0x010088F6312065A70A44B630A6848498EAD80093CFEAFE161DC94D83C7C5C9A5A748B8

Current status of the course:NEVR3003 was transferred from INB to Kavli and a new course coordinator took over the task. This year, consistent with previous year, the course also received positive evaluation from students. The students find the course engaging and stimulating and they enjoy having variety of lectures from different aspects of human cognition and behavior literature. Aside from aiming to maintain the quality and engaging lecturers with expertise in the field, we emphasize on the coherency and link between different modules both within the course but also with the program as a whole. The focus of this semester was the following: -- including lectures with focus on human higher order functions-- maintaining the quality of lectures from previous years specially as a source of continuity of NEVR3002/NEVR3001 and link with 3004.-- Having written assignment with two, rather than one as pervious years, seed paper to bring more variety and include more aspects of cognitive functions for students to write about -- lectures were double lectures, three times a week, for half a semester before start of 3004 as per previous years.-- Reading materials were mainly review papers and when needed textbook chapters, but mainly review papers. -- both flip and frontal format, evaluation during the lectures, essay assignments and home exam similar to previous years New in 2023In 2023, students had another module in which specifically scientific literacy was discussed and they had different modules and course work for that course. Due to this change in the program, in 3003, we did not include any of the modules related to scientific literacy but instead emphasize the importance of these for the written assignment. Students have been exposed to the topics and what is expected of them for the written assignment and were provided various resources to write their essay. Core elements of upgrade in 2023 includes the following:1) Additional lectures on various "human" related literature and discussion on higher order aspects 2) Inclusion of lecture on designing experiments involving human studies, emphasizing point 13) Inviting lecturers with expertise in specific field to deliver lectures and include their own expertise and knowledge in the field 4) Revising exam format to emphasize point 1 and 2 but also testing cognitive neuroscience knowledge rather than scientific literacy 5) With inclusion of practical session in NEVR3002 in the 2022, we continued to discuss what we have learnt in previous term and discussed the data we collected in the MRI scanner in the class. That aspects which was fascinating for students provided further strength for point 1 and 2, and helped with more integration across the whole program. General consideration:<ul><li>Following suggestion of previous year, we have emphasized on connection between 3003 and the rest of program by combining practical modules, discussing and presenting results of practical sessions in the class, and discussing further implication of what have been discussed in previous courses for higher order functions. </li><li>The course received positive feedbacks from students this year and they commented on the organization and depth of knowledge they learnt in the course. </li><li>Due to the fact that the lecturers are delivered by different lecturers, coherency of the course should be the priority moving forward. The general point to consider is for specific lecturers to communicate about learning outcomes and combining the outcomes of their lecturers with other lectures in the course. </li><li>In addition, given that the scientific literacy is no longer offered at the program and the written assignment is not part of the course for 2024, it is important that students get some knowledge and exposure to writing about or presenting scientific data before they start their thesis. </li></ul>

Learning goals in the course description page: After completing and passing the course NEVR3003 the student 1) has in-depth insight of the basic concepts of the organization of higher order cortical systems; 2) has insight of the basic structural and functional concepts of the major interactions between subcortical and cortical systems; 3) is capable of describing certain cognitive behavioural processes in terms of contributions of and interactions between numerous brain systems; 4) can acquire and evaluate published information relevant to our understanding of cognitive behaviour; 5) can report outcomes of research in a coherent oral and written report. In addition, lecture-specific and course-general learning outcomes are clearly listed in the lectures, with a special emphasis of the scientific literacy focus throughout the course. Continuous improvement of the lectures and learning materials: Each lecturer was provided with an overview of topics that could be discussed during the lecturer to provide coherency as to what is expected of students to know completing the course. But they were also encourage to use latest updates in the field, novel ideas and grounds that are not covered in previous studies, and motivate students to think about how they could use the knowledge from that particular lecturer in their daily life. The emphasize of 3003 should not only be on memorizing and retaining the information from papers and textbooks but on how to apply the knowledge in different context. To this end, we have implemented a hands on session in which students first received information about the content and how these human cognitive neuroscience experiments work but then in the second half were given information about how to design their own experiment. They were given a research question that they have to come up with questions and how they will test the idea. Then in a group, they had to design an experiment based on the knowledge they gained in the first half of the lecture. This session, although small, was introduced to ensure that the knowledge gained in the lecture is transferable to real life and students can think about how to use the knowledge they acquire during the course. Moving forward, more and more examples of these activities should be included in 3003. Feedback we received from students in a survey showed the following outcomes: Positive Feedback:<ul><li>Students appreciate our effort and dedication for the course </li><li>The presence of course coordinators in lectures was seen as a positive and unexpected aspect, demonstrating their commitment to the course.</li><li>Students appreciate the variety of topics covered in the lectures, which sometimes build on each other, providing a comprehensive understanding of different aspects of cognition.</li><li>The instructors' efforts in supplying materials, orchestrating lectures, and implementing improvements based on student feedback are highly valued.</li><li>Students enjoyed the insights gained from the course, especially through the use of flipped classrooms, quizzes, and open discussions, which created a conducive learning environment.</li><li>Specific lectures, such as those on learning and memory, synaptic plasticity, and team-based learning (TBL), were highlighted as valuable and well-prepared.</li><li>The course provided students with insights into various directions in neuroscience, the limitations and strengths of different research methods, and the value of theoretical models.</li><li>The large network perspective on brain function was engaging and fascinating.</li><li>Students appreciated the opportunity for post-lecture discussions, especially on topics relevant to everyday life.</li></ul>Constructive Feedback:<ul><li>Some students suggested dividing team-based discussion sessions into two halves: one for summarizing the topic and the other for team-based discussions.</li><li>While students generally praised the lecture format and the instructors' pedagogical skills, there were occasional comments about the density of information in presentations.</li></ul>Overall Satisfaction:<ul><li>Students expressed enjoyment of the subject matter and appreciation for the course instructors' teaching skills.</li></ul> New changes in 2024:Due to pedagogical considerations and feedback we received for the course, we suggest the change in the learning outcomes and goals for the whole course as follows: After completing and passing the course NEVR3003 the student:<ul><li>has in-depth understanding of the basic concepts of the organization of higher order cortical systems.</li><li>can describe the basic structural and functional concepts of the major interactions between subcortical and cortical systems.</li><li>can describe certain cognitive behavioral processes in terms of contributions of and interactions between numerous brain systems.</li><li>can design and evaluate an existing design in cognitive neuroscience research and implication for the results. </li></ul> In addition, we recommend to consider the following based on students' feedback:<ul><li>Specific aspects of the reading materials to emphasize from lecturers </li><li>Specific and clear learning outcomes for all lectures </li><li>students enjoy flip format but not many of them and also they like the frontal format as it helps them to learn and reduce the load outside the classroom - continuation of having both formats help students with different learning abilities and style </li></ul>

