Teaching 467curriculum, its pedagogy, and the roles of its faculty. As
Hilgard, Leary, and McGuire (1991) noted, “traditional his-
tory of science focused primarily on the so-called internal de-
velopment of scientific thought and procedure—how one idea
and method led to other ideas and methods in more or less pro-
gressive fashion” (p. 91). These authors contrast such a tradi-
tional historiography with a social history-of-ideas approach
(e.g., Ash, 1983) and the new critical history approaches
(e.g., Furumoto, 1989). As Ash noted, “the emergence of both
scientific ideas and scientific roles is a complex process of so-
cial construction, embedded not only in tradition of thought
but also in specific sociocultural contexts” (p. 179). Thus,
we examine external demands for accountability by society
(e.g., state legislatures or accrediting groups) as just as impor-
tant a catalyst for change as the internal predilections for
reflection and evaluation by departmental faculties. The cur-
riculum should be understood not only as a reflection of the
best that psychological science had to offer undergraduates
but also as a self-legitimizing strategy to preserve intra- and
interinstitutional standing in the higher education community.
TEACHING
In the Handbook of the Undergraduate Curriculum,Ratcliff
(1997) identified two curricular models. The first model he
labeled as descriptiveorprescriptive;it maps the landscape
of organizational structures and elements put forward by fac-
ulty at their institutions or by disciplinary groups. Psycholo-
gists have used this model effectively for the last century.
First, the archival study of catalogs and the analysis of sur-
veys sent to campus departments asking them to describe
their requirements and courses are two methods used to de-
scribe the curriculum of a particular era. Second, periodic
gatherings of scholars and teachers in the discipline have
produced recommendations for curricular structures. In this
section, we review these two approaches to describing or pre-
scribing the undergraduate psychology curriculum.
Ratcliff (1997) labeled a second model as analytical;vari-
ables in the curriculum that affect student development are
identified, measured, and evaluated to determine their effec-
tiveness. We will use the analytical model in our discussion
of scholarship.
Courses: Catalog Studies and Surveys of the
Undergraduate Curriculum
Psychologists have been conscientious in mapping the land-
scape of their discipline’s undergraduate courses over the
past 100 years. In an APA committee report, Whipple (1910)
described the teaching of psychology from 100 normal
school responses to a questionnaire; Calkins (1910) from 47
“colleges supposed to have no laboratory” (p. 41); and E. C.
Sanford (1910) from 32 colleges and universities with labo-
ratories. Seashore (1910), the committee chair, composed a
summary report and recommendations for the elementary
course in psychology based on his three colleagues’ separate
studies. Henry (1938) examined 157 liberal arts college cata-
logs for their “plan of instruction” (p. 430). F. H. Sanford and
Fleishman (1950) examined 330 catalogs selected according
to eight institutional types; Daniel, Dunham, and Morris
(1965) replicated this study using 207 catalogs but limiting
their selection to four institutional types (universities, liberal
arts colleges, teachers colleges, and junior colleges). Lux and
Daniel (1978) examined catalogs from 56 universities, 53 lib-
eral arts colleges, and 69 two-year colleges. The APA spon-
sored surveys by Kulik (1973), Scheirer and Rogers (1985),
and Cooney and Griffith (1994). Messer, Griggs, and Jackson
(1999) reported their analysis of 292 catalogs for the pre-
valence and requirements of focused specialty-area options
versus general psychology degrees. In the same issue of
the journal Teaching of Psychology,Perlman and McCann
(1999a) examined 400 catalogs from four institutional types
for the most frequently listed courses.
We recommend all of these studies for students and scholars
of both history and program development. As Ash (1983)
noted, our self-representation is revealed in the courses
we choose to teach. How did we move from the single,
elementary course so characteristic in 1890 catalogs to
baccalaureate programs in which the “mean number of psy-
chology credits required for a major is 33.5 (SD7.8,
Mdn33, mode30, range7 to 81)” (Perlman & McCann,
1999b, pp. 172–173)? Let’s begin at the “beginning.”
Using Jastrow (1890), the 1910 studies, and Ruckmich
(1912) as starting points, McGovern (1992b) examined cata-
logs from 20 selected institutions for the years 1890 and 1900.
He found that psychology took one of three forms in 1890.
First, at Amherst, Georgia, and Grinnell, psychology was
listed as a topic or primary focus in a philosophy course. Sec-
ond, a single course in psychology was one of several philoso-
phy courses listed in the catalogs for the City College of New
York, Cincinnati, Columbia, Minnesota, New York Univer-
sity, and Ohio State University. This single course was taught
either as a requirement or elective for juniors or seniors. Third,
the first course in “elementary psychology” was followed by
some other course or courses. At Indiana, Michigan, George
Washington, and Yale, the course was in “physiological psy-
chology.” At Nebraska and Pennsylvania, the second course
was titled “experimental psychology” and had a required labo-
ratory experience. Additional courses were offered as “special
problems” at Brown, “advanced psychology” at Pennsylvania
and Yale, or selections based on faculty members’ special