Students know value.

Students are the brightest, most resourceful, individuals you will meet. They know value when they see it–what is and what isn’t worth it. They will not pay $200+ dollars for a textbook that isn’t used, and they don’t. Students will rent the book, or buy a used copy for a fraction of the new cost. In fact, using these methods, students are paying less for textbooks now than ever.

Still, they do know value. If students don’t like paying too much for something they don’t use, perhaps they will pay a small amount for something they will use. As part of Purdue’s affordable textbook initiative, I’ve created an anti-textbook for my Child Psychology class—A Child Psychology Primer. It provides just the bare essentials-the key concepts, methods, and findings that you simply have to know to usefully apply child psychology. This primer gives the essence of what child psychology is all about and what you can do with it. Much like “priming the pump” or laying down a coat of paint primer, this book serves as a jumping off point for future exploration, and to list a few added benefits:

  1. It costs a fraction of what textbooks normally cost.
  2. It perfectly matches the content of what I teach
  3. Because I’m in control of the content, revisions can happen in minutes.
  4. It is available in paperback and electronic formats so students can read it wherever they need it.

I think students will appreciate that value.

Link to Paperback Edition, and Kindle listing.

Dream Bigger

I had a dream. No, literally I just had a dream last night: I won’t lie, it left me in tears. We have failed our students, our mission.

It started with a small classroom: ideal numbers good relationship with the students, but this day, they were talking and not taking the class seriously because, perhaps we have given them too much power. Things escalated until a student threw a book across the classroom in frustration. Of course, I had to take punitive action, but like most things, the moment that led to throwing the book was an inevitable result of the thousands of tiny moments that had come before. I wondered, how we had got to this state of affairs.

Another classroom: (and here is where it gets weird) a clown walks in to give the lecture. The class laughs, uncomfortably. But she walks into a locker (wierd music and strange sound effects follow, and out pops a cheerleader, then a nerd, then a pothead, then our actual speaker for the day.

“These are your students” she says. How can one lesson reach them all?

Journal of Unpublishable Results

Dear Dr Hollich, we regret to inform you that we must reject your groundbreaking study on a highly interesting and important topic due to some flaws the two reviewers and I were able to find. While we understand these flaws are true of virtually all published studies, we chose to highlight these flaws in the review because substantive criticism takes more time and we have research to do as well and we are not getting paid or any kind of academic reward for our service…

It’s happened to all of us: the study to which you dedicated a significant portion of your life, apparently has a flaw (or two) that makes it unpublishable. Thankfully a helpful reviewer or editor has discovered these flaws. Perhaps we need a new journal to collect all these unpublishable studies. A kind of cautionary tale for new researchers.

After all, while you did spend years planning the studies, collecting data, and writing up the manuscript, the reviewers spent at least two, possibly four hours reading it and, honestly, that’s more time than anyone else will ever spend reading it… So if they don’t see the merit, why bother right?

College “teaches the unmeasurable.” I call BS.

In the recent discussion about the importance of the credit hour, a standard defense of college has arisen: “college teaches things not measured by tests.”

How convenient! Now I’m the first to lament the proliferation of multiple-choice testing as the be-all and end-all of assessment. And it IS true that we are certainly training students to become better test takers rather than critical thinkers to be sure.

But when you say that what college teaches cannot be measured, I take offense. After all, I am a psychologist, we pride ourselve on being able to measure anything. That we don’t, or worse, currently choose not to, suggests something:

  • Perhaps, we don’t really want to know how good college is at teaching critical thinking – critical thinking is not a unitary skill, students who are brilliant at math might suck at solving a physics problem, and both could be pretty bad at “practical matters”. Specialization, has a price. Maybe we don’t measure critical thinking because it is unique to each field and job, and global tests of critical thinking are doomed to be unreliable. Trying to teach critical thinking is a fools errand. (Even academic have been known to make to occasion irrational decision when it comes to finances, or relationships, or virtually anything one doesn’t have experience with.)
  • Maybe we are afraid. What if we actually do do a terrible job preparing students for the real world?  Most academics are not familiar with a world where doing something not obviously connected to practical application can get you fired. We live in worlds of theories, trapped in an ivory tower of similar like-minded academics. We don’t often have to explain the value of what we do to others not so entrenched. It’s uncomfortable when your field of study can feel like it is under attack.

