I

Designing a Conceptual and Historical Issues in Psychology module through Active LearningGareth Hall, Antonia Ivaldi & David Tod

In our experience, most colleagues understand the pedagogical value in teaching Conceptual and Historical Issues in Psychology (CHIP). However, few wish to be involved in teaching it, even in their sub-disciplines, because it is perceived as dry and dull, as well as void from everyday life. We present how we reinvigorated CHIP and its content within a new Psychology degree programme. We begin by outlining our experiences with CHIP and then describe several steps we took to redesign the module. Specifically, we outline how we utilised pedagogical literature that emphasises student-focussed Active Learning, and specifically Co-operative Learning, to inform our module redesign and delivery of content. We then outline how we engaged in a more considered approach to embedding employability strategies into our content, and then describe how we implement these approaches into a student-led module. Finally we summarise student feedback about the module and offer suggestions for embedding Active Learning into modules.

‘to my boss who approached me one day and asked how I felt about the teaching the history of psychology’

(dedication in Schultz & Schultz, 2011, p.2)

N OUR EXPERIENCES, the History of Psychology module was often one passed

to colleagues who happen to be early in their career or agreeable to requests

to teach it, and the opening quote reflects a similar way in which we

acquired our History of Psychology module into our teaching remit.

Furthermore, in our shared 20 years’ teach- ing experience, the History of

Psychology, or now more commonly referred to in the UK as Conceptual

and Historical Issues in Psychology(CHIP), had always

been perceived as unscientific and, therefore, its place in an undergraduate curriculum was met with scepticism. On the one hand, we

and our colleagues recognised the pedagog- ical value of having elements

of psychology’s conceptual and historical issues in our psychology programme, but we were not sure

really what these valuable aspects were, other than having some appreciation of

its past. On the other hand, no-one wanted to teach it as it was perceived to be dry and dull, and devoid of relevance to our everyday life. In our opinion, it is perhaps the uncomfort- able and ‘fuzzy’

dichotomy between psycho-

logy having scientific credibility and the need to recognise the historical context in which psychology evolved based on a pseudo-appreciation of psychology’s past that has stifled a stronger presence of the field within a British Psychological Society (BPS) accredited degree programme.

Our observations are somewhat supported by several authors (Barnes & Geer, 2013; Bhatt & Tonks, 2002; Fuchs & Viney, 2002; Furumoto, 2003) who between them noted that there is a reduced visibility of History of Psychology content and modules as

part of a psychology degree programme in the US and Canada, but also that the topic is taught by non-specialist History of Psychology teachers in academic departments or psychologists who have not had any prior exposure to its content (i.e. not replacing specialist teachers after retiring). Within the UK, the BPS took a significant step in 2004 by assigning (peda- gogical) importance of CHIP material by requiring it to be taught within accredited undergraduate degrees in Psychology. Recent personal communications with a

former BPS committee member (P. Banister, 6 July 2014) revealed that CHIP was origi- nally proposed as a core topic with other psychology topics, such as Cognitive and Social Psychology, for example. However, due to limited postgraduate provisions in this field (one rationale for having common core elements in the BPS curriculum) it was decided to limit its presence to one of peda- gogical pursuit and, therefore, to be embedded throughout the curriculum. The extent to which CHIP is required to be embedded within UK degree programmes, at present, only points to the contents of the subject being integrated into other psychology modules (e.g. an introductory lecture about personality might draw upon Hippocrates and Galen’s four humours as an early theory of personality), rather than taught as its own module (c.f. Brock & Harvey, in press). The current position of CHIP is, therefore, indicative of the impor- tance it is given by academic departments in the UK and, understandably makes it more difficult to defend having in a programme as its own module, as well as gain support from colleagues to recognise it as a legitimate and worthwhile topic. For example, Brock & Harvey (in press) found that of the 119 UK Psychology departments surveyed about CHIP provisions, only 20 provided a separate CHIP module where five were optional rather than required modules. Moreover, some departments who had indicated not having a CHIP module actively dispensed of the module after the introduction of the BPS requirement to have it included in accred- ited degrees by integrating material into other Psychology modules.

