Notes
Utilizing Psychophysiological Methods to Enhance Experiential Learning in the Psychology Curriculum
This project guides students through a semester-longexperiential learning process using psychophysiological recordingequipment to understand methods commonly employed in psychologicalscience. Through hands-on engagement with the Biopac Student Lab System(BSL), students explore connections between physiological data and humanbehavior, developing skills in data collection, analysis, andinterpretation. The assignment was implemented in two psychology coursesand evaluated for its effectiveness in enhancing student engagement,confidence, and research literacy.
Context of Assignment
Experiential learning and active engagement in the classroom have consistently been shown to improve student understanding and retention of complex scientific concepts (Freeman et al., 2014; Strelan, Osborn, & Palmer, 2020). In the context of psychology education, laboratory experiences that integrate physiological measurement technologies allow students to observe the interaction between biological systems and behavior creating an essential bridge between theory and practice.
Psychophysiological research uses various equipment (e.g., electrodes and transducers) to collect information about physiological changes. These changes could be due to brain activity while a participant is completing a task or fluctuations in the autonomic nervous system indicating varying levels of physiological arousal, such as the “flight or fight” response. The integration of such tools within undergraduate psychology courses not only supports learning outcomes related to biological and cognitive psychology but also exposes students to methods used in neuroscience research. This project aimed to enhance student learning through direct interaction with psychophysiological data collection tools, aligning with evidence-based teaching practices that prioritize hands-on, inquiry-driven approaches.
Biopac Systems Inc. makes the Biopac Student Lab System (BSL) which is a system that allows students to conduct a variety of labs designed to measure changes in physiology due to autonomic nervous system arousal (https://www.biopac.com/product-category/education/systems-education/). This project integrated these tools into two undergraduate courses to create a cohesive, multi-lab sequence emphasizing inquiry, collaboration, and applied learning. The design encourages student autonomy, repeated practice, and reflective learning, principles that can be implemented with or without access to specialized laboratory equipment. Each lab built progressively on the previous one, moving students from basic familiarity with measurement tools to independent data analysis and hypothesis generation.
Assignment Design Process
Step 1: Defining the goals of the project
The major goals of this project (which generated the need for these assignments) were to: (1) actively engage undergraduates in research techniques used in social and cognitive neuroscience, (2) provide training and experience in in the techniques of multi-method research that are commonly used in psychological science, and (3) to enhance critical thinking and scientific literacy while generating interest in the field of psychological science as a career.
Step 2: Select and sequence labs
For this project, we chose three labs which illustrated basic psychophysiological research techniques to conduct across the 15-week semester. Material in both the chosen courses touches on biology and physiology as it relates to psychology, making these courses ideal places to test the efficacy of our assignments. The labs chosen were Lesson 9: Electrodermal Activity (EDA) Polygraph which was chosen because it introduced students to the fundamentals of psychophysiological recording, emphasizing teamwork, safe equipment handling, and attention to detail. This introductory lab built familiarity and reduced anxiety about interacting with research tools. Lesson 3: Electroencephalography (EEG) which expanded upon initial skills by introducing more complex data interpretation and connections between neural activity and cognition. Students designed small-scale extensions of the basic procedure, reinforcing critical thinking and experimental creativity, and Lesson 11: Reaction Time (RT) which served as a capstone lab focusing on synthesizing knowledge and analyzing behavioral data. Students practiced interpreting results and articulating broader implications, mirroring professional research practice.
Step 3: Prepare students through pre-lab activities
Each lab began with a Pre-Lab Report assignment distributed one week prior to class. These assignments prompted students to review background materials about the physiological concepts being measured and equipment to be used in the lab, identify their assigned group role (Director, Recorder, Set-Up Person, or Participant), and answer guiding questions about key concepts. This structure ensured that students entered each session prepared to participate actively and confidently.
