail: education@apa.org. Apply psychological
principles to improve student learning. Focus on what students learn (the output
of education) rather than on library holdings and what faculty do (the input of
education).
Asynchronous and/or Distant Learners. Classes without
geographic or scheduling boundaries and hybrid courses that add
technology-mediated learning to face-to-face sessions are on the rise, and
faculty are testing the limits of how students can learn. These new ways to
assist students generally incorporate outcomes assessment and learner-focused
instruction.
Information Competence. Students live and work in a
world increasingly reliant on the use of technology to access, analyze, and
communicate information. Faculty are incorporating information competence into
student learning goals.
Focus on Knowledge vs. Information. No one
can keep up with psychology's growing knowledge base, and faculty are
increasingly aware that they are preparing students for careers and challenges
that we can't imagine today. Students certainly must learn about psychology in
our courses, but the emphasis should not be on memorizing information, but on
acquiring knowledge and the ability and motivation to participate in independent
lifelong learning. This means increased emphasis on nurturing critical-thinking
and problem-solving skills and re-thinking the teacher as a choreographer or
facilitator of student learning, the guide on the side rather than the sage on
the stage whose main function is to deliver information.
Collaborative
Education. Virtually every career and the nature of civilization require
that people work together collaboratively and effectively. The old
each-man-for-himself competitive structure of education is being replaced by
cooperative and collaborative models which foster students' abilities to be
effective within our diverse society.
Community Service Learning.
Faculty are increasingly aware of the need to incorporate the community as a
student laboratory and to include real-world experiences into their courses.
Students integrate community experiences with what they're learning in their
classes, develop professional images of themselves, and are exposed to
real-world opportunities and challenges.
The mission of the Council of Teachers of Undergraduate Psychology (CTUP) is presenting sessions for teachers of psychology at the various regional psychology conventions, recognizing that many faculty do not have the resources to attend a national convention. We strive to improve the quality of psychological pedagogy and foster collaboration to counter faculty isolation. To accomplish this, CTUP has regional coordinators who create programming which includes teaching activities exchanges, symposia, invited addresses, and paper sessions on a variety of teaching-related topics across the psychology curriculum. As the coordinators change after a few years of service, there is always an influx of new faculty with new ideas to spark new programs. To ensure time and space during the convention for the teaching-focused sessions, the coordinators have worked with executive committees of their respective regional associations (e.g., EPA, MPA, NEPA, RMPA, SWPA, SEPA, and WPA). Offering this programming works to the associations' benefit as the teaching sessions help attract faculty to the regional conventions who otherwise would not attend.
The 1991 St. Mary's Conference Steering Committee charged CTUP with working more closely with high school teachers. Consequently, CTUP appointed a high school teacher to be liaison to the Executive Board, included high school representation on its Long-Range Planning Committee, endorsed the formation of state workshops for high school psychology teachers, and actively recruited high school psychology teachers.
CTUP publishes each spring and fall the newsletter Significant Difference . The newsletter contains topical articles, membership news, teaching session highlights, and information about other teaching-related conventions and meetings. Joining requires completing a membership application and paying a lifetime membership fee of $10. More information about membership can be obtained by contacting Dr. Mary Allen, CTUP President at 805-664-2366 or mallen@csubak.edu.
CTUP members with graphic or artistic skills are invited to submit original images to replace the current background on our home page. Images should be JPEG or GIF in the range of 3x4 inches and should be small, under 100 KB. Images can be submitted to the CTUP Web Coordinator, Cheryl Rickabaugh, as attachments via e-mail (rickabau@uor.edu) or on disks via snail mail to the Department of Psychology, University of Redlands, Redlands, CA 92373-0999. Feel free to contact Cheryl via e-mail if you have any questions.
In the case of multiple submissions, Mary Allen, Eric Landrum, and Ken Weaver and Cheryl will judge entries, and the creator of the image that is selected will receive full credit for his or her contribution on the CTUP home page.
