Designing a Conceptual and Historical
Issues in Psychology module through
Active Learning
Gareth Hall, Antonia Ivaldi & David Tod
In our experience, most colleagues understand the pedagogical value in teaching Conceptual and Historical
Issues in Psychology (CHIP). However, few wish to be involved in teaching it, even in their sub-disciplines,
because it is perceived as dry and dull, as well as void from everyday life. We present how we reinvigorated
CHIP and its content within a new Psychology degree programme. We begin by outlining our experiences with
CHIP and then describe several steps we took to redesign the module. Specifically, we outline how we utilised
pedagogical literature that emphasises student-focussed Active Learning, and specifically Co-operative
Learning, to inform our module redesign and delivery of content. We then outline how we engaged in a
more considered approach to embedding employability strategies into our content, and then describe how we
implement these approaches into a student-led module. Finally we summarise student feedback about the
module and offer suggestions for embedding Active Learning into modules.
‘to my boss who approached me one day and asked how I felt about the teaching the history of psychology’
(dedication in Schultz & Schultz, 2011, p.2)
N OUR EXPERIENCES, the History of
Psychology module was often one passed to
colleagues who happen to be early in their
career or agreeable to requests to teach it,
and the opening quote reflects a similar way
in which we acquired our History of
Psychology module into our teaching remit.
Furthermore, in our shared 20 years’ teaching experience, the History of Psychology, or
now more commonly referred to in the UK
as Conceptual and Historical Issues in
Psychology (CHIP), had always been
perceived as unscientific and, therefore, its
place in an undergraduate curriculum was
met with scepticism. On the one hand, we
and our colleagues recognised the pedagogical value of having elements of psychology’s
conceptual and historical issues in our
psychology programme, but we were not
sure really what these valuable aspects were,
other than having some appreciation of its
past. On the other hand, no-one wanted to
teach it as it was perceived to be dry and dull,
and devoid of relevance to our everyday life.
In our opinion, it is perhaps the uncomfortable and ‘fuzzy’ dichotomy between psycho-
I
logy having scientific credibility and the
need to recognise the historical context in
which psychology evolved based on a
pseudo-appreciation of psychology’s past
that has stifled a stronger presence of the
field within a British Psychological Society
(BPS) accredited degree programme.
Our observations are somewhat
supported by several authors (Barnes &
Geer, 2013; Bhatt & Tonks, 2002; Fuchs &
Viney, 2002; Furumoto, 2003) who between
them noted that there is a reduced visibility
of History of Psychology content and
modules as part of a psychology degree
programme in the US and Canada, but also
that the topic is taught by non-specialist
History of Psychology teachers in academic
departments or psychologists who have not
had any prior exposure to its content (i.e.
not replacing specialist teachers after
retiring). Within the UK, the BPS took a
significant step in 2004 by assigning (pedagogical) importance of CHIP material by
requiring it to be taught within accredited
undergraduate degrees in Psychology.
Recent personal communications with a
former BPS committee member (P. Banister,
6 July 2014) revealed that CHIP was originally proposed as a core topic with other
psychology topics, such as Cognitive and
Social Psychology, for example. However,
due to limited postgraduate provisions in
this field (one rationale for having common
core elements in the BPS curriculum) it was
decided to limit its presence to one of pedagogical pursuit and, therefore, to be
embedded throughout the curriculum. The
extent to which CHIP is required to be
embedded within UK degree programmes,
at present, only points to the contents of the
subject being integrated into other
psychology modules (e.g. an introductory
lecture about personality might draw upon
Hippocrates and Galen’s four humours as an
early theory of personality), rather than
taught as its own module (c.f. Brock &
Harvey, in press). The current position of
CHIP is, therefore, indicative of the importance it is given by academic departments in
the UK and, understandably makes it more
difficult to defend having in a programme as
its own module, as well as gain support from
colleagues to recognise it as a legitimate and
worthwhile topic. For example, Brock &
Harvey (in press) found that of the 119 UK
Psychology departments surveyed about
CHIP provisions, only 20 provided a separate
CHIP module where five were optional
rather than required modules. Moreover,
some departments who had indicated not
having a CHIP module actively dispensed of
the module after the introduction of the BPS
requirement to have it included in accredited degrees by integrating material into
other Psychology modules.