And it is true that some of the value of college is not immediately obvious. Increasingly, the best companies are allowing for 20% time and letting their employees spend far more on R&D than schools ever do. Companies today understand that play and what appears on the surface to be “doing nothing” can be a crucial incubation period. Maybe practical value-added of college IS overrated. College is a time to make weird connections, to have exposure to the world’s biggest think tank: where someone who knows history walks near someone who knows psychology and students move between each class. We need to help students see the connections, to help them connect what they are learning now with everything they have learned.

Better yet, we need a way of getting the university to start acting like the powerhouse of real critical thinking that it can be. Finding better ways to help 35,000 students (and more) meet their best potential. We need a way of crowd-sourcing education, but that’s a discussion for another time.

A mastery view of prerequisites

Imagine if EVERY student came to class having read the assigned readings, knowing the background material, and came to class fully prepared to participate at the highest level.

“Wait a minute!” You say: “Isn’t that what prerequisites are for?”


Prerequisites are often included in upper-level courses as a way of establishing prior knowledge. But when prerequisites are courses, this can create issues:

First, we all know students who have taken a course, who are nonetheless unprepared for subsequent upper-level material, and there are similarly students who have not take a prerequisite course who would do just fine. Or, to take an even more extreme case: students who bomb the final exam in a prerequisite course. At present, their ONLY option is to retake the entire course, and there is no guarantee they will do any better. (In fact, the evidence points in the opposite direction.)

Wouldn’t it make more sense to test students on the foundational knowledge before class begins? Better yet, if they don’t know the material, shouldn’t they be required to study it until they can demonstrate a mastery of the foundational material? Then they walk into class profoundly prepared to move the discussion forward.

We already do something like this for math scores and other topics via Advanced Placement Tests, but shouldn’t this become de rigueur for all upper level courses?  Maybe this is a solution to rampant course retakes. You only get one shot at a course, but you get many shots to demonstrate mastery and move on in the program.  This way course grades are accurate reflections of effort in the class but mastery is demonstrated in a different manner.

Yes, online learning doesn’t suck.

Consider my mind blown. I’ve found at least one online course that doesn’t suck, and it has made me re-think the whole online learning equation.

I’m currently a participant in Dan Ariely’s Coursera Course, “A Beginner’s guide to Irrationality.” The videos are top-notch; the readings challenging; the discussion fora active; there is a significant writing component, and the whole experience has opened my eyes to the potential of Massive Online Courses and some clear issues with college today.

Issues with College Today

College today could be characterized primarily as a container (holding pen) for 18-24 year-olds. Of course, this is a cynical simplification, but that age group represents the focus of most large universities. And even in the best light, we are training and preparing those ages for the great wide-world outside of college.

Two problems: First, more people are complaining that college could be a waste of time. (Certainly some of the recent reports suggest college is not doing a great job of setting graduates up for success). Worse, because of the magic of the normal distribution (and teaching to the lowest common denominator), students often find themselves in multiple classes that are too easy or too hard, or downright irrelevant to their future (or they just don’t see the relevance). As the number of such classes increase, students become disenfranchised with the whole process, and they go from being excited about learning to doing the minimum necessary to pass. Thus, instead of creating lifelong learners, we are creating students who learn just enough to pass and actively avoid all future learning.

The second issue with college today is that we need learning throughout life. There is no practical reason that the college experience should stop at 24, yet that is how college is designed, none but an 18- to 24-year-old could possibly complete the coursework for a degree in a reasonable amount of time. Anytime, anywhere, on-demand learning is increasingly becoming important, and there is a vast untapped population of learners who can’t devote 4+ years to learning something, but who could find four hours a week for six weeks to develop their skills in a single topic.

Learning doesn’t stop at college, it just becomes far more personalized and on-demand. People who have full time jobs get trained: they go to seminars and conferences, they read self-help books and they, increasingly, take MOOCs. What a shame that the university doesn’t play more of a role in this process. As a center of learning, universities should be taking a more active part in the education of all. (And they shouldn’t be so worried about DRM either, but that’s another story, linked to the value of the freemuim model.)

