The Science Behind Engaging Students in Class

I have been experimenting with one of my previous lectures, How To Fight Lecturalgia, in terms of incorporating the feedback, questions, and discussions that have followed after presenting it at several universities.  This new presentation is titled, The Science Behind Engaging Students in Class.  My primary aim was to make the scientific or evidence-based approach I used more readily apparent.  I specifically wanted  to enhance its literature-driven  model to give some depth as to the ‘why’  of the recommendations to augment the ‘what’.  So this presentation represents the attempt to provide theoretical and research underpinnings for use of an audience response system as well as visual design and cognitive load elements used to engage students.


Neuroenhancer Use in Poker Players

This project is outside my normal research track, which is why I sought out several collaborators whose expertise encompasses cognition, cosmetic psychopharmacology, statistics, and poker. The idea for this research dates backs to conversations at the Bellagio poker tables several years ago. Some poker players were discussing prescription drugs that they had tried in order to help them concentrate or stay awake for marathon sessions. Later, there were anecdotes about using meds to enhance performance on some poker themed podcasts. ‘Name’ poker professionals like Paul Phillips, Gavin Smith, and Mike Matusow talked about the benefits of drugs like Adderall, Provigil, and Ritalin in poker and popular media sources as well.

At the same time we were putting together this project, a piece was published in Nature on the use of cognition enhancing drugs in scientists and researchers [1]. Several really interesting articles exploring the bioethics surrounding the issue were also published prior to and directly after this period of time [2-6]. Meanwhile, we had proceeded in developing our survey to assess the use of cognitive and performance enhancing medications (CPEMs), dietary supplements, and other substances by poker players for improvement of their game.

We returned to Las Vegas for the pilot administration, which yielded some great suggestions for improving our survey tool. We had largely designed the medications and substances we asked about in the survey tool based on pharmacology, indications, and previous literature on neuroenhancers. However, some of the poker players who helped us insisted we had to add a handful of items like marijuana, alcohol, and, hydrocodone to our list of items we asked about. In retrospect this was crucial as those substances were among the most frequently reported taken as CPEMs by survey respondents.

We recently presented preliminary results at the College of Psychiatric and Neurologic Pharmacists Annual Meeting and expanded results as part of the Research Division of Pharmacy Socioeconomic Initiatives at Nova Southeastern University. The slide deck of those expanded results is available on Slideshare, which can be accessed by clicking on the image above or here. Full results will be available in the coming manuscript.


[1] Maher B. Poll results: look who’s doping. Nature 2008;452(7188):674-5.
[2] Farah MJ, Illes J, Cook-Deegan R, Gardner H, Kandel E, King P, Parens E, Sahakian B, Wolpe PR. Neurocognitive enhancement: what can we do and what should we do? Nat Rev Neurosci 2004;5(5):421-5.
[3] Chatterjee A. Cosmetic neurology: the controversy over enhancing movement, mentation, and mood. Neurology 2004;63(6):968-74.
[4] Chatterjee A. Is it acceptable for people to take methylphenidate to enhance performance? No. BMJ 2009;338:b1956.
[5] Harris J. Is it acceptable for people to take methylphenidate to enhance performance? Yes. BMJ 2009;338:b1955.
[6] Cerullo M. Cosmetic psychopharmacology and the President’s Council on Bioethics. Perspect Biol Med 2006;49(4):515-23.