RE: "seductive details" in lecture

[John Kulig]

Christopher:             I had the exact same reaction to the article! In the case of Watson and Baldwin, the “incident” had some significance because it propelled Watson into the chair at Hopkins and also editor of Psych Review. Did it speed up the flow of behaviorism into the mainstream? Perhaps. But I agree that the line between interesting detail and irrelevant is difficult to draw. When I include such details, they effectively serve as retrieval cues, because part of my exam is matching people to descriptions, and the “deductive details” will appear in the descriptions to be match to the names. A student two years ago, feeling overwhelmed by my notes, asked if all this detail was going to be on the exam. I said “yes, as a retrieval cue” but that did not make him happy. I did not read the details of the article; I would imagine, for the sake of a clear cut manipulation, their seductive details were clearly NOT part of the focus of the material. ============================================ John W. Kulig Professor of Psychology Plymouth State College Plymouth NH 03264 ============================================ "The roots of learning are bitter; but the fruits are sweet" - Polish saying. -----Original Message----- From: Christopher D. Green [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 10:00 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences Subject: "seductive details" in lecture   According to a research article in the lastest issue of Teaching of Psychology (Harp & Maslich, p. 100ff.), including "seductive details" in lectures to "spice them up" or make the "more relevant" actually degrades students' recall of the important facts that were to be learned. The article uses the example of a lecture about the physical basis of lightning, and includes, in the experimental condition, additional "seductive" details such as that lightning kills about 150 Americans per year. This is admittedly some distance from my own specialty, history of psychology, but I couldn't help but wonder about all those "instersting asides" we often include in history of psychology courses in order to "fill out" the characters we describe, or "real world" examples we attempt to generate, thinking that they increase our students' interest in the topic (and therefore, presumably, their performance on papers, tests, etc.). Of course, the line between an "interesting aside" and legitimate historical material -- though not "intellectual" in nature -- is not all that clear. For instance, do we talk (and how much) about the scandals that drove Baldwin and Watson from the academy because they are important to the history of the discipline, or because they are likely to generate "student interest"? I suppose one way to "operationalize" (if I, of all people, may use that term) this question is to ask ourselves whether it is a matter about which we would be likely to examine students. If so, then it is part of the "core" matrerial of the course. If not, then we may be using it merely as a "seductive detail," and it may be interefering with the information we primarily wish to convey. Anyway, interesting and difficult questions to consider. Regards, -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3J 1P3 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone: 416-736-5115 ext. 66164 fax: 416-736-5814 http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ ============================ . --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]