One conclusion to be made about CHIP
is that its relevance in a psychology degree
programme appears to be a major challenge
for the topic’s future because if its relevance
does not survive within professional psychologists, then it will almost inevitably not
survive amongst the student population.
This would be a disappointing situation
given that the last 50 years have produced
evidence that students find the topic of
interest. For example, some of the first
surveys published about History of
Psychology modules (Nance, 1961, 1972),
during a time that History of Psychology was
reported to be a neglected field in terms of
specialisation (Watson, 1961), showed that
students liked the module content, found
the module useful, and believed it should be
required as part of a degree programme.
Later surveys have also shown the subject to
be valuable and interesting for students, as
well as useful for studying Psychology
(Hilgard, Leary & McGuire, 1991; MonroyNasr, Álvarez-Díaz de León & León-Sánchez,
2009).
In our department, initial student feedback for content related to History of
Psychology did not corroborate previous
research and our responses to this feedback
form the basis to the manuscript where we
present a series of phases that we underwent
in redesigning the module’s learning
outcomes and students’ learning experiences. Specifically, we describe how we use
our new CHIP module to embed current
Higher Education (HE) curriculum developments, such as employability skills, into our
module by utilising elements of Active
Learning (AL) to provide a student-led
module.
Reviewing the CHIP learning
experience
In 2009, our current degree programme ran
CHIP related content within a year-long
20 credit Introductory Psychology module.
The module received poor student feedback
in terms of student satisfaction and qualitative feedback suggested that the relevance of
the module to the degree was an issue and
the content was described as ‘dull’ and
‘uninteresting’. At the same time, we were
developing our new single honours Psychology degree programme and reviewing the
portfolio of modules for the single honours
degree programme. One of the outcomes of
this review was to embed CHIP content into
the degree programme as its own module.
In doing so, we hoped to provide an explicit
Designing a Conceptual and Historical Issues in Psychology module through Active Learning
identity and meaning to students for CHIP
with an aim of improving its perceived relevance in a Psychology programme. Although
this approach might improve its image and
identity within the programme it did not
address the issues described by students as
being dull and uninteresting. Consequently,
my colleagues and I took the decision to
rethink the delivery of the content that was
informed by pedagogical research and
trends, such as Active Learning (c.f.
Topping, 2005), while also enhancing
employability in our curriculum. We, therefore, hoped that the reinvigorated delivery
of the content would present an opportunity
to provide evidence-based enhanced learning experiences for students that were interesting and accessible, while having the
added benefit of achieving institution
learning and teaching strategies regarding
employability. To achieve our aims, a review
of pedagogical and HE literature was utilised
to guide our curriculum development for
our proposed CHIP module.
Phase 1: Reviewing the evidence for
pedagogical practices
Lecture-based learning. Our first strategy in
adopting a new approach to teaching CHIP
was to first investigate literature examining
evidence for pedagogical merits in utilising
traditional didactic lecture formats for
communicating module content. While
lectures remain the dominant form of
delivery in HE they have been described as
an ineffective learning environment. For
example, Biggs (1999) critiqued lectures as
being less effective than unsupervised
reading, particularly as human attention in
lecturing contexts does not usually last
longer than 15 minutes. Bok (1992) has also
described teaching as a human activity that
does not improve through the generations,
while Ruth (1997) further emphasised this
point by describing how a HE professor from
the 19th century would see little difference
in the way students are taught today. Despite
these criticisms, there is mixed evidence for
the value (based on attainment) of lectures
where some studies have found a direct relationship between attendance and attainment
(Newman-Ford et al., 2008), while others
have not (e.g. Hammen & Kelland, 1994;
von Konsky, Ivins & Gribble, 2009). In
contrast with these studies, post-lecture
study-hours, and lectures more clearly integrated with assessments and examinations
have been found to be more positively
related to grades rather than solely due to
attendance (Dolnicar, 2004; Massingham &
Herrington, 2006; Stinebrickner & Stinebrickner, 2004, 2008).
Using the presented evidence as a guide,
we set out three general objectives in reconsidering our traditional lectures:
l reduce passivity and increase active
participation in lectures;
l increase pre- and post-lecture engagement in study; and
l integrate lectures with an assessment to
maximise attendance and attainment.
