Category Archives: from the classroom

Psyc 217 Research Methods: What textbooks do you need?

Hello to all my new, eager students! I’ve received quite a few emails recently about the textbooks. Normally these are the kinds of questions that would receive an answer along the lines of  “please check your syllabus” — however, considering I haven’t quite finished it yet, I can’t exactly expect you to consult it.

Here’s what you need:

  • Cozby, P. C., & Rawn, C. D. (2012). Methods in Behavioural Research(Canadian Ed.). Toronto, ON: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.
    • This is a nuts-and-bolts style guide to research methods that focuses on the details of how to conduct research. Available new from the bookstore, or electronically on Coursesmart. *Note that used editions do not exist because this edition is brand new.
    • Yes, I am the second author. Please note that I am donating all royalties from UBC sales to UBC scholarships.
    • Can you use an old edition? No, I do not recommend it. Here are a few reasons why. First off: most examples are changed, updated, and now integrate Canadian culture, terminology, and research (spot your profs in the reference list!). Second, I totally overhauled the ethics chapter to reflect the Canadian context of conducting research (e.g., in terms of government, terminology, structure). The old one is all-American. Third, I’ve improved the book based on two rounds of (Canadian) reviews as well as my own experiences teaching this course for the past four years. You’ll notice a synergy between what happens in class (e.g., diagrams, ways of explaining things), and the textbook. Fourth, I’ve added extra features to help you learn. For example, I’ve re-worked the learning objectives so that it’s clearer what to do with them, and I’ve ensured every bolded term is in the glossary, which wasn’t true before…. Changes like that that will make it easier for you to learn from this text.
  • Stanovich, K. E. (2009). How to Think Straight about Psychology(9th Ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
    • This guide to research methods provides a nice complement to the details of the first text. It is written from a bigger picture perspective. Available new and used from the bookstore. If you buy it new from the bookstore, it comes with a $10 off i>clicker coupon and a free guide to APA style.
  • Cuttler, C. (2010). Research Methods in Psychology. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
    • This is the lab guide — created for our Psych 217 labs — that will help you and your teammates work step-by-step to create a successful research project.
  • i>clicker Student Response System, available new and used from the bookstore.

Hope that’s a helpful start. I’ll post the syllabus later this week when I have it complete. Looking forward to meeting you next week!

Psyc 100 Section 002: What textbooks do you need?

Hello to all my new, eager students! I’m receiving emails daily from people wondering about book options and/or classroom location. Normally these are the kinds of questions that would receive an answer along the lines of  “please check your syllabus” — however, considering I haven’t quite finished it yet, I can’t exactly expect you to consult it.

If you’re in my Psyc 100 class, section 002, that meets MWF 12-1, we’re meeting in Scarfe 100 Term 1, and switch to Buchanan A101 in Term 2.

You absolutely need three things:

  1. “Psychology: From inquiry to understanding” Canadian edition by Lilienfeld and other authors. It *must* be the Canadian edition that looks like this. You can find this at the UBC bookstore, or on amazon.ca, or, if you’re into electronic books, at Coursesmart.
  2. An i>clicker personal response system, available at the bookstore. If you’re wondering what it is, here’s a website that has a photo and some person’s review. It must be the i>clicker brand in order to work with our system at UBC. At the end of the year, if you’re never going to use it again, you can return it to the bookstore just like a used book.
  3. Access to PeerScholar. This is a website that we will use in both terms to facilitate peer feedback on your papers. If you buy the textbook bundle at the bookstore, access costs $5 (included in the price of the bundle. If you buy access online, access costs $12.95 (probably plus tax). If you prefer the online-buy option, go to the website link and follow the instructions there.

You don’t have to have access to MyPsychLab. It comes with the textbook bundle at the bookstore, or you can buy online access later. It’s a study guide that many students find helpful. It has quizzes and flashcards and videos and all kinds of things like that for each chapter. Note that representatives for the publishing company for your textbook have made this website, not me. I had nothing to do with it. Many students have found it helpful for studying, but it’s up to you if you want to use it.

There are a few more resources we’ll be using over the year, but I’ll explain those later. These are the resources I’ve been asked about. Note that if you are experiencing serious financial need, please come to me and I’ll work with you to find access to the resources you need. (And don’t feel embarrassed — I’ve been there myself.) For example, I have some i>clickers for loan.

I’ll post the syllabus when it’s ready, later this week. Looking forward to meeting you next week!

My students are awesome :)

Last week one of my wonderful students from Intro Psych sent me this photo that was taken on the last day of classes. I thought I’d share (with her permission).

