Greatness and misery in the teaching of the psychology of learning.

Farrant et al. (1998) wrote a think-piece, not an experiment. They looked at how colleges teach the psychology of learning. They saw courses that list facts and dates. They wanted courses that teach students how to think like scientists.

The authors asked: What if we rebuilt the whole class? Start with how experiments work. Add numbers and graphs early. Show learning as a living process that helps animals survive.

The paper does not give new data. It gives a warning and a plan. The warning: keep teaching trivia and the field will shrink. The plan: center every lesson on method and logic.

They argue students must practice measuring behavior, not just memorize definitions. When students do the measuring, they see why controls matter and how learning evolves.

Later papers took the 1998 call and built real tools. Lattal (2022) gives a six-part history framework plus classic experiments you can run in class. Zuriff (2005) hands you a ready list of early easy-to-read articles for a lab course. Both extend the same idea: teach through doing, not telling.

Frieder et al. (2018) asked faculty what to assign. Their survey lists the exact books, like Cooper et al., that match the reboot vision. Howard (2019) maps free open resources so cost will not block the new style. Each paper adds a brick to the overhaul that A et al. sketched.

Pilowsky et al. (1998), written the same year, adds a second hurdle: folk psychology. Students walk in believing in invisible minds. That paper says you must first tackle those beliefs. Together the two 1998 essays show both curriculum and student mindset need repair.

If you teach or supervise, this 1998 essay is your blueprint. Swap one lecture for a data sheet. Have students graph their own counts. Pick an old EAB article, let them replicate the effect. Each small move follows the paper’s core rule: teach the logic, not the lore. Your students leave able to think, measure, and sell behavior analysis to the next class.