In our expriences, CHIP content lends itself
well to encouraging debate, and we were
keen to further explore these aspects of the
content in the module in order to provide
both an intellectually stimulating environment and a valuable learning experience that
could challenge students’ perspectives and
develop critical thinking. To examine the
merit in achieving our objectives we
conducted a review of alternative approaches
to learning and teaching, and we reviewed
pedagogical research that focussed on AL.
Student-centred learning. Our second strategy
of this phase investigated pedagogical
research about AL. Traditionally, AL as an
alternative to lectures did not receive much
support in education (schools and HE)
during the first half the 20th century
(Johnson & Johnson, 2009; Zhao & Kuh,
2004). It was not until cognitive-developmental and constructivist frameworks and
approaches to pedagogy (e.g. Vygotsky,
Piaget, but also Social psychologists, such as
Kurt Lewin and Jerome Bruner) were made
more explicit to practioners and teachers
that AL became more integrated into educa-
tion. These approaches to pedagogy
describe learning as a social activity and
experience where knowledge is constructed
and given meaning by learners (Johnson &
Johnson, 2009; Michael, 2006), and students
influence their learning through studentcentred approaches (see Table 1 for a list of
approaches). The goal of these approaches
is to facilitate learners in becoming
autonomous and critical thinkers (Johnson,
Johnson & Smith, 2007; Topping, 2005).
One of the main features achieved by AL is
the development of learning communities
(Zhao & Kuh, 2004) and they are usually
seen to promote and foster a culture of
learning within students and between
students and teachers through positive interaction and interdependence (Felder &
Brent, 2007; Johnson, Johnson & Stanne,
2000). Specifically, we focused on Co-operative Learning to develop our curriculum for
CHIP as it has the strongest body of research
and theoretical groundings (e.g. Social
Interdependence Theory), but also one we
felt was most sustainable to implement as an
alternative form of instruction and delivery
to didactic lectures.
Co-operative and Collaborative Learning
are intended to provide education for
different ages, experience, and expertise
(Bruffee, 1995), they are also often synonymous with each other, and although they are
more similar than dissimilar, there are some
differences that are noticeable in practice.
Both approaches share the same constructivist philosophies (see Panitz, 1999, for a
comprehensive overview), but differ in terms
of the structure of setting and completing
tasks (Panitz, 1999; Roberts, 2004). Specifically, Co-operative Learning is more structured where learning is focussed within a set
of guidelines to accomplish a clear goal and
learning outcome. In general, the benefits of
Co-operative Learning include higher
student attainment, learning rates, and
bigger achievements in postgraduate workplacements relative to those who receive
traditional methods of delivery (Felder &
Brent, 1994; Hake, 1998). Other benefits
include higher level thinking (de Capraris,
Barman & Magee, 2001; Jungst, Licklider &
Wiersema, 2003), and a developed ability to
generate creative solutions to problems
through perspective taking (Lord, 2001).
However, more recent research that has
examined AL methods, such as Co-operative
Learning, in undergraduate courses has
tended to focus on student perceptions of
participating in AL, where findings have
been less favourable relative to traditional
methods of learning if it is not aligned with
improving exam performance (Machemer &
Crawford, 2007). Cavanagh (2011) showed
that a more integrated approach of traditional and Co-operative Learning was more
successful as students reported having had a
more meaningful learning experience.
Based on this literature, we were confident
that Co-operative Learning would be a useful
approach to teaching CHIP, providing that
each activity was integrated with assessments
and required students engaging in pre- and
post-study learning.
Table 1: Examples of student-centred, Active Learning approaches
(adapted from Michael & Modell, 2003).
