139

Psychology Learning and Teaching 6(2), 139-149

Haggis (2003) argues that if the two values of the massaccessibility of higher education (HE) and ‘lifelonglearning’ are to be taken seriously then those involvedin HE learning and teaching need to take a great dealmore notice of what students in the ‘mass system’ aresaying. Consequently, it is important to access whatstudents believe about the learning and teaching ofpsychology. If tutors are aware of this, they may bebetter able to facilitate learning, ease the transition intoa psychology degree course and retain studentsbeyond the first year.

However there is much debate regarding thesignificance of the impact of different forms of priorknowledge and ability, and indeed whether these arethe most important aspects of the student profile. Whatresearchers do seem to have consistently identified,however, is a mismatch between the expectations andgoals of the student and that of the tutor. Some (e.g.,Griggs, Jackson and Meyer, 1989; Sander, Stevenson,King and Coates, 2000; Zanich and Grover, 1989) feelthat this mismatch has important consequences forlearning satisfaction and academic performance.

As widening access brings increasing student diversity,student perceptions, misconceptions and attitudes maybe just as important to learning and teachingpsychology as individual ability and knowledge. Indeedthis has been supported by Schau (2003), who arguesthat students’ negative perceptions of and attitudestowards, particular aspects of the psychology course (inthis case research methods and statistics) can impactnot only on course involvement and satisfaction but alsoon achievement. Recent work has called for

consideration of students’ beliefs and understandings inEuropean as well as US settings (Cano, 2005).

This is not simply of philosophical interest. Dahl, Balsand Turi (2005) identified beliefs about the nature ofknowledge as important predictors of learning strategyuse; and, Thompson and Zamboanga (2004) found thatintroductory university psychology students’ knowledgeof psychological concepts predicted examinationperformance when general student aptitude and courseparticipation were controlled.

More broadly, Gamache (2002) argues that universitystudents’ conceptions of learning are best seen as atype of ‘personal knowledge’ that is a “…personalized,self-reflective (i.e., metacognitive) strategy” (p. 284).This knowledge can be used to enhance studentachievement if researchers and tutors are informed ofthe broad gamut of student beliefs, especially becausethey form the “… ‘what’ that structures what we do, andwhat we think” (Gamache, 2002, p. 286). This idea canbe situated within the broader context of Perry’s earlywork (1968, 1970) on university students’ beliefs aboutthe nature of knowledge and learning; i.e., while newlyrecruited students displayed an understanding ofknowledge as certain, simple and conveyed throughauthoritative sources, this changed over time.

In order to address these issues, this research willconsider newly recruited psychology undergraduates’metacognitive beliefs about the nature of psychologyand studying psychology at university. Conceptually, itis consistent with Schommer’s (1990, 1993) research,which suggests that student beliefs about knowledge

‘Watching people do stuff’: an analysis of newly recruited students’accounts of doing a psychology degree

JODI WALLWORK, BERE MAHONEY AND SARAH MASON

University of Worcester, UK

Learning and teaching researchers have consistently identified a mismatch between student andtutor expectations and goals. With student diversity increasing along with widening access,student perceptions, misconceptions and attitudes may be just as important to learning andteaching psychology as individual ability and knowledge. We set out in this paper to explore theaccounts given by newly recruited psychology students of their beliefs and understandings aboutthe subject of psychology and how psychology students learn. Our findings suggest that, althoughsome of these students’ understandings are consistent with the psychology undergraduateprogramme, there are also beliefs that present challenges and opportunities to tutors andprogramme designers. At the very least, we suggest, that engagement in an exercise similar tothat undertaken in this study may be valuable in enhancing understanding and reshaping thebeliefs and expectations of both students and tutors.

1 Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to the second author at: Division of Psychology, Instituteof Health, Social Care and Psychology, University of Worcester, Henwick Grove, Worcester WR14 1HQ, UK. Email:b.mahoney@worc.ac.uk.

140

WALLWORK, MAHONEY AND MASON

and learning form a complex ‘system’, which consists ofbeliefs about both the structure and certainty ofknowledge, as well as the individual’s control over theacquisition of the former and the rate at which thisoccurs.

Methodologically, we felt that a focus on attitudes tolearning or to a specific topic may obscure more than ithighlights (Edwards and Potter, 1992; Potter andWetherell, 1987). Likewise, Penny (2003) is critical ofatomistic approaches to canvassing student attitudes totheir educational experiences. Specifically, shequestions the validity of student ratings of teachingeffectiveness and, importantly here, whether suchratings can capture the role of students per se in thelearning process. Penny argues that research onstudent and academic staff conceptions aboutknowledge, learning and teaching is relativelyconvergent: student and staff beliefs can conflict andtherefore research should focus on such beliefs if weare to actualise student centred learning (see alsoEstes, 2004). Consequently, we feel that a broadapproach to analysing the understandings,expectations and apprehensions that students bringwith them to their psychology course is appropriate.

To this end we use a focus group method, in an attemptto understand rather than assume the forms thatstudent understandings might take. At a simple level, allstudents will have some commonsense understandingsabout popular psychological concepts (Landau andBavaria, 2003), about what psychologists do, and whatis good and bad psychology, and these will emerge asthey discuss the topic interactionally in the focusgroups. Likewise their understanding (or lack ofunderstanding) about what it means to be a psychologystudent in terms of tutor expectations, personal,academic and social responsibilities will becomeevident through analysis of their talk. Further, such aresearch setting provides us with the opportunity toexamine the dynamics of the interaction betweenstudents from different backgrounds.

