Department of Psychology
CSU Dominguez Hills
|
Contact Information:
Judith Todd, Coordinator
Human Services Program
Tel: (310) 243-3461
Fax: (310) 516-3642
Email: jtodd@dhrx20.csudh.edu
PSYCHOLOGY DEPARTMENT
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR THE MAJOR
Official Version
Implemented Fall 1993
The goals of the psychology department for psychology majors are that students be provided with the opportunity to:
1. Develop a critical understanding of a significant portion of the field of
psychology.
2. Develop written and oral communication, quantitative analysis, critical thinking, and problem solving skills necessary in the study of psychological processes.
3. Develop an appreciation of the value of psychological science in society.
4. Prepare for work in fields that utilize psychology-related skills for graduate training.
The objectives for each goal are as follows:
The objectives for Goal 1 are that psychology professors will provide clear, up-to- date information and appropriate learning contexts so that psychology majors have the opportunity to explore and extract information regarding the following domains:
1.1 Historical events of importance in psychology.
1.2 The major theories and schools of psychology thought.
1.3 The biological/social/affective/cultural/cognitive/contextual bases of behavior.
1.4 Models of the person.
1.5 Basic test and measurement.
1.6 The different research methodologies employed by psychologists.
1.7 Basic descriptive and inferential statistics.
1.8 Ethical issues in psychology.
1.9 Other academic or applied psychological specialties, as chosen by the student.
The objectives for Goal 2 are that psychology professors will provide opportunities to learn, and psychology majors will exhibit progress in training, the abilities to :
2.1 Explain behavior using different psychological theories or models.
2.2 Use the basic terminology of the discipline.
2.3 Understand the general underlying logic of conducting research and have a beginning applied knowledge of how to do it, including:
2.3a use library resources to conduct literature searches.
2.3b understand and evaluate research articles in psychology.
2.3c generate hypotheses and design beginning level studies to test them.
2.3d collect, analyze, and interpret data.
2.3e understand the general logic of clear, coherent research reports, and have a beginning knowledge of how to write in American.
2.4 Think critically, including
2.4a reason and draw conclusions utilizing logic, scientific methods, and scientific types of reasoning.
2.4b evaluate facts and opinions.
2.4c think in probabilities.
2.4d engage in problem solving and decision making.
2.4e discover information, options, and solutions not readily apparent.
2.5 Exhibit literacy, including
2.5a use computers for word processing or data analysis or other projects.
2.5b show progress in reading psychology effectively.
2.5c write clearly and correctly.
2.5d engage in effective oral expression and listening.
2.6 Develop some student-chosen interpersonal skills, including, but not limited to, the ability to:
2.6a work in groups.
2.6b interact with diverse others.
2.6c conduct self as a professional
2.6d exercise appropriate leadership
The objectives for Goal 3 are that psychology professors will model, and thus psychology majors will be exposed to the value and worth of:
3.1 Scientific methods and reasoning
3.2 Individual differences and diversity, including, but not limited to:
3.2a self and others as people with a set of skills.
3.2b the perspective of others.
3.2c studying the causes and effects of racism, sexism, and other "isms."
3.3 Personal and professional ethics, including academic integrity and professional codes of behavior.
3.4 Considering education and life itself to be a process of lifelong active learning.
3.5 Some of the skills of taking multiple perspectives and relativistic thinking.
OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT PLAN
CSUDH Psychology Department
Spring 1993 Report
Judith Todd, Ph.D.
The CSUDH Psychology Department began planning a program of outcomes assessment in the Fall of 1991. A 200-item test bank of multiple choice questions based on an APA survey of the 100 most important terms in psychology was developed and administered to several hundred students taking psychology courses in the Spring of 1992. This data was analyzed in Fall, 1992, and while there were several interesting trends with educational implications (such as the finding that students who took more electives got more test items correct), it was also apparent that the department needed to do several other steps before implementing an outcomes assessment program based on such a test.
Nevertheless, based on this pilot outcomes assessment, the department worked in Fall, 1992 to modify the major. Discussions were held, and a set of broad goals for the major was outlined. These goals were compared to the data from the pilot testing, and it appeared that students were weak in and the major failed to address adequately a major goal that students understand the basic theories and systems of the field. A course proposal for PSY 301. Foundations of Contemporary Psychology, which would be an upper division prerequisite for all other upper division courses, was developed, but dropped after budget cuts. It was also proposed to increase the number of electives for the major from three to four, but the university decision on this proposal is unknown. (2/6/95 note: The change to four electives was approved, effective Fall, 1994.)