Problem-based learning
Co-operative and collaborative learning
Think pair-share or peer instruction (peer-to-peer learning and assessment)
Conceptual change strategies
Inquiry-based learning
Discovery learning
Technology-enhanced learning (can incorporate some of the above)
Designing a Conceptual and Historical Issues in Psychology module through Active Learning
Phase 2: Embedding employability
into CHIP
Like many other UK HE institutions,
employability is a strategic goal for learning
and teaching enhancement and although we
already have a strong employability presence
in our programme, we wanted to take the
opportunity to make explicit to students the
stronger link between academic tasks and
work place tasks. Specifically, in developing
learning activities we were guided by four
generic transferable skills for employability
originally proposed by Bennett, Dunne and
Carre (2000, cited in Yorke & Knight, 2006,
p.4), namely: (1) management of self; (2)
management of others; and (3) management of information; and (4) management
of tasks. One of the main benefits for
keeping to these four broad skills are that
they are flexible enough to be embedded
within any discipline’s curriculum, where
subject-specific skills can then be fine-tuned
to suit each programme or module. Another
reason for keeping to these broad terms is
that it allowed us to be creative in designing
the module to achieve these skills. Specifically, Pegg et al. (2012) described in their
review of pedagogy and employability that
‘Constructivist (i.e. active or experiential)
approaches to learning and teaching…
develop employability because they
encourage exploration, provide feedback
and develop reflection, motivation and
engagement’ (p.32). Indeed, alternative
pedagogical approaches not only deal with
subject specific content and skills, but also
enhance general employability (Pedagogy
for Employability Group, 2006). We then
conducted an audit of skills that we felt were
achieved in the module prior to its re-design,
and specifically contribute to the broad
generic skills identified above. To achieve
this, we engaged in a mapping exercise
guided by Yorke and Knight (2006; but see
Cole & Tibby, 2013, for a more recent framework for developing employability in a
curriculum). Yorke and Knight (2006, p.8)
list 39 aspects of employability skills origi-
nally developed by the Skills plus project,
which can also be themed into three broad
categories, namely: (1) personal qualities;
(2) core skills; and (3) process skills. They
also provided example mapping grids to
guide auditing of these skills. Under each
category, skill sets that encompass essential
transferable skills (e.g. written communication skills; numeracy; critical thinking) are
described, and it is assumed that the subject
specific skills and knowledge are acquired
alongside these more general skills, where
applying subject understanding to any of
these broader skill sets is itself, a transferable
skill. We were then familiar with what skills
we were not addressing under the original
module design and consider ways to embed
them into the new module and its activities
and assessments.
Realistically, we had reservations about
the attainment of employability skills
through AL, but once we had decided on the
content for the module (through a thematic
analysis of popular CHIP texts at the time)
we were able to develop AL activities and
guidelines that developed some of these key
skills described by Yorke and Knight (2006).
We should be clear here that we did not try
to map every transferable skill into each
activity that we developed because it would
not have been logistically possible. Rather,
we tended to focus on the four management
skills outlined previously while developing a
mixture of personal qualities, core and
process skills. For example, very few activities
required numeracy skills (something that is
covered well in modules related to research
methods and statistics), while almost all
activities in our module emphasised a
mixture of IT and interpersonal skills to be
successful in AL assessments (e.g. Prezi or
PowerPoint presentations, workload delegation and preparation) and examinations
emphasised learning outcomes related to
demonstrating strong written communication and understanding of subject knowledge.
Phase 3: Bringing it all together
Our biggest challenge in reinvigorating the
module was to bring the differing elements
outlined previously (i.e. employability and
AL) into a coherent module where subjectspecific content was not compromised. One
of main concerns was the limited time we had
in which to deliver the module (11 week
semester, with two 60 minute lectures per
week). This format did not suit the AL environment we had in mind and so we decided
to create an 11-week module with 11 twohour weekly sessions. To achieve objective
one outlined in phase one (i.e. reduce
passivity and increase active participation in
lectures), we reduced the number of sessions
and/or time in each session that was spent on
passive listening. Instead, using Cavanagh’s
(2011) study as a guide, each session was to
have either a blended learning approach or
an exclusively AL session where contextual
knowledge was delivered by students in each
session. The blended learning approach
tended to be in the form of lectures or several
10-minute lectures delivered online (c.f.
flipped classroom learning) that integrated
with in-class activities.
Our next biggest challenge in this phase
was to develop Co-operative Learning tasks
based on the content that had already been
written, planned, and uploaded onto our
Virtual Learning Environment, Blackboard,
such as pre-session reading, videos and
subject knowledge learning outcomes. To
help us develop activities that would also
develop transferable skills, an invitation to
staff (teaching and non-teaching) was circulated. We collated the ideas and responses
and then developed a module activity handbook (see Appendices for an example)
where content and previous student feedback influenced which tasks were aligned
with each session. For example, subject
knowledge that was perceived as dull (e.g.
pre-scientific psychology) were targeted to
have more student-engagement using
Co-operative Learning. We do not outline
every activity in this manuscript, but to illustrate how we came up with some activities we
outline one example where we had particular difficulty in developing an activity,
namely pre-scientific psychology.