In summary, the reference group had two meetings with course coordinators during the course, with opportunities for student feedback. Adjustments were made based on feedback, improving course clarity and structure. The presence of coordinators in class was reassuring, emphasizing the relevance of exam content to class discussions. Flipped classroom lectures were appreciated for variety but were time-consuming to prepare. The syllabus covered broad topics, and papers were optional due to time constraints. The compulsory assignment seemed less relevant. Exam expectations were different from initial impressions, with questions being more direct. Pre-exam Q&amp;A helped clarify expectations, but students suggested providing this earlier. Overall, the exam was fair but criticized for time constraints. Some valuable suggestions were raised by students to improve quality of the course in the following years: Lecture Clarity:<ul><li>Include more text on lecture slides for easier post-lecture review.</li><li>Define a clearer division of concepts and different aspects covered in lectures.</li><li>Improve the clarity of lectures, especially those discussing complex topics like decision making, language, and theories.</li></ul>Expectation Clarity:<ul><li>Clarify expectations for students, especially for those who may have different backgrounds or are not master's students.</li></ul>Exam Information:<ul><li>Provide more information about exams, including examples of good exam questions and strong answers that demonstrate how to use information from various lectures for reflection.</li></ul>Lecture Structure:<ul><li>Offer format guidelines for structuring lecture slides to ensure consistency and effectiveness.</li><li>Maintain a common thread between related lectures to enhance learning and engagement.</li></ul>Clarity of Course Materials:<ul><li>Provide clearer guidelines on readings and specify which parts of theories should be researched in-depth or focused on during lectures.</li><li>Encourage students to read slides or papers before lectures to facilitate understanding.</li></ul> Considering these points that were delivered from the survey and reference group will help to improve communication and clarity of lecturers throughout.

NTNU:TIA:REST

Institutt for nevromedisin og bevegelsesvitenskap

Department of Neuromedicine and Movement Science

Ingen trykte eller håndskrevne hjelpemidler tillatt. Bestemt, enkel kalkulator tillatt.

Engelsk

Mer om vurdering

Regular final examination is given in the spring semester only. Students with legitimate leave of absence at the final examination and students who receive the grade F may take a re-sit examination in the autumn semester. If few candidates, the re-sit examination may be conducted as an oral examination.The compulsory activity is approved for 4 semesters. With approved compulsory activity, the students resit the examination only.

Anbefalte forkunnskaper

NEVR2010 (Introduction to Neuroscience) or equivalent background.NEVR3000 (Literacy in Science) or equivalent background (same semester or earlier).

Forkunnskapskrav

Corresponding to the academic requirements for the <a href="http://www.ntnu.edu/studies/msneur">Master of Science in Neuroscience</a>.Exchange students may be accepted after individual evaluation.

Faglig innhold

The course provides a thorough introduction to the biological foundation of behaviour and cognition. It focuses on the neural mechanisms for behaviour and cognition, with particular emphasis on learning and memory, sleep, motivation, language, and emotions. The lectures will also address neurological and psychiatric symptoms and disorders, with emphasis on the underlying neural mechanisms. The course emphasizes scientific literacy and involves writing an essay based on a literature search of a topic. Topics for the essays are related to the content of the course. The project will be given feedback in two rounds and is evaluated as approved/ not approved. The student must pass the project assignment before (s)he can take the exam.

Kursmateriell

Læringsutbytte

After completing and passing the course NEVR3003 the student<ul><li>has in-depth insight of the basic concepts of the organization of higher order cortical systems; </li><li>has insight of the basic structural and functional concepts of the major interactions between subcortical and cortical systems; </li><li>is capable of describing certain cognitive behavioural processes in terms of contributions of and interactions between numerous brain systems; </li><li>can acquire and evaluate published information relevant to our understanding of cognitive behaviour; </li><li>can report outcomes of research in a coherent oral and written report.</li></ul>

Læringsformer og aktiviteter

Lectures and supervised project (essay based on literature search). The course is taught in the first half of the spring semester (normally in February and March), with a final examination at the end of March. The language of teaching and examination is English.This course has restricted admission. Students admitted to the MSc in Neuroscience are guaranteed a seat. Other students must apply for a seat by the given deadlines.