Step 4: Conduct labs and assign roles
Labs were conducted in either a 50- or 75-minute class period. To facilitate the lab experience, the BSL systems and devices necessary to conduct the lab were laid out at different stations prior to the students’ arrival. Students worked in groups of between four and seven, rotating through roles to ensure equitable participation. Each role carried clear responsibilities: the Director guided procedures, the Recorder operated the software, the Set-Up Person attached electrodes, and the Participant provided physiological data. The instructor circulated among groups to troubleshoot and encourage collaborative problem-solving. While the labs utilized Biopac Student Lab Systems, similar group-based experimentation can be implemented using other accessible technologies or simulated datasets. There are many free, on-line, traditional cognitive studies (e.g., Psytoolkit; https://www.psytoolkit.org/) that could be conducted in the classroom while having students complete lab reports similar to the ones described here.
Step 5: Data analysis and lab reports
Lab Reports were due after each lab and increased in difficulty level across the labs. For the first lab, students simply filled in the blanks of the lab report, following very specific prompts from the lab manual. This very basic level of reporting was done to familiarize students with the elements of a lab report using specific prompts. For the second lab, students had to create their own experiment that they had to run after completing the first, prescribed, part of the lab. Students had to come up with a hypothesis based on the background reading and test that hypothesis. In this second lab report, students built upon their experience from the first lab by answering questions from the lab manual (as in the first lab) but also writing up an additional section to the report in which they detailed the research question, hypothesis, materials, procedure, data analysis, results, and conclusion. Each of these sections was brief in length, usually one to two paragraphs. Details of what was needed in each section were clarified in class. For the final lab report, time on the semester had run a bit short, so students focused on running participants through various RT trials and then spent more of their time analyzing the data collected and understanding the observed results.
Implementation in the Classroom
The sequence was implemented across two undergraduate courses, Sensation, Perception and Cognition, and Physiological Psychology at a private aeronautical university. For these assignments, we had three of the BSL systems at our disposal used across two classes, with 12 and 21 students, respectively. Due to smaller class sizes, these assignments were manageable, and each student had a chance to take an active role in using the equipment. For larger classes, it is possible to have two groups per one machine (if they are working fast enough) or to simply double some of the roles (e.g., two Set-Up people) if more students are in the class, but four students per group is ideal.
Assessment of Assignment Efficacy and Alignment with Teaching Goals
The main objectives were to actively engage undergraduates in the types of activities that researchers in social and cognitive neuroscience engage in, provide training and experience in the techniques of multi-method research that are commonly used in psychological science, and to enhance critical thinking and scientific literacy while generating interest in the field of psychological science as a career. We measured these objectives both qualitatively and quantitatively from the perspective of both the instructor and the students.
Thirty-three students across two classes (Intro to Cognitive Psychology & Physiological Psychology) participated in this study which did not need IRB approval because it was an instructional quality study. Only 30 participants completed both portions of the pretest and posttest surveys. Of those who completed the data collection, age ranged from 18 – 41 with a mean age of 20.9 (SD = 4.05). There were 25 Psychology Majors, and 5 non-majors included in the data set.
Student knowledge, interest, motivation, and perceived utility of the labs were assessed with a few measures. A scale developed by Hulleman and colleagues (2008) was used to assess student interest in the topic of psychophysiology as well as motivation to use the technology. The utility and interest in the labs themselves were assessed with a scale adapted from Jones (2012). Confidence in their own skills with the equipment as well as designing studies and analyzing data was assessed with a 5-point scale from 1 = not at all confident to 5 = completely confident.
Scores on utility, interest, and motivation were all high to begin with and paired-samples t-tests did not reveal any statistically significant differences in these levels after the experience. Pre and posttest responses to the assessment scales did show that students increased their confidence about their abilities to design research studies using psychophysiological methods, teach others about psychophysiological methods, analyze data, and general knowledge of psychophysiological methods after completing the labs. Students responded positively to questions on the posttest regarding interest in taking further courses using these techniques as well as taking more psychology courses in general.
Student knowledge was assessed with an instructor-designed knowledge test and students did show a statistically significant increase in knowledge about the psychophysiological methods and equipment across the pre and posttests (t(29) = 8.37, p < 0 .001).