Teaching pre-scientific Psychology: An example of
the ancient Greeks. We struggled most with our
theme, pre-scientific psychology, which
encompassed periods prior to the 19th
century, but we focus here on the philosophers of Ancient Greece. Specifically, we were
unsure how best to make these sessions active
without the risk of repeating similar activities
in later sessions. To overcome this challenge,
we began by reviewing the purpose for having
this period of history as part of our module,
which was to encourage students to think critically about this era’s relevance to understanding contemporary psychology, as well as
considering whether the issues debated at
that time were also part of Psychology’s past.
As such, the main subject specific transferable
skills we were trying to develop for students
were critical and creative thinking to support
their decision as to whether these periods are
of relevance to psychology; an evaluation was
required on the part of the student. This
latter tangible goal, therefore, formed the
central component of our activity for this
session where the goal was for students to
demonstrate why they did or did not think
this period was relevant. In terms of broader
general transferable skills, we wanted to focus
on developing their presentation skills and
ability to use information and research to
communicate their opinions and ideas, which
are skills that will be required for their degree
programme and likely to be encountered in
the work place. Subsequently, we challenged
the students, while working in pre-established
groups, to adopt the role of a Greek Philosopher where the objective for students was to
prepare to respond to a series of questions
and also a job advert for the position of President of the BPS (see Appendices). All readings were provided for the students and were
available in their handbook, which included a
mixture of primary and secondary sources, as
well as a variety of online sources. In their
activity handbook, students had to prepare
Designing a Conceptual and Historical Issues in Psychology module through Active Learning
for their job interview by using a series of
structured questions that provided a framework for thinking critically about each
philosopher’s relevance in psychology’s
history. An example of the questions include:
(1) What is your approach to human behaviour? (2) Why is your approach better than
other philosophers’ approaches to human
behaviour? (3) How do you think your
approaches to human behaviour have influenced psychological thinking? (4) Can you
give an example of contemporary psychology
that demonstrates your approach to understanding science and human behaviour?
After each interview was conducted, nonpresenting students are then tasked to ask
any questions to challenge presenting
students; we often provide students with
questions to ask in anticipation of awkward
silences. The purpose of this part of the
session is to stimulate debate, test presentor’s
research and knowledge, but also to include
those students not presenting in the activities and ensure they have also engaged in
reading. After the presentations and debate,
the lead tutor summarises the session’s activities and key findings, and students submit a
summary of their work and scripts (typically
a 2000 to 2500 word document between five
students) so that all students can make use of
their work for revision.
In terms of workload, groups presented
three of six activities and were selected based
on a rota system developed by the module
coordinator. Each group presented and
submitted a 2000 to 2500 word group script
after each activity about their research and
findings and tasks should be divided
amongst group members fairly. At the end of
the module, a group would have submitted
the equivalent of a 6000 to 7500 words across
three activities. As such, each student is
contributing approximately 500 to 750 words
per session, and, therefore, at the end of the
module each student has contributed
around 1500 to 2000 words over the three
activities. The Co-operative Learning assessments provided 60 per cent of their total
module mark, while an end of module pre-
seen exam (one week in advance) provided
40 per cent of their mark. The purpose of
the exam was intended to offer further motivation to students for engaging in the activities due to the exam’s alignment with the
session contents they were presenting while
also examining their ability to demonstrate
subject knowledge. The remaining nonassessed sessions were a mixture of informal
activities, didactic lectures, and debates.
Since the module began in its current
format, we have seen an increase in student
satisfaction from 54 per cent to 72 per cent,
but because many variables might be
affecting satisfaction it is difficult to say that
the increase was a direct result of the the
methods used. The most dramatic form of
perceived satisfaction reported by students
was with their effective communication skills,
a key transferable skill, from 65 per cent to
97 per cent. However, we recognise that
there is still some considerable work to be
done on other aspects of the module. For
example, one recurring issue of dissatisfaction for students is one of peer engagement
in group activities, namely social loafing,
where students are anxious that other group
members are being supported by the
stronger group members. For example, one
student provided the following feedback,
‘…people in my group were not equally
committed to making sure presentations
went ahead…’, while another student was
frustrated about relying on others.
‘Good idea to have a group doing work
together… having to rely on other group
members to do the work was stressful as
sometimes some people would not even
try and this would lead to all the work
being placed on one person.’
