Graphic Science
Smarter UK
Final Project Report
November 2013
Introduction
The Smarter UK project was designed to engage young people (aged 14-18) with the ethics
of using drugs for cognitive enhancement.
Smarter UK sessions were delivered in UK secondary schools between December 2011 and
March 2013. The project was funded by a Wellcome Trust Society award and was a scaleup of Graphic Science’s earlier Smarter project which ran in Bristol and Glasgow in 2008
and was funded through a Wellcome Trust People Award.
Sessions began with an eight-minute sketch which set the scene by highlighting all the
major issues, followed by a short memory game to illustrate different types of memory.
This was followed by a Vote with your Feet discussion based around five pre-set questions.
Each session was delivered by two professional science presenters and supported by a
neuroscience researcher who was available to share their expertise throughout the
discussion and in a dedicated question and answer slot at the end of the session.
Region
Bristol and Bath
Cambridge
Glasgow and Edinburgh
Oxford
Wales
Delivery Partner
Explorer Dome
Naked Scientists
Glasgow Science
Centre
Science Oxford
science made simple
Neuroscience research organisation
University of Bristol
University of Cambridge
Universities of Glasgow and Edinburgh
University of Oxford
University of Cardiff
Neuroscientists were recruited by Graphic Science via each university’s neuroscience
coordinator. They attended a one-day training from Graphic Science at their host
institution in which they were also inducted as STEM Ambassadors.
Delivery partners were trained in how to administrate and run Smarter UK in a two-day
residential training attended by 2-3 presenters from each organisation.
An external evaluation of Smarter UK was carried out by David
Shakespeare/Square2Learning. The Smarter UK script was developed by playwright Toby
Hulse.
Project Objectives
The project objectives for Smarter UK as stated in the bid to the Wellcome Trust were:





To provide a platform to engage and stimulate discussion amongst 13-16 year olds
(KS3 & 4 in England, S2-S4 in Scotland) with both the personal and societal
implications of contemporary advances in Neuropharmacology.
To improve teacher confidence in running debates in the classroom as expected by
contemporary science curricula.
To connect teachers and young people with real examples of cutting edge
neuroscience research.
To work with teachers to produce curriculum enhancing resources to support the
teaching of neuroscience and the social implications of advances in science and
technology.
To train neuroscience researchers in public engagement and to equip them with
the skills, confidence and opportunity to discuss their research in schools.
1

(Resulting in an embedded culture of engagement with schools into the practices of
participating neuroscientists).
To create a sustainable project which can continue through integration into the
regular programmes offered by our delivery partners
Delivery statistics
Explorer Dome
Glasgow Science
Centre
Naked Scientists
science made
simple
Science Oxford
Number
Number of
Total
Sessions per Students
of schools sessions
students
school
per session
20
61
1404
3.05
23
Totals
Target
21
21
60
61
1379
1699
2.86
2.9
23
28
18
21
55
64
1298
1641
3.06
3.05
24
26
101
100
301
300
7421
9000
2.982
3
24.8
30
One of the project’s targets was to try to reach schools that did not engage readily with
STEM enhancement and enrichment activities. Lists of schools were provided by the
regional STEMNET STEM Ambassadors contract holders for each area where Smarter UK
delivery was taking place. The target was for 50% of all schools that received Smarter UK
to be from these lists of hard to reach schools. Success in reaching these hard to reach
schools varied from delivery partner to delivery partner.
Hard to reach schools
Explorer Dome
Science Made Simple
Naked Scientists
Science Oxford
Glasgow Science Centre
% hard to reach schools
55
39
9.5
57
62
Comments on delivery targets
The delivery targets set out at the bidding stage were largely met and in some cases,
marginally exceeded. This did vary a little from delivery partner to delivery partner –
some reflections on the reasons for this are discussed later in this document. We overestimated numbers of students in each class so although we delivered the full number of
proposed sessions, the project only reached 82% of our target in terms of student
numbers.
Findings from the Smarter UK external evaluation
Below is an extract from the executive summary of the external evaluation:
The evaluation of this project aimed to secure evidence from simple ‘reaction
level’ responses through to longer term changed behaviours and outcomes – and
used direct observation and responses from the young people, researchers and
teachers involved; as well as a number of on the- spot questionnaires and longer
2
term self-assessment diaries. Whilst a suitable amount of appropriate evidence
was collected, the possible limitations of this evaluation process were also
considered – which include consideration of degree of representation of the
sample.
The evidence is presented and considered for each of the project objectives, and
concludes that the project has:





