See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/294276063

Strengthening introductory psychology: A new

model for teaching the introductory course.
ARTICLE in AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST JANUARY 2016
Impact Factor: 6.87 DOI: 10.1037/a0040012

READS

12

7 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Regan A. R. Gurung

Jana Hackathorn

University of Wisconsin - Green Bay

Murray State University

85 PUBLICATIONS 2,258 CITATIONS

27 PUBLICATIONS 58 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

letting you access and read them immediately.

SEE PROFILE

Available from: Regan A. R. Gurung

Retrieved on: 04 March 2016

American Psychologist
2016, Vol. 71, No. 2, 112124

2016 American Psychological Association

0003-066X/16/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0040012

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Strengthening Introductory Psychology:

A New Model for Teaching the Introductory Course
Regan A. R. Gurung

Jana Hackathorn

University of WisconsinGreen Bay

Murray State University

Carolyn Enns

Susan Frantz

Cornell College

Highline College

John T. Cacioppo

Trudy Loop

University of Chicago

The Altamont School

James E. Freeman
University of Virginia
Introductory psychology (Intro Psych) is one of the most popular and frequently taught courses on
college campuses, yet educators in psychology have limited knowledge about what is covered in
classes around the nation or the extent to which class content reflects the current scope of the
discipline. There is no explicit model to guide course content selection for the intro course, which
poses substantial challenges for instructors. This article proposes a new model for teaching the
intro course that integrates (a) scientific foundations, (b) 5 major domains or pillars of knowledge
(biological, cognitive, developmental, social and personality, and mental and physical health), and
(c) cross-cutting themes relevant to all domains (cultural and social diversity, ethics, variations in
human functioning, and applications; American Psychological Association, 2014). We advocate
for national assessment of the course, a similar introductory course for majors and nonmajors, the
inclusion of experiential or laboratory components, and additional training resources for instructors of the intro course. Given the exponential growth of psychological knowledge and applications during the past decades, we caution against attempting to provide exhaustive coverage of all
topic areas of psychology in a one-semester course. We conclude by discussing the challenges that
lie ahead for the discipline of psychology as it launches this new model for Intro Psych.
Keywords: introductory psychology, teaching introductory psychology, guiding framework
for introductory psychology, undergraduate education in psychology, new paradigm for
teaching introductory psychology

The introductory psychology course (henceforth Intro

Psych) is ubiquitous in U.S. colleges and universities.
Approximately 13,000 instructors teach the course (Mar-

ket Data Research, 2014), which serves as not only a

prerequisite for higher level psychology courses but also
a required course for many undergraduate programs of
study (Hyers & Shivde, 2013). For many students, Intro
Psych may be their only formal exposure to psychological science. It is the second most popular college course
in the nation, second only to English Composition, and is
completed by 60% of college students who have earned
10 or more college credits (Adelman, 2004). Information
from bookstore orders and student purchasing surveys
suggests that 1.2 million students enroll in Intro Psych
annually, although some publishers estimate this number
to be as high as 1.6 million (E. Mitchell, personal communication, August 25, 2015). Almost all undergraduate
psychology programs (99%) offer Intro Psych (Norcross
et al., 2016), and 98% of U.S. colleges require Intro
Psych for the psychology major (Stoloff et al., 2009). For
psychology majors and nonmajors alike, Intro Psych is

Editors note. This article is one of a collection of four articles published with undergraduate education guidelines in a special issue of American Psychologist, Undergraduate Education in Psychology: Current Status and Future Directions (FebruaryMarch 2016). John C. Norcross and
Robin Hailstorks provided scholarly lead for the special issue.
Authors note. Regan A. R. Gurung, Department of Psychology, University
of WisconsinGreen Bay; Jana Hackathorn, Department of Psychology, Murray State University; Carolyn Enns, Department of Psychology, Cornell College; Susan Frantz, Department of Psychology, Highline College; John T.
Cacioppo, Department of Psychology, University of Chicago; Trudy Loop,
The Altamont School; James E. Freeman, Department of Psychology, University of Virginia.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Regan A. R.
Gurung, Department of Psychology, MAC 324C, 2420 Nicolet Drive, University of Wisconsin, Green Bay, WI 54311. E-mail: gurungr@uwgb.edu
112

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

STRENGTHENING INTRODUCTORY PSYCHOLOGY

Regan A. R.
Gurung

the central pathway to the discipline and may be psychologys most influential course.
Given the importance of Intro Psych for completing the
undergraduate psychology major as well as fulfilling general
education requirements, APAs Board of Educational Affairs
(BEA) appointed a working group to provide recommendations for strengthening the common core of the Intro Psych
course. Working group members, the authors of this article,
represented different institutional contexts and levels such as
high schools, community colleges, 4-year colleges, and research universities. Members brought significant experience
related to conducting research on, writing about, and teaching
Intro Psych. Inspired by recommendations from the APA Principles for Quality Undergraduate Education in Psychology
(BEA Steering Committee, APA National Conference on Undergraduate Education in Psychology, 2011) and Undergraduate Education in Psychology: A Blueprint for the Future of
the Discipline (Halpern, 2010), the BEA charged the working
group with (a) examining the common core of the Intro Psych
course at the college level, including the content, outcomes,
laboratory components, and implications for a major versus a
nonmajor directed course; and (b) recommending potential
action steps to BEA for strengthening the common core. This
article summarizes and advances key recommendations from
the working group and proposes a new model for teaching
Intro Psych.

Intro Psych and Contemporary Psychology

Psychology incorporates basic and applied science components that address the enormous complexity of human behavior
and contribute to solving a wide range of problems (Zimbardo,

113

2004). Examples of these problems include learning and memory challenges, mental disorders, poverty, international conflicts, prejudice and discrimination, exploitation and violence,
depression and dysphoria, child neglect and parental divorce,
and the rising medical costs associated with behavioral and
cultural factors. Psychological science has a demonstrated
track record of enhancing human functioning at both microand macrolevels (e.g., American Psychological Association
[APA] Presidential Task Force on Enhancing Diversity, 2005;
APA, Presidential Task Force on Psychologys Contribution to
End Homelessness, 2010). For example, psychological studies
focus on optimizing human potential and cover diverse issues
such as successful parenting and aging, athletic and artistic
flow, extraordinary memory and reasoning, maximizing the
development of intelligence, increasing group performance,
and improving environmental conservation. Psychological
clinical science is also central to understanding human distress
and demonstrating the impact of psychological treatments on
human functioning and interpersonal relationships (APA,
2012). These issues represent a sample of the many educational highlights that students encounter in the Intro Psych
course.
Many of the most exciting advances in psychology today are
emerging across traditional psychology topic areas, defined as
psychological subfields such as personality and learning, and
across disciplines (Cacioppo, 2007), and it is important for the
Intro Psych course to reflect these developments. Some departments have now merged social and personality psychology in
doctoral training, and terms such as social neuroscience have
emerged as foci of study. Many research questions are also
better answered by synthesizing multiple topic areas of psychology. For example, understanding romantic relationships
can be improved by linking neurochemistry (e.g., oxytocin),
social experience (e.g., self-fulfilling prophecies), personality
(e.g., traits), and cognitive psychology (e.g., automatic
thoughts). Comprehensive understandings of the mind and
behavior require an integration of topic areas. One cannot
develop a complete and comprehensive understanding of behavior by focusing on only a biological, cognitive, or a social
topic area (Cacioppo, 2013).
No longer a collection of independent topic areas based
on historical or administrative distinctions, psychology in
the 21st century has become an integrative multilevel science. For example, the combination of cognitive, social, and
neuroscience topic areas are used to understand the inner
workings of mirror neurons, and by extension, social behaviors of imitation and empathy (Iacoboni, 2009). Another
example can be seen in applications of attachment theory to
understand multiple topics such as child development, identity, romantic relationships, and group behavior (Goldberg,
Muir, & Kerr, 2013). An integrative approach conceptualizes the science of mind and behavior as different levels of
organization (e.g., biological, cognitive, and social), with
each contributing to our understanding of human behavior.

