Thinking Like a Psychologist Introductory Psychology Writing Assignments

Faculty Forum

Thinking Like a Psychologist Introductory Psychology Writing Assignments: Encouraging Critical Thinking and Resisting Plagiarism

Teaching of Psychology 2017, Vol. 44(4) 335-341 ª The Author(s) 2017 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0098628317727909 journals.sagepub.com/home/top

Diane Keyser Wentworth1 and Lona Whitmarsh1

Abstract Teaching the general psychology course provides instructors with the opportunity to invite students to explore the dynamics of behavior and mental processes through the lens of theory and research. Three innovative writing assignments were developed to teach students to think like a psychologist, operationalized as enhancing critical thinking, applying research concepts, and resisting plagiarism. The assignments were evaluated with two samples of general psychology students. In Sample 1, student reactions to the assignments were uniformly positive. In Sample 2, students were assessed directly on their critical thinking skills using a set of three scenarios. An increase in students’ ability to think critically was found. Therefore, these assignments were successful in helping develop our students’ ability to think like a psychologist.

Keywords introductory psychology, critical thinking, plagiarism The American Psychological Association’s (APA, 2013) Guidelines for the Undergraduate Psychology Major, Version 2.0, highlight critical thinking skills as a central and essential objective for undergraduate students. Critical thinking has been defined by Wade, Tavris, and Garry (2014) as “the ability and willingness to assess claims and make objective judgments on the basis of well-supported reasons and evidence rather than emotion or anecdote” (p. 6). Yet, van Gelder (2005) stated that many students have not acquired these essential skills during their undergraduate years.

Wade et al. (2014) outlined clear and concise metacognitions essential to critical thinking in a set of eight guidelines: “(1) ask questions and be willing to wonder, (2) define problems clearly, (3) examine evidence, (4) analyze assumptions and biases, (5) avoid emotional reasoning, (6) avoid oversimplification, (7) consider alternative interpretations, and (8) tolerate uncertainty” (pp. 7–14).

Wade (1995) stated that after defining critical thinking, the next step is to tackle the question of how to develop students as critical thinkers. According to Pennebaker et al. (1990), written assignments are central to facilitating the development of critical thinking. However, in designing written projects, faculty members face the challenge that plagiarism “poses a growing threat to the integrity of contemporary education methods” (Thomas, 2004, p. 421).

According to a survey by Yardley, Domenech Rodriguez, Bates, and Nelson (2009), more than 80% of undergraduate psychology alumni reported cheating during their college

years with this problem behavior happening more frequently in their major courses. Their findings may reflect the increased stressors and pressure to achieve a high psychology GPA to help either gain admission into graduate programs or successfully land a job (Lambert, Hogan, & Barton, 2003; Simkin & McLeod, 2010). Yet most, if not all, universities and colleges identify plagiarism as a violation of their academic integrity policies and guidelines (Hill, 2011; Plagiarism.org, n.d.).

Several researchers (Ennis, 2011; Halonen, 1996; Halpern, 1998) have attempted to capture the set of skills and dispositions central to critical thinking. Skills include focusing on and clarifying questions and causal reasoning, while dispositions include motivation to engage in the metacognitive skills of critical thinking and the willingness to be open-minded and simultaneously critical of new ideas. The disposition set includes an openness to evaluating claims and a willingness to engage in a systematic thinking process. Essential to this process is the identification of the critical skills and content

1 Department of Psychology and Counseling, Fairleigh Dickinson University, Madison, NJ, USA

Corresponding Author: Diane Keyser Wentworth, Department of Psychology and Counseling, Fairleigh Dickinson University, M-ZN2-01, 285 Madison Avenue, Madison, NJ 07940, USA. Email: diane_wentworth@fdu.edu

336 knowledge that students will be able to demonstrate after the successful completion of particular courses.

