9
Senior Seminar, Psychology 483
Term 4, 2004
Carol Zerbe Enns
Office: LAW 106D (895-4351)
Home: 320 South 4th St. West (895-6605)
e-mail:
Class Hours: Variable. After week 1, Monday - Friday: 1-3 P.M.
Overview:
This course is designed as a capstone experience for psychology majors. It provides psychology majors with opportunities to reflect on the science and profession of psychology as a whole and to consider their future interests and direction. We will focus on what it means to be a psychologist, how the field of psychology is currently developing, and what issues and conflicts must be addressed if psychology is to maintain a viable and effective influence in society. Themes and topics will focus on the diversity within psychology, gender issues, multiculturalism, social responsibility, ethics, and the role of scientific psychology in society.
A seminar is a class with many teachers and usually involves gaining a deep understanding of crucial issues and methods in a specific area of study. As a result, each seminar member is responsible for coming to sessions having carefully read assigned material and having thought about the issues at hand.
Readings and Resources:
American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5th edition). Washington, DC: Author.
Selected articles on classroom reserve: see schedule
Discussion Topics:
1. The role and significance of undergraduate psychology: What should a psychology student learn from a psychology education? Is there a standard body of knowledge in psychology?
2. Globalization, social justice, and psychology: How will globalization change the face of psychology? In what ways is the practice of western psychology ethnocentric? What might a truly inclusive transnational psychology (or psychologies) look like? What are the responsibilities of psychologists to work for social justice in the international context?
3. Competing cultures within psychology: Are psychology’s identifications with science and the helping professions incompatible? What will psychology look like in the future?
4. Multicultural issues in psychology: Does academic psychology have a racial/cultural bias? To what degree is cultural competence important for contemporary psychologists?
5. Gender and sexual orientation issues in psychology: Does academic psychology have a gender bias? How should sensitivity to gender intersect with attentiveness to other aspects of diversity? How should psychologists respond to national controversies regarding sexual orientation and gay marriage?
6. General ethical issues and research ethics: What are psychologists’ responsibilities to research participants? Do we have responsibilities beyond fair treatment?
7. Ethical issues in the practice of psychology: How should psychologists deal with informed consent issues and multiple relationships?
8. Research, practice, and the marketing of psychology: What is the appropriate relationship between psychology, academic research, and society in general? What are psychologists’ appropriate roles in communicating the findings of psychology?
Evaluation: (approximate percentages assigned to each activity or assignment)
Seminar meetings:
Participation & leading discussion 15%
Critical reaction journal & essays 15%
Personal statement 7%
Review Paper:
Working outline, note cards, brief summaries 8-10%
First draft of review paper 20-25%
Final draft of review paper 30-35%
Personal Statement:
The personal statement provides opportunities for students to reflect on their knowledge of psychology, their strengths as students of psychology, and future growth areas and/or limitations that will be important to address as they consider future directions. The statement should include commentary about current goals, personal qualities, and values as they relate to a potential career in psychology. Later in the academic year, each person’s psychology adviser will respond to student statements and provide feedback relevant to areas discussed in the commentary.
Discussion Leadership and Participation:
This seminar is a course in which participants work together to gain a deeper understanding of issues in psychology. Each student is responsible for reading assigned material and reflecting on the issues raised by readings prior to class meetings. Class members will have the opportunity to demonstrate their understanding of and reactions to reading materials by participating actively in class discussion.
Each class member is responsible for leading class discussion on one occasion. Discussion leaders should prepare enough material for approximately one hour. Discussion provides opportunities to examine various points of view, critically evaluate materials class members have read, and draw connections between various perspectives.
Superior (A): Asks thoughtful questions that engage class members; offers insights that have not been thought of by others. Contributes an appropriate amount to discussion; doesn’t dominate, but offers more than simply a few good observations. Redirects a discussion that has strayed from the topic back to critical points.
Very Good (B/B+): Poses questions and discussion comments that are insightful, targeted, and thoughtful; but offers only a few of these to overall discussion. Alternatively, offers good comments and questions but dominates discussion.