114

GURUNG ET AL.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

conceptually related to each other, have not been well translated to textbooks. Exceptions to traditional coverage can be
seen in some contemporary textbooks that include sections and
writing styles that seek to connect domains and specific topics
(e.g., Cacioppo & Freberg, 2013; Myers, 2013; Weiten, 2012)
by linking topic areas such as memory, personality, and emotion. Alternatively, the content of psychology has been organized around five major orientations or perspectives (biological, learning, cognitive, sociocultural, and psychodynamic),
which are then synthesized in a section that focuses on putting
the perspectives together (e.g., Tavris & Wade, 2001).

What Is Being Taught in the Intro Psych

Course?

Jana
Hackathorn
Additionally, cross-cutting themes that are relevant to all
topic areas, such as diversity and individual variation, offer
invaluable insights into the mind and behavior.
Unfortunately, the contemporary Intro Psych course structure does not adequately reflect the current scope of the discipline, which increasingly emphasizes multiple influences, interconnections, and synthesis. Many textbook authors still treat
the various topic areas of psychology (e.g., social, personality,
clinical) as if they are distinct and best studied in isolation of
other topic areas. However, contemporary psychological research infrequently utilizes material covered in just one chapter
of an Intro Psych textbook (Cacioppo, 2013). Despite significant technological and methodological innovations, the emergence of new topic areas, and the merging of preexisting topic
areas, most Intro Psych textbooks are comprised of the same
14 to 16 chapters (Griggs & Jackson, 2013) that appeared in
the 1960s. Over the past three decades, however, there has
been some change in the amount of coverage devoted to each
topic area (Griggs, 2014), which can be seen in increased space
given to topic areas such as health, consciousness, and learning, and decreased coverage devoted to sensation and perception.
The silo-like representation of psychology in most textbooks
is less evident when psychology is divided into domains or
overarching thematic areas that encompass broad areas of
psychological knowledge and study, such as cognitive and
sociocultural lenses, which are referred to in such documents
such as the National Standards for High School Psychology
Curricula (Standards; APA, 2011, p. 2) and the APA Guidelines for the Undergraduate Psychology Major (Guidelines;
APA, 2007, 2014). These documents and the concept of domains, which we define as clusters of content areas that are

Although major studies have examined the psychology curriculum during the past two decades (e.g., Norcross et al.,
2016; Perlman & McCann, 1999; Stoloff et al., 2009), few
studies have investigated the course content of the introductory
course (Homa et al., 2013; Miller & Gentile, 1998). At a broad
global level, there is some consistency in what is covered,
given that 98% of teachers use conventional intro textbooks
(Miller & Gentile, 1998). Whereas textbooks show high consistency at the topical level (e.g., chapters on personality or
cognition; Griggs & Jackson, 2013), there is limited consistency at the specific level of terms or theories covered (Griggs,
Bujak-Johnson, & Proctor, 2004; Zechmeister & Zechmeister,
2000). Proctor and Williamss (2006) analysis of 33 Intro
Psych textbooks found that of the 4,902 different psychological terms that were used in these texts, only 428 appeared in
50% or more of the texts. While chapter titles are often the
same or similar across textbooks, chapter content varies considerably.
Instructors report rarely assigning readings beyond the
book, and allocate lecture time to chapter topics in proportion to the space apportioned to these topics in the textbook
(Griggs, 2014; Griggs & Bates, 2014). In a survey of 490
schools and colleges, instructors reported assigning on average 17 (of a possible 25) topics (e.g., learning, memory,
personality, abnormal; Miller & Gentile, 1998). Self-report
surveys of faculty members also reveal that a number of
topics (e.g., history, development, language) are not assigned (Miller & Gentile, 1998) or receive less time (Homa
et al., 2013).
The most recent study of Intro Psych content (Homa et al.,
2013) investigated student learning objectives (SLOs) and coverage of content in Intro Psych courses by examining a national
sample of syllabi and self-reported surveys completed by faculty. Over half of the syllabi contained objectives specific to
the science and application of psychology. Of the five major
learning outcomes recommended by the APA Guidelines
(APA, 2007, 2013), 66% of syllabi included psychologys
knowledge base; 60%, scientific inquiry and critical thinking;

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

STRENGTHENING INTRODUCTORY PSYCHOLOGY

115

topics, or of trends, major shifts in focus, or hot topics within

the discipline as a whole may also account for discrepancies in
topical coverage (Spear, 2007). Miller and Gentile (1998)
found that topics such as learning and memory were likely to
be covered by most instructors. Instructors also rated learning
and memory, physiology, and abnormal psychology as the
most important topics, but rated industrial/organizational psychology, psychology of women, applied psychology, and
cross-cultural psychology as the least important. Finally, because of a perception that students have prior experience or a
preexisting foundation of some information, instructors may
choose to skip content. For example, developmental content
tended to be viewed as easier for students, perhaps due in part
to their preexisting knowledge (Peck et al., 2006); therefore,
instructors may believe they need to spend less time on this
topic area.

