In educational settings, nothing signals improvement like a name change. You
can be assured that the content changed significantly.
Michael T. Scoles, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Psychology Counseling
University of Central Arkansas
Conway, AR 72035
Phone: 501-450-5418
Fax: 501-450-5424
The response from my department has been: a rose by any other name
I argue that it's not the same and would like more input from the list for this
topic that omitting systems is a significant departure. I have some ideas but
they are probably not sufficiently strong to sway the rose by any
On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 08:25:33 -0700, Annette Taylor wrote:
The response from my department has been: a rose by any
other name
I argue that it's not the same and would like more input from
the list for this topic that omitting systems is a significant
departure.
I have some ideas but they
The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)
has an editorial by Susan Fiske and Robert Hauser that goes
over revisions to the common rule to deal with situations like the
Facebook study. The editorial can be read for free at:
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/38/13675.full
One
Content analysis of TIPS would be pretty non-invasive but I have wondered if
certain TIPSters are conducting a longitudinal study of responses to various
provocative stimuli posted regularly to the list over the course of many years.
I haven't seen any publications come of it yet so probably
I admit that I did not know what a nomophobe was until the
iPhone 6/6+ feature of turning the iPhone into an iPod (i.e.,
it had disconnected the phone from the telephone network
among things). ABC News has a brief article on this; see:
I defer to Chris but... I taught the class for ages, but no longer. It is still
called History and Systems here. I don't think there is much in the name, and
no colleague has mentioned this new trend. I am older and out of touch with pop
trends in psych ha. I think systems or schools of
To be clear, I don't think that too much hangs on a name. One can teach a
crappy course under a cool name, no doubt, and vice versa. I think the problem
that was being addressed by this change is that history systems signalled
(and often was) a course that was centrally focused on intellectual
A few other comments:
On Sep 25, 2014, at 12:43 PM, Mike Palij m...@nyu.edu wrote:
(a) Structuralism (first Wundt's, later Titchener's)
Never Wundt's. An invention of Titchener's, picked up as fact by T's student
Boring.
(b) Functionalism (such as Dewey's)
Dewey never adopted the
Annettte
It's been my experience that many faculty have had such a course at the
undergraduate or even graduate level. So they think they know it, well
enough. That's what leads to many of the rose comments. Alas, we've had to
bank the course till we get past the rapid staffing changes we've
10 matches
Mail list logo
