undergraduates seeking interdisciplinary courses in the sciences have shown strong interest in neuroscience offerings ( stricker , 2005 ) . consequently , neuroscience educators are likely to see more non - science students enrolling in their introductory courses in years ahead . given their broad range of academic backgrounds and interests , these students often take only a single science course in fulfillment of an institution s general education requirements . as such , neuroscience educators stand to benefit from careful consideration of the pedagogical frameworks they rely on for designing and implementing their various lecture and laboratory activities . in this paper we describe adaptation of an established learning framework to generate low cost , high engagement solutions for improving the neuroscience classroom experience for all undergraduates . contemporary models of science education are as broad in scope as they are in number ( roth , 1989 ; monk and osborne , 1997 ; polman , 2000 ) . popular byproducts of such models include guided - discovery ( mayer , 2002 ) , problem - based learning ( pbl ) ( neufeld and barrows , 1974 ) , and student - centered investigative laboratory experiences ( fitzpatrick , 2004 ) . although generally informative and useful , the sheer number of available choices can be overwhelming to neuroscience educators seeking practical insights on course pedagogy . what is needed is a proven yet malleable framework that allows one the flexibility to develop and implement lecture and laboratory activities that are cost - effective , impacting , and engaging . over twenty years ago a working model of the learning - cycle approach was proposed that has since become a popular framework among science educators ( karplus , 1977 ; kolb , 1984 ; zollman , 1990 ; allard and barman , 1994 ) . as can be seen in figure 1 , this approach prioritizes immediate engagement with the to - be - learned material by encouraging students to solve a problem via question - and - answer ; reflecting upon and exploring possible interpretations of ideas ; experimenting with these notions ; and then using their own words to explain their observations . although originally intended for full - scale implementation of all four components , it is not uncommon for today s science educator to adapt select elements of the framework to meet course - specific needs . one such adaptation has students entering the learning - cycle at the exploration stage prior to engaging the problem through more focused q&a ( bergquist , 1991 ) . in our own course this has translated to designing laboratory activities that take place before introduction of the material in lecture ; a strategy that is particularly well - suited for courses whose enrollments are characterized by a broad range of student ability and interests . at willamette university , a selective liberal arts college in the pacific northwest , all students must complete a minimum of one laboratory - based science course as part of their general education requirements towards graduation . the vast majority of students opt first for introductory offerings in biology , followed by chemistry , environmental and earth sciences , then physics . in addition to these more traditional offerings however , students may also choose a lab - based course in neuroscience to fulfill their sciences requirement . as is the case at other schools offering introductory courses in neuroscience , in recent years this latter option has gained in popularity among undergraduates , in particular among those students with interdisciplinary interests . ids-222 fundamentals of neuroscience is an annual offering geared towards freshmen and sophomore students whose academic backgrounds range from the humanities to the sciences . for example , a recent section included theatre , english , economics , and politics majors , in addition to psychology , exercise science and biology students . as such , one of our perennial challenges in ids-222 continues to be delivery of hard science without making science overly hard . the course meets three times a week and includes a three - hour laboratory . in developing our course framework we reviewed several different lecture and laboratory formats from across the country . not surprisingly , the majority of these tended towards science education for science students . given our need to reach beyond the typical sciences audience , we structured our course plan with non - sciences students in mind . a key feature of our approach was the decision to precede rather than follow lectures with laboratory activities . importantly , we sought to move away from the time - honored practice of labs being used to amplify concepts introduced in lecture , and toward a model that allowed for more immediate and direct contact with lab - based content . as a preliminary step we schedule the laboratory sections of our course later in the preceding week ( e.g. , thursday ) , which allows us to introduce the following week s topic during lab instead of lecture . we find this affords instructors the added benefit of an intervening weekend for any last minute changes to the following week s lecture content that may have surfaced during laboratory discussion . moreover , feedback from students indicates they are able to glean more from weekly readings if such lead - time is available prior to discussing assigned material in lecture . the week before being introduced to the neuroscience of memory in lecture , students arrive to lab and are separated into groups and given a set of instructions for an activity on alzheimer s disease ( for further detail , see appendix i ) . each group is assigned to one computer for access to all necessary materials and software ( see table 1 below ) . by design , each student must actively participate in order for the group to arrive at its explanation for an empirical question involving alzheimer s disease . student engagement is monitored throughout the exercise and at the end a brief questionnaire is administered to gauge student reaction to exploring course content in a lab - led fashion . a list of materials and software used for the alzheimer s laboratory activity . table 2 provides summary statistics for each of the eight questions from the short survey administered the week following the lab activity . overall , student responses suggest support for introducing the topic of memory during the previous week s lab , with several providing written comments like ,  first learning about alzheimer s in laboratory helped put my mind around the various issues and controversies much better  please have all our labs this way !  