engaged young people with a relatively new and controversial topic
provided a platform for topics which would simply not have been explained
or discussed under normal circumstances
used a format (involving drama, ‘vote with your feet’ continuum and
discussion, contact with and input from with a real-life scientist) that
stimulates dialogue in schools very effectively
enthused teachers to try similar ideas themselves - although other
priorities, lack of time in the curriculum and lack of knowledge of
neuroscience make this difficult
enthused neuroscience researchers in terms of interest and confidence in
public engagement and to engage more with schools
A number of practical, shorter term recommendations are made which involve the
way the sessions have been set up and run. Longer term recommendations are also
made around the sustainability of the project if it is to continue – suggesting that
either the project continues in the same way, but scales down its ambitions for
influencing teachers, and teaching and learning around neuroscience and cognitive
enhancement issues, in the longer term or the project could now focus having a
greater impact on those involved by encouraging longer term engagement between
individual teachers (and their schools), and the delivery partners and researchers.
The suggestion is that a teacher, delivery partners and researcher co-plan, run and
review Smarter UK sessions together in a school. In practice this may mean more
intense targeting of efforts – engaging a smaller number of schools so as to have
more impact on the young people, teachers and researchers involved in each.
Training the Delivery Partners
Summary: Delivery partners expressed universally favourable opinions about the training.
They thought it was a great opportunity to familiarise themselves with the sessions, to
team-build and to network. They particularly appreciated having a session delivered by a
scientific expert.
Smarter UK delivery partners attended a two-day residential training from 4-5 October
2011 at the Folly Farm Centre, Pensford, Somerset. The training was run by Graphic
Science and led by Toby Hulse. The purpose of the training was to familiarise the
presenters with the Smarter UK session format, and the script in particular; to give them
factual background information that would assist them in facilitating the debate, and to
understand the administration and evaluation requirements for the project.
In addition to Toby and Graphic Science, a session on the project’s evaluation was
delivered by David Shakespeare and a session on cognitive enhancement from a
neuroscientist’s perspective was given by Professor Graeme Henderson from the University
of Bristol.
3
Once Smarter UK delivery was underway, additional presenters were trained by the
delivery partner organisations as the need arose (e.g. in cases where trained presenters
moved to different roles within or outside the organisation).
Feedback on the training
The delivery partners all gave very positive feedback on the training.
In particular they commented that they liked:




The opportunity to network and team-build with colleagues from their own and
other organisations
Toby’s sessions on performance
The high-level information in the session by Grahame Henderson which proved to
be really valuable in the Smarter Sessions
Gaining a thorough understanding of the whole project and their role
Suggestions for future considerations were:
 To set some time aside (30 minutes) that would allow each of the delivery partners
to work out the details of how they would run the project in their own
organisation.
 Having advance access to the script and putting a greater focus on how to interpret
the characters in the drama
 Holding the training earlier to enable booking to synchronise better with the
pattern of school year – the autumn term is particularly busy for schools bookings,
but the training was not early enough to allow delivery partners to make Smarter
UK bookings.
The timing of training sessions is complicated slightly by the later start of the
university academic year compared to the school year, and the impact this has on
organising and recruiting for neuroscientists’ training. It is likely that there would be a
significant lag between training delivery partners and training researchers. Delivery
partners would be put in a situation where they would be booking sessions into schools
before the cohort of neuroscientists was trained to participate. This seems like a risky
approach for all concerned.
Working with neuroscientists
Summary: The neuroscientists were considered by delivery partners, teachers and
students, to be the key attraction of the project. Neuroscientists reported increased
confidence as a result of their participation. Some would have liked greater opportunities
to input during the sessions.
Neuroscientists were recruited via the local neuroscience coordinator from each of the
participating research organisations (see appendix 2). Recruitment was primarily aimed at
early career researchers but small numbers of Masters Students and more established
academics were also involved.
Graphic Science trained 62 neuroscientists in total and at the end of the project, 45 of
these neuroscientists (72.5%) had taken part in one or more Smarter UK sessions. In
addition to the neuroscientists trained by Graphic Science, delivery partners had called in
4
the help of 11 other neuroscientists from their own networks. In total 56 neuroscientists
were involved in Smarter UK delivery.
Delivery
Partner
Explorer
Dome
science
made
simple
Naked
Scientists
Science
Oxford
Glasgow
Science
Centre
Totals
No NS
Trained
by GS
No Trained
NS who
delivered
No Non-GS
trained who
delivered
Total NS
in
delivery
Days delivered
by GS trained
Neuro
17
9
1
10
19
13
12
2
14
15
Days delivered
by non-gs
trained NS
1 (ex ED
employee turned
researcher)
4
0 (but Hannah
No days
without
NS
Total
Days of
delivery
0
20
1
18
0
21
10
10
0
10
18
11
8
8
16
10
9
2
21
11
6
0
6
19
0
2
21
62
45
11
56
81
4
5
101
was NS for 3)
The number of different neuroscientists involved in Smarter UK delivery ranged from 16
for Science Oxford to 6 for Glasgow Science Centre.
Delivery Partner
Explorer Dome
science made simple
Naked Scientists
Science Oxford
Glasgow Science
Centre
Percentage of trained
NS who delivered
% of NS who did >1
sessions
Avg days/NS
session
52.94%
2
50.00%
92.31%
1.3
28.57%
100.00%
2.1
60.00%
72.73%
1.3
31.25%
54.55%
3.5
100.00%
There was some variability in the experience of working with neuroscientists for different
delivery partners. This seemed to be a reflection of three main factors:



The time delay between training and delivery of the sessions – Bristol and Wales
both suffered a little from this. By the time the later Smarter sessions were
arranged, the neuroscientists were busy with other priorities and much less
available
The neuroscientists trained in the first place – the Oxford cohort were largely
clinicians, and this group did not seem to buy into the project.
The enthusiasm of particular neuroscientists - Glasgow Science Centre in particular
worked closely with a small group of very keen neuroscientists; the high level of
buy-in to the project from Cambridge neuroscientists is a reflection of the close
relationship between the Naked Scientists’ Hannah Critchlow who is a recent exCambridge neuroscience researcher and her colleagues.
The percentage of neuroscientists who took part in more than one session for each
delivery partner is an accurate reflection of how easy each organisation found it to book
neuroscientists (a lower proportion of repeat bookings correlates with greater difficulty in
securing neuroscientists for Smarter UK sessions).
5
On a few occasions, neuroscientists dropped out at short notice and the sessions had to go
ahead without them. When this happened, the presenters chose one of themselves to act
as the “expert”.
All delivery partners agreed that involving a neuroscientist in the sessions was a central
strength of the project as they provided students with a rare and inspiring opportunity to
talk to a real scientist and brought authority and a depth of information to the sessions.
This was also reflected in the feedback from students and teachers in the external
evaluation.
Delivery partners were reluctant to run sessions without a neuroscientist. However,
sessions could be run effectively without a neuroscientist if absolutely necessary.
The offer of honoraria, although not essential, and not always claimed by neuroscientists,
seemed to help when securing the researchers’ involvement in delivery of sessions.
Neuroscientists who took part in Smarter UK sessions reported increased confidence and
enthusiasm in working with schools and in communicating their research more generally.
In general feedback from those who took part in sessions was very positive.
Considerations/recommendations when working with researchers in future
 Training should be as close as possible to delivery. Where delivery takes place over
more than one academic year, additional recruitment and training sessions should
be considered for each year
 PhD students and postdocs are much better placed than Masters Students to make
time available and are much more confident about their own expertise
 Payment of honoraria makes it much easier to secure researcher involvement in
school sessions
 Neuroscientists had some concerns about being referred to as “experts” when
cognitive enhancement was not their subject of expertise. This needs to be
accommodated better – perhaps by giving greater guidance to researchers during
training and in briefing information about what they need to know and how to link
their own expertise to the subject. It could also involve more time for them to
speak directly about their own work e.g. by giving more time to the “Ask the
neuroscientist” section.
 It would be useful for delivery partners to have more involvement in the researcher
training day. This would give them greater insight into the qualities and abilities of
different researchers and mean that they were better informed about people they
would be working with before starting to deliver sessions. The budget implications
of this would need to be considered in any future bids.
Feedback and learning from schools
Summary: Feedback from students and teachers about the Smarter UK sessions was
predominantly positive. Over 80% of students who took part in the evaluation reported
that the session was interesting and enjoyable. Over 90% reported that they had learned
from the neuroscientist and over 80% that they had learned from the presenters. For
teachers, the involvement of a neuroscience researcher was a key attraction.
6








