I've seen many people here ask whether and how we should revise intro psych courses to reflect what we've learned about replicability & research practices. The concerns I've heard are:
(a) students will become disillusioned if we talk too much about replication failures and problematic research practices, and (b) there won't be much left to talk about if we remove all the stuff we've lost confidence in.
Just started my second semester teaching intro after revising my materials to focus more on these issues. Here's what I've learned: First, I've seen no evidence that students become disillusioned by a greater focus on uncertainty, problems with replicability, etc.
They seemed engaged during lectures on problematic research practices and seemed to appreciate learning some of the behind-the-scenes details about how science actually works and what sorts of things can go wrong.
In fact, I expanded my coverage of research methods; presenting research methods in the broader context of what science *should be* and where it can go wrong, I think, made a section of the course that students used to find quite dry and boring much more interesting.
Second, I didn't need to change that much content. Basic info about the brain, sensation, perception, memory were left mostly untouched.
Similarly, coverage of personality structure, stability, and measurement are all fine; I still talk about Freud, but I've always covered this material as an interesting (and sometimes problematic) idea with little evidence
Also, the clinical stuff you cover in an intro class is mainly descriptive and almost definitional, so there don't seem to be many problems figuring out what to talk about there
One section I'm still concerned about is developmental. Some of the more interesting studies I used to discuss now seem questionable to me, but I think we know a little bit less about replicability in this area, so I'm not always sure what to cover (ideas welcome)
Finally, I struggle most with social psych. In addition to all the replication failures, the more I dig into the "classic" studies the more concerned I get. Still need to figure out how to cover this topic responsibly (again, ideas welcome)
So if you're considering revamping intro PSY to focus more on replicability & research practices, I highly recommend it. Was more enjoyable for me, course evals were highest they've been, & I don't feel like I need a shower* after presenting studies that I don't really believe
*Though I admit I still do take a full-body Purell dip after collecting 500 exams during flu season
