What is peer teaching?

 

In short, peer teaching occurs when students, by design, teach other students.

But teaching what? And how? Austin Community College provided an overview of some of the existing (though decades old) research in a collection of resources for teachers in training, which provides a nice context for peer teaching.

“There is a wealth of evidence that peer teaching is extremely effective for a wide range of goals, content, and students of different levels and personalities (McKeachie et al., 1986). Peer teaching involves one or more students teaching other students in a particular subject area and builds on the belief that “to teach is to learn twice” (Whitman, 1998).”

“Peer teaching can enhance learning by enabling learners to take responsibility for reviewing, organizing, and consolidating existing knowledge and material; understanding its basic structure; filling in the gaps; finding additional meanings; and reformulating knowledge into new conceptual frameworks’ (Dueck, 1993).”

“Help from peers increases learning both for the students being helped as well as for those giving the help. For the students being helped, the assistance from their peers enables them to move away from dependence on teachers and gain more opportunities to enhance their learning. For the students giving the help, the cooperative learning groups serve as opportunities to increase their own performance. They have the chance to experience and learn that “teaching is the best teacher” (Farivar and Webb, 1994).”

In lieu of the benefits peer teaching and learning provide, it has a mixed reputation in education to its abuse via ‘let the ‘high’ students teaching the ‘low’ students’ which, done poorly, fails to meet the needs of both.

Peer Learning

David Boud of Stanford University explored the concepts of peer teaching, learning, and reciprocal peer learning in a short overview of existing research–which is limited. Though the context he discusses is primarily in the higher-ed domain where peer teaching is a literal component of most university learning models, the concepts transfer to K-12 as well.

According to Boud, peer learning is obviously closely related,

“We define peer learning in its broadest sense, then, as ‘students learning from and with each other in both formal and informal ways’. The emphasis is on the learning process, including the emotional support that learners offer each other, as much as the learning task itself. In peer teaching the roles of teacher and learner are fixed, whereas in peer learning they are either undefined or may shift during the course of the learning experience. Staff may be actively involved as group facilitators or they may simply initiate student-directed activities such as workshops or learning partnerships.”

As for the limited research data, Boud continues,

‘According to Topping’s review of literature, surprisingly little research has been done into either dyadic reciprocal peer tutoring or same-year group tutoring (Topping, 1996). He identified only 10 studies, all with a very narrow, empirical focus. This suggests that the teaching model, rather than the learning model, is still the most common way of understanding how students assist each other. Although the teaching model has value, we must also consider the learning process itself if we want to make the best use of peers as resources for learning.”

Whitman and Fife (1989) summarize research that was to that point current, below.

“Recommendations from current literature include the following: learning may occur when students work cooperatively, both peer teachers and peer learners learn, and learning may increase with a blend of situations in which professors are present and are not present.”

A significant portion of existing discourse on peer teaching relate to its application in the medical field, or language learning. A study published at Oxford Academic’s ELT Journal in 2017 added little new information, with the abstract concluding, “The use of peer teaching in the language classroom offers a creative way for students to participate more fully in the learning process,” and alluding to “(p)revious studies (that) have reported that peer taught lessons bring benefits such as improved motivation, enhanced learning, and authentic communication.”

 

Read More

What are main features of demonstration and discussion method?

 The main features of demonstration and discussion method are as follows:

(i) The demonstration and discussion method is not a single method. It is combination of two methods, more clearly a resultant method resulting from the combination of discussion method as well as demonstration method.

(ii) This method involves the active participation of teachers and students at the same time, which is unlikely in other methods. Say in lecture method, the teacher is active, in laboratory work and in Heuristic method; students are active and so on.

(iii) Demonstration and discussion method of teaching science encourages maximum amount of participation among students than other methods.

(iv) Demonstration and discussion method through group participation develops keen observation power and scientific reasoning in students, which is not possible either in lecture method or in Heuristic method.

(v) Demonstration and discussion method is the only method in which the interest and zeal of students is maintained.

(vi) Demonstration and discussion method develops skill in scientific thinking. These are some of the main features of demonstration and discussion method.

The Advantages and Disadvantages of the Method are discussed Below:

Advantages:

(1) This method is economic from the point of view of money and time.

