Psychology instructors face decisions about adopting new approaches to lectures, readings, and assessment in their courses.
Statement of the Problem
These choices about course structure can be both intimidating and confusing in terms of the costs and benefits for different options.
Literature Review
As framed by anecdotal and empirical evidence from personal experience in teaching introductory psychology, this article reviews research on impactful pedagogy. The goal is to provide useful encouragement and cautionary notes on these different options.
Teaching Implications
Based on 18 classes, taught over a dozen years, the authors provide concrete tips for how to navigate decision points and implement these teaching changes, as supported by student performance and course evaluation data.
Conclusion
Though unable to make causal conclusions from this limited data, it is worthwhile to discuss the tradeoffs of choices surrounding lectures, readings, and assessments in introductory psychology.
AgarwalP. K.KarpickeJ. D.KangS. H. K.RoedigerH. L.McDermottK. B. (2008). Examining the testing effect with open- and closed-book tests. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22(7), 861-876. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1391.
2.
AlexanderM. W.BartlettJ. E.TruellA. D.OuwengaK. (2001). Testing in a computer technology course: An investigation of equivalency in performance between online and paper and pencil methods. Journal of Career and Technical Education, 18(1), 69-80. https://doi.org/10.21061/jcte.v18i1.600.
ArielR.KarpickeJ. D. (2018). Improving self-regulated learning with a retrieval practice intervention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 24(1), 43-56. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000133.
5.
ArndtT.FrickC. (2018). Getting scientists ready for open access: The approaches of Forschungszentrum Jülich. Publications, 6(2), 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications6020024.
6.
BerkR. A. (2009). Multimedia teaching with video clips: TV, movies, YouTube, and mtvU in the college classroom. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 5(1), 1-21. http://www.ronberk.com/articles/2009_video.pdf.
7.
BerryT.CookL.HillN.StevensK. (2010). An exploratory analysis of textbook usage and study habits: Misperceptions and barriers to success. College Teaching, 59(1), 31-39. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2010.509376.
CampbellD. (1957). Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings. Psychological Bulletin, 54(4), 297-312. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040950.
CarrierM.PashlerH. (1992). The influence of retrieval on retention. Memory & Cognition, 20(6), 632-642. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03202713.
12.
ClumpM. A.BauerH.BradleyC. (2004). The extent to which psychology students read textbooks: A multiple class analysis of reading across the psychology curriculum. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31(3), 227-232.
13.
CorneliusT. L.Owen-DeSchryverJ. (2008). Differential effects of full and partial notes on learning outcomes and attendance. Teaching of Psychology, 35(1), 6-12. https://doi.org/10.1080%2F00986280701818466.
14.
DeCaroM. S.RotarK. E.KendraM. S.BeilockS. L. (2010). Diagnosing and alleviating the impact of performance pressure on mathematical problem solving. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(8), 1619-1630. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210903474286.
GrabeM.ChristophersonK. (2005). Evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of providing lecture notes: The role of internet technology as a delivery system and research tool. The Internet and Higher Education, 8(4), 291-298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2005.09.002.
17.
GrabeM.ChristophersonK. (2008). Optional student use of online lecture resources: resource preferences, performance and lecture attendance. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00228.x.
18.
GrimaldiP. J.KarpickeJ. D. (2012). When and why do retrieval attempts enhance subsequent encoding?Memory & Cognition, 40(4), 505-513. http://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-011-0174-0.
19.
GuskeyT. (2007). Multiple sources of evidence: An analysis of stakeholders’ perceptions of various indicators of student learning. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 26(1), 19-27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2007.00085.x.
20.
HiltonJ. (2016). Open educational resources and college textbook choices: A review of research on efficacy and perceptions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64, 573-590. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9434-9.
21.
HornsteinH. A. (2017). Student evaluations of teaching are an inadequate assessment tool for evaluating faculty performance. Cogent Education, 4(1), 1304016. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2017.1304016.
22.
HunsuN. J.AdesopeO.BaylyD. J. (2016). A meta-analysis of the effects of audience response systems (clicker-based technologies) on cognition and affect. Computers & Education, 94, 102-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.013.