What a fun bunch! I really enjoyed your group’s presence in our class. Thanks for good times!

I hope all of you — and all my students — are having a great summer. I’m looking forward to meeting our incoming class!

Responding to Student Evals 2011/2012 Part 4: Psyc 218 Statistics and Conclusion

Welcome to part four–the final installment!–of my reflections on student evaluations of teaching from 2011/2012. Please see my earlier posts for a general introduction and reflection on feedback from my Psyc 217 research methods, Psyc 100 intro course, and Psyc 208 Section 002 Special Topics course. I have also posted graphs that facilitate comparison across all my courses and years I have taught them.

First, as always, I would like to thank each of my students who took the time to complete a student evaluation of teaching this year. I value hearing from each of you, and every year your feedback helps me to become a better teacher. Please note that with respect to the open-ended responses, I appreciate and consider every thoughtful comment. The ones I write about are typically those that reflect common themes echoed by numerous students.

Psyc 218: Analysis of Behavioural Data

Because I have only taught this course once, I am interpreting the numerical data in reference to my other courses that I have taught multiple times. As you’ll see from the graph below (click on it to enlarge), students rated this course right on par with my others. In fact, ratings were almost exactly what I received from students in my research methods courses. Given that the third midterm was much more challenging than I had anticipated, it surprised me somewhat that students rated evaluations as fair as my students in research methods did. At 3.9 there is definitely room for improvement there (in both courses). Interestingly, clarity of expectations was also high, which lends support for my hypothesis that these two are related (see further discussion in my research methods reflection). Overall, these numbers signal to me that students are feeling positively toward this course.

After reading the comments, I must say an extra thank you to each of you for the polite and thoughtful tone used in delivering this feedback. There most common point of discussion was acknowledgments that the first two midterms were too easy, and the last too difficult and too lengthy. I absolutely agree — it was clear during the semester and is clear in the evaluations. I will make every attempt to even out the difficulty of these exams next time. What I appreciated most was the way these comments were delivered. Here’s an example:

The course was a lot of fun, and easy to understand. However, for the future, I would prefer if we can have midterms with a consistent level. It was a huge shock for me on the last midterm. 🙁

In case you’re writing these kinds of comments in the future, here’s why I found this comment particularly effective: it starts with a positive that was at least a bit specific (could be moreso), and conveys a respectful tone set by phrases like “I would prefer”. There’s no personal attack toward me here, but a fair acknowledgment of an area in this course that needs improvement.

The midterms were by far the most discussed aspect of the course. However, many people also noted how much they valued my enthusiasm and interactive style. Here’s a couple of specific comments that capture the sentiments echoed by many students in the class:

Not one minute is wasted in class. She is always teaching in innovating and varied ways.

Although still challenging, I found this course to be enjoyable. Dr. Rawn was approachable and tried hard to interest and even engage us in the material and provided encouragement to students. I liked how the iclickers were used so that u could test yourself to see if you understood the material without having to worry about losing marks. As already discussed in class, the midterms although sometimes too long or short, I thought the questions were fair (they tested for understanding rather than memorization). I thought the spss assignments were a good way of understanding theory and application of the tests we learned although I found some questions unclear.

For a few people, it seems I was able to calm some of their hesitation toward math/numbers. This is fabulous to hear, because it’s something I really tried to do throughout the course. Here’s an example of one of these comments:

I thought Dr. Rawn did an amazing job teaching this course. I have struggled with math and was not enthusiastic to take this course however, she inspired motivation and made this course interesting and easy to learn. I ended up with a higher grade in this course than I anticipated and I owe it all to Dr. Rawn.

While I’m not convinced this student “owes it all” to me, it seems that I was able to offer some support beyond the technicalities of course content, reflecting one of my personal goals for this course this year. Again, I’d like to thank everyone who completed the student evaluations for doing so in such a thoughtful and respectful way. Your feedback will influence the way I teach this course in the future.

Conclusion

What a helpful exercise that was! Writing about my student evaluations of teaching helped me to really think about what you (my students) were saying about my teaching and my courses. If I had to pick one overall goal for me to keep in mind next year, it would be having clear expectations and communicating those effectively. I think I’m doing this well in some courses, making progress in others, and have more room for improvement in others.

Reading student evaluations can be a very emotional experience for those of us who dedicate our lives to helping others learn. Overall, I’m thankful for the respectful tone that most of my students used when identifying strengths and areas for growth. When feedback isn’t conveyed respectfully it makes it difficult to hear what is being said. Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback, and for the way you did it.