This partially explains the success of MOOCs since they can enroll people that have a life. The target population for a MOOC is anyone that might have an interest in a topic (and just that topic).

Another major advantage of MOOCs is that they have a mastery versus a performance mindset. With a performance mindset (held by most Colleges), some students will be good, some bad, and the job of college is to separate those students. GPA becomes the final arbiter of talent and potential in a domain. A mastery mindset, in contrast, is what most training outside of college is about: There is a topic you must learn, and you don’t move on until you learn it. In this framework, retaking different versions of the same quiz becomes an important part of the pedagogy. In Coursera for example, you take a quiz and get a C, but it doesn’t stop there. “Sorry, a C isn’t good enough. You clearly don’t understand the material at a level that is needed. So study harder, and take another quiz, and another.” All that matters is that in the end, you know this stuff cold. (BTW quiz questions are different each time, and usually involve applied examples)

What a powerful principle: Anyone can learn. A mastery mindset acknowledges that this can happen at a different pace for everyone, but ANYONE CAN LEARN.

What would happen if college professors adopted this perspective. I call this the “President’s daughter effect.” Imagine your university was privileged enough to matriculate the president’s daughter. Would you be satisfied when she bombed her first test? Wouldn’t it be all hands on deck? Wouldn’t you make sure she got extra tutors, maybe a peer mentor or two, or even some remedial training? This happens for students on sports teams to some extent. But why shouldn’t we do the same for students who don’t play for BigTen teams or those who can’t ask the leader of the free world for a goodnight kiss?

Just how beneficial is Introductory Psychology?

Introductory Psychology could be the most important class you’ll ever take. Not necessarily because you’ll become a psychologist, but because it has the potential to change your life. Or at the very least it will give you a unique insight into why people (including you) do the things they do. And like any good introductory psychology course, it should give you the framework for questioning and testing your intuitions about people. And in the long run, that will be the most useful thing you could learn.

Beyond the content

Yes, you will learn psychology content, (duh).  But you can always look up content: In this age of Google, it just isn’t as important that you remember who Johne Locke was, so much as you remember why you should know him in the first place. Your most important realization should be that some of what you think you know about people and their psychology is just wrong, possibly dangerously so.

The primary goal of an intro psychology course is to give you the skills to be a better thinker, a better writer, and a better scientist when it comes to understanding people. Make no mistake, psychology is a science. After such a course, you will know how to gather evidence, how to generate and test hypotheses with that evidence in order to continually improve your understanding of human behavior.

We should clear up one big misconception at the start: Most psychology isn’t applied. Psychology gives you a way of thinking about how to interpret and explore behavior. Much like physics relates to engineering, or biology relates to medicine, psychology provides the basic theories that other fields then apply to great effect. The fields that apply psychology’s understanding of human nature include law, politics, marketing, business, economics, industrial design, writing, and virtually any other area that deals with people or human factors. And just like you’d be upset at a doctor who doesn’t know anything about biology, you should be upset by politicians who ignore human nature when creating policy, businesses that don’t understand their customers, and products that confuse and frustrate consumers. In all of these cases, someone with a psychology background (like you) could help.

Nature of the hybrid version of PSY120.

PSY120 at Purdue is offered as a hybrid course. Hybrid means that you will learn some of the course content online and some of the content in recitation sections. We really think this format represents the best of both worlds. Online is a great way to get you up-to-date on basic content, while live recitation sections represent a time to help you master the harder, bigger concepts and wrestle with how to apply psychology in your life. Specifically, many of the basic facts and definitions, descriptions of studies, and standard lectures will be available to you online. These provide the basis for the activities you will be doing in recitation. NOTE: It is almost impossible to do well in the recitations if you haven’t first completed the lectures online.

The recitations are much smaller than the typical large lecture course and are meant to be authentic to the “real world”. That is, in the world outside of Purdue, you will not sit listening to lectures all day, you will instead be working with others, applying your knowledge of psychology to do amazing things. In recitation, you and your fellow psychology experts will be asked to complete activities that will help you gain a first-hand appreciation for the use of psychology in daily life.

