Does the Brain Have a Place in Educational Psychology?

Byrnes and Fox (1998) present the case for the relevance of cognitive neuroscience in educational psychology, including both logical and empirical arguments. In this commentary, I begin by briefly reviewing the history of the case for including the brain in educational psychology: Early educational psychology—as reflected in Thorndike's (1926) educational psychology textbook—emphasized the neuronal basis of learning; contemporary educational psychology—as reflected in educational publications—tends to ignore the brain; and future educational psychology will need to overcome the pitfalls encountered in previous misuses of brain research. Next, I examine two logical arguments for Byrnes and Fox's case, namely, that including cognitive neuroscience research makes educational psychology more complete and more plausible. Then, I examine the empirical argument of Byrnes and Fox by focusing on the value of cognitive neuroscience research in attention and memory as well as in reading and arithmetic. Finally, I suggest criteria for evaluating the contributions of cognitive neuroscience research in educational psychology, including the need for research on educationally relevant tasks and issues.     

Educational Neuroethics: A Contribution From Empirical Research

In recent years, educational neuroscience has begun to move into the limelight, suggesting an increased importance on the ethical considerations of educational neuroscience work, or educational neuroethics. In a departure from previous work on educational neuroethics, this article focuses on the ethical considerations that are applicable to empirical educational neuroscience research. Neuroethics concepts were compiled through a thorough survey of neuroethics articles. Then, 28 empirical educational neuroscience articles were analyzed through the lens of five categories of neuroethics concepts collected through the literature survey: the scientific enterprise, prediction, neuro‐manipulation, social considerations, and philosophical considerations. Three of the five categories (i.e., the nature of scientific investigation, prediction, and social considerations) applied to a subset of the articles. In addition, a fourth ethical issue not stemming from the neuroethics literature, referred to here as brain‐based justifications, emerged from the nature of educational neuroscience work. Limitations of this study and future directions for educational neuroethics research are discussed.     

Educational Neuroscience: Defining a New Discipline for the Study of Mental Representations

ABSTRACT— Is educational neuroscience a “bridge too far”? Here, we argue against this negative assessment. We suggest that one major reason for skepticism within the educational community has been the inadequate definition of the potential role and use of neuroscience research in education. Here, we offer a provisional definition for the emerging discipline of educational neuroscience as the study of the development of mental representations. We define mental representations in terms of neural activity in the brain. We argue that there is a fundamental difference between doing educational neuroscience and using neuroscience research results to inform education. While current neuroscience research results do not translate into direct classroom applications, educational neuroscience can expand our knowledge about learning, for example, by tracking the normative development of mental representations. We illustrate this briefly via mathematical educational neuroscience. Current capabilities and limitations of neuroscience research methods are also considered.     

Neurophilia: Guiding Educational Research and the Educational Field?

For a decade or so there has been a new ‘hype’ in educational research: it is called educational neuroscience or even neuroeducation (and neuroethics)—there are numerous publications, special journals, and an abundance of research projects together with the advertisement of many positions at renowned research centres worldwide. After a brief introduction of what is going on in the ‘emerging sub‐discipline’, a number of characterisations are offered of what is envisaged by authors working in this field. In the discussion that follows various problems are listed: the assumption that ‘visual proof’ of brain activity is supposedly given; the correlational nature of this kind of research; the nature of the concepts that are used; the lack of addressing and possibly influencing the neurological mechanism; and finally the need for other insights in educational contexts. Following Bakhurst and others, a number of crucially relevant philosophical issues are highlighted. It is argued that though there are cases where neuroscience insights may be helpful, these are scarce. In general, it is concluded, not a lot may be expected from this discipline for education and educational research. A reminder is offered that the promise of neurophilia may be just another neuromyth, which needs to be addressed by philosophy and education.     

Comment on “The Educational Relevance of Research in Cognitive Neuroscience”

Byrnes and Fox present a sophisticated approach to the development of useful relations between cognitive neuroscience and education. Their approach, which is similar to approaches advocated by other educational psychologists, emphasizes the importance of findings in cognitive neuroscience to the building of educationally useful models of learning. In contrast to that defensible approach is a popular but simplistic approach that tries to relate the results of individual cognitive neuroscience studies directly to the improvement of teaching. The advantages of the sophisticated approach presented by Byrnes and Fox are discussed and supported for their important roles in the development of productive relations between cognitive neuroscience and education.     

