Introductory Psychology

Abstract

The American Psychological Association Board of Educational Affairs Working Group (APA) recommends providing some research experience to undergraduate students in the introductory psychology course. This nationwide survey of introductory psychology instructors explored the frequency of integrated research opportunities in introductory courses, types of research activities included in courses, instructors’ perceptions of the importance of providing research experience, and perceived barriers to integrating research. We found that although few of the introductory courses have a separate laboratory (5%), over 75% of the respondents indicated some manner of research activity in their courses. Most introductory courses included opportunities to read and critique original research, but few psychology programs at institutions of higher learning provided students with hands-on research, APA writing, or data presentation opportunities. Respondents also rated activities such as designing, conducting, and interpreting research as not especially important for introductory courses. Primary barriers to integrating research are logistical in nature.

Keywords

introductory psychology research experience lab

Nearly 2 million of the 17 million undergraduate students in the United States enroll in introductory psychology courses each year (Homa et al., 2013; U.S. Department of Education, 2014). Students enroll in introductory psychology courses for a variety of reasons, including the belief that having a basic understanding of the field of psychology is valuable. Psychology courses are an ideal venue for building critical thinking and scientific reasoning skills (American Psychological Association [APA], 2013). In psychology courses, students typically engage in lectures and activities focusing on the scientific method, which may allow them to evaluate research, distinguish between science and pseudo-science, and systematically analyze behavior (Brewer et al., 1993; Halpern & Butler, 2011). The impact of psychology is pervasive, affecting everything from our health to our criminal justice system to our public policies (Cacioppo, 2007; Kraut, 2012). And although not every student of psychology will go on to become a psychological researcher, taking psychology courses, and introductory psychology in particular, can develop the skills necessary to be a scientifically literate consumer of empirical knowledge (Morling, 2014).

However, data from various surveys indicate a lack of understanding of the scientific nature of the field of psychology. First, a recent national poll of adults in the United States revealed that only 30% viewed psychology as grounded in rigorous science (Penn, Schoen, & Berland Associates, 2008, as cited in Lilienfeld, 2012). Second, over 400 first-year through senior students enrolled in introductory psychology reported that they often enter into the course expecting to learn about people and relationships, to learn about social issues, and to learn information that will help them in their personal and professional lives (whether or not students engaged in separate laboratory research experiences in this survey was unstated; Miller & Gentile, 1998). Miller and Gentile (1998) also noted that students expect to be entertained, and few students expect to find the course intellectually challenging. Third, Holmes and Beins (2009) conducted a survey of over 200 psychology majors enrolled in courses across the curriculum (i.e., introductory through upper-division laboratory and research methods courses) and reported that students’ belief that psychology is a science did not increase with greater exposure to psychology classes (mean levels for the psychology as a science construct were not presented; thus, it is unclear if the values for this scale were consistently low, moderate, or high). Holmes and Beins (2009) also reported that scientific interest did not increase as students progressed through the psychology major and students who were interested in applied areas of psychology (e.g., clinical application) did not see a scientific foundation of psychology as relevant. Taken together, these findings highlight a perceptual problem confronting the field of psychology, wherein students do not appear to view psychology as a science, and these beliefs do not change as students progress through the psychology major.

A number of individuals and organizations have provided recommendations for psychology courses, and introductory courses in particular, to address the misconception that psychology is not grounded in empirical science. For instance, the APA’s Board of Educational Affairs Working Group (APA-BEAWG; 2013, p. 21) suggests integrating research opportunities for students in the introductory course, noting “Exposure to research or including a laboratory component in some form in introductory psychology may be particularly important because students arrive with so many misconceptions about the discipline.” The Committee on Undergraduate Science Education (1997) also suggests that we integrate research experience into courses in order to teach students about the scientific method effectively:

It is hard to imagine learning to do science, or learning about science, without doing laboratory or fieldwork. Experimentation underlies all scientific knowledge and understanding. Laboratories are wonderful settings for teaching and learning science. They provide students with opportunities to think about, discuss, and solve real problems (p. 16).

Overcoming students’ misconceptions about psychology by providing them with research opportunities is also supported by the APA’s Guidelines for the Undergraduate Psychology Major (2013), which includes a focus on scientific inquiry. The second learning goal for students, Scientific Inquiry and Critical Thinking, contains five subgoals: “1) use scientific reasoning to interpret psychological phenomena; 2) demonstrate psychology information literacy; 3) engage in innovative and integrative thinking and problem solving; 4) interpret, design, and conduct basic psychological research; and 5) incorporate sociocultural factors in scientific inquiry” (p. 15). Integrating hands-on research experiences into introductory courses can provide a means to work toward these learning goals, and they can provide a stronger introduction to the discipline that more accurately reflects the science of psychology and helps students understand the rigorous, scientific approach researchers take in investigating psychological phenomena (Berthold, Hakala, & Goff, 2003). In addition to providing students with a more representative and challenging introduction to psychology, engaging students in research may provide them with a foundation on which to develop skills to critically evaluate scientific research and conduct research themselves as part of upper-division courses. An unexamined though important question is whether this scaffolding approach comes closer to achieving the APA’s scientific inquiry and critical thinking learning goal for psychology baccalaureate students than do other approaches that do not provide early research experiences in introductory psychology courses.

Despite these recommendations to integrate hands-on research experiences into courses, little is known about laboratory experiences in contemporary introductory psychology courses. A recent survey of psychology programs in the United States somewhat addresses this lacuna. Norcross et al. (2016) reported that only 6% of introductory psychology courses include a laboratory component for all students. However, the nature of these laboratories, including the types of activities and scope of outcomes, was not assessed.