Bensley and Murtagh (2012) suggest utilizing classrooms as “a natural laboratory with research participants readily accessible” (p. 5) to conduct assessments to determine whether pedagogical strategies are effective in enhancing our students’ critical thinking. They think that the best assessment of critical thinking can be accomplished by instructors developing their own instruments, rather than attempting to identify an appropriate standardized test.

Bensley and Murtagh (2012) state “The reluctance of psychologists to assess the critical thinking (CT) of their students seems particularly ironic given that so many endorse CT as an outcome and are otherwise eager to scientifically study the thinking of students, their typical research participants” (p. 5). They stress that the classroom provides psychology teachers the opportunity to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of pedagogical tools and strategies in the shared educational objective of improving the learning of psychological concepts and the thinking skills that are essential to the study of the complexities of human behavior.

Another recommendation by Bensley and Murtagh (2012) was to develop formative and summative assessments that indicate the success of particular course strategies and assignments in enhancing critical thinking. For example, they propose utilizing literature reviews requiring students to apply specific approaches to reasoning as well as appropriate classroom activities and quizzes. Students need to be assigned “authentic taskoriented assessments” as a strategy in building their critical thinking, including evaluating the quality of information on the Internet, writing research and case studies, and applying a differential diagnosis to a particular case study. For example, Bensley, Powell, and Flinn (2010) presented students in a research methods class with two mock websites that they needed to evaluate on credibility and accuracy.

Identifying the most effective instruments to measure critical thinking is complicated. Although there are general critical thinking assessment instruments (e.g., Halpern, 2010), Bensley and Murtagh (2012) found no standardized measures that assess specific types of critical thinking. They support using self-report data for assessing dispositions and metacognitions.

Apple, Serdikoff, Reis-Bergan, and Barron’s (2008) research is an example. They collected self-report data on how well students evaluated their experience of enhancing their critical thinking skills and how well their psychology program provided the opportunities to accomplish this goal.

Bensley and Murtagh (2012) also emphasized the need to conduct assessments at critical stages along the process, not as a final outcome capstone evaluation. They suggested that the pretest/posttest model, even with the constraints of randomization and other controls, can be a powerful tool for studying the impact of curricular activities and processes. They also encouraged frequent assessments and using the results to provide feedback for the effectiveness of course assignments. As a final caveat, they encouraged researchers to “interpret assessment results cautiously and apply the results appropriately” (p. 10).

Teaching of Psychology 44(4) The authors applied Bensley and Murtagh’s (2012) assessment advice through a set of written assignments that are required in all of our campus’ general psychology sections. Current academic expectations encourage curriculum changes that stimulate enthusiasm about the study of psychology along with a long-term interest in continued learning (Halpern & Hakel, 2003). Strategies to accomplish these objectives target pedagogical changes that transform current practices and enliven the learning process; they have been identified as constructive learning and applied projects (Springer, Stanne, & Donovan, 1999). Harlow, Burkholder, and Morrow (2006) encouraged the integration of “active, hands-on learning through projects that students develop to apply the main concepts and immerse students in the learning process” (p. 231).

Three different writing assignments were designed to enhance students’ critical thinking skills, increase their ability to apply psychological concepts, and lessen the opportunity to plagiarize. These assignments supplemented the assessment process of traditional multiple-choice examinations by requiring students to apply the different theories and methodologies used by psychologists, apply critical thinking skills and knowledge, and, thus, think like psychologists. They created opportunities to work with class concepts outside the classroom, while minimizing the risk and temptation of plagiarism.

Method Samples Two samples of students participated in this study. They differed in how they were evaluated after each writing assignment. Sample 1 comprised five sections of general psychology and ranged in size from one small honors section (n ¼ 12) to five larger sections (M ¼ 32) for a total of 181 participants. All of these evaluated sections were taught individually by either one of the authors. Both authors are experienced instructors who have taught the introductory psychology course for at least 15 years. Both instructors used the same text and taught the same chapters of the textbook.