(2) The method obeys the rule of “learning by doing”, what the students do or see they learn. So this method is very much psychological.

(3) It is useful when the apparatus required for practical work is costly. There the teacher can improvise the apparatus and demonstrate it.

(4) If the teacher wants to revise some of the principles of science subject, he can do it by demonstration and discussion method.

(5) Through this method free discipline is maintained.

(6) This method develops skill in handling apparatus, freethinking and co-operative spirit among students.

Disadvantages:

(1) If demonstration and discussion method is not properly used, then all students do not get a chance to take part either in discussion or in experimentation. Thus, the principle of ‘Learning by doing’ is not abided by this method.

 

Read More

What is Cooperative Learning

 

Definition of Cooperative Learning........

 

 

Students’ learning goals may be structured to promote cooperative, competitive, or individualistic efforts.  In every classroom, instructional activities are aimed at accomplishing goals and are conducted under a goal structure.  A learning goal is a desired future state of demonstrating competence or mastery in the subject area being studied.  The goal structure specifies the ways in which students will interact with each other and the teacher during the instructional session.  Each goal structure has its place (Johnson & Johnson, 1989, 1999).  In the ideal classroom, all students would learn how to work cooperatively with others, compete for fun and enjoyment, and work autonomously on their own.  The teacher decides which goal structure to implement within each lesson.  The most important goal structure, and the one that should be used the majority of the time in learning situations, is cooperation.

Cooperation is working together to accomplish shared goals.  Within cooperative situations, individuals seek outcomes that are beneficial to themselves and beneficial to all other group members. Cooperative learning is the instructional use of small groups so that students work together to maximize their own and each other’s learning.  It may be contrasted with competitive (students work against each other to achieve an academic goal such as a grade of “A” that only one or a few students can attain) andindividualistic (students work by themselves to accomplish learning goals unrelated to those of the other students) learning.  In cooperative and individualistic learning, you evaluate student efforts on a criteria-referenced basis while in competitive learning you grade students on a norm-referenced basis.  While there are limitations on when and where you may use competitive and individualistic learning appropriately, you may structure any learning task in any subject area with any curriculum cooperatively.

Theorizing on social interdependence began in the early 1900s, when one of the founders of the Gestalt School of Psychology, Kurt Koffka, proposed that groups were dynamic wholes in which the interdependence among members could vary.  One of his colleagues, Kurt Lewin refined Koffka’s notions in the 1920s and 1930s while stating that (a) the essence of a group is the interdependence among members (created by common goals) which results in the group being a “dynamic whole” so that a change in the state of any member or subgroup changes the state of any other member or subgroup, and (b) an intrinsic state of tension within group members motivates movement toward the accomplishment of the desired common goals.  For interdependence to exist, there must be more than one person or entity involved, and the persons or entities must have impact on each other in that a change in the state of one causes a change in the state of the others.  From the work of Lewin’s students and colleagues, such as Ovisankian, Lissner, Mahler, and Lewis, it may be concluded that it is the drive for goal accomplishment that motivates cooperative and competitive behavior.

In the late 1940s, one of Lewin’s graduate students, Morton Deutsch, extended Lewin’s reasoning about social interdependence and formulated a theory of cooperation and competition (Deutsch, 1949, 1962).  Deutsch conceptualized three types of social interdependence–positive, negative, and none.  Deutsch’s basic premise was that the type of interdependence structured in a situation determines how individuals interact with each other which, in turn, largely determines outcomes.  Positive interdependence tends to result in promotive interaction, negative interdependence tends to result in oppositional or contrient interaction, and no interdependence results in an absence of interaction.  Depending on whether individuals promote or obstruct each other’s goal accomplishments, there is substitutability, cathexis, and inducibility.  The relationships between the type of social interdependence and the interaction pattern it elicits is assumed to be bidirectional.  Each may cause the other.  Deutsch’s theory has served as a major conceptual structure for this area of inquiry since 1949.