Having said that, we acknowledge that a focus group isnot a natural setting from which one might obtain thestable and considered opinions of participants. Nor dowe treat their ‘talk’ as “the overt expression ormanifestation of a life within [the mind]” (Edwards andStokoe, 2004, p. 499). However, we do consider such‘talk’ valuable in terms of what it can tell us about howstudents work up their beliefs about the discipline andabout how learning takes place. Importantly we feel thatthese two aspects of student life are linked to studentidentity and that there are important links betweenstudent expectations and understandings and theirprojections of themselves into the future as psychologystudents.

In short, this paper examines focus group data gatheredfrom newly recruited students. Broadly, the aim of the

analysis is to investigate first year psychologyundergraduate students’ understandings of both thesubject of psychology and of the learning and teachingof psychology. Specifically, we are interested in hownewly enrolled students work up their understandingsand expectations of doing a psychology course in focusgroup talk, and the links between talk about whatpsychological knowledge consists of, howpsychologists acquire knowledge and what they do withit and what students expect to do as psychologystudents.

METHOD

The data analysed in the next section are drawn from alarger corpus of qualitative data gathered frompsychology students at the University of Worcesteracross the three-year degree programme. These datatook two forms, namely responses to an open-endedquestionnaire and focus group data. This analysisfocuses on the data gathered from newly recruitedstudents in a focus group setting. Broadly theanalytically interesting themes that emerge from thefocus group data echo those that are evident in theopen-ended questionnaires. However, the focus groupdata is necessarily richer, more complex and,importantly, more elucidating in terms of the sometimescontradictory beliefs that seem to inform newly recruitedstudent understanding. For this reason, the analysis willconcentrate on the focus group data.

Four focus groups were carried out in a universityseminar room. Each consisted of five students and oneor two facilitators. The researchers, who are also tutorson the psychology degree programme, acted asfacilitators. Students were recruited at their induction,via participant volunteer forms which gave them thechoice of four date and time sessions. All focus groupswere carried out during the first two weeks of thedegree course in an attempt to capture the expectationsand understandings that students were bringing withthem to the course. Volunteers were allocated to one offour groups and they were notified of their group byphone.

Each focus group included both A-level entrants andmature students who entered their degree in a variety ofways, for example via an access or foundation courseor on the basis of previous qualifications andexperience. We were keen to minimise the impact ofsome of the difficulties associated with using one-to-one interviews to access student beliefs (Dahlin, 1999)and to provide the students with a discussion forum thatreflected to some extent the type of discussion groupscommon to the psychology student learningexperience. Although the aim had been to include bothmales and females in each group, for reasons oforganisation and because of the general genderimbalance in the psychology student body, one of thegroups was all male, one all female, while the remaining

141

two both included one male and four femaleparticipants.

Each focus group followed the same shortsemistructured interview schedule (given in AppendixA). This allowed some degree of focus and consistencywhile giving both the facilitators and students theflexibility to explore issues of particular interest. This isimportant as the aim of the research is to explore ratherthan assume participants’ concerns on the topic ofdoing a psychology degree (Langellier and Sullivan,1998). All focus group discussions were audiotaped andtranscribed in full using a simplified version ofJefferson’s (1984) notation.

Analytic frameworkThe analysis is informed by the work of discourseanalysts working in the field of psychology (Billig, 1987,1991; Edwards, 1997; Potter and Wetherell, 1987;Wetherell, 1998). Although these analysts vary to someextent in their approach to the detailed analysis of texton the page, they are united in their view of discourseas action orientated rather than as representative ofinner psychological states (such as thoughts andfeelings). Students’ accounts are not treated in thisanalysis as a ‘true’ reflection of beliefs that have beenworked through and mentally stored some time prior tothe focus group, nor are their expressed ‘feelings’treated as evaluations of predefined objects (such as‘psychology’). Rather, we acknowledge that they areworking up their understanding of the subject as theytalk, drawing on information gathered from a variety ofcontexts and arenas (including the focus groupsituation) to make sense of our questions and to givemeaning to their own accounts.

What, as analysts, we are interested in, then, is both theconsistencies and contradictions (in terms of dominantviews of psychology and HE learning) that emergewithin and across accounts as well as the function thatthese accounts perform in terms of student identity andpositioning (Wetherell, 1998). In other words, we areinterested in the sorts of stories of learning and beingpsychologists that students bring with them to thelearning experience.

Analytic procedureSeveral steps were taken to sort the focus group dataand to validate the analysis. First, each of the threeresearchers worked through all four transcripts andnoted broad recurring themes. Although these wereloosely organised around the main interview questions,the researchers were keen to avoid circularity in theanalysis (see Antaki, Billig, Edwards and Potter, 2003)and in fact as the analysis progressed it becameobvious that particular ways of making sense of‘psychology’ emerged across the questions. Theresearchers then discussed the individual analyses andagreed on the focus for further more detailed analysis.

