Grundläggande lärobok om vetenskapsteori, med fokus på psykologi och andra beteendevetenskaper.

Conventionally, quantitative surveys are used for student evaluations in higher education, but the validity of this practice has been questioned. In the present study, we investigated a qualitative method for evaluating a bachelor’s programme. Forty-one first-year students and twenty-eight third- year students on a bachelor’s programme in Public Administration were asked to answer a single question in relation to their programme: ‘What could have been done in order to support your learning?’ The students provided rich responses of a depth and breadth not attainable through conventional surveys, making this method worthwhile for educational development at the programme level. The responses focused on students’ own learning rather than on judgement of teacher performance. The results indicate that the students underwent a transition from the first to third year, suggesting a shift in needs. For example, first-year students asked for direct interaction, whereas third-year students asked for feedback on accomplishments. Practical applications are discussed.

The use of fictional literature as “case studies” in psychology education has a potential to supportstudents' learning in various ways. To further the understanding of such applications of fiction, weinvestigated how clinical psychology students perceived reading fiction as a learning activity. The participants saw benefits for their clinical training, theoretical understanding, and self-awareness.They also saw use of fiction in their education as predominantly beneficial for their learningenvironment. How the present findings support our understanding of fiction as an educational deviceis discussed in light of previous studies about the potential of fiction in higher education.

Simple surveys are the predominant tool for course evaluations in most universities, but their validity has been questioned. They have been criticized for being a ritual way of complying with administrative regulations rather than a way of improving educational quality. Moreover, there is often a focus on student satisfaction, where the complexity of learning processes and the development of learner identities are lost. As an alternative approach, a qualitative course evaluation was tested that consisted of a single question: What could have been done in this course in order to better support your learning? Twenty-one second-year psychology students completed the evaluation at the end of a course. They provided rich answers describing learning activities and communication, and they described both teachers and students as agents. Going beyond merely reporting possible improvements, the students saw their learning processes in a context of academic demands and social mechanisms. It is argued that qualitative course evaluations can provide information about students’ understanding of their own learning that is difficult to uncover in a traditional survey. It is concluded that qualitative course evaluations would support the development of a student learner identity and help create a role for students as co-producers of knowledge.

Kritiskt tänkande är ett centralt begrepp i högre utbildning, men begreppet är både svårfångat och värdeladdat och kan därförvara en utmaning att hantera i utbildningspraktiken. Syftet med denna text är att hjälpa lärare att bli tryggare i hur de kan tänkakring kritiskt tänkande och vad det innebär att stödja studenternas kritiska tänkande. Presentationen börjar med en genomgångav några begreppsliga frågor, främst kopplat till hur kritiskt tänkande ska ses som en konstruktion som det är lätt att reifiera.Ett centralt argument är att det är olyckligt att fastna i en diskussion av vad kritiskt tänkande "är" och att det istället kan varamer fruktbart att fokusera på vilka förmågor som vi önskar att studenterna ska utveckla för att bli kritiska tänkare. Här knyterarbetet an till Ennis (1987, 1993, 2011) inflytelserika diskussioner av kritiskt tänkande. Utifrån diskussioner om förmågor ochdispositioner som återfinns i den högskolepedagogiska litteraturen om kritiskt tänkande, argumenteras det för att fokus börligga på studentens förmåga att forma argument och att dra slutsatser baserade på detta. Det inkluderar förmågan att sklija påargument och åsikter. I samband med detta diskuteras emotionernas roll för kritiskt tänkande. Betydelsen av en adekvatkunskapsbas för kritiskt tänkande diskuteras också, liksom betydelsen av att studenterna behöver lämna sin komfort-zon somen del av sin utbildning för att kunna tänka kritiskt. Kritiskt tänkande ställs också i kontrast till kritik och till normativttänkande om de ska kunna stödja studenterna och examinera dem i relation til kritiskt tänkande. En övergripande slutsats är attäven om en "avmystifiering" av kritiskt tänkande kan stärka lärarna och ge dem en tydligare känsla av att ha kontroll, pekardet samtidigt på de krav som ställs på läraren som ska hjälpa studenterna att utveckla kritiskt tänkande.Litteratur:Ennis, R. H. (1987). A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. In J. B. Baron & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Seriesof books in psychology. Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice (pp. 9-26). New York, NY, US: W H Freeman/TimesBooks/ Henry Holt & Co.Ennis, R. H. (1993). Critical thinking assessment. Theory into Practice, 32(3), 179–183.Ennis, R. H. (2011). Critical thinking: Reflection and perspective. Inquiry, 26(1), 4-18.