One conclusion to be made about CHIP is that its relevance in a psychology degree programme appears to be a major challenge for the topic’s future because if its relevance does not survive within professional

psychol- ogists, then it will almost inevitably not survive amongst the student population. This would be a disappointing situation given that the last 50 years have produced evidence that students find the topic of

Designing a Conceptual and Historical Issues in Psychology module interest. For example, some of the first surveys published about History of Psychology modules (Nance, 1961, 1972), during a time that History of Psychology was reported to be a neglected field in terms of specialisation (Watson, 1961), showed that students liked the module content, found the module useful, and believed it should be required as part of a degree programme. Later surveys have also shown the subject to be valuable and interesting for students, as well as useful for studying Psychology (Hilgard, Leary & McGuire, 1991; Monroy- Nasr, Álvarez-Díaz de León & León-Sánchez, 2009).

In our department, initial student feed- back for content related to History of Psychology did not corroborate previous research and our responses to this feedback form the basis to the manuscript where we present a series of phases that we underwent in redesigning the module’s learning outcomes and students’ learning experi- ences. Specifically, we describe how we use our new CHIP module to embed current Higher Education (HE) curriculum develop- ments, such as employability skills, into our module by utilising elements of Active Learning (AL) to provide a student-led module.

Reviewing the CHIP learning experienceIn 2009, our current degree programme ran CHIP related content within a year-long 20 credit Introductory Psychology module. The module received poor student feedback in terms of student satisfaction and qualita- tive feedback suggested that the relevance of the module to the degree was an issue and the content was described as ‘dull’ and ‘uninteresting’. At the same time, we were developing our new single honours Psycho- logy

degree programme and reviewing the portfolio of modules for the single honours degree programme. One of the outcomes of this review was to embed CHIP content into the degree programme as its own module. In doing so, we hoped to provide an explicit

identity and meaning to students for CHIP with an aim of improving its perceived rele- vance in a Psychology programme. Although this approach might improve its image and identity within the programme it did not address the issues described by students as being dull and uninteresting. Consequently, my colleagues and I took the decision to rethink the delivery of the content that was informed by pedagogical research and trends, such as Active Learning (c.f. Topping, 2005), while also enhancing employability in our curriculum. We, there- fore, hoped that the reinvigorated delivery of the content would present an opportunity to provide evidence-based enhanced learn- ing experiences for students that were inter- esting and accessible, while having the added benefit of achieving institution learning and teaching strategies regarding employability. To achieve our aims, a review of pedagogical and HE literature was utilised to guide our curriculum development for our proposed CHIP module.

Phase 1: Reviewing the evidence for pedagogical practicesLecture-based learning. Our first strategy in adopting a new approach to teaching CHIP was to first investigate literature examining evidence for pedagogical merits in utilising traditional didactic lecture formats for communicating module content. While lectures remain the dominant form of delivery in HE they have been described as an ineffective learning environment. For example, Biggs (1999) critiqued lectures as being less effective than unsupervised reading, particularly as human attention in lecturing contexts does not usually last longer than 15 minutes. Bok (1992) has also described teaching as a human activity that does not improve through

the generations, while Ruth (1997) further emphasised this point by describing how a HE professor from the 19th century would see little difference in the way students are taught today. Despite these criticisms, there is mixed evidence for the value (based on attainment) of lectures

Designing a Conceptual and Historical Issues in Psychology module where some studies have found a direct rela- tionship between attendance and attainment (Newman-Ford et al., 2008), while others have not (e.g. Hammen & Kelland, 1994; von Konsky, Ivins & Gribble, 2009). In contrast with these studies, post-lecture study-hours, and lectures more clearly inte- grated with assessments and examinations have been found to be more positively related to grades rather than solely due to attendance (Dolnicar, 2004; Massingham & Herrington, 2006; Stinebrickner & Stine- brickner, 2004, 2008).

Using the presented evidence as a guide, we set out three general objectives in recon- sidering our traditional lectures:l reduce passivity and increase

active participation in lectures;l increase pre- and post-lecture

engage- ment in study; andl integrate lectures with an

assessment to maximise attendance and attainment.

