Teaching Psychology E-Book

Jillian Grose-Fifer

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 700

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2018

Beschreibung

A guide to an evidence-based approach for teaching college-level psychology courses

Teaching Psychology offers an evidence-based, student-centered approach that is filled with suggestions, ideas, and practices for teaching college-level courses in ways that contribute to student success. The authors draw on current scientific studies of learning, memory, and development, with specific emphasis on classroom studies. The authors offer practical advice for applying scholarly research to teaching in ways that maximize student learning and personal growth. The authors endorse the use of backward course design, emphasizing the importance of identifying learning goals (encompassing skills and knowledge) and how to assess them, before developing the appropriate curriculum for achieving these goals. Recognizing the diversity of today's student population, this book offers guidance for culturally responsive, ethical teaching.

The text explores techniques for teaching critical thinking, qualitative and quantitative reasoning, written and oral communication, information and technology literacy, and collaboration and teamwork. The authors explain how to envision the learning objectives teachers want their students to achieve and advise how to select assessments to evaluate if the learning objectives are being met. This important resource:

• Offers an evidence-based approach designed to help graduate students and new instructors embrace a student-centered approach to teaching; 
• Contains a wealth of examples of effective student-centered teaching techniques; 
• Surveys current findings from the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning; 
• Draws on the American Psychological Association's five broad goals for the undergraduate Psychology major and shows how to help students build life-long skills; and, 
• Introduces Universal Design for Learning as a framework to support diverse learners. 

Teaching Psychology offers an essential guide to evidence-based teaching and provides practical advice for becoming an effective teacher. This book is designed to help graduate students, new instructors, and those wanting to update their teaching methods. It is likely to be particularly useful for instructors in psychology and other social science disciplines.

Leseprobe

Table of Contents

Cover

About the Authors

Foreword

Introduction

1 Why a Student‐Centered Approach to Teaching?

1.1 A Paradigm Shift?

1.2 Setting the Stage for Transformative Learning

1.3 Knowing Your Students

1.4 Supporting First‐Generation College Students

1.5 Culturally Responsive Instruction

1.6 Starting Off with a Student‐Centered Philosophy

1.7 Summary

2 Designing a Course Based on Learning Objectives

2.1 Backward Course Design

2.2 Step 1: Developing Learning Goals and Objectives

2.3 Step 2: Developing Assessment Strategies

2.4 Step 3: Creating Meaningful Learning Experiences in the Classroom

2.5 Universal Design

2.6 Creating a Syllabus

2.7 Interim and Post‐Course Reflection and Student Evaluation: How Is it Going?

2.8 Summary

2.A Syllabus Checklist

3 Effective Multimedia Instruction

3.1 Use (and Abuse) of PowerPoint (PPT) in Higher Education

3.2 Student Response Systems

3.3 Use of Videos and Video Clips in Classes

3.4 Information Literacy and the Effective Use of the Internet

3.5 Other Multimedia Projects

3.6 Summary

4 Advancing Critical Thinking Through Active Learning

4.1 What is Critical Thinking?

4.2 Critical Thinking Instruction

4.3 Oral Communication: Talking to Learn (and Learning to Talk)

4.4 In‐Class Demonstrations and Simulations

4.5 Distinguishing Science from Pseudoscience in Psychology Classes

4.6 Developing Qualitative and Quantitative Reasoning Skills

4.7 Service Learning and Community‐Based Research

4.8 Challenges of Assessing Improvements in Critical Thinking

4.9 Summary

5 Group Work

5.1 Benefits of Group Work

5.2 Effective Strategies for Participation

5.3 How to Minimize Undesirable Group Behaviors

5.4 Cooperative Learning Structures

5.5 Cooperative Learning Games

5.6 Summary

6 Learning to Write and Writing to Learn

6.1 The Value of Writing in Learning

6.2 Strategies for Teaching Reading and Writing

6.3 Helping Students to Improve Writing Drafts

6.4 Plagiarism

6.5 Lowering the Stakes in Writing Assignments

6.6 Summary

7 Enhancing Learning Through Testing, Metacognitive Development, and Psychosocial Interventions

7.1 Why Use Tests in Student‐Centered Teaching?

7.2 Using Quizzes in Your Classes

7.3 Students' Metacognitive Biases

7.4 Building Study Habits

7.5 Mindsets around Testing and Learning

7.6 Summary

8 Gearing Up to Teach Online

8.1 The Continuum of Online Instruction

8.2 How Course Management Systems can Make Face'to'Face Classes More Student‐Centered

8.3 Using Online Tools to Facilitate Writing, Collaboration, and Critical Thinking

8.4 Teaching in a Flipped Classroom

8.5 Transitioning to Teaching Fully Online

8.6 Summary

9 Becoming an Effective and Fulfilled Teacher

9.1 Ethical Teaching Using an Evidence‐Based Approach

9.2 Ethical Classroom Management

9.3 Closing the Loop: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Your Instruction

9.4 The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning

9.5 Mentoring Student Research

9.6 Self‐Assessment

9.7 Developing a Teaching Portfolio

9.8 Writing a Teaching Philosophy Statement

9.9 Summary

References

Index

End User License Agreement

List of Illustrations

Chapter 02

Figure 2.1 Bloom's Taxonomy (Revised).

Figure 2.2 Fink's Taxonomy of Significant Learning Experiences.

Chapter 04

Figure 4.1 Reflective Judgment Model.

Guide

Cover

Table of Contents

Begin Reading

Pages

iii

iv

v

xi

xii

xiii

xiv

xv

xvi

xvii

xviii

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

175

176

177

178

179

180

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

Teaching Psychology

An Evidence‐Based Approach

Jillian Grose‐Fifer

Patricia J. Brooks

Maureen O'Connor

This edition first published 2019© 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain permission to reuse material from this title is available at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.

The right of Jillian Grose‐Fifer, Patricia J. Brooks, and Maureen O'Connor to be identified as the authors of this work has been asserted in accordance with law.

Registered Office(s)John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA

Editorial Office9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK

For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products visit us at www.wiley.com.

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by print‐on‐demand. Some content that appears in standard print versions of this book may not be available in other formats.

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of WarrantyWhile the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives, written sales materials or promotional statements for this work. The fact that an organization, website, or product is referred to in this work as a citation and/or potential source of further information does not mean that the publisher and authors endorse the information or services the organization, website, or product may provide or recommendations it may make. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a specialist where appropriate. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.