The claim that students should take responsibility for their learning is challenged through the alternative claim that students should be expected to take responsibility for their knowledge. It is argued that students can reflect on responsibilities for knowledge and teachers can support this in an everyday academic discourse regardless of discipline, whereas responsibility for learning is difficult to grasp without an elaborate learning theory. Further, the suggested shift from learning to knowledge will widen the scope to issues beyond learning, explicating a more nuanced student role. Through the focus on knowledge, students’ responsibilities relates to educational purposes, and points to expectations on critical thinking as well as the students’ academic freedom. It also makes it possible to discuss the mutual responsibilities of students and teachers with the same conceptual framework. This can also support the notion of students as co-creators of knowledge.

Teaching competence is often discussed in relation to rewards of present day achievements, rather than in terms of strategic long-term quality. A call for a shift towards a long-term quality perspective on teaching competence is presented, and eight challenges, which have to be met in such a process, are identified. These challenges concern the active responsibility of institutional management and the professoriate; promoting demands of highest academic standards for educational specialists; selecting an appropriate time-frame, and relevant concepts (with a particular focus on the excellence-concept). Further, the challenges include the teachers' understanding of their disciplines, of educational theories and of research methods relevant for evaluating educational results. The final challenge concerns programs for rewarding teachers. Taken together, these challenges presents features, which are suggested to promote a quality culture where teaching competence is seen as a long-term quality goal.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss functions of kindness in social practices guided by values in higher education. Definitions of kindness are briefly discussed and kindness is handled as a quality in social interactions between teacher and students, and between students. It is argued that kindness must be seen in a framework of values of higher education that are guiding the social interactions discussed – interactions that in turn are presumed to promote and communicate such values, and facilitate an academic development in line with these values. Quality of communication is suggested as an overall value for this purpose, as it is argued that quality of communication in a broad sense is at the core in every academic endeavour, both in research and in higher education. Communication is further related to academic freedom and academic responsibility, seen as two sides of the same coin. The overall discussion focus on how kindness can promote communication in higher education, and on how kindness as thus can be seen in terms of academic responsibility for both teachers and students. A caveat is that kindness is not about delimiting what can be said in an academic discourse, as this is guided by academic freedom, but of how it ought to be said to enable the best outcome in relation to academic values. It is also discussed how communication and academic freedom, in relation to kindness, are influenced by whether students are seen as customers, as victims, or as free adults being academic partners in the construction of knowledge.

(unpublished abstract)

Student motivation covers such a diverse set of behaviours that it must be explicated through specific theories, which can meet the needs for answering particular research questions. In this chapter, it is argued that the theory of possible selves can help us understand students’ individual expectations about the future, and these expectations’ function for motivation. Three areas are singled out as particularly interesting, for both theoretical and methodological reasons. The first is the complexity of emotional valence in possible selves, where recent findings show that it is an oversimplification to assume that possible selves are either positive or negative. The second is the important distinction between possible selves and more general strivings – for example in terms of life tasks – which in particular offer methodological challenges. The third is the notion of ‘possible others’, explicating the social dimension of possible selves with a potential to solve some methodological problems. All three areas are discussed with a particular focus on motivational issues for students uncertain about the life in academia or about the merits of higher education.

Förlagets beskrivning: Att referera är ett hantverk som kräver eftertanke, både vad gäller hur man förhåller sig till vad andra skriver och hur man själv skriver. Det handlar om allt från att undvika plagiat till att förstå de ibland outtalade funktioner som en referens kan ha i en text. Det handlar också om att kunna värdera olika källor och avgöra vad som ska refereras och inte. Boken ger en introduktion till dessa frågor med fokus på hur litteraturreferenser fungerar som verktyg i det egna skrivandet. Denna andra upplaga av boken ger en detaljerad genomgång av hur man skriver formellt korrekta referenser enligt den modell som kallas APA-systemet, där boken utgår ifrån 6:e upplagan av den manual som ges ut av American Psychological Association. APA-systemet återfinns också inom andra ämnen än psykologi, som exempelvis pedagogik och vårdvetenskap. Boken vänder sig till dig som skriver akademiska uppsatser oavsett nivå, på svenska eller på engelska.

While the Humboldtian ideal of a 'unity between research and teaching' is frequently invoked in academic discourse, it is rarely achieved in modern academic life. Indeed, it can be argued that the two strands of activities are increasingly perceived as being in conflict with each other. This workshop will examine the relationship between research and teaching and look at the impact that strategic policy initiatives to promote the quality of teaching or excellence in research might have on the modern academic self-concept. The starting point is the recognition that the low status of teaching is one of the biggest obstacles to improving the quality of teaching, and that initiatives aimed at enhancing the quality of teaching may (inadvertently) contribute to lowering its status even further. In order to break this increasingly vicious cycle, it is suggested to start with a better understanding of the modern academic self-concept.