This involved highlighting those analytic points that allthe researchers felt were sufficiently evidenced in thedata. Again all three researchers worked with alltranscripts. We feel that the different perspectivesbrought to the analysis and the regular discussions bothenriched the final analysis and provided the team with aprocess of validation; i.e., analytic claims are not simplythe result of one researcher’s analysis.

Once the focus and structure of the analysis wasagreed upon, particular extracts were selected andthematically grouped in terms of key analytic points.One of the team then carried out a more detailedanalysis of these extracts. At this point the analyticfocus was on a) variation and contradiction withinaccounts_this highlighted both dominant views ofpsychology as well as conflicts in understandings andaspirations_and b) the function of accounts in terms ofprojected student identity and learning experience.

AnalysisThe following analysis is divided into sections based onthe two broad interview schedule topics: students’understandings about the subject of psychology, andstudents’ expectations about the studying process. Itmust be emphasised, however, that these sections areinterrelated and many ways of talking about aspects ofpsychology and learning appeared across the data.

What is psychology?In discussing this issue, students’ accounts centredalmost exclusively around the applications ofpsychology. This orientation to psychology as anapplied discipline proved to be a central themethroughout the data.

However, in talking about what people do aspsychologists, participants also provide a subjectiveevaluation of the subject itself (Potter, 1996). This is notviewed simply as a representation of students’ ‘true’beliefs, but rather as an active construction of thesubject of psychology that tells us as much aboutstudents’ hopes and projected identities (Reicher andHopkins, 2001) as it does about their currentunderstanding. We are particularly interested in howpsychology is being constituted in the data and feel thatthis has important implications for the participants’future interaction with course content.

Whether discussing the business of psychologists ortheir feelings about the subject, there is an overridingorientation to the notion of psychology as the study ofpathology. Psychologists were referred to as being“almost .. like a (.) doctor in a certain sense like a GPbut er from a different perspective” (Focus Group 1)who could solve “individual problems and socialproblems” (Focus Group 2) and make people “generallyhappier” (Focus Group 3) (see Appendix B, Extracts 1-4, for full examples).

STUDENTS’ ACCOUNTS OF DOING A PSYCHOLOGY DEGREE

142

WALLWORK, MAHONEY AND MASON

In many cases psychology is being worked up as thesolution to mental health problems, whether these are‘schizophrenia’, ‘learning difficulties’, ‘brain damage’ or‘football hooliganism’, and psychologists are being castin the role of people fixers, whose role is to improvequality of life. This rather simplistic view should come asno surprise given Perry’s (1968, 1970) findings–i.e.,that students approach their study with the notion thatknowledge is certain and simple and sourced fromauthoritative individuals. However, it is useful tounderstand the implications of this in the specificcontexts of psychology students.

This pathology/solution construction of the disciplinesuggests two related aspects of students’understanding about what it is they are going to bestudying and doing as future psychologists. First, thereis an evident understanding that psychology isoverwhelmingly the study of the individual–the childwith schizophrenia or people with learning difficulties–and second that ‘psychological problems’ are reducibleto the intraindividual level (e.g., the biology of thefootball hooligan).

Although much of the psychology syllabus may bedescribable as individual psychology, there is alsomuch that is not and most tutors on, say, social orabnormal psychology modules aim to encourage theirstudents to think critically about both pathology andindividual aetiology. And yet our data suggest that suchcritical thinking may be difficult without something of aparadigm shift for many students. Indeed there is anevident belief emerging from our data that individualityitself can be understood as a type of pathology thatneeds the attention of a psychologist. For example, oneparticipant suggested that:

Y’know we’re obviously so diverse that you can’tsit every kid down behind a desk for y’knowhowever many hours a day and expect them todo GCSEs, do A-levels and that sort of thing soyou can sort of use psychology to address theproblems, can’t you? (Focus Group 2)

Here is an obvious orientation to the idea of individualityas a psychological problem and psychology as a tool fordivining individual character, effecting solutions andmaking people ‘generally happier’. This notion thatintraindividual psychological change is the raison d’êtreof psychology and, in fact, probably the inevitableoutcome of mere contact with the discipline, was furthersupported by talk of the therapeutic effects of doing apsychology degree–for example there was anemphasis on attempting to “understand yourselfbecause like before you can understand other people”(Focus Group 3) (see Appendix B, Extracts 5 and 6, forfull examples).

The second important upshot of this pathology/solutionconstruction of psychology is an investment in thenotion that in studying psychology, students will learn tobe applied psychologists–i.e., they learn how to workwith people and solve their problems. It is important totake this on board. Not only does this idea have thepotential to build in a certain amount of frustration anddisillusionment with the undergraduate course but itmay also help to explain the difficulties that psychologytutors encounter in delivering certain aspects of thesyllabus (e.g., the more social aspects of the course orthe more theoretical topics such as memory that mayseem irrelevant).

Although students expressed a great interest inunderstanding ‘what makes people tick’ and afascination with the inner workings of the mind, there isa notable absence of any discussion of howpsychologists set about explaining such things. Wewould argue that if tutors are geared to the ‘what’ ofwhat students think psychology is (Gamache, 2002)and what they think they are going to become, they canhelp students to not simply take on new, perhaps alien‘knowledge’, but to reshape their ideas and takeownership of them.