The average age of participants was 19 years. Almost two thirds of participants were female (62%) and the large majority of participants were freshmen (73%). Sophomores comprised 18% of participants, with 6% juniors and 3% seniors. Racial background was not included as a demographic variable. However, the large majority (75%) of students at the university from which the sample was drawn were White.

Sample 2 was very similar in its demographics. Six sections were evaluated and ranged in size from 30 to 45 students with a total of 275 participating. These sections were all individually taught. Five of the sections were taught by experienced fulltime instructors; only one of the evaluated sections was led by one of the authors. As stated above, she is an experienced instructor who has taught the introductory psychology course for over 15 years. The sixth section was taught by an experienced adjunct instructor who has taught the general psychology

Wentworth and Whitmarsh

337

Table 1. Sample 2—Demographic Items for All Participants Sample and Partial Sample.

Demographic Item Age Gender Female Male Class level Freshmen Sophomore Junior Senior Race/ethnicity White African American Asian Multiracial Other

All Participants Participants Who (Completed One, Completed All Three Two, or Three Assessments; n ¼ 275) Assessments (n ¼ 89) 19

19

61% 39%

62% 38%

66% 21% 9% 4%

63% 23% 9% 5%

66% 11% 5% 4% 14%

71% 8% 7% 3% 11%

course for more than 7 years. All faculty members used the same text and taught the same chapters of the textbook.

Approximately one third (89) of Sample 2 students completed all three assessments. The total sample (those who completed one, two, or three of the assessments) and the subsample of those who completed all three assessments were almost identical (with 5% differences at maximum) in their demographic makeup. Table 1 includes the demographic items for both the total sample and those who completed all three assessments. The average age of participants was 19; 62% were female. Of those who reported their class level, the large majority was freshmen (63%), sophomores comprised 23%, 9% juniors with 5% seniors. The majority were White (71%), with 8% African American, 7% Asian, 3% multiracial, and 11% chose other to self-identify their race.

Materials Assignments. For the past 5 years, three writing assignments were part of the grading assessment in all general psychology courses at our university. These assignments were designed with multiple purposes (1) to encourage and develop critical thinking skills, (2) to enhance writing skills, and (3) to learn to apply concepts reviewed in the classroom and discussed in the text.

Each assignment required unique information and analyses from the students which would help minimize plagiarism attempts.

All assignments had preestablished rubrics that students received when each paper was assigned initially; these rubrics were also used to grade each assignment. Our premise was to teach our students how to think like a psychologist. We operationally defined this as using scientific research techniques to collect and analyze data and translating those data into an evidence-based analysis. These are considered hallmarks of critical thinking (Halpern, 1998; Wade, Tavris, & Garry, 2014).

The first assignment was designed to increase critical thinking skills and general knowledge of research methods used in psychology. Students had to select one article from the most recent edition of The Journal of Psychology and the Behavioral Sciences, a journal of undergraduate research published by our own department. We chose this journal to promote student research, provide an accessible model of research, and discourage plagiarism by using a new journal volume each year. The rubric assigned points for choosing an article from the correct journal, summarizing it in their own words, explaining and applying all eight critical thinking skills identified by Wade et al., 2014 (the text used in all general psychology sections), coherence and organization of the analysis, and proper spelling and grammar.

The second assignment was linked to the chapter on lifespan development (Wade et al., 2014). It was designed to enhance students’ interviewing skills and deepen their understanding of Piaget, Kohlberg, and Erikson’s theories of development through their application. Students had to interview three people who were in different life stages (and ages) using a list of 8–10 questions they developed or a set of sample questions provided by their instructor. In their paper, students had to name and explain the stage of each interviewee according to Piaget, Kohlberg, and Erikson’s theories and provide supporting quotes from their interviews. The rubric assigned points for interviewing three different people at three different life stages, including the transcripts of these interviews: understanding and appropriately applying Piaget, Kohlberg, and Erikson’s theories; coherence and organization of the analysis; and proper spelling and grammar.