Most sessions were delivered during a single period lasting between 45 to 60
minutes. A the lower end of the time range, fitting the full session in was a tight
squeeze.
Where content had to be cut, presenters generally decided not to run the memory
game exercise.
Presenters felt that the “Ask the neuroscientist” section was particularly valuable
and tried to ensure that there was enough time at the end to make this
worthwhile.
Feedback from some teachers and students suggested that the Vote with Your Feet
section went on for a bit too long. Given the perceived value of the researcher
Q&A session, it would be worth trimming the Vote with Your Feet activity to allow
a good 10-15 minutes for Q&A.
Most delivery partners also offered a longer, double-period version of the session.
Uptake for this was fairly low. However, it did allow more breathing space for the
main session. One delivery partner estimated that the optimal running time for the
main Smarter session was 1 hour 10 minutes.
Where it was used, the advertising exercise worked well. However, this was much
more of a usual school-lesson feature than other elements of the Smarter UK
sessions.
Some teachers stayed and got involved in the sessions, while others tended to keep
a low profile. Presenters felt that sessions went better when the teacher was
actively involved. Delivery partners estimated that around half of teachers took an
active part in sessions and half did not. They did not consider it realistic to require
teachers to be involved in sessions.
Some teachers did pick up ideas about how to run discussions and debates in
lessons. However, where this happened, teachers tended to view this as incidental
rather than as intended outcome of the sessions. Often, teachers did not consider
that Smarter UK could offer them a CPD opportunity. Furthermore, a number of
respondents suggested that they and their colleagues would need further training
to feel confident in running similar discussion activities. The teacher CPD objective
of this project was the least successful and may simply have been an unrealistic
aim.
Project administration
Sessions should be offered free, but an alternative budget model should be provided
whereby delivery partners can charge a nominal fee to schools if they can make a good
case that this will improve the success of the project. Consideration should be given to
administrative overheads when agreeing the budget breakdown with delivery partners.
Delivery partners would have liked more consideration of administration overheads to be
incorporated into the budget and MOU. This would not necessarily require an increase in
overall money available, but the time cost of booking sessions in schools and coordinating
with a neuroscientist should be made explicit in the breakdown. The involvement of a
neuroscientist, although noted by all delivery partners as a key component of the
project’s success, increased the overall administrative load for the project considerably.
Delivery partners estimated that administration took up to half a day per school. The
challenges of booking sessions in schools varied from region to region. The difficulty of
7
securing bookings in schools that had been identified as hard to reach also varied. In some
areas, it posed no additional problem, in others it proved to be very difficult.
In general, bookings to schools were neither more, nor less difficult than anticipated
based on experience with other projects.
Most delivery partners felt that offering the sessions free of charge to schools was a good
approach and some suggested that booking the sessions would have been much harder if
schools had to pay.
Offering free sessions also had some disadvantages – on occasion, schools were less wellprepared or the classes that received the sessions were different from those it had
originally been booked for which meant that presenters could not plan appropriately. In
Wales, free sessions seemed to be viewed less favourably than paid-for sessions resulting
in poor organisation and last minute cancellations from some schools or disinterest from
teachers that was transmitted to students and reflected in their behaviour. Science made
simple have adopted a general policy of charging a nominal fee for all shows to offset this.
However, they did not charge schools for Smarter UK.
The experiment to use Twitter as a mechanism for sharing and monitoring experience for
each session was not successful. Some presenters tweeted reflections while others did not,
even with additional prompting from Graphic Science. It did not feel like a natural process
for presenters unless they were already active Twitter users. Those who were active on
Twitter felt that it was hard to share anything that offered genuinely meaningful learning
to other delivery partners compared to what they would have learned through delivering