The ‘mystery tour’ of a psychology degreePrevious studies have found that a strong rationale forstudying a subject and personal motivation areimportant predictors of success (e.g., Waschull, 2005).One student’s comment on her previous experience ofstudying psychology may well sum up this generalorientation: “even though some of it was over my headand I didn’t always understand it was just fascinating tome” (Focus Group 1). Our participants consistentlyreferred to the subject of psychology as “fascinating”,“an excellent subject” which can “add an extradimension”, suggesting that they are extremely positive,even idealistic about their subject and its applications.This is obviously something we would like to harness.

There was clearly an orientation to the idea ofpsychological knowledge as a powerful yet rathermysterious and potentially dangerous tool, which couldbe used “in the wrong way” (Focus Group 2), which hadthe potential to “unlock something that you shouldn’t”(Focus Group 1) (see Appendix B, Extracts 5 and 6, forfull examples). Some students suggested that this wassimply an inevitable consequence of advancedscientific knowledge, just as the atom bomb was aninevitable consequence of advances in physics, whileothers suggested that this is the consequence ofpsychological knowledge and skill in the wrong hands.

However, what is of interest here is how these accountsconstruct psychological knowledge as equivalent topower; i.e., psychologists do not simply have

143

knowledge, they have a powerful tool which can changeindividuals and society. What this knowledge/powermight consist of is less well articulated; however, therewas a general and unchallenged acceptance that doinga psychology degree would in itself unlock the mystery.Further, it is interesting to note that for many studentsthe acquisition of such power could be seen as a strongmotivation for ‘doing’ a psychology degree–“I’m lookingforward to being, like having the skills and theknowledge to help yourself as well as other people”(Focus Group 1).

Our data suggest that students may place someinvestment in the idea that in studying psychology theyare engaging in something of a ‘mystery tour’, duringwhich they will explore exciting paths, witnessinteresting real life phenomena and come to know thesecrets of the mystery.

Although tutors of first year psychology students wouldobviously aim to harness and maintain this enthusiasmand excitement, it may be useful, simultaneously, tounderstand the content of this excitement and thereforebe in a position to challenge misconceptions early andavoid later disillusionment. The next section exploresstudents’ understandings about how psychologicalknowledge will be acquired.

How do psychology students learn?Previous research has found that British students arriveat university with poor knowledge about their academicdepartment and methods of study (Parlett, Simons,Simmonds, and Hewton, 1988). Understanding studentexpectations about how they will learn is cruciallyimportant, as research suggests that these studentperceptions serve as a ‘filter’ for the material they learn,and have an important influence on their approach tolearning (Entwistle, Thompson and Tait, 1992).Ramsden states “[student] performance on differenttasks… may vary not because of a weakness inteaching or experimental design, but because of hiddenimperatives that derive from his or her perceptions andexperiences” (Ramsden, 1998, p. 28). Our data suggestthat our participants may not be best equipped for therealities of their degree course.

Although there was a strong orientation in the accountstowards a rather narrow definition of what psychology is–that is to say, the solution to individual problems–therewas a simultaneous orientation to the notion ofpsychology as an open-ended subject of study thatallows for a great deal of imagination and creativity. Forexample, some participants describe a sort of academicfreedom where students are free to “make up what youwant (.)and try and find something to back it up” (FocusGroup 2) (see Appendix B, Extract 11, for full example).These two versions of psychology appear across thedata and are not only contradictory and ratherinaccurate, but appear to be equally strongly linked tostudents’ motivations for studying the subject.

This presents an interesting challenge for learning andteaching. On the one hand, as the above accountsuggests, the constitution of the subject as open-endedmakes available the possibility of becoming personallyinvolved in the creative process of knowledgeproduction, and exploring. This is encouraging in thelight of research on learning in HE, which consistentlyhighlights the importance of deep learning and student-centred learning in ensuring students’ success (Gibbs,1981; Morgan, 1993), and is arguably an understandingthat psychology tutors would wish to foster. And yet, onthe other hand, the belief in psychology as a body ofknowledge that can be acquired, suggests the oppositeof autonomous creative learning. This raises thequestion of what students actually think independentlearning is.

Our data suggest that it may be viewed as somethingseparate from the creative process of becoming apsychologist. Independent learning per se wasconstructed rather negatively in many accounts as“quite daunting” (Focus Group 2”, with the danger ofgoing off on the “wrong track” (Focus Group 1), andmany students referred to a choice between “work” and“fun” (Focus Group 3) (see Appendix B, Extracts 12-16,for full examples). This sits in stark contrast to thenotion that ‘exploring’ the subject of psychology isfascinating and exciting.

However, further analysis of the discussion helps toexplain this apparent contradiction and offers someclues for structuring the first year course. Whenstudents are talking about how they would like to learnthey emphasise the importance of “hands onexperience” and “watching people do stuff” (FocusGroup 1) (see Appendix B, Extracts 17-19, for fullexamples). With this belief comes an impatience with“reading all the time” (Focus Group 4). In other words,independent learning equates to first hand observationrather than the reading of second hand accounts.Nowhere in these discussions did the word ‘theory’appear. Sander, Stevenson, King and Coates (2000)confirm that psychology students prefer learninginteractively and through group based activities. Suchways of learning are consistently shown to bebeneficial. And yet this presents difficulties for thelearning and teaching of a subject that is heavilytheoretical and that is far more focused on theevaluation of research than the conducting of it (Barber,1995).

