Grade 11 · Christian · NGSS/CCSS-aligned
This is a year-long walk through psychology as a real science, not a personality-quiz version of it. Your child learns how psychologists actually test claims about the mind, then uses that same skeptical toolkit on the brain, the senses, learning, memory, growing up, and mental health. By the end they should be able to read a headline like "Study Finds Coffee Rewires Your Brain" and tell you exactly what it does and doesn't prove. It's secular, evidence-based, and skips human sexuality content entirely, this is about how psychologists know things, not a health class.
The whole year, in plain English. Tap any unit to see every skill inside, nothing is hidden.
This unit builds a working picture of how neurons fire, what brain chemicals actually do (and don't do), and which brain structures are linked to which behaviors. The whole unit keeps circling back to one question: just because something is connected to a brain area or a chemical, does that mean it causes the behavior, and even if it does, does that mean the person has no say in it?
Given a research question, write an operational definition for an abstract psychological construct (e.g., 'stress,' 'aggression') that specifies exactly how it will be measured or manipulated.
Classify a described study as experimental, correlational, or case-study design based on whether a variable was manipulated, and identify the tradeoff (control vs. generalizability vs. depth) that design choice implies.
Given a novel correlational finding never discussed in class, generate at least two distinct plausible third-variable explanations and explain the causal mechanism each would imply.
Explain why a statistically significant finding with a small effect size may not warrant a strong real-world claim, using both concepts correctly in relation to each other.
Compare a study that replicated successfully with a similarly designed study that failed to replicate, and infer which specific methodological feature (sample size, preregistration status, effect size, p-hacking risk) accounts for the difference in outcome.
Given a description of a classic psychological study (e.g., Milgram, Watson's Little Albert), identify a specific way the study's ethical violation also threatens the validity of its data, not only the wellbeing of its participants.
Given two never-before-seen study write-ups from unfamiliar content domains, judge whether each stated conclusion is warranted, name a plausible confound or design flaw, and propose a methodological fix targeted specifically at that flaw.
Given a claim about mind or behavior encountered outside of class (e.g., in social media, advertising, or a news article) after this unit ends, apply the full methods toolkit to independently decide how much trust the claim deserves and articulate the specific evidence that would change that judgment.
This unit takes apart the idea that seeing and hearing are like recording devices. Instead, your child learns that the brain actively builds perception out of incomplete information, using both raw sensory input and expectation. Illusions, selective attention, and the invisible-gorilla-style experiment aren't treated as party tricks, they're evidence for how perception actually works.
Describe the sequence of events in an action potential (resting state, depolarization, threshold, firing, refractory period) and explain why the process is all-or-none.
Given a novel scenario describing a drug's effect on a specific neurotransmitter (e.g., blocking reuptake, blocking receptors), predict the resulting change in neural transmission and behavior.
Match major brain structures (cortex regions, amygdala, hippocampus, brain stem) to their primary documented functions.
Given a case description of a person with damage to a named brain structure (e.g., Phineas Gage-type frontal damage, split-brain, amygdala lesion), infer which behavioral changes are plausible and which are not, given documented structure-function relationships.
Compare what lesion studies, EEG, and fMRI can and cannot show about the relationship between brain activity and behavior, and identify which method is appropriate for a given research question.
Given an unfamiliar pop-science headline claiming a behavior is 'caused by' a brain structure or chemical, evaluate whether the underlying evidence (as described) supports a causal claim, a correlational claim, or neither, and identify the specific confound or missing evidence.
Explain how a single behavior (e.g., aggression, anxiety, addiction) can be described simultaneously at biological, psychological, and social levels using the biopsychosocial model, without treating any one level as the complete explanation.
Given twin-study or adoption-study heritability data for an unfamiliar trait, explain what a heritability estimate does and does not mean about an individual's fate, and identify the specific gene-environment interaction misconception in a given student or media statement.
Generate a rewritten version of a hedged, evidence-appropriate claim from an overclaimed biological causal statement, justifying each hedge with a specific methodological reason.
This unit explains how experience changes behavior through three mechanisms: classical conditioning (Pavlov-style association), operant conditioning (rewards and consequences), and observational learning (learning by watching someone else). A lot of the unit is spent correcting how loosely these words get used in everyday speech versus what they technically mean.