Types Of Cooperative Learning

Formal Cooperative Learning

Formal cooperative learning consists of students working together, for one class period to several weeks, to achieve shared learning goals and complete jointly specific tasks and assignments (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 2008).  In formal cooperative learning groups the teachers’ role includes (see Figure 4):

1.  Making preinstructional decisions.  Teachers (a) formulate both academic and social skills objectives, (b) decide on the size of groups, (c) choose a method for assigning students to groups, (d) decide which roles to assign group members, (e) arrange the room, and (f) arrange the materials students need to complete the assignment.  In these preinstructional decisions, the social skills objectives specify the interpersonal and small group skills students are to learn.  By assigning students roles, role interdependence is established.  The way in which materials are distributed can create resource interdependence.  The arrangement of the room can create environmental interdependence and provide the teacher with easy access to observe each group, which increases individual accountability and provides data for group processing.

2.  Explaining the instructional task and cooperative structure.Teachers (a) explain the academic assignment to students, (b) explain the criteria for success, (c) structure positive interdependence, (d) structure individual accountability, (e) explain the behaviors (i.e., social skills) students are expected to use, and (f) emphasize intergroup cooperation (this eliminates the possibility of competition among students and extends positive goal interdependence to the class as a whole).  Teachers may also teach the concepts and strategies required to complete the assignment.  By explaining the social skills emphasized in the lesson, teachers operationalize (a) the social skill objectives of the lesson and (b) the interaction patterns (such as oral rehearsal and jointly building conceptual frameworks) teachers wish to create.

3.  Monitoring students’ learning and intervening to provide assistance in (a) completing the task successfully or (b) using the targeted interpersonal and group skills effectively.While conducting the lesson, teachers monitor each learning group and intervene when needed to improve taskwork and teamwork.  Monitoring the learning groups creates individual accountability; whenever a teacher observes a group, members tend to feel accountable to be constructive members.  In addition, teachers collect specific data on promotive interaction, the use of targeted social skills, and the engagement in the desired interaction patterns.  This data is used to intervene in groups and to guide group processing.

4.  Assessing students’ learning and helping students process how well their groups functioned.  Teachers (a) bring closure to the lesson, (b) assess and evaluate the quality and quantity of student achievement, (c) ensure students carefully discuss how effectively they worked together (i.e., process the effectiveness of their learning groups), (d) have students make a plan for improvement, and (e) have students celebrate the hard work of group members.  The assessment of student achievement highlights individual and group accountability (i.e., how well each student performed) and indicates whether the group achieved its goals (i.e., focusing on positive goal interdependence).  The group celebration is a form of reward interdependence.  The feedback received during group processing is aimed at improving the use of social skills and is a form of individual accountability.  Discussing the processes the group used to function, furthermore, emphasizes the continuous improvement of promotive interaction and the patterns of interaction need to maximize student learning and retention.

Informal Cooperative Learning

Informal cooperative learning consists of having students work together to achieve a joint learning goal in temporary, ad-hoc groups that last from a few minutes to one class period (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 2008).  During a lecture, demonstration, or film, informal cooperative learning can be used to focus student attention on the material to be learned, set a mood conducive to learning, help set expectations as to what will be covered in a class session, ensure that students cognitively process and rehearse the material being taught, summarize what was learned and precue the next session, and provide closure to an instructional session.  The teacher’s role for using informal cooperative learning to keep students more actively engaged intellectually entails having focused discussions before and after the lesson (i.e., bookends) and interspersing pair discussions throughout the lesson.  Two important aspects of using informal cooperative learning groups are to (a) make the task and the instructions explicit and precise and (b) require the groups to produce a specific product (such as a written answer).  The procedure is as follows.

1.  Introductory Focused Discussion:  Teachers assign students to pairs or triads and explain (a) the task of answering the questions in a four to five minute time period and (b) the positive goal interdependence of reaching consensus.  The discussion task is aimed at promoting advance organizing of what the students know about the topic to be presented and establishing expectations about what the lecture will cover.  Individual accountability is ensured by the small size of the group.  A basic interaction pattern of eliciting oral rehearsal, higher-level reasoning, and consensus building is required.

2.  Intermittent Focused Discussions:  Teachers divide the lecture into 10 to 15 minute segments.  This is about the length of time a motivated adult can concentrate on information being presented.  After each segment, students are asked to turn to the person next to them and work cooperatively in answering a question (specific enough so that students can answer it in about three minutes) that requires students to cognitively process the material just presented.  The procedure is:

a.  Each student formulates his or her answer.

b.  Students share their answer with their partner.

c.  Students listen carefully to their partner’s answer.

d.  The pairs create a new answer that is superior to each member’s initial formulation by integrating the two answers, building on each other’s thoughts, and synthesizing.