In response to this feedback, we will be introducing peer evaluations at the end of the
module where students will be able to evaluate their group member’s contributions
within each activity. Module conveners will
then be able to penalise those students who
contributed less.
Although not reflected in the quantitative evaluations, we received positive qualita-
tive feedback that focussed around
performing public speaking, comparing
their performance with peers, engaging in
intellectual topics, and the perceived
research skills learnt. Some students also felt
challenged and were thankful for this, as well
as the opportunity to make new friends,
despite finding it difficult to manage group
members who were not contributing as
much as others.
‘The lectures were interesting and I think
that the fact we had to do preparation for
each session really helped with the study.
I doubt I would remember so much from
the course after regular lectures.
Working in groups also helped, because
we shared ideas that the other group
members may have not thought about
before.’
‘I really enjoyed standing and speaking in
front of the class… I can say that my
communication skills improved… my
further comment is thank you for challenging us… for putting so many interesting topics in… and for making us
speak in public.’
Although our data does not directly relate to
the content of CHIP, we were encouraged by
students’ acknowledgement of the skills they
developed through our activities, despite the
challenges that working in groups presented
for them. In relation to the evidence
provided earlier, some of our students’
comments reflect findings by Stinebrickner
and Stinebrickner (2004, 2008) that demonstrated self-study had taken place, but also
that perspective sharing was a valuable
source of knowledge development. Since
some comments also focussed on the development of communication skills, we are very
encouraged, initially at least, to see that the
module has managed to achieve both subject
specific skills and knowledge, and broader
transferable skills. However, we are
concerned that some aspects of the module
still require attention, namely social loafing
in groups and this might be having a disproportionate influence on overall module satisfaction. It is possible that group work might
not be an appropriate learning method for
undergraduates who have only recently
begun university and we will need to monitor
this for the next academic year after piloting
the effectiveness of introducing peer evaluation into the module to reduce social
loafing. In summary, our provisional data is
encouraging, but students have clearly identified shortcomings related to group workthat we feel, in hindsight, we have
overlooked.
Conclusions and suggestions for
the future
Since piloting the new format of the module
we have been pleased at the level of engagement and enjoyment from the majority of
our students, despite the initial resistance to,
and fear of group work and presenting. In
addition, the module is easier to administer
to the extent that any one of our colleagues
could deliver a session with very minimal
background knowledge. Rather, colleagues
need only engage in essential preparatory
reading and read any tutor notes provided.
Consequently, AL is beneficial not just for
students, but also teaching staff in that, once
established, delivering AL requires minimal
time and effort. We also felt that AL fostered
a good rapport and learning community
with our students.
In advising colleagues who may be tasked
with delivering a CHIP module in future, we
would strongly suggest utilising elements of
AL, even if the module is predominately
lecture based. For example, using assessments to encourage AL is one way of
enhancing students’ learning experiences,
or role-playing in seminars is a viable and
easy alternative to introduce. However, there
are several factors that colleagues should
consider before integrating AL into their
teaching of CHIP. First, the level of the
module should be considered. Our module
was delivered and pitched for first-year
undergraduates, and although the content
was difficult and challenging for them, there
was no risk to their final degree classification. As such, although we encourage the use
of AL, we would urge colleagues to tread
cautiously when weighting assessments
heavily on group based activities as some
students might feel disadvantaged by less
engaged students, especially when their
module mark contributes towards their final
degree classification in second and third
years. Second, class size has a negative influence on module management and group
work. We are still a relatively new department with small numbers and during class
we have no more than eight groups (a total
of 50 single honours students ranging
between four to five students per group)
presenting. Ideally, this should take between
40 to 60 minutes, but with questions and
debates, two hours are easily used up.