Given a description of a sensory event (e.g., light striking the retina, sound waves striking the eardrum), state the correct order of transduction steps from physical stimulus to neural signal to brain interpretation.
Define absolute threshold and difference threshold in one sentence each and correctly label 4 short given scenarios as examples of one or the other, using the exact scenario types modeled in class (a faint sound detected at increasing distance; a weight change noticed on a backpack).
Explain, using a specific illusion or ambiguous figure as the case, why the same sensory input can produce two different conscious perceptions, in terms of top-down processing supplying an interpretation the bottom-up data alone does not fix.
Predict, for a novel selective-attention scenario the class has not previously discussed (e.g., a distracted driver scanning for pedestrians while texting), whether inattentional blindness is likely to occur and justify the prediction using the concept of limited attentional capacity.
Classify a set of unfamiliar visual illusions (not shown in class) as primarily depth-based, motion-based, or constancy-based, using the defining features of each category rather than surface appearance.
Compare the carpentered-world explanation of cross-cultural differences in susceptibility to the Müller-Lyer illusion with a hypothetical alternative explanation (e.g., innate biological difference), and identify which explanation the available evidence actually supports.
Design a small selective-attention or illusion demonstration for classmates, including a procedure, a simple data-collection method, and an explicit prediction, that isolates one perceptual variable of the student's choosing.
Critique a peer's mini-study write-up by identifying at least one Unit 1 methods concept (sample size, confound, or lack of operational definition) that limits the confidence one should place in the peer's conclusion, and state specifically what evidence would need to change to raise that confidence.
Summarize the results of the student's own mini-study (response accuracy or detection rate across conditions) in a short results section that reports what was found without yet interpreting why.
This unit treats memory as something the brain rebuilds each time, not a recording it plays back. It then extends that same 'the mind constructs things, it doesn't just record them' idea to how people solve problems, judge risk, and decide what to believe. A running theme: feeling very sure about something is not the same as being right.
Given a novel description of a stimulus-response pairing, identify the unconditioned stimulus, unconditioned response, conditioned stimulus, and conditioned response.
Explain why a conditioned response can undergo extinction, then spontaneous recovery, using the distinction between the CS-US association weakening versus being erased.
Given an animal behavior anecdote involving food and illness, explain why taste aversion learning violates the standard timing and generality assumptions of classical conditioning (biological preparedness).
Given a description of a behavior and its consequence, classify the situation as positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, positive punishment, or negative punishment.
Compare fixed-ratio, variable-ratio, fixed-interval, and variable-interval schedules of reinforcement in terms of the response pattern each produces and predict which schedule is being used from a described pattern of behavior.
Diagnose why a real or invented punishment strategy failed to produce durable behavior change, referencing at least two documented weaknesses of punishment (e.g., suppression without extinction, generalization to the punisher rather than the behavior, need for continuous application).
Explain how Bandura's Bobo doll findings support observational learning as distinct from direct reinforcement, identifying the role of modeling, attention, retention, reproduction, and motivation.
Given an unfamiliar training program, advertisement, or habit-change app description never discussed in class, identify which conditioning mechanism(s) are operating, predict the behavioral effect of a specified change to one variable (e.g., switching schedule type), and flag any claim that overstates what conditioning research supports.
Recall the standard definitions of extinction, generalization, and discrimination as they apply to both classical and operant conditioning.
Critique a media or advertising claim that uses the term 'positive reinforcement' or 'conditioned' in a way that is technically inaccurate, and rewrite the claim so it is consistent with the mechanism.
This unit follows how biology and experience interact continuously from before birth through the teenage years, not on a fixed schedule, but shaped by when things happen. It covers attachment research, Piaget's stages and the ways modern research has pushed back on them, the teenage brain, and Erikson's stages as a rough map rather than a strict law.
Given a diagram of the multi-store memory model, label and explain the function of sensory, short-term/working, and long-term memory in the correct sequence.
Explain how hippocampal consolidation (Unit 2 content) links short-term memory to stable long-term storage, using the neuron/structure vocabulary from Unit 2.