The third assignment was linked to the chapters on psychological disorders and treatment and therapy (Wade et al., 2014).

Students used observational and analytical skills to determine behaviors, thoughts, and symptoms and used these data to apply their knowledge of what constitutes mentally healthy behavior as well as applying their knowledge of a specific mental disorder and its treatment. Students were given two lists of films; one set featured mentally healthy characters and the second set featured at least one person with a mental disorder.

Students had to choose one film from each list and watch each film at least twice. The rubric assigned points for identifying main characters, describing behavior patterns and symptoms, explaining and diagnosing the healthy situation or mental disorder (its appropriate treatment, possible causes, and accuracy of portrayal in the film), coherence and organization of the analysis, and proper spelling and grammar. Students received feedback on their writing for every assignment as part of the grading rubric.

Assessments. For Sample 1, a questionnaire containing 13 items (10 related to the assignment and 3 basic demographic items) was developed to assess student reactions to each of the writing assignments. These items were developed by the authors after researching the critical thinking research literature (e.g., Angelo, 1995; Bensley, 2010; Bensley & Murtagh, 2012; Dykstra, 2008; Lawson, 1999; Stark, 2012; Wade, 1995;

338 Williams, Oliver, Allin, Winn, & Booher, 2003). The first 9 items were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree to 5 ¼ strongly agree). These items were tailored slightly for each assignment. Sample items included “this assignment helped me to understand the class material on critical thinking better,” “this assignment helped me apply the key concepts of critical thinking,” “I enjoyed this assignment,” “I will be more skeptical about psychological claims I hear because of this assignment,” and “I recommend using this assignment in future classes.” The final item assessed perceptions of effectiveness (How effective was this assignment in helping you learn about critical thinking?) and used a 5-point scale (1 ¼ not all effective to 5 ¼ extremely effective). The questionnaire was administered during the class session immediately after each assignment was turned in.

For Sample 2, in the week immediately following the submission of each paper to their instructor, students were provided a questionnaire containing three brief scenarios and asked to identify the two to three flaws in critical thinking that were demonstrated in each scenario. The scenarios included were (1) four from Wade and Tavris’s Let Me Tell You a Story exercise included in their Instructor’s Resource Manual (Swinkels, 2008) with identified suggested answers and (2) three scenarios the authors had used in previous courses to help students hone their critical thinking skills. These latter three scenarios were determined by the authors and three psychology graduate students to be of equal length, understanding, and difficulty as those from the Instructor’s Resource Manual.

Additionally, four psychology faculty members who teach the general psychology class, but were not involved in this research, independently rated each scenario for its difficulty level. There was near equivalence in the ratings of items from the Instructor’s Resource Manual (M ¼ 2.56) and the other 3 items (M ¼ 2.58) using a 5-point scale of (1 ¼ very easy to 5 ¼ very difficult). Although all scenarios were found to be of equal difficulty, these ratings were based on human judgment using a limited and imprecise response scale. Thus, it is possible that there may be some variation in difficulty between scenarios.

Wade et al.’s (2014) eight critical thinking guidelines were included at the beginning of the questionnaire as well an example scenario with three guidelines identified as being violated in that scenario to ensure students had the critical thinking guidelines in front of them and understood the assignment. The example scenario, taken from the Instructor’s Resource Manual with suggested violated guidelines, was included at the beginning of all three assignments and is listed below.

Bonnie believes creatures from outer space have been visiting earth for thousands of years. “Look at those ancient structures and designs that scientists can’t explain,” she says. A friend calls her belief nonsense. “You can’t prove that extraterrestrials don’t exist,” replies Bonnie indignantly (p. 44).

The following three guidelines were identified as those most violated: (1) examine the evidence, (2) consider other interpretations, and (3) tolerate uncertainty.

