Discussion: How Theory and Research Are Connected

Faculty Forum

Introductory Psychology: How Student Experiences Relate to Their Understanding of Psychological Science

Thomas Toomey1, Deborah Richardson2, and Georgina Hammock3

Abstract Many students who declare a psychology major are unaware that they are studying a scientific discipline, precipitating a need for exercises and experiences that help students understand the scientific nature of the discipline. The present study explores aspects of an introductory psychology class that may contribute to students’ understanding of psychological science. Surveys were dis- tributed to 168 students, asking how each of several in-class (e.g., attending lecture) and out-of-class (e.g., participating in research studies) research experiences contributed to their knowledge of psychology as a science and understanding of psychological research. Students reported that in-class experiences contributed more to their understanding of psychological research than out-of-class experiences.

Keywords psychological science, teaching, introductory psychology

Instructors of introductory psychology courses are often chal-

lenged by students’ apparent inability to recognize the scien-

tific basis of the discipline (Thieman, Clary, Olson, Dauner, &

Ring, 2009). Despite scientific inquiry being one of the main

goals of the American Psychological Association’s (APA)

Guidelines for the Undergraduate Major Version 2.0 (hereafter

referred to as Guidelines 2.0, 2013), many students who declare

a psychology major are unaware that they are even studying a

science (Holmes & Beins, 2009). Further, researchers have

found that students who begin taking introductory psychology

courses do so with erroneous beliefs, which remain intact upon

completion of the course (Kowalski & Taylor, 2009; McKea-

chie, 1960; Vaughan, 1977). These misconceptions often

include the notion that psychology is limited to clinical work,

perhaps in part because that is the typical media portrayal of the

discipline (Rosell et al., 2005). These beliefs are particularly

troubling when considering that the introductory psychology

course is the second most popular college course in the nation

and is a required course for many undergraduate programs of

study (Adelman, 2004; Gurung et al., 2016; Hyers & Shivde,

2013). Thus, instructors of introductory psychology courses

may be missing opportunities to facilitate students’ understand-

ing of the scientific nature of the discipline.

Because the introductory psychology course is required in

many undergraduate programs and frequently enrolls both

majors and nonmajors, this highly influential course provides

a platform in which to introduce students to the scientific nature

of psychological research; instructors often use this platform

(Gurung et al., 2016; Miller & Gentile, 1998). Bowman and

Waite (2003) found that when students were presented with

opportunities for multiple out-of-class research activities, such

as participating in a research study or writing a paper, partici-

pating in research studies yielded more satisfaction with the

psychology course. Furthermore, these researchers found that

students who chose either option (research participation or

writing papers) had more positive perceptions of psychology

than those who chose not to participate at all.

Taylor and Kowalski (2004) argue that the misconceptions

many students have concerning the scientific nature of the

discipline may indeed be restructured with personal experience

(e.g., participating in laboratory experiments). Thieman, Clary,

Olson, Dauner, and Ring (2009) approached this issue by

including a laboratory experience in their introductory courses.

Students who participated in these mandatory laboratory

experiences as a supplement to their general lecture demon-

strated an improvement in their understanding of the scientific

nature of psychology. Overall, instructors have made efforts to

instill in their students an understanding of scientific inquiry in

1 Educational Innovation Institute, Augusta University, Augusta, GA, USA 2 Office of Faculty Development & Teaching Excellence, Augusta University,

Augusta, GA, USA 3 Department of Psychological Sciences, Augusta University, Augusta, GA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Thomas Toomey, Educational Innovation Institute, Augusta University,

Augusta, GA 30912, USA.

Email: [email protected]

Teaching of Psychology 2017, Vol. 44(3) 246-249 ª The Author(s) 2017 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0098628317712749 journals.sagepub.com/home/top

their introductory psychology courses through research-related

experiences.

An examination of the effect of specific research-related

activities in introductory psychology courses may help identify

ways to teach the course to address the scientific inquiry goal of

Guidelines 2.0. Moreover, a variety of research-related experi-

ences, such as participating in research studies and writing

research papers, may be incorporated in an introductory psy-

chology course to advance students’ understanding of scientific

inquiry in psychology. Our study seeks to explore aspects

(as they relate to research experiences) of the introductory psy-

chology course that are, in the student’s view, most important to

their understanding of psychology as a scientific discipline.