The Need for Greater Commonality and

Assessment in Intro Psych
Carolyn Enns
10.3%, ethical and social responsibility in a diverse world; 7%,
communication; and 3.9%, professional development. One
third of faculty indicated that their departments or institutions
regulated Intro Psych SLOs, with scientific inquiry and critical
thinking (22.6%) and knowledge base (20%) the most frequently regulated objectives (Homa et al., 2013). When asked
whether SLOs should be required, 60.4% of the faculty responded yes. When asked who is best suited to unify or
regulate the teaching of Intro Psych, 70.6% percent chose
psychology departments, 19.1% chose APA, 1.5% chose university or college, and 2.6% reported no one.
With regard to content coverage, instructors reported
spending a disproportionate amount of time on certain topic
areas; specifically, they devoted more time to physiological
and cognitive psychology, and spent significantly less time
on topic areas related to the history and scope of psychology, research methods, and developmental psychology
(Homa et al., 2013). This practice appeared across instructors in all specialty areas. A post hoc analysis of the syllabi
examined in the Homa et al. (2013) study also revealed
gaps, in that 7% of instructors did not report covering any
biological topics and 7% do not report teaching developmental topics (Gurung, 2014a).
There are many reasons that time spent on content may vary
across classrooms. Some topics may be too difficult for students to comprehend at the introductory level, or might lie
outside the comfort zone of the instructor. Conversely, instructors may spend more time on a topic because of its perceived
difficulty. For example, some instructors may emphasize physiological content because it is deemed more difficult for students, and thus is deserving of extra time (Peck, Ali, Matchock,
& Levine, 2006). The instructors perceived value of specific

The variance in time spent on topics and inconsistency of

coverage described in the previous section suggest that
students in different institutions, sometimes even within the
same institution, are not exposed to the same content in
Intro Psych (Homa et al., 2013). More importantly, even at
the level of topics, no previous research examines whether
topics covered in a single course represent a coherent or
common set so that Intro Psych classes have greater commonality across the nation.
A lack of conceptual and content consistency also
poses problems for assessment of outcomes, which is
increasingly emphasized by institutions and accrediting
bodies. Currently, psychology lacks a universal assessment of students knowledge of course content (Hake,
2015). Assessment, whether across instructors or across
time, at the department level or across institutions, necessitates a similar, if not standardized, experience. Other
sciences, such as physics and chemistry, have created
common content assessments such as the Force Concept
Inventory (Hestenes, Wells, & Swackhamer, 1992).
Chemistry, through the American Chemical Societys
Division of Chemical Education Examination Institute,
also has developed national examinations that are used by
campuses nationally (http://chemexams.chem.iastate.edu/
about-us). The Guidelines for the Undergraduate Psychology Major 2.0 (hereafter, Guidelines 2.0; APA,
2013) remind us that the discipline of psychology has
three assessment instruments related to content (Psychology Areas Concentration Achievement Test, GRE Subject Test in Psychology, Major Field Achievement Test in
Psychology), but none of these are commonly used to
measure the extent to which Intro Psych students master
content. A model to guide topic selection in Intro Psych
will facilitate assessment and is consistent with recent

GURUNG ET AL.

116

Past Efforts to Strengthen Intro Psych

Calls for national guidelines relating to the teaching of
Intro Psych are not new. More than 70 years ago, Wolfle
(1942) recommended five goals for Intro Psych:

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

(a) teach facts and principles of psychology, (b) develop

scientific method or habits of critical thought, (c) provide
better ability in making personal adjustments, (d) prepare
students for later courses, or interest them in psychology, and
(e) teach what psychology is and is not, or eliminate popular
superstitions. (p. 687)

Susan Frantz
Photo by
Andrew Crain

educational recommendations for commonality of coverage, as typically exists in the introductory courses for
STEM disciplines.
Participants at the 2008 National Conference on Undergraduate Education in Psychology stated,
Given the ubiquitous relevance of psychology to other majors
and fields, most jobs, and the world in general, as well as the
many contributions an understanding of psychology can have
to personal growth and development, all students need to
receive a common core of content. (Dunn, Brewer, et al.,
2010, p. 59)

Building on that message, a coherent guiding framework

for Intro Psych courses has the potential to provide a consistent message to students and the public about what constitutes the field of psychology. Greater consistency will
also serve the increasing need to assess and approve the
transfer of credit in Intro Psych courses from one school to
another (e.g., from community colleges to 4-year universities). Such content commonality across institutions will
provide consistency and continuity with regard to what
psychology majors will learn in preparation for future
courses and what students are receiving when taking the
course as a general education requirement. Having more
conceptual consistency for Intro Psych is compatible with
calls for a common curriculum for the major and the use of
quality benchmarks (APA, 2013; Dunn, McCarthy, Baker,
Halonen, & Hill, 2007). Having conceptual consistency and
clarity in Intro Psych will also potentially help students
prepare for the forthcoming behavioral components in the
entrance exams for professional programs such as medical
school (Mitchell, Lewis, Satterfield, & Hong, 2016).

Although the language of Wolfles list is dated, these

goals remain relatively consistent with many contemporary
guidelines for undergraduate psychology (e.g., APA, 2013).
During the 21st century, psychology has been identified as
a hub science, one of seven sciences around which other
natural and social sciences are organized (Boyack, Klavans,
& Brner, 2005; Cacioppo, 2013). This hub science designation underlines the importance of a consistent framework
for providing nonmajors as well as majors with an introductory appreciation for the reach of psychological science
into nearly every facet of human life.
At present, there is no guiding framework to determine
the coverage of specific content in Intro Psych. This lacuna
has led to some psychologists to advocate for the use of the
Standards (APA, 2011) and the Guidelines (APA, 2007,
2013) to help shape Intro Psych (e.g., Smith & Fineburg,
2006). The Standards (APA, 2011), first published by APA
in 1999 and revised in 2005 and 2011, define psychology
content for the high school classroom. The Standards are
structured as seven overarching content domains (i.e., scientific inquiry, biopsychological foundations, development
and learning, sociocultural context, cognition, individual
differences, and applications of psychological science), with
each domain including standard topic areas that cover the
breadth of Intro Psych. Each domain includes diverse topic
areas such that by teaching at least one topic area from each
domain, high school psychology students receive a clear
picture of the discipline of psychology. The Standards also
provide a foundation for Advanced Placement psychology
courses that pave a path for students to receive Intro Psych
college credit.
A second document, the Guidelines (APA, 2007, 2013)
captures
a set of optimal expectations for performance by undergraduates who are engaged in the study of psychology. The document outlines five broad goals and corresponding student
learning outcomes that represent reasonable departmental expectations for the undergraduate psychology major across
different kinds of educational contexts. (APA, 2013, p. 3)

