APA Guidelines for the Undergraduate Psychology Major

70 Pages·2013·0.44 MB·English

APA G u i d e l i n e s
for the Undergraduate
Psychology Major
version 2.0
August 2013
APA Guidelines
for the Undergraduate
Psychology Major
version 2.0
APA Board of educational Affairs Task Force on Psychology Major Competencies (2012)
Members APA Staff Liaisons
Jane s. Halonen (Chair) G. William Hill iV Jerry Rudmann Martha Boenau
University of Kennesaw State Irvine Valley College Robin Hailstorks
West Florida University
Michael stoloff
William Buskist Carolyn enns, Cornell James Madison
Auburn University College & APA Board of University
Educational Affairs
dana s. dunn nadine Kaslow
Moravian College R. eric landrum Emory University &
Boise State University APA Board of Directors
James Freeman
University of Virginia Maureen McCarthy
Kennesaw State
University
This document is the most recent revision of the document
originally titled APA Guidelines for the Undergraduate Psychology
Major, first approved by the APA Council of Representatives in
August 2006. This first revision is effective as of August 2013
and supersedes the previous version. it is available online at
http://www.apa.org/ed/precollege/undergrad/index.aspx.
Printed single copies are available from:
Precollege and undergraduate education
education directorate
American Psychological Association
750 First street, ne
Washington, dC 20002-4242
202-336-6140
email: [email protected]
Suggested bibliographic reference:
American Psychological Association. (2013). APA guidelines
for the undergraduate psychology major: Version 2.0. Retrieved
from http://www.apa.org/ed/precollege/undergrad/index.aspx
Copyright © 2013 by the American Psychological Association.
This material may be reproduced and distributed without
permission provided that acknowledgment is given to the
American Psychological Association. This material may not
be reprinted, translated, or distributed electronically without
prior permission in writing from the publisher. For permis-
sion, contact APA, Rights and Permissions, 750 First street,
ne, Washington, dC 20002-4242.
ContEntS
Executive Summary 1 Appendices 47
AAppppeennddiixx AA::
Introduction 3
Rationale for Parameters of Change 48
Why We needed the APA Guidelines
AAppppeennddiixx BB::
for the Undergraduate Psychology Major 6
Formal linkage Between Original
Why We need Guidelines 2.0 8
Guidelines and Guidelines 2.0 49
How diversity Has evolved
AAppppeennddiixx CC::
in Guidelines 2.0 12
Representation of sociocultural
Conclusion and encouragement 13
Focus in Guidelines 2.0 59
Framework of Guidelines 2.0 15 AAppppeennddiixx dd::
A summary of the learning Goals 15 Recommendations for
strengthening Quality in the
The Comprehensive learning Goals 17
undergraduate Psychology Major 62
Goal 1: Knowledge Base
AAppppeennddiixx ee::
in Psychology 17
Roster of Job Prospects
Goal 2: scientific inquiry
for Psychology Graduates 65
and Critical Thinking 20
AAppppeennddiixx FF::
Goal 3: ethical and social
Roster of Advisory Groups/Reviewers 67
Responsibility in a
AAppppeennddiixx GG::
diverse World 26
Roster of independent
Goal 4: Communication 30
Contributors/Reviewers 68
Goal 5: Professional development 33
sociocultural learning Outcomes:
The infusion Approach 38
Looking to the Future 41
References 43
iiiiii
ExECutIvE SuMMARy
the APA Guidelines for the Undergraduate Psychology
Major: Version 2.0 (hereinafter referred to as Guidelines
2.0) represents a national effort to describe and develop
high-quality undergraduate programs in psychology.
Guidelines 2.0 grew out of an expectation expressed in the
first iteration of the Guidelines that policy documents on
curricular matters should be living documents—
meaning that the recommendations must be systemati-
cally revised over time to ensure their relevance. The task
force charged with the revision of Guidelines 2.0 exam-
ined the success of implementing the original document
and made changes to reflect emerging best practices and
to integrate psychology’s work with benchmarking schol-
arship in higher education.