The present study was designed to examine how students’

perceptions of psychology as a scientific discipline are related

to their research-related experiences in introductory psychol-

ogy. We anticipated that more engaging, out-of-class experi-

ences, such as participating in research studies or outside

assessments, would relate more strongly than in-class experi-

ences, such as attending lectures, to students’ perceptions of

psychology as science.

Method

Participants

Three instructors at a Southeastern University collected data

from 168 students enrolled in four introductory psychology

courses. Participant demographics (e.g., gender, age, ethnicity)

and other identifying factors were not included in the survey.

The university itself is diverse, with a gender composition of

60% female and 40% male, and ethnically consists of 56% of students identifying as White, 19% Black or African American, 6% Asian, 5% Hispanic, and 3% identifying with two or more ethnicities. Class sizes range from 30 to 45 students. The intro-

ductory psychology course is a required core class for many

undergraduate programs as well as an option for general edu-

cation requirements, and class sizes are relatively large, so our

sample is likely to be representative of the overall student

population.

Materials and Procedure

Instructors distributed surveys to students in introductory psy-

chology courses at the end of the semester over several seme-

sters. The survey instructed students to identify the extent to

which each of six experiences contributed to their understand-

ing of psychological research on a 7-point Likert-type scale

ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). A “not applicable”

option was provided for use when the student did not engage in

the activity. The experiences reflected assignments that were

part of the course and were identified as either in-class experi-

ences or out-of-class experiences. In-class experiences con-

sisted of (a) attending classroom lectures and (b) classroom

activities and demonstrations. These in-class experiences

consisted of general introductory psychology content, and no

specific emphasis was placed on psychology as a science.

Out-of-class experiences included (c) reading articles from

psychology journals, (d) participating in experiments or studies

(that were conducted in person, for which students could

sign up via an online participant pool), (e) participating in

assessments (i.e., clinical assessments conducted by graduate

students), and (f) attending talks in a psychology research

lecture series (i.e., talks given by either internal or external

psychologists on some aspect of psychological science).

Students were given choices as to which out-of-class experi-

ences they wanted to participate in, which would result in

research credit contributing to their overall course grade.

The survey also included two questions with the same 7-

point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very

much) with a not applicable option: “How much do you feel

you have learned about psychological research from all

aspects of this course?” and “To what degree do you feel that

psychology is a science?” It is worth noting that due to guar-

anteed anonymity, we could not look at student records to

assess actual learning.

Results

The vast majority of students reported that they had attended

classroom lecture (n ¼ 168, 100%), attended classroom activ- ities and demonstrations (n ¼ 161, 96%), read articles from psychology journals (n ¼ 151, 90%), or participated in experi- ments or studies (n ¼ 127, 76%). As so few students partici- pated in assessments (n ¼ 31, 19%) or attended talks in the lecture series (n ¼ 56, 33%), we focused subsequent analyses on the four more frequent experiences. Because each of the

experiences in which students could participate represented

different levels of the independent variable in a repeated mea-

sures analysis of variance, the N would be reduced to 31, and

power to detect differences reduced accordingly, if we were to

include the infrequent experiences in the analysis.

The repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA)

revealed significant effects of type of experience on students’

perception of the scientific nature of psychology (i.e., differ-

ences in the extent to which students perceived that the experi-

ences contributed to their understanding of psychology),

F(3, 228) ¼ 47.36, p ¼ .00. Since the ANOVA was based on the responses of only the limited number of students who had

completed all four of the more frequent experiences, it was a

relatively conservative test (i.e., responses of students who had

participated in only two or three of the experiences were not

included).

Paired sample t tests were conducted in order to determine

the extent to which students perceived differences in how each

type of research experience contributed to their understanding

of psychological research. Table 1 presents results of these

analyses as well as descriptive data. Comparisons between

out-of-class experiences revealed that students perceived that

reading articles from psychology journals contributed less to

their understanding of psychological research than participat-

ing in experiments or studies. Comparisons between in-class

experiences revealed that attending classroom activities and

Toomey et al. 247

demonstrations was reported as contributing less than attend-

ing classroom lecture. Comparisons between in- and out-of-

class experiences revealed that both out-of-class experiences,

reading articles and participating in experiments or studies,

were viewed as contributing significantly less to their under-

standing of research than both of the in-class experiences,

attending classroom lecture and classroom activities and

demonstrations.