The question may require students to:

a.  Summarize the material just presented.

b.  Give a reaction to the theory, concepts, or information presented.

c.  Predict what is going to be presented next; hypothesize.

d.  Solve a problem.

e.  Relate material to past learning and integrate it into conceptual frameworks.

f.  Resolve conceptual conflict created by presentation.

Teachers should ensure that students are seeking to reach an agreement on the answers to the questions (i.e., ensure positive goal interdependence is established), not just share their ideas with each other.  Randomly choose two or three students to give 30 second summaries of their discussions.  Such individual accountabilityensures that the pairs take the tasks seriously and check each other to ensure that both are prepared to answer.  Periodically, the teacher should structure a discussion of how effectively the pairs are working together (i.e., group processing).  Group celebrations add reward interdependence to the pairs.

3.  Closure Focused Discussion:  Teachers give students an ending discussion task lasting four to five minutes.  The task requires students to summarize what they have learned from the lecture and integrate it into existing conceptual frameworks.  The task may also point students toward what the homework will cover or what will be presented in the next class session.  This provides closure to the lecture.

Informal cooperative learning ensures students are actively involved in understanding what is being presented.  It also provides time for teachers to move around the class listening to what students are saying.  Listening to student discussions can give instructors direction and insight into how well students understand the concepts and material being as well as increase the individual accountability of participating in the discussions.

Cooperative Base Groups

Cooperative base groups are long-term, heterogeneous cooperative learning groups with stable membership (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 2008).  Members’ primary responsibilities are to (a) ensure all members are making good academic progress (i.e., positive goal interdependence) (b) hold each other accountable for striving to learn (i.e., individual accountability), and (c) provide each other with support, encouragement, and assistance in completing assignments (i.e., promotive interaction).  In order to ensure the base groups function effectively, periodically teachers should teach needed social skills and have the groups process how effectively they are functioning.  Typically, cooperative base groups are heterogeneous in membership (especially in terms of achievement motivation and task orientation), meet regularly (for example, daily or biweekly), and last for the duration of the class (a semester or year) or preferably for several years.  The agenda of the base group can include academic support tasks (such as ensuring all members have completed their homework and understand it or editing each other’s essays), personal support tasks (such as getting to know each other and helping each other solve nonacademic problems), routine tasks (such as taking attendance), and assessment tasks (such as checking each other’s understanding of the answers to test questions when the test is first taken individually and then retaken in the base group).

The teacher’s role in using cooperative base groups is to (a) form heterogeneous groups of four (or three), (b) schedule a time when they will regularly meet (such as beginning and end of each class session or the beginning and end of each week), (c) create specific agendas with concrete tasks that provide a routine for base groups to follow when they meet, (d) ensure the five basic elements of effective cooperative groups are implemented, and (e) have students periodically process the effectiveness of their base groups.

The longer a cooperative group exists, the more caring their relationships will tend to be, the greater the social support they will provide for each other, the more committed they will be to each other’s success, and the more influence members will have over each other.  Permanent cooperative base groups provide the arena in which caring and committed relationships can be created that provide the social support needed to improve attendance, personalize the educational experience, increase achievement, and improve the quality of school life.

Integrated Use Of All Three Types Of Cooperative Learning

These three types of cooperative learning may be used together (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 2008).  A typical class session may begin with a base group meeting, which is followed by a short lecture in which informal cooperative learning is used.  The lecture is followed by a formal cooperative learning lesson.  Near the end of the class session another short lecture may be delivered with the use of informal cooperative learning.  The class ends with a base group meeting.