Library of Congress Cataloging‐in‐Publication Data

Names: Grose‐Fifer, Jillian, author. | Brooks, Patricia (Patricia J.), author. | O’Connor, Maureen, author.Title: Teaching psychology : an evidence‐based approach / Jillian Grose‐Fifer, Patricia J. Brooks, Maureen O’Connor.Description: Hoboken, NJ : John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2019. | Includes index. |Identifiers: LCCN 2018032338 (print) | LCCN 2018034860 (ebook) | ISBN 9781118981443 (Adobe PDF) | ISBN 9781118981450 (ePub) | ISBN 9781118981436 (hardcover) | ISBN 9781118958056 (pbk.)Subjects: LCSH: Psychology–Study and teaching.Classification: LCC BF77 (ebook) | LCC BF77 .G76 2019 (print) | DDC 150.71–dc23LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018032338

Cover Design: WileyCover Image: © Jillian Grose‐Fifer

To my students, and to my sons, James and Lucas. Your passion for learning inspires me. J.G.‐F.

To past and present members of the Graduate Student Teaching Association, especially Christina Shane‐Simpson, Anna Schwartz, Rita Obeid, Teresa Ober, Jeremy Sawyer, Ethlyn Saltzman, Ron Whiteman, Kasey Powers, Emily Dow, Phil Kreniske, Charles Raffaele, Elizabeth Che, Ayşenur Benevento, Peri Yuksel, Ralitza Todorova, Jessica Brodsky, Olga Parshina, and Svetlana Jović. Your enthusiasm and commitment to student‐centered pedagogy sustain me. P.J.B.

To my students, and to the best teacher I've ever known, Dennis Murphy, who taught me the meaning of a truly student‐ (and client‐) centered approach, and whose pedagogy of compassion and understanding continues to inspire me each and every day. M.O.C.

About the Authors

Jill Grose‐Fifer, Ph.D., is a cognitive neuroscientist and Associate Professor of Psychology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and The Graduate Center, City University of New York (CUNY). She earned her bachelors and doctoral degrees from the University of Aston, in Birmingham, U.K. She has been an active participant in several pedagogical initiatives at CUNY, including John Jay College's First‐Year Success Program and its Writing Enriched Curriculum Project, the CUNY Pedagogy Taskforce, and the Graduate Center's Futures Initiative. Dr. Grose‐Fifer has published on the scholarship of teaching and learning, as well as in the field of cognitive neuroscience. Her current neuroscience research focuses primarily on event‐related potential investigations of adolescent brain development. She has received various teaching awards from John Jay College, including the Distinguished Teaching Prize in 2009, the Outstanding Scholarly Mentor award in 2012, and the Faculty Excellence in Research Mentorship Award from the Forensic Psychology Masters Program in 2018.

Patricia J. Brooks, Ph.D., is Professor of Psychology at the College of Staten Island, City University of New York (CUNY), where she directs the Language Learning Laboratory. Her research interests are in three broad areas: (a) individual differences in first‐ and second‐language learning; (b) the impact of digital media on learning and development; and (c) development of effective pedagogy to support diverse learners. Dr. Brooks is an active member of the Doctoral Faculty at the Graduate Center, CUNY, where she currently serves as the Deputy Executive Officer of the Ph.D. Program in Psychology (Area: Pedagogy) and on the Executive Committee of the Ph.D. Program in Educational Psychology. Since 2014, she has served as Faculty Advisor to the Graduate Student Teaching Association of the Society for the Teaching of Psychology (American Psychological Association, Division 2). She was awarded the 2016 Dolphin Award for Outstanding Teaching from the College of Staten Island, CUNY. She is co‐author of numerous journal articles, book chapters, and a textbook on language development; she has also co‐edited several books, including the 2017 volume Cognitive Development in Digital Contexts.

Maureen O'Connor, Ph.D., J.D., is President of Palo Alto University (PAU), an institution dedicated to education and research in psychology. At PAU, she supports an annual evidence‐based teaching conference. Prior to that, she was a professor and former Chair of Psychology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice at the City University of New York (CUNY) and Executive Officer of the Doctoral Program in Psychology at CUNY's Graduate Center, where she initiated the development of a multifaceted pedagogy program for the preparation of graduate student instructors in psychology. Her scholarly and teaching interests are in pedagogy and mentoring, and the intersection of psychology, gender, and law. She is a Fellow of the American Psychological Association (APA), past President of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, and Chair of the APA's Task Force on Human Rights, and she has received the New York State Psychological Association's Margaret Floy Washburn Women's Mentoring Award.

Foreword

I first stepped foot in the Graduate Center at the City University of New York (CUNY) in 2012 as a keynote speaker for the third annual Pedagogy Day, CUNY's All‐Psychology Conference on the Teaching of Psychology. My most vivid memory of this lively, interactive conference is of the Activity Blitz, a series of rapid‐fire sessions in which graduate‐student instructors presented engaging, evidence‐based teaching techniques that they used in their own classrooms. These burgeoning instructors were passionate and smart, up on their scholarship of teaching and learning, and ready to get their students as excited about psychology as they clearly were in their presentations.

My involvement with Pedagogy Day helped me develop a relationship with the personified sparks for the enthusiasm in these graduate students—the professors, and authors of this book, Jill Grose‐Fifer, Patricia Brooks, and Maureen O'Connor. Recognizing a need, these three psychological scientists from three different subdisciplines, but sharing a great interest in teaching, joined together to create a program that filled a clear need at CUNY—a program to train graduate students to be instructors. In addition to the annual Pedagogy Day, this dynamic trio created a graduate Seminar and Practicum on the Teaching of Psychology, in which CUNY psychology graduate students could learn how to teach—a skill too rarely taught in psychology doctoral programs in the United States and elsewhere.

Eventually, through their leadership, CUNY became the institutional home of the national Graduate Student Teaching Association (GSTA), the student arm of the Society for the Teaching of Psychology (STP). Thus, the authors' reach extends beyond the more than 500 psychology doctoral students at CUNY to the thousands of others who have benefited from their work on a national level.