Philosophy,neuroscience and pre-service teachers’ beliefs in neuromyths: A call for remedial action

Hitherto, the contribution of philosophers to Neuroscience and Education has tended to be less than enthusiastic, though there are some notable exceptions. Meanwhile, the pervasive influence of neuromyths on education policy, curriculum design and pedagogy in schools is well documented. Indeed, philosophers have sometimes used the prevalence of neuromyths in education to bolster their opposition to neuroscience in teacher education courses. By contrast, this article views the presence of neuromyths in education as a call for remedial action, including philosophical action. The empirical basis of this article is a survey, conducted over a period of three years, involving a total of 1144 first-year pre-service student teachers, which revealed alarming levels of belief in five common neuromyths related to children and learning. This study also attempted to probe the origins of these mistaken beliefs and why they gain traction. The findings suggest an urgent need in teacher education to address the problem of neuromyths, not simply because they are mistaken, they often misdirect valuable resources and mislabel children. The article calls for a compulsory unit on neuroscience and education in all courses of teacher education. Moreover, teaching neuroscience in education cannot be left to specialist neuroscientists, philosophers must be involved.     

教育神经科学的未来:建构学习发展路径的工具

在教育神经科学领域,我们需要可靠的脑科学知识为学与教奠定坚实的基础。在教学实践中,应该尊重学生的兴趣以及他们独特的学习通路。在教育神经科学中,我们已经创建了一种通用的量表来评估孩子们的认知发展以及他们在校学习,这种评价重视对学生学习的支持与促进。在教育神经科学的研究中,重要的是,科学家与教育工作者相互合作,建立研究型学校,将心智、脑与教育领域的知识联系起来,以支持并促进学生的学习。     

Educational Neuroscience: Its Position,Aims and Expectations

ABSTRACT

An important issue in the discussion on educational neuroscience is the transfer of thought and findings between neuroscience and education. In addition to factual confusions in this transfer in the form of neuromyths, logical confusions, or neuro-misconceptions, can be identified. We consider these transfer difficulties in light of the way educational neuroscience is positioned in relation to the main fields involved: neuroscience, educational sciences and educational practice. A distinction between educational neuroscience as part of neuroscience, educational sciences and as an independent discipline will show that different types of questions are asked within these different positions. Distinguishing these positions will also shed light on the aim and possibilities to transfer knowledge and insights into educational practice and will elucidate the confusions in transfer. While educational neuroscience as part of educational sciences and as an independent discipline aims to directly connect to educational practice, be it in different ways, educational neuroscience as neurosciences does not have this goal or possibility.     

Understanding Conceptual Change and Science Learning through Educational Neuroscience

Although the field of educational neuroscience has grown in recent years, little research has been conducted on conceptual change and science learning through an educational neuroscience framework. Educational neuroscience is frequently used to study processes of language and mathematics cognition, but is not extensively applied to conceptual change and science learning. This review integrates insights from extant conceptual change educational neuroscience studies to inform the fields of educational psychology and science education. These new insights shed light on the persistence of misconceptions and the roles of error detection, inhibition, executive function, and memory in conceptual change. Future directions for the study of conceptual change and educational neuroscience are discussed.     

THEORY,METHOD AND PRACTICE OF NEUROSCIENTIFIC FINDINGS IN SCIENCE EDUCATION

This report provides an overview of neuroscience research that is applicable for science educators. It first offers a brief analysis of empirical studies in educational neuroscience literature, followed by six science concept learning constructs based on the whole brain theory: gaining an understanding of brain function; pattern recognition and consciousness; mind maps, mnemonics and other learning devices; concrete multisensory experience; higher-order creative reasoning via a multimedia-infused environment and positive emotion in educational settings. It is vital to the future of results-based education that discoveries regarding the cognitive learning process are taken into consideration when designing instruction. This research offers science educators neuroscience-backed information as a foundation to develop results-oriented curricula and teaching methods. Future research could further extend an empirically driven education system.     

The Biologizing of Cognition, Development, and Education: Approach with Cautious Enthusiasm

In our commentary, we propose the current research from the field of developmental neuroscience can be incorporated within the theoretical perspectives advocated by evolutionary psychologists and advocates of the developmental systems approach. We then describe research on memory and the relationship between spatial-temporal reasoning and mathematical abilities as examples of literatures that have benefitted from the neuroscience approach. We conclude by expressing enthusiasm for the recent neuroscience findings, but caution that developmental neuroscience's focus on infancy and preschool children should not result in an overemphasis on early development and education at the expense of later development and education.     

On the Relevance of Research Findings in Cognitive Neuroscience to Educational Practice

In their target article, Byrnes and Fox (1998) argue that many of the recent findings from the field of cognitive neuroscience have particular importance for education. In our commentary, we lend support to their contention by reporting on some of our work that has potential relevance to the proposed interface between cognitive neuroscience and education. Specifically, we discuss the findings from several studies investigating the neuropsychology of intellectual giftedness, and sex differences in the brain, each of which suggest a unique functional organization that differentiates gifted from average ability adolescents, as well as males from females. We further propose that the translation of cognitive neuroscience findings into specialized classroom instructional methods which capitalize on the plasticity of the brain, as well as the apparent individual differences in its functional organization, may be the most significant challenge facing those in the front-lines of educational practice.     