In some of the end of semester teaching evaluations, students wrote that they wanted more time with the labs and more experience with the equipment indicating they viewed these labs as useful and engaging. Additionally, PI observations of students at work on the labs were positive. Students showed more confidence with the equipment and problem-solving as they progressed through the three labs. At first, students were slow getting set-up and were very hesitant to use the equipment for fear of “messing up, breaking it, or electrocuting the participant.” After some coaching on the first lab, students understood that the equipment was robust, participants would not be electrocuted, and that messing up simply meant they might need to start data collection again. Students expressed increased confidence and speed in the labs as they progressed through the semester.
Limitations
Time constraints were the biggest limitation to this assignment. The set-up and execution of the labs took much longer than was suggested by the Biopac Systems Inc. lab manual. Additionally, it was proposed that students do the data analysis outside of class with the free downloadable software, but this proved difficult. After the first lab, we doubled the amount of class sessions per lab with greater success.
Another issue that we ran into was that although the instructions are very clear, students were very hesitant to interact with the equipment and computers without direct supervision. This problem lessened over the course of the semester with students becoming more comfortable with the equipment, but there was still a great deal of supervision by the instructor that was not anticipated at the outset.
Recommendations for Future Use
This experiential learning model provided rich opportunities for engagement but also presented several challenges common to technology-based labs. Here are some key recommendations for implementation:
Time Management: Schedule multiple sessions for each lab to allow sufficient time for setup, calibration, and troubleshooting. Consider assigning pre-lab training videos to reduce in-class setup demands.
Student Confidence: Begin with structured, low-stakes labs that prioritize familiarity and teamwork before advancing to open-ended inquiry. Clearly communicating safety and reliability of equipment alleviates anxiety.
Instructor Support: Provide detailed written and visual guides for common technical steps. As students gain experience, shift instructor involvement from procedural guidance to conceptual coaching.
Accessibility: As mentioned above, the same pedagogical sequence can be applied using freely available tools, and scaling down on the hands-on equipment, or using simulated data and focusing more on the analysis portion. Either option could allow instructors who do not have access to the BSL systems to scaffold a more in-depth research experience into their classes.
Scalability: Larger classes can assign roles across multiple teams or rotate stations to maintain engagement while minimizing equipment constraints.
These strategies promote a balanced approach to experiential learning—emphasizing collaboration, structured progression, and adaptability across contexts. By foregrounding the pedagogical design rather than the specific technology, instructors can cultivate active learning environments that are both inclusive and sustainable.
Conclusion
Integrating psychophysiological methods into the undergraduate psychology curriculum enhances experiential learning by connecting theoretical knowledge to real-world research practice. Through structured progression, reflective analysis, and collaborative engagement, students develop confidence, technical proficiency, and a deeper appreciation for scientific inquiry. This adaptable framework demonstrates how instructors can translate specialized methodologies into accessible, impactful learning experiences across disciplines.
References
“Data Acquisition, Loggers, Amplifiers, Transducers, Electrodes: BIOPAC.” BIOPAC Systems, Inc., September 13, 2022. https://www.biopac.com/.
Freeman, Scott, Sarah L. Eddy, Miles McDonough, Michelle K. Smith, Nnadozie Okoroafor, Hannah Jordt, and Mary Pat Wenderoth. 2014. "Active Learning Increases Student Performance in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, no. 23 (June): 8410–15. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111.
Hulleman, Chris S., Amanda M. Durik, Shaun A. Schweigert, and Judith M. Harackiewicz. 2008. “Task Values, Achievement, and Interest: An Integrative Analysis.” Journal ofEducational Psychology, Journal 100, no. 2: 398-416. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.398
Jones, Brett D. 2012/2023. “User Guide for Assessing the Components of the MUSIC® Model of Motivation.” http://www.theMUSICmodel.com
Strelan, Peter, Amanda Osborn, and Edward Palmer. 2020. "The Flipped Classroom: A Meta-analysis of Effects on Student Performance across Disciplines and Education Levels." Educational Research Review 30 (June): 100314. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12421
This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.