Guidelines 2.0 abandoned the original dis- specific courses (e.g., scientific reasoning
tinction drawn between psychology-focused and critical-thinking skills developed in
skills and psychology skills that enhance research methods and statistics courses).
liberal arts development. Instead, the new Another major change in Guidelines 2.0 is
Guidelines describes five inclusive goals the emphasis on the advantages of studying
for the undergraduate major that repre- psychology as a strong liberal arts prepara-
sent more robust learning and assessment tion for attaining a position in the profes-
activities. Developmental levels of student sional workforce.
learning outcomes capture expectations at A final improvement in Guidelines 2.0
both a foundation level, which represents the includes a carefully designed infusion
completion of approximately the first four approach to the important goals related to
courses in the major, and a baccalaureate the development of cultural competence and
level, which corresponds to the indicators diversity skills development.
in the original Guidelines. Although in most
cases foundation and baccalaureate develop-
mental changes occur across courses in the
curriculum, some changes can occur within
11
IntRoduCtIon
the APA Guidelines for the Undergraduate Psychology
Major: Version 2.0 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. The selection of the five goals and
corresponding student learning outcomes reflects emerg-
ing best practices from the scholarship of teaching and
learning in psychology as well as the experiences reported
from academic program reviewers.
The APA Board of Educational Affairs Task and characteristics of psychological ways
Force on Psychology Major Competencies also of thinking. Ideally, foundation courses are
developed indicators of progress on student likely to include an introductory psychology
learning outcomes representing two levels of course and a methods course along with
development: foundation and baccalaureate. other lower level requirements or electives
At both levels, the task force selected indi- that firmly establish the nature of the disci-
cators that could reasonably be achieved by pline. The foundation level approximates the
students who are successfully pursuing the skills and content characterizing the kinds
major. The task force adopted a develop- of achievements of students who complete a
mental approach in identifying indicators to minor in psychology or an associate’s degree
promote stronger coherence between levels of with an emphasis in psychology. Upon com-
courses offered in the major, assist in build- pletion of a good foundation in psychology,
ing meaningful required sequences of study students should demonstrate the impact of
to strengthen student success and retention, learning a psychological worldview on how
and facilitate smoother articulation between they think about behavior. For example, they
community college preparation and baccalau- should apply psychological principles to mak-
reate programs. ing good consumer choices. However, their
Foundation indicators roughly represent sophistication in describing, explaining, and
progress that students should make after predicting behavior will be more limited than
completing several lower level courses in would be expected at the conclusion of the
the major. Although the task force does not major. In some cases, students may achieve
stipulate specific courses for completion of at higher levels in the foundation courses;
the foundation, beginning courses should however, the expectation for the majority
introduce students to the scope of content of students in beginning courses would be
involved in the discipline and the values performance at a foundation level.
33
APA Guidelines for the underGrAduAte PsycholoGy MAjor: Version 2.0
In contrast, baccalaureate indicators cor- programs that are not only well tailored to
respond to expectations for performance at the institution’s mission and students’ needs
the completion of the major. The baccalaure- but also respond to appropriate educational
ate level captures the nature of expectations benchmarks. We encourage departments to
for those who do not necessarily continue view Guidelines 2.0 as more than an aspi-
their education in graduate school. Although rational document; we hope the Guidelines
the endpoint indicators apply to those stu- will motivate departments and programs to
dents who intend to make a stronger com- pursue meaningful assessment of a well-
mitment to psychology through extended designed program tailored to their shared
professional training in graduate and programmatic mission and vision.