Teaching of Psychology 44(4) We assessed critical thinking skills by determining which two of the eight critical thinking guidelines established by Wade et al. (2014) were violated in each scenario. Swinkels (2008) provided these violated guidelines for the four scenarios included in the Instructor’s Resource Manual. Prior to data collection, the authors and three psychology graduate students evaluated each of the other three scenarios and reached consensus on which three guidelines were most violated for each scenario. We asked for two to three guidelines’ violations because Swinkels’s (2008) suggested answers for the scenarios varied with between two and four guidelines identified as being violated in each scenario. We chose to suggest a more restricted range to ensure students gave each scenario individual attention but focused on those guidelines that were most egregiously violated rather than listing all possibilities.

The authors and three graduate students then created a scoring rubric that was used to convert the identified violated guidelines for each scenario to a 3-point scale indicating how closely each identified violated guideline was to the suggested answers for each scenario. The rubric for scoring each scenario was as follows: 1 ¼ minimal to no relevance/applicability to the scenario, 2 ¼ somewhat relevant/applicable to scenario, and 3 ¼ highly relevant/applicable to scenario. Thus, the higher the number, the more closely the violated guideline was to the suggested answer. A 3-point scale was used, instead of a yes–no two-point scale, to allow for the choice of violated guidelines that were somewhat relevant to the scenario to be chosen and provide a wider range of data points.

The authors and three graduate students evaluated each scenario and determined which of the eight guidelines qualified as minimally or not all related to the scenario, which were somewhat relevant/applicable to the scenario, and which were highly relevant/applicable to each scenario.

Consensus was reached using the rule that four of the five raters (authors and graduate students) had to agree. Only two of the seven scenarios required discussion to reach our rule of consensus.

Using this rubric, the original student data were converted to this 3-point scale by two new graduate students (different than those included in creating the rubric along with the authors), who were blind to the study’s purpose and design, who entered the data into the SPSS software (Version 22).

Procedure Students were asked to voluntarily participate in the study. If they did not wish to participate, they could leave the classroom with no penalty. The vast majority of students did participate.

Graduate students or adjunct faculty handed out the paper questionnaires, briefly explained the questionnaire, and answered all questions. The authors and class instructors were not present during the questionnaire administration and data collection phase to ensure the voluntary nature of participation. Students completed the questionnaire and placed it in a closed cardboard box as they exited the classroom. For Sample 2, students were asked to provide their university identification number to allow

Wentworth and Whitmarsh

339

Table 2. Mean Ratings by Item for Sample 1 Assessment.

Assign #1 Assign #2 Assign #3 Mean Mean Mean

Items This assignment helped me to understand the class material on critical thinking better This assignment was a good supplement to the lecture about critical thinking This assignment helped me apply the key concepts of critical thinking to real research studies This assignment gave me a better understanding of what comprises critical thinking This assignment helped me to understand the stages of cognitive development (Piaget) This assignment helped me to understand the stages of moral development (Kohlberg) This assignment helped me to understand the stages of psychosocial development (Erikson) This assignment gave me a better understanding of how people change and differ over time This assignment helped me to understand the class material on mentally healthy behavior better This assignment helped me to understand the class material on mentally unhealthy behavior/mental disorders better This assignment was a good supplement to the lecture about mental disorders This assignment helped me apply the key concepts about mental disorders to actual behaviors I feel I can better approach and understand everyday psychological issues because of this assignment I feel I can better approach and understand everyday developmental issues because of this assignment I feel I can better approach and understand everyday mental disorders because of this assignment I will be more skeptical about psychological claims I hear because of this assignment I will be more skeptical about what constitutes mentally healthy and mentally unhealthy behavior because of this assignment I worked hard on this assignment I enjoyed this assignment I recommend using this assignment in future classes How effective was this assignment in helping you learn about critical thinking?

How effective was this assignment in helping you learn about theories of cognitive, moral, and psychosocial development?

How effective was this assignment in helping you learn about mental disorders?