A review of published research on introductory psychology research experiences is summarized in Table 1. Based upon this review, we identified five primary themes. First, given the potential importance of early research experiences for understanding psychological concepts, there are relatively few publications, some of which are dated, that describe these kinds of opportunities for introductory students. Second, there is great heterogeneity both in the types of research experiences provided and the way these experiences are integrated in the classroom. These experiences ranged from critical thinking modules to designing research studies and even collecting and analyzing data obtained via various methods. Further, research experiences vary greatly in terms of where, when, and how they occur. Some of the activities occur outside the classroom, others as part of the lecture, and still others in separate laboratories, with varied delivery systems as well: computer programs, instructor-designed projects, student-designed projects, or publisher-designed digital resources. Third, the publications vary widely in the level of description and analysis. We found brief descriptions of activities, comprehensive descriptions, and objective evaluations of student learning. None of the articles we reviewed employed a randomized experimental design examining any unique effects of the laboratory or research experience on student learning. Fourth, the outcomes examined by researchers were heterogeneous both in the nature of the outcome variables and in their valence. Most of the outcomes were subjective, using student evaluations of satisfaction or perceptions of learning as an index of laboratory efficacy, and fewer authors employed objective outcomes, such as exam scores, overall grades, or grade point average (GPA). Although the majority of the reported subjective and objective outcomes were positive (e.g., students experiencing introductory psychology laboratories felt greater confidence in using the scientific method; students who participated in laboratory experiences early on performed better in subsequent psychology classes than those who did not), there was one recent article that reported both negative subjective and objective outcomes associated with hands-on research experiences in an introductory psychology course (Downey, 2013). Finally, we found no published reports of introductory psychology research activities in associate degree programs. This is significant, as increasing numbers of students are taking introductory psychology courses at community colleges: The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES; Kena, Aud, Johnson, Wang, Zhang, Rathbun, Wilkinson-Flicker & Kristapovich, 2014) estimated an increase of 177% in psychology degrees awarded at the associate level from 2001 to 2010. Given that students may enroll in associate programs that do not grant a specific degree in psychology in order to transfer to 4-year colleges or universities to obtain a psychology degree (“Enrollment Data”, n.d.; Kena et al., 2014), the number of students exposed to introductory psychology courses at the associate level is likely higher than the NCES estimate. Given this increasing population, understanding the types and scope of research experiences in community college introductory psychology courses is as important as documenting these activities in 4-year institutions.

Table 1.

Noncomprehensive Review of Published Studies Describing Hands-On Research Experiences in Introductory Psychology Courses.

Reference	Sample	Activities	Outcomes
Brothen (1984)	Undergraduate students at a large, public research institution	The author created three computer programs in which students participated in studies and then compared their results to their peers’. They answered questions to assess their understanding of the studies	Students described the programs as enjoyable and beneficial
Dietz-Uhler (2009)	Undergraduates at a small, public institution	Students read information on the scientific method online and then designed a research study. Students also completed two modules on critical thinking	Students reported having more confidence in using the scientific method and critical thinking skills and more knowledge of the scientific method and critical thinking
Downey (2013)	Undergraduate students at a small public college	Students identified a social behavioral concept, found and read two research articles about the construct, and proposed an observational study. Once approved, students conducted the observational studies in small groups, concluding with a brief research report (written individually) and a presentation	Students rated the activity as less positive in comparison to service-learning exercises. Students’ scores on a research methods quiz decreased from the time they learned about methods in class to the end of the semester. Students did not report any change in their interest in psychological research
Goolkasian & Lee (1988)	Undergraduate students at a large, public research institution	Students met in a lab for two hours each week; engaged in computer simulations of research experiences and calculated descriptive statistics	Students describe the experiences as helpful and important, not a waste of time and not frustrating
Kazmerski & Blasko (1999)	Undergraduates at a small, public institution	Students spent four class periods learning about observational research via computer modules and then conducted their own observational study in pairs	Students who received the computer-assisted instruction earned higher grades on the research report compared to students who only received traditional instruction on observational research. Students who received the computer instruction also said conducting research was more useful than students who received only traditional instruction
Kohn & Brill (1981)	Undergraduate students at a large, private research institution	Students participated in Demonstration Labs that were either mini-experiments or demonstrations related to lecture material. The labs were led by upper division students	Students described the labs as positive, reported learning more, they increased their interest, and they liked having an undergraduate student as teacher
Koschmann & Wesp (2001)	Undergraduate students at a small private liberal arts college and undergraduate students at a medium-sized public college.	Students in one introductory class designed and conducted observational, correlational, and experimental studies and reported on the data they collected in the dining hall during subsequent class sessions. Students then used these data to enhance class discussion about research methods	The students who engaged in the research experiences earned higher exam scores than students who did not engage in the research experiences. Further, students reported the research experience helped them learn about the scientific method and how it applies to the field of psychology
Lamson & Kipp (2009)	Undergraduate students at a large, public research institution	Through a series of modular activities, students read empirical articles, wrote an intro and participated in an experiment as part of class. Students wrote the method, reviewed instructor-provided data analysis, and wrote a results and discussion section. Students presented in a poster session	No outcomes reported
Newcomb & Bagwell (1997)	Undergraduate students at a small, private liberal arts institution	Students participated in a lab in addition to lectures; lab was taught by upper division students. In lab students learned about how psychologists ask and answer questions, students practiced all aspects of the research process—conducting studies, analyzing data, writing results, etc	Students thought the lab was valuable for learning about research methods and liked instruction on computers, said it promoted critical and analytical thinking skills; students liked collaborating with peers and liked having upper division students as teachers; they did not like the workload
Thieman, Clary, Olson, Dauner, & Ring (2009)	Undergraduate students at a small, liberal arts, all-women’s college	Students engaged in a literature review and conducted small-scale observational, experimental, and archival research studies	Students’ comfort and knowledge with scientific method increased but their interest did not; students evaluated the lab positively and said it was valuable; students who took the lab performed better in subsequent courses than students who did not take the lab

