Ana I. Ruiz

The role of general ability in cognitive complexity: a case study of expertise

Although theories about generalization (or transfer) have abounded since the time of Aristotle’s DeAnima, the scientific debate over it did not take shape until the beginning of the 20th century. At that time, researchers at the two main centers of “associationism” in the United States, the University of Chicago and Columbia University, argued about the nature and developmental course of transfer. At Columbia, Edward Thorndike (1905) attacked the then-popular belief in the “theory of formal disciplines,” which alleged that training in one discipline enabled students to think more rationally in other disciplines. Learning Latin, for example, was thought to lead to a better understanding of English, not simply because these two languages shared many cognates but also because learning Latin was regarded as an exercise that promoted the development of logical reasoning. (Learning chess was also promoted in some quarters for the same reason.) Reasoning is reasoning, so the thinking went, and therefore learning how to reason in one context was thought to transfer to reasoning in other contexts. Thus, it was the presumed ubiquity of transfer that was responsible for its appeal. It represented a parsimonious way of accounting for the obvious fact that humans do not require explicit learning of all matters.

Service learning in psychology: Enhancing undergraduate education for the public good.

Service learning is an educational approach in which students use knowledge and skills learned in the classroom when engaged in activities with community partners. Service learning projects can cover a wide range of activities, such as helping the homeless, tutoring children, developing informational materials (e.g., brochures), evaluating the efficacy of an organization’s services, conducting research in support of social reform, and promoting awareness of social issues, such as domestic violence. Service learning is more than applied learning; it is “the integration of academic material, relevant service activities, and critical reflection in a reciprocal partnership that engages students, faculty, staff, and community members to achieve academic, civic, and personal [growth] learning objectives as well as to advance public purposes” (Bringle & Clayton, 2012, p. 105). The integration of service learning and psychology was explored in With Service in Mind: Concepts and Models for Service Learning in Psychology Introduction

Enhancing the Psychology Curriculum Through Service Learning

Educators in psychology should aspire to encourage students’ holistic growth in academic, personal, and civic domains. We propose that service learning is the most potent pedagogy for developing well-rounded, psychologically literate citizens capable of meeting the goals for the undergraduate psychology major. This article defines service learning, delineates the rationales for service learning, and summarizes research demonstrating the efficacy of this pedagogical approach. The article also describes the learning objectives derived from the American Psychological Association Guidelines for the Undergraduate Major (Version 2.0, 2013), with an emphasis on the ways in which service learning contributes to academic learning, civic learning, and personal growth. Finally, the article illustrates the four types of service learning, and it provides a concrete example for structuring reflection in order to connect community experiences with course content in a service learning psychology course.

Ethics as an Undergraduate Psychology Outcome: When, Where, and How to Teach it:

The American Psychological Association (APA) recently approved a new set of Guidelines for the undergraduate psychology major, version 2.0 (APA, 2013a) which addressed ethics specifically. Yet the teaching of ethics receives little attention in publications, national and international institutes, and conferences. Few guidelines for when, where, and how the teaching of ethics is best integrated into the undergraduate curriculum are available. The typical psychology undergraduate will encounter issues related to ethics in courses such as research methods, and more generally in course syllabi under the topic of Academic Honesty. This is hardly an effective introduction to the complex personal and professional ethical decisions the psychology student will encounter after graduation. This report proposes when, where, and how to teach ethics in the undergraduate psychology program and presents a case example demonstrating the intentional integration of ethics into the psychology undergraduate curriculum to prepare students to become ethically literate citizens.

The Presentation of Ethics in Undergraduate Psychology Syllabi: A Review

To identify where ethics is presented to undergraduate psychology students, this study reviewed a national sample of 706 syllabi for required mandatory psychology courses. The results indicated that 6 syllabi were designated as ethics courses and 65 syllabi did not mention ethics at all. Even though 641 syllabi mentioned ethics, the most frequent listing was under course policies, usually as a standard statement (e.g., academic honesty and plagiarism) required by many institutions. Our recommendation is that ethics should be intentionally included in the learning goals/objectives/outcomes with a corresponding assessment (assignments) in all syllabi in addition to policy statements.

Do Psychology Department Mission Statements Reflect the American Psychological Association Undergraduate Learning Goals

This study focuses on the inclusion of the American Psychological Association’s learning goals in the mission statements of undergraduate psychology programs across the US. We reviewed the mission statements available on websites for 1336 psychology programs listed in the Carnegie classification. Results of a content analysis revealed that of the 205 (15.34%) psychology departments with mission statements available online, 11% addressed all five American Psychological Association learning goals, 95% addressed at least one of the five learning goals, and almost 5% (4.87%) did not address any learning goals.