(the discussion below pertains to a particular paper, but could apply to
other papers in your field)
I had the occasion to re-read Craik & Tulving (1975; well cited, seminal
paper in the memory/cognitive
field testing the 'Levels of Processing' notion, for those in other fields)
this past week and wondered how it
would fair as an assigned reading for a Cognition class or lab.
I like it for the following reasons:
-Just about any course in cognition teaches Levels of Processing (pros and
cons) and I think it is
important for students to get a flavor of original sources. It would also
be telling for them to see
how watered down the textbook's description is.
-It is so well cited despite being 25 years old, and it is a manipulation
that is still used today.
-It is well written
-It is well done experimentally- it methodically motivates the problem and
systematically (in 10 experiments-
more on that later) tests various issues associated with it, including some
(though not all) problems with the
theory. It conveys a sense of how the science progresses around a
particular topic- something
not easily gained from texts or smaller papers.
-There are problems with the notions put forth in the paper that could be
discussed, furthering the students'
training to be critical thinkers.
The problem is that it is huge. I was thinking you could assign it in two or
three parts and take 1/2 hour out of
a few classes or so to discuss it.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think Levels of Processing deserves tons of
class time, but in the process
a fair amount of experimental design and thinking issues come out of it-
this paper just seems like a
good vehicle with which to do it.
I've only taught Cognition a couple times so don't know how much students
are willing to put up with.
Anybody tried something like this with success?
Thanks for your thoughts
Patrick
Patrick O. Dolan, Ph.D
Psychology Department, Box 1125
Washington University
One Brookings Drive
St. Louis, MO 63130