Undoubtedly, many first year students struggle to cometo terms with the learning experience and methods ofassessment and perhaps this is unsurprising. Poorability to write up and discuss research findings, and areluctance to engage with difficult and unobservableconcepts and models, may quite simply be due to abelief that first hand experience of what occurs in anexperiment is far more important than explanations ofphenomena. Nathanson, Paulhus and Williams (2004),

STUDENTS’ ACCOUNTS OF DOING A PSYCHOLOGY DEGREE

144

WALLWORK, MAHONEY AND MASON

for example, argue that the general ‘scientificmindedness’ of students is the best predictor of successin psychology course assessments. And yet our datasuggest that many students approach their degreecourse with little understanding of what it means tostudy a scientific discipline.

Arguably, this does not need to be an obstacle, but mayindicate a need to reshape the content and deliverymethods over the course of the year. If the enthusiasmfor ‘hands on’ experience can be fostered in the firstyear, for example to make research methods andstatistics more accessible and relevant, while reducingthe emphasis on theory, it may be possible to build in anatural progression from empirical work to explanationthrough the three years of the degree course, ratherthan simply a progression from less to more detail andlevel of difficulty.

DISCUSSION

This paper reports the preliminary findings of ourproject; and, specifically, focuses on the metacognitivebeliefs of newly recruited first year psychologyundergraduates. By using focus group data we havetried to understand these metacognitive beliefs throughanalysis of their ‘talk’ about what it means to be apsychology student. Importantly, consideration of suchphenomena is grounded in Schommer’s (1990, 1993)theoretical approach, which identifies student beliefsabout knowledge and learning as part of a complex‘system’. This is akin to Gamache’s (2002)conceptualisation of university students’ beliefs aboutlearning as ‘personal knowledge’, that has a strategicrole to play in their learning behaviour per se.

In this preliminary analysis we have highlighted thoseaspects of the talk that provide insights into the beliefsand understandings students bring with them to theirdegree course, because they have implications for thelearning and teaching of psychology. Moreover, theseinsights have potential implications for the theoreticaldebate relating to psychology learning and teaching;and can be used as a starting point to facilitate dialogueamongst university academic staff who deliverundergraduate psychology programmes, as well asthose involved in the development and planning of suchcourses at an operational and strategic level.

In sum, in the first section of our analysis, we have triedto show that our newly recruited students have stronglyheld yet contradictory, or at least paradoxical, beliefsabout psychology. On the one hand, our newly recruitedstudents’ accounts suggest a belief in psychology asthe solution to individual pathology; as a discipline withcertainty of content and purpose. On the other hand,they suggest an understanding of psychology as openended, creative and mysterious and something of anexciting empirical adventure.

This raises two issues. First, clearly many of thesebeliefs (e.g., psychology as an empirical discipline) andexpectations (experimenting and applying) will be metwithin the majority of traditional degree programmes.However, these preliminary findings do indicate bothpotential sources of paradigm conflict between studentsand those teaching psychology at universities, and theneed for more research that both captures student andstaff paradigms, and how such paradigms impact onlearning and performance. It may be that in the longterm there is a need for change not only in learning andteaching methods but in the emphasis placed onempirical work and theory over the degree course.

Second, given the current drive for mass accessibility toHE and lifelong learning (Haggis, 2003), it seemsunlikely that inconsistencies between student and staffmetacognitions about psychological knowledge willdiminish. Rather, the potential diversity in such beliefs islikely to increase. Given the importance of ‘scientificmindedness’ (Nathanson et al., 2004) to students’performance on course assessments, these preliminaryanalyses hint at a potential (albeit partial) explanation ofstudent performance that is not routinely considered asa predictor of such phenomena: namely, studentmetacognitions about the nature of psychologicalknowledge and skills. Future research could considersuch beliefs and their impact upon a range of studentperformance indices (including retention) because theydo form the complex ‘system’ (Schommer, 1990, 1993)or ‘filter’ (Entwistle et al., 1992) within which coursedelivery operates. Whilst this suggestion is far fromrevolutionary, the prospect of developing useful (validand reliable) tools to capture such beliefs is achallenge.

The second section of the analysis focused on students’metacognitive beliefs about how they expected to learnat university. The data produced are consistent withother research that shows university students, at leastat entry, have poor knowledge of how they will learn(e.g., Parlett et al., 1988). However, there is alsoevidence of contradiction and conflict in beliefs. Forexample, although they showed enthusiasm forpersonal involvement in the creative process of theirown learning, the constitution of autonomous learningas ‘daunting’ appeared across the data. However,psychology students’ accounts of learning ‘paradigms’for psychology appear less inconsistent with currentapproaches used than their knowledge paradigms. Forexample, students anticipated, and appeared to prefer,the notion of learning through practical experiences.

This also raises two issues. First, there appear to beaspects of first years’ metacognitions about howpsychology will be ‘learnt’ that could be harnessed andintegrated within the design of course delivery. Forexample, student beliefs about psychology as adiscipline of applications learnt through hands on

145

experience could be used to engage them with thoseaspects of the curriculum and ‘learning’ regarded asless interesting (e.g., research methods and readingresearch papers).