Predict, before observing a misinformation demonstration, whether and how a leading question will alter recall of a witnessed event, then compare the prediction to the observed outcome.
Given a new, previously unseen eyewitness scenario embedded with a leading question, explain why the resulting memory distortion occurred by naming the specific mechanism (reconstruction at retrieval, not storage failure).
Classify given examples of memory failure as primarily interference, decay, or retrieval failure, distinguishing surface similarities from the underlying mechanism.
Compare the availability heuristic and confirmation bias in a pair of contrasting real-world decision scenarios, identifying which bias is operating and why the two are easily confused.
Given a completely novel decision scenario from outside psychology (e.g., a business or medical decision never discussed in class), identify which heuristic or bias is most plausibly at work and justify the choice against at least one alternative explanation.
Explain why experts are sometimes less able than novices to verbally describe how they solve a problem, using the concept of automated/proceduralized knowledge.
Given a set of confidence ratings and accuracy scores from a memory or trivia task, evaluate whether confidence is a reliable predictor of accuracy in that data set and justify the evaluation with reference to specific mismatches.
Apply a Unit 1 methods judgment (what counts as proof vs. suggestive evidence) to evaluate whether the class misinformation demonstration alone proves the misinformation effect or merely illustrates it.
Recall the definitions of encoding, storage, retrieval, reconsolidation, and the misinformation effect using unit vocabulary with precision.
Write an evidence-based explanation of why a specific instance of memory distortion occurred, integrating memory vocabulary and a methodological judgment about evidence quality, for the summative scenario.
This is the hardest unit in the course. It covers how mental disorders, mainly anxiety and depression, kept narrow on purpose, get classified, studied, and treated, and why even trained clinicians using the same manual sometimes disagree about a case. It's explicit from day one: this is education about conditions, not a tool for diagnosing yourself or anyone else, and it does not cover self-harm methods. If personal concerns come up, they get redirected to a counselor or trusted adult, every time, not just once.
Define 'critical period' and 'sensitive period' in prenatal and early development and correctly classify given scenarios as examples of one, the other, or neither.
Explain how Harlow's and Ainsworth's attachment studies each support the claim that attachment quality depends on responsive caregiving rather than only feeding, and identify specific methodological or ethical limits of each study.
Compare Piaget's account of a specific cognitive milestone (e.g., object permanence or conservation) with a modern critique that used a modified method to get a different result from the same-age children.
Explain why adolescent risk-taking is better accounted for by uneven maturation rates between the limbic system and prefrontal cortex than by 'poor decision-making' alone, using Unit 2 brain-structure vocabulary.
Given a novel scenario describing a person's behavior at an unspecified age, infer which of Erikson's psychosocial stages the scenario most plausibly represents and justify the inference using the stage's defining conflict.
Critique Erikson's stage model itself as a framework, identifying at least one specific way it functions more as an organizing heuristic than as a strictly sequential, universally fixed law, using evidence of cross-cultural or non-linear developmental patterns.
Generate a plausible, research-grounded explanation for how a specific named risk factor (e.g., poverty, insecure attachment, prenatal exposure to teratogens) combined with a specific protective/resilience factor could produce a described developmental outcome for a fictional individual not covered in class materials.
Distinguish, within a written justification of a developmental claim, between a claim that is well-supported by cited research and one that is speculative extrapolation beyond what the cited research actually shows.
Recall the correct chronological order and approximate age ranges of Piaget's four stages of cognitive development.
No new material gets taught here. Your child picks a real public claim about behavior, a news story, a self-help trend, an ad, and traces it back to whatever evidence actually backs it up. Then they build a four-level explanation (biology, learning/cognition, development, social) for the behavior underneath the claim, and write a conclusion that's honest about how much the evidence actually supports.
Given a description of a person's symptoms and their duration/impact on functioning, state what additional information a clinician would need before applying a diagnostic label, without assigning the label themselves.
Explain why two clinicians using the same diagnostic manual might reach different conclusions about the same case, citing at least two distinct sources of disagreement (e.g., symptom overlap across categories, self-report reliability, clinician judgment about functional impairment).
