Empirically Founded Teaching in Psychology – An Example for the Combination of Evidence-based Teaching and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning

Abstract

To improve teaching in higher education, teachers in psychology are encouraged to use evidence-based teaching, that is, to apply empirical findings regarding learning and teaching, when designing learning opportunities. This report illustrates the combination of evidence-based teaching and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in teaching psychology and describes the implementation of an innovative module for first-year students in the undergraduate psychology program at Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany, as an example. A detailed description of the teaching formats is provided with a focus on evidence-based teaching techniques, which were implemented in the first semester of the module, specifically feedback, testing effects, and spaced learning. Furthermore, evaluation data concerning the students’ perceptions and objective assessments are presented as an example of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. For example, students significantly acquired knowledge during web-based training, but the learning outcomes are independent of their pretest knowledge, suggesting that this teaching format may contribute to the reduction of heterogeneity among first-year students. Possible implications for future modifications of the module are discussed and general recommendations are offered to teachers of psychology regarding the implementation of a combination of evidence-based teaching and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning to promote empirically founded teaching.

Keywords

Best practice example evidence-based teaching Scholarship of Teaching and Learning teaching of psychology

In the context of current challenges in higher education, such as the growing heterogeneity among students, good teaching should support all students in achieving intended learning outcomes (Biggs & Tang, 2011). Students’ learning approaches were found to be related to teachers’ teaching approaches (Trigwell, Prosser, & Waterhouse, 1999), which leaves teachers (partly) in charge of their students’ learning outcomes. Since most academics are well trained in their area of expertise but not always in teaching, lecturers often have to rely on their intuitive knowledge of teaching, personal experience, and traditions (Buskist & Groccia, 2011; Halpern & Hakel, 2003).

Advanced training and professional development for teachers in higher education aim at professionalizing this knowledge and have been shown to promote teaching skills and student-centered teaching among university teachers (e.g., Gibbs & Coffey, 2004; Postareff, Lindblom-Ylänne, & Nevgi, 2007). This training provides teachers with findings from the fields of cognitive and educational psychology and supports them in planning and implementing their own lectures and courses based on those findings, that is, in performing evidence-based teaching (EBT). This refers to the implementation of teaching techniques that are known to promote student learning in controlled settings (e.g., Saville, 2010). Particularly in psychology, teachers often have theoretical knowledge of the principles of learning and teaching, which facilitates the implementation of EBT (Dunn, Saville, Baker, & Marek, 2013).

Boyer (1990) defined the Scholarship of Teaching as one of four important areas of responsibility in academic work. One of its most important aspects is the implementation of classroom research (Cross, 1996). Therefore, teaching methods and techniques are to be selected carefully depending on intended learning outcomes and their impact on student learning, and “teaching becomes a subject of scholarly inquiry” (Daniel & Chew, 2013, p. 363). Consequently, in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL), teachers investigate their own courses to provide information on scholarly teaching in higher education (cf., Spinath, Seifried, & Eckert, 2014). In empirically founded teaching, the ideas of EBT and the SoTL can be regarded as complementary. This report describes an example for the combination of both ideas. A module in educational psychology was developed based on the principles of EBT. Evaluation data are reported to optimize the module in accordance with the SoTL, and possible implications for the module and teaching in psychology in general are discussed.

Designing a Module for First-year Psychology Students

The module, which was implemented for first-year students in the undergraduate psychology program at the Goethe University Frankfurt (Germany), was developed based on the principles of social constructivism (Palincsar, 1998) and problem-based learning (Dochy, Segers, van den Bossche, & Gijbels, 2003). According to social constructivism, knowledge is (co-)constructed in an interaction between social and individual processes. This idea is supported by the student-centered approach of problem-based learning, which provides situations and learning opportunities whereby transferable knowledge can be constructed and applied during the interaction and cooperation with fellow students. Following these ideas, the module in educational psychology includes various teaching formats and extends over three semesters. The module particularly aims at bringing the increasingly heterogeneous qualification levels of first-year psychology students in line with basic requirements in academic studies to create the best possible conditions for all students from the outset. This goal involves not only basic knowledge and understanding of learning and teaching but also practical and social skills, such as presentation techniques and cooperation and communication skills. Furthermore, the module strives for academic and social integration of all students. Therefore, during the three semesters, the focus of the module shifts from learning to peer teaching and finally to mentoring.