The purpose of the present study was to sample a national, randomly selected pool of colleges and universities to provide a descriptive account of research experiences offered in introductory psychology courses and to provide a framework for further discussion on research experiences for students at the introductory level in higher education. By examining the ways in which introductory courses provide research experiences to students, this study complements previous research in providing a comparison for what has been done in the past. Further, the present study may be used as a benchmark for future research looking at these types of research opportunities in introductory psychology courses. Specifically, we focused on three main questions to describe contemporary research experiences in introductory psychology courses: (1) What are the types of activities used in introductory psychology courses to provide hands-on research experiences? (2) What degree of importance do instructors teaching introductory psychology courses accord the five subgoals of the APA’s Student Learning Goal #2 Scientific and Critical Thinking? and (3) What are the perceived barriers to integrating hands-on research experiences into instructors’ introductory courses?

Method

Participants

We identified 1,000 public and private nonprofit higher education institutions using the Basic Classification database from the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (2010). From this database, we randomly chose a proportional number of institutions from the following categories: associate degree-granting institutions, primarily associate degree-granting institutions with some baccalaureate degrees, baccalaureate only degree-granting institutions, baccalaureate and master’s degree-granting institutions, and baccalaureate, master’s, and doctoral degree-granting institutions (we recategorized tribal colleges into the appropriate institutional category described earlier). Each of these five institutional types were then proportionally sampled based on their percentage in the Carnegie database; for example, associates-only, degree-granting institutions comprised the largest number of total institutions in the Carnegie database, 37.31%, so we invited a randomly selected 373 associates-only, degree-granting institutions to participate in our study. We then followed the same proportional strategy for each of the other four institutional types (see Table 2 for specific proportions). After randomly selecting the 1,000 proportionally selected institutions, we visited each institution’s website and identified a psychology instructor and his or her e-mail address, with the goal of finding a full-time instructor who taught introductory psychology. If instructors and courses taught were not listed, we attempted to identify a department chairperson. The titles of the individuals we contacted included instructor, lecturer, curriculum director, professor (all ranks), and department chair. We sent e-mails to 1,000 instructors with two follow-up e-mail requests. We also posted a link to the survey on the Psych Teacher listserv.

Table 2.

Carnegie Listing of Institutions by Category, Representative Proportion Selected for the Sample, and Institutional Membership of Respondents.

	Carnegie Foundation Database		Study Sample
Institution Category	N in Database	% of Database	N Receiving Invitations	N with Valid Data	Response Rate
Associate’s only	1,130	37.31	373	57	15.28%
Associate’s primary with baccalaureate	67	2.21	22	12	54.54%
Baccalaureate only	811	26.78	268	57	21.27%
Baccalaureate and Master’s	724	23.90	240	79	32.92%
Baccalaureate, Master’s and Doctoral	297	9.80	98	54	55.10%
Total	3,029	100	1,000	259	25.90%

A total of 259 individuals completed the survey with valid data, for an estimated response rate of 26% (see Table 2 for a total distribution as well as response rates per Carnegie category). In order to reduce the number of categories as well as create groups with more similar resources in their psychology curricula, we combined institutions based on the type of psychology degree awarded into three overall groups: institutions granting associate’s degrees, institutions granting baccalaureate degrees in psychology, and institutions granting baccalaureate and graduate degrees (master’s and/or doctoral) in psychology. For example, if an institution grants graduate degrees in other majors, but only grants baccalaureate degrees in psychology, then it was grouped in the baccalaureate-only group. The reasoning for this choice is that a psychology department with graduate students is likely to differ in the kind of resources available (e.g., graduate students teaching lab sections and lab space for research demonstrations) than a psychology department with no graduate students.

Table 3 shows the distribution of institutions across the three categories as well as characteristics of these programs. The largest group with valid data was the baccalaureate-only group, which accounted for 43% of the total sample; baccalaureate + graduate programs accounted for 30%, while associate’s programs accounted for 27% of the sample. The majority of individuals who responded to the survey were associate or full professors (56%), followed by assistant professors (17%), and then nontenured faculty (15%, see Table 3). This pattern of response was similar for all three institution types. Perhaps reflecting the preponderance of senior faculty responding to our survey, the majority of respondents indicated teaching introductory psychology 9 or more times over their career. In open-ended responses, most of the participants described their area of specialty as social and personality (22%), followed by clinical (13%), developmental (13%), and cognitive (9%); no other area of psychology received greater than 5% of the responses.

Table 3.

Percentages of Program Characteristics by Program Degree Type.

	Total	Program Degree Type
	Total	Associate	Baccalaureate	Baccalaureate & Graduate
N and Percentage of Total	259 (100%)	69 (27%)	112 (43%)	78 (30%)
Respondent position
Nontenured or other^a	23%	35%	10%	35%
Assistant professor	17%	17%	24%	12%
Associate or full professor	56%	49%	68%	54%
Size of intro class
<25 students	16%	22%	22%	1%
26–50 students	57%	77%	56%	42%
51–100 students	14%	1%	14%	23%
>100 students	13%	0%	7%	34%
# of Terms^b for intro class
1 Term	90%	91%	88%	92%
2–3 Terms	10%	9%	12%	8%
Number of times respondent taught intro
1–4 Times	13%	3%	12%	26%
5–8 Times	14%	6%	18%	17%
> 9 Times	72%	91%	71%	57%
Characteristic of intro class
Lecture only	90%	96%	89%	84%
Lecture + lab	5%	1%	7%	6%
Lecture + discussion	5%	3%	3%	9%
Current or previous use of digital media	53%	53%	52%	54%

Note. Due to rounding, values may not equal to 100%.

