Here is a lesson on anger management with offenders. There is a slideshow giving background including Novaco’s cognitive model of anger and two application problems where students identify anger-relevant process and suggest ways of addressing them. There is also a results table and some extracts from Henwood et al’s (2015) meta-analysis of anger management with offenders. The lesson assumes you have set preparation learning on the topic.

]]>One way of developing students’ evaluation of research studies is to use the ‘spectacles’ activity. I got it from Geoff Petty’s (2009) ‘Evidence Based Teaching: A Practical Guide’, which I recommend. It’s a variant of the jigsaw approach. In ‘spectacles’ students are already familiar with the material they are working with (unlike in jigsaw, where they are typically encountering material for the first time). Students are in small groups, each thinking about the material in a different way. Each way is presented as a different pair of spectacles that brings a different aspect of the material into focus. They are then rearranged into mixed groups where they share their insights with each other in a co-constructive manner.

I most commonly use it when students are developing evaluation of research studies, particularly the key ‘classic’/’contemporary’ studies required by Edexcel’s psychology specification. Students are required to read about the studies in advance. The five ‘spectacles’ groups correspond to the GROVE evaluation criteria I use (Generalisability, Reliability, Objectivity, Validity and Ethics). Generally, 10 minutes in ‘spectacles’ groups followed by 15 minutes in ‘sharing’ groups seems to work well for my students but, obviously, YMMV. As a follow-up I often give out an A3 summary sheet where students can compile an overview of the whole study for revision purposes. Here are a couple of these for Raine et al (1997) and Howells et al (2005).

Provided that students remain directed towards developing a shared understanding rather than simply dictating and copying ideas, it’s an approach with few downsides. See my previous post on Jigsaw for more background.

*Petty, G. (2009). Evidence-based teaching: A practical approach. Cheltenham: Nelson-Thornes.*

Evolutionary theory is an area where students often come to us with misunderstandings. The ‘bowl of sweets’ analogy is a handy way of providing a memorable concrete model of natural selection. The approach described here is based on an original lesson on natural selection by Carol Tang. I’ve adapted it in ways that make it quicker and more to the point because I’m rarely trying to teach the concepts of natural selection *ex nihil* and more usually trying to assess how well my students have acquired the relevant ideas earlier in their education and fix things if necessary, so it’s more of an ‘entry check’.

Prepare by putting some sweets in a bowl. There needs to be a variety. I usually include Lindors, Starburst, Skittles and licorice. The licorice is important because most students don’t like it. Whatever you use, check it beforehand to make sure it’s medically (e.g. nuts) and culturally (e.g. kosher/halal) safe for your students. Put an equal number of each type of sweet in the bowl, ensuring the bowl contains a sufficient number so that about half the sweets will be left if every student has one.

This activity assumes either that you know your students have learned about natural selection previously or you have set some advance study on it. At the start of the class, pass the bowl round, inviting the students to take one each. I teach this class near the end of Autumn term so I say it’s because Christmas is coming up. When you want to start discussing evolution, invite the students to gather round while you explain that you put a known number of each type of sweet in the bowl and you’re interested to see what’s left. Tip the bowl out onto a sheet of paper and separate them out, counting how many of each are left (typically for my students, all the Lindors are gone, about half the chews remain and all the licorice is left).

At this point, tell them that the bowl of sweets can be used as an analogy for the process of natural selection and ask them to consider why. From there you can develop a discussion of evolutionary concepts. Questions I generally find useful (obviously, it depends what they come up with) include:

- How could the bowl of sweets represent an evolutionary process?
- Which is the fittest sweet? (Answer usually Lindor.) What makes you say that? What about if we look at it from the sweet’s point of view?
- What do the sweets represent?
- What do you (the class) represent?
- What are the traits that help a sweet survive in this environment?

In my experience, the analogy of the bowl of sweets provides a useful bridge between the abstract ideas underlying natural selection and the usual exemplifications, most of which seem to involve moths. It’s a rewarding activity as it almost always provides lots of those ‘penny drops’ moments when students suddenly get what it’s all about.

Here are some resources for a lesson on evolutionary explanations of aggression with this demo as an element. It starts with some definitional stuff around defining and classifying aggression. Then comes the bowl of sweets demo. Subsequently there is a transfer activity and a Socrative quiz on evolutionary misconceptions. There is a slideshow to support the activities.

]]>

Here is a two lesson sequence on an Edexcel ‘key question of relevance to today’s society’ for biopsychology (zip file of all resources). It’s on the question of whether it’s a good idea to use drugs like Methadone to treat drug addiction. It assumes you’ve set advance reading on the topic. In lesson one the students debate the issue, and in lesson two they plan and write an extended response about it. The lessons are designed to help the students understand what an examiner will be looking for in their responses to this type of question, so teachers of other specifications YMMV.

]]>Here are some things for teaching inferential statistical test choice and justification. There’s a test choice chart with some exercises, a stats test choice walkthrough (three decisions) and some test choice and justification exercises based around criminological psychology topics. There is also another Socrative quiz on statistical test choice. These were written with the Edexcel A-Level statistics requirements in mind, so YMMV.

]]>I’ve been making quite a lot of use of the quiz/assessment website Socrative.com (free account needed; pay for enhanced features). I’m mainly using it to check comprehension of preparatory reading assignments, particularly for targeting areas where misconceptions are likely to arise (e.g. the difference between privacy and confidentiality when discussing research ethics). Here are some of the quizzes I’ve made recently.

Bio-Psychology

- Brain structures and functions
- Brain scanning/imaging
- Neural transmission
- Synaptic transmission
- Recreational drugs

Criminological psychology

- Eyewitness testimony (post event information)
- Eyewitness testimony (moderating factors)
- Weapon focus
- XYY syndrome
- Offending and the brain
- Eysenck’s personality theory of crime

Research methods and statistics

- Choice of statistical test
- Statistical significance
- Statistical significance (simplified)
- Research ethics

]]>

It’s blindingly obvious that students will learn things better if we model them first (see Rosenshine, 2012) and most of us are in the habit of modelling all sorts of things, including the sorts of thinking and writing skills that Psychology requires. However, with the recently increased emphasis on practical skills at A – Level (in Edexcel’s specification, anyway) I’ve found myself planning for lots of practical work and it occurred to me that I’ve never modelled the whole process of a practical investigation for my students. Bits of it, yes, but not the whole thing. On reflection, that strikes me as a bit of an oversight. Here is an attempt to put that right. The aims are twofold: (1) to show, all in one, the steps involved in carrying out a practical investigation so that students have an overview of what they will need to do and how it all fits together; and (2) model good research practices and set appropriate expectations about ethical conduct during research. It is based around a practical investigation that can be done in 45-60 minutes depending on the size of the group. It’s a correlational study of the relationship between D2:D4 digit ratio and aggression. There’s a lesson plan, a slideshow, a PBAQ-SF questionnaire for measuring aggression an Excel spreadsheet for analysing the results and a sheet for students to record their observations during the demo. I’ve also written an example report, which is pitched for students studying the Edexcel specification (users of other specifications YMMV).

*Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of instruction: research-based strategies that all teachers should know. American Educator, Spring 2012. *