In our expriences, CHIP content lends itself well to encouraging debate, and we were keen to further explore these aspects of the content in the module in order to provide both an intellectually stimulating environ- ment and a valuable learning experience that could challenge students’ perspectives and develop critical thinking. To examine the merit in achieving our objectives we conducted a review of alternative approaches to learning and teaching, and we reviewed pedagogical research that focussed on AL.

Student-centred learning. Our second strategy of this phase investigated pedagogical research about AL. Traditionally, AL as an alternative to lectures did not receive much support in education (schools and HE) during the first half the 20th century (Johnson & Johnson, 2009; Zhao & Kuh, 2004). It was not until

cognitive-develop- mental and constructivist frameworks and approaches to pedagogy (e.g. Vygotsky, Piaget, but also Social psychologists, such as Kurt Lewin and Jerome Bruner) were made more explicit to practioners and teachers that AL became more integrated into educa-

tion. These approaches to pedagogy describe learning as a social activity and experience where knowledge is constructed and given meaning by learners (Johnson & Johnson, 2009; Michael, 2006), and students influence their learning through student- centred approaches (see Table 1 for a list of approaches). The goal of these approaches is to facilitate learners in becoming autonomous and critical thinkers (Johnson, Johnson & Smith, 2007; Topping, 2005). One of the main features achieved by AL is the development of learning communities (Zhao & Kuh, 2004) and they are usually seen to promote and foster a culture of learning within students and between students and teachers through positive inter- action and interdependence (Felder & Brent, 2007; Johnson, Johnson & Stanne, 2000). Specifically, we focused on Co-opera- tive Learning to develop our curriculum for CHIP as it has the strongest body of research and theoretical groundings (e.g. Social Interdependence Theory), but also one we felt was most sustainable to implement as an alternative form of instruction and delivery to didactic lectures.

Co-operative and Collaborative Learning are intended to provide education for different ages, experience, and expertise (Bruffee, 1995), they are also often synony- mous with each other, and although they are more similar than dissimilar, there are some differences that are noticeable in practice. Both approaches share the same construc- tivist philosophies (see Panitz, 1999, for a comprehensive overview), but differ in terms

of the structure of setting and completing tasks (Panitz, 1999; Roberts, 2004). Specifi- cally, Co-operative Learning is more struc- tured where learning is focussed within a set of guidelines to accomplish a clear goal and learning outcome. In general, the benefits of Co-operative Learning include higher student attainment, learning rates, and bigger achievements in postgraduate work- placements relative to those who receive traditional methods of delivery (Felder & Brent, 1994; Hake, 1998). Other benefits include higher level thinking (de Capraris, Barman & Magee, 2001; Jungst, Licklider & Wiersema, 2003), and a developed ability to generate creative solutions to problems through perspective taking (Lord, 2001). However, more recent research that has examined AL methods, such as Co-operative Learning, in undergraduate courses has tended to focus on student perceptions of participating in AL, where findings have been less favourable relative to traditional methods of learning if it is not aligned with improving exam performance (Machemer & Crawford, 2007). Cavanagh (2011) showed that a more integrated approach of tradi- tional and Co-operative Learning was more successful as students reported having had a more meaningful learning experience. Based on this literature, we were confident that Co-operative Learning would be a useful approach to teaching CHIP, providing that each activity was integrated with assessments and required students engaging in pre- and post-study learning.

Table 1: Examples of student-centred, Active Learning approaches (adapted from Michael & Modell, 2003).

Designing a Conceptual and Historical Issues in Psychology module Problem-based learningCo-operative and collaborative learningThink pair-share or peer instruction (peer-to-peer learning and assessment) Conceptual change strategiesInquiry-based learning Discovery learningTechnology-enhanced learning (can incorporate some of the above)

