Traumatic stress in age of COVID-19 Student Teacher Syllabus

Article Review 1: COVID-19
Source: Horesh, D., & Brown, A. D. (2020). Traumatic stress in the age of COVID-19: A call to close critical gaps and adapt to new realities. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 12(4), 331-335.
Introduction
This article focused on the recent global incapacitation in aspects of finance, transport, government, and other facets of general human existence due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The authors, Horesh and Brown (2020), described the consequence of the pandemic as significantly inconvenient and transformative of the existing structures of organizations, social interaction, and governmental policies across the globe. The rate of transmission and fatality of the novel Coronavirus is also a major concern, especially in view of the apparent inadequacies of current medical knowledge and research at finding a lasting solution to the pandemic. All these escalations and uncertainties lend to increased mental stress for every person across the world. While it is not surprising that some individuals and organizations have employed a level of flexibility to circumvent the restrictions associated with the pandemic, there are others whose livelihood and entire existence are threatened by the situation. More affected are individuals with an existing mental health condition, who stand the risk of developing new stress-related mental issues or exacerbating existing ones. Humans are typically social beings and are not easily open to changing their convenient routine life. This balance has been altered, albeit in goodwill, through the imposition of lockdowns/shelter-in-place, wearing of nose masks, and limits to social gatherings. More particularly for religious individuals who had to find alternative means of experiencing the feeling of the congregation that is contingent on their practices. Overall, the need for a new and better way of coping with the crisis was identified by the authors (Horesh and Brown, 2020.), and this is further explored in the rest of this review.
Purpose of the study
The identified purpose/aim of the article is to emphasize the available options and adaptations for contribution to the management and survival of the current Coronavirus pandemic in the fields of traumatic stress, medical psychology/psychiatry, and other medical or non-medical fields. The paper also recommended four key areas of focus: mental health diagnostics, prevention, public opinion, managing medical personnel, and integration of useful non-medical professionals to increase capacity. The study presented an idea for improving mental health response, especially in the case of an unprecedented pandemic.
Method
This study employed an extrapolation technique by drawing from the recommendations of existing studies on the pandemic subject (COVID-19). The authors identified a limitation in the current level of research into certain aspects of the mental implications of the current pandemic, and they inferred/projected an improvement in general knowledge about its trauma-specific consequences and its management from existing and well-documented management approaches. Thus, the study involved a review and analysis of the steps and directions observed from existing studies to point in the next expected area of research interest.
Result
This section discusses a few results that are linked to the areas of concentration of the study. From a diagnostics point of view, this paper identifies the classification of PTSD as a mental health issue to be a significant factor in the development of new aspects of mental health research in the past few years. This, in turn, closed significant gaps that would have been existent, thereby limiting the quality of understanding and management that has been established in that sphere. In like manner, this study establishes the short-comings of the current level of understanding and diagnosis of COVID-19 induced mental trauma. The premise is on the differentiation of the observed pattern and nature of this new type of trauma from existing and well-understood ones: such as those caused by war, natural hazards, sexual assault, etc. The main element of this new kind of trauma is a form of anticipatory anxiety. The mental stress associated with the current pandemic can also be observed in the form of cognitive dissonance, through which much of the human population have a certain expectation of doom as regards the pandemic (and they act accordingly). This fear, stress, and anxiety have been fueled mainly through the agency of mainstream media coverage and social media. This paper also found the current method of classifying and diagnosing traumatic stress as a negative health consequence of COVID-19, based on self-report data to be faulty. Based on this finding, new approaches for improving such diagnosis and data collection are recommended for investigation. The aspect of prevention focuses on the empirical findings from reviewed studies about PTSD. The main recommendations from the review indicate that PTSD is best dealt with through time. Most studies depend on an expectation of resilience and significant development in the mental character of the affected individual for dealing with the stress. This is especially true for most trauma in military personnel. Still, most civilians lack the same level of mental discipline and rigor that comes from years of physical and mental fitness. While some benefits have been found consistent with such approaches, their application to a new stress/anxiety-based trauma such as that observed with the COVID-19 pandemic requires a different and more proactive approach. The authors suggest that treatments and attention for such trauma should extend beyond the most obvious patients of this trauma, but to their families and caregivers as well. The most significant recommendation from this paper is the need for integration of communities and support groups or agencies in the mental health recovery of people suffering from COVID-19 trauma. This implies a need for education of such groups or communities by trained experts in trauma diagnostics and recovery. The need for community engagement is inferred from the observation that trauma recovery is usually a long and continuous process that benefits from community affirmation and acceptance. This will also eradicate stigmatization about COVID-19 or its post-traumatic manifestations in affected people. Also, findings from mental health research will easily be accepted and integrated with local beliefs, traditions, practices, and religion. This is especially important for individuals that have a deep sense of community or religion. The capacity for research and the accessibility of participants and data for survey and analysis is limited. Therefore, real-time research into the post and peri-traumatic effects of COVID-19 must be encouraged and supported to gain the necessary perspective into the most effective coping mechanism for the state.