Table 1 presents an overview of the intended learning outcomes for students, the semester when these outcomes are expected, and the corresponding teaching formats. With regard to the scope of this report, the teaching formats are described with a focus on the EBT techniques and evaluation tools applied in the first semester of the module.

Table 1.

Overview of the goals of the module, semesters, teaching formats, and corresponding learning activities.

Goal	Semester(s)	Teaching format	Learning activity
Learn basics of educational psychology	1	Lecture	Listen to explanations of theoretical models and empirical studies of educational psychology
	1	Web-based training	Complete a tutorial on presentation scheduling based on principles of educational psychology
	1	Practical workshops	Give peer presentations (e.g., on memory functioning)
Learn basics of academic practice	1	Lecture	Listen to explanations of style guides of the American Psychological Association
	1	Mentoring workshops (offered by third-semester students)	Attend a workshop on academic writing or literature management
	1	Practical workshops	Receive feedback from trainers on presentations (e.g., concerning academic guidelines)
Apply knowledge to one’s personal situation as a university student	1	Practical workshop	Prepare, give, and document presentations professionally
	2	Small group project work	Work in small groups (e.g., for preparing a group project or presentation)
	1–6^a	Writing assignments (other modules)	Apply guidelines of academic writing correctly
	1–6^a	Student life (in general)	Make use of advice (e.g., given by more experienced peers in mentoring workshops) on organizing courses and student life
Give constructive and differentiated feedback on peers’ skills	1	Practical workshops	Receive feedback from trainers on presentations
	2	Supervised sessions on mentoring project (planning)	Receive feedback from trainers and peers on planned mentoring projects
Learn and apply the basics of working with groups, mentoring and project management	2	Web-based training	Learn the basics of project management and mentoring
	2	Project management training	Practice applying project management tools with the small group developing a mentoring project
	2	Mentoring training (training for being a mentor)	Reflect the role of a mentor and plan how to fulfill this role within the planned project
	3	Mentoring workshops (offered to first-semester students)	Work in small groups to organize the planned mentoring project and practice the role of a mentor
Work productively in autonomous groups	1	Practical workshops	Prepare and give presentations in small groups
	2	Small-group project work	Develop a detailed plan for a mentoring project to be offered to next year's first-semester students
	3	Mentoring workshops offered to first-semester students	Implement and evaluate the planned mentoring project
Reflect on one's role in social situations	1	Practical workshops	Reflect on one's role within the peer group for the group presentation
	2	Mentoring training (training for being a mentor)	Reflect on the expectations of one’s anticipated role as a mentor
	2	Supervised sessions on mentoring project planning	Reflect on one's role in the peer group for the mentoring project and one's role as a mentor supporting first-semester students

Goal exceeds the scope of the module.

Teaching formats throughout the first semester include a lecture, web-based trainings (WBTs), a practical workshop, and mentoring workshops offered by third-semester students. In the lecture, students gain basic knowledge of educational psychology and academic practice. Students have the opportunity to take a test on the topics discussed in the lecture. Students receive feedback on their knowledge of educational psychology and on possible misconceptions or illusions of knowledge (see Rozenblit & Keil, 2002). In the WBTs, students learn basic presentation techniques and skills, are quizzed on their learning outcomes, and receive direct feedback (cf., Narciss & Huth, 2004). Specifically, these tutorials offer practice-based advice on the preparation, realization, and web-based documentation of interactive presentations. The WBTs are designed as adaptive learning opportunities that take into account the heterogeneous prior knowledge of first-semester students. Furthermore, knowledge of both theoretical background and practical presentation tools is extended in a practical workshop by means of peer presentations involving topics, such as memory functioning, learning strategies, and e-learning principles, and methodological topics, such as interactive teaching techniques, moderating discussions in presentations, and working in groups effectively. In the presentations, students are directed to apply the skills introduced in the WBTs. Therefore, both presenters and receivers apply theoretical knowledge in that presenters attempt to teach their peers to use high-engagement learning activities (see Biggs & Tang, 2011).

Techniques of Evidence-based Teaching Implemented in the Module

With all these teaching formats, various learning opportunities are provided, which allows students to construct and apply knowledge and skills based on the ideas of social constructivism and the approach of problem-based learning. For this purpose, the learning opportunities were designed to include techniques of EBT with regard to the intended learning outcomes, specifically feedback, testing effects, and spaced learning. These techniques will be described in the following section.

Firstly, feedback is implemented based on widespread evidence of its beneficial effects in various learning settings (e.g., Downs, 2015; Hattie & Timperly, 2007). During the first semester, students receive mostly formative feedback on their presentation skills and learning outcomes. Feedback is an important element of the module, and it occurs in the various teaching formats: in the test of knowledge gained from the lecture, in every WBT session, in preparation for the practical workshop (concerning presentation schedule drafts), and most intensively during the practical workshop (concerning the actual presentation). In the latter case, students receive and learn how to handle feedback and learn how to structure and articulate constructive feedback that they give to their peers (cf., Gielen & de Wever, 2015; Nicol, Thomson, & Breslin, 2014).

Secondly, the so-called testing effect is regarded as an EBT technique in which tests are used to improve students’ learning outcomes (Dunn et al., 2013). The benefits of this effect are based on findings showing that taking tests is useful for not only assessing learning but also enhancing memory (e.g., Carpenter, 2012). The module takes advantage of this effect insofar as learning outcomes are tested repeatedly in quizzes during the WBTs and in the test of knowledge of educational psychology and of possible student misconceptions during the lecture. The disclosure of misconceptions is highlighted here because the potential influence of prior knowledge has been observed to be especially important in psychology classes due to “widespread interest in psychological concepts and their applications to everyday life” (Thompson & Zamboanga, 2004, p. 778).

Thirdly, spaced learning is incorporated in the module insofar as key topics and skills recur in the various teaching formats with varying foci. Abundant research on the advantages of spaced learning suggests that multiple learning sessions yield better long-term outcomes (e.g., Carpenter, Cepeda, Rohrer, Kang, & Pashler, 2012). The relationship between these learning conditions and task performance was found to be moderated by the complexity of the task inter alia, but overall performance is significantly higher in spaced learning than in massed learning (Donovan & Radosevich, 1999). This advantage of spaced learning over massed learning applies to both conceptual knowledge (e.g., Wahlheim, Dunlosky, & Jacoby, 2011) and practical skills (e.g., Dunlosky & Rawson, 2015; Simon, 2012). In the first semester of the module, students acquire theoretical knowledge and practical skills (e.g., presentation skills) as they make use of a variety of learning opportunities. These learning opportunities are offered during various teaching formats at various times throughout the semester. According to the classification by Dunlosky and Rawson (2015), this technique may be classified as “spaced practice,” which is regarded as one of the most effective learning strategies.

As explained above, the module was designed and implemented to include EBT techniques, which have been shown to positively affect student learning. Nevertheless, students’ learning outcomes associated with the teaching formats of this module implemented in the curriculum remain unclear and need to be investigated in an empirical inquiry. Furthermore, with the goal of continuously improving the module and its implementation, based on an evaluation of students’ learning outcomes, possible future modifications can be developed, and the effects of these modifications can be investigated (SoTL). In this context, the evaluation needs to consider students’ perceptions of their own learning outcomes and the components of the module. In addition to this subjective information, actual objective assessments of students’ learning outcomes need to be considered. For this purpose, adequate instruments need to be developed and tested for several teaching formats of the module.

Method

There were 148 student participants (21.62% male; 78.38% female) in the first semester of the module in educational psychology. Because the module involves diverse teaching formats, the evaluation is designed to match the complex structure. Therefore, to determine possible biases generated by self-evaluation (e.g., Falchikov & Boud, 1989; Ross, 2006), both subjective and objective measures were included. These measures were used in various empirical inquiries among the participants at various times during the first semester of the module. The inquiries did not include any control conditions: participation in the module was mandatory for all the students.

In addition to the students’ self-evaluations of their skills and knowledge acquisition, they were asked to evaluate the quality of the courses using both quantitative and qualitative instruments. Furthermore, objective assessments of the students’ knowledge and understanding were developed for both the lecture and a WBT. In the following section, the inquiries are described with regard to the participants, measures, and analytic strategy.

Students’ perceptions: Self-evaluation and course evaluation

To investigate the students’ perceptions, an online survey was sent to all the students after the first semester of the module. One hundred and thirty students participated in the survey (20.00% male, 79.23% female). Their ages ranged from 18 to 51 years (M = 23.36; SD = 6.28).

