psychology_Sons_(2003)

472 Undergraduate Education

diversity, breadth and depth of knowledge, methodological
competence, practical experience and applications, commu-
nications skills, and sensitivity to ethical issues. To accom-
plish these goals, a sequence of four levels of courses was
recommended: introductory course, methodology courses,
content courses, and an integrative or capstone experience.
Content courses should be balanced between the natural sci-
ence and social science knowledge bases of an increasingly
complex discipline. A special section was devoted to the inte-
gration of the community college curriculum with upper-
division courses in the major taken at another institution.
Perlman and McCann’s (1999b) review of the structures
of the undergraduate curriculum in 500 catalogs indicated
that the St. Mary’s Conference, like its predecessors, had
some intended consequences and specific areas of minimal
influence. Although a senior capstone experience has been
advocated since the Cornell Conference, this recommenda-
tion has gone unheeded, particularly in doctoral institutions.
The same is true for the teaching of psychometric methods as
part of a core methodology trio of courses with statistics and
experimental psychology. Fiscal, staffing, and space prob-
lems were often cited as obstacles to the development and
maintenance of laboratory facilities. These authors drew the
following overall conclusions about the status of the curricu-
lum at the end of the twentieth century:

The Cornell report’s (Buxton et al., 1952) emphasis on teaching

psychology as a scientific discipline in the liberal arts tradition

remains current. The required core as recommended by the

St. Mary’s report (Brewer et al., 1993) as implemented by de-

partments seems to cover “both natural science and social sci-

ence aspects of psychology.” (p. 439, pp. 175–176)

We now turn to the ways in which psychologists evaluated
the effectiveness of their undergraduate programs.

SCHOLARSHIP

Ratcliff (1997) labeled a second curricular model as analyti-
cal. Variables in the curriculum that affect student develop-
ment are identified, measured, and evaluated to determine
their effectiveness. McGovern (1993) described an analytical
model for psychology as:

What kind of outcomescan be achieved with

What kind of studentstaught by

What kind of facultyusing

What kind of teaching methodsas part of

What kind of curriculum?(p. 218, emphases in original)

In this section on scholarship, we first focus on faculty efforts
to identify common outcomes from the earliest days of a

single course to the contemporary “Top 30” described by

Perlman and McCann (1999a). Second, we focus on the as-

sessment of these outcomes by the faculty, but more often

mandated by external constituencies in the interests of ac-

creditation or public accountability.

Defining the Outcomes of Undergraduate Psychology

In response to E. C. Sanford’s (1906) description of an ideal

beginner’s course, Walter T. Marvin (1906) suggested the

following:

The chief problem in any course is: What precisely does the

teacher wish the student to learn, as distinguished from all the

illustration, exposition, etc. that may be found helpful? In short,

every course should include a body of definite and precise

information to be thoroughly learned, hard as it may be to secure

such information in psychology as compared with the exact

sciences....Perhaps one of the special habits we can form in the

brightest pupils is reading interesting books on psychology.

(p. 61)

Calkins (1910) was more specific:

Psychology is psychology whatever the use to be made of it.

First courses in psychology should therefore be essentially the

same in content and in method,whether they introduce the

student to advanced work in psychology or to the different prob-

lems of pedagogy, of ethics or of metaphysics. The [sic] imme-

diate purpose of every course in psychology is to make the

student expert in the study of himself: to lead him to isolate, an-

alyze, to classify, and (in the scientific, not in the metaphysical

sense) to explain his own perceiving, remembering, thinking,

feeling, and willing. (p. 45, emphasis in original)

These two psychologists’ perspectives must be understood in

historical context—the field was still in the process of distin-

guishing its content and methods from its philosophical an-

tecedents. Wolfle (1942), in his review of the literature on the

first course since the 1910 studies, identified four prevailing

objectives: teach facts and principles, develop scientific

method or habits of critical thought, prepare students for later

courses or interest in psychology, and eliminate popular su-

perstition. However, his evaluation of more than 100 studies

suggested to him the following synthesis of major objectives:

The first is to acquaint the student with the most important and

most generally accepted facts, principles, and hypotheses of psy-

chology. The attainment of this objective will contribute to the

student’s general cultural education and will increase his ability

to recognize and to deal intelligently with the psychological

problems of modern society. The second objective to be stressed