Cognitive neuroscience and education: unravelling the confusion

This paper critically examines the application of research into cognitive neuroscience to educational contexts. It first considers recent warnings from within the neuroscientific community itself about the limitations of current neuroscientific knowledge and the urgent need to dispel popular ‘neuromyths’ which have become accepted in many classrooms. It also criticises the use of over‐simplified neuroscience to add scientific credibility to curricular reform, as has been the case in the rationale behind the recent implementation of the Northern Ireland Revised Curriculum. The paper then draws on the philosophy of Wittgenstein to highlight a further conceptual confusion which often surrounds the application of neuroscience to education.     

Boundary as Bridge: An Analysis of the Educational Neuroscience Literature from a Boundary Perspective

Within the emerging field of educational neuroscience, concerns exist that the impact of neuroscience research on education has been less effective than hoped. In seeking a way forward, it may be useful to consider the problems of integrating two complex fields in the context of disciplinary boundaries. Here, a boundary perspective is used as a lens for analyzing the results of a systematic review of the educational neuroscience literature. Recurring vocabulary used within the literature suggests indirect use of boundary principles, including the idea of connections and bridges between disciplines, inter-, multi-, and transdisciplinarity, and reference to tools (boundary objects) and people that may be useful in the evolving field of educational neuroscience. Analyzing the educational neuroscience literature through the lens of boundary principles indicates that the boundary between the two disciplines may itself be a bridging mechanism useful for the creation of a new discipline and new knowledge.     

METHODS IN THE FAMILY

This article introduces a relationship between neuroscience and creativity for the sake of religious education. Citing creativity as a process that involves both originality and value, the writing articulates Howard Gardner's interplay between the talent of the person, the internal demands of a discipline, and the quality judgment of the field. The article explores creativity expressed both within the field of neuroscience, with the beginning of the neurocentric era, and continuing with contemporary use of technology. It then surveys neuroscience's own exploration of the fields of creativity and religious experience, with ensuing limitations. The article establishes a dialogue between religious education and neuroscience, demonstrating how religious education provides neuroscience theory with grounded practice while also supplying ethical frameworks for neuroscience practice. It closes asserting that while currently neuroscience primarily endorses sound educational practice, future neuroscientific research should yield fresh horizons demanding ongoing creativity by religious educators.     

Neuroscience and education: how best to filter out the neurononsense from our classrooms?

This article considers the extent to which neuroscience is being applied to education, both on a classroom level and also on the level of curricular reform in Northern Ireland. The article reviews recent research in the area of neuroscience and education and examines a number of popular ‘neuromyths’. It urges the educational world to take a more informed, cautious and critical approach to neuroscience in education, not least in terms of the Northern Ireland Revised Curriculum, and also makes a plea to the neuro scientific community to police in a more rigorous way the application and misapplication of research findings in schools.     

The Educational Relevance of Research in Cognitive Neuroscience

The benefits of incorporating findings from cognitive neuroscience into the field of educational psychology are considered. The first section begins with arguments against the idea that one can ignore the brain when positing a model of student learning or motivation. The second section describes limitations in the methods used to reveal brain-cognition relations. In the third section, properties of the brain and brain development are described. The fourth section summarizes the cognitive neuroscientific research on attention, memory, reading, and math. Finally, areas of future research in cognitive neuroscience are suggested that would help answer important questions about individual and developmental differences in student learning.     

Can the Differences Between Education and Neuroscience be Overcome by Mind,Brain, and Education?

ABSTRACT— The new field of Mind, Brain, and Education (MBE)—sometimes called educational neuroscience—is posited as a mediator between neuroscience and education. Several foundational concerns, however, can be raised about this emerging field. The differences between neuroscience and education are many, including differences in their histories, philosophies, and epistemologies. Historically, science and education have demonstrated separate, but interwoven, influences on society; philosophically, the values by which they operate are often in opposition; and epistemologically, the fields have relied on different conceptualizations of knowledge. Discussion about these differences has been largely absent in attempts to promote MBE. Two steps are proposed to respond to this omission. First, encouraging discussion about disciplinary differences and assumptions may enable better understanding between disciplines and facilitate the establishment of a more collaborative research community. Second, a transdisciplinary framework that focuses on salient issues of interest across disciplines should be considered. Transdisciplinarity aims for the creation of an inclusive research environment that transcends traditional disciplinary approaches to complex problems. This article initiates an exploration of disciplinary differences and proposes commitment to transdisciplinarity as a guiding principle that may increase the viability of MBE as a mediating field between neuroscience and education.     

Minds, Brains, and Education: Part II. Responding to the Commentaries

The present authors wrote a paper on cognitive neuroscience (i.e., Byrnes and Fox, 1998) that spawned a number of commentaries. In the present paper, they respond to these commentaries. Using a theme-based approach, they reveal an emerging consensus regarding the educational relevance of neuroscientific research.