We computed Pearson product–moment correlations to

examine the relationships between the students’ ratings of

the four experiences and their views of psychology as a

science (see Table 2). The more that students felt that read-

ing articles, attending lectures, and participating in class-

room activities contributed to their understanding of

psychology, the more they reported that they had learned

about psychological research and felt that psychology is a

science. Students who perceived that participating in experi-

ments contributed to their understanding of psychological

research also reported stronger perceptions of psychology

as a science; however, they did not report strong perception

of how much they had learned about psychological research

from the course.

Discussion

This study assessed the relationship of experiences in and out

of the introductory psychology classroom to students’ knowl-

edge of psychological research and psychological science. One

of APA’s main objectives in the Guidelines 2.0 is teaching

undergraduates about the scientific nature of psychology. Intro-

ductory psychology courses carry the potential to teach stu-

dents to be better consumers of scientific knowledge.

However, this potential is lost if students are leaving their

introductory psychology courses uninformed that they even

studied a science. Yet, many students still leave the introduc-

tory psychology classroom with misconceptions about the dis-

cipline (Kowalski & Taylor, 2009; McKeachie, 1960;

Vaughan, 1977). Instructors assign articles or ask students to

participate in research because they expect this will broaden the

students’ understanding of psychological research. This study

recognizes the challenges to instructors when trying to help

students understand the scientific underpinning of the disci-

pline. Furthermore, this study examined how some experiences

students might have in introductory psychology classes could

contribute to their appreciation of psychology as a field of

scientific inquiry.

Students reported in-class learning experiences as contribut-

ing more to their understanding of psychological research than

the out-of-class experiences that are actually designed to

enhance their exposure to research. Attending lecture was most

highly correlated with students’ perceptions about learning

about psychological research. Students’ experiences with all

aspects of the course were related to their knowledge of

psychology as a science. To our surprise, students reported that

their experiences with psychology experiments were not

related to their learning about psychological research.

The results of this study suggest that there is something

about the classroom that students connect to their understand-

ing of psychological research more than actually experiencing

research through their active participation. This could be attrib-

uted to the fact that students simply spent more time in the

classroom than they did participating in outside experiences

and thus learned more about all aspects of psychology, includ-

ing its scientific nature. Furthermore, students were required to

attend classroom activities and lecture as part of their atten-

dance, whereas there was more flexibility in the out-of-class

Table 2. Pearson Product–Moment Correlations Between Research Experiences and Perception of Psychological Science.

Research Experience Psychology as a

Science Learned About

Psychological Research

Reading articles .22* .33** Participating in

experiments .24* .11

Attending lecture .28** .45** Classroom activities .30** .37**

*Correlation is significant at the .05 level. **Correlation is significant at the .01 level.

Table 1. Significant Paired Samples t Test Comparisons Between Research Experiences.

Research Experience Pairs Mean Differ-

ence (SD) t

95% CI

Lower Upper

Reading articles from psychology journals (M ¼ 4.49)–Attending classroom lecture (M ¼=6.25)

�1.75 (1.73) �12.48** �2.03 �1.48

Reading articles from psychology journals (M=¼ 4.45)–Classroom activities and demonstrations (M ¼ 6.00)

�1.55 (1.87) �9.98** �1.86 �1.24

Participating in experiments or studies (M ¼ 5.05)– Attending classroom lecture (M ¼ 6.28)

�1.23 (1.85) �7.50** �1.55 �0.90

Participating in experiments or studies (M ¼ 5.07)– Classroom activities and demonstrations (M ¼ 5.91)

�0.83 (1.74) �5.27** �1.15 �0.52

Classroom activities and demonstrations (M ¼ 5.99)–Attending classroom lecture (M ¼ 6.29)

�0.30 (1.07) �3.60** �0.47 �0.14

Note. Mean values for any research experience may vary slightly across specific comparisons due to different numbers of participants for each pairing. SD ¼ standard deviation; CI ¼ confidence interval. **.01 level. Because of the relatively large number of comparisons, we interpret only the differences for which p value for the comparison is <.01.

248 Teaching of Psychology 44(3)

experiences (participating in experiments or writing journal

article reviews) in which students chose to participate. Perhaps

also the nature of the research participation impacted the stu-

dents’ perceptions. If they spent an hour answering survey

questions or were not debriefed effectively, then they may not

have seen the connection between their experience and the

scientific nature of psychology. Our study was limited in that

the researchers lacked complete control over the out-of-class

experiences—students were likely not exposed to similar stud-

ies or could have been poorly debriefed and not explicitly

informed of the scientific rationale behind the experiments.