In Spring, 1993, I received a Title III appointment to serve as the outcomes assessment coordinator for the Psychology Department, and I held a series of department meetings to address issues and goals in outcomes assessment. These meetings educated all of us regarding what others have done in outcomes assessment, different methods of outcomes assessment, and differing views of the purposes and implication of such assessment. After many difficult discussions, the department was able to agree upon four broad goals and several explicit objectives for each goal which would be used to guide outcomes assessment. Five different types of outcomes assessment are being studied: an objective test as in the pilot assessment, an essay test, a student portfolio, classroom assessment with a short test in every class, or a combination of these.
In addition to leading discussions with faculty, I have conducted three surveys of students and alumni. The first was a general survey of all students currently taking psychology classes, and its purpose was to see how many majors and nonmajors took various classes, what their postgraduate educational goals were, what their employment goals were, and what times they preferred classes to be held. The second survey was sent to 300 graduates from psychology and asked about their goals when they were undergraduates here, how well the major helped them reach various goals, what the department should do to better reach such goals, and what sorts of outcomes assessment they should advise. A similar survey of current majors was also undertaken.
The data from these surveys need to be analyzed. When these results are in, the department must discuss their implications, with the goal of deciding upon the type of outcomes assessment they wish to implement. Specific test, activities, and procedures must then be developed in order to implement the outcomes assessment plan. It seems realistic that the type of outcomes assessment can be agreed upon by the end of the Spring, 1993 semester, but implementation is likely to be accomplished in the next academic year.
In order to continue work on the outcomes assessment program for the major and in order to increase student involvement in the process, I plan to teach a Senior Seminar in Fall, 1993, which will focus on outcomes assessment. The students and I will study issues in outcomes assessment, further analyze the survey data, work on goals and objectives, and evaluate different types of assessment for use in our departmental program.
CSUDH PSYCHOLOGY DEPARTMENT
SECOND OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT REPORT
Title III
Spring 1994
Judith Todd, Chair, Department of Psychology
The Psychology Department held two workshops on its Outcomes Assessment Program at its recent Fourth Annual CSUDH Psychobiology Conference in Recognition of Student Research on May 5 at the Loker Student Union. The workshop explained our program, discussed the meaning of and need for outcomes assessment, and invited students to take a short version of our test for research, feedback, and personal practice. Forty people participated in the workshop and took the short 48-question version of the Department's objective outcomes assessment test on eight different content areas.
The Department is interested in how many courses in psychology are required to make a difference in students' learning and mastery of the content of psychology. Those who took the workshop test were asked to indicated how many courses in psychology they had taken at CSUDH, including this semester. The following chart shows the mean scores on the test for number of course taken.
|
Number of pysch courses | n | Mean score |
|---|
|
0 | 8 | 19.7 |
|
1 - 3 | 16 | 20.7 |
|
4 - 6 | 9 | 26.8 |
|
7 - 9 | 5 | 25.8 |
|
10+ | 2 | 36.0 |
|
Entire Sample | 40 | 23.2
|
This preliminary data suggests that there is an increase in mastery after taking four or more courses in psychology. It is also possible that there is a further increase in mastery after taking 10 courses, but the sample is too small to draw a conclusion. It is encouraging that the trend is clearly in the direction of scores going up as more psychology courses are taken. In case a mean of 23.2 questions correct out of 48 seems low, it should be pointed out that the workshop test was composed of the six hardest questions from each of the eight content areas.
The Psychology Department would like to research this question further. In addition, the Department is interested in whether there is differential mastery of different content areas. With only six questions per content area, the data from the workshop test are insufficient to answer this second question. We are in the process of completing a test bank with 50 questions per content area, and this test will be administered in Fall, 1994. (2/6/95 note: The test was completed and will be administered in the beginning of the Spring semester 1995).
|
DATE: | October 26, 1994 |
|
TO: | Campus Community, CSUDH |
|
FROM: | Judith Todd
Chair, Department of Psychology |
|
RE: | Outcomes Assessment of the Psychology Major |
Some data from the GRE became available, and this data suggests that the Psychology Department is adequately educating its majors. The following scores are based on all seniors majoring in Psychology who took the GRE between 10-01-92 and 09-30-93, from either CSUDH or the entire country.
|
| Median Score
CSUDH n=11 | Mean Score
USA n=11051 |
|---|
|
Verbal | 430 | 481 |
|
Quantitative | 460 | 517 |
|
Analytic | 490 | 553 |
|
Psychology Subject Test | 560 (n=7) | 540 (n=5854)
|
There are problems in interpreting the meaning of these statistics, because there are so few who took the test at CSUDH and because we are comparing medians and means (which is how GRE reports them). However, we can assume that for a sample as large as the USA group, the means and medians are quite close.