The most recent revision of the GuidelinesGuidelines

2.0reflects emerging best practices, integrates psycholo-

STRENGTHENING INTRODUCTORY PSYCHOLOGY

117

ther in the section that describes our teaching proposal for

Intro Psych.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

A New Model for Teaching Intro Psych

Based on the review of the material described thus far and
in keeping with the BEA charge, the Working Group advanced five recommendations designed to strengthen teaching Intro Psych as related to course design, training, and
assessment (APA, 2014). We summarize three of the five
recommendations in the first section below, especially the
recommendation for a new framework. We address the last
two recommendations in the following section on challenges and implications. Taken together, the recommendations provide a comprehensive guiding framework for
teaching Intro Psych. The core and first recommendation
establishes a model to serve as a guiding framework for
content coverage.
John T.
Cacioppo

gys work with benchmarking scholarship in higher education, and incorporates implications for learning and assessment activities (APA, 2013). Goal 1 emphasizes the
knowledge base of psychology, with Learning Outcome 1.2
stating that students will identify key characteristics of
major content domains in psychology (e.g., cognition and
learning, developmental, biological, and sociocultural)
(APA, 2013, p. 18).
Participants in the 2008 APA National Conference on
Undergraduate Education (Dunn, Brewer, et al., 2010) proposed a guiding framework for Intro Psych that mirrors a
standardized core for the psychology major. The proposed
core for the major emphasizes scientific methods and foundations as well as the domains of cognition and learning,
developmental, biological, and sociocultural content. At
present, however, undergraduate psychology major requirements differ markedly from one institution to another in
terms of required courses and electives, required semester
hours, and the content and implementation of capstone
courses (Stoloff et al., 2009). Although Statistics, Research
Methods, Developmental and Physiological are the most
frequently required courses completed by majors (Norcross
et al., 2016), these topics are not covered consistently in
Intro Psych (Homa et al., 2013).
The three recent documents and guidelines described in
this section (APA, 2011, 2013; Dunn, Brewer, et al., 2010)
inform the teaching model we introduce in this article.
Although these recent documents share many features, the
language used in these documents and their descriptions of
and number of domains they specific vary somewhat.
These areas of overlap and discrepancy are discussed fur-

A New Structure for the Intro Psych Course

The working group examined existing domain models for
psychology and created a new framework for teaching these
domains and fostering greater conceptual consistency in
Intro Psych (Recommendation 1; APA, 2014). We conceptualize the structure of the course with an architectural
analogy (see Figure 1) that features a strong scientific
foundation and major structural elements or pillars that
represent the major domains and their related topic areas
(e.g., social, abnormal). The pillarsalso referred to by
Dunn, Brewer, et al. (2010), the Guidelines (APA, 2013),
and the Standards (APA, 2011) as domainsare capped by
an explicit effort to compare, link, and integrate content
topic areas. Using this model as a guiding framework, we
recommend that instructors of Intro Psych cover the following material.
1.

Research methods: The scientific method and related courses in research methods are the foundational building blocks and core of our discipline.
Consistent with Goal 2 of the Guidelines 2.0 (APA,
2013), students in Intro Psych learn about and
begin to develop scientific reasoning and problem
solving skills, including effective research methods
skills. Students learn basic skills and concepts for
interpreting behavior, studying research, and applying research design principles for the purpose of
drawing conclusions about behavior. Scientific
methods are also identified by 2008 National Conference participants (Dunn, Brewer, et al., 2010) as
the central core of an undergraduate psychology
curriculum, and as one of seven domains of the
Standards for high school teaching (APA, 2011).
The inclusion of research methods and the scientific method as the foundation for the new Intro

GURUNG ET AL.

118

Pillar 3: Development (e.g., Learning, Life Span

Development, Language)
Pillar 4: Social and Personality (e.g., Social, Personality, Emotion, Multicultural, Gender, Motivation)
Pillar 5: Mental and Physical Health (e.g., Abnormal, Health, Therapies)

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

3.

Trudy Loop

Psych model is consistent with its centrality in

previous documents described in this article.
2.

Sufficient breadth representing key pillars/domains: The study of each domain or pillar is essential as each represents a foundational aspect of
the field. To ensure that all students receive instruction in the five domains or pillars, we recommend that Intro Psych include at least two topics
from each of five main pillars of the field, which
are reorganized and modified from the domains
specified in Guidelines 2.0 (APA, 2013), the Standards (APA, 2011), and 2008 National Conference
recommendations (Dunn, Brewer, et al., 2010).
Although these previous documents use domains
to describe related clusters of knowledge and research, the number and organization of domains
they specify vary. To differentiate our document
from previous documents, we use the term pillars.
The pillars encompass all chapters in psychology
textbooks (e.g., material listed within parentheses
below) while also mapping onto course names,
contemporary political structures, graduate training
programs, and departmental core courses. Pillar
labels are easily identifiable as major chapters in
Intro Psych textbooks, providing students with
points of connection that prior domain language
did not easily afford.
Pillar 1: Biological (e.g., Neuroscience, Sensation,
Consciousness)
Pillar 2: Cognitive (e.g., Cognition, Memory, Perception, Intelligence)

Cross-cutting themes: Cross-cutting themes represent values that are relevant to all areas of contemporary psychology and also hold promise for building initial interconnections and linkages across
content areas (e.g., Dunn, Brewer, et al., 2010;
Littleford & Nolan, 2013; Trimble, Stevenson, &
Worrell, 2003). We recommend that the following
themes and corresponding questions receive coverage for each topic area included in the course.
Just as all the pillars of a building are composed of
the same different building materials (e.g., sand,
pebbles, and cement), all the domains of psychology also have similar themes. The inclusion of
cross-cutting themes will increase the likelihood
that important issues such as diversity and ethics
are frequently on students radars versus presented
as solitary requirements boxes to be checked off
as completed.
Cultural and social diversity: What are variations across individual and roles, including
those based on age, gender, sexual orientation,
gender identity, ethnicity/race, culture, national
origin, religion, disability status, language, and
socioeconomic status? Choose at least two.
Ethics: What are the major ethical considerations for conducting research or applying content related to the topic or phenomenon?
Variations in human functioning: What are the
positive and negative extremes of the phenomenon under study? Highlight failures and successful examples.
Applications: How does the content of the
course apply to everyday life? How can the
content of the course contribute to improving
ones life and addressing societal problems?

Consistent with other features of this model, the crosscutting themes are drawn from previous documents. We
followed Guidelines 2.0 (APA, 2013) by choosing to infuse
themes of diversity across all content areas. A second crosscutting theme (ethics) appears as one of five major guidelines in Guidelines 2.0 (APA, 2013). The third and fourth
cross-cutting themes (variations in functioning and applications) are represented as two of the seven teaching domains
of the Standards. Three of the four cross-cutting themes
(diversity, ethics, application) are also infused within the

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

STRENGTHENING INTRODUCTORY PSYCHOLOGY

James E.
Freeman

curriculum in the core major model (Dunn, Brewer, et al.,

2010).
4.

Integration: The structure (see Figure 1) is capped

by an explicit, overarching focus on integration
that ties together the different psychological domains into a coherent whole, and represents the
integrative goal of contemporary psychology. Human behavior is often influenced by factors involving separate domains (e.g., biological, cognitive,
social), and combining knowledge of each domain
facilitates holistic understanding. Exploring interconnections of material across domains to explain
human behavior is needed to represent contemporary psychological science (Cacioppo, 2013).