Written assignment based on literature search

Behavioural and Cognitive Neuroscience

Nevrovitenskap

Biologi

Filosofi

Fysikk

Kjemi

Medisin

Psykologi

Neuroscience (Master's Programme)

Web/Lists(guid'8b698a2d-6ad0-4f7d-b3be-219cc1979f02')/Items(22916)/FieldValuesAsText

Evaluation of 2021:NEVR3003 has received relatively consistent feedbacks over many years, with overall very positive feedbacks but with some identified points for continuous improvement. The course underwent considerable revisions in 2021, partially caused by the pandemic-related digital format, including:1)    Introduction of the scientific literacy module2)    Considerable increase in interactive teaching formats, emphasizing 13)    Digital course format and supportive measures, emphasizing 14)    Revised exam format, emphasizing 15)    Continuous improvement of 3003 curriculum, lectures and learning material6)    Program level coordination across MSNEUR coursesPlease see course evaluation for 2021 for a thorough evaluation, which was mostly positive but with identified points for improvement. General considerations from Course evaluation 2021:«Next year, 3003 should particularly focus on further improving the connection, and the clarity of this connection, between the scientific literacy module, the lecture topics, the teaching formats and the exam, according to experiences and student feedback from 2021. See specific comments and tasks below. The ambition level must be tuned to the available resources, in terms of available time for the course coordinator, recruitment of a learning assistant, involvement of external lecturers, and administrative support. A good program-level dialogue across the NEUR courses is also required to ensure that the courses develop in a synergistic way.» Tasks from Course evaluation 2021:-       Continuous course development (Tora Bonnevie, course coordinator)-       Continuous synchronization on program level (Jonathan Whitlock, program leader)-       Clarify resources (Jorunn Helbostad, institute leader INB) Course plans for 2022:The main goal for NEVR3003 in 2022 was to further improve the course revision, based on encouraging experiences and feedbacks from the 2021 course. Additionally, a goal was to continue improvements on program level, such as further improving across-course literacy training, exercises, coding/analysis/data collection training, and content-wise coherence. Course-specific planned changes:-       Minor changes in lecturers, lecture titles, lecture formats and scopes-       Change from fixed study groups to randomized group formations per lecture with group work-       Lecture format based on student presentations was removed, student flash JC was added-       The sessions were no longer up to 3 hours (as 2021), but extracurricular study sessions were offered by the teaching 	assistants-       Increased clarification of the scientific literacy course theme and learning goals across lectures, learning formats, exercises, essay and particularly exam-       Maintained new exam format, but reduced from 6 to 5 questions, and prepared students better