The notion of critical thinking and its theoretical complexity are used as a case for an epistemological critique of the model of intended learning outcomes. The conclusion is that three problems of learning outcomes, previously discussed in the literature, become even more challenging when seen in the light of critical thinking. The first problem concerns interpretations, as the use of learning outcomes is dependent on advanced but implicit interpretative frameworks. The second is the problem of educational goals that cannot be expressed through learning outcomes, and the third is the risk that learning outcomes may establish a ceiling for student ambitions. It is argued that the example of critical thinking shows the seriousness of the epistemological critique of learning outcomes and how the use of learning outcomes can divert teachers’ and students’ attention away from important goals.

Core academic principles and purposes of higher education can be expressed in such terms as students’ personal development or academic identity. These are important in the Bologna process, for example in relation to life-long learning. At the same time, policies about learning outcomes regulate much of the teachers’ everyday practice. The paper analyse the extent to which this combination of perspectives can be a quality hazard, and it is argued that two particular areas can be problematic. The first is that desirable effects of higher education that cannot be expressed as learning outcomes are at risk of being neglected. The second is that learning outcomes can become a roof, restricting students’ ambitions and their entire outlook on what higher education is supposed to be. How these risks can be taken into account when formulating quality criteria is discussed in relation to the responsibilities of students, teachers and institutional management.

In this study, we explicate citing behavior in the writing of scientific papers by presenting a taxonomy of motives to cite. The suggested taxonomy consists of four main categories, which are purely descriptive: Argumentation, Social Alignment, Mercantile Alignment, and Data. These categories are divided into a suggested set of subcategories. We argue that the complexities of citing practice show how little can be assumed about actual citing behavior when studying a finished paper. The discussion supports the claim that it might be misleading to treat all citations as equal in quantitative citation analysis.

It is a challenge for psychology education to teach students about the possibilities and limitations of psychological theories. In the present article, we attempt to meet this challenge by employing the metaphorical expression “theories-are-maps” as a didactic tool for exploring the dynamics between psychology as a scientific project and the nature of the phenomena observed. Using mental illness as an example, we use the map metaphor to discuss the various difficulties involved in teaching theories in psychology, in such terms as the risk of confusing maps and terrain. While using theories-are-maps as a tool does add complexity to psychology education, it also helps illustrate how the relationship between theory and the “reality” that theoretical devices are describing can be envisaged. We see this as a contribution to the discussion on critical thinking in psychology, particularly in the teaching of psychology. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved)

Within academia, clear and standardised communication is vital. From this point of departure, we discuss the trustworthiness of teaching portfolios when used in assessment. Here, misconduct and fraud are discussed in terms of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism, following the literature on research fraud. We argue that the portfolio’s unclear academic status and confusing standards makes it difficult to define misconduct. We see a risk that the practice of portfolio writing for assessment can lead to misconduct, including downright lies about accomplishments. We conclude that the trustworthiness of teaching portfolios is a responsibility for the academic community as a whole

Purpose Possible selves are conceptions of our selves in future states. Previous findings indicated that women with anorexia nervosa tended to have more negative possible selves than a control group, even when rating future situations normally regarded in our society as desirable. The present study investigated whether this was a general pattern in women with eating disorders, relating findings on possible selves to depression. Possible selves concerning treatment were also included. Methods Patients with anorexia nervosa (n = 19), bulimia nervosa (n = 29) or an eating disorder not otherwise specified (EDNOS) (n = 18) and a control group (n = 27) rated the valence of five possible selves on Likert’s scales. Levels of depression were measured among the patients using the Beck Depression Inventory. Results The patients rated the valence of the possible selves significantly less positively and more negatively than did the control group. A strong correlation between valence and depression was found in patients with anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa. No such correlation was found in patients with EDNOS. Possible selves concerning future treatment were rated even more negatively. Conclusions The results indicate that, when compared to a non-patient group, eating disorder patients make more negative evaluations of possible selves usually seen as desirable. Depression may be a mediating factor in these evaluations for the anorexia and bulimia patients.

Adopting the construct of possible selves, which are conceptions of our selves in future situations, the objective of this study was to investigate how anorexia patients differ from a non-clinical control group in their conceptions of the future on qualitative con- tent, and the four quantitative dimensions positive and negative emotional valence, and beliefs about probability and controllabil- ity. The Possible Selves Statements Test was employed. Participants presented 14 possible selves by completing the question “I can see myself . . .” and rating each possible self on the 4 dimensions. The patients reported a larger number of negative possible selves, with higher negative valence, often seeing future everyday situations as negative, whereas the control group saw similar situations as pos- itive. The anorexia patients also reported negative possible selves with high controllability and high probability in relation to such situations and in some cases rated recovery from anorexia with a negative valence. Clinical implications are discussed.