moreover , students perform well on a weekly , in - class quiz given before lecture - based introduction of memory content , suggesting that retention of information learned during the preceding week s lab is not adversely impacted by the passage of time . at willamette university , a selective liberal arts college in the pacific northwest , all students must complete a minimum of one laboratory - based science course as part of their general education requirements towards graduation . the vast majority of students opt first for introductory offerings in biology , followed by chemistry , environmental and earth sciences , then physics . in addition to these more traditional offerings however , students may also choose a lab - based course in neuroscience to fulfill their sciences requirement . as is the case at other schools offering introductory courses in neuroscience , in recent years this latter option has gained in popularity among undergraduates , in particular among those students with interdisciplinary interests . ids-222 fundamentals of neuroscience is an annual offering geared towards freshmen and sophomore students whose academic backgrounds range from the humanities to the sciences . for example , a recent section included theatre , english , economics , and politics majors , in addition to psychology , exercise science and biology students . as such , one of our perennial challenges in ids-222 continues to be delivery of hard science without making science overly hard . the course meets three times a week and includes a three - hour laboratory . in developing our course framework we reviewed several different lecture and laboratory formats from across the country . given our need to reach beyond the typical sciences audience , we structured our course plan with non - sciences students in mind . a key feature of our approach was the decision to precede rather than follow lectures with laboratory activities . importantly , we sought to move away from the time - honored practice of labs being used to amplify concepts introduced in lecture , and toward a model that allowed for more immediate and direct contact with lab - based content . as a preliminary step we schedule the laboratory sections of our course later in the preceding week ( e.g. , thursday ) , which allows us to introduce the following week s topic during lab instead of lecture . we find this affords instructors the added benefit of an intervening weekend for any last minute changes to the following week s lecture content that may have surfaced during laboratory discussion . moreover , feedback from students indicates they are able to glean more from weekly readings if such lead - time is available prior to discussing assigned material in lecture . the week before being introduced to the neuroscience of memory in lecture , students arrive to lab and are separated into groups and given a set of instructions for an activity on alzheimer s disease ( for further detail , see appendix i ) . each group is assigned to one computer for access to all necessary materials and software ( see table 1 below ) . by design , each student must actively participate in order for the group to arrive at its explanation for an empirical question involving alzheimer s disease . student engagement is monitored throughout the exercise and at the end a brief questionnaire is administered to gauge student reaction to exploring course content in a lab - led fashion . a list of materials and software used for the alzheimer s laboratory activity . table 2 provides summary statistics for each of the eight questions from the short survey administered the week following the lab activity . overall , student responses suggest support for introducing the topic of memory during the previous week s lab , with several providing written comments like ,  first learning about alzheimer s in laboratory helped put my mind around the various issues and controversies much better  please have all our labs this way ! moreover , students perform well on a weekly , in - class quiz given before lecture - based introduction of memory content , suggesting that retention of information learned during the preceding week s lab is not adversely impacted by the passage of time . our adaptation of a learning - cycle framework yields a lab - led approach for introducing students  in particular non - sciences students  to neuroscience course content in a low - cost and effective way . the memory activity itself is designed to place students in a situation where they must first explore a problem by working both individually and collectively towards its solution . the strength of the activity is its ability to immerse a diverse group of students in a problem - based , investigative learning situation before they encounter the content in lecture or their textbook . although more formal measures of enhanced learning using this approach have yet to be conducted , our experience is that students welcome the opportunity to learn more about a topic of interest to them , especially if first allowed hands - on access to it before it is introduced in lecture . one aspect of the lab - led approach we have found critical for success is that of timing . in most undergraduate neuroscience courses , this means that students are familiar with general lab protocol , have grown more comfortable working in groups , and have had experience using the web for completing assignments . though certainly adaptable for use at an earlier point during the term , we find that non - sciences students in particular work best when confidence among group members is relatively high . for this reason , instructors planning to adopt this activity would do well to gauge their particular students abilities as early as possible in the semester and , if need be , adjusting the lab schedule accordingly . an obvious constraint for any laboratory - based activity for example , in our case only eight desktop computers are available and with a potential for as many as twenty students in any given semester , this means group members must share computers . for most of our lab exercises this is generally not a problem , but in this particular activity we find students benefit from more of a  divide and conquer  approach ( at least at the outset of the exercise ) , such that a computer for each student is considered ideal . given the ubiquity of laptop computers among college students these days , we now make a habit of asking those students who own one to please bring it along with them to lab , thus allowing for more efficient use of our limited number of desktop machines . without question , non - sciences students present a different challenge to those of us accustomed to teaching science content courses to science - minded students . for this reason we as neuroscience educators need to prioritize development of laboratory exercises that are not only rigorous and informative , but also exploratory , engaging , and fun . our learning - cycle , lab - led approach to introducing non - sciences students to various topics in neuroscience incorporates key elements from the science education literature . chief among these is the idea that student learning is improved in those situations where instructors take care to develop balanced and thoughtful investigative experiences for all , particularly those for whom a course in the sciences and its accompanying laboratory are considered novel experiences .
a learning - cycle approach to science instruction is not new to science educators ( karplus , 1977 ; kolb , 1984 ; bergquist , 1991 ; zollman , 1990 ; allard and barman , 1994 ) . 
 somewhat less known , however , is the usefulness of this approach for creating lab activities for a broad audience of undergraduates . 
 the following paper presents a brief overview of a laboratory activity that can be adapted for use by instructors of introductory neuroscience courses . 
 the three - hour activity is geared towards tapping key elements of the learning - cycle approach , with a particular emphasis on the exploration phase of the model . 
 students work as members of small teams to explore a contemporary issue involving memory and gain hands - on experience from the outset , to which conceptual information is then added during lecture the following week . 
 the approach is in marked contrast to the more traditional practice in the sciences where laboratory activities generally serve to punctuate already presented lecture material .