 

Read More

Methods and strategies to use in planning

 

Methods  and strategies  to   use  in  planning 

The following is a list of some of the strategies used in this course to encourage active  learning. Active  lecturing.  An active lecture is not too different from any good lecture, but it attempts to directly involve listeners. There is no one best way to give an active lecture, but it involves any of the following techniques. Give information in small chunks (about 10 minutes), and then have class members do something with that information for a few minutes. Here are some examples of activities, which you can repeat or vary: ¡ ¡ •  Write a one-minute reaction to what you have just heard. Talk to the person next to you about what you heard and see how   your perspectives differ. Do you agree? Do you have questions? •  List as many key points as you can remember. •  Compare notes taken during the chunk. Help each other fill in gaps or   determine if crucial information is missing. (Some people do not allow note taking during the lecture, but this is up to the Instructor.) Give out cards or slips of paper in three different colours. When class members are listening to your comments, have them hold up a colour for ‘I understand’, ‘I don’t understand’, or ‘I disagree’. Then either stop and allow questions or adjust what you are saying so there are more ‘understand’ colours showing. This is particularly effective with large groups of 50 or more people. Ambassadors.  This is a useful way to get groups or individuals to exchange information. Two or more members move from one group to another to share/compare discussion etc. You may wish to have half of each group move to another group. This is especially useful if you do not have ample time for a whole-class discussion. Brainstorming. This is a technique for generating creative ideas on a topic. It may be an individual activity or organized as a group activity. Give people a limited amount of time (e.g. one minute) to say or write as many ideas as they can on a topic. No matter how unrelated an idea seems, write it down. (Alternatively, the Instructor might ask the whole class to brainstorm and write all the ideas on the board.) After the brief period of brainstorming, ideas may then be analysed, organized, and discussed. This is often used as a problem-solving technique. Ideas are then analysed in light of how useful they might be in solving the problem. Gallery  walk.  This is a strategy that borrows its name from a visit to an art gallery. Students walk through an exhibit of posters, artefacts, or display of items they have completed. They can be directed to take notes. The idea is to thoughtfully look at what is displayed. Graffiti  wall.  A graffiti wall may be displayed in the classroom for use all term. Students may write their thoughts, feelings, or expressions before or following each session and sign their name. Anonymous comments are not suitable. Ideas generated in class may

