In August 2023, APA approved a revised version of the Guidelines for the Undergraduate Major in Psychologyopens in new window (version 3.0). Is this new document a big deal? As a psychology teacher, should you take action as a result? As two members of the task force that revised the Guidelines, we submit that the answers to those questions are “yes” and “yes.”
What is the purpose of the Guidelines?
The Guidelines are a big deal because they describe what a degree in psychology should entail. In other words, they provide answers to the question, “What should a student who has earned a psychology degree be able to do and what should they know as the result of undergraduate study?” At the core of the Guidelines are five goals that represent broad domains of effort such as scientific inquiry and critical thinking and personal and professional development. For each goal, there are several outcomes that correspond to evidence of progress towards the goal area. And for each outcome, there are indicators, which are more specific examples of things students can do. Each outcome has indicators at the foundation (2-year) and baccalaureate (4-year) levels.
Why is this profile of the major a big deal? First, it provides a resource external to your institution that establishes clear expectations for the major. The Guidelines are not prescriptive, meaning that APA is not saying that psychology programs must meet these requirements. However, a document developed by the largest scientific and professional organization in the discipline can help faculty in several ways. Think of this document as a resource and a discussion starter to help psychology teachers improve the education that they provide to students. Faculty can justify their curriculum and assessment decisions to both internal and external entities. Although arguably not as influential as a formal accreditation process, alignment with Guidelines 3.0 can also help administrators leverage their program achievements to secure badly needed resources.
What’s new with 3.0?
APA requires a review of official policy every 10 years to ensure the guidelines that they advocate reflect current preferred practices. As the world has changed substantially over the last decade, the charge to review Guidelines 2.0 was timely.
The task force began the revision process by gathering input on the strengths and limitations of Guidelines 2.0, which proved to have broad use in the psychology education community. We concluded that there was much to like about the 2.0 version, including the goal/outcome/indicator structure and the five broad goals. Although commonality exists between Guidelines 2.0 and 3.0, some important changes transpired in the latest version.
The task force identified an overarching theme that emerged about what earning a degree in psychology should accomplish. That theme, “Empowering people to make a difference in their lives and communities,” permeated the task force’s work. We encourage you to consider the theme as you make decisions about your courses and degree programs, keeping in mind that earning a degree in psychology should prepare students to improve their own lives and the lives of others whether the student’s destiny is the workforce or graduate school.
Also new is an increased emphasis on issues of equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI). Examples of how EDI has been strengthened in Guidelines 3.0 include an emphasis on globalizing content (e.g., promoting the use of research findings from multiple cultures and geographic areas), including interpersonal and intercultural responsiveness as outcomes, and acknowledging the ways in which our discipline has both undermined and contributed to EDI.
Another change and, we hope, improvement, is an increased emphasis on professional development. We must recognize that the majority of our undergraduates will pursue careers at the bachelor’s level, and that their contributions are just as honorable and worthwhile as those students who earn graduate degrees in psychology or other areas.
We also improved the representation of statistical competence in the outcomes. Guidelines 2.0 did not explicitly list statistical outcomes and we recognized this gap as a shortcoming that needed to be fixed in Guidelines 3.0. Further, the task force attempted to reflect open science and new trends in statistical analysis, such as the preregistration of studies and sharing of data, as well as the de-emphasis on null hypothesis significance testing in favor of the use of effect sizes and confidence intervals.
How the guidelines can help psychology teachers
As a psychology educator, how should you proceed with a Guidelines upgrade?
Set transforming goals. First, spend some time with the document. Use the Guidelines to identify program achievements and shortcomings, but also consider what new horizons may be possible. Although the goals/outcomes/indicators represent the core, we offer other information and guidance in the document, such as the section on putting the guidelines into action. We hope to inspire program transformation through the various calls to action proposed in Guidelines 3.0.
Share skills focus with students. The task force focused on writing student-friendly outcomes. You can use the new Guidelines to help your students articulate what they are learning to do in their courses, starting with course designs that emphasize skill building. Students can clearly identify their psychology “superpowers,” that is, distinguishing how their education in psychology develops skills and knowledge not likely to be shared by non-psychology majors. Ideally, psychology students should be able to dazzle potential employers, friends, and family members by their confident discussion of the personal and professional value added by their degree.
Revisit pathway challenges. More collaboration is needed across institutions that offer psychology courses, and the new Guidelines offer a framework that may help. A prime example is the need for 2-year and 4-year institutions to work together so that students may transfer into bachelor’s programs more seamlessly. In addition, college and high school faculty should be collaborating on how introductory psychology courses create a pathway into the psychology major.
Concluding thoughts
We hope to have convinced you that the newly revised Guidelines are a big enough deal that they should inspire action. The document will only have an impact if you read it, think about it, and discuss it with your colleagues. The impact should include improving the way you teach your courses to help us achieve the lofty goal of transforming the lives of our students and communities.
David S. Kreiner is a professor of psychological science at the University of Central Missouri, where has been on the faculty since 1990. He earned a BA in psychology and a PhD in human experimental psychology, both from the University of Texas at Austin. He teaches general (intro.) psychology, orientation to psychology, research design & analysis I and II, cognitive psychology, and a capstone course in history of psychology. His research interests include cognitive psychology, particularly in language processing and memory, as well as research on the teaching of psychology. He is active in the Society for the Teaching of Psychology and has been involved in a number of endeavors related to teaching. He is currently an associate editor for the APA journal, Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology.
Jane S. Halonen is a professor of psychology at the University of West Florida, where she also served as the dean of the College of Arts and Sciences for a decade. Her most recent research and consulting emphases have been in assessment, assisting good departments to become great ones, and trying to help legislators and others with serious misconceptions about psychology understand the true nature of discipline. Current publications of interest include the third edition of The Psychology Major’s Companion: How to Get You Where You Want to Go, with Dana Dunn, and the Critical Thinking Companion for Introductory Psychology, co-authored with Cynthia Gray, both books published by Worth. Halonen also co-authors advice columns with Dana Dunn on academic challenges for the Chronicle of Higher Education. She has been involved over the course of her career with helping APA develop guidelines or standards of academic performance from high school through graduate levels of education, including chairing three different the task forces addressing APA’s undergraduate guidelines. She served as the chief reader for Psychology Advanced Placement Reading from 2004–2009. In 2000, she was named the Distinguished Teaching Award winner by the American Psychological Foundation. APA named her an Eminent Woman in Psychology in 2003. In 2013, she won the BEA Award for Distinguished Contributions of Applications of Psychology to Education and Training. The Society for the Teaching of Psychology named the early career award in her honor as a tribute to her mentoring of generations of psychology teachers at all levels. In 2019, she was named a Distinguished Member of Psi Chi.