Phase 2: Embedding employability into CHIPLike many other UK HE institutions, employability is a strategic goal for learning and teaching enhancement and although we already have a strong employability presence in our programme, we wanted to take the opportunity to make explicit to students the stronger link between academic tasks and work place tasks. Specifically, in developing learning activities we were guided by four generic transferable skills for employability originally proposed by Bennett, Dunne and Carre (2000, cited in Yorke & Knight, 2006, p.4), namely: (1) management of self; (2) management of others; and (3) manage- ment of information; and (4) management of tasks. One of the main benefits for keeping to these four broad skills are that they are flexible enough to be embedded within any discipline’s curriculum, where subject-specific skills can then be fine-tuned to suit each programme or module. Another reason for keeping to these broad terms is that it allowed us to be creative in designing the module to achieve these skills. Specifi- cally, Pegg et al. (2012) described in their review of pedagogy and employability that ‘Constructivist (i.e. active or experiential) approaches to learning and teaching… develop employability because they encourage exploration, provide feedback and develop reflection, motivation and engagement’ (p.32). Indeed, alternative pedagogical approaches not only deal with subject specific content and skills, but also enhance general employability (Pedagogy for Employability Group, 2006). We then conducted an audit of skills that we felt were achieved in the module prior to its re-design, and specifically contribute to the broad generic skills identified above. To achieve this, we engaged in a

mapping exercise guided by Yorke and Knight (2006; but see Cole & Tibby, 2013, for a more recent frame- work for developing employability in a curriculum). Yorke and Knight (2006, p.8) list 39 aspects of employability skills origi-

Designing a Conceptual and Historical Issues in Psychology module nally developed by the Skills plus project, which can also be themed into three broad categories, namely: (1) personal qualities;(2) core skills; and (3) process skills. They also provided example mapping grids to guide auditing of these skills. Under each category, skill sets that encompass essential transferable skills (e.g. written communica- tion skills; numeracy; critical thinking) are described, and it is assumed that the subject specific skills and knowledge are acquired alongside these more general skills, where applying subject understanding to any of these broader skill sets is itself, a transferable skill. We were then familiar with what skills we were not addressing under the original module design and consider ways to embed them into the new module and its activities and assessments.

Realistically, we had reservations about the attainment of employability skills through AL, but once we had decided on the content for the module (through a thematic analysis of popular CHIP texts at the time) we were able to develop AL activities and guidelines that developed some of these key skills described by Yorke and Knight (2006). We should be clear here that we did not try to map every transferable skill into each activity that we developed because it would not have been logistically possible. Rather, we tended to focus on the four management skills outlined previously while developing a mixture of personal qualities, core and process skills. For example, very few activities required numeracy skills (something that is covered well in modules related to research methods and statistics), while almost all activities in our module emphasised a mixture of IT and interpersonal skills to be successful in AL assessments (e.g. Prezi or PowerPoint presentations, workload delega- tion and preparation)

and examinations emphasised learning outcomes related to demonstrating strong written communica- tion and understanding of subject knowl- edge.

Phase 3: Bringing it all togetherOur biggest challenge in reinvigorating the module was to bring the differing elements outlined previously (i.e. employability and AL) into a coherent module where subject- specific content was not compromised. One of main concerns was the limited time we had in which to deliver the module (11 week semester, with two 60 minute lectures per week). This format did not suit the AL envi- ronment we had in mind and so we decided to create an 11-week module with 11 two- hour weekly sessions. To achieve objective one outlined in phase one (i.e. reduce passivity and increase active participation in lectures), we reduced the number of sessions and/or time in each session that was spent on passive listening. Instead, using Cavanagh’s (2011) study as a guide, each session was to have either a blended learning approach or an exclusively AL session where contextual knowledge was delivered by students in each session. The blended learning approach tended to be in the form of lectures or several 10-minute lectures delivered online (c.f. flipped classroom learning) that integrated with in-class activities.

Our next biggest challenge in this phase was to develop Co-operative Learning tasks based on the content that had already been written, planned, and uploaded onto our Virtual Learning Environment, Blackboard, such as pre-session reading, videos and subject knowledge learning outcomes. To help us develop activities that would also develop transferable skills, an invitation to staff (teaching and non-teaching) was circu- lated. We collated the ideas and responses and then developed a module activity hand- book (see Appendices for an example) where content and previous student feed- back influenced which tasks were aligned with each session. For example, subject knowledge that was perceived

as dull (e.g. pre-scientific psychology) were targeted to have more student-engagement using Co-operative Learning. We do not outline every activity in this manuscript, but to illus- trate how we came up with some activities we

Designing a Conceptual and Historical Issues in Psychology module outline one example where we had partic- ular difficulty in developing an activity, namely pre-scientific psychology.

