Educational neuroscience is not a cure-all for education. But it does promise to find out how we can best support all learners.

Educational neuroscience is a new discipline with the overarching aim of improving learning. It brings together research from all scientific fields related to education – including genetics, neuroscience, psychology, education, and technology.

Although it’s known as ‘educational neuroscience’ in the U.K., the term ‘mind, brain and education’ is preferred in the U.S., as it is thought to better reflect the diversity of research themes involved. The field looks at learning in school subjects including science, maths, geography, and reading, but is also concerned with other factors that affect school performance, such as the role of motivation and emotion in learning. Educational neuroscience is therefore a broad discipline, and the goal is to allow teachers to access rigorous scientific evidence when considering how best to teach in the classroom.

“It is essential that researchers talk to teachers and have an understanding of the classroom.”

In order to achieve this goal, it is essential that researchers talk to teachers and have an understanding of the classroom. Many researchers in the field are in fact ex-teachers, so already have an appreciation of the pressures of life in school. Teachers sometimes collaborate on educational neuroscience research from the outset, so that they can shape the research questions being asked. These discussions between researchers and teachers ensure that studies are genuinely aimed at improving education.

Researchers in the field of educational neuroscience are also keen to share their new findings with teachers. Since teachers may not have time to read journal articles, new methods for sharing the latest research have recently been developed. Websites and online discussion forums connect teachers with researchers, in addition to more traditional conferences where researchers describe their findings to teachers. An upcoming post will explore the importance of ensuring teachers receive the most up-to-date information and are guarded from myths about the brain.

Teachers, beware of business-minded suppliers of costly programmes that are not science-based

Many teachers have shown a real appetite for neuroscience, but sadly this has often been exploited by the creators of costly programmes that claim to tell teachers how to engage their pupils’ brains. These programmes usually have little basis in actual scientific research, are often totally useless, and may actually hinder children’s learning. (I will talk more about the potential harm of these predatory programmes in a later post. Stay tuned)! It is therefore crucial that teachers are presented with accurate and useful scientific information in an accessible manner.

“Many teachers have shown a real appetite for neuroscience, but sadly this has often been exploited by the creators of costly programmes that claim to tell teachers how to engage their pupils’ brains.”

Since educational neuroscience is a young field, there remains a lot of work to be done. Being an educational neuroscience researcher, people often hope I possess a list of recommendations for the classroom based on neuroscience. As yet I don’t, but my colleagues and I are working on it! Carrying out rigorous scientific research takes time, and there are many steps between forming theories, testing them in the lab, and then trying them out in a school setting.

A whole host of studies need to be done before firm conclusions can be made, and it is unlikely that the enterprise will generate ground-breaking new ways of teaching. Instead, through carefully-designed studies, we are slowly building up a base of evidence that explains what works best in the classroom, some of which are things that teachers are already doing.

“Through carefully-designed studies, we are slowly building up a base of evidence that explains what works best in the classroom.”

Educational neuroscience does not promise to make teaching and learning easy by providing a list of rules, but it does promise to find out how we learn and how we can best support all learners.

 

 

A mini-series on evidence in the classroom

Further articles in this series will look at so-called brain training educational programmes, and the challenge of conducting large scale studies in schools.

5 comments

  1. Engineering students study physics and chemistry. In a similar vein, teaching graduates should study several semesters of neuroscience. Those who have already graduated can do so by taking a couple of the several excellent MOOCs around.

  2. Do you think that the word ‘Neuroscience’ might be hindering this effort to bring evidence based research to schools in some way? Like you said in the article, it’s really more than just bringing neuroscience to schools, and yet I think the idea of neuroscience is the hardest for people in the field of education to comprehend how it could help students learn. The U.S. ‘mind, brain, and education’ might seem much more understandable and compelling, thereby creating a more open discussion between the two disciplines.
    Also, I had a question in regards to the platforms where teachers and researchers can share ideas. I’ve often wondered if there was a conference specifically for this (and glad to hear there is!), but does it just allow for researchers to impart their knowledge to the teachers, or is there also an opportunity for the teachers to share with the researchers? My fear would be that what is portrayed is the idea that researchers have all the important knowledge and only they can provide insight into education and not the other way around. But in reality, it is equally important for education to shed insight into how Neuroscience should be focusing their research, thereby creating an actual middle ground where the two disciplines can merge. This could also be off-putting to educationalists if they feel this is just a one way form of communication where their voices won’t be heard.

    1. Hi Brittney, really great points you’ve raised here!

      I agree that use of the word ‘neuroscience’ might be off-putting or misleading, and many people think that the term ‘mind, brain, and education’ better reflects the field. On the other hand, some educators are attracted to the idea of neuroscience and it might help them to come across research or initiatives that are useful and scientific. I don’t have a particularly strong feeling about the name, and tend to use ‘educational neuroscience’ as it has become relatively well established.

      Conference-wise, you’re right that often it is researchers telling teachers about their work, which I agree is problematic. Thankfully, this is really starting to change. I’ve been to a number of conferences in the last couple of years where there have been talks from teachers, or where teachers and researchers discuss ideas in groups. In fact I’m co-organising a ‘Neuroscience and Education’ conference at the moment (look up EARLI SIG 22 if you’re interested), and we will have a session dedicated to the teacher perspective.

      The idea that researchers hold all the knowledge is definitely one that I have encountered, and I think it is with more discussions between researchers and educators that this will go away. In my experience, researchers have just as many questions for teachers and both parties can be equally intimidated by each other, thinking the other is the expert!

      There is definitely more work to be done in terms of two-way conversations, but it looks like things are slowly moving in the right direction. Let’s have another look at the field in a couple of years!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Keep up to date with the BOLD newsletter