Whereas individual researchers may find it difficult to

draw interconnections across domains because of their specialized training (e.g., a personality psychologist may have
had no training in physiological psychology at the neuronal
level), Intro Psych offers students an initial context for
weaving the different domains of psychology together and
explicitly doing what individual researchers often do not
consider, that is, the use of different domains to better
understand human behavior as a whole. When Intro Psych
instructors expose students to possibilities for linking apparently disconnected pieces of knowledge, students have
opportunities to learn and expand critical and complex
thinking and integrative skills.
This integrative component optimally takes place near the
end of the semester, although it can be mentioned repeatedly
over the semester as each domain is entered. Integration

119

encourages instructors of Intro Psych and Intro Psych textbook authors to do what the field implicitly and explicitly
aspires to do in theory but finds hard to do in practice. Intro
Psych textbook authors can help instructors truly integrate
as per the dictionary definition, which speaks to organizing
constituent elements into a coordinated and harmonious
whole. Psychologists are likely to hold different perspectives about the degree to which psychology is an integrated
science as defined by a dictionary definition. However,
psychologists are increasingly likely to share the view that
psychologys role as a hub science points to the importance
of exploring interconnections within psychology as well as
psychologys interconnectedness to other sciences (Cacioppo, 2013). Similarly, a high proportion of psychologists
are likely to agree that whereas a string of unrelated
observations would not be terribly enlightening (Weiten,
2012, p. 23), the comparison and interweaving of differing
domains provides a more holistic and complete understanding of human beings.
Given the complexity of integration, we recommend that
instructors provide explicit examples of how the different
pillars of psychological science interact as well as assign
classroom and writing activities that call on students to use
topic areas from multiple domains to answer psychological
questions. For example, lectures and teaching activities
might focus on how conflict in close relationships can be
better understood by exploring the various contributions of
personality characteristics, social or situational factors, developmental histories of each partner, and underpinning
biological factors. Teaching about motivation, an aspect of
the Social and Personality pillar, can be enriched by also
exploring biological components of hunger and sex and
related textbook chapters on biological processes. The topic
of learning is placed in the Developmental pillar because of
its relevance to developmental maturation and adaptation
over time, but its connections to the Cognition pillar (e.g.,
memory and behavioral aspects of learning) and the Physical and Mental Health pillar (e.g., behavior modification)
are also important. To summarize, each pillar/domain has
substantive implications for the others in the pursuit of
comprehensive psychological explanations and applications. Studying each domain is essential, but a complete
understanding of the mind and behavior is more likely to be
achieved by an integration of what psychologists know and
can learn across multiple domains than by focusing only on
individual domains.

Intro Psych: The Same Model for Majors and

Nonmajors
This new model provides a framework for all Intro Psych
courses. Specifically, the working group recommended that
the Intro Psych course contain similar content and experiences for both psychology majors and nonmajors, regard-

GURUNG ET AL.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

120

Figure 1. A new model to guide content coverage for the intro psych course (APA, 2014). See the online article
for the color version of this figure.

less of why students take the course (APA, 2014, Recommendation 2; Halpern, 2010). Although some psychology
departments may be tempted to create an Intro Psych course
specifically for psychology majors, there is no evidence that
offering two courses is needed.
Departments that want a more robust Intro Psych course
for their majors may instead modify other course requirements and curriculum sequencing. For example, although
most baccalaureate programs require their majors to take
Research Methods early in their undergraduate experience
(Stoloff et al., 2009), departments that want to provide
enriched early experiences might be better served by creating additional courses, such as career development (Atchley, Hooker, Kroska, & Gilmour, 2012; Brinthaupt, 2009;
Thomas & McDaniel, 2004), courses that prepare students
for the major (Atchley et al., 2012; Dillinger & Landrum,
2002), or writing in the major (Goddard, 2003).

Research Experiences in Intro Psych

An important corollary to the new model involves a
greater incorporation of research-related activities into Intro
Psych (APA, 2014; Recommendation 3). Introductory
courses in most sciences are joined with required laboratories to foster a deeper, integrated understanding of the

science. For example, it is not sufficient to learn the laws

and equations of chemistry or physics without hands-on
experience with classic and contemporary methods. There is
also growing consensus about the need for a lab-like experience in Intro Psych (Thieman, Clary, Olson, Dauner, &
Ring, 2009), but there is little research on the efficacy or
frequency of a lab component in the Intro Psych course.
Currently, 90% of Intro Psych courses do not offer a lab
(Norcross et al., 2016), although many courses may incorporate some form of experiential research learning (Vespia,
Wilson-Doenges, Martin, & Radosevich, 2012).
Exposure to research or including a laboratory component
in Intro Psych may be particularly important because students often arrive with many misconceptions about the
discipline. For instance, many students begin Intro Psych
believing that psychology is mostly about psychotherapy
and relationships (Stalder & Stec, 2007), when in fact it is
also about many other topics such as the brain, information
processing, genetics, and behavioral plasticity. Psychology
is a STEM science, but it is still not globally perceived as a
science, which may contribute to the reality that many
colleges lack the financial or space resources to emphasize
scientific dimensions. At the same time, there are a number
of creative ways to surmount the resource challenge. One

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

STRENGTHENING INTRODUCTORY PSYCHOLOGY

way is to introduce class experiences that provide hands-on

exposure to research-related activities (e.g., a two-classperiod multidimensional scaling activity, McConnell &
Marton, 2013). Another option is to offer media-based (e.g.,
online or software) lab software projects that allow introductory students to conduct virtual experiments on many
topics, including, but not limited to, learning and perception
(Conn, Stafiniak, DiPasquale, & Harper, 1988). Similarly,
APA offers the Online Psychology Lab (OPL), a resource
that is available to instructors and their students for no fee
(http://opl.apa.org/).
Other options include providing lab-related activities by
relying on existing departmental resources. For example,
students at the University of Chicago are introduced to the
discipline through a Foundations in Psychology course, in
which faculty work with students to design a simple study
for which they do a literature search, collect data, conduct
rudimentary statistical analyses, and prepare a poster for a
science fair similar to those seen at psychology conferences.
At the least, faculty can require students to read, summarize,
and critique research articles or classic studies in the field
(e.g., Hock, 2012).