Not content with the legacy they have already created, Drs. Grose‐Fifer, Brooks, and O'Connor saw a need for a book like this one—an evidence‐based, student‐centered guide to teaching that can be used as a resource, but also in courses such as their Seminar and Practicum on the Teaching of Psychology. The book has assessment at its core (with, yes, integrated discussions of learning goals and a whole chapter on backward design)—a necessity in an era of accountability at the individual, institutional, and societal levels. It is a game changer.

Student‐centered and active‐learning focused. First, the book is student‐centered, both in terms of its engagement with its audience of emerging instructors and in terms of its guidance as to how to teach most effectively. The student‐centered approach veers far from “sage on the stage” lecture‐style courses, instead prioritizing active learning. The authors do not use “active learning” as a mere catchphrase. Rather, they explore exactly what types of active learning actually work, outlining the research on why and giving concrete guidance for all of us who are instructors.

This student‐centered, active‐learning approach mirrors the ways in which the authors developed their program to train new instructors at CUNY—an approach clear to all who have participated in Pedagogy Day or other GSTA events. As an example, several colleagues and I were invited to run a highly interactive workshop at the 2016 Pedagogy Day. The expectations of the student organizers and their faculty advisors were clear—minimal lecture, maximum interaction! The lively response from the graduate student/new instructor audience made it evident that CUNY has indoctrinated its graduate students to expect this type of learning and, in turn, to create such learning experiences for their own students.

Each time I have returned to CUNY, it has been a privilege to engage with the authors and to witness their continual efforts to develop not just skilled future researchers, but also excellent—and prepared—future instructors. I admit that it is also a lot of fun to interact with the many veteran and novice teachers who are excited to be working together in their quest to help their students learn in effective and interactive ways, driven by the scholarship of teaching and learning.

Emphasis on diverse learners and content. Second, the book explicitly engages with the remarkable diversity of the current U.S. undergraduate population. The authors discuss inclusion in the classroom of students from different racial and ethnic groups, from both sexual majority and sexual minority groups, and with disabilities and mental illnesses. They also exhort new and experienced instructors alike to consider other, sometimes more hidden types of diversity in the classroom, including students who are first‐generation, who are employed while in school, or who are suffering from housing insecurity. They also explicitly encourage all of us to include cross‐cultural and international content examples and research approaches in the classroom. And they champion Universal Design, which helps all students, but especially those who do not disclose disabilities.

The cross‐cultural and diversity‐oriented approach in their textbook reflects these authors' real‐life ethoses. Dr. O'Connor, for example, is current the Chair of the American Psychological Association's Task Force on Human Rights. Dr. Grose‐Fifer is currently participating in a seminar series at John Jay College, CUNY, designed to help promote its identity as a Hispanic Serving Institution. The participants in this seminar engage in readings and discussion with outside experts, with the goal of revising John Jay courses to better serve their students. And, in an example that I personally witnessed, Dr. Brooks, along with her graduate students, recently invited a six‐person panel to speak to her Teaching of Psychology seminar about International Psychology. The group reflected diversity with respect to age, stage of career, gender, country of origin, and native language. Moreover, it included those working in a wide range of psychology careers, from a clinician whose work focuses on trauma victims in countries with recent pasts of ethnic conflict to instructors teaching statistics and research methods courses at both undergraduate and graduate levels.

The not‐so‐fluffy‐after‐all parts of teaching. Third, I am thrilled that this author team embraces the sometimes dismissed, but immensely important aspects of teaching that fall beyond the “nuts and bolts.” These include a focus on ethics and instruction on how to incorporate both psychosocial interventions and techniques aimed at developing students' metacognition. The former involves an exhortation for us all to become ethical instructors, in large part by basing our practices on evidence; the latter includes a primer on research into the positive effects of a growth mindset on learning and test‐taking. For too long, our field has neglected both an explicit discussion of ethical teaching and an acknowledgment that we may need to bring psychosocial interventions into our classrooms.

Drs. Grose‐Fifer, Brooks, and O'Connor make it clear that they value science, and that science includes discussions both of our own ethics and of our students' psychological strengths and limitations with respect to their education. The authors' warmth as instructors, coupled with their firm grounding as scientists, makes them the ideal proselytizers for an ethical, psychosocial, truly student‐centered approach to teaching and learning. So, the reader is fully on board when they state, bluntly (and accurately), that “it is no longer ethically acceptable to simply lecture to students,” and that “ethical teachers nurture the whole student” by helping them find outside support when necessary. This is wise and welcome advice.

Skills for real life. Fourth, Drs. Grose‐Fifer, Brooks, and O'Connor return again and again both to the real‐life skills that we need as instructors and the ones that we want to instill in our students. Arguably, the most important life skill is critical thinking, which, in a psychology classroom, encompasses both thinking like a psychological scientist and learning to accurately parse the firehose of information we encounter in our daily lives. Yes, the latter includes sussing out “fake news,” which has infiltrated many branches of psychological science almost as thoroughly as it has infected the political arena. Not convinced? For just some of the most clear‐cut psychology fake news, think crystals for depression, gay conversion therapy, right‐brained versus left‐brained skills, and learning styles, the last of which the authors—thankfully—directly address.

So, understandably, critical thinking is a central theme of this book. And I particularly love that they refer to one of my all‐time favorite teaching tools, the aptly named CRAAP test, which guides students through the consideration of a source's Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, and Purpose/Point of View!

Beyond critical thinking, this author team addresses a range of important skills. They outline research on the use (and abuse) of PowerPoint, and how to best incorporate multimedia presentations and student‐response systems. They summarize research on how to successfully engage students in collaborative work, how to teach students to write and give oral presentations, and to write excellent quizzes and tests, and on how to instruct students in methods of study. The research they present on these areas—and many others—is thorough and current.

But they also offer instructors tangible guidelines to, well, get things done, based both on their own expertise and on a range of superb resources that have been developed by other experts. Need to pick a textbook, and no idea how to start? The authors outline the process for you. Stumped as to what to put on your syllabus? They offer suggestions and a call‐out to the excellent STP resource, Project Syllabus. No idea how to begin your first class? They provide suggestions for time‐tested icebreakers. Want to develop rubrics? They offer tips, and links to helpful online resources. Need ideas for formative assessments? They have a handy box for that. And if you want to parlay your graduate teaching experiences into a career, they've got you there, too, with guidance on creating a teaching portfolio and writing a teaching philosophy.