^aIndividuals identified as graduate students, adjuncts, instructors or lecturers. ^b Terms refers to semesters, quarters, or trimesters.

The modal class size for introductory psychology was 26–50 (57%) students, and it was the modal response for all three institutional categories as well. The majority of the introductory psychology courses were one term (91%) and met for lecture only (90%). A smaller portion of the sample had an introductory course with separate laboratory sections (5%) or discussion sections (5%). Laboratory sections were more common at baccalaureate and baccalaureate + graduate institutions. This percentage of introductory courses with a laboratory is important, as it is similar to Norcross et al.’s (2016) 6% of introductory courses with a mandatory laboratory section.

Materials

Based on our literature review, discussions with faculty at other institutions (Peterson, Altman, Bouas Henry, & Leighton, 2014), and our own experiences teaching introductory psychology courses with laboratory sections, we developed a 30-item survey using the Qualtrics platform that included six main areas: (1) general information about the institution’s introductory psychology programs, (2) activities that occur in discussion sections of introductory psychology courses (if provided), (3) activities that occur in laboratory sections (if provided) of introductory psychology courses, (4) activities that occur in introductory psychology lecture sections, (5) ratings of importance regarding the second Goal from the APA’s Guidelines for the Undergraduate Major (2013): Scientific Inquiry and Critical Thinking; and (6) open-ended questions. For the first open-ended question, respondents were asked what made their course unique. This question was used to determine whether the respondent includes research activities in the course that were not accounted for in the closed-ended questions. The second open-ended question asked respondents what, if any, obstacles were present to include research opportunities in their introductory courses. The complete survey is available from the first author.

Results

Introductory Psychology Research Activities

Means, standard deviations, 95% confidence interval (CIs), and frequencies for each of the four categories of research experiences for the full sample as well as by program degree type are presented in Table 4. Most programs appear to be at least minimally engaged in providing students with hands-on experiences related to research in introductory psychology courses: 76% of all programs engaged in at least 1 of the 17 activities, with 65% of the introductory psychology courses engaged in at least one Read/Critique activity. However, only 50% of respondents indicated their courses incorporated at least 1 of the 11 research activities (e.g., designing a study, collecting data, analyzing data), followed by a steep decline in percentage of programs engaging in APA writing activities or presentations, with only 21% and 10% (respectively) reporting the presence of these experiences. Looking more closely, the average introductory psychology program across the three program types engaged in about 1 of the possible 11 research activities (M = 1.26, SD = 1.87, 95% CI [1.03, 1.49]), with the baccalaureate + graduate programs averaging fewer than 1 (M = 0.69, SD = 1.06, 95% CI [0.46, 0.94]) activity. Inspections of the means and 95% CIs for each of the four categories reveal a relatively consistent pattern of differences across program degree types: Respondents from associate degree programs seemed to report greater incorporation of all research experiences in their introductory psychology courses than did the other two program degree types. For example, for total activities, there is no overlap between the 95% CI for associate degree programs [3.05, 4.61] and the baccalaureate-only [1.93, 2.96] or the baccalaureate + graduate degree programs [1.27, 2.01].

Table 4.

Descriptive Data for Characteristics of Lab Activities in Introductory Psychology Courses by Program Degree Type.

	Total	Program Degree Type
	Total	Associate	Bacc	Bacc + Grad
Read/critique empirical article (out of 2)
Mean	0.93	1.11	0.87	0.85
SD	0.79	0.81	0.76	0.79
95% CI	[0.83, 1.03]	[0.92, 1.31]	[0.73, 1.02]	[0.67, 1.02]
% engaged^a	65%	73%	63%	60%
Research (out of 11)
Mean	1.26	1.83	1.29	0.69
SD	1.87	2.25	1.01	1.06
95% CI	[1.03,1.49]	[1.29, 2.37]	[0.92, 1.66]	[0.46, 0.94]
% engaged^a	50%	57%	51%	42%
APA writing (out of 2)
Mean	0.25	0.49	0.21	0.11
SD	0.52	0.63	0.49	0.35
95% CI	[0.19, 0.32]	[0.34, 0.64]	[0.12, 0.30]	[0.03, 0.19]
% engaged^a	21%	42%	17%	9%
Presentation (out of 2)
Mean	0.14	0.39	0.07	0.01
SD	0.44	0.69	0.29	0.11
95% CI	[0.09, 0.20]	[0.22, 0.56]	[0.02, 0.13]	[0.00, 0.04]
% engaged^a	10%	26%	6%	1%
Total activities (out of 17)
Mean	2.57	3.83	2.46	1.64
SD	2.73	3.24	2.71	1.64
95% CI	[2.24, 2.91]	[3.05, 4.61]	[1.93, 2.96]	[1.27, 2.01]
% engaged^a	76%	84%	76%	71%

Note. APA = American Psychological Association; CI = confidence interval.

^aDenotes the percentage of programs that engage in at least one of these activities.

