where should the balance be between scientist and practitioner in australian undergraduate psychology文档精选.pdfVIP

Australian Psychologist , December 2010; 45(4): 243–248 Where should the balance be between ‘‘scientist’’ and ‘‘practitioner’’ in Australian undergraduate psychology? 1 2 2 3 STEPHEN C. PROVOST , GREG HANNAN , FRANCES H. MARTIN , GERRY FARRELL , 4 5 6 7 OTTMAR V. LIPP , DEBORAH J. TERRY , DENISE CHALMERS , DEBRA BATH , PETER H. WILSON8 1School of Health and Human Sciences, Southern Cross University, New South Wales, 2School of Psychology, University of Tasmania, Tasmania, 3Division of Nursing and Midwifery, La Trobe University, Victoria, 4School of Psychology, University of Queensland, Queensland, 5 University of Queensland, Queensland, 6Centre for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning, University of Western Australia, 7Griffith Institute for Educational Research, Griffith University, Queensland and 8School of Behavioural, Cognitive and Social Sciences, University of New England, New South Wales, Australia Abstract The scientist–practitioner model of training in psychology has been widely influential in the development of undergraduate curricula in Australia. The model had its origins in post-war America and has formed the basis for accreditation of psychology courses in Australia since the late 1970s. Recently a reconsideration of the model in Australian undergraduate psychology was argued for, suggesting that the absence of significant practical skills development in most curricula is detrimental to the discipline’s graduates and their employers. The authors agree that the need for some practical skills development in undergraduate curricula is becoming increasingly important for psychology. Many of the exemplars of curriculum rev