N

3.75a 3.74a 3.99a 3.79a N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A 4.06a 3.92a 4.20a 4.08a N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4.03a 4.15a

N/A N/A 3.35a N/A N/A 3.61a N/A

N/A N/A N/A 3.55a N/A N/A N/A

4.21a 4.18a N/A N/A 3.96a N/A 3.93a

4.25a 3.08a 3.71a 3.47b N/A

4.51a 3.75a 4.11a N/A 3.76b

4.36a 4.26a 4.40a N/A N/A

N/A 181

N/A 182

3.89b 197

Note. N/A ¼ not applicable to this assignment. a 1 ¼ strongly disagree, 2 ¼ disagree, 3 ¼ neither agree nor disagree, 4 ¼ agree, and 5 ¼ strongly agree. b1 ¼ not at all effective, 2 ¼ a little effective, 3 ¼ somewhat effective, 4 ¼ very effective, and 5 ¼ extremely effective.

matching of questionnaires across all three scenario questionnaires. These identification numbers were not entered into the software program used for data analysis. University institutional review board approval was obtained to ensure that data administration and collection followed all APA ethical guidelines.

Results Sample 1—Self-Report Evaluation of Assignments For each assignment, the students indicated that it had met the objective of applying the key concepts of that assignment, Assignment 1 on critical thinking (M ¼ 3.99), Assignment 2 on applying developmental theories to interviewees (M ¼ 4.08), or Assignment 3 on detecting mentally healthy/ unhealthy behaviors in films (M ¼ 4.18). They also recommended using them in future classes (critical thinking, M ¼ 3.71; developmental theories, M ¼ 4.11; and mentally healthy/unhealthy behaviors, M ¼ 4.40). Not surprisingly, students enjoyed the mentally healthy/unhealthy film assignment the most (M ¼ 4.26) and the critical thinking article review the least (M ¼ 3.08). Table 2 includes all items with their mean ratings.

Sample 2—Scenario Assessment of Critical Thinking To more directly assess the value of these assignments in developing our students’ critical thinking skills, a second sample of students was assessed specifically on critical thinking skills after they completed the same set of assignments as had Sample 1. However, as discussed in the Method section, this group evaluated three short scenarios and identified which two to three of the critical thinking guidelines they had discussed in class and that were described in their text had been violated in each scenario. Although some students identified three violated guidelines, we included only the first two violated guidelines they had identified in our analysis to ensure uniformity of the data across all participants.

A one-way repeated measures analysis of variance was conducted to compare the cumulative effect of scenario analysis on critical thinking ability as a result of the three consecutive writing assignments. The independent variable was the three separate writing assignments completed during the semester.

The dependent variable was critical thinking ability, operationalized as an average of the scores for the first two identified violated guidelines (see scoring rubric described above) averaged across all three scenarios. There was a significant effect of scenario analysis on critical thinking ability, Wilks’s l ¼ .54,

340 F(2, 81) ¼ 33.97, p ¼ .00. Three paired samples t-tests were used to make post hoc comparisons between assignments. The pairwise comparison indicated there was a significant difference between the first (M ¼ 1.99, SD ¼ .41) and third (M ¼ 2.97, SD ¼ .64) writing assignments, p ¼ .00. There was also a significant difference between the second (M ¼ 2.18, SD ¼ .36) and third (M ¼ 2.97, SD ¼ .4) writing assignments, p ¼ .00. However, the first (M ¼ 1.99, SD ¼ .41) and second (M ¼ 2.18, SD ¼ .36) writing assignments were not significantly different, p ¼ .12.

Only one student of the total 456 students who participated in this study was found to have plagiarized an assignment.

Given that each student completed three assignments, less than 1% of all student assignments were plagiarized.

Discussion These results suggest that general psychology students improved both their knowledge of the key issues involved in and their ability to critically think with the help of a set of required written assignments.

Sample 1 students evaluated the assignments positively.