Denna rapport är den tredje i ordningen som har sin upprinnelse i Humboldtuniversitetets 200-årsjubileum och i ambitionen att föra en kvalificerad diskussion om vilka roller som högskolor och universitet spelar idag. Rapporten ägnar särskild uppmärksamhet åt fenomenet tvärvetenskap och de utmaningar som en sådan ansats innebär, men den för också upp grundläggande principfrågor om akademiska friheter och värden till diskussion.

Texten utgör en inledning till antologin Vetenskap på tvären; den tredje volymen som dokumenterar seminarieserien Från Högskolan i Borås till Humboldt. Texten sätter den tredje seminarieseriens innehåll i förhållande till de två tidigare, diskuterar i korthet några aspekter på begreppet och företeelsen tvärvetenskap samt introducerar de nio övriga uppsatser som ingår i volymen.

The right to teach at university is a distinctive philosophical and legalconundrum but a largely unexplored question. Drawing onHumboltdian principles, the legitimacy of the university teacher stemsfrom their continuing engagement in research rather than possession ofacademic and teaching qualifications alone. This means that the right toteach needs to be understood as a privilege and implies that it isalways provisional, requiring an ongoing commitment to research. Yet,massification of higher education (HE) systems internationally has led tothe disaggregation of the academic profession with teaching-only positionsnow increasingly common. University teachers employed to bothteach and research face a narrowing set of performative expectationswith respect to how ‘research-active’ is defined. This paper challengesthese contemporary understandings and, drawing on historical evidence,argues that a broader definition of research and scholarshipneeds to underpin the basis of the right to teach.

Who has the right to teach in higher education? It is a question rarely posed. The way that such a right is understood in compulsory education is largely defined by reference to the possession of a teaching qualification. However, in a higher education (HE) context this question is as much a philosophical as a legal one given its distinctive values and characteristics, including the role of research and academic freedom. The philosophical literature on rights covers a lot of approaches and a demarcation of the right to teach is needed. Following Hohfeld (1919), we suggest that the right to teach should be regarded as a privilege. There is also an ensuing power, for example to place expectations on students (where students are given rights in return, something beyond the scope of this paper). To have the right to teach is to have a privilege to act in a number of situations. The exact scope of actions for a given teacher depend to a large extent on the organization of the educational venture, but potentially the rights include setting a curriculum or interpreting an existing curriculum. It includes deciding on the relative merit of theoretical and methodological perspectives, and the depth and scope of what to include in teaching activities and assessments. It is the right to assess students’ skills and knowledge. It is also the right to set and interpret the literature, and to take a stand on it in front of the students, including criticizing the authors’ claims.

Regardless of any other expectations we can place on teachers, a necessary condition for the right to teach is to have the competence to accomplish what is discussed above. It can be argued that this competence is manifest through an ability to reflect critically on the subject matter – this ought to come naturally given the fact that the development of students’ critical thinking is considered one of the most important aspects of higher education. The general rule in higher education, going back to Humboldt, is that the right to teach comes from being a researcher – a rule also enforced in many countries through educational acts, either as the implicit effect of a set of demands or as explicit legal requirements, as in New Zealand. A number of universities have also committed themselves during the last decades by signing Magna Charta Universitatum, which states: “recruitment of teachers, and regulation of their status, must obey the principle that research is inseparable from teaching”. Throughout the centuries, the right to teach has also been based on a formal recognition of research skills. In the medieval university the earliest degrees were the licentiateship (ie licentia docendi), in effect, a teaching licence.  In modern international higher education, a doctorate is the norm, emerging from the German tradition which has become the basis for the elite research university. In addition, teachers are often required to undertake teaching courses specific to HE. In the mainland European tradition, the position of teacher is often confirmed through ‘habilitation’, involving either the production of a second doctoral thesis or achieved cumulatively through high quality publications. Implicit or explicit, through a venia legendi, is a permission to teach a particular subject for life.

If accepting the Humboldtian model and the unity of teaching and research, it may be argued that real university level teaching can only be undertaken by those actively engaged in research. This position has been consistently asserted for over one hundred years by thinkers such as Ashby, Eliot, Jaspers, Russell, Truscot, and von Humboldt, encapsulated in the words of Stout (1965:61) who stated that ‘all teaching at the university level should be alive with the spirit of discovery’. The teacher needs to be at the cutting edge of examining knowledge claims rather than simply passing on received wisdom to students, whereas someone not currently engaged in research will only be able to pass on taken-for-granted knowledge claims. Yet possessing a doctorate or habilitation does not automatically mean that a person is currently engaged in research. This implies two issues. First, there is a need to define minimum requirements on research activity that should give the right to teach. Second, there is a need to discuss if the traditional life-long venia legendi is appropriate unless it is supplemented by a demand continuously meet the standards of research or professional activity.