Average (C): Contributes to and is attentive to discussion, but tends to restate the obvious or may ask questions that do not lend themselves effectively to discussion. May reject some viewpoints out-of-hand without considering possible implications.
Below Average (C-/D): May offer a few helpful comments to discussion, but otherwise comments tend to re-state the obvious. Offers personal anecdotes that are tangential to the main topic. Exhibits some periods of disengagement from discussion.
Critical Reaction Journal and/or Structured Essays:
The critical reaction journal provides an opportunity for class members to reflect on their reactions to topics discussed in class. The journal should include questions that may be raised as a part of class discussion. The following content is appropriate for this journal:
-identification of discussion and reflection questions generated by the reading;
-assessment, commentary, and evaluation of the issues discussed in specific articles;
-strengths and limitations of and agreement or disagreement with various positions taken by authors;
-commentary about and integration of repeated themes across topics and writings;
-proposed solutions to the issues discussed in articles; comparison and integration of authors’ perspectives;
-implications of the issues discussed by readings and class speakers;
-examples of the issues discussed in readings and by guests.
Critical reaction journals are due during the class session devoted to the specific topics. Evaluation will be based on the degree to which journals address the content listed above.
Superior (A): Journal entries demonstrate insightful engagement with several key concepts or issues identified in articles. Entries show a level of specificity that communicates careful reading of the content and attention to the type of content listed above. When relevant, entries also address how themes discussed in separate articles are related to each other.
Good (B): Good entries that address several issues but may not be as insightful or as detailed as superior entries.
Average (C): Questions and observations tend to be vague (e.g., “This reading is difficult.”), oversimplify issues, or draw overgeneralizations.
Major Paper:
We will discuss the review paper at regular intervals during the seminar. I will distribute a handout about review papers and allow students to peruse sample papers. Personal attributes that will help students write a strong review paper include patience, tolerance for ambiguity, appropriate pacing of writing and research tasks, the ability to work through frustration, and the willingness to formulate and revise working plans, outlines, and drafts.
The following are general standards I apply when grading the research review.
Superior (A): This paper does not only fulfill the assignment, it also has something original and important to say and the points it makes are supported well. It is organized effectively, develops smoothly, and it is written clearly and correctly. It is based on data or a review of the literature that is clearly related to the points it has to make. Findings from the literature are integrated into a readable and comprehensive paper. The conclusion suggests that the writer has synthesized the literature and has identified strengths and limitations of the literature as well as future directions for research and theory. The paper is correct with regard to mechanics and citation style.
Good (B): This paper fulfills the assignments well. Its general ideas are clear and it is presented effectively. It handles its sources well, with no serious errors of fact or interpretation. Although it may not represent insight into the issues, it reports on adequate and appropriate data or literature. Generally, the paper is correct in usage, appropriate in style, and correct in mechanical standards of writing, including bibliographic citation.
Average (C): This paper fulfills the assignment adequately, but it might be better described as an annotated bibliography. Points may be hard to follow and the paper may be poorly organized (e.g., unbroken narrative with no headings or clear relationships; literature review that summarizes sources merely in sequence without synthesizing points). There may be errors of fact of interpretation. Sources or data may be poorly chosen – insufficient in number, of inappropriate types, too old, lacking in authority, etc. There may be errors in usage, the style may be inappropriate for the assignment, or there may be errors in mechanics of writing or citation.
Marginal (D/F): This paper does not fulfill the assignment, and may not do what was required. It may fail to focus on a single topic or subject. It may omit important material lying within its declared scope or make repeated errors of fact of interpretation.
Class Policies
Attendance and Timely Submission of Work:
Two unexcused absences will result in the lowering of the final grade by one letter. Please notify me in advance if you must be absent on a particular date, or let me know as soon as possible if you are ill so I can make appropriate arrangements.