For educators who might be reading this, I also gained insight into a process that helped me be optimally receptive to feedback: (1) I started with the numbers — comparing within year and within course (using graphs) really helped me set up an analytic frame of mind; (2) once I was in that analytic (rather than emotional) frame of mind, I read the comments and used them to help me understand what I was seeing in the numbers; (3) I wrote about it–you might share it or not, but this was really helpful for me to make sure I processed the messages and decided on action plans.

Onward and upward!

Responding to Student Evals 2011/2012 Part 3: Psyc 208 Special Topics

Welcome to part three of my reflections on student evaluations of teaching from 2011/2012. Please see my earlier posts for a general introduction and reflection on feedback from my Psyc 217 research methods and Psyc 100 intro course. I have also posted graphs that facilitate comparison across all my courses and years I have taught them.

First, as always, I would like to thank each of my students who took the time to complete a student evaluation of teaching this year. I value hearing from each of you, and every year your feedback helps me to become a better teacher. Please note that with respect to the open-ended responses, I appreciate and consider every thoughtful comment. The ones I write about are typically those that reflect common themes echoed by numerous students.

Psyc 208 Section 2 Special Topics: How social psychology can help you succeed

This special topics course is one that’s near and dear to my heart. I developed it with the goal to help students learn to learn. It’s an applied social/sport/positive psychology course, where I have hand-picked the topics and consistently encourage their application to each student’s personal learning journey. This course includes a group project for which the ultimate goal is to learn to identify a problem in your life, then find and evaluate research-based ideas to address it, then share your findings with others. See the syllabus for more information.

Last year in 2010/2011, I almost completely revamped the course based on students’ feedback and my own experiences the year before. You’ll see a major improvement in students’ perspectives on this course when you look at the graph comparing the quantitative data from the first offering in 2009 to last year. This year, I didn’t change much after that total revamp the year before. The evaluations from 2011/2012 are very close to those from 2010/2011, which supports my hypothesis that the revamp was a very positive change. Both “fair evaluations” and “clarity of expectations” are lower than where I’d like to see them, and they’re actually the lowest of all my courses last year. This warrants action.

Two main themes came out of the comments. First, the midterm was perceived to be too long. This surprised me, given that I shortened it from last year based on similar feedback, and do not recall that sentiment being shared with me during the semester. It seems that again I need to reduce the length of that midterm. Related to the midterm topic, a number of students reported being unsure about how the textbook material would be represented on the midterm. One student made the helpful suggestion that I note which parts of the readings are “need to know” parts. I’m not sure how I can do that and not compromise the test, but it’s definitely worth some strategizing about how I can better prepare students to integrate that material.

The second consistent theme was the groupwork. A few people seemed frustrated by it, some appreciated its place in the course and still others enjoyed it. I’ve often received such mixed feedback about groupwork. One comment about groupwork that I found particularly interesting was this:

Overall, your class and you were very engaging and I learnt a lot in the class, I enjoy the material quite a lot and find myself spreading the knowledge outside of class. I always enjoyed going to class and I liked seeing the team projects. I however do not particularly like team projects but it was useful for this course and in our future lives. I feel  team projects just take so much longer than doing it yourself and that when you get some classmates that do not care about their marks, it really puts more weight on the rest of us.

This comment stood out for me because it takes a common sentiment–that people often dislike groupwork because of relying on others–but recognizes its appropriateness in this course. Not too many people took this perspective, but it’s one that I hope to cultivate more. Its practical value is exactly why I designed this team project in the first place. Based on this and other feedback, I need to work on communicating that intention and the expectations of it more clearly. I think after using this assignment twice now (including tweaking it for 2011/2012), I have an even clearer idea of what I expect from these projects. I will do my best to communicate those expectations more clearly. One of the changes I made based on last year’s feedback was to adjust the proportion of the grade devoted to the group versus individual components. Interestingly, no one mentioned this individual/group grade proportions, suggesting this weighting is no longer an issue.

Last, quite a few people made comments suggesting that my overall intentions in creating this course are being realized (well, getting there at least!). Here a couple of examples:

Awesome course! I enjoyed the emphasis on active learning. It was a nice change from the classes I usually take.

Clearer guidelines for assignments and groupwork would be helpful. Otherwise, I really enjoyed this course- it was helpful both academically and personally.

I have enjoyed the setting of “team environment” throughout this course. Engaging students in the subject encouraged me to learn more effectively and study more efficiently.

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. I will definitely work on clarifying those expectations, and will shorten the midterm for next year. I’m glad that many of you found the active learning emphasis helpful for your learning!

Stay tuned for one more…!