professional schools, the focus of Guidelines Faculty in undergraduate psychology
2.0 provides a careful delineation of what programs should be eager to document their
the achievements should be for students success and use their successes to create
who stop at the completion of the baccalau- persuasive arguments for more resources
reate program. Consequently, baccalaureate and confer protection during periods of
indicators should fully develop psychology as resource competition and reallocation. The
a liberal arts degree that effectively prepares task force believes that the proposed frame-
students for the workforce. Although these work will be helpful to departments as they
students may not be pursuing their own respond to accountability demands. The
development as scientists or professional task force retained the emphasis of several
practitioners in psychology, the professional features of the original Guidelines, including
pursuits of the successful baccalaureate stu- the following:
dent should reflect the benefits of applying
• Promotion of psychology as a science
scientific principles more systematically to
• Links to Scholarship of Teaching and
describe, explain, and predict behavior in the
Learning (SoTL) literature
contexts in which the baccalaureate student
• Use of action verbs to support measurable
will be employed. In short, students who
aspects of student learning
graduate with a baccalaureate degree should
be able to demonstrate psychological literacy • Broad consideration of assessment options
(e.g., Cranney & Dunn, 2011; McGovern et • Inclusion of important areas of effort even if
al., 2010). difficult to measure
In summary, Guidelines 2.0 provides
• Prominence of sociocultural and contextual
targets of achievement to assist departments
influences in curriculum planning
in curriculum design, goal setting, and
• Broad applicability across diverse contexts in
assessment planning. However, other factors
which psychology programs educate students
will give shape to department accountabil-
ity plans, including the institutional and • Emphasis on aspirational levels of
departmental mission, characteristics of the achievements
students, and resources (e.g., faculty time This iteration of Guidelines 2.0 attempted
and program funding) available to support to integrate various influences in its rec-
assessment efforts. In this spirit, broad ommendations regarding curriculum and
discussion of the document can facilitate assessment, including these changes:
departmental collaboration in designing
44
IntRoduCtIon
• Reduced scope of learning goals from 10 be seen as aspirational, this living docu-
specific domains to 5 broader domains. ment has a greater impact when programs,
Although no areas were explicitly deleted, departments, and faculty feel inspired to
several areas were consolidated or distrib- obtain measures of the five goals and then
uted in a different manner to make a more use the resulting assessment data for sys-
user-friendly framework for implementation. temic improvement. Assessment becomes
an advantageous process by providing a
• Linked achievement expectations with
method to document promising practices
emerging assessment scholarship in higher
and continued success and by avoiding the
education and standards-oriented work in
loss of successful program elements (Kuh,
psychology, particularly integrating work
Kinzie, Schuh, & Whitt, 2010).
previously accomplished through projects
The task force also remained committed to
sponsored by the American Psychological
ensuring that the findings were representative
Association (APA).
and broadly vetted. The task force surveyed
• Included areas emerging as important in the
various stakeholder groups before its revision
higher education landscape, including civic
discussions began. The members also planned
engagement, environmental stewardship,
systematic gathering of feedback during the
and health and safety concerns.
process to promote interest in the process and
• Paid careful attention to realistic achieve-
consideration of diverse viewpoints.
ments within a typical/standard high-quality
The task force included appendices
undergraduate program.
to support the proposed framework. In
• Added student learning outcomes to address Appendix A, the task force provides a ratio-
developmental progression after students nale for the new configuration of each of the
complete some foundation courses. five goals. Appendix B details the correspon-
• Reduced jargon that may render the dence between student learning outcomes
Guidelines more accessible to audiences with- in the original document and Guidelines 2.0.
out formal psychology education. Appendix C outlines the sociocultural learn-
ing outcomes infused throughout the five
• Delineated attitudes and attributes arising
learning goals presented in this document.
from more visible, measurable behaviors
Appendix D describes associated recom-
that provide evidence of achievement of
mendations for an assessment strategy or a
the outcomes.
curriculum that develop from adoption of
• More deliberately infused sociocultural indi-
Guidelines 2.0. Appendix E includes a roster
cators in the evaluation scheme.
of potential entry-level jobs for which under-
• Tailored assessment suggestions to the level graduate psychology students can qualify
of development of the program undertaking to assist with the professional development
assessment planning. goal. The report concludes by identifying
In this revision of the APA Guidelines and expressing gratitude to the various
for the Undergraduate Psychology Major, the associations (Appendix F) and independent
task force provides readers with sugges- individuals (Appendix G) who provided con-
tions about assessment approaches. These structive feedback at various stages during
approaches are suggestive rather than the revision process.
prescriptive. Although Guidelines 2.0 can 55
APA Guidelines for the underGrAduAte PsycholoGy MAjor: Version 2.0
Why WE nEEdEd thE APA Guidelines for the underGrAduAte PsycholoGy MAjor
Accountability concerns about quality in goals and outcomes that could be broadly
education have been part of the educational applied across diverse educational contexts,
landscape for a long time (Association including face-to-face programs and online
of American Colleges and Universities delivery modes.