be posted on the ‘wall’. Use paper from a large roll of craft or newsprint paper or join several cardboard boxes together to make a wall that can be stored between sessions. Students can take turns getting and putting away the wall each session. Group work: some tips for forming instructional groups.  There is no one best way to form groups. The best way for you is the way that suits your purpose. Use a more complicated strategy if students need a break or need to be energized. Use a simple technique if time is short. Ways to form groups include the following: •  Ask people to count off from one to five (depending on the number of people you want in a group). Groups will form based on their number (e.g. all of the ones will gather together). •  Before class, determine how many people you want in a group or how many groups you need. Give each class member a different coloured sticker, star, or dot as they enter the class. Then when it is time to form groups, ask them to   find  people with the same sticker etc. and sit together. •  Put different coloured bits of paper in a cup or jar on each table. Have people take one and find people in the room with the same colour to form a group. •  Have students get together with everybody born in the same month as   they were. Make adjustments to the groups as needed. Mini-lecture.  A mini-lecture contains all the components of a good lecture. It is sharply focused. It begins with an introduction that provides an overview of what you will talk about. It offers examples and illustrations of each point. It concludes with a summary of the main point(s). One-minute  paper.  Ask class members to write for one minute on a particular topic (e.g. their reflections on a topic, an assigned subject). They are to focus on writing their ideas, without worrying about grammar and spelling. A one-minute paper differs from brainstorming because there is more focus. Pair-share.  Use this technique when you want two class members to work together to share ideas or accomplish a task. Simply ask them to work with a neighbour or have them find a partner based on some other criteria. It is very useful when you want people to quickly exchange ideas without disrupting the flow of the class. (Sharing in triads and foursomes are also small group techniques.) Poster session.  This is useful when you want students to organize their thoughts on a topic and present it to others in a quick but focused way. Have individuals or small groups work to create a poster to explain or describe something. For example, if they have been doing an inquiry on a particular topic, they would want to include their focus, methods, and outcomes, along with colourful illustrations or photographs. The poster can be self-explanatory or students can use it to explain their work. As an in-class tool, a poster session is often combined with a gallery walk so that the class may review a number of posters in a short time. Readers’ theatre.  readers’ theatre is a group dramatic reading from a text. Readers take turns reading all or parts of a passage. The focus is on oral expression of the part being read rather than on acting and costumes. readers’ theatre is a way to bring a text to life. It is a good idea to go over passages to be read aloud with students so they are familiar with any difficult words. Sometimes readers’ theatre is used to get student interested in a text. They hear passages read first and then read the longer text. KWL. This is a strategy that provides a structure for recalling what students know (K) about a topic, noting what students want to know (W), and finally listing what has already been learned and is yet to be learned (L). The KWL strategy allows students to take inventory of what they already know and what they want to know. Students can categorize information about the topic that they expect to use as they progress through a lesson or unit. Text-against-text.  This is a way of helping students learn to analyse and compare written documents. The idea is to look at two documents and search for overlap, confirmation, or disagreement. It is a way of looking at different perspectives. Sometimes it is useful to give students readings prior to class and ask them to compare the readings based on a set of study questions, such as: 1.  Look at each author separately. What do you think the author’s main point is? 2.  How does the author support his/her argument? 3.  Look at the authors together. In what ways do the authors agree? 4.  What are their points of disagreement? 5.  What is your opinion on the issue? Text-against-text may be used to compare a new reading or new information with material that has already been covered. In classrooms where the whole class uses a single textbook, Instructors often find they are teaching against what is in the textbook. Sometimes it is hard for students to accept that a textbook can and should be questioned. Putting together a text-against text activity using the textbook and outside materials (e.g. an article) can help them understand that there are legitimate differences of opinion on a subject. Articles need not contradict each other. They may be about the same topic, but offer students different ways of seeing a subject. Another way to use the activity is divide the class into groups, give each a set of materials, and have them debate the texts. Some university faculty like to put together text sets that include both scholarly and non-scholarly works and have students think about differences. For example, you might provide all students – regardless of their reading level or learning style – with easy-to-read materials as a way to introduce themselves to a topic. Even competent adult learners seek out ‘easy’ books or materials to learn about a new or complex topic. Providing a picture, newspaper article, or even a children’s book in a text set might give everyone the means of connecting to or understanding some aspect of the larger subject. Roundtable  technique.  For this technique, divide the class into small groups (i.e. four to six people), with one person appointed as the recorder. A question that has many possible answers is posed, and class members are given time to think about the answers. After the thinking period, members of the team share their responses with one another. The recorder writes the group’s answers. The person next to the recorder starts and each person in the group (in order) gives an answer until time is called. Quizzes.  Prepare and give a short quiz (15 minutes) over the different aspects of child development covered in the unit. As students take the quiz, ask them to circle items they are unsure of. They can review and discuss their work in the following ways: •  Triads. Have students meet in groups of three to review the quizzes so that   they can help each other with their weak areas. (10 minutes) •  Review. Go over the quiz with students, and have them look at their own work and make corrections. (30 minutes) ¡ ¡ ¡ 85 ¡ ¡ ¡ Notice points class members had difficulty remembering and take time to review them. You may ask students to assist with this and discuss how they were  able  to  remember. Use this time to correct any misconceptions. Have students save their quiz for future study.