Accessible, engaging, and truly useful. Beyond their expansive coverage of research, combined with practical advice for just about every aspect of teaching in higher education, Drs. Grose‐Fifer, Brooks, and O'Connor have written a genuinely accessible book. It's a rare skill to be able to be true to the research without being pedantic, and to write an approachable textbook that does not dilute the science. These authors have succeeded.

I anticipate that this book will be used by instructors who are lucky enough to teach the type of Teaching of Psychology course that these authors have developed at CUNY, by psychology departments seeking to help their graduate students develop as instructors in one‐on‐one advising contexts, and by instructors—both novice and seasoned—who will treat it as a valued resource, dipping into it semester after semester as they make incremental changes in their teaching practices.

I know that I will.

Susan A. Nolan, Ph.D.

Professor of Psychology, Seton Hall University

About the Companion Website

This book is accompanied by a companion website:

www.wiley.com/go/Grose‐Fifer/teaching‐psychology 

The website includes:

Pedagogy Course Instructor Resources

General Teaching Resources

The Pedagogy Course Instructor Resources are for instructors who are using the textbook to teach a Teaching of Psychology course. We provide a syllabus that we have successfully used with our own students, lesson plans for each class in the syllabus, and grading rubrics for the assignments in each class. The lesson plans include learning objectives and descriptions of classroom activities that we have found to be successful with our doctoral students who are preparing to teach a class, or who are making their existing classes more student‐centered. One of our most successful class activities occurs on a regular basis: students (usually working in pairs) create and teach a mini‐lesson to their peers, who play the role of undergraduates. To help students understand the expectations of student‐centered teaching, we as instructors model these mini‐lessons and show how they fit into a lesson plan for an entire class period. We have provided some examples of these in the Pedagogy Course Instructor Resources, and have duplicated them in the General Teaching Resources.

The General Teaching Resources are useful for students in a Teaching of Psychology class as they plan and teach their own classes. However, we anticipate that these materials will also be useful for other new instructors who are starting their teaching careers, as well as for other, more seasoned faculty who want to make their classes more student‐centered. The General Teaching Resources include examples of various interactive mini‐lessons, associated lesson plans, templates for games such as Jeopardy, and suggestions for rubrics for various types of assignment.

Introduction

We represent three very different subfields in psychology—Jill Grose‐Fifer is a cognitive neuroscientist, Patricia Brooks is a developmental psychologist, and Maureen O'Connor studies the intersection between psychology and the law—but we have a shared passion: teaching! We came up with the idea for this book when all three of us taught at various colleges of the City University of New York (CUNY), arguably one of the most diverse universities in the world. The seeds were sown about 10 years ago, when Maureen O'Connor, as Executive Officer of the Ph.D. program in Psychology at the Graduate Center, was overseeing the training of doctoral students in psychology at CUNY. It became very clear to her that although the majority of the doctoral students had fellowships that required them to teach, most had no training or experience in pedagogy, and they were feeling overwhelmed and unprepared. Together with a group of enthusiastic doctoral students, we formed a Teaching of Psychology Task Force and put together a training program for emerging teachers. This included an annual Pedagogy Day conference and the creation of a graduate Seminar and Practicum on the Teaching of Psychology, which we began running at CUNY in 2012. Over the years, we mostly co'taught (in various combinations) the Teaching of Psychology course, but we consistently struggled to find a manageable set of weekly readings. We wanted to adequately expose our students to the depth and breadth of pedagogical research that would help them hone their developing teaching practices, but it was difficult to achieve this using a small number of primary sources. This book emerged as a result of our trying to summarize the large body of literature on effective pedagogical practices so that students could develop an evidence‐based teaching philosophy. We have tried, in particular, to draw on evidence from basic scientific inquiry into learning, memory, and development, in addition to well‐designed studies within classrooms. As such, we think that this book is scholarly, but also offers practical advice for the application of evidence from the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) in designing or adapting courses, and maximizing student learning and personal growth.

To orient you to the approach we have taken in writing this book, we want to explain a little more about our teaching philosophies. As undergraduates, all three of us sat through lectures where the professor was the only one talking in the room. This teacher‐centered method of instruction is still relatively popular in colleges today. Indeed, many of our doctoral students were taught in this way, but it contrasts strongly with the highly interactive student‐centered approach that we have adopted in this book and in our classes. Like many others in our generation, we were not trained as teachers, but we have improved our teaching by learning from others, and by taking risks and experimenting in our classes. Importantly, we use an evidence‐based approach to inform our “experiments.” Research has conclusively demonstrated that learning occurs best when students are active participants in the process, rather than just sitting passively in the classroom listening (or mind‐wandering) while the instructor talks. Therefore, the focus of our book is on assisting instructors in adopting a student‐centered pedagogy. Since psychology is our area of expertise, we have titled this book Teaching Psychology, and have provided many suggestions about how to apply best practices for teaching in psychology classes. However, nothing we say about teaching per se applies only to psychology classes. Therefore, we hope that this book will be helpful to instructors in other disciplines too. Similarly, we have couched much of this material in terms of teaching undergraduates, but the general ideas are also applicable when teaching graduate‐level classes. Masters and doctoral students also benefit from active learning, and scaffolded support helps to improve their scientific literacy, critical thinking, communication, and collaboration skills.

In Chapter 1, which serves as an extended introduction to the book, we outline the rationale and evidence for using a student‐centered approach. Given the emphasis on students (rather than instructors), we also provide demographic information that highlights the diversity of today's undergraduate population and make concrete suggestions about how best to support them in ways that are culturally sensitive. This theme of supporting diverse learners permeates the other chapters of the book too, beginning in Chapter 2, where we introduce the concept of Universal Design for Learning, a framework that acknowledges that building the accommodations that many students need into the curriculum not only supports at‐risk students, but benefits all other students, too.

We know from our Teaching of Psychology course that instructors may initially be resistant to adopting a student‐centered approach, especially if they have not had personal experience with it. To some, it seems to be a time‐consuming and inefficient way of transmitting information—a typical goal of teacher‐centered pedagogy. In general, after reading the relevant literature in our Teaching of Psychology class, even reluctant students have gradually become convinced not only that is lecturing a relatively ineffective way of promoting learning, but that teachers of psychology should embrace the tenets of a liberal arts education, a framework that is commensurate with the five broad goals that the American Psychological Association (APA, 2013) endorses for the psychology undergraduate major. APA advocates that, in addition to acquiring a knowledge base in psychology, students are expected to be able to think critically and reason scientifically, communicate well, demonstrate ethical and socially responsible behavior, work effectively with others, and be cognizant of the careers and educational opportunities that they will be qualified for based on the knowledge and skills acquired over the span of their undergraduate studies.