Course context of 2022: Course setting: The COVID pandemic still provided a challenge for the course in 2022. After physical MSNEUR courses in the fall, the spring course was planned as digital due to high uncertainty regarding the pandemic. Since the digital course implementation in 2021 went quite well, we expected few problems with that, but even if the course was quite similar to last year (just with what we taught were improvements), we met more challenges with a digital course format this year - perhaps due to “pandemic fatigue”, perhaps due to the switch from physical lectures in the fall, or uncertainty about (interactive) lecture format, or because of a somewhat lower level of “careful tailoring” by the course coordinator (see next point). Involvement in interactive teaching elements (a considerable part of the course) was generally more challenging than in 2021. Otherwise the course went fine, in particular the exam. See discussion below. Course resources: As last year, the course coordinator taught the majority of the course (13,5 of 20 sessions), while 6 external lecturers contributed with 6,5 main lectures. Two teaching assistants contributed to interactive course sessions, extracurricular study sessions and the digital learning environment, and contributed substantially to the general learning environment. The administrative support to the course has been notably reduced over the last year(s), without notification - leaving more tasks to the course coordinator. The coordinator had many days of COVID-related absence, a situation she had feared and searched advice for in advance (to make a “plan B”), but no backup resources were identified, and she had to carry out the teaching in this intensive course nevertheless. Due to intense work, this situation had only a mild impact on the course (one lecture delayed, some delay in essay feedback and notifications / follow-up in Blackboard), but even this slightly sub-optimal curating of the digital course may have contributed to reduced student satisfaction, particularly related to the digital course format. The conclusion is that this teaching model is too resource demanding and too vulnerable to be recommended for continuation, unless a better support framework can be ensured.   Evaluation points 2022: The course is evaluated by the course coordinator’s reflections and discussions with TA’s, lecturers, students and reference group, the reference group report and a student survey. Due to few responders to the survey, the detailed results are not published. General feedback: The students were generally satisfied with the course, and generally provided similar feedback as last year (see course report for 2021). In the following, evaluation points that differ from the 2021 evaluation are highlighted.   Digital course format. One main concern of the feedback was the wish for physical rather than digital lectures. The decision to maintain a digital course format was discussed in several rounds with the students, and due to the overall situation it was generally agreed to maintain a digital format throughout the course. Interactive elements of the course would undoubtedly have worked better in physical sessions (particularly for this class, see next point), on the other hand the students also appreciated elements of the digital format, such as recorded lectures. Interactive teaching format. Another central topic in the student feedback was related to interactive sessions. Similarly to 2021, interactive lectures were rated as best for obtaining the learning goals, followed by equal rating of traditional lectures, flipped classroom lectures and class discussions. Group discussions and student presentations got neutral feedback, and supervised extracurricular exercises was evaluated as helpful. The students rated positive-to-okay learning environment in groups and class discussions, but gave clear feedback that many found the threshold high to engage in interactive discussions. They reported that group or class discussions were less productive if the students did not prepare sufficiently, or if co-student’s attitudes towards interactive teaching was negative. The students were generally positive to exercises, quizzes (particularly individual, anonymous ones) and class discussions, but reported a higher effort related to interactive sessions compared to traditional lectures. Several students reported that they felt unsure about the expectation level and lacked confidence to participate in discussions, to the level that some students skipped interactive sessions. A constructive suggestion from the students was that each student should prepare one question to each interactive session. A more regular structure for interactive sessions, particularly flipped classroom sessions, was also suggested. From the course coordinator’s point of view, this difficulty with engaging interactiveness was surprising, compared to positive experience with interactive teaching in 2021(also digital), and was not easy to correct in spite of encouragement, clarification of expectations and focus on the process of learning. Physical interactive sessions would probably have worked out better for this class, but the experience that interactive teaching can lead to a ‘split’ in the class, with relatively good outcome for those who participate and worse outcome for those who don’t, has also been reported in pedagogical literature and should be taken into consideration. Exam format. The new exam format (from 2021) was maintained this year, but with one less question and with better preparation of the exam format. In the course coordinator’s view, this new (and now improved) format appears to be a success. The evaluation process was smooth, the quality and independence of the answers was high, as reflected in the most common grade to be B (and C). The exam was evaluated positively; to assess understanding (rather than recall), scientific literacy and synthesis of knowledge, to match the learning goals of the course, to be generally fair (all this as in 2021), and by some even to be enjoyable. No particular complaints were noted (in contrast to 2021). Additional specific feedback: In brief, by topics (with emphasis on changes from the 2021 evaluation):-       Curriculum / lectures: There are still high expectations about what this short course should cover in terms of both depth and width of topics, within cognitive, behavioral, systems and clinical neuroscience, emphasizing both biological and psychological angles, from historical foundations to cutting-edge findings. Some want a high “KISN-topic focus”, others not. There are many possible good ways to select a good course curriculum - a good program level collaboration will maximize teaching efficiency.-       Reading material: Positively evaluated, in 2022 a higher satisfaction with article-based curriculum (vs textbooks) compared to 2021.-       Scientific literacy module. The module was still positively reviewed, but from the coordinator’s point of view the goal of this module can still be even more clearly communicated. In spite of much effort and time spent to explain our focus on the link between concrete evidence (papers, figures) and the big lines / general knowledge, across lectures, exercises, essay and exam, this message somehow appears challenging to fully get across. Improved clarification of how the learning goals, course topics, learning methods / exercises and exam is connected, would probably improve student motivation, cooperation and learning.-       Essay. The essay work is still very positively rated, including the draft feedback during the writing process. The assignment itself is unchanged since Menno Witter introduced the Information literacy module, but its relevance is further emphasized by the 2021 course revision. The students clearly preferred a non-graded essay this year (in contrast to 2021), and the course coordinator strongly agrees to keep it ungraded (formative assessment). Thorough essay feedback to all students is resource demanding, but appears to be a very good investment, and highly exam relevant. On the positive side, it is rewarding to see many essays improve considerably from draft to final version. Program-level improvement. The largest change on program level is the preparation of the new course NEVR3000, Literacy in Science, which will also include an introduction to programming and analysis, as a result of engagement for these topics from several teachers in the program. This new course will provide new opportunities for across-course synergies and exercises.

Future perspectives (after coordinating the course 2015-2022): While maintaining the course description and overall design for about a decade, the course has undergone significant changes, in particular regarding an increased focus on human cognitive neuroscience topics and methods (at the cost of in-depth single neuron dynamics in animal models, and with some topics moved to other courses), a larger focus on scientific literacy, a larger focus on interactive learning formats, and changed exam format. Some considerations:-       Curriculum / content / focus: There are many expectations regarding what this short course can cover (see above), and a relevant curriculum can be created in numerous different ways. My solution has been to spend one lecture per selected topic - each a cognitive/behavioral function - and try to ensure that a variety of methods, species, and levels of analyses will be addressed throughout the course, through studies of older as well as newer papers (original papers and reviews). Another solution has been to focus mainly on scientific literacy, rather than trying to cover too much – with the idea that the best this course can do is to train the students in being able to find, read, assess and discuss scientific papers themselves.-       Scientific literacy: I find this module as a “teaching mode” of the course to be quite successful, though there is room for further improvement. It will be an exciting time ahead to integrate the literacy aspects of NEVR3003 with the new NEVR3000 course on Literacy in Science - perhaps the (explicit) literacy emphasis of 3003 can be reduced in the future.-       Teaching methods, experiences: We have tried out different teaching methods, with particular emphasis on interactive teaching methods. Positive and negative experiences should be taken into account when optimizing the future teaching methods of the course, which may use both digital and physical, synchronous and asynchronous, interactive and more traditional learning formats. In such a short course, it would be easier to use interactive methods if the students were somewhat familiar with this from previous courses. Also, interactive teaching may be resource demanding for both students and teachers, depending on the ambition level.-       Teaching methods, look-out: If I were to coordinate the course next year, I would probably go one step back regarding interactive methods, and rather ensure shorter interactive elements in most/all lectures. I would select just a few lectures for full “flipped classroom format”, and in addition offer extra-curricular discussion sessions driven by teaching assistants or class students, perhaps in coordination with NEVR3000.-       Exam: The new exam format appears quite successful, and is recommended for continuation.-       Resources and support: We have enjoyed contributions from excellent, enthusiastic and stable lecturers in the course, and built a culture to credit their learning materials if used in later courses. Unfortunately, it can be challenging invite / reward lecturers from other departments. My experience is that teaching around 50% of the lectures as a course coordinator forms a good balance between continuity and fresh input, and is doable in terms of teaching load. 1-2 teaching assistants, and sufficient administrative support, are highly valuable.-       New topic suggestion: Ethics. Increased emphasis on this topic has been suggested in several course evaluations, program meetings, and was attempted to be included in the scientific literacy module – but in my opinion it deserves a more concrete treatment somewhere in the program. Perhaps in the new NEVR3000 course?

