Task:

Randomly assign students 1 of 4 neurological scans (PET, EEG/MEG, fMRI, CT).
Using docs & science notebook, students follow question prompts to evaluate their neurological scan for use in criminal sentencing hearings and the use of scans generally.

Basics

Document-Based Question: Use of Neurological Scans in Criminal Sentencing Hearings

Use: summative assessment for nervous system

Class: HS elective Physiology (11/12)

Resources & Scaffolds: open notebook, student worksheets from activities, annotated source documents labeled w/ specific relevant questions

Student examples: DM me if you're a teacher and would like to see ~70 student responses from a heterogeneous urban public high school.

Description

Introduction

Nervous about posting this because I worry I’m overstepping, but I want to build something better, so I’m sharing a final exam essay my physiology students said they enjoyed taking because they felt like they’d learned a new aspect of applying what they’d learned, and because it affected something ongoing in their lives and in the lives of their peers. This is my clumsy attempt at a summative assessment that asks they apply our investigations into the nervous system and cognitive neuroscience to a real question about US criminal sentencing outcomes.

Background & motivation

I based it on a MacArthur conference I attended w/ neuroscientists & jurists. Some of my Ss have been in detention or have relatives who are incarcerated, and stated they appreciated applying and learning about this element of how we use science & what we need to bridge the gaps. Credit to Francis X. Shen whose work inspired me to create this prompt.

Before you begin

Please carefully frame the realities of the social justice implications, invite Ss to Wellness to decompress, & check in advance for triggers. I blanked-out nonrelevant portions but provide the entire annotated pdfs here for any teacher who needs background.

Disclaimer

I was in science and law before entering teaching, and my nervous system unit frequently integrates modern neuroscience research/fads with student metacognition, so your results may vary. You’ll notice the final mentions influential cognition experiments and also expects students to have reviewed and evaluated the discussed neurological scans already in a previous lesson.

Open & Edit in Google Docs

PART ONE OF TWO. Prompt:

How should we use <randomly assigned neurological scan> in US criminal hearings?

PART TWO OF TWO. Readings:

Reading A: Jones & Shen. 2012. INTERNATIONAL NEUROLAW: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS, p. 349, T.M. Spranger, ed., Springer-Verlag, 2012 Vanderbilt Public Law Research Paper No. 1-5.
Reading B: Jones et al. 2013. LAW AND NEUROSCIENCE. The Journal of Neuroscience, November 6, 2013, 33(45):17624-17630. DOI:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3254-13.2013
Reading C: Mclatchie et al. ‘IMAGINED GUILT’ VERSUS ‘RECOLLECTED GUILT’: IMPLICATIONS FOR FMRI.
Reading D: Jones et al. 2009. BRAIN IMAGING FOR LEGAL THINKERS: A GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED. 2009 STAN.TECH.L.REV.5. SSRN ID: 1563612. Available at http://stlr.stanford.edu/pdf/jones-brain-imaging.pdf
Summary sheets for Ss missing papers: Reviews neurological scans, limitations, etc. Various sources.

Alternative Final Assessment (One-Page)