Advertisement

Journal of Cognitive Enhancement

, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp 124–130 | Cite as

Cognitive Enhancers (CE) and Learning Strategies

  • Sanyogita (Sanya) RamEmail author
  • Safeera Hussainy
  • Marcus Henning
  • Maree Jensen
  • Kay Stewart
  • Bruce Russell
Original Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Cognitive enhancer Learning strategies, academic, methylphenidate Amphetamine Modafinil 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Barnwell, S., & Earleywine, M. (2006). Simultaneous alcohol and cannabis expectancies predict simultaneous use. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, 1(1), 1–9.Google Scholar
  2. Bong, M., & Clark, R. E. (1999). Comparison between self-concept and self-efficacy in academic motivation research. Educational Psychologist, 34(3), 139–153.Google Scholar
  3. 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.Google Scholar
  4. 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).Google Scholar
  5. 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.Google Scholar
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. 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).Google Scholar
  8. 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.Google Scholar
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. 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.Google Scholar
  11. Maher, B. (2008). Poll results: look who’s doping. Nature, 452(7188), 674–675.Google Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. 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.Google Scholar
  14. 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.Google Scholar
  15. Niemi, H., Nevgi, A., Virtanen P. (2003) Towards self-regulation in web-based learning. Journal of Educational Media 28(1), 49–71.Google Scholar
  16. 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.Google Scholar
  17. 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.Google Scholar
  18. 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.Google Scholar
  19. 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.Google Scholar
  20. 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.Google Scholar
  21. 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.Google Scholar
  22. 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.Google Scholar
  23. Virtanen, P., Nevgi, A. (2010). Disciplinary and gender differences among higher education students in self-regulated learning strategies. Educational Psychology 30(3), 323–47.Google Scholar
  24. 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.Google Scholar
  25. 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.Google Scholar
  26. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81.Google Scholar
  27. 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.Google Scholar
  28. Yeung, A. S. (2011). Student self-concept effort:gender and grade differences. Educational Psychology, 31(6), 749–722.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medical and Health SciencesUniversity of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand
  2. 2.Centre for Medicine Use and SafetyMonash University (Parkville Campus)MelbourneAustralia
  3. 3.Centre for Medical and Health Sciences Education, Faculty of Medical and Health SciencesUniversity of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand
  4. 4.School of PharmacyUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations