Abstract
Introductory psychology students at a technical college, 2-year community college, and a regional university rated how important textbook chapters or topics were to them now and in the future and how interesting they were. Importance and interest ratings were highly correlated, and the whole course was rated of greater importance and interest than was any individual topic. Most topics were ranked between important and quite important both currently and for the future, and university students typically rated both topic importance and interest higher. Males rated statistics of greater interest than did females; females rated importance of developmental now and in the future higher than did males. Women also rated current and future importance and interest in abnormal psychology and the future importance of therapy higher. Implications for introductory psychology instructors, departments, and advisors are discussed.
Introductory psychology students do not always learn or retain the information taught in that course to the degree their instructors might hope or assume (Rickard, Rogers, Ellis, & Beidleman, 1988). McNamara, Willamson, and Jorgensen (2011) found that introductory students improved to greatly varying degrees on 9 of 11 topics from pre- to post-tests, with significant improvement on some topics but little improvement on others. VanderStoep, Fagerlin, and Feenstra (2000) found that at the end of the semester such students most often recalled items associated with vivid instructional tools or techniques, but only 15% of their responses were highly relevant to the course material. Two years after taking the class, former introductory students scored at an “F” (56%) level on a comprehensive exam, and even senior capstone students only averaged 62.7%, a “D” (Landrum & Gurung, 2013). Such disappointing retention suggests that we need to better understand how students perceive the importance and usefulness of introductory topics, especially those they find of lesser importance or interest, if we want to increase overall learning and retention over time.
Student interest in introductory topics has been the focus of several studies, with varying results. Weiten (1988) asked psychology instructors to evaluate introductory textbooks and reported considerable variation in instructor ratings of the degree to which the various books might engage student interest. Using a single item combining importance and interest, McKenzie and Cangemi (1978) surveyed students after taking introductory psychology and asked them to rate their interest in 90 topics that might be included in the course. Although the nature of the exact question asked was not clear from the article, interest was apparently stressed more than importance. Students reported the most interest in human sexual behavior (ranked 1), love (2), suicide (3), and child psychology (4). Items that would seem more important to instructors (and textbook authors; Miller & Gentile, 1998; Zechmeister & Zechmeister, 2000), such as memory (19), factors influencing learning (37), heredity versus environment controversy (74), research methods (85), structure of the nervous system (87), history of psychology (88), and statistics and measurement (89), were ranked much lower.
More recent work with students at a 2-year college found greater interest in clinical and social topics compared to such subjects as biological, cognitive, and developmental (Stalder & Stec, 2007). Similarly, McCann and Kadah-Ammeter (2011) reported students at a regional university and a technical college found personality and psychological disorders most interesting, followed by learning and memory, neuroscience, social, nature/nurture/developmental, consciousness, motivation and emotion, and stress and health. The authors also noted that technical college students found learning and memory much less interesting than did university students, but liked consciousness, motivation and emotion, and stress and health more. These varying results indicate not only differing degrees of student interest in introductory topics but also differences between students at different types of institutions.
One factor influencing student interest in introductory course subject matter might be how important they felt it was to them now or in their futures. However, we found no previous work on how important students think introductory textbook chapter topics are either now or in the future or to what degree such perceived importance is related to their interest in these topics. Nor is there much information comparing differences in responses to such questions at different types of institutions. Weiten, Deguara, Rehmke, and Sewell (1999) compared university, community college, and high school students’ evaluations of textbook pedagogical aids and found general agreement on their usefulness but noted “many (18) significant differences among the three groups in the reported probability of using specific learning aids” (p. 20), including that advanced students rated the probability that they would use such aids lower than did first-semester students. Others have found institutional differences in student grade expectations (McCann, Immel, Kadah-Ammeter, & Priniski, 2013) and in what students felt were the most interesting things they learned in the introductory class (McCann & Kadah-Ammeter, 2011).
Information comparing student perceptions of introductory topics’ importance and interest and the relationship between them at differing institutional types should be useful to instructors, as they try to encourage student motivation and develop interest, especially in those topics their students find of limited importance or interest. Such information might also influence decisions on which chapters or topics to include or stress in the introductory course, where additional assignments might be needed, and how much class time to devote to each. It also may serve as a useful guide in introductory textbook selection, as textbooks vary considerably in the topics covered, amount of coverage devoted to each topic, and the degree to which real-life applications are integrated into content (Griggs & Jackson, 2013).
Method
Participants
Participants were 328 introductory psychology students from a technical college, community college, and a regional university selected to allow comparisons among different types of higher education institutions, with differing missions and student populations. These three institutions are located within 20 miles of each other and draw the majority of their students from the same general region. See Table 1 for participant information.
Participants by School and Overall.
Materials
Our questionnaire requested demographic information and used 5-point scales to rate how important 15 common introductory psychology textbook chapters or topics were to the students now and in the future, how interesting the topics were, and how important and interesting they found the whole course. Table 2 includes a list of these topics. The current and future importance scales used points labeled 1 = not important, 2 = somewhat important, 3 = important, 4 = quite important, and 5 = extremely important. The interest scale was similar but substituted “interesting” for the word “important.”