You should also gain a supportive group that will help you become a better student. For example, your group might work on study habits, edit each other’s writing, or quiz each other for the upcoming test; you might even form social group to watch the lectures. Helping each other is a big part of life, and it is a huge part of the hybrid version of PSY120.

You might be wondering: “What does psychology have to do with being a better student?” Why practice writing or study skills in a psychology class; shouldn’t that be done in a study skills class or writing class?” Maybe, but you will learn alot about yourself and others by working on these activities. Like discovering that others often have a more realistic and objective view of your own abilities, and that their input can make you better. You might also be interested to know that writing, presenting, and working in groups are three of the most requested skills by employers.

Content is good. You will learn content. But without the skills to tell and inspire others with your knowledge, that knowledge will never have as big an impact. Look at it this way: In the end, it doesn’t really matter how a team “knows”, but how well they perform. This class will help you learn content and the skills to effectively apply that content in the real world. And isn’t that what college (and life) is all about?

Argument for Online Education

The resistance to online education is a bit like the purists’ resistance to recorded music: Sure, live is “better” on many levels, but the advent of recording allows us to reach larger and more diverse audience. Is it as good as a “live” performance? Maybe not, but I can still listen to the Beetles even though they won’t be making any more live performances. And believe it or not, I believe that an intelligent use of prerecorded material can take us that much closer to the one-on-one question-and-answer sessions so valued by our most promising students.

Let me put it this way: Do we pay professors to lecture or to educate? Are we really respecting professors’ knowledge or time by insisting that they keep repeating the same basic lectures, again and again, to larger and larger groups of students? When I started at Purdue, I taught Developmental Psychology to a single section of 75 students. This coming semester, that same section will have more than 200 students, with many more students on the waitlist. More damningly, a number of psych majors can’t find any psych course to take. While we can (and do) restrict upper level courses to majors only, this is not an option for introductory courses. Put simply, the 100 and 200 level courses in psychology are in great demand–so much so, that right now, the demand far outstrips the supply. To solve this, we can either teach more sections, teach larger sections, or try something a tiny bit different. My proposal is simple and modest: By offering online sections of our existing courses (taught by the same professors, with the same basic materials and requirements, and, ideally, concurrent with the usual live sections) we can relieve some of the outside pressures on our major, and get back to smaller class sizes. We might also discover, as I have, that online courses offer some distinct advantages to traditional courses that help push education more in the direction of sophisticated one-on-one interaction and customized education.

Isn’t the hallmark of good education the back and forth dialog? Ever since Socrates, a premium has been placed on the importance of interaction. Indeed, the most common criticism of distance education in the past has been that it lacks this interactive component. But let’s be honest here: exactly how much interaction does the typical student get whilst sitting in the back of a lecture filled to the gills with more than 200 fellow classmates? Even if there is some conversation, all too often, it involves a poorly thought-out question or some brown-noser showing off. I have found that the online environment allows for a much greater level of interaction than the traditional classroom. Also, online discussion (and polling) allows a MUCH better picture of student understanding. Instead of hearing from the few, the brave, the brown-nosers; a teacher can get quickly get a sense of what the students are grasping and what concepts they don’t. Best of all, because this process is asynchronous, the teacher can dig up more, and better, examples to help the students.

In every class, there is content that changes with the addition of the latest research and an often large chunk of content that stays the same. Recording allows us to capture our expertise on this second type of content and bottle it for the masses, thereby freeing up time to make the up-to-date portions even more current and spend more time actually interacting with students, and isn’t that a better use of everyone’s time? Let me close with one warning: I know that ONLINE Education is not for everyone. Even with all the benefits, as the course number moves up, I believe it is more important for interactions that are not prerecorded. Likewise, for some students (especially minorities and disadvantaged populations) some online sections may well be a bad idea. But having the online option frees up the live sections for those who need it, and those who want flexibility or just want a taste can get it, too. Let’s not forget there is a class of students for whom online courses are the ONLY option. Again, this isn’t about replacing the traditional sections, but supplementing them.

(Originally posted Feb 15, 2011 on Posterous)