Their self-report data indicated they perceived that they had met the objective of developing greater critical thinking. They also believed that the assignments were valuable enough to use them in future classes. Although this was self-report data, all assignments and all areas (e.g., understanding and applying critical thinking, skepticism regarding claims) were rated favorably by the students.

The scenario assessments more directly measured students’ ability to think critically. The results demonstrated an improved ability to understand and apply specific critical thinking guidelines to the second two sets of scenarios. By semester’s end, students could correctly evaluate the evidence presented when incorrect claims were made and analyze assumptions and biases while trying to understand the complexity of situations. The results revealed a significant improvement from both the first to the third assignment and the second to third assignment. No significant improvement in critical thinking between the first and second assignments may be due to students needing at least two separate opportunities to apply their new knowledge and skills. Additionally, the first set of scenarios may have provided a baseline from which students’ scores could change. Students may need more than one assignment to begin to enhance their critical thinking skills.

This finding echoes Bensley and Murtagh’s (2012) suggestion that multiple assessments are necessary to measure the development of critical thinking.

The assignments also minimized plagiarism; only one student plagiarized. In each assignment, students had to apply and analyze specific concepts instead of writing a traditional research paper that is so easily plagiarized via Internet. For the critical thinking/research critique assignment, students were restricted to the latest volume of a peer-reviewed student research journal. Thus, they could not simply copy a former student’s paper because the journal articles change with each

Teaching of Psychology 44(4) new volume. In the developmental interviews assignment, students had to generate their own data through the interview process. Many students voluntarily remarked on this assignment positively; they often learned a lot about family members or friends that they never would have known without such an assignment. For the third assignment, students provided their own analysis of film characters and how they displayed mentally healthy/unhealthy behaviors. They could not rely on film websites that generally provide descriptions of the film without an analysis of specific behaviors, thoughts, or symptoms. This final assignment was the best received which is not surprising, given how much time students spend consuming visual media.

Limitations Although the results of this study indicate that students perceived and improved their ability to think critically, there are some limitations of the research. Faculty members teaching the general psychology class were used to appraise the difficulty level of each scenario used with Sample 2. This rating process required faculty members’ best judgment; thus, there may have been some subjectivity in the ratings. Also, as the research design included three opportunities for students to apply their critical thinking skills, practice may have contributed to the improvement in these skills. However, a large part of learning is considered to be a result of practice (Kimble, 2016; Wade et al., 2014). Thus, it is difficult to separate out what can be considered learning from what were practice effects. The study’s results lead the authors to conclude that the inclusion of these assignments in the general psychology class has strong learning opportunities that outweighed these limitations.

For all three assignments, students were required to think like a psychologist in collecting their data, applying theories and concepts, and providing evidence-based analyses. We found that students were successful in doing so.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References American Psychological Association. (2013). Guidelines for the undergraduate psychology major (Version 2.0). Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ed/precollege/about/psymajor-guidelines.pdf Angelo, T. (1995). Classroom assessment for critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22, 6–7. doi:10.1207/s15328023top2201_1 Apple, K. J., Serdikoff, S. L., Reis-Bergan, M. J., & Barron, K. E. (2008). Programmatic assessment of critical thinking. In D. S. Dunn, J. S. Halonen, & R. A. Smith (Eds.), Teaching critical thinking in psychology: A handbook of best practices. West Sussex, England: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 77–78.

Wentworth and Whitmarsh Bensley, D. A. (2010). A brief guide for teaching and assessing critical thinking in psychology. APS Observer, 23, 49–53.

Bensley, D. A., & Murtagh, M. P. (2012). Guidelines for a scientific approach to critical thinking assessment. Teaching of Psychology, 39, 5–16. doi:10.1177/0098628311430642 Bensley, D. A., Powell, L., & Flinn, J. A. (2010, March). Development of a test for critically evaluating information on the Internet. Poster presented at the 81st annual meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Brooklyn, NY. Dykstra, D. V. E. (2008). Integrating critical thinking and memorandum writing into course curriculum using the Internet as a research tool. College Student Journal, 42, 920–929.