23.
KarpickeJ. D.RoedigerH. L.,III (2008). The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science, 319(5865), 966-968. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1152408.
24.
KatayamaA. D.RobinsonD. H. (2000). Getting students “partially” involved in note-taking using graphic organizers. The Journal of Experimental Education, 68(2), 119-133. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220970009598498.
KoretzD. M. (2017). The testing charade: Pretending to make schools better. University of Chicago.
27.
KuhG. D.KinzieJ.BuckleyJ. A.BridgesB. K.HayekJ. C. (2006). What matters to student success: A review of the literature. Jossey-Bass.
28.
LashleyJ.Cummings-SaulsR.BennettA. B.LindshieldB. L. (2017). Cultivating textbook alternatives from the ground up: One public university’s sustainable model for open and alternative educational resource proliferation. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(4). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i4.3010.
29.
MachidaK.ChinM.JohnsonK. A. (2018). The provision of partial notes is not associated with improved student attention in lectures or subsequent understanding of the lecture material. Active Learning in Higher Education, 19(2), 101-115. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417723241.
30.
MayerR. E.StullA.DeLeeuwK. (2009). Clickers in college classrooms: Fostering learning with questioning methods in large lecture classes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(1), 51-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.04.002.
31.
MengelF.SauermannJ.ZölitzU. (2019). Gender bias in teaching evaluations. Journal of the European Economic Association, 17(2), 535-566. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeea/jvx057.
32.
MorganC. H.LilleyJ. D.BorehamN. C. (1988). Learning from lectures: The effect of varying the detail in lecture handouts on note‐taking and recall. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2(2), 115-122. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2350020203.
33.
MorlingB.McAuliffeM.CohenL.DiLorenzoT. M. (2008). Efficacy of personal response systems (“clickers”) in large, introductory psychology classes. Teaching of Psychology, 35(1), 45-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00986280701818516.
34.
Naveh-BenjaminM.McKeachieW. J.LinY.-G. (1987). Two types of test-anxious students: Support for an information processing model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(2), 131-136. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.79.2.131.
PetiškaE.BedřichM. (2019). Indicator of quality for environmental articles on Wikipedia at the higher education level. Journal of Information Science, 47(2), 269-280. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551519888607.
38.
PulfreyC.BuchsC.ButeraF. (2011). Why grades engender performance-avoidance goals: The mediating role of autonomous motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(3), 683-700. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023911.
39.
PycM. A.RawsonK. A. (2009). Testing the retrieval effort hypothesis: Does greater difficulty correctly recalling information lead to higher levels of memory?Journal of Memory and Language, 60(4), 437-447. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.01.004.
40.
RoedigerH.KarpickeJ. (2006). The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(3), 181-210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00012.x.
41.
SatoT.EllisonD. W.TsudaE. (2019). Study habits and learning experiences of undergraduate students in a physical education major online kinesiology course. Physical Educator, 76(2), 440-466. https://doi.org/10.18666/TPE-2019-V76-I2-8837.
42.
SchwabK.MoseleyB.DustinD. (2018). Grading grades as a measure of student learning. SCHOLE: A Journal of Leisure Studies and Recreation Education, 33(2), 87-95. https://doi.org/10.1080/1937156X.2018.1513276.
43.
TreesA. R.JacksonM. H. (2007). The learning environment in clicker classrooms: Student processes of learning and involvement in large university‐level courses using student response systems. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(1), 21-40. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439880601141179.
44.
WeatherlyJ. N.GrabeM.ArthurE. I. L. (2003). Providing introductory psychology students access to lecture slides via Blackboard 5: A negative impact on performance. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 31(4), 463-474. https://doi.org/10.2190/KRW7-QHFY-AY3M-FFJC.
45.
WhiteheadC.RayL. (2010, April 6-9). Using the iClicker classroom response system to enhance student involvement and learning. In International Conference on Education, Training and Informatics, Orlando, FL, United States.
46.
WorthingtonD. L.LevasseurD. G. (2015). To provide or not to provide course PowerPoint slides? The impact of instructor-provided slides upon student attendance and performance. Computers & Education, 85, 14-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.02.002.