The survey covered two aspects of the students’ perceptions: their learning outcomes and the course. The survey items regarding the self-reported learning outcomes were taken from the German BEvaKomp inventory (Braun, Gusy, Leidner, & Hannover, 2008; 27 items; Cronbach’s α = .95). The items regarding the course evaluation were adapted to the context of the module based on the categories in the FESEM inventory (Staufenbiel, 2000; 27 items; Cronbach’s α = .90). The categories and typical survey items in both inventories are presented in Table 2 (the items were translated into English for this audience; the translations have not been tested for reliability or validity). A descriptive data analysis of both the evaluation of students’ learning outcomes and the course evaluation is reported.

Table 2.

Categories for students’ self-evaluation and course evaluation and representative survey items.

	Category	Representative survey item
Self-evaluation (Braun et al., 2008)	Knowledge and understanding of the subject	I can give an overview of the subject of the course.
	Knowledge and understanding of academic practice	Because of this course, I can search for information more effectively.
	Presentation skills	Because of this course, I can design various types of presentations.
	Communication skills	Because of this course, I find it easier to express my own impressions/opinions.
	Cooperation skills	I have participated in allocating responsibilities among my team in this course.
	Personal skills	This course has encouraged me to continue my studies.
Course evaluation (Staufenbiel, 2000)	Design and implementation	The course follows a clear structure.
	Interaction teachers–students	The teacher is friendly and respectful toward students.
	Interestingness and relevance	The course likely will be very helpful for later professional practice.
	Quality of (students’) presentations	The speakers are mostly well prepared for questions and discussions.
	Complexity and scope	The pace of the course is …
	Global evaluation of the course	Which grade (1–6) would you assign to the course in general?

At the end of the survey, the participants were encouraged to comment on the teaching formats and their learning outcomes. The results were analyzed using the inductive development of categories in content analysis (e.g., Mayring, 2010). Therefore, to aggregate the information obtained from the students, the statements were paraphrased and assigned to appropriate categories during a multi-stage process.

Objective Assessment: Knowledge and Understanding

Since students’ self-evaluations and objective evaluation of their learning outcomes may diverge (cf., Dunlosky & Rawson, 2015), objective assessments of the students’ increase in knowledge and understanding of educational psychology and academic practice were designed to complement the investigation of the students’ perceptions. These assessments focused on the learning outcomes of the students following their participation in a WBT respectively their participation in the lecture.

To measure the students’ learning outcomes from their participation in the first WBT during the first semester of the module, single- and multiple-choice items regarding the content of the WBT were developed and randomly assigned to either a pretest or the post-training test. Thirty-seven first-semester students (18.92% male, 81.08% female; age from 18 to 51; M = 22.62; SD = 6.82) were asked to complete the pretest and respond to items measuring their motivation for learning (18 items selected from IMI; Deci & Ryan, n.d.; Cronbach’s α = .91). Then, the participants attended the WBT and answered the post-test questions. The results of the pre- and post-test were compared using a paired t-test, and predictors of the results of the post-test were examined using regression analysis.

With the goal of developing another assessment regarding the subjects discussed during the lecture, existing self-developed tried and tested items regarding the students’ knowledge of educational psychology were analyzed using item response theory (IRT) models (e.g., van der Linden & Hambleton, 1997). Thus, the instrument will allow for the identification of changes in the students’ knowledge during the module and differences in knowledge levels between cohorts. To calibrate the existing 53 items, they were assigned to a sample of 84 psychology students attending the lecture using a balanced incomplete block design (e.g., Frey, Hartig, & Rupp, 2009). The collected responses were scaled using a one-parameter logistic IRT model. The ability of the students was estimated based on a maximum likelihood, and the mean of the latent ability distribution was set to 0.00.

Results

Students’ Perceptions: Self-evaluation and Course Evaluation

The self-evaluations indicate that the students on average perceived moderate increases in knowledge and understanding of educational psychology and academic practice during the first semester of the module (M = 3.26, SD = .76; M = 3.18, SD = .97; Figure 1 shows the descriptive analysis). The improvement in their presentation skills was rated highest by the students’ among the learning outcomes that were assessed (M = 3.71, SD = 1.01). Improvements in communication (M = 2.67, SD = .95), cooperation (M = 2.92, SD = .91), and personal skills (M = 2.87, SD = 1.00) received lower ratings (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Descriptive analysis of self-evaluation scores (mean; standard deviation; five-point Likert scale).

Based on the course evaluations, the students gave very positive ratings to the teaching formats in the first semester. In particular, the interaction between students and teachers was rated very high (M = 4.31, SD = .75; Figure 2). In comparison, the participants rated the complexity and scope of the module as average (M = 3.09, SD = .50).