In the past I've tried to highlight events that I've attended at various conferences. While that has made sense (for those who are interested in such things) at regional conventions, workshops, and the like, it probably is not a very useful way of giving people on Psychnews a flavor for the APA Annual Convention. Since the APA Convention program is over 500 pages long and the APA itself consists of over 50 divisions (and more particularly since I seem to have spent more time at this Convention schmoozing with reps to get freebies for my classroom), I'll only highlight a couple of the events I've attended and hope that other attendees will chirp in with their reflections.
By way of orientation, realize first that this event attracts approximately 20,000 people each year, over half of whom are practitioners. Most people attend events in their areas of specialty and have little knowledge or interest about what is going on elsewhere. Still, there are so many sessions (I'll estimate 300 per day for the five days--breaking down to say 30-40 per hour and held at four or five locations throughout the City) that it is possible to not run into high school attendees (say 20-30 of us) at all during a given day.
My highlights:
One of the many benefits of attending conventions is the opportunity to learn about and help create new opportunities for high school teachers to become involved in the larger psychological community. Here are some things which are either in the works or could be for someone who sets her mind to making it happen:
Division 2's P3 (Partnership Project). Thanks to Ginnie Mathie, Randy Ernst, and Charlie Blair-Broeker, there will be a meeting next summer ('99) of 50 pairs of high school and college teachers (approximately 1 team per state) at James Madison University in Virginia to explore partnership links between high school and college folks with the idea of extending the network and exploring ways to mutually benefit the parties. Interested people should contact Ginnie Mathie through Division 2 in order to get further information and applications for the Conference.
CTUP (The Council of Teachers of Undergraduate Psychology) typically gets 5-6 hours of programming time at regional Conventions (i.e., Midwestern Psychological Association, New England Psychological Association, etc.). CTUP is committed to attracting high school teachers to these conventions (you don't have to be a regional member to attend). CTUP understands that in addition to providing appropriate programs for high school teachers at reasonable costs that these programs should include high school presenters. Funds are available to attend these and other types of Conferences through APA. Contact Peter Petrossian for details (ppetrossian@apa.org). This Fall I will post the various locations and contacts for the regional programs and much of that information will be available through the APA Monitor. For a CTUP application write or e-mail me (with your address) and I'll send you one. If you have recently joined CTUP you should have received a postcard with the Web address for the newsletter. If you have not, contact CTUP President, Mary Allen (MALLEN@CSUBAK.EDU).
This year thanks to Bill Addison, high school presenters (Marty Anderson and I) were included for the first time on the Sunday morning teaching activities program. Division 2 is planning on extending that practice as it looks as if they were lining up Alan Feldman for next year's program in Boston.
Patricia Keith-Spiegel and Lisa Gray-Shellberg are two of the leading researchers on the subject of academic dishonesty. They have developed a program to teach college students the value of integrity which will soon be available on CD-ROM. They expressed an interest to me in field testing and developing a version of the program with high school students. If you would like to find out more and possibly get your classes involved in this project contact Lisa atmailto:%20LGRAYSHELL@CSUDH.EDU. Steve Davis at Emporia State University in Kansas is also doing research in this area and would probably be willing to work with high school teachers who contact him (sorry I don't have his email address handy).
Other events:
Congratulations to Margaret Davidson who won Division 2's high school outstanding teacher of the year award. (In addition to missing Goleman's keynote I also missed Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (flow) because a fire alarm cleared out the lecture hall and I didn't make it back to a later session... ditto Howard Gardner).
Saw Sternberg a couple of times (once doing a humor session with Albert Ellis in which several thousand, or so it seemed, did a singalong). Hard to quantify what you get from Sternberg exactly but he's always amusing...