Classify a set of case vignettes as most consistent with an anxiety disorder, a depressive disorder, or neither, based on the presence or absence of criterion-relevant features (duration, impairment, symptom cluster) rather than a single dramatic symptom.
Explain the biopsychosocial model as applied to depression or anxiety, connecting a biological factor (e.g., neurotransmitter systems from Unit 2), a psychological factor (e.g., learned helplessness or cognitive patterns from Unit 4-5), and a social/cultural factor into a single coherent account of one case.
Given a summary of a randomized controlled treatment-outcome study (with placebo/control arm), identify the independent and dependent variables, the comparison group, and one plausible confound, applying the Unit 1 methods vocabulary to this new content domain.
Critique a real treatment-outcome study or pop-media mental-health claim by distinguishing what the evidence supports (a treatment's effect for a studied population) from what it does not support (a claim about what a specific individual has or should do), producing a written argument that makes this distinction explicit.
Given a novel, previously unseen public claim about a mental health treatment (e.g., a social media post, a supplement advertisement) sourced independently by the student, evaluate its evidentiary basis using the full toolkit and generalize a rule for what kind of evidence would be needed to trust it.
Explain why licensed-professional diagnosis differs from self-diagnosis using an online symptom checklist, citing at least two specific risks of self-diagnosis (e.g., symptom overlap across disorders, absence of differential diagnosis, no functional-impairment assessment).
Summarize how the classification and treatment of a named historical case or disorder category (e.g., homosexuality's removal from the DSM, changing criteria for PTSD) changed over time in response to evidence and social change, distinguishing scientific revision from social/political pressure where the historical record shows both.
Given a real public claim about behavior (news article, book excerpt, or ad), the student traces the claim back to its underlying research source and states what kind of source it is (peer-reviewed study, press release, popular book, opinion).
The student classifies the evidentiary source behind a chosen claim as strong, moderate, or weak using the Unit 1 methods criteria (sample size, control group, replication status, effect size, conflict of interest).
The student explains why a study's replication status (or the absence of any known replication attempt) changes how much confidence a reader should place in a public claim built on it.
The student constructs a four-level explanation (biological, cognitive/learning, developmental, social-cultural) for the single behavior underlying their chosen claim, stating how each level's factors interact rather than operate independently.
The student differentiates a claim that names only one level of explanation from one that accounts for multiple levels, and identifies what evidence is missing from the single-level version.
The student writes a hedged, evidence-proportioned conclusion about their chosen claim that states the confidence level warranted by the evidence rather than asserting the claim is simply true or false.
In the oral defense, the student responds to a question about a weakness in their own evidence chain by revising or qualifying their written conclusion rather than defending it unchanged.
The student recalls the definitions of at least four Unit 1 methods terms (confound, effect size, replication, sampling bias) without notes, on a closed-note retrieval check administered on Day 1.
Given a described study (sample, design, result), the student calculates whether the study design supports a causal claim or only a correlational one, using the criteria taught in Unit 1.
The student compares two classmates' claims that appear to be about different behaviors but rely on structurally similar (weak or strong) evidentiary patterns, and identifies the shared underlying pattern.
From the parent guide
This is a year-long walk through psychology as a real science, not a personality-quiz version of it. Your child learns how psychologists actually test claims about the mind, then uses that same skeptical toolkit on the brain, the senses, learning, memory, growing up, and mental health. By the end they should be able to read a headline like "Study Finds Coffee Rewires Your Brain" and tell you exactly what it does and doesn't prove. It's secular, evidence-based, and skips human sexuality content entirely, this is about how psychologists know things, not a health class.
Unit 1 · what to expect
This unit builds a working picture of how neurons fire, what brain chemicals actually do (and don't do), and which brain structures are linked to which behaviors. The whole unit keeps circling back to one question: just because something is connected to a brain area or a chemical, does that mean it causes the behavior, and even if it does, does that mean the person has no say in it?
The full guide covers all 7 units: where kids get stuck, what to say, and how to tell it's working. Included with the course.
Ready when you are
Free for 30 days · then $29/mo or $290/yr for the whole family · Cancel anytime, no questions asked.
Start your family's account