Instructors of the students in this study required reflection

papers in an attempt to reveal the nature, and student percep-

tions, of the research experiences in which they participated.

However, there is no evidence here that those reflections actu-

ally enhanced students’ perceptions of how these experiences

contributed to their knowledge of psychology as a scientific

discipline.

The psychology department is housed within the science

building with the other natural sciences—biology, chemis-

try, and physics—which may provide a partial explanation

for our findings. Perhaps, introductory psychology students

view attending lecture as contributing to their knowledge of

psychological science and research simply because their

class and the department are housed within Science Hall.

Should this be one of the factors influencing student percep-

tions in the current study, it speaks to the impact that

including psychology departments with these other sciences

has in shaping perceptions around psychology as a scientific

discipline.

Future research examining how students perceive psycholo-

gical research could include more careful monitoring of outside

experiments to ensure students are getting experiences that

actually inform them about the scientific underpinnings of psy-

chology. Additionally, researchers could utilize pre- and post-

testing in introductory psychology courses to observe how each

experience improved student perceptions of psychological

research and science. There should be more understanding

within the general population of the scientific nature of

psychology, especially when considering how many under-

graduate students enroll in introductory psychology courses

each semester. Most students enrolled in introductory psychol-

ogy courses are majoring in other disciplines and are thus

unlikely to take advanced psychology classes. Thus, the poten-

tial for more recognition of psychology as a scientific disci-

pline is likely to happen due to students’ experiences within

introductory psychology courses. The present study suggests

that out-of-class research experiences (such as participation in

research experiments) may need to be strengthened in order to

meet this goal as outlined by the APA goals for the under-

graduate curriculum.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to

the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship,

and/or publication of this article.

References

Adelman, C. (2004). The empirical curriculum: Changes in postse-

condary course-taking, 1972–2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-

ment of Education.

American Psychological Association. (2013). APA guidelines for the

undergraduate psychology major 2.0. Washington, DC: Author.

Retrieved from www.apa.ord/ed/resources.html

Bowman, L. L., & Waite, B. M. (2003). Volunteering in research:

Student satisfaction and educational benefits. Teaching of

Psychology, 30, 102–106. doi:/10.1207/S15328023TOP3002_03

Gurung, R. A., Hackathorn, J., Enns, C., Frantz, S., Cacioppo, J., &

Loop, T. (2016). Strengthening introductory psychology: A new

model for teaching the introductory course. American Psycholo-

gist, 71, 112–124. doi:10.1037/a0040012

Holmes, J. D., & Beins, B. C. (2009). Psychology is a science: At least

some students think so. Teaching of Psychology, 36, 5–11. doi:10.

1080/00986280802529350

Hyers, L. L., & Shivde, G. (2013). Building a solid foundation for our

majors with the introductory psychology course. Psychology Learn-

ing & Teaching, 12, 147–158. doi:10.2304/plat.2013.12.2.147

Kowalski, P., & Taylor, A. K. (2009). The effect of refuting miscon-

ceptions in the introductory psychology class. Teaching of Psy-

chology, 36, 153–159. doi:/10.1080/00986280902959986

McKeachie, W. J. (1960). Changes in the scores on the northwestern

misconceptions test in six elementary psychology courses. Journal

of Educational Psychology, 51, 240–244. doi:10.1037/h0048569

Miller, B., & Gentile, B. F. (1998). Introductory course content and

goals. Teaching of Psychology, 25, 89–96. doi:10.1207/

s15328023top2502_2

Rosell, M., Beck, D. M., Luther, K. E., Goedert, K. M., Shore, W. J., &

Anderson, D. D. (2005). The pedagogical value of experimental

participation paired with course content. Teaching of Psychology,

32, 95–99. doi:10.1207/s15328023top3202_3

Taylor, A., & Kowalski, P. (2004). Naı̈ve psychological science: The

prevalence, strength, and sources of misconceptions. Psychologi-

cal Record, 54, 15–25.

Thieman, T., Clary, E., Olson, A., Dauner, R., & Ring, E. (2009).

Introducing students to psychological research: General psychol-

ogy as a laboratory course. Teaching of Psychology, 36, 160–168.

doi:10.1080/00986280902959994

Vaughan, E. D. (1977). Misconceptions about psychology among

introductory college students. Teaching of Psychology, 4,

138–141. doi:10.1207/s15328023top0403_9

Toomey et al. 249