sessions themselves.
Delivery partners took part in one Skype conversation during the project. This was
generally felt to be a useful activity. Delivery partners were keen to hear about each
other’s experiences with the project and share learning. It was suggested that more
frequent Skype sessions with a clear agenda and time-limit would have been useful.
However delivery partners also made direct contact with each other from time to time
where they needed specific support. This peer support may be worth cultivating in any
future projects that use a similar model of delivery.
Feedback on delivery
It was perceived across delivery partners that Smarter sessions seemed to work
particularly well with lower ability groups. This was not something that was considered
when planning the evaluation, so no data was collected that could verify this insight. It
may be something worth considering for any future projects in a similar format.
Delivery partners enjoyed the sketch and felt it was something unique they could offer
that the schools would not do themselves.
They felt that the sketch worked well as an icebreaker, that students appreciated that the
presenters were putting themselves on the line, and that this helped to create an
atmosphere of open discussion later in the session.
8
Students were generally well-behaved and attentive during the sketch. Occasional groans
or misunderstandings created amusement and added to the experience. On a few
occasions, the teacher did have to intervene to regain order, but this was rare.
Delivery partners used their own expertise to decide how best to facilitate Vote with Your
Feet. Some adopted the “think, pair, share” technique (which was also suggested by David
Shakespeare). Where the discussion was slow to get going, or students were reluctant to
share their views, some presenters split the class into three groups, each of which was
encouraged to explore and advocate for a different view, or facilitated discussion in each
of the three groups that had naturally formed before inviting the groups to share views
with each other.
There was a general perception from presenters that boys tended to be more pro smart
drugs than girls (this was particularly evident in single-sex classes). It was also observed
that lower ability groups tended to be more in favour of the drugs, but only for themselves
and not if everybody took them. There was also a sense that the Smarter sessions as a
whole worked as well, if not better for lower ability groups who seemed to be more
forthcoming with their views and generally more animated in the discussions.
Delivery partners observed that less able and more unruly students engaged well and
seemed to feel empowered by the idea that developmental changes in their own brains
could be contributing to some of their teenage difficulties.
Occasionally, the participating neuroscientist brought along a model brain or other visual
prop. This was a really useful additional stimulus for Vote with your Feet.
Students were generally very open about sharing their experiences of themselves, friends
or family members taking medication for ADHD, epilepsy etc. and this made the sessions
more relevant to them.
Delivery partners based at science centres felt that Smarter UK offered them a useful
professional development opportunity for working more with secondary schools.
Legacy
For some of the delivery partners, involvement in Smarter has resulted in closer working
relationships with their local neuroscience coordinators and specific neuroscientists and
some have entered into discussion about how to use this or develop other projects.
Schools seemed to be particularly interested in the relationship between adolescent brain
development and learning and how this could be applied to revision. One delivery partner
was looking into the potential of using this as a starting point for a new version of Smarter
or another related project.
Using two presenters plus a paid neuroscientist limits the possibility of ongoing delivery of
Smarter UK sessions on a commercial basis beyond the funded period. Most delivery
partners run shows with just one presenter, and/or to a much larger audience for each
session.
The setup with Smarter is expensive for schools and delivery partners are not necessarily
in a position to pay the neuroscientist for their contribution in addition to these costs.
9
It has been suggested that delivery partners might train the neuroscientists to be the
second presenter to keep costs down.
However current experience suggests that interest from schools for paid-for bookings will
be relatively low.
Collecting students views on the ethics of using drugs for cognitive
enhancement
During the Vote with your Feet section, students were asked to consider the following
questions:


