Behind the Facts: Helping Students Evaluate Media Reports of Psychological Research

Abstract

This article describes an activity that can help students (a) understand how the research process influences the outcomes of that research and (b) appreciate the media's limitations of reporting research findings. Students read about research reported in an online newspaper and in a scholarly journal and responded to questions that guided their critique of the research methods and their comparison of the 2 sources. Quantitative and qualitative evaluations suggested that this activity can help students understand the impact of research procedures on a study's findings and to appreciate the limitations in the reporting of such findings from mainstream media sources.

Meta-Analysis of Group Learning Activities: Empirically Based Teaching Recommendations

“…Judgment tasks require integrating diverse information and making judgments about future events (Campbell, 1988). An example teaching activity might involve the analysis of case study information (e.g., Hall & Seery, 2006). Problem tasks involve “finding the best way to achieve an outcome” when confronted with multiple related pathways (Campbell, 1988, p. 47).…”

“…Stimulating prior learning through some type of practice or preactivity preparation (e.g., completing a worksheet before the activity; Hall & Seery, 2006) may ensure adequate preparation for students to fully participate in the group activity (Gagné & Driscoll, 1988). Instructor use of advance organizers (e.g., Ausubel, Novak, & Hanesian, 1978; Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning, 2001; West, Farmer, & Wolff, 1991) can help activate students’ prior knowledge which relates to, and as such can facilitate, learning new material.…”

The reporting of mental disorders research in British media

“…We were unable to discover any previous studies of how research on mental disorders had been covered in the mass media. A few articles discuss treatment options or mental health policy but research as such is barely considered (Stout et al 2004; Hall & Seery, 2006).…”

Undergraduates’ Ability to Recognize Correlational and Causal Language Before and After Explicit Instruction

“…A single study by Norris et al (2003) suggests that undergraduates are not competent at recognizing and distinguishing between causal and correlational claims when presented with sample statements. Furthermore, although considerable attention has been given to developing critical thinking skills of various forms among psychology students (e.g., Bensley, Crowe, Bernhardt, Buckner, & Allman, 2010; Hall & Seery, 2006; McLean & Miller, 2010; Stanovich, 2010), few studies have targeted the development of students’ ability to distinguish among the types of claims found at the center of science news reports. One exception is an assignment by Connor-Greene (1993) that involved a single exercise during the coverage of research methods in a psychology course in which students analyzed a news report of scientific research.…”