Figure 2.

Descriptive analysis of course evaluation scores (mean value; standard deviation; five-point Likert scale).

To explain the mean values reported above, the students’ comments provided during the survey were evaluated. Complementing the quantitative data, only the categories and keywords that the participants mentioned frequently are reported (Table 3).

Table 3.

Categories of students’ comments that were mentioned frequently.

	Positive	Negative
Self-evaluation	Interesting and relevant topics/skills for academic studies	Focus more on knowledge and understanding
Self-evaluation	Feedback on presentations very helpful	Encourage students to give peer feedback
Course evaluation	Design and conception of web-based trainings	Condense teaching formats
	Diversity of learning opportunities	Reduce complexity of the module
	Positive working atmosphere	Find appropriate lecture room
	Teachers' competence

Objective Assessment: Knowledge and Understanding

The students’ learning outcomes from the web-based tutorial were assessed objectively. Their knowledge improved significantly based on an increase from a mean of 34.36% correct answers (M = .34, SD = .22) on the pretest to 64.26% (M = .64, SD = .16) on the post-test (t(36) = 6.83, p < .01). No significant Pearson’s correlation was found between the students’ results on the pretest and post-test (r = .072, p > .05, two-tailed). However, the students’ motivation significantly predicted their learning outcomes (b = .37, t(35) = 2.32, p < .05) and explained a significant proportion of the variance in the students’ learning outcomes (R²= .13, F(1,35) = 5.40, p < .03).

While developing the assessment of learning outcomes of the students who attended the lecture, it was noted that no items showed significant misfit, but 22 items showed low discrimination, that is, less than .2. Thus, 31 items were retained in the test. The following analyses involve these selected test items. The difficulty distribution had a mean of –.19 with a standard deviation of 1.19. The point–biserial correlation between a single item and the sum of solved items, which is comparable to the item discrimination from classical test theory, had a mean of .36 with a range of .20–.65. The reliability of the ability estimates was .57.

Discussion

The module described above provides an example for empirically founded teaching in psychology, since several techniques of EBT were implemented within a variety of learning opportunities. Furthermore, based on the idea of the SoTL, the various teaching formats and learning opportunities offered during the first semester of the module are considered in an evaluation. The evaluation includes the students’ perceptions of their learning outcomes (self-evaluation) and the learning process in terms of course evaluation. Objective assessments were developed with regard to the students’ knowledge and understanding of the subjects addressed.

Students’ Perceptions: Self-evaluation and Course Evaluation

The students’ perceptions presented in both the self-evaluation and course evaluation provide interesting information regarding the intended learning outcomes achieved during the first semester of the module. The students’ improvements in personal, cooperation, and communication skills were not rated very high, although the students were expected to develop and apply these skills during the first semester as well. As described below, possible modifications of the module for the following cohorts can be derived from this information. However, possible bias in the self-evaluation data needs to be acknowledged, and there is a need for objective assessments of one of the main intended learning outcomes: knowledge and understanding of educational psychology and academic practice. In addition, for future cohorts, the correlation between subjective and objective assessments of students’ learning outcomes needs further investigation.

The module was designed and implemented simultaneously. Therefore, the findings cannot be compared with those of a previous cohort or a matching control group. Furthermore, students’ perceptions are reported for all the teaching formats offered during the first semester of the module. This lack of a control and specificity of the data imposes a limitation on the results of the self-evaluation and course evaluation because no conclusion can be drawn regarding the effects of individual teaching techniques and teaching formats. Thus, the objective assessment of the students’ knowledge and understanding involves only individual teaching formats of the module. Nevertheless, for future cohorts, possible modifications of the module will not be implemented for all students simultaneously so that comparisons with a control group or waiting group can be made.

Objective Assessment: Knowledge and Understanding

The results concerning the objective assessment of students’ learning outcomes from participation in the first WBT are very interesting with regard to the idea of reducing heterogeneity among first-year students. Based on the data, it can be assumed that the students acquired knowledge during the training. Moreover, their learning outcomes are independent of their pretest knowledge, which may be explained by the individual pace of learning during the WBT. Nevertheless, these results pertain to only the first WBT in the first semester of the module. Therefore, similar pre- and post-tests need to be designed for the remaining WBTs. In addition, it remains unclear which factors (beside student motivation) are useful for predicting students’ learning outcomes, since there is no control condition.

