In contrast to “Just Say No” lectures on drug use common in K to 12 drug education programs (e.g., Drug Abuse Resistance Education, or D.A.R.E.), this activity used peer teaching in an Introductory Psychology course to promote active learning and open discussion of controversial issues about drug use. Working in small groups, students researched the neurological and behavioral effects of an assigned drug and presented controversial discussion questions. One week later they presented their findings to the class. Students reported that the presentations were informative and awareness-raising, provided an open environment for discussion, and allowed them to make more informed decisions about drug use.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BarresiC. M.GigliottiR. J. (1975). Are drug education programs effective?Journal of Drug Education, 5, 301–315.
2.
BlumR. H.GarfieldE. F.JohnstoneJ. L.MagistadJ. C. (1978). Drug education: Further results and recommendations. Journal of Drug Issues, 8, 379–426,.
3.
BransfordJ. D.BrownA. L.CockingR. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy.
4.
BristowA. R.ProvostJ.MortonK. (2002). Attending step meetings as a course requirement: A preliminary investigation. Teaching of Psychology, 29, 125–128.
5.
CuijpersP. (2002). Peer-led and adult-led school drug prevention: A meta-analytic comparison. Journal of Drug Education, 32, 107–119.
6.
Drug Abuse Resistance Education. (n.d.). Retrieved December 28, 2005, from http://www.dare.com.
7.
DusenburyL.FalcoM.LakeA. (1997). A review of the evaluation of 47 drug abuse prevention curricula available nationally. Journal of School Health, 67, 127–132.
8.
KanofM. E. (2003). Youth illicit drug use prevention: DARE long-term evaluations and federal efforts to identify effective programs. (GAO Report No. 03-172R). Washington, DC: United States General Accounting Office. Retrieved July 15, 2005, from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03172r.pdf.
9.
LynamD. R.MilichR.ZimmermanR.NovakS. P.LoganT. K.MartinC.LeukefeldC.ClaytonR. (1999). Project DARE: No effects at 10-year follow-up. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 590–593.
10.
MathieV. A.BeinsB.BenjaminL. T.Jr.EwingM. M.HallC. C. I.HendersonB.McAdamD. W.SmithR. A. (1993). Promoting active learning in psychology courses. In McGovernT. V. (Ed.), Handbook for enhancing undergraduate education in psychology (pp. 183–214). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
11.
SivanA.LeungR. W.WoonC.KemberD. (2000). An implementation of active learning and its effects on the quality of student learning. Innovations in Education and Training International, 37, 381–389.
12.
ThombsD. L. (2000). A retrospective study of DARE: Substantive effects not detected in undergraduates. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 46, 27–40.
13.
ToblerN. S.RoonaM. R.OchshornP.MarshallD. G.StrekeA. V.StackpoleK. M. (2000). School-based adolescent drug prevention programs: 1998 meta-analysis. Journal of Primary Prevention, 20, 275–336.