Teaching pre-scientific Psychology: An example of the ancient Greeks. We struggled most with our theme, pre-scientific psychology, which encompassed periods prior to the 19th century, but we focus here on the philoso- phers of Ancient Greece. Specifically, we were unsure how best to make these sessions active without the risk of repeating similar activities in later sessions. To overcome this challenge, we began by reviewing the purpose for having this period of history as part of our module, which was to encourage students to think crit- ically about this era’s relevance to under- standing contemporary psychology, as well as considering whether the issues debated at that time were also part of Psychology’s past. As such, the main subject specific transferable skills we were trying to develop for students were critical and creative thinking to support their decision as to whether these periods are of relevance to psychology; an evaluation was required on the part of the student. This latter tangible goal, therefore, formed the central component of our activity for this session where the goal was for students to demonstrate why they did or did not think this period was relevant. In terms of broader general transferable skills, we wanted to focus on developing their presentation skills and ability to use information and research to communicate their opinions and ideas, which are skills that will be required for their degree programme and likely to be encountered in the work place. Subsequently, we challenged the students, while working in pre-established groups, to adopt the role of a Greek Philoso- pher where the objective for students was to prepare to respond to a series of questions and also a job advert for the position of

Presi- dent of the BPS (see Appendices). All read- ings were provided for the students and were available in their handbook, which included a mixture of primary and secondary sources, as well as a variety of online sources. In their activity handbook, students had to prepare

for their job interview by using a series of structured questions that provided a frame- work for thinking critically about each philosopher’s relevance in psychology’s history. An example of the questions include:(1) What is your approach to human behav- iour? (2) Why is your approach better than other philosophers’ approaches to human behaviour? (3) How do you think your approaches to human behaviour have influ- enced psychological thinking? (4) Can you give an example of contemporary psychology that demonstrates your approach to under- standing science and human behaviour?

After each interview was conducted, non- presenting students are then tasked to ask any questions to challenge presenting students; we often provide students with questions to ask in anticipation of awkward silences. The purpose of this part of the session is to stimulate debate, test presentor’s research and knowledge, but also to include those students not presenting in the activi- ties and ensure they have also engaged in reading. After the presentations and debate, the lead tutor summarises the session’s activ- ities and key findings, and students submit a summary of their work and scripts (typically a 2000 to 2500 word document between five students) so that all students can make use of their work for revision.

In terms of workload, groups presented three of six activities and were selected based on a rota system developed by the module coordinator. Each group presented and submitted a 2000 to 2500 word group script after each activity about their research and findings and tasks should be divided amongst group members fairly. At the end of the module, a group would have submitted the equivalent of a 6000 to 7500 words across three activities. As such, each student is

contributing approximately 500 to 750 words per session, and, therefore, at the end of the module each student has contributed around 1500 to 2000 words over the three activities. The Co-operative Learning assess- ments provided 60 per cent of their total module mark, while an end of module pre-

Designing a Conceptual and Historical Issues in Psychology module seen exam (one week in advance) provided 40 per cent of their mark. The purpose of the exam was intended to offer further moti- vation to students for engaging in the activi- ties due to the exam’s alignment with the session contents they were presenting while also examining their ability to demonstrate subject knowledge. The remaining non- assessed sessions were a mixture of informal activities, didactic lectures, and debates.

Since the module began in its current format, we have seen an increase in student satisfaction from 54 per cent to 72 per cent, but because many variables might be affecting satisfaction it is difficult to say that the increase was a direct result of the the methods used. The most dramatic form of perceived satisfaction reported by students was with their effective communication skills, a key transferable skill, from 65 per cent to97 per cent. However, we recognise that there is still some considerable work to be done on other aspects of the module. For example, one recurring issue of dissatisfac- tion for students is one of peer engagement in group activities, namely social loafing, where students are anxious that other group members are being supported by the stronger group members. For example, one student provided the following feedback, ‘…people in my group were not equally committed to making sure presentations went ahead…’, while another student was frustrated about relying on others.

‘Good idea to have a group doing work together… having to rely on other group members to do the work was stressful as sometimes some people would not even try and this would lead to all the work being placed on one person.’