To develop a test to assess students’ learning outcomes from attending the lecture, items measuring their knowledge and understanding were analyzed using IRT models. However, these items still need to be tested with regard to their usefulness for measuring changes in students’ knowledge over time, and eliminated items need to be revised and recalibrated in future assessments to enhance the reliability and validity in terms of the interpretation of the test scores. The test will be administered to different cohorts, which can be connected using appropriate linking or equating methods (e.g., Kolen & Brennan, 2014), thereby facilitating an objective comparison of student achievement across several cohorts. In addition, students can be provided with individual feedback on their current level of knowledge compared to their peers to identify possible misconceptions and illusions of knowledge. Furthermore, the application of these models allows for retracing students’ learning processes during the lecture using repeated measures without using the exact same test items. Therefore, the development of this assessment will be an important step toward implementing a high-quality evaluation of the effects of future modifications on specific teaching formats of the module.

Conclusions and Implications

With the goal of providing an example of empirically founded teaching in psychology by combining EBT and the SoTL, two aspects of practical implications are discussed. Firstly, further steps for improving the module are derived based on the results reported above. Secondly, implications for teaching in psychology in general are suggested.

Implications for the module

The results reported above provide valuable information about the students’ perceptions of their learning outcomes and the courses during the first semester of this module and about the students’ actual learning outcomes, that is, knowledge and understanding. In conclusion, three possible modifications and their implementation consistent with the goals and intended learning outcomes are introduced. In accordance with the idea of the SoTL, the intention is to implement these modifications and evaluate their effects on future student learning outcomes.

Firstly, the students suggested that they should be more involved in providing feedback on their peers’ presentations during the workshop. Since this request is consistent with the goals of the module, it is important to include student feedback in both oral and written forms (cf., van den Berg, Admiraal, & Pilot, 2006). To encourage students to provide feedback, the workshop design needs to be adapted with regard to the form of feedback and its scheduling (see Nicol et al., 2014).

Secondly, another suggestion mentioned more than once was to condense the teaching formats, which particularly applies to the workshop’s duration of two days. Because it will not be possible to shorten the total duration of the workshop, one modification might be to divide the workshop into several sessions in accordance with the idea of spaced learning (see Carpenter et al., 2012).

Thirdly, according to the self-evaluations, the students did not rate their improvements in communication, cooperation, and personal skills as high as they did their improvements in the other skills (Figure 1). These results are not surprising, since the module is designed such that the former skills are developed primarily in the second and third semester (see Table 1). Nevertheless, the students also need to develop their communication and cooperation skills when working in groups during the first semester. Supplementary WBTs in those subjects could prepare students for these tasks during the first semester.

For the future, it might be interesting to consider the development of students’ skills over the course of their studies by interviewing other psychology teachers with regard to the students’ skills and performance. The goals of the module include not only the acquisition of knowledge and skills, but also students’ social integration (cf., Bers & Smith, 1991). This aspect of the intended outcomes has not yet been addressed in the evaluation and should be taken into account in future investigations.

Further implications for teaching in psychology

Sharing experiences and examples of good teaching practice in higher education is considered helpful for teachers to learn from one another and to find inspiration for their own teaching. EBT in planning and designing learning opportunities based on theoretical and empirical evidence goes beyond this unsystematic observation (Saville, 2010). Psychology teachers in particular can benefit from EBT, since psychologists already have crucial knowledge regarding students’ cognitive processes and their behavior in groups (see Dunn et al., 2013).

However, applying this knowledge and empirically proven concepts to a specific teaching context may pose specific challenges depending on the context, the target group, and the topic (Felten, 2013). The practice of examining one’s teaching (SoTL) may aid in overcoming these challenges. In applying the SoTL, psychology teachers find themselves in a unique position (Gurung, Ansburg, Alexander, Lawrence, & Johnson, 2008). Psychologists understand diagnostic methods, designing subjective and objective assessments, and the appropriate use of qualitative and quantitative research methods in the SoTL. Thus, psychologists can benefit from their broad knowledge of empirically based teaching techniques, state-of-the-art psychometric evaluation techniques, and technological improvements (e.g., e-assessments) when implementing and evaluating innovative teaching concepts.

