Cognitive Enhancers (CE) and Learning Strategies
Tóm tắt
Cognitive enhancers (CE) such as methylphenidate, amphetamines and modafinil are becoming more commonly used in academic settings and for purposes beyond their prescribed indications. The most frequently reported reasons for use of CE amongst students are to improve concentration, increase alertness or stay awake longer. Whether the motivation to use CE is linked to strategies for learning amongst students has not been explored in the literature. This study, in a New Zealand university, investigated whether students’ learning strategies, motivation to learn and academic self-concept affected their decision to use CE. Students from the schools of pharmacy, nursing, medicine, law and accounting were invited to complete a paper-based questionnaire. In addition to collecting information on prevalence, motivation to use CE and demographic information, the questionnaire included components of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ), namely intrinsic goal orientation, extrinsic goal orientation, task value, control of learning beliefs, self-efficacy, performance and test anxiety. The questionnaire also included the academic self-concept (ASC) measure. A binary logistic regression was conducted to explore differences between the attitudes and perceptions of those who had used CE and those who had not used CE. Ethics approval was obtained from the University of Auckland Human Ethics Committee and Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee. The response rate was 88.6% (442/499). Prevalence rate of CE was 6.6% in the university environment sampled. There were no significant differences in student motivation and learning strategies between users of CE and non-users. There was a difference between users of CE and non-users in how difficult they perceived their course of study (p = 0.034). Students who had used CE had lower perceived difficulty mean scores compared to students who had not used CE (OR 0.572, 95% CI 0.342–0.959, p = .034). Female students perceived a higher level of difficulty in their courses than male students (M = 4.27, SD 1.01 vs M = 3.92, SD 0.94, p = 0.003). Females also recorded lower mean scores for task value than males (M = 4.52, SD 1.16 vs M = 5.23, SD 1.07, p = 0.047), and for self-efficacy for learning and performance (M = 4.84, SD 1.15 vs M = 5.19, SD 1.04, p = 0.012). This study did not find any link between students’ motivation and learning strategies and use of CE. More specifically, students’ goal orientation, task value, control of learning beliefs, self-efficacy, student self-concept, performance or test anxiety did not differ between use and non-use of CE. The only significant difference in academic self-concept was observed in the perceived difficulty of the course. Perceived difficulty may be an expected outcome as deciphered by those who use CE or alternatively may result from the use of CE. This finding warrants further investigation into the relationship between perceived difficulty and the decision to use CE and scope for further research to explore the impact of use of CE and its impact on learning and teaching strategies.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Barnwell, S., & Earleywine, M. (2006). Simultaneous alcohol and cannabis expectancies predict simultaneous use. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, 1(1), 1–9.
Bong, M., & Clark, R. E. (1999). Comparison between self-concept and self-efficacy in academic motivation research. Educational Psychologist, 34(3), 139–153.
Forlini, C., & Racine, E. (2012). Stakeholder perspectives and reactions to “academic” cognitive enhancement: unsuspected meaning of ambivalence and analogies. Public Understanding of Science, 21(5), 606–625.
Franke, A. G., Bagusat, C., Dietz, P., Hoffmann, I., Simon, P., Ulrich, R., et al. (2013). Use of illicit and prescription drugs for cognitive or mood enhancement among surgeons. BMC Medicine, 11(1).
Habibzadeh, A., Alizadeh, M., Malek, A., Maghbooli, L., Shoja, M. M., & Ghabili, K. (2011). Illicit methylphenidate use among Iranian medical students: prevalence and knowledge. Drug Design, Development and Therapy, 5, 71–76.
Hativa, N., & Birenbaum, M. (2000). Who prefers what? Disciplinary differences in students’ preferred approaches to teaching and learning styles. Research in Higher Education, 41(2), 209–236.
Jensen, C., Forlini, C., Partridge, B., & Hall, W. (2016). Australian university students’ coping strategies and use of pharmaceutical stimulants as cognitive enhancers. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(277).