Also saw Jane Halonen a couple of times. Second time she was part of a panel talking about strategies for teaching abnormal psychology. Main thrusts I got from the panel were avoid over-reliance on DSM IV, use case histories to generate increasingly complex questions for students, and consider picking a novel... William Styron's Darkness Visible to use for terms and challenges to DSM diagnostic model. Some practical suggestions applicable to intro... incorporate scientific research and methodology into the course and understand that our (teachers') assumptions are different than student assumptions (i.e., we look at small parts of things and they are big picture, black/white).
Ludy Benjamin spoke about B.F. Skinner's air crib for his daughter Nancy. Did you know?
Session on burnout... What most everyone did was keep referring to the work of Christina Maslach from the University of California-Berkeley. If you want info in that regard her most recent article is Maslach, C., & Goldberg, J. (1998). Prevention of burnout: New perspectives. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 7, 63-74. (By the way, she will be our keynote speaker at the 3rd Northern California High School Psychology Teacher's workshop this coming Spring at Holy Names College in Oakland, Ca., if we can work out some time details.
Finished today with a stirring sendoff by Charles Brewer. It's impossible to take notes when he speaks but somehow you always feel like getting right back into the classroom.
Booksellers closed up today so I got the last of my freebies. Couple of events tomorrow.
By today all but the diehards had flown away. Went to a couple of Division 2 sessions that were indirectly relevant (at least adaptable).
Overcoming students' beliefs in the paranormal. Neat idea here. Bill Wozniak contacted a palm reader in his city (Kearney, Nebraska) who agreed to be put to the test. She was given xeroxed copies of students' palms to read (in sealed envelopes) and the students' subsequently received her reports which were mixed up. Students were then supposed to say how well particular reports matched them and to guess whether the report had been prepared for them. Results: no better than random chance. Anthony Pratkanis suggested Amazing Randi book Flim Flam man. He applies principles from Aronson's Social Animal to explain to students why they believe the bunk and how the paranormal operates.
Faculty are skeptical about several things: student preparation for college, teaching loads, salary levels, etc. Skepticism is good--I encourage my students to think critically by using "healthy skepticism," but not to be cynical. I think that it is also fair to say that most faculty are skeptical about student evaluations of teaching effectiveness.
What good are teaching evaluations anyway? This article is based on the premise that teaching evaluations of faculty by students can be useful. Moreover, two important assumptions are that teaching effectiveness can be captured in a paper-and-pencil questionnaire AND this degree of effectiveness can be meaningfully expressed as a number (here's where many skeptics come in). I know some of you will stop reading right now--you doubt the value of a human can (or should) be translated into a raw, cold, unfeeling number. If you believe that, then there is no point in reading further; yet, I'll bet that you're really dissatisfied about getting paid for what you do (this is, the value of a human translated into a raw, cold, unfeeling number--dollars).
Let's assume that the evaluation of teaching effectiveness can be done properly. Why do it? Two reasons typically emerge: for teaching improvement and as an aid in personnel decisions. Although similar, these two reasons are not completely complementary. The evaluation for teaching improvement is much less judgmental and much more suggestive and diagnostic in terms of ideas for improvement. Assessment of teaching effectiveness for personnel decisions obviously has a different purpose: to aid in decisions involving retention, promotion, tenure and salary. The same evaluation instrument may not be appropriate for both purposes. For example, while classroom visitation can be a useful technique in terms of teaching improvement ideas, other research (Braskamp, Brandenburg & Ory, 1984) suggests against classroom visitation for personnel reasons because the presence of the evaluator changes the evaluation. Therefore, the purpose of the evaluation may dictate not only its form but also its effectiveness.
Many faculty are skeptical about the use of teaching evaluations because they believe there are just too many problems with the process to yield any meaningful results. Let's examine three of the common beliefs faculty hold concerning student evaluations: 1) student evaluation forms are unreliable and invalid; 2) student evaluations are just popularity contests, and 3) extraneous factors (such as class size, required or elective class, etc.) unduly influence evaluation outcomes.
