Universities often leverage graduate students to help teach introductory topics (Bettinger et al., 2016). At our university, select doctoral students teach industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology each semester. Kath et al.'s (2021) focal article is a great resource for graduate student instructors (GSIs) who are developing their courses and teaching ability. We seek to expand on their discussion by reflecting on our experiences and perspectives as GSIs. Specifically, we highlight key benefits, challenges, and implications of allowing graduate students to teach I-O psychology to undergraduates. We hope to demonstrate how GSIs are aptly prepared to "practice what we preach," or more accurately, "practice what we are learning." In doing so, we provide suggestions for graduate students in light of Kath et al.'s and others' recommendations. Benefits of graduate student instructors Graduate students provide several potential benefits to teaching introductory I-O courses. First, graduate students are still learning the core I-O concepts. At our university, GSIs must first complete their master's degree, pass comprehensive exams, and complete a graduate-level course on teaching psychology before instructing. Therefore, GSIs should have foundational I-O principles readily accessible and should be well-positioned to practice what they are learning. This not only helps to ensure that the instructor has relevant up-to-date knowledge for the benefit of the students but also gives the GSI an opportunity implement what they have learned in a real-world setting, reinforcing the likelihood of training transfer for the GSI (e.g., Bell & Kozlowski, 2008). In other words, GSIs will truly be partners in learning with their students. Further, this context gives GSIs a chance not only to implement but also to model Kath et al.'s (2021) third theme, incorporating active learning. Social learning theory teaches us that modeling serves as an effective learning tool (Bandura, 1982). Along these lines, a second benefit is that GSIs may be more relatable to undergraduates. They were more recently undergraduate students themselves and may be perceived as able to identify with students' struggles and challenges. This is beneficial for students in multiple ways. One way is that students may be more likely to provide honest feedback because the power differential between the student and instructor is smaller (e.g., Ng et al., 2011). Thus, students may see their feedback as able to make more of a difference. Another way that GSIs can benefit the instructorstudent relationship is that the immediate connection as learners creates a common in-group in the course. Both advantages give GSIs a unique opportunity to adopt Kath et al's (2021) first theme, getting to know the students. We know from leader-member exchange (LMX) that, as We would like to thank Dr. Bradley Brummel and Dr. Jennifer Ragsdale for their help reviewing this commentary.
Legal considerations directly influence industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology. To understand the consequences of selection measures, practitioners must consider how the law guides use of these measures. However, I-O psychologists should take caution using legal interpretation and recommendations without proper training or supervision. The focal article shows how a minor misinterpretation can lead to overbroad generalizations and misguided recommendations. Melson-Silimon, Harris, Shoenfelt, Miller, and Carter's (2019) misconstrual of case law and official Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidance has the potential to incite unnecessary concern in I-O practitioners and researchers. Hence, we clarify federal jurisprudence shaping the application of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended (ADA, 1990), to personality-based selection instruments. By providing a more precise understanding of the relevant case law, we will show that Melson-Silimon et al.'s (2019) exploration of the relationship between normal personality and clinical personality has little bearing on whether personality measures constitute ADA "medical examinations." Although we believe they draw flawed legal inferences, the focal article provides an adequate overview of the ADA's statutory scheme and the EEOC's proposed test for identifying ADA "medical examinations." Thus, we do not repeat an overview here. Beyond that, substantial errors exist in Melson-Silimon et al.'s (2019) legal interpretations, but a clarification of each is beyond the scope of this response. We thus encourage readers to exercise caution and scrutiny when considering the legal conclusions in the focal article. In this commentary, we intend only to provide a broad clarification of the relevant legal landscape, which guides determination of illegal medical examinations. This analysis leads us to question the basis for recommendations in the focal article. We also address concerns of disparate impact from a practitioner perspective. We limit the scope of our commentary to federal law. Relevant antidiscrimination state laws exist and vary by state. We do not intend this response as legal advice. Readers with specific questions should consult independent legal counsel. ADA medical examinations must be designed for clinical use Based on the current state of ADA jurisprudence, courts will not classify normal personality assessments as ADA "medical examinations." This is clear regardless of the evidence that normal personality relates to personality disorders. Case law analysis necessitates consideration of the jurisdiction and legal authority of the court issuing a given opinion. Melson-Silimon et al. (2019) rely on three cases to conclude that all personality assessments could constitute ADA medical examinations. Only one of the cited cases has any binding legal authority over other courts. That case was the Seventh Circuit case, Karraker v. Rent-A-Center, Inc. (hereafter, Karraker, 2005). Not that they render any novel or inconsistent holdings, but the other...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.