This report provides a novel example for the combination of EBT and the SoTL in psychology. Techniques of EBT were considered during the planning stage of the module and the learning opportunities offered were inquired with regard to students’ learning outcomes. Teachers in psychology are invited to follow this example and make use of this combination of the complementary concepts of EBT and the SoTL to promote empirically founded teaching in psychology and thereby come one step closer to meeting the current challenges that teachers in higher education encounter.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author biographies

Julia Boser is presently a doctoral research and teaching fellow at the Department of Educational Psychology at the Goethe-University in Frankfurt, Germany. Her main research interests concern learning and teaching in higher education. In particular, she investigates the role of teachers in student-centered teaching and especially in the instructional design of service-learning.

Sonja Scherer is presently a doctoral research and teaching fellow at the Department of Educational Psychology at the Goethe-University in Frankfurt, Germany. Her research interests concern learning and teaching in higher education, emotion regulation processes, and social and emotional competencies. In particular, her research deals with the role of emotional demands and abilities in social interactions.

Kathrin Kuchta is presently a doctoral research and teaching fellow at the Department of Educational Psychology at the Goethe-University in Frankfurt, Germany. In her research, she is concerned with the enhancement of empathy amongst students in the instructional design of service-learning. Currently, she is contact person in the described module of the psychology bachelor program.

S Franziska C Wenzel is presently a research fellow at the Department of Educational Psychology at the Goethe-University in Frankfurt, Germany, and is working on her doctoral thesis at the Department of Educational Measurement at the Friedrich Schiller University in Jena, Germany. Her main research interests lie in the field of educational measurement, concerning methodological knowledge of and skills in areas like the Item-Response-Theory, thereby combining methodological aspects and teaching in higher education and sensitizing for the impact of large-scale-assessment in teacher education.

Holger Horz is a full professor at the Goethe-University in Frankfurt, Germany, Department of Educational Psychology. He received his PhD in psychology in 2004 and his Habilitation in 2008. His ongoing research is concerned with applied cognitive science, e-learning scenarios, and teaching and learning in both school education and higher education. He has been Scientific Director of the Interdisciplinary College for University Teaching since 2010 and Managing Director of the Academy for Educational Research and Teacher Training at Goethe-University since 2015.

References

Bers

T. H.

Smith

K. E.

(1991) Persistence of community college students: The influence of student intent and academic and social integration. Research in Higher Education 32: 539–556.

Biggs, J. B., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: what the student does (4th ed.). Maidenhead, UK: McGraw-Hill.

Boyer

E. L.

(1990) Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate, Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Braun

Gusy

Leidner

Hannover

(2008) Das Berliner Evaluationsinstrument für selbsteingeschätzte, studentische Kompetenzen (BEvaKomp) [The Berlin evaluation tool for self-rated competencies of students (BEvaKomp)]. Diagnostica 54: 30–42.

Buskist

Groccia

(2011) Evidence-based teaching: New directions in teaching and learning, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Carpenter

S. K.

(2012) Testing enhances the transfer of learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science 21: 279–283.

Carpenter

S. K.

Cepeda

N. J.

Rohrer

Kang

S. H. K.

Pashler

(2012) Using spacing to enhance diverse forms of learning: Review of recent research and implications for instruction. Educational Psychology Review 24: 369–378.

Cross

K. P.

(1996) Classroom research: Implementing the Scholarship of Teaching. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 60: 402–407.

Daniel

D. B.

Chew

S. L.

(2013) The tribalism of teaching and learning. Teaching of Psychology 40: 363–367.

10.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (n.d.). Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI). Retrieved from http://selfdeterminationtheory.org/intrinsic-motivation-inventory/.

11.

Dochy

Segers

Van den Bossche

Gijbels

(2003) Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis. Learning and instruction 13: 533–568.

12.

Donovan

J. J.

Radosevich

D. J.

(1999) A meta-analytic review of the distribution of practice effect: Now you see it, now you don't. Journal of Applied Psychology 84: 795–805.

13.

Downs

S. D.

(2015) Testing in the college classroom: Do testing and feedback influence grades throughout an entire semester? Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology 1: 172–181.

14.

Dunlosky

Rawson

K. A.

(2015) Practice tests, spaced practice, and successive relearning: Tips for classroom use and for guiding students’ learning. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology 1: 72–78.

15.

Dunn

D. S.

Saville

B. K.

Baker

S. C.

Marek

(2013) Evidence-based teaching: Tools and techniques that promote learning on the psychology classroom. Australian Journal of Psychology 65: 5–13.