In response to this feedback, we will be intro- ducing peer evaluations at the end of the module where students will

be able to eval- uate their group member’s contributions within each activity. Module conveners will then be able to penalise those students who contributed less.

Although not reflected in the quantita- tive evaluations, we received positive qualita-

tive feedback that focussed around performing public speaking, comparing their performance with peers, engaging in intellectual topics, and the perceived research skills learnt. Some students also felt challenged and were thankful for this, as well as the opportunity to make new friends, despite finding it difficult to manage group members who were not contributing as much as others.

‘The lectures were interesting and I think that the fact we had to do preparation for each session really helped with the study. I doubt I would remember so much from the course after regular lectures. Working in groups also helped, because we shared ideas that the other group members may have not thought about before.’‘I really enjoyed standing and speaking in front of the class… I can say that my communication skills improved… my further comment is thank you for chal- lenging us… for putting so many inter- esting topics in… and for making us speak in public.’

Although our data does not directly relate to the content of CHIP, we were encouraged by students’ acknowledgement of the skills they developed through our activities, despite the challenges that working in groups presented for them. In relation to the evidence provided earlier, some of our students’ comments reflect findings by Stinebrickner and Stinebrickner (2004, 2008) that demon- strated self-study had taken place, but also that perspective sharing was a valuable source of knowledge development. Since some comments also focussed on the devel- opment of communication skills, we are very encouraged, initially at least, to see that the module has managed to achieve both subject specific skills and knowledge, and broader

transferable skills. However, we are concerned that some aspects of the module still require attention, namely social loafing in groups and this might be having a dispro- portionate influence on overall module satis- faction. It is possible that group work might

not be an appropriate learning method for undergraduates who have only recently begun university and we will need to monitor this for the next academic year after piloting the effectiveness of introducing peer evalua- tion into the module to reduce social loafing. In summary, our provisional data is encouraging, but students have clearly iden- tified shortcomings related to group work- that we feel, in hindsight, we have overlooked.

Conclusions and suggestions for the futureSince piloting the new format of the module we have been pleased at the level of engage- ment and enjoyment from the majority of our students, despite the initial resistance to, and fear of group work and presenting. In addition, the module is easier to administer to the extent that any one of our colleagues could deliver a session with very minimal background knowledge. Rather, colleagues need only engage in essential preparatory reading and read any tutor notes provided. Consequently, AL is beneficial not just for students, but also teaching staff in that, once established, delivering AL requires minimal time and effort. We also felt that AL fostered a good rapport and learning community with our students.

In advising colleagues who may be tasked with delivering a CHIP module in future, we would strongly suggest utilising elements of AL, even if the module is predominately lecture based. For example, using assess- ments to encourage AL is one way of enhancing students’ learning experiences, or role-playing in seminars is a viable and easy alternative to introduce. However, there are several factors that colleagues should consider before integrating AL into their teaching of CHIP. First, the level of the module

should be considered. Our module was delivered and pitched for first-year undergraduates, and although the content was difficult and challenging for them, there was no risk to their final degree classifica- tion. As such, although we encourage the use

of AL, we would urge colleagues to tread cautiously when weighting assessments heavily on group based activities as some students might feel disadvantaged by less engaged students, especially when their module mark contributes towards their final degree classification in second and third years. Second, class size has a negative influ- ence on module management and group work. We are still a relatively new depart- ment with small numbers and during class we have no more than eight groups (a total of 50 single honours students ranging between four to five students per group) presenting. Ideally, this should take between40 to 60 minutes, but with questions and debates, two hours are easily used up. Furthermore, more groups lead to potential repetition, and longer periods of passive listening, which returns our learning envi- ronment back to one of passivity that we wanted to initially avoid. As such, the set of activities must work within strict time limits and group size. As Topping (2005, p.632) warns, simply adopting AL approaches can result in ‘the blind leading the blind’ or ‘pooling ignorance’ that can lead to a form of cognitive under stimulation because tutors are putting people together for group work and hoping for the best. One task used within Co-operative Learning that we found particularly useful in structuring our sessions was the ‘jig-saw’ method and we encourage exploring the literature that reports a variety of methods used in Active and, specifically structured Co-operative Learning methods (see Felder & Brent, 2007; Johnson, Johnson

& Stanne, 2000 for an overview of some tech- niques). What is surprising with the methods available inCo-operative Learning is that many methods are already known to HE tutors and relatively easy to implement. As our psychology programme grows, we are concerned about group size for our module, and it is likely that the sustainability of the module as an AL module will be more difficult to manage and administer. We are already beginning to consider if the module might better run as short lectures and more weekly seminars instead. The consequence of course, is that it clearly becomes more labour intensive than it originally was in the first instance where those who advocate the value of didactic lectures as the best form of content delivery will be vindicated.