NEVR2010 (Introduction to Neuroscience) or equivalent background.

Corresponding to the academic requirements for the <a href="http://www.ntnu.edu/studies/msneur">Master of Science in Neuroscience</a>.Exchange students may be accepted after individual evaluation.

The course provides a thorough introduction to the biological foundation of behaviour and cognition. It focuses on the neural mechanisms for behaviour and cognition, with particular emphasis on learning and memory, sleep, motivation, language, and emotions. The lectures will also address neurological and psychiatric symptoms and disorders, with emphasis on the underlying neural mechanisms. The course involves writing an essay based on a literature search of a topic. Topics for the essays are related to the content of the course. The project will be given feedback in two rounds and is evaluated as approved/ not approved. The student must pass the project assignment before (s)he can take the exam.

After completing and passing the course NEVR3003 the student<ul><li>has in-depth insight of the basic concepts of the organization of higher order cortical systems; </li><li>has insight of the basic structural and functional concepts of the major interactions between subcortical and cortical systems; </li><li>is capable of describing certain cognitive behavioural processes in terms of contributions of and interactions between numerous brain systems; </li><li>can acquire and evaluate published information relevant to our understanding of cognitive behaviour; </li><li>can report outcomes of research in a coherent oral and written report.</li></ul>

Web/Lists(guid'8b698a2d-6ad0-4f7d-b3be-219cc1979f02')/Items(17433)/FieldValuesAsText

Status and current issues before 2021.NEVR3003 has received relatively consistent feedbacks over many years, with overall very positive feedbacks but with some identified points for continuous improvement, which we have worked to improve every year. The students find the course highly engaging, though somewhat difficult and work-intensive for a short timeline. Lecturers are evaluated as being passionate and of high quality, and the content as being interesting and relevant, with good coherence.It is a continuous task to maintain and improve the content relevance, quality and difficulty level of each lecture and its learning material, as well as the coherence across lectures and MSNEUR courses, in particular when guest lecturer participation change. The clarity of connection between lectures, learning goals and exam should continuously be improved, and the overall course focus tuned towards understanding rather than recall of information. The teaching structure and interactiveness should continuously be improved to support this.3003 has, among others, wished for a higher level of program level coordination across the MSNEUR courses, to increase coherence in content, expectation level and evaluation forms, and regarding the existing but lately reduced information literacy module. Additional issues that have been discussed within and across courses over the previous years:-       Format and assessment of the literacy course work (essay)-       Reading material format (review papers vs textbooks - same textbook for all courses?)-       Parallel, full-semester course formats of 3003 and 3004 rather than serial half-semester format, allowing hands-on data analysis exercises related to both courses? While this is on hold due to 3004’s preference, 3001 and 3002 changed into a parallel, full-semester format this year with a shared information literacy module.-       Expectation level – tuning towards the MSNEUR students vs exchange / other students?One concrete suggestion by the previous 3003 evaluation was to upgrade the 3003 part of the information literacy module into a module on ‘scientific literacy’, with an emphasis on interpreting and discussing scientific evidence and the transition from data to knowledge. The module should build on the 3001/2 information literacy module and be embedded in all 3003 teaching activities, learning goals and exam, and ideally include review of the scientific method as well as hands-on exercises on data analysis.News in 2021:The 2021 version of the course has undergone considerable revisions, driven by the current improvement plans discussed above, pedagogical training of the course coordinator (NTNU’s Uniped program) as well as the pandemic-adapted digital course format. Core elements of the 3003 upgrade in 2021 includes:1)    Introduction of the scientific literacy module2)    Considerable increase in interactive teaching formats, emphasizing 13)    Digital course format and supportive measures, emphasizing 14)    Revised exam format, emphasizing 15)    Continuous improvement of 3003 curriculum, lectures and learning material6)    Program level coordination across MSNEUR coursesGiven the considerable changes in 2021 and the lack of student surveys during the last years, several course elements are thoroughly reviewed this year, by summarizing 2021 news, student evaluations (class feedback, reference group and student survey) and the course coordinator’s evaluation. Point 5 and 1 are discussed below under ‘learning outcome’, 2 and 3 under ‘teaching and learning activities’ and 4 under ‘assessment’.Program level coordination: There has been a program-level dialogue to improve the coherence between the NEVR courses, in particular between 3001/2 and 3003, focusing mainly on content and the literacy module. It is clarified that expectation level should be adapted to the MSNEUR students (expected prior knowledge should be stated in the online course information). A full-semester course in parallel with 3004 is not an alternative at this point, and it is difficult to find time for hands-on analysis exercises in 3003, but we have discussed the possibility of a neural data analysis course or module that will fit neatly with the other MSNEUR courses and the literacy module. The students were, as last year, divided in the view of whether 3003 should be a full-semester course in parallel to 3004, therefore we see no point to push this forward, and rather collaborate with 3004 and a potential data analysis course in the context of the literacy module.General course feedback: The students were generally very satisfied with the quality of the course as a whole, and gave many positive comments and constructive suggestions (see attachment for details). Highlighted strengths included the general topics, lecturer engagement, the learning assistant and the high level of involvement of the course coordinator in organisation and lecturing. Improvement points included adjustments to interactive elements, in particular group work, and the exam. The scientific literacy module was well received, with constructive input for further improvement, and a clear recommendation to continue this course-overarching focus.General considerations: All in all, the course is well received, well coordinated and coherent with the other program courses, and there is an ongoing positive development on course-level and program-level, which includes a revival of the literacy module. Next year, 3003 should particularly focus on further improving the connection, and the clarity of this connection, between the scientific literacy module, the lecture topics, the teaching formats and the exam, according to experiences and student feedback from 2021. See specific comments and tasks below. The ambition level must be tuned to the available resources, in terms of available time for the course coordinator, recruitment of a learning assistant, involvement of external lecturers, and administrative support. A good program-level dialogue across the NEUR courses is also required to ensure that the courses, including the literacy module, develop in a synergistic way.