Means and Standard Deviations by Topic.
Note. Scale 1 = not important, 2 = somewhat important, 3 = important, 4 = quite important, 5 = extremely important.
*p < .01. **p < .001.
Procedure
At the end of a class near the end of the semester, instructors asked students to participate in a survey if they were willing to do so; no extra credit was provided. Participants received an information sheet that indicated responses would be anonymous and a brief survey. Institutional review boards at each institution approved this research.
Results and Discussion
To test for differences between institutions, one-way analyses of variance were conducted for each topic/chapter and Least Squared Difference (LSD) post hoc tests conducted when necessary. Total scores were calculated by averaging responses for importance now, in the future, and interest items. Given the number of the analyses, only differences with p < .01 are discussed as significant below. Table 2 lists the introductory topics/chapters from those rated of most to least current importance by all students (first column), overall current and future importance and interest ratings, and these ratings for each type of institution. The standard deviations (see Table 2) for all combined and institutional rankings were typically around 1, indicating considerable and fairly consistent student variability on the importance and interest of individual topics.
Importance Now and Future—All Schools Combined
Students from the combined institutions ranked the whole psychology course as slightly more important both now and in the future (now M = 3.98, future M = 3.96) than any of the individual topics, suggesting that they see the course as a useful part of their education. Memory (M = 3.94, 3.91), stress/health (M = 3.90, 3.92), and learning (M = 3.90, 3.90), all topics that seem relevant to undergraduates, were ranked of greatest current and future importance and close to “quite important” on the scale used. Of least immediate and future importance were history (M = 2.73, 2.71) and statistics (M = 2.89, 3.08), with means near or below “important”. Composite scores were calculated for each participant for combined history and statistics for both current and future importance and similar scores for memory, stress/health, and learning yielding four composite scores. The composite scores of the three highest rated topics differed significantly from the lowest two on both current, t(325) = 21.74, p < .001, and Cohen’s d = 1.24, and future, t(323) = 19.21, p < .001, and Cohen’s d = 1.06, importance. Introductory course instructors may need to spend (even more) time stressing the value and importance of history and statistics to these typically “general/liberal education” students and the usefulness of statistical skills for future psychology courses, critical thinking, and later in their life.
All other introductory topics were ranked between “important” and “quite important” both now and in the future, again indicating positive student perceptions of the usefulness of introductory course material. Current and future importance ratings were very similar, r(325) = .87 and p < .001, suggesting that students made little distinction between the two. The future importance of introductory psychology topics may not be something most students consider as distinct from immediate importance. This result suggests that if instructors wish to convey the importance of a particular topic, they should be able to choose freely between immediate and future examples to illustrate the value of that topic to their students.
Interest—All Schools Combined
Although no topic’s current or future importance rankings exceeded 4 (quite important), several exceeded that level for interest: consciousness/sleep/dreaming (M = 4.26), the whole course (M = 4.23), abnormal (M = 4.21), personality (M = 4.10), and memory (M = 4.01). Statistics (M = 2.64) and history (M = 2.82) were ranked less than “interesting”. Composite scores were again calculated for combined history and statistics interest ratings and for consciousness/sleep/dreaming, abnormal, personality, and memory. The composite scores of the four most interesting topics differed significantly from the lowest two, t(324) = 28.14, p < .001, and Cohen’s d = 1.61. All other topics fell between “interesting” and “quite interesting,” another positive result for introductory subject matter.
It is somewhat surprising that social psychology fell in the middle of the interest ratings, given its higher ranking in some other studies (McKenzie & Cangemi, 1978; Stalder & Stec, 2007). Psychology’s growing emphasis on the importance of neuroscience is not reflected in the modest interest and importance ratings for brain/nervous system, although such ratings for stress/health, also of increasing importance, were consistently high. These student ratings of interest might be useful in determining topic placement within the introductory course. Instructors might consider starting the term with topics rated as more interesting, such as memory and consciousness/sleep/dreaming, and put less interesting topics such as history and statistics later in the semester. One could even personalize the course by contacting enrolled students prior to the start of the semester and asking them to rank their interest in the various topics and consider that information in determining both topic coverage and order for the class.
Students made little distinction between interest and current or future importance. Current importance ratings were significantly correlated with interest, r(325) = .75, as were future importance and interest, r(325) = .73, ratings (both p < .001). It is not clear whether these correlations indicate that interest determines importance, importance influences interest, or if students just see interest and importance as more or less identical as applied to introductory subject matter. This does suggest that if instructors can find ways to make introductory topics seem either more interesting or more important, student perceptions of both may increase.
