470 Undergraduate Education
(because of the direct personal influence that psychology may
have on its students), and possess both practical ingenuity and
philosophical insight (because of the complex pedagogy
required for the course). In short, “the teacher is everything”
(p. 91). Wolfle (1942) reviewed more than 100 studies on the
first course in psychology, published after the 1910 reports,
and concluded: “Now, 30-odd years later, we are still debating
many of the same issues and being embarrassed by the same
difficulties. Many of the same recommendations considered
necessary in 1909 are still necessary in 1942” (p. 686).
Intradisciplinary concerns were often matched by interdis-
ciplinary conflicts. Wolfe’s (1895) commentary on resource
allocation in the sciences for “the new psychology in under-
graduate work” (p. 382) predicted this competitive struggle
on campuses. Hill (1929) described the conflicts over control
of psychology personnel and curricular decisions in state uni-
versities. In 1945, James B. Conant, president of Harvard,
appointed six psychologists and six nonpsychologists from
university faculties, corporations, and research institutes to a
University Commission to Advise on the Future of Psychol-
ogy at Harvard. Wolfle (1948), as secretary of the APA,
reviewedThe Place of Psychology in an Ideal University
(Gregg et al., 1947/1970) and said: “By all means read this
book.... Psychologists have been a vigorous, sometimes
belligerent, but never well united group.... This scattering of
psychologists all over the campus is bound to be puzzling”
(p. 61). In his presidential address for the APA Division on
the Teaching of Psychology, Pressey (1949) juxtaposed the
prestige accorded psychology in the Gregg et al. report with
an observation about Harvard’s Redbook:“Psychology ap-
pears to have norecognized place in the program presented in
General Education in a Free Society” (p. 149). Thus, on the
eve of the post–World War II boom in higher education, psy-
chology was still “getting its act together” on institutional
status and curricular coherence.
Ratcliff’s (1997) analysis of curricula focused on the con-
cept of a discipline:
Adisciplineis literally what the term implies.... Disciplines can
provide a conceptual framework for understanding what knowl-
edge is and how it is acquired. Disciplinary learning provides a
logical structure to relationships between concepts, propositions,
common paradigms, and organizing principles. Disciplines de-
velop themes, canons, and grand narratives to join different
streams of research in the field and to provide meaningful con-
ceptualizations and frameworks for further analysis. (p. 14)Since 1950, psychologists have written several reports about
building the discipline and translating its principles and
methods into coherent undergraduate educational programs.
Lloyd and Brewer (1992) reviewed the national confer-
ences and comprehensive reports on undergraduate psychol-
ogy: Cornell Conference (Buxton et al., 1952); Michigan
Conference (McKeachie & Milholland, 1961); Kulik, 1973;
Scheirer and Rogers, 1985; APA/Association of American
Colleges Project on Liberal Learning, Study-in-Depth, and
the Arts and Sciences Major (McGovern, Furumoto, Halpern,
Kimble, & McKeachie, 1991); and the St. Mary’s College of
Maryland Conference held in 1991. We will briefly review
the Cornell, Michigan, and St. Mary’s College of Maryland
conferences’ accomplishments as part of the continuing nar-
rative elements for this chapter—courses, discipline, out-
comes, assessment, and how service activities delivered these
findings to widening circles of psychologists.
In 1951, the Carnegie Foundation of New York and the
Grant Foundation sponsored a study group of psycholo-
gists—six primary authors and 11 consultants—to meet at
Cornell University and to conduct “an audit to determine the
objectives, examine the content, and appraise the results of
the instruction we have been giving. Against the background
of such an audit, we can then attempt to build a better cur-
riculum” (Buxton et al., 1952, p. v). Their report identified
the objectives of undergraduate psychology as:(1) Intellectual development and a liberal education; (2) a knowl-
edge of psychology, its research findings, its major problems,
its theoretical integrations, and its contributions; (3) personal
growth and an increased ability to meet personal and social
adjustment problems adequately; (4) desirable attitudes and
habits of thought, such as the stimulation of intellectual curios-
ity, respect for others, and a feeling of social responsibility.
(pp. 2–3)In an interview with Jane Halonen (1992), McKeachie
commented about the conference:We came up with the idea of sequencing, which is why
Dael Wolfle really brought us together. He thought we were
teaching all of our courses at about one level beyond the intro-
ductory and covering the same thing in the advanced course in
order to bring people up to some common base so they could
go on to the latter part of the course. I think that was important.
(pp. 251–252)The study group agreed on one recommended curriculum
model. The introductory course was to be followed by five in-
termediate or core courses (statistics, motivation, perception,
thinking and language, and ability), then advanced courses
in specialized areas (e.g., social, learning, comparative, phys-
iological, personnel, etc.), and finally capstone courses in
personality and history and systems. All courses should be