Second, our data suggest that there are aspects of firstyears’ beliefs about how psychology will be learnt thatcould conflict with their actual experiences whilststudying (e.g., in large lectures on unobservableconcepts and models). Importantly, such conflict couldimpact upon student performance and retention. Forexample, given the drive to widen access to HE, andthe incumbent rise in cohort size, and the changes incourse delivery these can produce (e.g., large groups,large lectures, dependence on web based tools), firstyear psychology students risk experiencingdisappointment and demotivation. Whilst suchexperiences are likely to occur across the universitysector, we would suggest that the subject specificmetacognitions of psychology undergraduates (e.g., abelief in psychological knowledge as intrinsicallymysterious and powerful) may exaggerate this effect.

To conclude, we would suggest that an understandingof newly recruited psychology students’ beliefs aboutpsychology is important not only for the learningexperience and performance of students, but also forwidening access and retention. Our findings suggestsome possible areas of ‘mismatch’ between studentand tutor paradigms. We feel there is potential to bothdispel misconceptions and harness enthusiasms withinthe existing course curriculum and structure. Of course,it would be naive to suggest that, by simplyunderstanding, tutors can immediately enhance thelearning experience of their first year students. Tutorshave many constraints on their desire to do the best forstudents. However, such understanding may be used toinform student-tutor interaction as well as contentemphasis and delivery. Further, the simple exercise ofengaging students in discussion about ‘doing’ apsychology may be a useful first step in the process ofreshaping both student and tutor paradigms.

REFERENCES

Antaki, C., Billig, M., Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (2003).Discourse analysis means doing analysis: A critique ofsix analytic shortcomings. Discourse Analysis Online, 1.Retrieved July 7, 2006 from http://www.shu.ac.uk/daol/articles/v1/n1/a1/antaki2002002-t.html

Barber, L. A. (1995). U.S. women in science andengineering, 1960-1990: Progress toward equity?Journal of Higher Education, 66, 213-234.

Billig, M. (1987). Arguing and thinking: A rhetoricalapproach to social psychology. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Billig, M. (1991). Ideology and opinions. London: Sage.

Cano, F. (2005). Epistemological beliefs andapproaches to learning: Their change throughsecondary school and their influence on academicperformance. British Journal of EducationalPsychology, 75, 203-221.

Dahlin, C. M. (1999). Access to care. Hospice Journal,14, 75-84.

Edwards, D. (1997). Discourse and cognition. London:Sage.

Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (1992). Discursivepsychology: Enquiries in social constructionism.London: Sage.

Edwards, D., & Stokoe, E. H. (2004). Discursivepsychology, focus group interviews and participants’categories. British Journal of DevelopmentalPsychology, 22, 499-507.

Entwistle, N., Thompson, S., & Tait, H. (1992):Guidelines for promoting effective learning in highereducation. Edinburgh: Centre for Research on Learningand Instruction, University of Edinburgh.

Gamache, P. (2002). University students as creators ofpersonal knowledge: an alternative epistemologicalview. Teaching in Higher Education, 7, 277-294.

Gibbs, G. (1981). Teaching students to learn. MiltonKeynes and Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Griggs, R. A., Jackson, S. L., & Meyer, M. E. (1989).High school and college psychology: Two differentworlds. Teaching of Psychology, 16, 118-120.

Haggis, T. (2003). Constructing images of ourselves? Acritical investigation into ‘approaches to learning’research in higher education. British EducationalResearch Journal, 29, 89-104.

Langellier, K. M., & Sullivan, C. F. (1998). Breast talk inbreast cancer narratives. Qualitative Health Research,8, 76-95.

Morgan, A. (1993) Improving your students’ learning.London and Philadelphia: Kogan Page.

Nathanson, C., Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2004).The challenge to cumulative learning: Do introductorycourses actually benefit advanced students? Teachingof Psychology, 31, 5-9.

Parlett, M., Simons, H., Simmonds, R., & Hewton, E.(1988) Learning from learners (SCED Paper 54).Birmingham: SCED Publications.

Penny, A. R. (2003). Changing the agenda for researchinto university students’ views about universityteaching: Four shortcomings of SRT research. Teachingin Higher Education, 8, 399-411.

Perry, W. G., Jr. (1968). Patterns of development inthought and values of students in a liberal arts college:A validation of a scheme. Cambridge, MA: Bureau ofStudy Counsel, Harvard University.

STUDENTS’ ACCOUNTS OF DOING A PSYCHOLOGY DEGREE

146

WALLWORK, MAHONEY AND MASON

Perry, W. G., Jr. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethicaldevelopment in the college years: A scheme. New York:Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and socialpsychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. London:Sage.

Ramsden, J. (1998). Mission impossible? Can anythingbe done about attitudes to science? InternationalJournal of Science Education, 20, 125-137.

Sander, P., Stevenson, K., King, M., & Coates, D.(2000). University students’ expectations of teaching.Studies in Higher Education, 25(3), 309-323.

Schau, C. (2003). Students’ attitudes: The “other”important outcome in statistics education. SanFrancisco, CA: Joint Statistical Meetings.

Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about thenature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 76, 248-258.

Schommer, M. (1993). Epistemological developmentand academic performance among secondarystudents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 406-411.

Wetherell, M. (1998). Positioning and interpretativerepertoires: Conversation analysis and post-structuralism in dialogue. Discourse and Society, 9,431-456.