To help achieve these goals, we have devoted chapters to teaching critical thinking, including scientific literacy (Chapter 4), writing (Chapter 6), and learning to collaborate with others (Chapter 5). Critically, throughout the book, we focus on approaches that are likely to help students develop holistically as people. We endorse teaching methods that allow undergraduates to better understand themselves as learners and how they relate to others, as well as those that help them to develop an awareness of the utility of their knowledge and skills in their post‐graduation careers, either in the workforce or in graduate school.

Given our evidence‐based approach, it is fitting that our book has a heavy emphasis on the importance of assessment. This is also in keeping with the increasing focus on accountability in higher education. In Chapter 2, we describe how to use backward design (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005) for course planning. This begins with envisioning the skills and knowledge (learning objectives) one wants one's students to have gained by the end of the course, then selecting various assessments to evaluate whether one's learning objectives have been met, and finally, planning the curriculum to provide opportunities for students to develop the requisite knowledge and skills. Although many colleges require that syllabi include learning objectives, they can sometimes be added as an afterthought, rather than being the driving force behind course design. Backward design ensures a more intentional approach to instruction and increases the likelihood that a learning objective is both addressed in the curriculum and assessed in appropriate ways. We provide various models to help instructors design learning objectives that emphasize higher‐order thinking. Once these and their assessments are formulated, SoTL‐established methods can then be used to help students reach these goals. We describe such methods throughout the book. In addition to the chapters already mentioned, Chapter 3 describes how technology can support student learning (this theme is continued in Chapter 8, where we discuss how to move elements of a face‐to‐face class online in order to promote learning), while Chapter 7 describes how students learn through the use of testing and by developing a metacognitive awareness of their knowledge and skills, and how to improve them. Chapter 7 also provides evidence for psychosocial interventions that can promote student motivation, a key component of effective learning. In Chapter 2, we introduce the importance of ongoing or formative assessment; this is then touched upon in each subsequent chapter. As teacher‐scholars, when we adopt evidence‐based best practices (such as those described in the various chapters) in our classes, we have to assess how effective they are for our particular students. Frequent formative assessment allows adjustments to be made on the fly and helps us continually learn how to become better teachers.

Although this book does not focus on teaching online, we are mindful that hybrid and fully online courses are increasingly common in higher education. Teaching an online course for the first time is not trivial; fortunately, there are now many excellent resources available to support instructors using this format. Teaching online requires a lot of technological know‐how and upfront course preparation, and Chapter 8 provides strong stepping‐stones toward making this transition. Finally, in Chapter 9, we discuss ethics in teaching, with the overarching idea that it is our ethical responsibility to teach our students using empirically established methods. We also describe professional development activities, including writing a statement of teaching philosophy, creating a teaching portfolio, and other ways of becoming a life‐long learner as a teacher of psychology.

We test‐drove various chapters of this book as it was being written, and found that its evidence‐based approach helped our doctoral students to embrace a student‐centered teaching philosophy. Moreover, we took note of our students' questions in our Teaching of Psychology classes and tried to address them in the text. Our hope is that this book will provide guidance to new teachers of psychology, as well as some inspiration to more seasoned teachers wanting to read about current SoTL research. Learning to teach is a process that evolves with experience, and we urge you to use this book as a resource to gradually expand your teaching practice. We welcome your feedback and suggestions. Finally, we wish to thank our colleagues, Kevin Nadal and Kim Case, for providing helpful comments on introductory portions of this book, and Susan A. Nolan, for her enthusiastic encouragement in the foreword—as well as all of our students, past, present, and future, for teaching us so much.

1Why a Student‐Centered Approach to Teaching?

1.1 A Paradigm Shift?

In this book, we strongly advocate that instructors approach teaching as they would any other discipline in psychology, by using an evidence‐based approach. The scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) literature is rich with theory‐driven empirical studies that determine best practices for maximizing learning and fostering both social and intellectual development in students. These studies conclusively demonstrate that a student‐centered approach, as opposed to a teacher‐centered approach such as lecturing, is by far the most effective pedagogical strategy (Freeman et al., 2014; Johnson, Johnson, & Stanne, 2000). Student‐centered classes draw on research from cognitive, social, and developmental psychology, and emphasize active learning and collaboration over passive listening. Rather than being the source of all knowledge, student‐centered teachers play a critical role as facilitators by providing structure, guidance, feedback, and support for students as they take on various tasks (Alfieri, Brooks, Aldrich, & Tenenbaum, 2011; Barr & Tagg, 1995). Such support has been associated with student gains in perceptions of their own personal social development (Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2005) and academic skills (Alfieri et al., 2011). Thus, approaching teaching from a student‐centered perspective is consistent with the mission of a liberal arts education, in that it contributes to the development of the “whole person.”

We realize that this focus on active learning may require a considerable paradigm shift for new instructors, who are likely to have been educated by teachers who predominantly used lecture‐based teaching in their undergraduate classes. Indeed, when we have asked graduate students in our Teaching of Psychology class to list the qualities of their “best teacher,” they have tended to describe those of an excellent public speaker (e.g., knowledgeable, dynamic, entertaining, enthusiastic, funny), as well as caring and supportive attributes (e.g., understanding, caring, warm‐hearted, empathetic); for similar results with undergraduates, see Keeley, Furr, and Buskist (2009). Relatedly, when asked to describe the tasks they view as most important when preparing to teach, our graduate students tend to focus on having sufficient content knowledge (e.g., preparing slides and rehearsing lectures, selecting and reviewing textbooks and other readings, making sure that one knows the material), rather than on constructing learning objectives (LOs), designing interactive activities and demonstrations, and planning how to best assess whether the LOs have been successfully met. Taken together, these data suggest that although novice instructors acknowledge the importance of establishing rapport with their students, they often equate teaching effectiveness with the transmission of as much content knowledge as possible to a class, in an enthusiastic manner.