Conclusion
This paper examined the current dismissal/non-consideration of the psychological impact of COVID-19 on global mental health, particularly on the initially mentally challenged. The authors refer to scientific evidence in psycho-biological trauma research, which is relevant to the COVID-19 pandemic. It is emphasized that this kind of trauma needs to be addressed from a holistic perspective, which involves the management of the mindset and responses of everyone affected through community integration in the response program. Also, established theories and approaches to managing secondary trauma, moral injury, burnout, and compassion fatigue are considered useful for extrapolation of an optimal coping technique for post and peri COVID-19 trauma. The similarity is also observed between PTSD and recovery from COVID-19. This observation implies an opportunity for a modification of PTSD research to include the more subtle and global activities of the COVID-19 trauma.
Reflections
This article provides more insight into the lessons from the textbook material as regards the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in the aspects of prevention and diagnosis of its associated traumatic stress. This article has enlightened me about the traumatic stress implications of the crisis, as well as my responsibility to ensuring positive outcomes in the mental health of others.
References
Horesh, D., & Brown, A. D. (2020). Traumatic stress in the age of COVID-19: A call to close critical gaps and adapt to new realities. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 12(4), 331-335.
Article Review 2: Student-Teacher Syllabus
Source: Richmond, A., Slattery, J., Mitchell, N., & Morgan, R. (2016). Can a learner-centered syllabus change students’ perception of student-professor rapport and master teacher behaviors? Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 2(3), 159-168.
Introduction
This research paper is a qualitative study on students’ perception of syllabi depending on its orientation. The researchers, Richmond, Mitchell, Morgan, and Slattery (2016), investigated the optimal approach to syllabi design between the traditional and conventional teacher-centric design and a learner-centric approach. This is motivated by the researchers’ understanding that a syllabus is an essential learning guide, which aids in the realization of the expected outcome. An optimal syllabus ensures that learning is achieved in a class, even when there is a disparity in the learners’ intellectual capacity or preparation. Furthermore, a syllabus ensures adherence of the teachers/educators and students to the expected outcomes of a course(s) in the design or taking of faculty-approved examinations, respectively. Due to these highlighted significances of a syllabus/syllabi on learning outcomes, the researchers identified a need to investigate the effectiveness of the current syllabus design techniques (teacher-centric) to ensure that these syllabi are designed with the most reliable approach (Richmond et al., 2016). The main goal of any teaching activity is to ensure learning is achieved in the students. For the teachers/instructors, too, however, the syllabus should not be tedious or impossible to accomplish. This posits a need for a balance in the design of the optimal syllabus. The habits of students when consulting their prescribed syllabus is also significant in this study, as it was identified that students interact differently with their syllabus. Most students are more concerned about the test, paper deadlines, examinations, etc. However, the level of interest in syllabus content and corresponding decisions about them is variable in age, school, and educational level of such students. While some studies have attempted to explore this idea of student-syllabus activity, especially to compare the student-centered approach with the teacher-centered approach, the main differences between those studies are identified in their methods of evaluation or investigation. A consistent finding across most studies, however, is that students prefer more detailed syllabi over a shorter and more concise one. This is also accompanied by the students’ perception of faculty members/educators providing such detailed syllabi as professional or possessing master teaching behaviors, thereby increasing students’ tendency to take another course taught by such educator(s). The methods employed in this study is that of a qualitative survey that is based on an experimental investigation premise. The rest of this paper discusses this approach to investigation, along with its findings and recommendations.
Purpose
The main purpose of this research article was to gain insight into what aspects of a syllabus ensures effective learning is achieved, especially from the students’ perspective. Also, due to the non-originality of the research, the authors focused their investigations on achieving the following objectives: to repeat the research carried out by Saville et al. (2010) and Harrington and Gabert-Quillen (2015) and obtain similar findings; to improve on these findings from Saville et al. (2010) through the introduction of master teacher behavior as an extra criterion i.e., professor-student rapport as illustrated by Wilson and Ryan (2013); to recommend and design a learner-centric syllabus as illustrated by Cullen and Harris (2009), based on their initial hypothesis that expects the teacher-centered syllabi design to be flawed.