Read More

Individual Differences and Differential

 Individual Differences and Differential 

 A brief history and prospect Used by permission of the author. [For classroom use only] William Revelle Joshua Wilt David M.Condon Northwestern  University Differential psychology has been a central concern to philosophers and psychologists, both applied and theoretical, for the past several millennia. It remains so today. he proper study of individual differences integrates methodology, affective and cognitive science, genetics and biology. It is a field with a long history and an exciting future. We review some of the major questions that have been addressed and make suggestions as to future directions. This handbook is devoted to the study of individual differences and differential psychology. To write a chapter giving an overview of the field is challenging, for the study of individual differences includes the study of affect, behavior, cognition, and motivation as they are affected by biological causes and environmental events. That is, it includes all of psychology. But it is also the study of individual differences that are not normally taught in psychology departments. Human factors, differences in physical abilities as diverse as taste, smell, or strength are also part of the study of differential psychology. Differential psychology requires a general knowledge of all of psychology for people (as well as chimpanzees, dogs, rats and fishes) differ in many ways. Thus, differential psychologists do not say that they are cognitive psychologists,  social-psychologists,  neuro-psychologists,  behavior  geneticists, psychometricians, or methodologists, for although we do those various hyphenated parts of psychology, by saying we study differential psychology, we have said we do all of those things. And that is true for everyone reading this handbook. We study differential psychology. Individual differences in how we think, individual differences in how we feel, individual differences in what we want and what we need, individual differences in what we do. We study how people differ and we also study why people differ. We study individual differences. There has been a long recognized division in psychology between differential psychologists and experimental psychologists (Cronbach, 1957; H. J. Eysenck, 1966), however, the past 30 years has seen progress in integration of these two approaches (Cronbach, 1975; H. J. Eysenck, 1997; Revelle & Oehleberg, 2008). Indeed, one of the best known experimental psychologists of the 60’s and 70’s argued that “individual differences ought to be considered central in theory construction, not peripheral” (Underwood, 1975, p 129). However, Underwood (1975) went on to argue (p 134) that these individual differences are not the normal variables of age, sex, IQ or social status, but rather are the process variables that are essential to our theories. Including these process variables remains a challenge to differential psychology. OVERVIEW OF DIFFERENTIAL PSYCHOLOGY The principles of differential psychology are seen outside psychology in computer science simulations and games, in medical assessments of disease symptymatology, in college and university admissions, in high school and career counseling centers, as well as in applied decision making. Early Differential Psychology and its application Differential psychology is not new for an un- derstanding of research methodology and individ- ual differences in ability and affect was described as early as the Hebrew Bible in the story of Gideon (Judges 6, 7). Gideon was something of a skeptic who had impressive methodological sophistication. In perhaps the first published example of a repeated measures, cross over design, he applied several behavioural tests to God before agreeing to go off to fight the Medians as instructed. Gideon put a wool fleece out on his threshing floor and first asked that by the next morning just the fleece should be wet with dew but the floor should be left dry. Then, the next morning, after this happened, as a cross over control, he asked for the fleece to be dry and the floor wet. Observing this double dissociation, Gideon decided to follow God’s commands. We believe that this is the first published example of the convincing power of a cross over interaction. (Figure 1 has been reconstructed from the published data.) In addition to being an early methodologist, Gideon also pioneered the use of a sequential assessment battery. Leading a troop of 32,000 men to attack the Midians, Gideon was instructed to reduce the set to a more manageable number (for greater effect upon achieving victory). To select 300 men from 32,000, Gideon (again under instructions from God) used a two part test. One part measured motivation and affect by selecting those 10,000 who were not afraid. The other measured crystallized intelligence, or at least battlefield experience, by selecting those 300 who did not lie down to drink water but rather lapped it with their hands (McPherson, 1901).  REVELLE, CONDON,

Gideon thus combined many of the skills of a differential psychologist.

 He was a methodologist skilled in within subject designs, a student of affect and behavior as well as familiar with basic principles of assessment. Other early applications of psy- chological principles to warfare did not emphasize individual differences so much as the benefits of training troops of a phalanx (Thucydides, as cited by Driskell & Olmstead,  1989). Early Differential Psychology and its   Differential psychology is not new for an un- distending of research methodology and individual differences in ability and affect was described as early as the Hebrew Bible in the story of Gideon (Judges 6, 7). Gideon was something of a skeptic who had impressive methodological sophistication. In perhaps the first published example of a repeated measures, cross over design, he applied several be- hairball tests to God before agreeing to go off to fight the Medians as instructed. Gideon put a wool fleece out on his threshing floor and first asked that by the next morning just the fleece should be wet with dew but the floor should be left dry. Then, the next morning, after this happened, as a cross over control, he asked for the fleece to be dry and the floor wet. Observing this double dissociation, Gideon decided to follow God’s commands. We believe that this is the first published example of the convincing power of a cross over interaction. (Figure 1 has been reconstructed from the published data.)  In addition to being an early methodologist, Gideon also pioneered the use of a sequential as- assessment battery. Leading a troop of 32,000 men to attack the Midians, Gideon was instructed to reduce the set to a more manageable number (for greater effect upon achieving victory). To select 300 men               COURSE GUIDE:  Educational Psychology            Floor         Wool     Moistur e 0. 0 0. 2 0. 4 0. 6 0. 8 1. 0 2 Night Figure 1. Gideon’s tests for God are an early example of a double dissociation and probably the first published example of a cross over interaction. On the first night, the wool was wet with dew but the floor was dry. On the second night, the floor was wet but the wool was dry (Judges  6:36-40)   Figure 1. Gideon’s tests for God are an early example of a double dissociation and probably the first published example of a cross over interaction. On the first night, the wool was wet with dew but the floor was dry. On the sec- ond night, the floor was wet but the wool was dry (Judges

 

REVELLE,  CONDON,  WILT Personality taxonomies That people differ is obvious.

