The Dimensions in Psychology - Article Example

 The Dimensions in Psychology Problem How is it that teachers can better teach psychology when students are merely just learning the basics of psychological research? The terminology can get misconstrued to the average student who is hearing some of this information for the first time. The focus of the journal article is to address that there are some issues when it comes to teaching psychology. This comes from the inability for a textbook to differentiate the meaning of data collection methods and research methods which leaves many students confused about the two different types of procedures in psychological research. The authors comment that the main way to possibly make this easier is to evaluate other multi-functional ways in order to help all students process the information in a number of different ways. Their suggestion is to offer visuals for learning. Introduction Toward the beginning of the article, the authors assume what traditional teaching methods are when approaching how to teach psychology. These are merely assumptions and there is no supporting evidence as to what defines “traditional.” As many students are required to take courses in psychology, the differentiation of research methods and data collection is not fully defined until later in graduate school. The authors stress the importance of research methodology when teaching the introductory psychology courses. They evaluate a series of textbooks to see if it is done properly. Methods Upon the authors’ research of 46 different psychology textbooks that are commonly used in psychology courses that were published in between the years of 1986 and 1989, the group found that there was no uniformity between how the different authors of these textbooks presented information about research methodology. This would make it seem as though any student in any class may be getting different types of information about what research is. Of the textbooks covered, the authors discovered that research strategies were at least often outlined though it was usually in an appendix of the textbook rather than in the chapters of learning (Hendricks, et. al, 1990, p. 76). Of these textbooks, the authors looked primarily at text headings when evaluating whether or not research methodology was covered. If it was only briefly mentioned, it was not classified as being material that was covered in the introductory psychology textbook. The amount of text that even covers the strategies of research was only minimally covered in these textbooks with anywhere from two pages covering the topic to a maximum of eighteen pages. This indicates that authors of many of these psychology books are not taking the initiative to fully introduce the information about research and the students just are not even grasping the concept. The authors also acknowledge that many of these textbooks rarely touch on the different types of data collection and what all the terminology means. Of the various terms that are important in the introduction of psychology, many of the terms were intertwined, almost as if the writers of the textbooks were not able to differentiate it themselves (Hendricks, et. al, 1990, p. 76). This experiment was done by creating a table by listing each author of the textbook in alphabetical order, acknowledging the date that the textbook was published, indicating how many pages reviewed the methodology as well as what the percentage was of the total number of pages that discussed research methodology ((Hendricks, et. al, 1990, p. 77). This study could be replicated if a person was absolutely positive of what was covered. The authors whom conducted this experiment may have a different definition of what research methodology is and it would take a person who is proficient in scientific experimentation to truly replicate this method. The textbooks are currently irrelevant because they are outdated but it could be performed to some extent if choosing current psychology introduction textbooks. The information in how they performed their experiment and collected data is a bit confusing. The authors discuss tables, checklists and diagrams. The authors could have missed a portion of text when examining the books. It is questionable in regards to how loosely they defined what research methodology is so that the people searching through the textbooks would all have a clear and solid definition. Otherwise, when looking for information about this subject, it could be merely subjective. A different person looking at the same textbook may find different results. It does not describe how the “participants” were selected because it was basically just a group of textbooks from a three-year time frame that were published about introductory psychology. There may have been more books published in those years. Also, what textbooks are defined as introductory psychology textbooks? There are so many textbooks published each year that it would be difficult to replicate this because some instructors use different books for an introduction to psychology than others. There is too much information in this experiment that needs to be further defined ((Hendricks, et. al, 1990). Results The results are very clearly labeled in a table (Hendricks, et. al, 1990, p. 77) and also discussed the research design and setting and the different causalities and relationships as defined in a graph cube identifying the different types of methodology (Hendricks, et. al, 1990, p. 79). The illustrations are not completely easy to understand as the authors further conducted questionnaires, observations and interviews. Some of the information was gathered in the field while others were gathered in a lab setting. But why? The information is unclear. There were also a number of different cells identified that discuss multiple individuals but while this covers alphabetically up until Cell X, that is only a small representation of a diverse cross-cultural and global population. Conclusions The results are discussed but the experiment does not seem necessarily rational. There are too many what-ifs and the experiment design is somewhat unclear as to how they truly performed it. It is also extremely outdated. As far as practical implications, the authors do not necessarily have the ability to change the outcome. While editions of textbooks are currently being updated, it could take a long time to fully replicate this experiment. Additionally, with technology there are more than just textbooks to evaluate but also e-books and CDs that may be part of a professor’s teaching implementations. Just because a textbook does not define research methodology does not mean that a professor does not do a unit to focus on it solely on their own to their discretion in the classroom. The authors did cite all of their sources in the article and if not in the tables, at least cited all of the textbooks used for examination in their references section following the article (Hendricks, et. al, 1990, p. 81-82). I personally do not understand how this is so instrumental. If textbooks need updating, it is up to the discretion of a publisher or an author. To fully discuss research methodology is crucial to a students’ learning about psychology. Just because it is not described in a textbook, does not mean that either a professor does not get it or that there are not other tools utilized in a classroom to fully understand a topic of discussion that talks about research methodology. I think that they went too in depth to try to categorize individuals and discuss the laboratory settings. Their problem was so broad and they narrowed it down to the point of where it was more confusing and talking about the different individuals. It was downright confusing to figure out what they were talking about. References Hendricks, B., Marvel, M. K., & Barrington, B. L. (1990). The dimensions of psychological research. Teaching of Psychology, 17(2), 76-82. doi:10.1207/s15328023top1702_1 Read More