Learning goals in the course page:After completing and passing the course NEVR3003 the student 1) has in-depth insight of the basic concepts of the organization of higher order cortical systems; 2) has insight of the basic structural and functional concepts of the major interactions between subcortical and cortical systems; 3) is capable of describing certain cognitive behavioural processes in terms of contributions of and interactions between numerous brain systems; 4) can acquire and evaluate published information relevant to our understanding of cognitive behaviour; 5) can report outcomes of research in a coherent oral and written report. In addition, lecture-specific and course-general learning outcomes are clearly listed in the lectures, with a special emphasis of the scientific literacy focus throughout the course.Continuous improvement of curriculum, lectures and learning material:Curriculum, lecture topics, content and lecturers were adjusted, and reading material was revised for many lectures. The course coordinator strongly prefers to use review papers rather than textbooks as learning material, in line with the scientific literacy focus, but the framing of this exercise has been improved. The course coordinator was more present than earlier (teaching 2/3 and participating in all sessions), which improved coherence between lectures and overall course elements.The students reviewed the course content to be relevant, coherent and with appropriate difficulty, and teachers to be engaged, clear and qualified, and the reading material to be appropriate. Most students appreciated the use of review papers rather than textbooks, though some would have preferred textbooks.Scientific literacy module:A novel 'scientific literacy' module was introduced this year, as a development of the previous ‘information literacy’ module in the course. This module built on the information literacy module of 3001/2, but further extended the focus on interpreting and discussing evidence. The module was integrated in the topics of the course, rather than taught separately, and pierced through all elements of the course such as learning goals, lectures and student activities, essay and exam. A pronounced goal was that the students, rather than learning static facts, should themselves be able to dynamically and critically identify, interpret and discuss scientific evidence relevant for 3003-related topics, and acquire generic academic skills. This is required to obtain NTNU's vision of 'knowledge for a better world'.The students reviewed the scientific literacy module positively, and supported to maintain this focus as an integrated part of the course. They found the topic to align with the information literacy module of 3001/2 and to be integrated across learning outcomes, lectures, exercises and exam of 3003. They reported increased understanding and confidence regarding scientific literacy learning goals, such as critical reading of scientific papers and discussing the unknowns of neuroscience, as well as inspiration to focus on this topic in the future. A few students found the topic to be basic, as they had had much training on similar topics before, but the majority recognized the benefit of this focus. They strongly agreed to include various exercises, such as interpreting backgrounds, aims, analyses and figures of scientific studies, and if possible to do hands-on data analysis, but they were only slightly positive to include exercises linked to 3004.The course coordinator found this framing to be quite promising for bringing forward aspects of the overall course topic that previously have been difficult to convey. There is still a considerable potential for further improvement, both on detail level (exact topics, exercises and difficulty level) and on structural level (to further improve and clarify the link between the scientific literacy learning goals, the teaching activities and the assessments). Continuous collaboration with 3001/2 is also needed to maximize the synergy across the courses.