Furthermore, more groups lead to potential
repetition, and longer periods of passive
listening, which returns our learning environment back to one of passivity that we
wanted to initially avoid. As such, the set of
activities must work within strict time limits
and group size. As Topping (2005, p.632)
warns, simply adopting AL approaches can
result in ‘the blind leading the blind’ or
‘pooling ignorance’ that can lead to a form
of cognitive under stimulation because
tutors are putting people together for group
work and hoping for the best. One task used
within Co-operative Learning that we found
particularly useful in structuring our sessions
was the ‘jig-saw’ method and we encourage
exploring the literature that reports a variety
of methods used in Active and, specifically
structured Co-operative Learning methods
(see Felder & Brent, 2007; Johnson, Johnson
& Stanne, 2000 for an overview of some techniques). What is surprising with the methods
available
in
Co-operative Learning is that many methods
are already known to HE tutors and relatively
easy to implement. As our psychology
programme grows, we are concerned about
group size for our module, and it is likely
that the sustainability of the module as an AL
module will be more difficult to manage and
administer. We are already beginning to
consider if the module might better run as
short lectures and more weekly seminars
instead. The consequence of course, is that it
clearly becomes more labour intensive than
it originally was in the first instance where
those who advocate the value of didactic
lectures as the best form of content delivery
will be vindicated.
The Authors
Gareth Hall & Antonia Ivaldi
Department of Psychology,
Aberystwyth University,
Wales.
David Tod
Liverpool John Moores,
School of Sport and Exercise Sciences.
Correspondence
Gareth Hall
Department of Psychology,
Penbryn 5, Aberystwyth University,
Ceredigion, SY23 3UX.
Email: gbh@aber.ac.uk
References
Barnes, M.E. & Greer, S. (2013). Does the future have
a history of psychology? A report on teaching,
research, and faculty positions in Canadian
Universities. History of Psychology. Advance online
publication.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0035335
Bennett, N., Dunne, E. & Carré, C. (2000). Skills development in higher education and employment. Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press.
Bhatt, G. & Tonks, R.G. (2002). What lies in the
future of teaching the history of psychology?
History and Philosophy of Psychology Bulletin, 14,
2–9.
Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Bok, D. (1992). Reclaiming the public trust. Change:
The Magazine of Higher Learning, 24(4), 13–20.
Brock, A. & Harvey, M. (in press). European year book
of the history of psychology.
Bruffee, K.A. (1995). Sharing our toys: Co-operative
learning versus collaborative learning. Change:
The Magazine of Higher Learning, 27(1), 12–18.
Cavanagh, M. (2011). Students’ experiences of active
engagement through co-operative learning activities in lectures. Active Learning in Higher Education, 12(1), 23–33.
Cole, D. & Tibby, M. (2013). Defining and developing
your approach to employability: A framework for higher
education institutions. York: Higher Education
Academy. Retrieved from:
http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/
documents/employability/Employability_
framework.pdf
De Caprariis, P., Barman, C. & Magee, P. (2001).
Monitoring the benefits of Active Learning exercises in introductory survey courses in science:
An attempt to improve the education of prospective public school teachers. The Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 1(2), 1–11.
Dolnicar, S. (2004). What makes students attend lectures?
The shift towards pragmatism in undergraduate lecture
attendance. Faculty of Commerce Papers, 81.
Retrieved from:
http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1073&context=commpapers
Felder, R.T. & Brent, R. (1994). Co-operative learning in
technical courses, procedures, pitfall, and payoffs.
Retrieved from:
http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/
f/felder/public/Papers/Co-opreport.html
Felder, R.M. & Brent, R. (2007). Co-operative
learning. In Active Learning: Models from the Analytical Sciences, ACS Symposium Series (Vol. 970,
pp.34–53).
Fuchs, A.H. & Viney, W. (2002). The course in the
history of psychology: Present status and future
concerns. History of Psychology, 5(1), 3.
Furumoto, L. (2003). Beyond great men and great
ideas: History of psychology in sociocultural
context. In P. Bronstein & K. Quina (Eds.),
Teaching gender and multicultural awareness:
Resources for the psychology classroom (pp.113–124).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Hake, R.R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus
traditional methods: A 6000 student survey of
mechanics test data for introductory physics
courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64–74.
Hammen, C.S. & Kelland J.L. (1994). Attendance
and grades in a human physiology course.
Advances in Physiology Education, 267, 105–108.
Hilgard, E.R., Leary, D.E. & McGuire, G.R. (1991).
The history of psychology: A survey and critical
assessment. Annual Review of Psychology, 42,
79–107.
Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R.T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and co-operative learning.
Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365–379.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T. & Smith, K. (2007).
The state of co-operative learning in postsecondary and professional settings. Educational
Psychology Review, 19(1), 15–29.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T. & Stanne, M.B. (2000).
Co-operative learning methods: A meta-analysis.
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.
Retrieved from:
http://www.tablelearning.com/uploads/
File/EXHIBIT-B.pdf.