APA Student Learning Goal #2

Means, standard deviations, and 95% CIs for the ratings of importance of the APAs five subgoals for the full sample as well as by program degree type are presented in Table 5. Four of the five subgoals for student learning received general support from participants, with ratings of 6.75 or greater on a 10-point scale for importance. In particular, respondents rated scientific reasoning to interpret psychological phenomena (M = 8.52, SD = 1.68, 95% CI [8.31, 8.73]) as the most important, followed by demonstrate psychological information literacy (M = 8.06, SD = 1.87, 95% CI [7.83, 8.30]), engage in innovative and integrative thinking in problem-solving (M = 7.57, SD = 1.80, 95% CI [7.32, 7.82]), and incorporate sociocultural factors in scientific inquiry (M = 6.75, SD = 2.49, 95% CI [6.44, 7.07). The one subgoal that received relatively little support from participants was interpret, design, and conduct basic psychological research (M = 4.66, SD = 2.53, 95% CI [4.33, 4.98]). Ratings across program type were also relatively consistent, as all three program degree types reflected similar levels of importance, with the exception of engage in innovative and integrative thinking in problem-solving. Inspections of the 95% CI indicates that the associate degree programs 95% CI (M = 8.11, SD = 1.89, 95% CI [7.64, 8.58]) overlapped about 6% with the baccalaureate-only programs’ 95% CI (M = 7.33, SD = 2.13, 95% CI [6.92, 7.74]) and about 14% with the baccalaureate + graduate programs’ 95% CI (M = 7.44, SD = 1.83, 95% CI [7.01, 7.86]). Cumming and Finch (2005) note that for independent groups, CIs that overlap by about 25% or less correspond to significance levels of p < .05.

Table 5.

Mean, Standard Deviations, and Group Differences on the Importance of APA Goal #2 by Program Degree Type.

APA Student Learning Goal #2 focuses on scientific inquiry & critical thinking. On a scale of 1–10, rate the importance of each sub-goals for Intro courses	Total	Program Degree Type
	Total	Associate	Baccalaureate	Bacc + Grad
Scientific reasoning to interpret psychological phenomena
Mean	8.52	8.42	8.57	8.55
SD	1.68	1.74	1.62	1.73
95% CI	[8.31, 8.73]	[7.98, 8.85]	[8.26, 8.88]	[8.14, 8.95]
Demonstrate psychological information literacy
Mean	8.06	7.89	8.19	8.03
SD	1.87	1.90	1.72	2.09
95% CI	[7.83, 8.30]	[7.42, 8.36]	[7.86, 8.51]	[7.54, 8.51]
Engage in innovative and integrative thinking and problem-solving
Mean	7.57	8.11	7.33	7.44
SD	2.00	1.89	2.13	1.83
95% CI	[7.32, 7.82]	[7.64, 8.58]	[6.92, 7.74]	[7.01, 7.86]
Interpret, design, and conduct basic psychological research
Mean	4.66	5.03	4.57	4.45
SD	2.53	2.34	2.83	2.21
95% CI	[4.33, 4.98]	[4.44, 5.63]	[4.01, 5.12]	[3.92, 4.98]
Incorporate sociocultural factors in scientific inquiry
Mean	6.75	7.11	6.66	6.56
SD	2.49	2.60	2.39	2.52
95% CI	[6.44, 7.07]	[6.46, 7.75]	[6.20, 7.12]	[5.97, 7.16]

Note. APA = American Psychological Association; CI = confidence interval. 0 = not important, 10 = very important.

Barriers to Research Experiences

The second author coded and categorized the responses to the open-ended question regarding barriers, and for reliability purposes, the first author coded a subsample of responses. Interrater reliability (κ = .90) indicated acceptable consistency in the coding of these responses. Frequencies for the categories of obstacles to incorporating hands-on research experiences in introductory psychology courses are presented in Table 6. The most frequently described obstacle to integrating hands-on research opportunities for students in introductory psychology courses was lack of time (56%). A closer examination of the time barrier indicated that some instructors said they had too much content to cover already. For instance, one person wrote “Time in relation to content. I have 15 weeks in the fall and 14 in the spring—there’s not enough time for all the things I would like to do.” This was followed by instructors noting they needed to spend their time on grading and teaching. Other instructors described not having enough time to develop laboratory materials. One instructor summed up this perceived barrier by saying, “Time: time to develop meaningful experiments, time to teach them so they are actually understood, time to provide feedback, and allow for iterated improvement.”

Table 6.

Responses to “What Is the Greatest Obstacle You Perceive to Including Hands-On Laboratory Experiences in Your Introductory Psychology Course?”

Reason	Count	%
Lack of time (overall)	124	56
General	58	26
Too much content	46	21
Grade/teach	14	6
Develop materials	6	3
Lack of resources (overall)	74	34
Space/facilities	25	11
Money/funding	14	6
Coordinator/faculty/TA	12	6
General	9	4
No lab sections	8	4
Lack of materials	6	3
Class size	38	17
Student abilities	36	16
Lab content taught later in curriculum	13	6
Service class	14	6
Administration doesn’t value lab	7	3
Research study participant	4	2
None	3	1
Online/hybrid issues	3	1
Faculty don’t conduct research	2	1
No interest in teaching lab	2	1
Other	2	1
Logistics	1	<1
Average number of obstacles identified by respondent:	1.50 (.67)

Note. Each count was divided by the total number of responses (N = 217), excluding the three “None” responses.

Italicized categories are sub-categories of the non-italicized category above it; e.g., Too much content is a sub-category for Lack of time (overall).

The second-most identified obstacle was lack of resources (34%). Within this category, instructors often described not having sufficient space or facilities, followed by funding, staff to run a laboratory (lab coordinator, faculty or teaching assistants), not having separate laboratory meeting time, and lacking materials needed for a laboratory. The third most described obstacle was having too large of a class size to provide hands-on research opportunities for students (17%). The fourth most-cited obstacle was student abilities (16%). For instance, one instructor wrote, “The students do not understand basic research methods or statistics,” while another wrote, “Introductory students often do not know anything about the field. They need some background in research methods and statistics before they can participate and do research in a meaningful way. I do not think it is a good idea to have students working on research that they do not understand.” Some instructors also explained they did not include hands-on research experiences in introductory courses because these experiences occur later in the psychology curriculum (6%). Several instructors also described their introductory course as largely being a service course, one that was explicitly for nonmajors, perhaps implying hands-on research experiences were not appropriate (6%). For instance, one instructor wrote, “Course is service course for university not all psychology majors. Prefer the research experience to be for majors and after learning more content.”