Zanich, M., & Grover, D. (1989). Introductorypsychology from the standpoint of the consumer.Teaching of Psychology, 16, 72-74.

Manuscript received on 21 August 2006Revision accepted for publication on 25 May 2007.

147

APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW SCHEDULETheme 1: The subject of psychology• Ice-breaking question: So, how are you all doing

at this stage? (prompt: how do you feel about that?)

• Tell me why you are studying psychology? (Whatdo you hope to or do you get from it?)

• So, tell me, what’s your understanding of what psychology is about and what psychologists do?(prompts: What have you heard about it and where have your ideas come from?)

• What ideally do you think psychology should beused for? (prompt: what do you think psychologists should be doing for us as a society)

Theme 2: The studying process• For you, what has it been like to be a psychology

student? (prompt: How do you see your everyday life as a psychology student?)

• What do/did you get out of being a psychology student (2nd and 3rd years)

• What did you expect to be doing in your degree?(prompts: What did you think would be expectedof you? How did expect to be taught? Did the course live up to expectations?)

• How do you feel about the I.S.?

• In your dream scenario, what would a psychology course look like?

APPENDIX B: EXTRACTS FROM FOCUS GROUPS

Extract 1: Focus Group 1Student:I dunno I can’t remember where I read

this but I I’m sure there was some statistic about one in four people in their lives have some sort of mental disorder whether it’s sortof depression or anything like that sort of schizophrenia ?//(..................) but (.) y’know obviously all these people suffer from some sort of er illness in a certain respect so shouldalmost be like a (.) doctor in a certain sense like a GP but er from a different perspective asy’know I’ll give you this drug to (.) to sort of stopyer backache (.) think you (.) look at health from a different point of view really um so yeahy’know (.) but then they say um say (.) the theparents who are talking about if the child had the child is um is has has schizophrenia or something who’s there to tell them how to sortof deal with the child and who to how to sort oflook after them because obviously different

from the normal

Extract 2: Focus Group 2Student:and I think having a degree or erm you know

because I may actually this may become my major, this is why I’ve gone part-time you know,erm, is having some kind of influence in changing the ways erm, people, especially people I think probably with problems, you know how they’re ill, how the approach towardsthem, you know, their life, their quality of life can be improved really

Extract 3: Focus Group 1Student:it can go the way to sort of solve problems

really sort of the social sort of background andthings um like ?//(..) behaviour and things like that and er .hhh er so er think football hooligans for instance y’know you got like a couple of people who sort of influence the y’know sort of actions of y’know dozens of people (.) that sort of thing you can sort of lookat problems like that sort of kind of look for a solution (.) same as things like er sort of biological sort of thing uh if someone’s had a stroke or something their behaviour will changebut (.) it’s like being in a car accident and someone’s had brain damage but that sort of thing and (.) y’know sort of solutions to problems within ourselves and in our behaviourand how we interact with other people

Researcher:lots of [yes] going (.) [agreement going on areyou sort of]

Student:[mm] [yeah] Student 2:

[yeah it is yeah total agreement] yes the individual problems and social problems (.) treating phobias as well as um crowd control

Extract 4: Focus Group 3Student:improvementsResearcher:

mmm (.) what sort of thing do you meanStudent:well in (.) in any sense really in [a]Researcher:

[mmm]Student:working environment (.) people with learning

difficulties Researcher:

[mmm]Student:[making] people (.) generally happier andResearcher:

mmmStudent:improving well-being

Extract 5: Focus Group 3Student:there should be trying to understand your own

motivations for why you’re doing things and start to understand (.) your own

STUDENTS’ ACCOUNTS OF DOING A PSYCHOLOGY DEGREE

148

WALLWORK, MAHONEY AND MASON

Researcher:mmm

Student:understand yourself because like before you can understand other people

Researcher:mmm

Student:you gotta have an idea of how you s- (.) you work yourself to some extent [but uh]

Extract 6: Focus Group 3Student:I think it will make me less hard on myself

personallyResearcher:

mmmStudent:cos I think some of the things that I’m tough

on myself about with my own (.) behaviour and the way I feel and my insecurities I think actually (.) start to realise and understand a bit more that everybody's a bit like that

Researcher:mmm

Student:be less hard on myself

Extract 7: Focus Group 1Student:yeah so you (.) I remember reading about um

(.) that sort of some counsellors are uh obviously y’know sort of different forms of counselling so one thing just doesn’t suit everybody so say if you y’know something likestress or depression or like some sort of trauma or something you can’t just go to any (.)er any counsellor and they’ll sort of fix you (.) itdoesn’t always work like that and you can endup sort of (.) coming out worse at the end if yougo to a certain counsellor something like that um so (.) so I dunno there’s a danger that youmight I dunno unlock something that you shouldn’t

Researcher:mmpphh

Student:or in a sort of strange Freudian sense I don’t know ?//(.....................)