Jungst, S., Licklider, L.L. & Wiersema, J. (2003).
Providing support for faculty who wish to shift to
a learning-centered paradigm in their higher
education classrooms. The Journal of Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning, 3(3), 69–81.
Lord, T.R. (2001). 101 reasons for using co-operative
learning in biology teaching. The Chronicle of
Higher Education, 63(1), 30–38.
Machemer, P.L. & Crawford, P. (2007). Student
perceptions of Active Learning in a large crossdisciplinary classroom. Active Learning in Higher
Education, 8, 9–30.
Massingham, P. & Herrington, T. (2006). Does attendance matter? An examination of student
attitudes, participation, performance and attendance? Journal of University Teaching and Learning
Practice, 3(2) [Online]. Retrieved from:
http://jutlp.uow.edu.au /
2006_v03_i02/pdf/massingham_008.pdf
Michael, J. (2006). Where’s the evidence that Active
Learning works? Advances in Physiology Education,
30(4), 159–167.
Michael, J.A. & Modell, H.I. (2003). Active Learning in
secondary and college science classrooms: A working
model of helping the learning to learn. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Monroy-Nasr, Z., de León, G.Á.D. & León-Sánchez,
R. (2009). The challenge of teaching history of
psychology: A new curriculum, a new programme and the students’ previous ideas. In
International History & Philosophy of Science
Teaching Group Biennial Conference, University of
Notre Dame, IN. Retrieved from:
http://www3.nd.edu/~ ihpst09/
papersgiven.html
Nance, R.D. (1961). Student reactions to the history
of psychology. American Psychologist, 16(4),
189–191.
Nance, R.D. (1971). Undergraduate students and the
history of psychology. American Psychologist, 26(3),
316.
Newman-Ford, L., Fitzgibbon, K., Lloyd, S. &
Thomas, S. (2008): A large-scale investigation
into the relationship between attendance and
attainment: A study using an innovative, electronic attendance monitoring system. Studies in
Higher Education, 33(6), 699–717.
Panitz, T.(1999). Collaborative versus co-operative
learning: A comparison of the two concepts which will
help us understand the underlying nature of interactive learning. Cape Cod Community College,
Massachusetts. Retrieved from:
http://home.capecod.net/~tpanitz/
tedsarticles/coopdefinition.htm
Pedagogy for Employability Group (2006). Pedagogy
for employability. Learning and Employability Series
One. York: ESECT and HEA. Retrieved from:
http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/
documents/employability/id460_embedding_
employability_into_the_curriculum_338.pdf
Pegg, A., Waldock, J., Hendy-Isaac, S. & Lawton, R.
(2012). Pedagogy for employability. York, UK:
Higher Education Academy. Retrieved from:
http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/
detail/employability/pedagogy_for_
employability_update_2012
Roberts, T. (2004). Online collaborative learning: Theory
and practice. London: Information Science
Publishing.
Ruth, S. (1997). Getting real about technology-based
learning: The medium is not the message.
Educom Review, 32(5). Retrieved from:
http://net.educause.edu/pub/er/review/
reviewarticles/32532.html
Stinebrickner, R. & Stinebrickner, T.R. (2004).
Time-use and college outcomes. Journal of Econometrics, 121(1–2), 243–269.
Stinebrickner, R. & Stinebrickner, T.R. (2008). The
causal effect of studying on academic performance. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis &
Policy, 8(1). (Frontiers). Article 10.2202/19351682.1868. Available at:
http://www.bepress.com/
bejeap /vol8/iss1/art14
Topping, K.J. (2005). Trends in peer learning.
Educational Psychology, 25(6), 631–645.
von Konsky, B.R., Ivins, J. & Gribble, S.J. (2009).
Lecture attendance and web-based lecture technologies: A comparison of student perceptions
and usage patterns. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(4), 581–595.
Watson, R.I. (1960). The history of psychology:
A neglected area. American Psychologist, 15(4),
251.
Yorke, M. & Knight, P.T. (2006). Embedding employability into the curriculum. York: Higher Education
Academy. Retrieved from:
www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/publications/
learningandemployability
Zhao, C.M. & Kuh, G.D. (2004). Adding value:
Learning communities and student engagement.
Research in Higher Education, 45(2), 115–13
Gareth Hall, Antonia Ivaldi & David Tod