Thoughts about how to use HIBAR (had I been a reviewer) in teaching.
In the spring, I’ll be teaching the advanced social psychology course again, with a handful of my colleagues. They are student led seminar classes – your basic grad school seminar style – and they are a lot of fun. The student responsible focus on part of the chapter (we are using Taylor & Fiske, which is great, but incredibly dense), and to bring in original literature in their presentation. The literature must be of empirical work – no reviews – as we want them to engage more with how things actually are done.
In the past (due to circumstances beyond our control – read the former dean of the social science faculty) we covered T & F in 2 weeks. Exhilarating and completely exhausting.
As we then wrested control back to ourselves, we now spread T & F over several weeks. So, I figure, it is time to get more serious about looking at the data. I want the students to not only present, but to pick apart and ask, is their conclusions really reasonable, given the evidence? Because one of the problems, I think, is that you get so into the narrative, and very little into the actual calibration, that it is easy to believe in what is really fairy-tales.
Two that have yet to make it onto that blog (but likely will) are this one from James Thompson on whether talking to children really affects their intellect. (N = 29? Correlation? Vague controlling for IQ? Researchers, you have to get better at controlling for individual differences). And this one from Rolf Zwaan testing out the nifty p-hacking app.
I actually suggested to the Masters Students group that they should use Rolf’s 50 question post, and the original paper, for a journal club meeting, and evidently that ended up being quite successful. If students can do this for themselves, we should be able to incorporate it in our classes.