Pleasure and pain: teaching neuroscientific principles of hedonism in a large general education undergraduate course
In a large (250 registrants) general education lecture course, neuroscience principles were taught by two professors as co-instructors, starting with simple brain anatomy, chemistry, and function, proceeding to basic brain circuits of pleasure and pain, and progressing with fellow expert professors...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Journal of undergraduate neuroscience education Vol. 12; no. 1; pp. A34 - A41 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
United States
Faculty for Undergraduate Neuroscience
2013
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | In a large (250 registrants) general education lecture course, neuroscience principles were taught by two professors as co-instructors, starting with simple brain anatomy, chemistry, and function, proceeding to basic brain circuits of pleasure and pain, and progressing with fellow expert professors covering relevant philosophical, artistic, marketing, and anthropological issues. With this as a base, the course wove between fields of high relevance to psychology and neuroscience, such as food addiction and preferences, drug seeking and craving, analgesic pain-inhibitory systems activated by opiates and stress, neuroeconomics, unconscious decision-making, empathy, and modern neuroscientific techniques (functional magnetic resonance imaging and event-related potentials) presented by the co-instructors and other Psychology professors. With no formal assigned textbook, all lectures were PowerPoint-based, containing links to supplemental public-domain material. PowerPoints were available on Blackboard several days before the lecture. All lectures were also video-recorded and posted that evening. The course had a Facebook page for after-class conversation and one of the co-instructors communicated directly with students on Twitter in real time during lecture to provide momentary clarification and comment. In addition to graduate student Teaching Assistants (TAs), to allow for small group discussion, ten undergraduate students who performed well in a previous class were selected to serve as discussion leaders. The Discussion Leaders met four times at strategic points over the semester with groups of 20-25 current students, and received one credit of Independent Study, thus creating a course within a course. The course grade was based on weighted scores from two multiple-choice exams and a five-page writing assignment in which each student reviewed three unique, but brief original peer-review research articles (one page each) combined with expository writing on the first and last pages. A draft of the first page, collected early in the term, was returned to each student by graduate TAs to provide individual feedback on scientific writing. Overall the course has run three times at ful or near enrollment capacity despite being held at an 8:00 AM time slot. Student-generated teaching evaluations place it well within the normal range, while this format importantly contributes to budget efficiency permitting the teaching of more required small-format courses (e.g., freshman writing). The demographics of the course have changed to one in which the vast majority of the students are now outside the disciplines of neuroscience or psychology and are taking the course to fulfill a General Education requirement. This pattern allows the wide dissemination of basic neuroscientific knowledge to a general college audience. |
|---|---|
| Bibliography: | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 |
| ISSN: | 1544-2896 1544-2896 |