Given these difficulties of interpretation, the test scores suggest that Psychology seniors at CSUDH score below the national average on the general parts of the GRE, but at or slightly above the national avgerage on the test of subject matter. We could conclude that the Psychology Department is doing an effective job of educating its majors about the subject matter of Psychology, but the Department is less effective in teaching verbal, quantitative, and analytic skills. It could also be said that the Department manages to educate students with below average basic skills to an average or above average level in psychology.
OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT REPORT
Spring, 1995
Judith Todd, Chair, Psychology
The Department of Psychology at CSUDH developed and pre-tested a large bank of multiple choice test items to assess knowledge and reasoning in eight content areas of psychology, as described in outcomes assessment reports of Fall, 1994 and May 9, 1994. As recommended in the Fall, 1994 report, a subset of these items was administered to students enrolled in PSY 101 (for a sample of students who had not yet studied much psychology), in the upper division quantitative courses (for a sample of juniors majoring in psychology), and in a senior seminar (for a sample of seniors majoring in psychology). The outcomes assessment test consisted of 100 questions. It was decided to focus on administering the 20 most challenging test items from four content areas: statistics and research, personality, history and systems, and developmental psychology. In previous reports, students had scored especially poorly in history and systems, and the developmental items had not been administered before. The remaining 20 questions on the outcomes assessment test asked for demographic and other information . See attachment for an example of the assessment test.
A total of 202 students took the test. The total sample was 72.8% female with a mean age of 30. Ethnic breakdown was similar to that of the campus as a whole. Scores attained by different majors on each section of the test are shown in Table 1.
Table 1
|
Major | n | Stats | Pers | H & S | Dev | Total |
|---|
|
Psych | 119 | 10.82 | 11.76 | 12.23 | 10.48 | 45.29 |
|
Psy Minor | 7 | 10.57 | 9.29 | 10.14 | 9.00 | 39.00 |
|
Hum Serv | 4 | 6.25 | 7.00 | 8.25 | 7.00 | 28.50 |
|
Lib Stud | 10 | 8.70 | 8.50 | 6.60 | 9.00 | 32.80 |
|
Other | 62 | 9.26 | 8.53 | 7.98 | 8.42 | 24.19 |
Single level analyses of variance were performed on subtest scores and total scores. On statistics and research, psychology majors scored significantly higher than nonmajors and nonsignificantly higher than minors (F=7.8, p <.05). On personality, the same pattern held (F=11.24, p <.01) as it did for history and systems (F=18.71, p <.001) and the total test scores. On developmental, psychology majors scored significantly higher than human services and other majors and nonsignificantly higher than minors and liberal studies majors (F=12.78, p <.01).
These differences may well be mediated by how many psychology courses the different majors had taken. The data showing subtest and test scores according to number of courses taken are shown in Table 2 (below).
Table 2
|
# Courses | n | Stats | Pers | H & S | Dev | Total |
|---|
|
0 | 71 | 8.99 | 8.13 | 7.54 | 7.97 | 32.63 |
|
1 - 3 | 47 | 10.49 | 10.11 | 10.08 | 9.49 | 40.17 |
|
4 - 6 | 38 | 11.00 | 12.18 | 12.97 | 10.82 | 46.97 |
|
7 - 9 | 29 | 10.72 | 12.27 | 13.76 | 10.86 | 46.97 |
|
10+ | 17 | 11.06 | 13.82 | 12.82 | 12.53 | 50.23 |
As found in prior outcomes assessments, scores increase directly with the number of psychology courses taken.
Finally, the opinions of psychology majors (n=119) as to departmental effectiveness on different factors were analyzed. Students were asked to rate eight factors on four-point scales of effectiveness, with four = very effective. The mean ratings of psychology majors are shown in Table 3.
Table 3
| Teaching statistics and research methods | 3.24 |
| Teaching personality | 3.15 |
| Teaching history and systems | 3.00 |
| Teaching developmental psychology | 3.10 |
| Advising | 2.42 |
| Offering enough courses each semester | 1.85 |
| Keeping low enrollments in appropriate classes | 2.65 |
| Offering classes at convenient times | 2.25 |
As can be seen, psychology majors consider the Psychology Department at CSUDH to be highly effective in teaching. The Department is seen as moderately effective in advising and maintaining low enrollments in appropriate classes. The Department is seen as least effective in offering enough courses each semester and offering classes at convenient times. These ratings reflect the realities of the current situation. The Psychology Department at CSUDH maintains superior teaching, but no longer has sufficient resources to be highly effective at advising, offering enough courses each semester, or offering classes at convenient times.