Challenges and Implications

Preserving Academic Freedom
This new model works toward striking a balance by
providing a guiding framework yet allowing flexibility. The
working group aimed to avoid either a prescriptive, overly
standardized approach, on the one hand, or the extant idiosyncratic approach, on the other. Whereas one could present
specific alternate models (vs. the choice offered in this
article) for instructors or departments to pick from, one
model will better enable national consistency, and a single
but flexible model will better serve instructors of psychology.
Unlike the K-12 common core legislation in the United
States, which many critics argue discourages innovation,
encourages a one-size-fits all mentality, and leads to
freedom-limiting oversight by large bureaucratic structures,
this new Intro Psych model has considerable flexibility built
into it and allows for academic freedom. The model is quite
versatile and may not necessitate major changes in how
many instructors teach. In fact, 47% of instructors in the
Homa et al. (2013) study are already in compliance with this
new model in that they cover at least two topic areas from
each of the five pillars (Gurung, 2014a). However, over half
of the instructors (53%) in the Homa et al. (2013) study
covered less than two topic areas in at least one or more
pillars. Twenty-eight percent of the sample did not cover
material (i.e., not a single topic) from one of the specific
pillars (Gurung, 2014a).
Although endorsed by different organizations (e.g., APAs
Board of Education Affairs), the model is not mandated or tied

121

to certification, and the extent it is used (or not) is not meant to

serve as a criterion for hiring, promotion, or tenure. There are
many topics an instructor can choose within each pillar and a
multitude of ways in which an instructor may feature crosscutting themes (see Appendix 2 in APA, 2014, for examples).
There are many different ways of teaching Intro Psych under
the banner of one strong, single model that recognizes the
diversity of faculty members, teaching situations, and student
audiences. At the same time, the ability of Intro Psych instructors to agree upon and communicate psychologys unifying
conceptual framework while also embracing its diversity will
underline psychologys stature as a mature science. The teaching framework described in this article is best viewed as a
working model that is likely to be modified as the field continues to mature and redefine itself.
This model is textbook agnostic and does not necessitate
the adoption of one book over another. Students or instructors may also use free, open source textbooks (BiswasDiener, 2014; Friesen, 2013). Students now have free alternatives to expensive textbooks via sources such as the Open
TextbookLibrary(Stagnor,2013)andNoba(www.nobaproject
.com). To provide instructors and institutions with flexibility and choice, note that the recommended model demarcates key conceptual topic areas of the field instead of
specific content. This conceptual structure allows individual
instructors academic flexibility in topic selection. We acknowledge that this flexibility may still allow some inconsistencies in what is taught, but represents a first important
step forward toward allowing for greater commonality in
Intro Psych. Current data suggest educators in psychology
are not even half way toward compliance with this new
model, flexible as it may be (Gurung, 2014a).

Training for a New Model

Psychological science has changed dramatically over the
past few decades, offering the opportunity for Intro Psych
instructors to teach the evolving science of psychology in
creative ways. The new model, with its explicit call for
greater consistency in domain (pillar) level content coverage, cross-cutting themes, and explicit integration section,
may necessitate even seasoned faculty members who teach
Intro Psych to adjust both the content of the course and their
methods of teaching
Although adopting this model adds to the existing challenge
of teaching Intro Psych, there are many resources to teach the
class. The Society for the Teaching of Psychology (APA
Division 2) Office of Teaching Resources in Psychology, Project Syllabus, and TOPIX are first stops. Journal issues of
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology and
Teaching of Psychology, collections of teaching activities
(Benjamin, 2008; Ware & Johnson, 1996), together with many
volumes on teaching Intro Psych (e.g., Dunn, Beins, et al.,
2010; Dunn & Chew, 2006; Goss Lucas, 2008; Goss Lucas &

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

122

GURUNG ET AL.

Bernstein, 2015) provide a variety of activities and assignments to aid the Intro Psych teacher. Additionally, free, open
source instructor aids (e.g., Afful, Good, Keeley, Leder, &
Stiegler-Balfour, 2012; Gurung, 2014b) summarize best practices and select from the many resources available, to provide
a starting instructor with a clear, concise, and concrete set of
tools. In addition, technologies such as clickers (Landrum,
2015) and Mechanical Turk (an online system run by Amazon.com to provide quick and inexpensive access to online
research participants; Goodman, Cryder, & Cheema, 2013) can
contribute to options for incorporating more research into
class. We also advise Intro Psych educators to read about
creative teaching methodologies and to participate regularly in
faculty development opportunities and conference presentations that focus on the teaching of psychology.
These tools notwithstanding, the larger challenge involves convincing faculty members to update content, adopt
a new model, and employ evidence-based teaching styles
instead of relying on what has worked reasonably well in
the past. Given the strong relationship between faculty
development activities, on the one hand, and their influence
on changes in teaching behavior, classroom performance,
and student learning outcomes, on the other hand (Chism,
Palmer, & Price, 2012), additional training opportunities are
of great importance (APA, 2014, Recommendation 4).
Although adopting this new pillar model may initially
seem difficult, reorganizing or pruning the extent to which
some specific concepts (e.g., higher order conditioning)
within major topics (e.g., learning) are currently covered
can make this recommendation manageable. Examples of
syllabi to facilitate use of this model are available (APA,
2014). In our experience, the implementation of this model
can be relatively straightforward, is compatible with most
introductory textbooks, and brings a fresh and contemporary feel to Intro Psych for both the instructor and the
student.
At first, covering all four cross-cutting themes for each topic
area may seem an imposing task. If, as we recommend, an
instructor emphasizes two topic areas from each of the five
domains, she or he will cover 10 major topic areas. Integrating
four cross-cutting themes within each of the 10 topics as well
as focusing on integration may appear especially daunting.
However, this task is not as impractical as it may seem, as
many themes are easily covered together within a topic area.
When covering psychological disorders (Abnormal in Pillar 5),
for example, the instructor can note the ethical considerations
of doing research with people who may not be able to give
their consent (ethics), identify some cultural differences in how
depression manifests (culture and diversity), discuss how classical conditioning principles help psychological scientists understand phobias (application), and discuss what research into
epigenetics tells us about the development of psychological
disorders (individual differences). When covering social psychology (Pillar 4), one might discuss the issues involved in

deceiving participants in experimental research (ethics), explain the differences between individualist and collectivist cultures (culture), give examples of how social psychological
principles are used in advertising (application), and discuss
how personality differences contribute to differences in degrees of conformity (individual differences). Students can also
be asked to generate ideas by considering questions related to
cross-cutting themes (e.g., What are the ethical implications
of this topic?).

A Step Toward Better Assessment

As stated previously, there is limited research about what
exactly takes place in the Intro Psych class and on what
students learn. National assessment of Intro Psych is lacking
and can benefit educators, their students, and their institutions
(APA, 2014, Recommendation 5). Most information about the
Intro Psych course comes from publishers market research
(e.g., pubtracker), personal communications, and textbook extrapolations. In order to establish how psychology students
perform or where reform is needed, educators need systematically collected, robust, valid, and reliable information about
how the Intro course is taught, how students perform on
learning outcomes, and how reliable and valid the assessments
are. Although the recommended model does not specify explicit content topics, student learning of topic areas within each
pillar needs to be assessed.
The Guidelines 2.0 and the Assessment Cyberguide for
Learning Goals and Outcomes in the Undergraduate Psychology Major (APA, 2009) provide recommended learning outcomes. The Guidelines 2.0 also identify potential assessment
instruments for each of the outcomes. Regardless of whether
instructors use the learning outcomes in the Guidelines 2.0 or
their own alternatives, a nationally coordinated assessment of
Intro Psych learning outcomes will allow instructors in the
discipline to establish benchmarks against which to measure
efforts to increase learning. Coordinated assessment can be
better accomplished once the new model is established across
the discipline.
At the introductory level, it will be beneficial for psychology to have a standard set of assessment questions,
perhaps tied to the Standards or the Guidelines, which can
be used to assess student knowledge. Having a standard
assessment will allow departments to compare their students
directly with other programs and will also be useful for
studying effective pedagogies. Departments or faculty will
be able to pick and choose the particular modules they want
to assess, but there is no easy way to compare student
accomplishments if there is no consistency of content.