If there were pills that could make you smarter, would you take them?
If there were pills that could make you smarter, should everyone be taking them?"


Should school age students be allowed to take these pills?
Is taking medication to enhance your brain power any different from drinking
coffee or red bull, taking vitamins or going for a run?
These questions were primarily intended to stimulate open student-led discussion.
However, they also created the possibility of collecting data about a large number of
young people’s opinions as informed by the discussion.
In order to capture students’ views on using drugs for cognitive enhancement, Graphic
Science produced sets of likert scale colour-coded stickers marked “yes” (dark green),
“probably yes” (pale green), “not sure” (yellow), “probably no” (orange) and “no” (red)
and prepared sheets with each question and spaces to put the stickers.
At the end of each question in the discussion, students were asked to apply the sticker
that most reflected their final view on the response sheet for that question.
Opinions were collected from over 6000 students for each question. Delivery partners
reported that students really appreciated the idea that their views were being taken into
account in some way and enjoyed using the stickers to collect data.
It should be noted that despite the high sample number, these results should be viewed
with a degree of caution. The primary purpose of the sessions was to create a forum for
open discussion, rather than to collect data and different groups will have taken the
conversation in different directions. These will have been influenced by the presenters,
neuroscientist and peer pressures.
The following charts show the final outcomes for each of the questions for all students
from whom data was collected. Unfortunately, due to the data collection method, more
detailed analysis based on factors such as gender and academic performance is not
possible.
10
If there were pills that could make you smarter, would you take them?
If there were pills that could make you smarter, should everyone be taking them?
10%
18%
Yes
29%
7%
Probably Yes
Probably Yes
Not Sure
18%
14%
52%
17%
No
16%
Should school age students be allowed to take these pills?
11%
17%
14%
Not Sure
Probably No
No
Yes
15%
Probably Yes
40%
No
Is taking medication to enhance your brain power any different from drinking coffee or red bull, taking vitamins or going for a run?
Yes
18%
Not Sure
Probably No
Probably No
19%
Yes
40%
9%
Probably Yes
Not Sure
Probably No
20%
16%
No
Appendix 1:
Delivery partners
Bristol: Explorer Dome
Ben Brown or Shaaron Levermont
Explorer Dome
Mailbox 42
179 Whiteladies Road
Bristol BS8 2AG
Tel: 0117 914 1526
Email: ben@explorerdome.co.uk or shaar
on@explorerdome.co.uk
Cambridge: The Naked Scientists
Dr Hannah Critchlow
Naked Neuroscience
Naked Scientists
Department of Pathology
Cambridge University
Tennis Court Road
Cambridge
CB2 1QP
Tel: 07846 168684
Email: hmc39@cam.ac.uk
Cardiff: science made simple
Becky Holmes
School of Physics and Astronomy
Cardiff University
11
14-17 The Parade
Cardiff
CF24 3AA
Email: susan.meikleham@glasgowscience
centre.org
Tel: 0141 420 5010 ext 234
Email: becky@sciencemadesimple.co.uk
Tel: 02920 876 884
Oxford: Science Oxford
Edinburgh: Glasgow Science Centre
Susan Meikleham
Glasgow Science Centre
50 Pacific Quay
Glasgow
G51 1EA
Bridget Holligan
Science Oxford Live
1-5 London Place
Oxford
OX4 1BD
Email: Bridget.Holligan@scienceoxford.co
m
Tel: 01865 810020
Appendix 2:
Neuroscience coordinators





Anne Cooke – Bristol (no-longer in post)
Vanessa Davies - Cardiff
Martin Edmunds – Oxford
Dervila Glynn – Cambridge
Jane Hayley – Edinburgh
Appendix 3: Advisory panel members, meetings and comments
Development of the Smarter UK sessions and resources has been overseen by an advisory
panel comprised of:







Professor Barbara Sahakian, University of Cambridge (Chair)
Dr Anne Cooke, University of Bristol
Dr Hannah Critchlow, University of Cambridge
Nick Hillier, Academy of Medical Sciences
Bridget Holligan, Science Oxford
Katherine Mathieson, British Science Association
Jon Walford, Chew Valley School
Appendix 4: Additional Smarter UK sessions
In addition to the Smarter UK sessions paid-for from the project grant, Glasgow Science
Centre ran four sessions paid for by the receiving schools.
These were as follows:
November



2nd – Balfron High – Neuroscientist – Callum
9th- Balfron High – Neuroscientist – Nneka
16th- Balfron High – Neuroscientist – Alasdair
12
December

3rd – Paisley Grammar School – Neuroscientist- Kieren
November 2013 update: The Naked Scientists have recently booked paid-for Smarter
sessions in three schools.
Appendix 5: top tips for Smarter delivery
Delivery partners offered a number of tips that relate directly to delivery of Smarter UK
sessions. These are listed below.







Use think, pair share or other techniques to get discussion going – eg. Split group
into three positions, split facilitation so that one presenter takes each position.
Avoid running Vote with your Feet near furniture – students will pick a position
where they can sit down
Drop the memory exercise it time is short – this means you can also cut the parts of
the script that are only needed for the memory exercise
Ask neuroscientist to clap at the end of the drama – starting a round of applause
helps to break from the drama into the rest of the session.
Sticker sheets can be disruptive. It works a lot better if the presenters hold the
sticker sheets and students take just one sticker to put on the sheet rather than
having their own sticker set.
It is important to leave 10-15 minutes at the end of the session for the ‘Ask the
Neuroscientist’ slot – this is a valuable part of the session and it is a shame if it is
cut short.
Starting the discussion with questions such as “does a brain bounce” helps students
feel comfortable about asking any question
13