Digital format and supportive measures:Due to the pandemic, the course was 100% digital, using the platform Blackboard Collaborate. Several supportive measures were implemented: fixed study groups, open digital office hours, course learning assistant, and online discussion board for various topics. To accommodate for digital time use and student activities, all sessions were extended up to 1 hour extra (without increasing the content). The demanding digital context was also a driver for increased interactivity in the teaching formats, as discussed below. Lectures were either pre-recorded or recorded live, while student-active sessions were not recorded. Several students followed the course from different countries and time zones, which was not a problem thanks to their flexible attitude.According to the survey, most students attended the digital lectures live if they could, but surprisingly many also watched the recorded lectures even if they had attended live. The students found it easy to ask questions in the digital format (via microphone, chat or discussion forum), but quite some found the threshold for asking questions higher when the lecture was recorded, and one student wished for an option to post anonymous questions (like padlet). The learning assistant was of great help to facilitate the digital interface and activities in the course coordinator’s sessions (the course coordinator had this role in guest lectures). Not many students used the digital open office hours, but they were still recommended it to be kept. Perhaps surprisingly, the students only reported a slight reduction in learning outcome by the digital course interface, whether compared to ordinary “pre-pandemic” classroom teaching or to classroom teaching under varying corona restrictions, but the material is small. In general, they were positive towards the general course implementation given the context of the pandemic.From the course coordinator’s view, the digital interface caused surprisingly few problems for the course, the major challenge was the increased time use, especially related to interactive format, and occasional multitasking challenges for the presenter. While in-person teaching has many obvious advantages, the digital interface was found to have some unexpected advantages as well, and some elements from this digital semester could be maintained also in later non-digital semesters (such as prerecorded lectures and flipped classroom format).Teaching format and student involvement:Interactive teaching formats were considerably increased this year. Most lectures included small to large interactive elements such as exercises, quizzes (like Kahoot), feedback systems (like Mentimeter), class discussions or group discussions. Some lectures were in a flipped classroom format such as Team-Based Learning (TBL), pre-recorded lectures + group exercises, or student presentations. The goal of more student-active teaching is to improve scientific literacy skills and retention of information. The sessions with the highest level of student-active format were taught by the course coordinator, and her continuous participation facilitated the link between the course-general scientific literacy learning goals, lecture content, teaching activities and exam.There was an active dialogue between the course coordinator and the students regarding teaching format throughout the course, the students were open minded to try out different formats and appreciated the rapid adjustment of format according to student feedback. The students gave many valuable tips for how new teaching formats could be further improved. There was initially a tendency that students preferred more traditional lectures, since it is easier for the students to obtain control of the learning material in these sessions. Appreciation of more interactive formats seemed to increase as the students started to appreciate the course-general learning goals related to scientific literacy, focusing more on process and understanding and less on detailed knowledge. In spite of the course coordinator’s effort in emphasizing the link between these general learning goals, teaching format / focus and exam format, the uncertainty regarding the exact exam format appeared to interfere with the students' willingness to embrace the more general learning goals, since they expected detailed questions in the exam. There is therefore a need of even clearer communication regarding the learning goals and exam expectations, ideally supported by concrete examples of exam questions.In the survey, flipped classroom lectures and interactive lectures were rated as best for obtaining the learning goals, followed by traditional lectures. Group discussions and student presentations were rated as OK. The students generally enjoyed the class discussions, though some called for stricter moderation to avoid time spent on irrelevant issues. The students were generally positive to group work within and between lectures, but their experience with group work were mixed – a particular challenge for this class is the large variety in the student’s program affiliations and their commitment to non-obligatory group work. Another challenge was the varying quality of group dynamics within each group.The course coordinator could, like the students, experience the potential of student-active formats, when applied in the optimal way and well synchronized with learning goals and exam. There is much room for improvement, and a good dialogue with the students is essential to achieve this. Clarity of exact task, learning goals and expectation level for every session is important for effective learning. Given the workload and risk associated to obtain really good interactive teaching formats across the course as a whole, it appears like a good solution to keep ca 50% of the lectures as guest lectures with more traditional lecture format (though interactive elements are mostly welcome here as well), while the course coordinator can integrate a higher level of interactiveness within and across the other sessions. Some variation in teaching format across the lectures may be refreshing, as long as it is not confusing. Pre-recorded lectures were highly rated and could be kept / further improved. Group work between the lectures is challenging unless it is either obligatory or the grouping is based on student commitment. It is worth noting that the students are very interested in exercises to work on, and potentially in participating in exercise sessions beyond the regular sessions. A learning assistant should definitely be recruited if possible.Essay assignment:The essay assignment has been a part of the program-level information literacy module for many years. Though 3001/2 and 3004 have changed the original essay work in their courses, 3003 has maintained the individual essay assignment with draft feedback, but emphasized the learning goals and the relevance for the exam, master thesis and future academic life. The essay is still a core element of the 2021 literacy module, but the focus has changed in direction of scientific literacy, while still building on a fundament of information literacy. Both the course coordinator and the learning assistant invested quite some work in detailed feedback to both draft and final versions of all student essays. In spite of the time constraint of the course, the student essays were in general of high quality, and in most cases there was a clear improvement from the draft to the final version. The goal of the assignment is that all students develop their skills regardless of their initial level, therefore a formative assessment form is chosen over a summative one. The pass / fail evaluation ensures that all students complete the assignment according to the minimum requirements.The students found the assignment to be in line with scientific literacy focus, and also encouraged them to apply information literacy skills from NEVR3001/2. Similar to the previous class, they were not particularly interested in a dedicated lecture on scientific writing. The students highly appreciated the detailed feedback and found it to be very constructive and helpful. The draft feedback, given during the process of writing, specifically improved the learning outcome. They found the essay assignment to improve their scientific writing skills, and be relevant for the exam preparation. Most of them did not want to change the draft feedback format to a peer review (student-to-student feedback), though some were open for the idea, and they did clearly not want to write the essay as group work. In the survey, the students are split in the view regarding the essay should have been graded (A-F) and count in the course grade (fex 20%) rather than being evaluated pass/fail, but a small majority would have preferred a counting grade. However, the student dialogues and reference group report support to maintain a pass/fail evaluation rather than grades, and point out that, in line with the intension, this will allow the students to focus on the learning process rather than the result, and to approach the task more openly and exploratively and get feedback to that, rather than to limit themselves to the safest options.