Ennis, R. H. (2011). The nature of critical thinking: An outline of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. Retrieved from http:// faculty.education.illinois.edu/rhennis/documents/TheNatureof CriticalThinking_51711_000.pdf Halonen, J. S. (1996). On critical thinking. APS Observer, 9. Retrieved from http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publica tions/observer/1996/july-august-96/on-critical-thinking.html Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: Dispositions, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 53, 449–455.

Halpern, D. F. (2010). Halpern critical thinking assessment. Schuhfried (Vienna Test System). Retrieved from http://www.com/ vienna-test-system-vts/alltests_from-a-to-ztest/heta-halperncriticalthinkingassessment-1/ Halpern, D. F., & Hakel, M. D. (2003). Applying the science of learning to the university and beyond: Teaching for long-term retention and transfer. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 35, 36–41. doi:10.1080/00091380309604109 Harlow, L. L., Burkholder, G. J., & Morrow, J. A. (2006). Engaging students with learning: An application with quantitative psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 33, 231–235. doi:10.1207/ s15328023top3304_3 Hill, B. (2011). Encouraging academic integrity: But if necessary, detecting and dealing with academic dishonesty. Retrieved from http://xulaonline.wikispaces.com/file/view/presentation.pdf/ 517895062/presentation.pdf IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows Version 22, Released 2013.

Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.

Kimble, G. (2016). Learning theory. Retrieved from http://www.brit annica.com/science/learning-theory Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., & Barton, S. M. (2003). Collegiate academic dishonesty revisited: What have they done, how often

341 have they done it, who does it, and why did they do it? Retrieved from http://www.sociology.org/content/vol7.4/lambert_etal.html Lawson, T. J. (1999). Assessing psychological critical thinking as a learning outcome for psychology majors. Teaching of Psychology, 26, 207–209. doi:10.1207/s15328023top260311 Pennebaker, J. W., Czajka, J. A., Cropanzano, R., Richards, B. C., Brumbelow, S., Ferrara, K., . . . Thyssen, T. (1990). Levels of thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 744–757. doi:10.1177/0146167290164014 Plagiarism.org. Retrieved from http://www.plagiarism.org/ Simkin, M. G., & McLeod, A. (2010). Why do college students cheat?

Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 441–453. doi:10.1007/s10551-0090275-x Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of smallgroup learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69, 21–51. doi:10.3102/00346543069001021 Stark, E. (2012). Enhancing and assessing critical thinking in a psychological research methods course. Teaching of Psychology, 39, 107–112. doi:10.1177/0098628312437725 Swinkels, A. (2008). Instructor’s resource manual—Psychology, 9th edition, Wade & Tavris. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

Thomas, D. A. (2004). How educators can more effectively understand and combat the plagiarism epidemic. Retrieved from http:// digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi? article¼1191&context¼elj van Gelder, T. (2005). Teaching critical thinking: Some lessons from cognitive science. College Teaching, 53, 41–46. Retrieved from http://www.reasoninglab.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Timvan-Gelder-Teaching-CT-Lessons-from-Cog-Sci.pdf Wade, C. (1995). Using writing to develop and assess critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22, 24–28. doi:10.1207/ s15328023top2201_8 Wade, C., Tavris, C., & Garry, M. (2014). Psychology (11th ed.).

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Williams, R. L., Oliver, R., Allin, J. L., Winn, B., & Booher, C. S. (2003). Psychological critical thinking as a course predictor and outcome variable. Teaching of Psychology, 30, 220–223. doi:10.1207/s15328023TOP3003_04 Yardley, J., Domenech Rodriguez, M. M., Nelson, J., & Bates, S. C. (2009). True confessions? Alumni’s retrospective reports on undergraduate cheating behaviors. Ethics & Behavior, 19, 1–14. doi:10.1080/10508420802487096