Extract 8: Focus Group 2Student:a lot of people like (.)if they had psychology

skills (.) then they would use it in the wrong way (.) I think using it for advertising (.) is a really bad thing

Student 2:There is a thing about that

Student 3:A lot of bad things about psychology though (1)

' cause erm (.) last year I think there was a manconvicted of murder and he didn’t do (.) anything wrong (.) and it’s because the people(.) on the jury had believed this top psychologist who'd given this other person a motive and said well can’t you see this is what's happened and (.) because he was a toppsychologist (.) they said hey wow (.) he's a mind reader and they’ve convicted somebody

incorrectly because they thought that psychology was fact and I don’t think people (.)understand that it’s not

Extract 9: Focus Group 2Student:I think with psychology being used in the wrong

way as well I think if you understand erm, conforming and obedience and everything youcan manipulate people to do things they don’t want to do, in an extreme case like erm, Hitlerlike thing, erm he obviously knew how to present himself and his ideas to encourage everyone else like he was doing the right thing.In the wrong hands in the wrong group and thewrong person he could really do some damagelike if they understood how to make people likeconform into groups.

Extract 10: Focus Group 3Student:one of the problems with psychology is that it

can be used (.) um (.) as a form of controlResearcher:

mmmStudent:so it’s (.) or manipulation of people [so it’s]Researcher:

[mmm]Student:something that (.) by doing psychology then

you become aware of how Researcher:

mmmStudent:psychologists can (.) manipulate people and

societies

Extract 11: Focus Group 2Researcher:

so (.) so what is your sort of (.) general understanding of (.) what psychologists do

Student:well (.) at first I was a bit apprehensive (.) taking the subject at A-Level because Ididn’t (.)like things where you could say that this is a fact and this isn’t (1) but (.) I thought I'd give ita go and now I really like that (.) because youcan make up anything you want to and as longas you can prove it (.) in some way then you actually have a basis (.) and (.) I think it’s reallyfun (.) just make up what you want (.)and try and find something to back it up

Student 2:There’s no right or wrong (.) if you disagree with someone’s idea (.) you’re perfectly welcome to say (.) well I disagree I’ve done research and this is my evidence towards it (.)I think my opinions will count (1) whereas if youdid that in any other subject (.) like English or (.) science you can’t say I disagree ‘cause theygo (.) tough that’s what it is

Extract 12: Focus Group 2Student:it’s quite daunting actuallyStudent 2:

at university you have to teach yourself quite a

149

bit of reverse psychology (.) I don’t want to goout and drink (.) I don’t want to go have fun I dowant to stay in and do my work[.] it doesn’t seem to work too well but (.) I think it could getthere

Extract 13: Focus Group 1Student:yeah (.) it’s like you have to do more like if you

haven’t got a lo as much guidance so if you gooff on the wrong track then you won’t know (.)so

Student 2:yeah like you have to ask for help rather than [sort of]

Student:[yeah mm]Student 2:

help be given to you you don’t (.) you’re not sort of watched by a teacher all the time in a classroom y’know you’re (.) you have to makethe effort yourself to to sort of address how y’know your problems that sort of thing rather than your sort of teacher saying well look y’know you’re doing this wrong here um so youhave to be quite self disciplined I s’pose independence you get used to that

Extract 14: Group 3Student:but some people (.) don’t work and have fun so

it’s (.) i- (.) that’s (.) it's the kind of degree reallywhere it's (.) it’s your responsibility and [it’s]

Researcher:[mmm]

Student:down to you to go and (.) make your own (.) inroads into things

Researcher:[mmm]

Student:[and] (I think?) (.) find what interests you really

Extract 15: Group 3Student:you don’t really teach us though Researcher:

[um]Student:[it's] (.) yo- you’re more Researcher:

yesStudent:um (.) pointing in a particular direction it’s [not]Researcher:

[mmm]Student:like sitting in a class and Researcher:

noStudent:being force-fed lots of information

Extract 16: Focus Group 1Student:yeah (.) it’s like you have to do more like if you

haven’t got a lo as much guidance so if you gooff on the wrong track then you won’t know (.)so

Student 2:yeah like you have to ask for help rather than [sort of]

Student:[yeah mm]Student 2:

help be given to you you don’t (.) you’re not sort of watched by a teacher all the time in a classroom y’know you’re (.) you have to makethe effort yourself to to sort of address how y’know your problems that sort of thing rather than your sort of teacher saying well look y’know you’re doing this wrong here um so youhave to be quite self disciplined I s’pose independence you get used to that

Extract 17: Focus Group 1Researcher:

[y’know y’know what would you like what what]mm

Student:a chance to actually do some experiments yourself or um sort of time spent in the lab doing something um something practical ratherthan just sort of reading all the time and to havesort of hands on experience of (.) um (.) interviewing people like me [huh hu][general laughter]

Student:looking through a one way mirror y’knowResearcher:

mmStudent:watching people do stuff an [yeah sort of]Researcher:

[right]Student 2:

[we we do]get to do a bit of our own

Extract 18: Focus Group 1Student:to me there isn’t any otherStudent 2:

I think er observation would be like doing observation and like nur with nurseries and children and seeing how they interact with others and that that kind of stuff

Researcher:mm

Student 2:and like well ?//(...........) quite interesting like all of that stuff as well

Extract 19: Focus Group 3Student:[I mean] you know I’m hoping that (.) that

there’ll be an opportunity for us to go out into (.)the prison service you [know]

Researcher:[mmm]

Student:possibly and [to]Researcher:

[mmm]Student:go out into the (.) hospital fields and have [a

look]

STUDENTS’ ACCOUNTS OF DOING A PSYCHOLOGY DEGREE