The first belief is that student evaluations are unreliable and invalid. In psychometric terms, a measure is reliable if it yields consistent results, and valid when the evaluation measures what it purports to measure. Here it is important to emphasize the difference between a validated teaching evaluation instrument that has been field tested using classroom research methods, and one that has not been validated (such as the faculty member writing their own evaluation items). Reliability tends not to be a problem in student evaluation forms, with global items (e.g., overall, rate the instructor) yielding high reliability (Braskamp, et al.1984). Considering validity, still, the outcomes are much more meaningful when using an established evaluation (rather than making up your own). Validity studies seek to confirm the nature of the results of an evaluation instrument by statistically comparing the outcome with other types of teaching assessment: peer ratings, expert judges, opinions of graduating seniors, and student learning measures (Aleamoni, 1981; Braskamp,et al. 1984). Yet, the faculty member who creates their evaluation questions cannot be sure, without further research, that the questions are measuring what they purport to measure. Some examples of validated teaching evaluation instruments can be found in both Aleamoni (1981) and Braskamp et al. (1984).
The second belief is that student evaluations are just popularity contests, with the humorous instructor winning every time. In research studies done with student evaluations, four general factors emerge: skill, rapport, structure, and difficulty. What is interesting is that these studies have shown (see Aleamoni, 1981) that students can discriminate between these factors when evaluating faculty. That is, an instructor can rate very high on rapport (winning the popularity contest, so to speak) but low on the other factors. Being the "popular" teacher with good rapport with students does not guarantee high marks on the other aspects of teaching effectiveness (such as skill, structure, and difficulty).
The third belief is that extraneous factors, despite the instructor, influence the evaluation outcome. Although to a small and insignificant extent this is true, these effects are negligible compared to the person teaching the course. For example, instructor and course ratings are higher when: ratings are signed rather than anonymous, if the instructor stays in the room during the evaluation, if students are told that the purpose of the evaluation is for a personnel decision, and if the evaluation is given in a class before the final exam rather than with the final exam (Aleamoni, 1981; Braskamp, et al. 1984). Ratings are also affected by other factors, including higher ratings for elective courses, students expecting a higher grade rate the instructor higher than those expecting a lower grade, and majors tend to rate higher than nonmajors (Aleamoni, 1981; Braskamp, et al. (1984). So what good is the evaluation with so many disclaimers? It is precisely because of this knowledge that makes the evaluation outcome more meaningful. The instructor who teaches the introductory level service course (perhaps an all-University requirement) who gives the evaluation with the final exam is hit with the triple whammy--three different factors leading to lowered evaluation outcomes. If the evaluation is used for personnel decisions, these extraneous factors can (in fact, should) be considered as alternative explanations for low ratings. Evaluation outcomes are sensitive to specific conditions of administration, but the knowledge from classroom research should be used to counteract any ill interpretations of the data.
So what good are teaching evaluations anyway? Under the proper circumstances, I believe evaluations can be extremely useful. With personnel decisions, validated instruments must be used to allow for any consistent and meaningful conclusions. For teaching improvement, faculty often develop their own evaluation items but they should be aware that they may not be measuring what they think they are measuring. Also, research (Braskamp, et al. 1984) suggests that student evaluation results help to improve instruction most when a personal consultation is provided to the faculty member. This personal consultation with a trusted colleague can provide some concrete ideas for improving teaching effectiveness. Who provides this consultation? A colleague from your College of Education, psychology department, or perhaps someone from a Teaching Excellence Center can provide the consultation.
I believe that teaching evaluations can provide useful and valuable information for both personnel decisions and teaching improvement. The proper selection and use of a validated evaluation instrument is essential to the applicability of the results.
Aleamoni, L. M. (1981) Student ratings of instruction. In J. Millman (Ed.), Handbook of teacher evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Braskamp, C. A., Brandenburg, D. C., & Ory, J. C. (1984). Evaluating teaching effectiveness. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Copyright (1998) R. Eric Landrum.