Due dates for papers may be adjusted for legitimate health, personal reasons, or complications in the research process. Students who wish to be granted extensions must notify me in a timely fashion. When students have not consulted with me about the need for additional time, papers that are submitted after deadlines will be penalized 1/2 grade for every 24 hour period after the stated deadline.
Honesty in Academic Work (from the Cornell College Compass)
A student is expected to explicitly acknowledge ideas, claims, observations, or data of others, unless generally known. When a piece of work is submitted for credit, a student is asserting that the submission is her or his work unless there is a citation of a specific source. If there is no appropriate acknowledgement of sources, whether intended or not, this may constitute a violation of the College’s requirement for honesty in academic work and may be treated as a case of academic dishonesty.
Dishonesty in academic work includes both cheating and plagiarism. Cheating refers to the use of unauthorized sources of information on examinations or any attempt by students to deceive the marker or evaluator of an examination, paper or project. Plagiarism is the act of taking the work of another and passing it off as one's own, without acknowledgement of the original source.
The appropriate acknowledgment of sources involves meeting the following requirements:
Quotations and Paraphrasing. All direct quotations, even if mingled with original words and ideas, must be placed within quotation marks and accompanied by a specific citation for the source of the quotation. Unless the information is generally known, all phrases that are not original to the author – even two or three words – must be placed in quotation marks and cited. If an existing idea is used by paraphrased or summarized, both the original author’s words and sentence structure must be changed and a specific citation for the source must still be made. It is always the responsibility for the student to provide precise sources for all ideas, information, or data he or she has borrowed or adapted. Simply listing sources in a bibliography is not sufficient. Students who use information from the World Wide Web are expected to follow these same guidelines for the citation of sources. Failure to cite sources properly constitutes academic dishonesty, whether the omission is intentional or not.
Ideas and Data. All students are required to acknowledge the ideas of others. Every student is expected to do her or his own work in the completion of an assignment or examination unless either (a) the sources for these ideas are explicitly cited, or (b) the instructor explicitly allows such collaboration.
Submitting revisions of academic work previously submitted, either in the current course or in previous courses, qualifies as academic dishonesty unless the student obtains the permission of all the instructors involved.
All data sources must be cited accurately. It is dishonest to fabricate or alter research data included in laboratory reports, projects, or other assignments.
A safe guide is to provide a full citation for every source consulted. Sources may include, but are not limited to, published books, articles, reviews, Internet sites, archival material, visual images, oral presentations, or personal correspondence. In addition, students should always keep previous drafts of their work in order to provide documentation of their original work.
Class Schedule
WEEK ONE: November 22-24
Monday, November 22 (9 A.M.)
9 A.M.: Introduction and review of class assignments
Self-Directed Search distributed. Please complete the SDS for our Wednesday (9:30) session.
Tuesday, November 23 (9 A.M. discussion & 1 P.M. library search)
1 P.M.: Library workshop on conducting a thorough literature search
Conducted by Amanda Swygart-Hobaugh, Social Sciences Consulting Librarian
Location: Library Room 127 (Computer Lab)
Discussion Topic 1: The role and significance of undergraduate education in psychology
Murray, B. (2002). What psych majors need to know. Monitor on Psychology, 33 (7), 80-81. (handout)
Task Force on Undergraduate Psychology Major Competencies. (2002).Undergraduate psychology major learning goals and outcomes: A report. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Boneau, C. A. (1990). Psychological literacy: A first approximation. American Psychologist, 45, 891-900.
McGovern, T. V., Furumoto, L., Halpern, D. F., Kimble, G., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). Liberal education, study in depth, and the arts and sciences major--psychology. American Psychologist, 46, 598-605. (Read sections on orienting assumptions and structure of the major.)
Belar, C. D., Nelson, P. D., & Wasik, B. H. (2003). Rethinking education in psychology and psychology in education. American Psychologist, 58, 678-683.
Wednesday, November 24 (9:30 A.M.)
9:30 A.M.: Jayne Swanson (Director of Career Services) will join us to discuss your results on the Self-Directed Search. We will then discuss relationships between your scores and typical “profiles” of psychologists.