Judson, R., & Langdon, S. W. (2009). Illicit use of prescription stimulants among college students: prescription status, motives, theory of planned behaviour, knowledge and self-diagnostic tendencies. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 14(1), 97–104.
Kudlow, P. A., Treurnicht Naylor, K., Xie, B., & McIntyre, R. S. (2013). Cognitive enhancement in Canadian medical students. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 45(4), 360–365.
Looby, A., & Earleywine, M. (2009). Prescription stimulant expectancies in recreational and medical users: results from a preliminary expectancy questionnaire. Substance Use & Misuse, 44(11), 1578–1591.
Maher, B. (2008). Poll results: look who’s doping. Nature, 452(7188), 674–675.
Marsh, H. W., Byrne, B. M., & Shavelson, R. J. (1988). A multifaceted academic self- concept: its hierarchical structure and its relation to academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 366–380.
McCabe, S. E., Knight, J. R., Teter, C. J., & Wechsler, H. (2005). Non-medical use of prescription stimulants among US college students: prevalence and correlates from a national survey. Addiction, 100(1), 96–106.
McNiel, A. D., Muzzin, K. B., DeWald, J. P., McCann, A. L., Schneiderman, E. D., Scofield, J., et al. (2011). The nonmedical use of prescription stimulants among dental and dental hygiene students. Journal of Dental Education, 75(3), 365–376.
Niemi, H., Nevgi, A., Virtanen P. (2003) Towards self-regulation in web-based learning. Journal of Educational Media 28(1), 49–71.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (Mslq). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(3), 801–813.
Ram, S., Hussainy, S., Henning, M., Jensen, M., & Russell, B. (2016). Prevalence of cognitive enhancer use among New Zealand tertiary students. Drug and Alcohol Review, 35(3), 345–351.
Ram, S., Hussainy, S., Henning, M., Stewart, K., Jensen, M., & Russell, B. (2017). Attitudes toward cognitive enhancer use among New Zealand tertiary students. Substance Use & Misuse, 52(11), 1387–1392.
Sattler, S., & Wiegel, C. (2013). Cognitive test anxiety and cognitive enhancement: the influence of students’ worries on their use of performance-enhancing drugs. Substance Use & Misuse, 48(3), 220–232.
Sattler, S., Sauer, C., Mehlkop, G., & Graeff, P. (2013). The rationale for consuming cognitive enhancement drugs in university students and teachers. PLoS ONE, 8(7), e68821.
Smerdon, M. J., & Francis, A. J. P. (2011). Reward sensitivity and outcome expectancies as predictors of ecstasy use in young adults. Addictive Behaviors, 36(12), 1337–1340.
Teter, C. J., McCabe, S. E., Cranford, J. A., Boyd, C. J., & Guthrie, S. K. (2005). Prevalence and motives for illicit use of prescription stimulants in an undergraduate student sample. Journal of American College Health, 53(6), 253–262.
Virtanen, P., Nevgi, A. (2010). Disciplinary and gender differences among higher education students in self-regulated learning strategies. Educational Psychology 30(3), 323–47.
Weyandt, L. L., Janusis, G., Wilson, K. G., Verdi, G., Paquin, G., Lopes, J., et al. (2009). Nonmedical prescription stimulant use among a sample of college students relationship with psychological variables. Journal of Attention Disorders, 13(3), 284–296.
White, B. P., Becker-Blease, K. A., & Grace-Bishop, K. (2006). Stimulant medication use, misuse, and abuse in an undergraduate and graduate student sample. Journal of American College Health, 54(5), 261–268.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81.
Wilson, H. E., Siegle, D., McCoach, D. B., Little, C. A., & Reis, S. M. (2014). A model of academic self-concept perceived difficulty and social comparison among academically accelerated secondary school students. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(2), 111–126.
Yeung, A. S. (2011). Student self-concept effort:gender and grade differences. Educational Psychology, 31(6), 749–722.