16.

Falchikov

Boud

(1989) Student self-assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 59: 395.

17.

Felten

(2013) Principles of good practice in SoTL. Teaching and Learning Inquiry 1: 121–125.

18.

Frey

Hartig

Rupp

(2009) Booklet designs in large-scale assessments of student achievement: Theory and practice. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 28: 39–53.

19.

Gibbs

Coffey

(2004) The impact of training of university teachers on their teaching skills, their approach to teaching and the approach to learning of their students. Active Learning in Higher Education 5: 87–100.

20.

Gielen

de Wever

(2015) Structuring the peer assessment process: A multilevel approach for the impact on product improvement and peer feedback quality. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 31: 435–449.

21.

Gurung

R. A.

Ansburg

P. I.

Alexander

P. A.

Lawrence

N. K.

Johnson

D. E.

(2008) The state of the scholarship of teaching and learning in psychology. Teaching of Psychology 35: 249–261.

22.

Halpern

D. F.

Hakel

M. D.

(2003) Applying the science of learning to the university and beyond: Teaching for long-term retention and transfer. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 35: 36–41.

23.

Hattie

Timperley

(2007) The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research 77: 81–112.

24.

Kolen

M. J.

Brennan

R. L.

(2014) Test equating, scaling, and linking: Methods and practices, 3rd ed. New York, NY: Springer.

25.

Mayring, P. (2010). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken [Qualitative content analysis: Basic principles and techniques]. Weinheim, Germany, Basel, Switzerland: Beltz.

26.

Narciss

Huth

(2004) How to design informative tutoring feedback for multimedia learning. In: Niegemann

H. M.

Leutner

Brunken

(eds) Instructional design for multimedia learning: Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop of SIG 6 Instructional Design of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), 27–29 June 2002 in Erfurt, Münster, Germany: Waxmann, pp. 181–196.

27.

Nicol

Thomson

Breslin

(2014) Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: A peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 39: 102–122.

28.

Palincsar

A. S.

(1998) Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology 49: 345–375.

29.

Postareff

Lindblom-Ylänne

Nevgi

(2007) The effect of pedagogical training on teaching in higher education. Teaching and Teacher Education 23: 557–571.

30.

Ross

J. A.

(2006) The reliability, validity, and utility of self-assessment. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 11: 1–13.

31.

Rozenblit

Keil

(2002) The misunderstood limits of folk science: An illusion of explanatory depth. Cognitive Science 26: 521–562.

32.

Saville

B. K.

(2010) Using evidence-based teaching methods to improve education. In: Meyers

S. A.

Stowell

J. R.

(eds) Essays from excellence in teaching Vol. 9: 11–16. Retrieved from http://teachpsych.org/ebooks/eit2009/index.php.

33.

Simon

D. A.

(2012) Spaced and massed practice. In: Hattie

Anderman

E. M.

(eds) Educational psychology handbook series. International guide to student achievement, New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 411–413.

34.

Spinath

Seifried

Eckert

(2014) Forschendes Lehren: Ein Ansatz zur kontinuierlichen Verbesserung von Hochschullehre [Investigating teaching: An approach to the continuous improvement teaching in higher education]. Journal Hochschuldidaktik 25: 14–16.

35.

Staufenbiel

(2000) Fragebogen zur Evaluation universitärer Lehrveranstaltungen durch Studierende und Lehrende [Questionnaire for students’ and lecturers’ evaluation of university courses]. Diagnostica 46: 169–181.

36.

Thompson

R. A.

Zamboanga

B. L.

(2004) Academic aptitude and prior knowledge as predictors of student achievement in introduction to psychology. Journal of Educational Psychology 96: 778–784.

37.

Trigwell

Prosser

Waterhouse

(1999) Relations between teachers' approaches to teaching and students' approaches to learning. Higher Education 37: 57–70.

38.

van den Berg

Admiraal

Pilot

(2006) Designing student peer assessment in higher education: Analysis of written and oral peer feedback. Teaching in Higher Education 11: 135–147.

39.

van der Linden

W. J.

Hambleton

R. K.

(1997) Handbook of modern item response theory, New York, NY: Springer.

40.

Wahlheim

C. N.

Dunlosky

Jacoby

L. L.

(2011) Spacing enhances the learning of natural concepts: An investigation of mechanisms, metacognition, and aging. Memory & Cognition 39: 750–763.