How and why they differ is the subject of taxonomies of personality and other individual differences. An early and continuing application of these taxonomies is most clearly seen in the study of leadership effectiveness. Plato’s discussion of the personality and ability characteristics required for a philosopher king emphasized the multivariate problem of the rare cooccurence of appropriate  traits: ... quick intelligence, memory, sagacity, cleverness, and similar qualities, do not often grow together, and that persons who possess them and are at the same time high-spirited and magnanimous are not so constituted by nature as to live orderly and in a peaceful and settled manner; they are driven any way by their impulses, and all solid principle goes out of them.  ... On the other hand, those steadfast natures which can better be depended upon, which in a battle are impregnable to fear and immovable, are equally immovable when there is anything to be learned; they are always in a torpid state, and are apt to yawn and go to sleep over any intellectual toil. ... And yet we were saying that both qualities were necessary in those to whom the higher education is to be imparted, and who are to share in any office or command. (Plato, 1991, book 6) Similar work is now done by Robert Hogan and his colleagues as they study the determinants of leadership effectiveness in management settings (Hogan, 2007, 1994; Hogan et al., 1990; Padilla et al., 2007) as well as one of the editors of this volume, Adrian Furnham (Furnham, 2005). The dark side qualities discussed by Hogan could have been taken directly from The Republic. A typological rather than dimensional model of individual differences was developed by Theophrastus, a student of Aristotle, who was most famous as a botanical taxonomist. However, he is known to differential psychologists as a personality taxonomist who organized the individual differences he observed into a descriptive taxonomy of “characters”. The characters of Theophrastus are often used to summarize the lack of coherence of early personality trait description, although it is possible to organize his “characters” into a table that looks remarkably similar to equivalent tables of the late 20th century (John, 1990; John & Srivastava, 1999). 1600 years after Theophrastus, Chaucer added to the the use of character descriptions in his “Cantebury Tales” which are certainly the first and probably the “best sequence of ‘Characters’ in English Literature” (Morley, 1891, pg 2). This tradition continued into the 17th century where the character writings of the period are fascinating demonstration of the broad appeal of personality description and categorization  (Morley,  1891).

OVERVIEW OF DIFFERENTIAL PSYCHOLOGY Causal theories Tyrtamus of Lesbos, who was known as Theophrastus for his speaking ability, (Morley, 1891), asked a fundamental question of personality theory that is still of central concern to us today: Often before now have I applied my thoughts to the puzzling question – one, probably, which will puzzle me for ever – why it is that, while all Greece lies under the same sky and all the Greeks are educated alike, it has befallen us to have characters so variously constituted. This is, of course, the fundamental question asked today by differential psychologists who study behavior genetics (e.g., Bouchard, 1994, 2004) when they address the relative contribution of genes and shared family environment as causes of behavior. Biological personality models have also been with us for more than two millenia, with the work of Plato, Hippocrates and later Galen having a strong influence. Plato’s organization of the tripartite soul into the head, the heart and the liver (or, alterna- tively, reason, emotion and desire) remains the classic organization of the study of individual differences (Hilgard, 1980; Mayer, 2001; Revelle, 2007). Indeed, with the addition of behavior, the study of psychology may be said to be the study of affect (emotion), behavior, cognition (reason) and motivation (desire) as organized by Plato (but  without  the  physical  localization!). 500 years later, the great doctor, pharmacologist and physiologist, Galen (129-c.a. 216) organized and extended the earlier literature of his time, particularly the work of Plato and Hippocrates (c 450-380 BCE), when he described the causal basis of the four temperaments. His empirical work, based upon comparative neuroanatomy, provided support for Plato’s tripartite organization of affect, cognition, and desire. Although current work does not use the same biological concepts, the search for a biological basis of individual differences continues to this day. 1800 years later, Wilhelm Wundt (Wundt, 1874,1904) reorganized the Hippocrates/ Galen four temperaments into the two dimensional model later discussed by Hans Eysenck (H. J. Eysenck, 1965, 1967) and Jan Strelau (Strelau, 1998).

 

Read More