Exam:The exam format was considerably revised this year, driven by the triplet of revised course elements; digital home format (also for exam), scientific literacy focus and interactive teaching methods focusing on “provide evidence and discuss” rather than detailed knowledge. Though also previous 3003 exams have aimed at probing understanding rather than fact recall, synthesis of knowledge and scientific discussion, the 2021 exam took this development one step further. The goal of the exam was that the students should use their own chosen examples of detailed knowledge / results and put those in context to discuss more general issues, in order to link data to knowledge in an appropriate way (“provide evidence and discuss”). Each question was flexible as to which exact details and pieces of evidence that the students chose to focus on, as long as the evidence was relevant to the question and properly discussed. The number of exam questions were reduced down to six long answer questions, and for three of the questions the students were required to read the abstract of an attached, unfamiliar paper and put it in context with knowledge from different lectures / topics in the course. The students had been informed about the overall focus, goal, evaluation criteria and question types of the exam in advance, but they had not seen examples of the exact question formats, such as those involving an abstract.The exam was evaluated by the course coordinator (internal examinator) as well as an external examinator, who also spent quite some time to discuss the exam format and the expectation level. The examinators agreed that the exam in general succeeded quite well in assessing understanding and judgement rather than recall (or look-up) of information, but also noted some clear challenges with the questions which was taken into account when evaluating the exam, the main issue being the number of questions requested for the short amount of time (4h). The evaluation guideline was flexible and judgement-based (NTNU’s judgement scale counted more than the point scale), but the lack of rigid point-based evaluation did not create any challenges for the evaluation process. The most common grade was C, the grade distribution was gaussian but shifted towards higher grades, in line with (or slightly better than) previous grade distributions.The students found the new exam format to be quite novel and unexpected, but in spite of a clear complaint about too little time for the requested workload (as acknowledged by the examinators), it mostly received positive comments due to its across-topics, application-based and understanding-focused format. The students generally agreed that the exam assessed understanding rather than recall, synthesis of knowledge from multiple topics / lectures and scientific literacy skills, and aligned well with the learning goals of the course. Most students disagreed that the exam should stick to factual questions. All in all they found the exam to be quite fair. One constructive feedback that was raised, particularly by one member of the reference group report, was that the students should have been given the opportunity to practice the exam question format in advance, and that even more details about the exam should have been given in advance, such as expectation level regarding details vs overarching ideas. It was also suggested that the papers attached to the exam could have been posted on Blackboard in advance, to allow the students to read them and take notes. The course coordinator will take all input into consideration for the further development of exam format, and will particularly focus on being even more clear about the goal of being able to set concrete details into a larger context of ideas, while the exam can be quite flexible regarding which exact details that are presented (the main point is not to remember those, but to interpret them wisely). Given the students’ focus on the rapidly approaching exam, it seems like very concrete examples of exam questions must be presented to illustrate such more abstract goals, to reduce uncertainty and stress regarding exam format.

Regular final examination is given in the spring semester only.  Students with legitimate leave of absence at the final examination and students who receive the grade F may take a re-sit examination in the autumn semester.  If few candidates, the re-sit examination may be conducted as an oral examination.

The compulsory activity is approved for 4 semesters. With approved compulsory activity, the students resit the examination only. 

Corresponding to the academic requirements for the master's programme in Neuroscience: https://www.ntnu.edu/studies/msneur/admission

Exchange students may be accepted after individual evaluation.

The course provides a thorough introduction to the biological foundation of behaviour and cognition. It focuses on the neural mechanisms for behaviour and cognition, with particular emphasis on sleep, motivation, learning and memory, language, and emotions. The lectures will also address neurological and psychiatric symptoms and disorders, with emphasis on the underlying neural mechanisms.

The course involves writing an essay, usually under supervision, and based on a literature search of a topic. Topics for the essays are related to the content of the course.  The project is evaluated as passed/failed. The student must pass the project assignment before (s)he can take the exam.

Lectures and supervised project (essay based on literature search). The course is taught in the first half of the spring semester (normally in February and March), with a final examination at the end of March.  The language of teaching and examination is English. 

This course has restricted admission. Students admitted to the MSc in Neuroscience are guaranteed a seat. Other students must apply for a seat by the given deadlines. 

After completing and passing the course NEVR3003 the student 1) has in-depth insight of the basic concepts of the organization of higher order cortical systems; 2) has insight of the basic structural and functional concepts of the major interactions between subcortical and cortical systems; 3) is capable of describing certain cognitive behavioural processes in terms of contributions of and interactions between numerous brain systems; 4) can acquire and evaluate published information relevant to our understanding of cognitive behaviour; 5) can report outcomes of research in a coherent oral and written report. 

Prosjektoppgave (essay basert på litteraturstudie)

Atferds- og kognitiv nevrovitenskap

Medisin, ikke-ordinære studenter

Nevrovitenskap - masterstudium

Web/Lists(guid'8b698a2d-6ad0-4f7d-b3be-219cc1979f02')/Items(11848)/FieldValuesAsText

Behavioural and Cognitive Neuroscience - NEVR3003