Teacher‐centered instruction not only puts a great deal of pressure on new instructors, who may be worried about their skills as dynamic public speakers or their ability to manage potential “incivilities” in the classroom, but has also been shown to be considerably less effective as compared to a student‐centered approach. A meta‐analysis of over 200 studies in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) classes showed that the grades of students taught using active learning methods were on average half a letter grade higher than among those in lecture classes, with over 50% fewer failing grades (Freeman et al., 2014). Other studies indicate that active learning is associated with lower rates of attrition among college students (Braxton, Milem, & Sullivan, 2000). The overwhelming evidence favoring active learning methods has led Nobel Laureate Carl Wieman to liken lecturing to the archaic practice of “blood‐letting in medicine”: blood‐letting was endorsed as a therapeutic practice for hundreds of years because patients sometimes got better after its application, likely as a result of other factors (Wieman, 2014). Similarly, students who are taught predominantly in lecture classes do learn, but this is most likely attributable to their activities outside of class, such as reading and reviewing the materials (Wieman, 2014).

Current trends in higher education emphasize learning skills over memorizing content, which can quickly become outdated in our rapidly changing world. In 2005, the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) launched the Liberal Education and America's Promise (LEAP) initiative, which recognized that college graduates need strong intellectual and practical skills in order to enter into and survive in the workforce (http://www.aacu.org/leap). Like the American Psychological Association (APA) Guidelines for the Undergraduate Psychology Major (American Psychological Association, 2013), the AAC&U advocates that undergraduate education should produce improvements in many areas, including critical thinking (CT) and the solving of authentic problems related to real‐life situations, oral and written communication, information and technological literacy, scientific inquiry and analysis, and collaborative teamwork. Developing metacognitive skills about what and how best to learn has also been linked to better academic performance in terms of higher test scores and GPA (Coutinho, 2008; Everson & Tobias, 1998; Nietfeld, Cao, & Osborne, 2005; Young & Fry, 2012). Both LEAP and the APA provide well‐rounded visions of what constitutes a good education, by requiring that students are engaged as agents in the learning process, with instructors serving as their guides. The Society for the Teaching of Psychology's (STP's) educational taskforce has also suggested that model instructors use methods that actively engage students in the learning process (Richmond et al., 2014).

We argue that using a student‐centered perspective puts less pressure on novice instructors, by recognizing that an effective teacher does not need to be extraverted or a stand‐up comedian. As Bain (2011) reported in his national study of what the best college teachers do, master teachers challenge their students and help them learn how to think, rather than what to think. This means that anyone can become a better teacher. Instructors can learn the best ways to facilitate the development of broad‐based skills (e.g., CT, information and media literacy, communication, scientific inquiry and analysis, collaboration) in their students. Therefore, with training and experience, instructors should be able to engage students in purposeful problem solving, analysis, and discussion of complex issues, while building respectful communities that value diverse viewpoints.

1.2 Setting the Stage for Transformative Learning

Bain (2011) found that the best college teachers across the United States all helped their students to engage in deep learning by encouraging them to think for themselves. In many cases, transformative learning occurred when instructors gave their students the confidence to take risks and learn from their mistakes. Students were able to alter their long‐standing beliefs through knowledge constructed from their own explorations. Although they found classes in which they had to think for themselves challenging, they were motivated to learn because they were able to focus on topics that they found interesting. Echoing the tenets of critical (Freire, 1996), feminist (Brunner, 1992; Robinson‐Keilig, Hamill, Gwin‐Vinsant, & Dashner, 2014; Scanlon, 1993), and intersectional (Case, 2017) pedagogy, Stetsenko and colleagues have advocated for a transformative activist approach to learning that increases the agency of underserved students and leads the way to social change (Stetsenko, 2017). Within this framework, students identify personal issues that impact their lives and learning, and work collaboratively to research potential solutions to problems of inequality, with the goal of promoting both personal and community agency as they make commitments to social justice (Podlucká, 2017; Vianna, Hougaard, & Stetsenko, 2014; Vianna & Stetsenko, 2017).

1.3 Knowing Your Students

Establishing strong rapport in the classroom is of paramount importance if student‐centered teaching is to be successful. Positive faculty–student interactions increase feelings of social integration and institutional commitment, which in turn increase student retention (Braxton & McClendon, 2001). For some of you, your own experiences as undergraduates may be quite different from those of your students. Given the diversity of backgrounds of today's student body, regular self‐reflection about your world views, implicit biases, and privileges (Case, 2017; Stuart, 2004; Sue & Sue, 2016), as well as taking the time to get to know your students, their particular strengths, and the challenges that they face, will help you to understand how best to support their learning. We begin with a brief review of the general characteristics of today's undergraduates, including some of the challenges they face, and offer concrete suggestions for how to support them in their learning, by building rapport, fostering inclusivity, and teaching in a culturally responsive, student‐centered way.

1.3.1 Connecting Identity with Motivation for Learning

In 2014, just under 64% of the 17.3 million undergraduates in the United States (including 88% of undergraduates at 4‐year institutions) fell in the “traditional” 18–24‐year‐old age range (National Center for Education Statistics, 2016a), underscoring the fact that very many other students return to school after years in the workforce, in the military, or at home raising children. Today's students are acutely aware that having a college education significantly increases their likelihood of finding a good job and that most well‐paying jobs require a college degree (Chen, 2017; White House Council of Economic Advisors, 2014). Indeed, it has been estimated that attaining a degree from a 4‐year institution after graduating high school almost doubles a person's life‐time earnings (Carnevale, Smith, & Strohl, 2010). Thus, the majority of today's undergraduates may be pursuing higher education in order to gain or improve their employment credentials, not because they have an intrinsic interest in the sciences and liberal arts. Furthermore, only 20–24% of psychology majors actually enroll in graduate education (American Psychological Association, Center for Workforce Studies, 2014). Therefore, students are more likely to be motivated when their course LOs highlight the development of critical skills or knowledge that will be helpful in the workplace, as well as in graduate school.