Discussion

The results of this nationwide survey of psychology instructors at postsecondary institutions represent the first systematic description of research experiences provided to students in introductory psychology courses at institutions granting associate, baccalaureate, or baccalaureate and graduate degrees in psychology. Although the response rate was only 26%, we had relatively equal representations of associate, baccalaureate, and baccalaureate + graduate degree colleges and universities in our data set. Thus, the current study is a first step in characterizing the nature and extent of student research experiences in introductory psychology courses.

We identified five overall patterns from our survey of instructors of introductory psychology courses. First, relatively few programs across all types of degree-granting institutions include a laboratory component in their introductory psychology courses. The 5% of our sample that include a separate laboratory component with their introductory psychology courses mirrors the 6% of introductory classes that Norcross et al. (2016) reported in their more extensive survey of U.S. psychology programs. Together, these findings indicate that dedicated, compulsory laboratory research experiences provided to introductory psychology students are rare.

This is not to say, however, that these introductory courses are devoid of laboratory experiences, although the extent of these experiences may be relatively superficial. The second pattern emerging from our results indicates that most courses (i.e., over 75% in our sample) engaged in at least one type of research activity, with our respondents endorsing an average of between two and three activities in their classes. The most common activity engaged in these courses was reading and/or critiquing peer-reviewed empirical articles. Thus, few respondents reported having their students engage in hands-on activities (e.g., designing and conducting a research study) often characterized as rich learning experiences that deepen students’ understanding of course material and the scientific method. This scarcity of research experiences is important to note, as many natural science courses are beginning to adopt “Course-based Undergraduate Research Experiences” (CUREs), as a growing body of evidence shows research experiences integrated into courses can have a positive impact on students’ attitudes toward science (Caruso, Sandoz, & Kelsey, 2009) and a positive impact on student learning (Drew & Triplett, 2008). Although CUREs have not been integrated into psychology curricula, the concept of using research activities to strengthen the quality of scientific courses is applicable to our introductory psychology offerings. Whether these experiences do in fact lead to the outcomes described by Caruso, Sandoz, and Kelsey (2009) and Drew and Triplett (2008) remains to be examined by rigorous empirical investigations.

The third pattern we identified indicated both similarities and differences across institution types in terms of the types of research experiences offered to introductory psychology students. For instance, most institutions provided opportunities for reading and/or critiquing empirical reports, although relatively few institutions across the three degree-granting types required students to write APA-formatted reports or to present research findings. On the other hand, we found differences between associate degree programs and baccalaureate/baccaulaureate + graduate degree programs in the extent to which laboratory experiences were provided. Associate degree programs were seemingly more likely to provide writing and presenting opportunities than both the baccalaureate and baccalaureate + graduate programs and more likely to provide research experience than the baccalaureate + graduate programs. This can in part be explained by the discrepancies in introductory psychology class size, where about a quarter of associate degree courses were 25 students or fewer, compared to only about a tenth of introductory courses at the baccalauareate + graduate programs of that size. Smaller course enrollments likely provide greater flexibility and space to engage in more hands-on activities. However, this does not explain the differences between associate and baccalaureate-only programs, as respondents from each institution reported the same proportion of small (i.e., <25 students) class sizes. Given that this is the first study to examine variations in research opportunities across different degree-granting programs, further research is needed examining similarities and differences in these types of experiences.

Fourth, despite the rather limited exposure to research activities, instructors did rate aspects of scientific inquiry as important, especially the subgoals related to psychological literacy, such as using scientific reasoning to interpret psychological phenomena and demonstrating psychological information literacy. There seems to be strong congruency between the importance instructors place upon these subgoals and the activities occurring in the classroom. Reading and critiquing empirical articles and learning about ethical research practices likely helps students develop psychological literacy, which may provide them with knowledge and skills to be critical consumers of research, to question what they encounter, evaluate the quality of the evidence, and make informed decisions (Beins, 2007; Halpern & Butler, 2011). There was also congruency between the subgoal regarding designing, interpreting, and conducting research in introductory courses (the mean was below the midpoint of the scale on importance) and the frequency of research activities instructors integrated into their courses. Respondents reported this subgoal as being less important to them, and this came through in describing the research activities in which students engage as part of the course.

Fifth, respondents’ open-ended comments on the barriers to implementing research experiences suggest multiple and often intractable challenges. Practical reasons, such as a lack of time, lack of resources, and class size, were the most cited obstacles to including hands-on laboratory experiences in introductory classes. Many of these challenges, such as a shortage of facilities, fixed large class size, and a lack of financial resources, are often outside an instructor’s or even department’s influence. However, other identified barriers, such as no time to develop or lack of laboratory materials or perceptions of student abilities, may be more under the instructor’s control. For example, resources exist that provide stand-alone psychological research exercises (e.g., mock institutional review board form) that can be incorporated into introductory courses (e.g., McBride & Cutting, 2010) or a multiweek curriculum centered on scientific literacy and critical evaluation of scientific claims (Peterson & Sesma, 2013). Another barrier to integrating hands-on research experiences into the introductory course that some instructors identified was that their students did not have the knowledge, skills, or motivation necessary to engage in research (e.g., “Students do not seem to have a rudimentary understanding of the discipline to even undertake such an opportunity”). While student abilities are certainly an issue to consider, a number of scholars (e.g., Downey, 2013; Goolkasian & Lee, 1988; Koschmann & Wesp, 2001; Newcomb & Bagwell, 1997; Peterson et al., 2014; and Thieman, Clary, Olson, Dauner, & Ring, 2009) have demonstrated that it is possible to conduct hands-on research with students in introductory psychology courses. Further, students can learn from the experience and report that the experience was beneficial (Thieman et al., 2009). By carefully scaffolding research experiences, students can conduct rudimentary but meaningful research studies.