The AuthorsGareth Hall & Antonia Ivaldi Department of Psychology, Aberystwyth University, Wales.

David TodLiverpool John Moores,School of Sport and Exercise Sciences.

CorrespondenceGareth HallDepartment of Psychology, Penbryn 5, Aberystwyth University, Ceredigion, SY23 3UX.Email: gbh@aber.ac.uk

ReferencesBarnes, M.E. & Greer, S. (2013). Does the future

have a history of psychology? A report on teaching, research, and faculty positions in Canadian Universities. History of Psychology. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0035335

Bennett, N., Dunne, E. & Carré, C. (2000). Skills devel- opment in higher education and employment. Buck- ingham: SRHE and Open University Press.

Bhatt, G. & Tonks, R.G. (2002). What lies in the future of teaching the history of psychology? History and Philosophy of Psychology Bulletin, 14, 2–9.

Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at univer- sity. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Bok, D. (1992). Reclaiming the public trust. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 24(4), 13–20.

Brock, A. & Harvey, M. (in press). European year book of the history of psychology.

Bruffee, K.A. (1995). Sharing our toys: Co-operative learning versus collaborative learning. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 27(1), 12–18.

Cavanagh, M. (2011). Students’ experiences of active engagement through co-operative learning activ- ities in lectures. Active Learning in Higher Educa- tion, 12(1), 23–33.

Cole, D. & Tibby, M. (2013). Defining and developing your approach to employability: A framework for higher education institutions. York: Higher Education Academy. Retrieved from: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/ documents/employability/Employability_ framework.pdf

De Caprariis, P., Barman, C. & Magee, P. (2001). Monitoring the benefits of Active Learning exer- cises in introductory survey courses in science: An attempt to improve the education of prospec- tive public school teachers. The Journal of Scholar- ship of Teaching and Learning, 1(2), 1–11.

Dolnicar, S. (2004). What makes students attend lectures? The shift towards pragmatism in undergraduate lecture attendance. Faculty of Commerce Papers, 81. Retrieved from: http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi? article=1073&context=commpapers

Felder, R.T. & Brent, R. (1994). Co-operative learning in technical courses, procedures, pitfall, and payoffs. Retrieved from: http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/ f/felder/public/Papers/Co-opreport.html

Felder, R.M. & Brent, R. (2007). Co-

operative learning. In Active Learning: Models from the Ana- lytical Sciences, ACS Symposium Series (Vol. 970, pp.34–53).

Fuchs, A.H. & Viney, W. (2002). The course in the history of psychology: Present status and future concerns. History of Psychology, 5(1), 3.

Furumoto, L. (2003). Beyond great men and great ideas: History of psychology in sociocultural context. In P. Bronstein & K. Quina (Eds.), Teaching gender and multicultural awareness: Resources for the psychology classroom (pp.113–124). Washington, DC: American Psychological Asso- ciation.

Hake, R.R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A 6000 student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64–74.

Hammen, C.S. & Kelland J.L. (1994). Attendance and grades in a human physiology course. Advances in Physiology Education, 267, 105–108.

Hilgard, E.R., Leary, D.E. & McGuire, G.R. (1991). The history of psychology: A survey and critical assessment. Annual Review of Psychology, 42, 79–107.

Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R.T. (2009). An educa- tional psychology success story: Social inter- dependence theory and co-operative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365–379.

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T. & Smith, K. (2007). The state of co-operative learning in post- secondary and professional settings. Educational Psychology Review, 19(1), 15–29.

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T. & Stanne, M.B. (2000). Co-operative learning methods: A meta-analysis. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. Retrieved from: http://www.tablelearning.com/uploads/ File/EXHIBIT-B.pdf.