Method
This research employed a qualitative survey and comparative analysis method. To conduct the survey, ninety (n = 90) introductory psychology students were recruited (with an extra-credit incentive), and each student was randomly given a syllabus. The syllabi given to the students were attributed to hypothetical teachers and were of two types: a learner-centered syllabus or a teacher-centered syllabus. Through this approach, the study attempted to investigate its two main hypotheses: will the survey participants that received the learner-centered syllabus consider the instructor that wrote it as a relatively higher master teacher as compared with evaluations from students that received the teacher-centered syllabus? Again, will the survey participants that received the learner-centered syllabus consider the instructor that wrote it as possessing a relatively higher professor-student rapport as compared with evaluations from students that received the teacher-centered syllabus? The survey employed a Likert scale evaluation in the form of a Teacher Behavior Checklist (TBC) and Professor-Student Rapport (PSR-S) scale. For the completion of the TBC, the students were instructed to read through their syllabus. They were informed of each “hypothetical” teacher that supposedly wrote that syllabus. Based on this information, the students were instructed to assess the instructor using 12 elements on their given TBC, i.e., knowledgeable, flexible/open-minded, effective communicator, etc. Next, the students were instructed to assess the teacher on the 15-element PSR-S. This included subjective elements like, “My professor encourages questions and comments from students,” and the PSR-S also used a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Finally, analysis of the data via t-tests on the TBC was done upon completion of the survey.
Result
The results from the survey data analysis showed a verification of the first hypothesis of the research. In essence, the students rated the teacher that supposedly wrote the learner-centered syllabus as a relatively higher master teacher, as compared with evaluations from students that received the teacher-centered syllabus. The students also rated this teacher higher on the overall TBC ratings, especially on questions that suggest the teacher as creative, caring, enthusiastic, and with a positive attitude. The second hypothesis was also validated, as the same students with the learner-centered syllabus rated the teacher as possessing a higher professor-student rapport. This result validates the need for the study and suggests the preference of a learner-centered approach to designing educational syllabi. A syllabus that has a positive perception of the learners is likely to influence positive expectations in such learners before the commencement of actual classes/teaching. This improves the tendency for pre-class preparations in the students, which also facilitates actual learning during classes. This, in turn, leads to better outcomes in student performance and the overall education process. It is worth noting that the study did not identify the specific element in the learner-centered syllabus that appealed more to the student. More thorough research might consider conducting such surveys over various time-points in an academic setting, e.g., surveying with a TBC and SPR-S at the start of the session, and SPR-S at various time-points till the end of the session. This can improve the overall outcome of student participation and understanding in their courses and their overall content perception.
Conclusion
This article applied a few scientific pieces of evidence in their work, such as the suggestions from the study by Saville et al. (2010) and Harrington and Gabert-Quillen (2015), which formed the basis of their first research hypothesis. The evidence suggested that students are likely to perceive a faculty providing learner-centered syllabi as having higher master-teacher attributes than those that offer the traditional teacher-centered syllabi. This evidence was validated through the experimental study in this reviewed research article. Building on that premise/initial assumption, this study considered the same criteria and its impact on student perception on student-professor rapport, which distinguishes this study.
Reflections
This article relates to the textbook reading on perception. It shows the significant relationship between perception and preparedness of the mind and body to engage in certain activities. Positive perception is likely to motivate preparation for engaging in activities, as opposed to a negative perception. Reading and reviewing this study has informed me of the scientific method of conducting experimental studies, as well as hypothesis formulation. Also, I have learned a valuable lesson that is significant beyond the scope of syllabus design. “When people feel that activity has their best interest at heart, they are more likely to engage in such activity.” The question is always about how best to frame the proposal of such activities to convey that exact message of benefit.


References
Richmond, A., Slattery, J., Mitchell, N., & Morgan, R. (2016). Can a learner-centered syllabus change students’ perceptions of student-professor rapport and master teacher behaviors? Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 2(3), 159-168.
Saville, B. K., Zinn, T. E., Brown, A. R., & Marchuk, K. A. (2010). Syllabus Detail and Students’ Perceptions of Teacher Effectiveness. Teaching of Psychology, 37(3), 186–189. DOI:10.1080/00986283.2010.488523 
Harrington, C. M., & Gabert-Quillen, C. A. (2015). Syllabus length and use of images: An empirical investigation of student perceptions. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1(3), 235.
Wilson, J. H., & Ryan, R. G. (2013). Professor–student rapport scale: Six items predict student outcomes. Teaching of Psychology, 40(2), 130-133.
Cullen, R., & Harris, M. (2009). Assessing learner?centredness through course syllabi. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(1), 115-125.