[AAC&U] and Council for Higher Education The architecture of the original Guidelines
Accreditation, 2008). Current best practices divided learning goals into two major cat-
in higher education rely on setting clear egories: goals that distinctly characterize
expectations for student learning, aligning learning in psychology and goals to which
curricula with these expectations, assessing psychology contributes as part of a strong
student attainment, and using assessment liberal arts education. The discussion focused
results to effect changes that promote more on outcomes that should characterize student
efficient and effective student learning. knowledge and ability at the conclusion of
The APA Board of Educational Affairs students’ studies. Beyond the curricular assis-
(BEA) responded to these concerns by tance, the original Guidelines also reflected a
appointing a task force in 2002 to describe number of related needs that were part of the
what psychology graduates should know educational landscape:
and be able to do as a consequence of
• PPssyycchhoollooggyy’’ss rreeccooggnniittiioonn aass aa sscciieennccee.. The
their major. The focus of the original APA
Guidelines firmly supported the major as a
Guidelines for the Undergraduate Psychology
science, reinforcing the perception of a com-
Major was the articulation of performance
mon science identity despite the variations
expectations at the conclusion of under-
in the major’s delivery. For example, even
graduate studies.
in programs emphasizing human service
The original task force anticipated a
applications as a driving force in the major,
variety of challenges that hindered coming
scientific principles should be prominent
to consensus on learning goals and out-
throughout the curriculum.
comes. For example, college campuses house
• AAsssseessssmmeenntt ppllaannnniinngg aass aa pprriimmaarryy ddrriivveerr..
psychology programs in different locations.
Departments were reporting substantial
In some colleges and universities, psychology
pressures from their institutions to pro-
is part of a school or college comprising the
vide evidence that they were delivering on
social sciences. In others, psychology may
the promise of their respective mission
align with the natural sciences, humanities,
statements.
or education. Each kind of affiliation can
• TThhee ggrroowwtthh aanndd cchhaalllleennggeess ooff tthhee sscchhoollaarrsshhiipp
exert influence on the priorities of a psychol-
ooff tteeaacchhiinngg aanndd lleeaarrnniinngg.. The task force
ogy program that could produce drift from
conceptualized the Guidelines as a stimu-
a restrictive curricular standard. As such,
lus to research on learning and teaching
programs may have differing emphases,
effectiveness. Consequently, the Guidelines
student characteristics, faculty expertise,
contributed to increasing acceptance of this
and resources. Undergraduate programs
form of scholarship as a legitimate faculty
vary—as they should—to meet local, state,
activity in relation to tenure and promo-
regional, and national needs. Despite these
tion requirements.
differences, the BEA task force developed
66
IntRoduCtIon
• TThhee pprroommiinneennccee ooff iinntteerrnnaattiioonnaall ccoonncceerrnnss.. The that need assistance in documenting their
Guidelines acknowledged the growth of psy- rigor and achievement.
chology’s interest in contributing to interna- The original Guidelines became official
tional discussions about what is important APA policy in 2006 after substantial consul-
in the major. In addition, many pressing tation with a range of constituents in APA.
behavioral issues confronting humankind The task force developed, in addition to the
involve international elements (e.g., immi- original document, a digital guidebook called
gration, international conflict). the Assessment Cyberguide to assist depart-
ments in implementing and assessing the
• TThhee nneeeedd ffoorr ccuurrrriiccuullaarr ccoonnttiinnuuiittyy.. The
outcomes that had been successfully proposed
Guidelines expanded curricular attention
in the Guidelines. The Assessment Cyberguide
to comparable work that articulated goals
was subsequently updated to address the
for high school psychology (e.g., the APA
burgeoning literature in assessment (Pusateri,
National Standards for High School Psychology
Halonen, Hill, & McCarthy, 2009).
Curricula; APA, 2011a). By crafting expec-
tations about what students should know
and do as the result of their first formal
exposure to the discipline of psychology, the
original task force then articulated similar
ideas about achievements at the undergrad-
uate level. Similarly, work subsequent to the
development of the Guidelines (e.g., the 2008
APA National Conference on Undergraduate
Education in Psychology, also known as the
Puget Sound Conference; Halpern, 2010b)
purposefully built on the progress made in
the original Guidelines document. At the
same time, other groups in higher education
(e.g., the AAC&U) began comparable explo-
rations about what undergraduates should
know and do at the point of completion of
their baccalaureate experience.
• TThhee eemmeerrggeennccee ooff oonnlliinnee ooppttiioonnss.. At the
beginning of the work of the original task
force, online education was just emerging as
a convenient alternative to face-to-face deliv-
ery, and educators wanted guidance on how
to make the experiences comparable. The
popularity of online courses has dramatically
increased, including not just isolated courses
but whole academic programs in psychology
77