CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 1, 132- 137 (1976)

The Teaching of Educational Psychology: Some Reactions and Questions

THOMAS L. GOOD University of MissouriColumbia

The authors are to be commended on the production of an interesting set of papers which provide a general stance, a general orientation, to the teaching of educational psychology. That these authors are willing to write on the topic is at least a minor act of courage. Many of us who respond to the label, educational psychologist, do not have a shared meaning of that label. Indeed, a survey is now underway within the divi- sion of educational psychology in the American Psychological Associa- tion to describe the major roles, responsibilities, and orientations of edu- cational psychologists.

That the authors not only tackle the problem but do so lucidly and with vigor is a bonus for the reader. However, vague boundaries within the field itself also restrain what the authors can accomplish in their papers. For example, all of the authors suggest a general road for the field to follow but one wonders how different their suggestions are from what actually takes place in educational psychology courses?

Presumably, the authors are dissatisfied with the present mode of edu- cational psychology instruction and its impact upon students. But missing is a clear statement of the problem. What actually takes place in educa- tional psychology classrooms? How is it taught? Does the course have more impact upon students’ attitudes or teaching skills in some locations than in others?

In some ways, existing educational psychology courses are established as “straw men.” But in many locations, educational psychologists have integrated their course with field experiences and with the course offer- ings of method professors. And in yet other locations institutions have concerned themselves with the emerging teacher and his or her personal growth. It would seem that information about the variance (trainees’ skills, attitudes, etc.) associated with these programs’ innovations would be an important way to begin the “improvement process.”

Interestingly, few data (collected in such a way to allow for comparison from location to location) have been collected on the effects of educa-

Send reprint requests to Thomas L. Good, Center for Research in Social Behavior, Uni- versity of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65201.

132

Copyright Q 1976 by Academic Press. Inc. All rights of reproductton m any form reserved

TEACHING OF k:D~C:ATIONAI~ l’SY(.llOl.O~~\ 133

tional psychology courses on students’ subsequent teaching behavior. Obviously of special concern would be the comparison of the progress of students who have received a discipline, problem solving, CBTE, self confrontation, or some combined treatment.

From my bias, I suspect that improvement in the teaching of educa- tional psychology will come from the actual study of educational psychol- ogy classrooms and related field experiences. That the authors do not describe what is known about the teaching of educational psychology is simply because such data do not exist.

Thus, my comments are not to discredit the papers but to illustrate the impossible task that the authors are attempting to respond to in brief papers. The field itself is considerably disorganized. The papers are best viewed as personal statements of a promising view or alternative ap- proach. The views are replete with propositions deserving the attention and inspection of anyone who teaches a course in educational psycholo- gy.

What follows is not a summary of those papers. The reader should respond to each of the papers in its own original terms. But rather the point is to raise a few issues with each paper in order to push toward the question: Where do we go from here?

I was especially glad to see the positive emphasis in Professor Gibson’s paper that teachers make a difference. No doubt, part of my enthusiasm stems from the fact that I recently published a book titled Teachers Muke a Difference (with Bruce Biddle and Jere Brophy). But more broadly my interest stems from the fact that there has been so much self-abuse and self-doubt in educational circles that morale (what I teach tomorrow’s teacher is not important) and finances in higher education are eroding. And I share the view that Professors Richards and Richards argue: Teachers’ perceptions do control their behavior.

Beyond arguing that teachers make a difference (and hence, there is perhaps a rationale for teacher training), Professor Gibson argues that knowledge of discipline (subject matter knowledge, principles of educa- tional psychology) is also important. Furthermore, she recognizes that brief experience in local schools will do little good, especially if students are not given skills in understanding and adapting to the political, social, and economic forces that impinge upon schools.

There is much to admire in Professor Gibson’s paper, but her sugges- tions for improvement are but broad outlines that provide little specific direction. That teachers must be able to innovate and adapt is accurate, I suspect, but how as an instructor do I evaluate my success in this area? What criteria do I use to evaluate my instructional program? She also suggests that where we begin the process of integrating real world and discipline subject matter is not critical. I wonder? Certainly Professors

134 THOMAS L. GOOD

Richards and Richards’ work would dispute the point. From their position, they contend that the key to growth as a teacher is

enhancing one’s own perceptual field (especially self-awareness). Cer- tainly, they would argue that initial experience should increase the emerg- ing teacher’s capacity for learning how to use one’s self well and to increase one’s ability for seeing the world as others do. But the specific (what seyrrrncr of experiences is recommended) steps for accomplishing this are not provided. 1 suspect that some early real world experiences would “regress” the neophyte, making it more difficult for them to see the needs of others (e.g., bad experience might raise their survival needs so high that classroom management and compliance needs would become dominant).

Furthermore, the role of the teacher educator or educational psychologist would appear to be most vital when the undergraduate trainee is in the classroom. But how in this setting does the teacher educator help the student to draw clear perceptions rather than balcony perceptions. How as a teacher educator do I behave when selected stu- dents want to grow in ways that appear to be destructive? Surely our skills for ourselves and subsequently for our students must be broader than to facilitate indiscriminately. But the prescription here is a vague one. The authors suggest a cafeteria approach: that students be given wide oppor- tunity to confront all kinds of possible methods, etc. I wonder if exposure to multiple methods in a short period of time is not apt to be more confus- ing than facilitating. Perhaps we are better off behaving more selectively, for all experiences will not be categorically good for all students.