Jungst, S., Licklider, L.L. & Wiersema, J. (2003). Providing support for faculty who wish to shift to a learning-centered paradigm in their higher education classrooms. The Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3(3), 69–81.

Lord, T.R. (2001). 101 reasons for using co-operative learning in biology teaching. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 63(1), 30–38.

Machemer, P.L. & Crawford, P. (2007). Student perceptions of Active Learning in a large cross- disciplinary classroom. Active Learning in Higher Education, 8, 9–30.

Massingham, P. & Herrington, T. (2006). Does atten- dance matter? An examination of student attitudes, participation, performance and atten- dance? Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 3(2) [Online]. Retrieved from: http://jutlp.uow.edu.au / 2006_v03_i02/pdf/massingham_008.pdf

Michael, J. (2006). Where’s the evidence that

Active Learning works? Advances in Physiology Education, 30(4), 159–167.

Michael, J.A. & Modell, H.I. (2003). Active Learning in secondary and college science classrooms: A working model of helping the learning to learn. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Monroy-Nasr, Z., de León, G.Á.D. & León-Sánchez,

R. (2009). The challenge of teaching history of psychology: A new curriculum, a new pro- gramme and the students’ previous ideas. In International History & Philosophy of Science Teaching Group Biennial Conference, University of Notre Dame, IN. Retrieved from: http://www3.nd.edu/~ ihpst09/ papersgiven.html

Nance, R.D. (1961). Student reactions to the history of psychology. American Psychologist, 16(4), 189–191.

Nance, R.D. (1971). Undergraduate students and the history of psychology. American Psychologist, 26(3), 316.

Newman-Ford, L., Fitzgibbon, K., Lloyd, S. & Thomas, S. (2008): A large-scale investigation into the relationship between attendance and attainment: A study using an innovative, elec- tronic attendance monitoring system. Studies in Higher Education, 33(6), 699–717.

Panitz, T.(1999). Collaborative versus co-operative learning: A comparison of the two concepts which will help us understand the underlying nature of inter- active learning. Cape Cod Community College, Massachusetts. Retrieved from: http://home.capecod.net/~tpanitz/ tedsarticles/coopdefinition.htm

Pedagogy for Employability Group (2006). Pedagogy for employability. Learning and Employability Series One. York: ESECT and HEA. Retrieved from: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/ documents/employability/id460_embedding_ employability_into_the_curriculum_338.pdf

Pegg, A., Waldock, J., Hendy-Isaac, S. & Lawton, R. (2012). Pedagogy for employability. York, UK: Higher Education Academy. Retrieved from: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/ detail/employability/pedagogy_for_ employability_update_2012

Roberts, T. (2004). Online collaborative learning: Theory and practice. London: Information Science Publishing.

Ruth, S. (1997). Getting real about technology-based learning: The medium is not the message. Educom Review, 32(5). Retrieved from: http://net.educause.edu/pub/er/review/ reviewarticles/32532.html

Stinebrickner, R. & Stinebrickner, T.R. (2004). Time-use and college outcomes. Journal of Econo- metrics, 121(1–2), 243–269.

Stinebrickner, R. & Stinebrickner, T.R. (2008). The causal effect of studying on academic perform- ance. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 8(1). (Frontiers). Article 10.2202/1935- 1682.1868. Available at: http://www.bepress.com/bejeap /vol8/iss1/art14

Topping, K.J. (2005). Trends in peer learning.Educational Psychology, 25(6), 631–645.

von Konsky, B.R., Ivins, J. & Gribble, S.J. (2009). Lecture attendance and web-based lecture tech- nologies: A comparison of student perceptions and usage patterns. Australasian Journal of Educa- tional Technology, 25(4), 581–595.

Watson, R.I. (1960). The history of psychology: A neglected area. American Psychologist, 15(4), 251.

Yorke, M. & Knight, P.T. (2006). Embedding employa- bility into the curriculum. York: Higher Education Academy. Retrieved from: www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/publications/ learningandemployability

Zhao, C.M. & Kuh, G.D. (2004). Adding value: Learning communities and student engagement. Research in Higher Education, 45(2), 115–13

Gareth Hall, Antonia Ivaldi & David