1.3.2 Teaching Digital Natives

Today's younger students are members of the Net Generation or Digital Natives (Prensky, 2001), in that they have grown up in a world in which Internet access and personal computers are widely available. Indeed, students born after the mid‐1990s have never known a time when the Internet was not available. However, students from low‐income families are more likely to come from homes without broadband Internet and computer access (Anderson, 2017), while older college students sometimes experience difficulties using technology (Tyler‐Smith, 2006). Moreover, even tech‐savvy digital natives are not yet necessarily capable of evaluating the quality of the information that they have at their fingertips (Gross & Latham, 2013; Gross, Latham, & Armstrong, 2012; Head & Eisenberg, 2009; National Survey of Student Engagement, 2015; Wineburg, McGrew, Breakstone, & Ortega, 2016). In a comprehensive study of over 7800 students from a diverse range of middle schools, high schools, and universities, participants consistently exhibited difficulty identifying website sponsors, evaluating evidence and claims, and assessing the authority and motivation behind information posted on the Internet (Wineburg et al., 2016). Therefore, in this book, we suggest various assignments and strategies for helping students to assess the reliability of information that they find online (e.g., see Chapters 3 and 4 for discussion of the use of the CRAAP test and other ways to encourage information literacy and CT).

Despite the widespread use of digital devices in their daily lives, most college students today (regardless of age) lack experience in using instructional technology, such as the course management systems (CMSs) that are essential for online instruction. Furthermore, they may find it tedious and unrewarding to use these systems to learn on their own at home, despite the promise digital technologies hold for delivering content 24/7 at the convenience and pace of the individual student (Powers, Brooks, McCloskey, Sekerina, & Cohen, 2013). This book emphasizes how multimedia instruction can both enhance learning (see Chapter 3) and help students to develop the confidence they need to work with new technologies in the workplace. However, students are best served when they receive scaffolded support while learning how to navigate online learning platforms (e.g., WileyPLUS, MyLab), CMSs (e.g., Canvas, Blackboard), and other new technologies (Powers, Brooks, Galazyn, & Donnelly, 2016).

1.3.3 Our Diverse Student Body

Although many people imagine typical college students as 18–22‐year‐olds attending a residential 4‐year college, the reality is very different. More than 74% of today's undergraduates can be classified as non‐traditional; that is, they meet one or more of the following criteria: older than 24 years (adult learner), no high school diploma, financially independent, has dependents, has one or more jobs, attends college part‐time, does not live in college residences (Radford, Cominole, & Skomsvold, 2015). In 2014, undergraduates in the United States were characterized as follows: 61% attended 4‐year institutions, with the remainder attending 2‐year community colleges or technical schools; about 69% attended public colleges or universities, rather than private institutions; and 33% attended 4‐year colleges on a part‐time basis (National Center for Education Statistics, 2016a). Furthermore, in 2015, 43% of full‐time students and 80% of part‐time students also had a job (McFarland et al., 2017), and about half of all undergraduates offset the cost of college by living with their immediate family or with more distant relatives (Sallie Mae, 2014). Clearly, “non‐traditional” students are now the norm.

In having to juggle a work/school balance, many of today's busy students experience the hassles of commuting and of having to keep up with family responsibilities. For these students, time is particularly precious. Because of the many competing demands they face, adult learners are more likely than their younger counterparts to attend college part‐time (National Center for Education Statistics, 2018), and more likely to drop out (Kazis et al., 2007). Commuter students in general are less likely to view attending school social events as an important part of their college life, as compared to those who live on campus (Deil‐Amen, 2011). This is particularly worrisome, as student retention is predicted in part by student engagement and by how connected students feel to their schools (Roberts & Styron, 2010). However, student‐centered instruction can help to support retention, as it increases faculty–student interaction (Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2005) and provides greater opportunities for students to connect with their peers (see Chapter 5). Both of these factors are likely to lead to increased social integration and, by association, greater feeling of institutional commitment.

The 2010 U.S. Census revealed that 18–34‐year‐olds in the general population were more diverse than ever before, with about 57% identifying as non‐Hispanic White, about 24% speaking a language other than English at home, and 15% being born in a country other than the United States (U.S. Census, 2014). The increased diversity seen in the general population of this generation is also reflected in the current student body (White House Council of Economic Advisors, 2014), especially in broad‐access public universities and community colleges, which tend to have wider ranges of students in terms of age, gender, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (SES) as compared to private institutions (Deil‐Amen, 2011). Recent estimates also suggest that 2% of undergraduates are undocumented immigrants (Suárez‐Orozco, Katsiaficas, et al., 2015), and so face additional challenges. In addition, over one million international students enroll in U.S. colleges and universities each year, with the majority coming from China or India (Institute of International Education, 2017).

Latino/as comprise the largest growing minority group in the United States. Therefore, perhaps not surprisingly, enrollments for Latinx college students have increased significantly in recent years (Krogstad, 2016), especially at community colleges and broad‐access public universities (Deil‐Amen, 2011). However, graduation rates for Latinx students are disproportionately low compared to other groups (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2011). About 50% of such students are the first in their families to attend college, and they frequently report that they lack access to much‐needed information about financial aid or what to expect in college (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2011; see also Section 1.4 on Supporting First‐Generation College Students).

Diversity among today's students extends beyond race, ethnicity, and age. Between 2003 and 2007, about 11% of undergraduates reported that they had a disability (Sparks & Malkus, 2013). With changes in legislation, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Amendments Act of 2008 and the 2008 Higher Education Opportunity Act, this number will likely increase in the future, especially at public institutions, where students with disabilities are more likely to enroll (Raue & Lewis, 2011). Although the most commonly registered disability among undergraduates is a specific learning disability (such as dyslexia) or a visual or hearing impairment, increasing numbers of students register with other so‐called “invisible” disabilities, such as autism spectrum disorder, attention‐deficit hyperactivity disorder, or an anxiety disorder (Raue & Lewis, 2011). Many of these students require accommodations in order to learn effectively; however, they encounter very different support systems in college than they did in high school. In high schools, it is the legal responsibility of the school to identify students who need support and to determine how best to provide it. That is, K–12 students with disabilities receive an Individualized Education Program (IEP), as mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). However, in accordance with the ADA, once a student enters college, services can only be provided if they have registered their disability status on campus (usually at a Center for Student Accessibility). Students often choose not to register, perhaps due to the stigma associated with their disability or to a lack of skills in self‐advocacy (Eckes & Ochoa, 2005; Lynch & Gussel, 1996). In general, instructors should be mindful that many students who are entitled to accommodations under the law may not be receiving them; instructors who are reassuring and sensitive when students disclose information about their disability status are more likely to encourage them to register so that they can receive the support they need.