The traditional CTUP program at EPA includes a panel discussion on a topic of interest to its members, an activities exchange, a conversation with a prominent teacher, a social affair, and a business meeting. If you have a suggestion or comment or would like to contribute to the program, please write or call the CTUP EPA coordinator listed below. We encourage all members to take part and would especially like to learn of program preferences.
Conference Contact: Gary M. BrosvicConference Contact: Estelle R. Friedman
CTUP/Creative Classroom is soliciting submissions for poster presentations at our 1999 meeting at the Midwestern Psychological Association Conference. The Creative Classroom Program features presentations of innovative techniques used by instructors of psychology. As was the case last year, the Creative Classroom Program will consist entirely of poster presentations. We are negotiating to host this poster session on Friday afternoon. Submissions are due October 31, 1998.
Requirements for submission of posters are as follows:
Authors DO NOT have to be members of CTUP. Please include two self-addressed, stamped postcards in your submission packet and send your submission proposal, postmarked by October 31, 1998 to:
E-mail submissions are especially encouraged. Please send them to: ddahlgre@ius.edu.
Authors do NOT have to be members of CTUP. Please include two self-addressed, stamped postcards in your submission packet.
Conference Contact: Steve A. NidaRMPA and CTUP will again organize the CTUP Teaching Activities Exchange. The purpose of this poster session is to provide a forum for the presentation and discussion of innovative ideas that are of interest to those concerned with quality teaching.
Please note the following when submitting a proposal to the CTUP Teaching Exchange:
The CTUP program will feature both program ideas and teaching demonstrations. Members are encouraged to submit program suggestions or demonstrations or other creative ideas to the regional coordinator.
Conference Contact: Frances Y. DunhamPoster session submissions are made to the WPA office in response to the regular call for proposals.
Conference Contact: Donald E. Pannen
Council of Teachers of Undergraduate Psychology1998-1999 Executive Board | ||
| President | President-Elect | Past President |
| Mary Allen Department of Psychology 9001 Stockdale Highway Cal. St. Univ.-Bakersfield (805) 664-2366 Fax: (805) 664-2132 Mallen@csubak.edu |
Eric Landrum Department of Psychology Boise State University 1910 University Drive Boise, ID 83725 (208) 385-1993 Fax: 208) 385-4386 Elandru@bsu.idbsu.edu |
Ken Weaver Department of Psychology Emporia State University Emporia, KS 66801-5087 (316) 341-5317 Fax: (316) 341-5785 Weaverke@esumail.emporia.edu |
Regional Coordinators | ||
| Eastern and New England Bob Keefer Mt. Saint Mary's College Emmitsburg, MD 21727 (301) 447-5394 keefer@msmary.edu |
Midwestern Randall E. Osborne Indiana University East 2325 Chester Blvd. Richmond, IN 47374 (765) 973-8445 reosborn@indiana.edu | Southwestern Marilyn Pugh Texas Wesleyan University 1201 Wesleyan Street Ft. Worth, TX 76105-1536 (817) 531-4955 |
| Rocky Mountain Rick Miller University of Nebraska-Kearney Kearney, NE 68849 (308) 865-8235 miller@platte.unk.edu |
Southeastern Jay Brophy University of Central Florida Orlando, FL 32816 Brophy@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu |
Western Bob Johnson Umpqua Community College Roseberg, OR 97470 (541) 440-4678 bjohnson@rosenet.net Judy Farrell Moorpark College 7075 Campus Road Moorpark, CA 93021 (805) 378-1400, ext. 1654 | |||
| CTUP Web Coordinator Cheryl A. Rickabaugh Department of Psychology University of Redlands Redlands, CA 92373-0999 (909) 793-2121, ext. 3866 rickabau@uor.edu |
CTUP High School Liaison Patrick Mattimore South San Francisco High School 400 B. Street South San Francisco, CA 94080 (415) 877-8754 psychout@msn.com |