Again, as an instructor, I would not have any explicit plan for evaluat- ing myself or my students. Clearly, 1 hear and agree with the message that good and poor teachers perceive the classroom world differently. But the authors state this on the basis of evidence drawn from teachers in the field. We have no direct evidence to suggest that teacher training influenced those perceptions. Needed then, it would appear, is more spec- ificity. How do the authors themselves judge when a student is growing (what clues do they use)? Their persistent attention to answering the questions that teachers in training have is an important theme.

Professor Cohen’s paper includes a number of interesting points. For example, he correctly suggests that the test questions in educational psychology are de facto objectives of the course. And if instructor manual questions are the only dependent measures used in such a course . . . one can expect little impact upon the teacher trainee’s present or subsequent behavior. But I suspect stating objectives per se will make but little differ- ence in student performance. However, public examination of goals would, as he implicitly suggests, be a pressure point pushing toward reasonable goals. But it is no guarantee.

TEACHING OF EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 135

I find his call for instructors to visit their students in the field an impor- tant message. But such visits must be linked to some instructional mechanism. Finding out that students have not “grasped” some princi- ples may only convince the instructor that he cannot teach that material and develop substitute goals. Admittedly, I’m overreacting here a bit. But the point is a real one. We need criteria for what the instructor should look for and some suggestions about how to use the information.

My reaction to the integration of educational psychology with other disciplines is similar to field visits. I agree. But what is the explicit pur- pose? How do I evaluate such collaborations? Is the time I spend with colleagues from related areas more important than field visits? The suggestion here is that the integration of educational psychology with other areas in the teacher preparation program is probably not a universal solution. It is the nature of the merger that is the key. But such details are left out of Professor Cohen’s paper.

In general, I find his call for research to accompany the development of CBTE programs a refreshing and insightful statement. But I am puzzled at his reluctance to encourage selection research. Research on the charac- teristics of prospective teachers could proceed at the same time that train- ing research was being conducted. Perhaps some “teacher types” benefit from training more than others do. Positive selection results do not neces- sarily mean that training is unimportant. Indeed, it may illustrate that training variables and the characteristics of trainees are both critical. Some people may not be able to function as facilitators . . . others may have difficulty in applying behavior modification principles.

The paper by Professors Dembo and Hillman is a bit difficult for me to react to for two reasons. First, they are friends from graduate school days at Indiana University, and secondly, their approach is similar to my own conceptualization. However, biases acknowledged, let’s proceed.

Dembo and Hillman suggest that information from educational psychology is useful only if it can be applied in instructional settings. I think they solidly defend the fact that the discipline approach has been abused and appropriately signal that the potential weakness of CBTE lies in the possibility of teaching isolated skills. Knowledge about when to perform a skill is as important as the skill itself. The model and general rationale the authors propose for helping teachers to make appropriate decisions is clear and appears to offer considerable utility.

I share their belief that the educational psychologist must begin with the teaching-learning process. But beyond this their specificity dissipates. Perhaps the actual problems selected within the teaching-learning proc- ess is also of vital importance. For example, classroom management issues do not appear in the Hunter model that Dembo and Hillman review. But it would seem that the average teacher in training is more concerned

136 THOMAS L. GOOD

about establishing and maintaining classroom control than in maximizing student learning.

The argument of Anne Richards and Fred Richards would suggest that the personal needs of the candidate should be dealt with in the decision- making model prior to an exclusive focus on the learner’s needs. Simply put, the study of some problems probably has more payoff than does the study of other problems. The content is important. Also I suspect that the relative complexity and sequencing of problems that candidates are ex- posed to are important but Dembo and Hillman provide us with but little help here.

Similarly, one wonders about when it is desirable to allow students to design solutions for paper problems and when it is critical to observe a teacher implementing a solution that they (teachers in training) have helped to design. Clearly, the selection of problems determines the con- tent of educational psychology that students will be exposed to and the medium through which problems are solved determines the number of issues (and the level of involvement) that can be dealt with in a course.

A common theme throughout all four papers is the call for the inclusion of more of the real world of teaching in teacher-training programs gener- ally and in the educational psychology course specifically. But when real world experience should occur and its purpose vary from paper to paper. Although it is possible to understand why each author calls for field ex- periences, it is not possible to evaluate (see) what they would call a relatively successful or unsuccessful field experience.

This problem (ambigous criteria) is a general one for the authors and it is not possible to list (at least not with much certainty) the dependent measures that they would use to evaluate the programs that they call for. It would be very interesting to schedule a subsequent symposium in which the authors build upon the present papers and expose more fully the criteria that they use in evaluating their students in day to day situations.

Perhaps the goal the papers address is too complex. Training “effective teachers” may prove to be an impossible task. A more profitable focus might be to ask: “What are the critical skills and attitudes that a student teacher or first year teacher must acquire if he or she is to cope in the classroom?” To prepare people to perform complex skills in appropriate stiuations, to become knowledgeable in a discipline, to make complex decisions, and to develop a mature, sensitive personality may be too much for any system (given present time and financial restraints) to de- liver. By addressing such comprehensive goals we may be ensuring mediocre results.

Ultimately, we may be better off by dealing with fewer goals in preser- vice teacher education and doing them well . . . delaying some skills and information for inservice work. Obviously, the authors have presented

TEACHING OF EDVCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 137

rationales for placing stress in selected areas (discipline-real world inte- gration; behavioral skills; self as agent; and decision making) and allowing (forcing) other components to have less emphasis. Hopefully, subsequent clarification of the authors’ positions will allow empirical testing of these positions and the subsequent identification of the “better” bets. The criti- cal issue may turn out to be not which position is correct but the order (and of course quality) in which the positions are implemented.