PROGRAM IN COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY

University of Pittsburgh

Information for Graduate Students and Faculty

September, 1991

CONTENTS

Program in Cognitive Psychology

1.0 General Goals of the Program

2.0 Training Philosophy

3.0 Curriculum

3.1. Core Cognitive Psychology. Course offerings reflect the central issues identifiable in cognitive psychology and related cognitive sciences. These include traditional topics such as learning, attention, language and memory presented in their most current formulations (but reflecting their historical development) by faculty active in research within these areas.

3.1.1 The core curriculum consists of the following:

• Five modules that cover the basic content of cognitive psychology. Each is a 7 week (6 weeks of instruction) 2 credit course offered in alternate years. The five modules are
  • Language
  • Perception and Attention
  • Learning and Memory
  • Reasoning and Problem Solving
  • Concepts and Categories
• Two one-term courses in Research Methods in Cognition (2 credits each) taken during the first year. The second term results in a written project that may lead to a full 2nd year (master's equivalent) project. The second-year project is completed by the third term of the second year.
• Two courses (6 credits) in quantitative methods that teach the general linear model and its associated procedures, i.e. analyses of variance and regression. These may be taken from among options available in various departments, including Bio- statistics and Educational Research, as well as Psychology.

3.2.1 Perspectives on Cognitive Science. This is a term long course normally taken after the module requirement has been satisfied or during years 2-4. It emphasizes across-discipline perspectives on cognitive topics, and is offered every other year.

3.3 Research apprenticeship. The student's most important training is learning to carry out significant publishable research. This training is under the guidance of one or more faculty members active in research. This research training includes an emphasis on both written and oral presentations of research.

3.3.1 First year research project. During the first two terms, the student works on a research project under the supervision of the advisor. A brief report of this research is written as a requirement of the second course in Cognitive Research Methods.

3.3.2 Second year research project. Not later than June 30 of the first year, the student presents a written proposal for a second year project to a 3-person committee. This research is carried out during the second year and presented at a program brown bag. The paper itself is presented to the committee by the end of the second year, at which time there is a final meeting of the student with the committee at which the project is given a final evaluation. Normally, the paper is written as a journal article. Students may submit this project as the research requirement for the Master's degree. (Check with the Associate Chair's Office for the procedure.)

3.4 Breadth of training. All students are expected to take courses or seminars outside those offered by the cognitive program. For each student, 3-person advising committee (see 4.0) provides guidance in finding relevant outside courses.

3.5 Career Development. The training of a Ph.D. includes attention to career development. The program prepares students for research and teaching in academic settings and research in nonacademic settings. In addition to training in research, career development activities include teaching of undergraduate courses, opportunities to attend scientific meetings, and to present papers. Informal career development seminars are also offered by the faculty of the program.

3.6 Flexibility. Although all students receive a core of instruction, the curriculum provides flexibility for students to follow specialized and partly individualized programs of study. The curriculum is designed so that students can complete the requirements within 4 years. It is expected that many students may require additional time. (Five years will be typical.)

4.0 Advising of Graduate Students

5.0 Evaluation of Graduate students

5.2 Each student is evaluated at an annual meeting of the faculty. As part of the evaluation procedure, students submit self report forms that indicate relevant training activities, including papers written and presented, courses taken, skills acquired, etc.

5.3 Students are allowed to remain in the program as long as they are making satisfactory progress toward the degree. However, students cannot expect support for more than 5 years.

5.4 Prior to being admitted to doctoral candidacy, the student writes a Specialty Review Paper, demonstrating his/her competence in the special theoretical and methodological issues of a chosen specialty. This paper is evaluated by a 3-person program committee that can overlap with the student's research advising committee.

Sample Curriculum

               Fall             Winter          Spring/Summer

Year 1         *Language      *Attention/Per    Quantitative III 
               *Memory        Methods II        Non-prog course
               Methods I      Quantitative II          
               Quant I

Year 2         *Concepts      *Reasoning/PS      Seminar
               Master's        Master's          Non-prog course 
               (Quant IV)      (Seminar)               
               

Year 3         Pers on Cog Sci  (Seminar)         Dissert Proposal
               Seminar          Specialty Exam   (Non-prog seminar)


Year 4         Dissertation    Dissertation       Dissertation
               (Seminar)

___________________________________________________________________

     Notes: (a) * indicates module of 7 weeks duration. The
alternate-year module schedule means that year 2 above is year 1
for about half the students entering the program. For these
students year 1 is year 2. (b) There is a "gap" problem in having
5 modules over 2 terms. The sample shows this gap to be in the
second term in alternate years. Students entering in a "lean" year
are expected to take a seminar in their winter term. (c) The
quantitative schedule is based on the assumption that students take
the current Psych department offerings. As an alternative to the
Psych quantitative sequence, students may take a bio-stat or Ed
Research sequence that starts in the fall. This must have the
approval of the student's advisor. (For the few students who are
already highly skilled in quantitative methods, an alternative
schedule, with no quantitative course the first term, can be worked
out with their advisor.) 