In addition to potential benefits in the understanding of the science of psychology, providing hands-on research experience in the introductory course may actually recruit or retain high-achieving students into our psychology programs. Introductory psychology courses that provide students with an initial experience conducting research may then offer opportunities for future scaffolding and provide deeper and more authentic research experiences for students already disposed to scientific inquiry. Research methods courses could then build upon students’ initial experiences in the introductory course and set the stage for students to design and conduct more extensive research studies in upper division courses. By engaging in repeated research experiences throughout the curriculum, students would make greater progress on APA learning outcomes, such as refining their project management skills, demonstrating effective writing skills, interacting effectively with others, building interpersonal relationships, and developing a stronger working knowledge of psychology. These students would gain valuable, transferable skills regardless of whether they planned to pursue a career or graduate school upon completing their baccalaureate degree. In sum, we would be providing more opportunities for students to become psychologically literate citizens who could more effectively evaluate and implement psychological research. Thus, a promising avenue for future research is to examine potential moderating effects of students’ achievement levels on the relation between research experiences in introductory psychology courses and student recruitment to or retention in a psychology major.

There were three primary limitations to our study. First, as noted above, the response rate of 26% was less than optimal. Although a key descriptive of the number of psychology programs with a lab corroborated other research (Norcross et al., 2016), it is likely that we may not have accurately captured the length and scope of research activities. Further, this low response rate precluded finer grained analyses of different types of introductory psychology courses, such as examinations of differences in introductory psychology classes that have a compulsory laboratory, a compulsory discussion section, or a standalone lecture course. Another limitation of our study was the close-ended nature of our questions regarding hands-on research activities. We provided instructors with lists of research activities and asked them to select those items they used with students. Although we did provide an option to write in “other,” it may be that our lists were not comprehensive and instructors are engaging in activities that they consider research activities but were not included in our survey. Finally, we did not ask about the kinds of outcomes instructors may have used in assessing the incorporation of research experiences in their classes. Given the importance of aligning course goals with course activities and course outcomes (Fink, 2003), knowing how instructors evaluated the effect of research experiences on student learning would have added to our descriptive account. Future descriptive research on the types of research activities present in psychology courses should go beyond asking what instructors do and also ask about the specific goals and outcomes associated with those activities.

There are at least three key research questions that should be addressed focusing on the significance of early research experiences in a student’s psychology education. First, the discrepancy between the importance of fostering scientific inquiry and reasoning in introductory courses on the one hand and the relatively low frequency of reported research activities in these classes on the other raises a fundamental research question: Does providing research experiences in an introductory class augment students’ scientific reasoning above and beyond what they may receive in traditional classroom instruction? Results of our study suggest that instructors of introductory psychology courses think that the answer is “not necessarily” and runs counter to some who extol the virtues of early research experiences (e.g., APA-BEAWG, 2013; Brownell & Swaner, 2009). Research examining this question is important, as it has implications for promoting earlier exposure to research opportunities for students in psychology courses if data support the link between concurrent research experiences and scientific literacy. Second, and relatedly, is there any benefit to providing these experiences early in the psychology curriculum? A number of respondents noted that research opportunities are available later in their curriculum, and these suffice for providing students with the necessary scientific experience in psychology. However, the value of an early research experience as opposed to a later one is an empirical question and should be addressed by future research. Finally, future research is needed to disentangle the kinds of potential benefits associated with different types of activities in introductory courses; that is, do specific research experiences (e.g., collecting and analyzing data) confer different benefits to students than do more general active learning activities (e.g., problem sets in class with a group)? Haak, HilleRisLambers, Pitre and Freeman (2011) reported that active learning activities, such as weekly practice quizzes or daily “clicker questions,” improved student performance in introductory biology courses. Haak et al. (2011) did not compare these active learning activities with specific research opportunities; thus, it is still an open question as to whether different outcomes are associated with different kinds of experiences.

This study represents the first attempt at describing the nature of hands-on, research experiences provided to students in introductory psychology courses, and provides a benchmark for future studies examining the extent to which instructors weave research activities into their introductory classes. The challenges to provide students with research experiences are indeed formidable and likely account for the relatively few opportunities for student engagement noted by our respondents. Further, the results of this study reveal a number of important questions that require empirical attention. If, as psychology instructors, we are to continue educating over two million students every year in our introductory courses, then the potential benefits of these early experiences in providing a solid foundation in the scientific nature of psychology need to be explored.

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.

References

American Psychological Association, APA Board of Educational Affairs Working Group on Strengthening the Common Core of the Introductory Psychology Course. (2013). Strengthening the common core of the introductory psychology course. Retrieved from http://apa.org/ed/governance/bea/intro-psych-report.pdf

American Psychological Association. (2013). APA guidelines for the undergraduate psychology major. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ed/precollege/about/psymajor-guidelines.pdf

Beins

(2007). Psychology, critical thinking, and scientific literacy. Psychology Teacher Network, 17, 3–4.

Berthold

H. C.

Hakala

C. M.

Goff

(2003). An argument for a laboratory in introductory psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 30, 55–58.

Brewer

C. L.

Hopkins

J. R.

Kimble

G. A.

Matlin

M. W.

McCann

L. L.

McNeil

O. V.

,…Saundra. (1993). Curriculum. In McGovern

T. V.

(Ed.), Handbook for enhancing undergraduate education in psychology (pp. 161–182). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/10126-006

Brothen

(1984). Three computer-assisted laboratory exercises for introductory psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 11, 105–107. Retrieved from https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1207/s15328023top1102_14

Brownell

J. E.

Swaner

L. E.

(2009). High-impact practices: Applying the learning outcomes literature to the development of successful campus programs. Peer Review, 11(2), 26–30.