Outcomes Assessment Report
Department of Psychology, CSUDH
Spring, 1996
Judith Todd, Chair, Psychology
On January 30, 1996, the Chair of the Department of Psychology at CSUDH administered an outcomes assessment test to 162 students registered in PSY 101. General Studies in Psychology (n=59), PSY 305. History and Systems (n=41), and two sections of PSY 490. Senior Seminar in Psychology (n=62). The test consisted of 50 multiple choice questions on four content areas: physiological, social, cognitive-behavioral, and abnormal psychology. The test items were extremely difficult and came from a test bank created two years ago by the department's outcomes assessment program. An additional 18 questions asked for demographic and opinion data.
In Spring 1995, a similar multiple choice test was administered to 202 students. It was composed of the 20 most challenging test items from four content areas: statistics and research, personality, history and systems, and developmental psychology. In all areas, psychology majors scored higher than other majors, seniors scored higher than juniors, and people who had taken more psychology courses scored higher than those who had taken fewer.
For this year's outcomes assessment, it was decided to test the four content areas that had not been covered in last year's test: The results were very similar to those of last year's test: In all areas, psychology majors scored higher than other majors, seniors scored higher than juniors, and people who had taken more psychology courses scored higher than those who had taken fewer. Since the differences between majors and classes are most likely mediated by the difference in the number of psychology courses taken, that data is summarized in Table 1.
Table 1
#Psych Percentage of Correct Answers
Courses
Taken | n | Total | Physio-
logical | Social | Cognitive-
Behavioral | Abnormal |
|---|
|
0 | 48 | 32.6 | 32.7 | 33.7 | 31.4 | 32.7 |
|
1 - 3 | 30 | 39.2 | 34.8 | 40.5 | 36.4 | 43.3 |
|
4 - 6 | 27 | 50.3 | 42.8 | 50.2 | 48.2 | 60.5 |
|
7+ | 47 | 55.2 | 46.2 | 58.0 | 53.6 | 68.8 |
As can be seen in Table 1, students who had taken three or fewer psychology courses scored significantly lower than students who had taken four or more. Students who had taken seven or more courses also scored higher than those who had taken six or fewer, but this difference was statistically significant only in the areas of social and abnormal psychology. It can be concluded that taking four or more psychology courses significantly increases students' knowledge of important areas of psychology and that the Department of Psychology is effectively teaching its students.
The Department does not offer or rarely offers courses in physiological and cognitive-behavioral psychology, an unfortunate fact that may account for the lack of significant difference in those areas between students who have taken six or fewer courses and those who have taken seven or more. In the case of social and abnormal psychology, the more courses a student has taken, the more likely it is that the student has actually taken social or abnormal. This fact may also account for the higher scores in social and abnormal relative to physiological and cognitive among those who have taken seven or more courses. However, it also appears that knowledge of all areas of psychology increases with exposure to psychology classes whether or not the course specifically covers that content.
Finally, it should be noted that the test items were extremely difficult, so it is not surprising that students, even those who had taken many courses in psychology, could not get more than half to two-thirds of them correct. For this test, the important point of comparison is the relative performance of groups who had taken fewer or more psychology courses.
Students were asked to rate the effectiveness of the Department of Psychology in several areas on a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 - very effective, 2 = moderately effective, 3 = somewhat effective, and 4 = ineffective. The opinion data are presented in Table 2.
Table 2
Ratings of Departmental Effectiveness
|
Teaching statistics and research | 1.88 |
| Teaching personality | 1.97 |
| Teaching history and systems | 1.82 |
| Teaching developmental psychology | 1.85 |
| Advising on academic requirements | 2.42 |
| Providing enough psychology sections | 3.13 |
| Maintaining enrollment limits | 2.57 |
| Convenient scheduling of classes | 2.61 |
| Teaching biological bases of psychology | 2.52 |
| Teaching social psychology | 2.23 |
| Teaching cognition and behavior | 2.29 |
| Teaching abnormal psychology | 1.90 |
As can be seen in Table 2, the Department of Psychology was rated as moderately to very effective in teaching statistics, research, personality, history and systems, developmental, and abnormal psychology. Students rated the Department's effectiveness in advising, maintaining enrollment limits, scheduling classes conveniently, and teaching of biological bases, social, and cognitive-behavioral psychology as somewhat to moderately effective. Students rated the Department quite negatively on its ability to provide enough psychology sections.
Several conclusions are suggested by this data. First, the Department of Psychology is generally effective in its teaching of important areas of psychology, as measured by scores on test of these areas and according to student ratings. Relatively lower test scores in and lower student ratings of physiological and cognitive-behavioral psychology suggest that the Department should develop and offer regularly courses on these areas. Finally, student ratings indicate that the Department of Psychology needs to offer more sections of psychology courses each semester.