6.0 Specialty Exam

The exam also should serve a training function. Students need experiences that exemplify the kind of sustained, reflective, problem oriented scholarship that is consistent with their professional development goals. Writing a paper that might be published or submitted as a grant proposal serves this purpose.

6.2 Format. The specialty exam consists of a scholarly paper written on the student's specialty problem. The paper can be envisioned as a review paper, modelled after a Psychological Bulletin paper. It should approximate a publishable paper. It should contain a critical review of literature not recently available in the standard published literature. A critical review is one that not only refers extensively to literature in some problem area, but also comments on the unsolved problems and methodological issues that have characterized the work on the problem. Such a paper also reflects a distinctive focus on the issues being reviewed. For example, it organizes the research in a useful way, posing particular questions, etc., rather than merely describing studies. Finally, the paper includes a substantial reference list. Seven to 10 pages (double space) of references would be typical for most papers.

6.3 Boundaries. As a practical matter, there are some boundaries both on the paper length and on the writing process. The length of the paper shall not exceed 70 pages (double space) excluding references, except as agreed by the faculty committee in response to a request by the student. A typical length would be 45-55 pages plus references. (Note: These lengths assume large readable type & conventional margins that yield 250-300 words per page.)

The time between the approval of the student's project and the final meeting, which is a two-hour oral defense of the paper, shall not exceed 10-14 weeks as elaborated below.

6.4 Procedure. The specialty exam should be taken during the student's third year and not later than during the student's 4th year. The steps are as follows:

1. The student chooses a specialty problem and it is approved by his or her advisor. At this point, a one-two page prospectus describing the problems to be addressed in the paper is prepared along with a 3-5 page reference list. The reference list at this point is representative of the core literature to be reviewed rather than the complete list that will be part of the paper. The prospectus and the reference list together comprise the Specialty Exam Proposal. When the advisor approves the proposal, step (2) is undertaken.
2. With the approval of the advisor, the student sends the proposal to the program chair, along with a list of suggested committee members. The committee members approved by the program chair are then contacted by the student. They receive a copy of the proposal and an initial meeting is arranged to take place within 2 weeks. During this period, the student may want to meet with individual committee members, but this is not necessary.
3. Committee Proposal Meeting. At this meeting, the faculty present oral comments to the student concerning the proposal. These comments can help the student focus more clearly on the problems to be addressed and to suggest areas of review that should be added to the proposal. At the end of this meeting, the committee decides between two actions: (1) It approves the proposal, possibly requesting changes. (2) It disapproves the proposal. In the case of disapproval, the committee provides some guidance concerning what steps might be taken to gain approval at a second meeting. The 10 week clock starts at the conclusion of a meeting at which the project is approved.
4. Paper evaluation. Within 10 weeks after the approval meeting, the student distributes draft copies to each committee member. This paper should be a best-effort paper of the quality one would be willing to send to a journal. (It is not to be considered a "rough" draft, but a polished paper.) Within 7 days, the faculty members return the copy to the student with a short written critique. The evaluation choices are "approve" or "disapprove". "Approval" signifies that the first draft is in good enough shape to go through a revision process that incorporates the criticisms of each committee member. The standard for approval is not that the paper be publishable, but that it reflect competence in scholarship, including writing, and some mastery of the issues addressed. It is expected that improvements can be made in a revision, as usually happens when papers are submitted for publication. Often a student can begin work on the revision immediately without a meeting of the committee. However, a committee meeting is called if the student or any one of the committee members wants a meeting. Such a meeting is advisable if there are important points that need discussion or if the written critiques contain contradictory advice. A meeting must be called if one of the committee members disapproves the paper.
5. Revision and oral exam. Within 4 weeks of an approved first draft, the revision is distributed and a two-hour oral exam is scheduled. At the exam, the student is questioned about the problems addressed in the paper. The committee can be expected to probe the student's knowledge of issues and literature that are related to the topics covered in the paper even when they are not actually discussed in the paper. The final action is "pass", "fail", or "resubmit". The last option is taken only if the committee evaluates the paper as inadequate but salvageable with further revisions. This should be a rarely used option. Finally, each committee member returns to the student a critiqued copy of the revision. Publication possibilities should be discussed if this seems appropriate.
6. Public copy. When approved, a copy of the final paper is given to the program chair who keeps copies of all specialty papers and makes them available to students of the program. This final copy should reflect any final changes made as a result of feedback from the committee at the oral exam.