Concluding Comments
This special issue on undergraduate education in psychology
presents the challenges as well as opportunities that lie ahead

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

STRENGTHENING INTRODUCTORY PSYCHOLOGY

for teaching in this discipline. For Intro Psych in particular,

much work remains. For example, the discipline needs to
identify learning goals and outcomes for the Intro Psych
course, evaluate the model proposed here, develop assessment
strategies for the Intro Psych course, and examine the implications of open sources for teaching Intro Psych.
The new model for teaching the introductory course promises to bring consistency and integration to, inarguably, the
most popular course in the discipline, and, arguably, its most
consequential course. We urge the writers and publishers of
textbooks to adopt elements of the new model and suggest the
development of formal recognition for departments that show
leadership in adopting the approach described here. A unifying
model will help ensure that students around the world will
receive a similar exposure to the rich and vibrant field of
psychological science and its invaluable content, its evolving
perspectives, its interdisciplinary hub, and its impressive applications to the human condition.

References
Adelman, C. (2004). The empirical curriculum: Changes in postsecondary
course-taking, 19722000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Afful, S. E., Good, J. J., Keeley, J., Leder, S., & Stiegler-Balfour, J. J.
(Eds.). (2012). Introductory Psychology teaching primer: A guide for
new teachers of Psych 101. Retrieved from http://teachpsych.org/ebooks/
intro2013/index.php
American Psychological Association. (2007). APA guidelines for the undergraduate psychology major. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved
from http://www.apa.org/ed/resources.html
American Psychological Association. (2009). Assessment cyberguide for
learning goals and outcomes in the undergraduate psychology major
(2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https://www.apa
.org/ed/governance/bea/assessment-cyberguide-v2.pdf
American Psychological Association. (2011). National standards for high
school psychology curricula. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.apa.org/education/k12/psychology-curricula.pdf
American Psychological Association. (2012). Resolution on the recognition of psychotherapy effectiveness. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/
about/policy/resolution-psychotherapy.aspx
American Psychological Association. (2013). APA Guidelines for the Undergraduate Psychology Major 2.0. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved
from www.apa.org/ed/resources.html
American Psychological Association. (2014). Strengthening the common
core of the introductory psychology course. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association, Board of Educational Affairs. Retrieved
from www.apa.org/ed/governance/bea/intro-psych-report.pdf
American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Enhancing Diversity. (2005). Final report. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/
pi/oema/resources/taskforce-report.pdf
American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Psychologys Contribution to End Homelessness. (2010). Helping people without homes: The role of psychologists and recommendations to advance
research, training, practice, and policy. Retrieved from http://www.apa
.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/end-homelessness.aspx
Atchley, P., Hooker, E., Kroska, E., & Gilmour, A. (2012). Validation of
an online orientation seminar to improve career and major preparedness.
Teaching of Psychology, 39, 146 151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0098628312437719

123

Benjamin, L. J. (2008). Favorite activities for the teaching of psychology.

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Biswas-Diener, R. (2014). The nonobvious advantages of open digital
textbooks. Psychology Teachers Network, 24, 8 11.
Board of Educational Affairs Steering Committee, APA National Conference on Undergraduate Education in Psychology. (2011). Principles for
quality undergraduate education in psychology. American Psychologist,
66, 850 856. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0025181
Boyack, K. W., Klavans, R., & Brner, K. (2005). Mapping the backbone
of science. Scientometrics, 64, 351374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s11192-005-0255-6
Brinthaupt, T. M. (2009). Development and implementation of an online
careers seminar in psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 37, 58 62.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00986280903425953
Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). The structure of psychology. Observer, 20, 3,
50 51.
Cacioppo, J. T. (2013). Psychological science in the 21st century. Teaching
of Psychology, 40, 304 309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009862831
3501041
Cacioppo, J. T., & Freberg, L. A. (2013). Discovering psychology: The
science of the mind. Boston, MA: Cengage.
Chism, N. V. N., Palmer, M. M., & Price, M. F. (2012). Investigating
faculty development for service learning. In P. H. Clayton, R. G.
Bringle, & J. A. Hatcher (Eds.) Research on service learning: Conceptual frameworks and assessments (pp. 187214). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Conn, G., Stafiniak, P., DiPasquale, M. C., & Harper, L. (1988). Effects of
teaching an introductory psychology laboratory using a computerized
research tool. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers,
20, 184 187. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03203827
Dillinger, R. J., & Landrum, R. E. (2002). An information course for the
beginning psychology major. Teaching of Psychology, 29, 230 232.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15328023TOP2903_12
Dunn, D. S., Beins, B. C., McCarthy, M. A., & Hill, G. W. (2010). Best
practices for teaching beginnings and endings. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/med:psych/9780195378214
.001.0001
Dunn, D. S., Brewer, C. L., Cautin, R. L., Gurung, R. A., Keith, K. D.,
McGregor, L. N., . . . Voigt, M. (2010). The undergraduate psychology
curriculum: Call for a core. In D. F. Halpern (Ed.), Undergraduate
education in psychology: A blueprint for the future of the discipline (pp.
47 61). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/12063-003
Dunn, D. S., & Chew, S. L. (Eds.). (2006). Best practices for teaching
introduction to psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dunn, D. S., McCarthy, M. A., Baker, S., Halonen, J. S., & Hill, G. W., IV.
(2007). Quality benchmarks in undergraduate psychology programs.
American Psychologist, 62, 650 670. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003066X.62.7.650
Friesen, N. (2013). The past and likely future of an education form: A
textbook case. Educational Researcher, 42, 498 508. http://dx.doi.org/
10.3102/0013189X13513535
Goddard, P. (2003). Implementing and evaluating a writing course for
psychology majors. Teaching of Psychology, 30, 2529. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1207/S15328023TOP3001_04
Goldberg, S., Muir, R., & Kerr, J. (2013). Attachment theory: Social,
developmental, and clinical perspectives. London, UK: Routledge.
Goodman, J. K., Cryder, C. E., & Cheema, A. (2013). Data collection in a
flat world: The strengths and weaknesses of mechanical Turk samples.
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26, 213224. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/bdm.1753
Goss Lucas, S. (2008). A guide to teaching introductory psychology.
Malden, MA: Blackwell. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781444301748
Goss Lucas, S., & Bernstein, D. A. (2015). Teaching psychology: A
step-by-step guide (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

124

GURUNG ET AL.