Keeping an open mind helps us to recognize the potential difficulties students may face as they navigate the college environment. Students who are members of minoritized groups often experience significant discrimination and/or harassment from their peers—and the broader college community—on the basis of their race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, SES, or physical or mental health (Hurtado & Ruiz, 2012; Rankin & Reason, 2005). Although campus climate has most commonly been investigated in terms of race, a growing number of studies have looked at other aspects of diversity, including sexual orientation and gender identity. In 2016, a Gallup Poll reported that the proportion of people in the U.S. population identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) was at an all time high (4.1%), with higher rates of disclosure among Millennials compared to any earlier generation (Gates, 2017). In a survey of over 33 000 college students in the same year, even higher proportions (9.9%) self‐identified as non‐heterosexual, with the majority identifying as bisexual or asexual1 (American College Health Association, 2016). There is an increasing awareness of the rights of LGBT and queer (Q) people at U.S. colleges and universities (Beemyn & Rankin, 2011). Many more students are disclosing their sexual identities in high school, and a growing number of campuses have LGBTQ centers and mission statements that affirm policies of tolerance and appreciation of diversity. A 2010 Campus Pride survey of more than 5000 LGBT students and faculty in different institutions reported that 50–76% of LGBT individuals indicated that they felt comfortable on campus; however, LGBT students were still twice as likely to experience harassment on campus as were heterosexual cisgendered students (Rankin, Weber, Blumenfeld, & Frazer, 2010). Transgender and gender‐nonconforming students experience particularly high rates of discrimination, in addition to often being denied access to appropriate housing and bathroom/locker room facilities on campus (Grant et al., 2011). Thus, despite some improvements, the campus climate at many colleges (or in many college classrooms) may still not be one of inclusivity toward sexual minorities.

Although overt racism and other forms of discrimination have generally reduced over the years, members of minoritized groups are often the recipients of other more subtle forms of discrimination, commonly known as “microaggressions” (Nadal, Wong, Griffin, Davidoff, & Sriken, 2014; Sue, Lin, Torino, Capodilupo, & Rivera, 2009). Microaggressions include stereotyping, making derogatory remarks related to another's minoritized status, making racial jokes, and invalidating another's lived experience (e.g., by using verbal or non‐verbal behaviors to suggest they are overly sensitive to their minoritized status and are misinterpreting the behavior of others) (Sue, 2010; Sue et al., 2007). Students belonging to various underrepresented groups have been shown to experience high levels of microaggressions in U.S. colleges (McCabe, 2009; Nadal et al., 2014; Suárez‐Orozco, Casanova, et al., 2015; Sue et al., 2009). As Nadal et al. (2014) point out, experiencing microaggressions is stressful, and this can negatively impact a student's self‐esteem and mental health.

The student body is different at every institution. Some demographic information can be found on an institution's website, and institutional centers for research, planning, and assessment are typically happy to share the data they collect about the student body with college instructors. Some of their statistics may be very surprising. For example, Broton and Goldrick‐Rab (2016) reported that an increasing number of students experience housing and food insecurity, meaning that they are at risk of losing their home or do not have enough money to buy adequate amounts of healthy food on a regular basis. Our institution, the City University of New York (CUNY), reported that during 2011, 1% of its undergraduates lived in a shelter, 42% had an insecure housing situation, and 39% had food security issues (Freudenberg et al., 2013). Having an awareness of this kind of information may affect your decisions about accepting late work, allowing make‐up tests, or making sure that students who are waiting for financial aid are not penalized or handicapped if they cannot yet purchase textbooks or other materials for the class.

In sum, many of today's students face multiple challenges in their lives. According to the American College Health Association (ACHA), increasing numbers of students feel stressed and suffer from stress‐related mental health issues. Indeed, stress is the leading impediment to academic performance (http://www.acha‐ncha.org/data/IMPEDIMENTSF06.html). Therefore, trying to help students manage the stress in their lives may be an important goal in many psychology classes. In terms of course planning, it is also helpful to know the range of SAT scores at your institution, the percentage of first‐generation students (i.e., students whose parents did not attend college), and how many hours a week the typical student is likely to work. Such information will help you to design instruction that better meets your students' needs. However, we also want to emphasize that even with prior awareness of the characteristics of the students at your institution, every student—and therefore every class—is unique. Discovering information about the individual students in your classes is the only way to really get to know them.

1.4 Supporting First‐Generation College Students

The diversity of college students today brings both rewards and challenges. Having a college population that reflects the diversity within the United States bodes well for social mobility and for increased equity for minoritized groups. It enriches our classrooms by providing students with exposure to a greater range of experiences and perspectives. However, it also brings about variability in the barriers to success that students encounter during their college years. About 29% of all college students are first‐generation students, and so do not have a person at home they can ask about navigating the college environment. This may explain why first‐generation college students are less likely to seek help (Deil‐Amen, 2011; Stephens, Fryberg, Markus, Johnson, & Covarrubias, 2012), or to engage in activities that increase the likelihood of academic success, such as interacting with faculty, studying with peers, and making use of support services (Engle & Tinto, 2008), as compared to their continuing‐generation peers. Barriers to first‐generation student success are particularly prevalent in institutions where large lecture‐based classes are the norm and instructors take the role of the “sage on the stage” (Kim, 2009), which again underscores the deficiency of this model of teaching. Low‐income and working class first‐generation college students in particular face many more challenges that their continuing‐generation peers; not only are they more likely to have attended lower‐quality schools, but they often struggle financially and have to work to support themselves (and sometimes their families) during college (Covarrubias & Fryberg, 2015). Not surprisingly, first‐generation students have lower retention rates than their continuing‐generation peers, and they may find it particularly difficult to thrive in college environments that value independence (Stephens et al., 2012), or fail to acknowledge that many students need help adjusting to college life. Student‐centered classrooms may help counteract some of these problems by providing more opportunities for dialogic interactions with both instructors and peers, encouraging collaboration, and placing increased emphasis on scaffolding the development of academic skills.

First‐generation college students are also at risk of experiencing the “imposter syndrome,” where they feel they do not belong in higher education (Jehangir, 2010; Rendon, 1992; Stebleton & Soria, 2013