Cacioppo

(2007). Psychology is a hub science. APS Observer, 20, 1–3.

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2010, 2 11,). Carnegie classifications data file. Retrieved from http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/descriptions/basic.php

10.

Caruso

S. M.

Sandoz

Kelsey

(2009). Non-STEM undergraduate become enthusiastic -phage-hunters. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 8, 278–282. Retrieved from https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1187/cbe.09-07-0052

11.

Committee on Undergraduate Science Education, National Research Council. (1997). Science teaching reconsidered: A handbook. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.

12.

Cumming

Finch

(2005). Inference by eye: Confidence intervals, and how to read pictures of data. American Psychologist, 60, 170–180. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.2.170

13.

Dietz-Uhler

(2009). Effectiveness of a web-based critical thinking module. In Dunn

D. S.

Halonen

J. S.

Smith

R. A.

(Eds.), Teaching critical thinking in psychology: A handbook of best practices (pp. 273–276). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.

14.

Downey

C. A.

(2013). Student research in an introductory psychology course: Outcomes of two experiential learning projects and implications for instruction of human subjects research. Journal of Effective Teaching, 13, 21–37.

15.

Drew

J. C.

Triplett

E. W.

(2008). Whole genome sequencing in the undergraduate classroom: Outcomes and lessons from a pilot course. American Society for Microbiology, 9, 3–11.

16.

Enrollment data. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ed/precollege/about/enrollment.aspx

17.

Fink

L. D.

(2003). Creating significant learning experiences. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

18.

Goolkasian

Lee

J. A

. (1988). A computerized laboratory for general psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 15, 98–100. Retrieved from https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1207/s15328023top1502_8

19.

Haak

D. C.

HilleRisLambers

Pitre

Freeman

(2011). Increased structure and active learning reduce the achievement gap in introductory biology. Science, 332, 1213–1216. doi:10.1126/science.1204820

20.

Halpern

D. F.

Butler

H. A.

(2011). Critical thinking and the education of psychologically literate citizens. In Cranney

Dunn

D. S.

(Eds.), The psychologically literate citizen (pp. 27–40). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199794942.003.0020

21.

Holmes

J. D.

Beins

B. C.

(2009). Psychology is a science: At least some students think so. Teaching of Psychology, 36, 5–11. Retrieved from https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1080/00986280802529350

22.

Homa

Hackathorn

Brown

Garczynski

Solomon

Tennial

Gurung

R. A. R.

(2013). How consistent are introductory psychology course syllabi? Examining objectives and content. Teaching of Psychology, 40, 169–174. doi:10.1177/0098628313487456

23.

Kazmerski

V. A.

Blasko

D. G.

(1999). Teaching observational research in introductory psychology: Computerized and lecture-based methods. Teaching of Psychology, 26, 295–298. Retrieved from https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1207/S15328023TOP260409

24.

Kena

Aud

Johnson

Wang

Zhang

Rathbun

Wilkinson-Flicker

Kristapovich

(2014). The Condition of Education 2014 (NCES 2014-083). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved August, 2015 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.

25.

Kohn

Brill

. (1981). An introductory demonstration laboratory produced entirely by undergraduates. Teaching of Psychology, 8, 133–138. Retrieved from https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1207/s15328023top0803_1

26.

Koschmann

Wesp

. (2001). Using a dining facility as an introductory psychology research laboratory. Teaching of Psychology, 28, 105–108. Retrieved from https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1207/S15328023TOP2802_07

27.

Kraut

(2012, 5). Psychological science is important [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/psychological-science-is-important

28.

Lamson

Kipp

(2009). A module-based research project: Modeling critical thinking in psychology. In Dunn

D. S.

Halonen

J. S.

Smith

R. A.

(Eds.), Teaching critical thinking in psychology: A handbook of best practices (pp. 247–250). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.

29.

Lilienfeld

S. O.

(2012). Public skepticism of psychology: Why many people perceive the study of human behavior as unscientific. American Psychologist, 67, 111–129. doi:10.1037/a0023963

30.

McBride

D. M.

Cutting

J. C.

(2015). Lab manual for psychological research. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

31.

Miller

Gentile

B. F

. (1998). Introductory course content and goals. Teaching of Psychology, 25, 89–96. Retrieved from https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1207/s15328023top2502_2

32.

Morling

(2014). Research methods in psychology: Evaluating a world of information (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Norton.

33.

Newcomb

A. F.

Bagwell

C. L

. (1997). Collaborative learning in an introduction to psychological science laboratory: Undergraduate teaching fellows teach to learn. Teaching of Psychology, 24, 88–95. doi:10.1207/2Fs15328023top2402_2

34.

Norcross

J. C.

Hailstorks

Aiken

L. S.

Pfund

R. A.

Stamm

K. E.

Christidis

(2016). Undergraduate study in psychology: Curriculum and assessment. American Psychologist, 71, 89. doi:10.1037/a0040095

35.

Penn

Schoen

& Berland Associates. (2008). American Psychological Association benchmark study. New York, NY: Author.

36.

Peterson

J. J.

Altman

Bouas Henry

Leighton

(2014, 8). Laboratory experiences for Introductory Psychology students: What works? In Peterson

J. J.

(Chair). Symposium at American Psychological Association Annual Convention. Washington, DC.

37.

Peterson

J. J.

Sesma

Jr . (2013, 8 12). Scientific literacy in a psychology curriculum module. Retrieved from http://teachpsych.org/page-1599567/1363553

38.

Thieman

T. J.

Clary

E. G.

Olson

A. M.

Dauner

R. C.

Ring

E. E.

(2009). Introducing students to psychological research: General psychology as a laboratory course. Teaching of Psychology, 36, 160–168. doi:10.1080/00986280902959994