Griggs, R. A. (2014). Topical coverage in introductory textbooks from the

1980s through the 2000s. Teaching of Psychology, 41, 510. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1177/0098628313514171
Griggs, R. A., & Bates, S. C. (2014). Topical coverage in introductory
psychology: Textbooks versus lectures. Teaching of Psychology, 41,
144 147.
Griggs, R. A., Bujak-Johnson, A., & Proctor, D. L. (2004). Using common
core vocabulary in text selection and teaching the introductory course.
Teaching of Psychology, 31, 265269.
Griggs, R. A., & Jackson, S. L. (2013). Introductory psychology textbooks:
An objective analysis update. Teaching of Psychology, 40, 163168.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0098628313487455
Gurung, R. A. R. (2014a). A blueprint for teaching introductory psychology: National guidelines and better practices. Paper presented at the
National Institute for the Teaching of Psychology, St. Petersburg, FL.
Gurung, R. A. R. (2014b). Discover psychology: Instructors manual
(Digital ed.). Champaign, IL: DEF Publishers.
Hake, R. (2015). What might psychologists learn from the scholarship of
teaching and learning in physics? Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
in Psychology, 1, 100 106.
Halpern, D. F. (Ed.), (2010). Undergraduate education in psychology: A
blueprint for the future of the discipline. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/12063-000
Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 141158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1
.2343497
Hock, R. R. (2012). Forty studies that changed psychology: Explorations
into the history of psychological research (7th ed.). New York, NY:
Pearson.
Homa, N., Hackathorn, J., Brown, C., Garczynski, A., Solomon, E., Tennial, R., . . . Gurung, R. A. R. (2013). An analysis of learning objectives
and content coverage in introductory psychology syllabi. Teaching of
Psychology, 40, 169 174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0098628313487456
Hyers, L. L., & Shivde, G. (2013). Building a solid foundation for our
majors with the introductory psychology course. Psychology Learning &
Teaching, 12, 147158. http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/plat.2013.12.2.147
Iacoboni, M. (2009). Imitation, empathy, and mirror neurons. Annual
Review of Psychology, 60, 653 670. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev
.psych.60.110707.163604
Landrum, R. E. (2015). Teacher-ready reviews: Clickers. Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning, 1, 250 254.
Littleford, L. N., & Nolan, S. A. (2013, May). Your sphere of influence:
How to infuse cultural diversity into your psychology classes. Psychology Teacher Network. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ed/precollege/
ptn/2013/05/cultural-diversity.aspx
Market Data Research. (2014). Sales & marketing solutions to grow your
business: College faculty & administrators. Shelton, CT: Author. Retrieved from http://schooldata.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/
06/MDR-College-Catalog.pdf
McConnell, W., & Marton, J. P. (2013). Enhancing introductory psychology students appreciation of research: A multidimensional scaling
classroom activity. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 12, 179 184.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/plat.2013.12.2.179
Miller, B., & Gentile, B. F. (1998). Introductory course content and goals.
Teaching of Psychology, 25, 89 96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/
s15328023top2502_2
Mitchell, K., Lewis, R. S., Satterfield, J., & Hong, B. A. (2016). The new
medical college admission test: Implications for teaching psychology.
American Psychologist, 71, 125135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0039975
Myers, D. G. (2013). Psychology. New York, NHY: Worth.
Norcross, J. C., Hailstorks, R., Aiken, L. S., Pfund, R. A., Stamm, K. E.,
& Christidis, P. (2016). Undergraduate study in psychology: Curriculum

and assessment. American Psychologist, 71, 89 101. http://dx.doi.org/

10.1037/a0040095
Peck, A. C., Ali, R. S., Matchock, R. L., & Levine, M. E. (2006).
Introductory psychology topics and student performance: Wheres the
challenge? Teaching of Psychology, 33, 167170. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1207/s15328023top3303_2
Perlman, B., & McCann, L. I. (1999). The structure of the psychology
undergraduate curriculum. Teaching of Psychology, 26, 171176. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15328023TOP260302
Proctor, D. L., & Williams, A. M. E. (2006). Frequently cited concepts in
current introduction to psychology textbooks. Office of Teaching Resources in Psychology. Retrieved from http://teachpsych.org/resources/
Documents/otrp/resources/proctor06.pdf
Smith, R. A., & Fineburg, A. C. (2006). Standards and outcomes encouraging best practices in teaching introductory psychology. In D. S. Dunn
& S. L. Chew (Eds.), Best practices for teaching introduction to psychology (pp. 179 194). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Spear, J. H. (2007). Prominent schools or other active specialties? A fresh
look at some trends in psychology. Review of General Psychology, 11,
363380. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.11.4.363
Stagnor, C. (2013). Introduction to psychology. Washington, DC: Flat
World Knowledge.
Stalder, D. R., & Stec, D. A. (2007). Topical and applied interests of
introductory psychology students. Journal of Instructional Psychology,
34, 226 233.
Stoloff, M., McCarthy, M., Keller, L., Varfolomeeva, V., Lynch, J., Makara, K., . . . Smiley, W. (2009). The undergraduate psychology major:
An examination of structure and sequence. Teaching of Psychology, 37,
4 15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00986280903426274
Tavris, C., & Wade, C. (2001). Psychology in perspective (3rd ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Thieman, T. J., Clary, E. G., Olson, A. M., Dauner, R. C., & Ring, E. E.
(2009). Introducing students to psychological research: General psychology as a laboratory course. Teaching of Psychology, 36, 160 168.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00986280902959994
Thomas, J. H., & McDaniel, C. R. (2004). Effectiveness of a required
course in career planning for psychology majors. Teaching of Psychology, 31, 2227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top3101_6
Trimble, J. E., Stevenson, M. R., & Worrell, J. P. (2003). Toward an inclusive
psychology: Infusing the introductory psychology textbook with diversity
content. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Vespia, K. M., Wilson-Doenges, G., Martin, R. C., & Radosevich, D. M.
(2012). Experiential learning. In B. M. Schwartz & R. R. Gurung (Eds.),
Evidence-based teaching for higher education (pp. 7797). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
13745-005
Ware, M. E., & Johnson, D. E. (1996). Handbook of demonstrations and
activities in the teaching of psychology: Vol. 1. Introductory, statistics,
research methods, and history. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Weiten, W. (2012). Psychology: Themes and variations. Belmont, CA:
Cengage.
Wolfle, D. (1942). The first course in psychology. Psychological Bulletin,
39, 685712. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0057510
Zechmeister, J. S., & Zechmeister, E. B. (2000). Introductory textbooks
and psychologys core concepts. Teaching of Psychology, 27, 6 11.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15328023TOP2701_1
Zimbardo, P. G. (2004). Does psychology make a significant difference in
our lives? American Psychologist, 59, 339 351. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/0003-066X.59.5.339

Received May 20, 2014

Revision received August 26, 2015
Accepted September 15, 2015