Differences Between Schools
Averaging over all topics, university (U) students gave somewhat higher ratings to current and future topic importance than did community college (CC) and technical college (TC) students. U students also reported higher, although not significantly, overall ratings of topic interest (p = .013). Institutions did differ significantly on interest in the whole course, F(2, 321) = 9.07, p < .001, partial η2 = .053, with TC students finding the course significantly less interesting than U (p < .001) and CC students (p = .005). However, the schools did not differ significantly on current or future importance of the whole course, although U and CC students rated both higher than TC students. These results may reflect differences in the relevance of the course to the educational and career goals of TC students, or it may be that the somewhat greater age and number of credits earned for TC students contributed to such differences. While psychology instructors and departments will benefit from efforts aimed at generating student interest in the introductory course, and helping them develop an appreciation of the relevance of the course to their current and future goals, the results indicate that these efforts may be more of a challenge at our technical colleges, although the reasons for this are not clear.
Institutions also differed on the current and future importance and interest of specific topics. They differed on all three areas for consciousness/sleep/dreaming: current F(2, 323) = 9.01, p < .001, partial η2 = .053; future F(2, 321) = 8.77, p < .001, partial η2 = .052; and interest F(2, 322) = 21.78, p < .001, partial η2 = .119. U students rated it of much greater current interest than did CC and TC students (both p < .001) and of greater current and future importance than CC (both p < .001) and TC students (current p = .002, future p = .005).
Institutions also differed on the current importance of memory, F(2, 325) = 9.31, p < .001, η2 = .054, with U students again rating this higher than both CC (p = .001) and TC (p < .001) students. They also differed on its future importance, F(2, 323) = 4.63, p < .01, η2 = .028. U students rated memory as having more future importance (p = .01) than CC (p = .005) students, and institutions differed on interest in memory, F(2, 324) = 9.87, p < .001, η2 = .057, with U students seeing it as more interesting (p < .001) than both CC (p < .001) and TC (p = .001) students. Interest in learning also differed significantly, F(2, 324) = 6.58, p = .002, η2 = .039, with U students again finding it more interesting than CC (p = .001) students. It is not clear why any of these topics might be of less importance or interest to CC and TC students, especially since these topics were rated higher than most others.
Gender Differences
There were many more female than male participants at all institutions, and the few significant gender differences tended to be in traditional directions. Males had more interest in statistics than females, F(1, 319) = 7.93, p = .005, partial η2 = .024, whereas females rated developmental more important both now, F(1, 325) = 7.47, p = .007, partial η2 = .022, and in the future, F(1, 323) = 8.93, p = .003, partial η2 = .027. Females also rated the importance of abnormal psychology higher now, F(1, 324) = 9.74, p = .002, partial η2 = .029, and in the future than did males, F(1, 321) = 12.43, p < .001, partial η2 = .037, and found it more interesting, F(1, 322) = 19.20, p < .001, partial η2 = .053. They also rated the future importance of therapy higher, F(1, 315) = 7.60, p = .006, η2 = .024.
Conclusions
The high degree of similarity between student perceptions of the current importance, future importance, and interest in these introductory topics indicates that they make little distinction between them. This information should encourage instructors to use a variety of examples to illustrate the usefulness and personal relevance of introductory subject matter to help increase student interest and application to their current and future situations. Advisors might capitalize on the similarities between perceptions of interest and importance and use a range of examples to help students see how psychology classes beyond the introductory course are relevant to their current and future endeavors and generate interest in additional coursework in the field. Those advising psychology majors, minors, and nonmajors on choosing among their elective course options will no doubt find that student interest in topics such as abnormal psychology and personality will lead them to enroll in such courses. However, advisors should also take the opportunity to point out the importance and value of subjects that these data suggest are less likely to attract student attention and to explain why some courses they may see as less important are required for majors and minors rather than elective. They also might consider the differences in importance and interest in the introductory course across institutions, in particular the lower interest reported by CC and TC students, when advising students planning to transfer to 4-year institutions. Such students might need additional information regarding the relevance of the introductory course to their planned field of study, its place in the liberal arts curriculum, and the value of future coursework in the field.
In interpreting these results, we should note the influence of the different instructors participating, who surely spent differing amounts of time and demonstrated different levels of enthusiasm on the individual topics in the classes we surveyed, possibly influencing the variability in the differences found. The differences in importance and interest across institutions may reflect their different missions, institutional goals, and unique populations served, and suggest that less experienced instructors should consider these differences as they begin to teach at a particular institution. The gender differences reported here reflect traditional stereotypes of male interest in math-related topics such as statistics and female concern with developmental issues. As the percentage of female psychology majors continues to increase, we need to consider these differing interests as we decide how to approach the various topics in the introductory course.
Overall, students found the introductory psychology course to be “quite important” both now and in the future but often rated the course and most topics as more interesting than important. Instructors may be able to take advantage of this high level of general interest among students, most typically not majoring or minoring in psychology, to more clearly convey the practical value and applications of the various topics they cover and thus enhance student appreciation of the importance of these topics. They also might consider directly indicating to students that those topics in which they seem to have lesser interest are important, and not just to psychology instructors. Psychology departments and instructors often struggle with the question of which topics to include in the introductory course, how much time to devote to each, and in what order they should be presented. These student perspectives regarding topic importance and interest may help to illuminate not only decisions about coverage but may influence textbook selection as well. In addition, advisors may find this information useful, as they encourage students to consider those psychology courses covering the less inherently interesting topics that are so basic and contribute so much to the content of our discipline.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.