Reframing the neuroeducation debate
1
Conclusions Educators do not necessarily expect neuroscience to tell them how to teach. Instead, neuroscience can offer a host of less-tangible benefits. The potential for misunderstandings should not prevent neuroscientists from sharing their findings with teachers. On the contrary, evidence suggests that neuroscience research presented in appropriate ways may help prevent teachers from falling prey to misguided practices and neuro-marketing. 6 A greater understanding of educators’ attitudes towards neuroscience and what it has to contribute to teaching practice will strengthen the relationship between neuroscientists and educators. Improving dialogue between the two disciplines will enrich research and practice in learning and the brain. Findings 1. Affirmation and authority Learning about neuroscience research affirms educators’ beliefs about what makes for good educational practice. Being able to relate their practices to a larger scientific picture of the brain gives educators a sense of greater confidence in themselves. 2. Maintaining perspective with difficult students Thinking of students’ brains as ‘unfinished,’ or their behavior as not entirely under voluntary control, helps teachers cope with uncooperative or disruptive students. In particular, knowledge about plasticity and the development of prefrontal cortex may help teachers feel more patient and hopeful. 3. Professional satisfaction and self-image Just as we expect physicians to study chemistry, despite virtually never using knowledge of organic synthesis in their work, respondents felt that educators should learn about the science of learning and brain development. Learning about research helps educators make more informed choices about “brain based” teaching methods. 4. Distinction between neuroscience and other disciplines Educators who gave examples of ways that neuroscience influenced their classroom practice were invariably using an extremely broad definition of neuroscience, which extended into research that would more properly be called cognitive or educational psychology. The allure of “the brain” may lead educators to discover more educationally-relevant research in the cognitive sciences. Background Surveys indicate that teachers are interested in brain research and view it as relevant to what they do. 1 The popularity of “brain based” books, programs, and conferences confirms teachers’ enthusiasm for neuroeducation. Yet neuroeducation has been criticized as being “a bridge too far”: at best, critics say, neuroscience offers only tenuous analogies between lab and classroom. 2 While recent reviews have highlighted a growing body of scientific research of clear relevance to education 3,4 , there remains considerable doubt regarding the translation of research into pedagogical practice. 5 The neuroeducation debate has traditionally been framed in terms of just two alternatives: neuroscience is either useful to educators by offering concrete guidance for instruction, or it is not useful at all. This project begins with the premise that the many thousands of educators seeking neuroscience knowledge may be finding neuroscience useful, professionally, in other ways than have been considered thus far. Methods We conducted 13 semi-structured telephone interviews with working educators who attended multiple “Learning & the Brain” conferences. These conferences feature symposia and lectures by neuroscientists and neuroeducation specialists and are aimed at working educators. Transcripts were read by both authors, with the goal of answering three main questions: Do educators expect neuroscience to help them with concrete matters of educational practice? What else do they seek or find useful in neuroscience, particularly in their daily professional life? Are there beliefs and motivations shared among the individuals of this sample that have not yet been discussed in the neuroeducation literature? Sample characteristics References 1. Pickering, S. J., & Howard-Jones, P. (2007). Educators’ views on the role of neuroscience in education: Findings from a study of UK and international perspectives. Mind, Brain, and Education, 1(3), 109-113. 2. Bruer, J. T. (1997). Education and the brain: A bridge too far. Educational Researcher, 26(8), 4 -16. 3. Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2009). Dyslexia: A new synergy between education and cognitive neuroscience. Science, 325(5938), 280 -283. 4. Nieder, A., & Dehaene, S. (2009). Representation of number in the brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 32, 185-208. 5. Devonshire, I. M., & Dommett, E. J. (2010). Neuroscience: Viable applications in education? The Neuroscientist, 16(4), 349 -356. 6. Howard-Jones, P., Franey, L., Mashmoushi, R., & Liao, Y. C. (2009). The neuroscience literacy of trainee teachers. British Educational Research Association Annual Conference. University of Manchester. Acknowledgments We thank Kelly Williams and Daniel LaGattuta for their assistance in subject recruitment, and Charlotte Pope for assistance with transcription. Funding for this project was provided by the University of Pennsylvania. For further information Please contact [email protected]. More information on this and related projects can be obtained at www.neuroethics.upenn.edu. Cayce Hook & Martha J. Farah, Ph.D. Center for Neuroscience & Society, University of Pennsylvania Reframing the neuroeducation debate Teachers and the role of neuroscience in the classroom The most significant change has been my tolerance of adolescent brains, and realizing that the teens that I’m teaching do not have fully functional brains, and they’re not going to be really fully functional until they’re 24, 25. It’s given me a lot more patience with them, and it gives me a little more leverage with other teachers I work with, in terms of getting them to include more realistic expectations, and it certainly gives me a good talking point with parents. People picture educators waiting for knights in white lab coats to come and tell us how to do our jobs—the thing is teachers have their noses in gradebooks—we have a lot of s**t to do—we're not preoccupied with this stuff. Neuroscience is not just going to come along and change everything teachers do... But I’m working with kids, and their brains are going to change with my help or not, so I think the more I know about this work the better. [Now] if I want to attend a one-day conference or workshop in this area… I look at what their credentials are. Rather than just saying “great title, great subject matter,” I’m a lot more picky about what I go to. It confirms your intuitions... It puts an imperative on being patient with kids, because now I know it’s not just my gut feeling that I should be more patient, but there’s some science behind that. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Modifying the physical classroom environment Changing the structure of lessons to engage multiple senses Using repetition Encouraging students to adopt Dweck's flexible "mindset" Employing specific strategies such as graphic organizers or decision trees Incorporating more frequent movement breaks In this current job [high school learning specialist], I do spend more time citing research because it gives me a little more credibility. A lot of times there is a neural component, but what I’ve read more of in the last five years is psychology. Maybe neuroscience creeps into these people’s work—whether it’s Carol Dweck or Jon Haidt or Leonard Sax—but I’m not reading about the brain as much as I’m reading about the mind. If we are ever going to really be excellent teachers, and really understand what we’re doing, and get across to children, it is absolutely essential to understand how their brains work. Impact on classroom practice Number of participants mentioning strategy rs. Copyright protected. F1000 P F1000 Posters. Copyright protected. F1000 Posters. Copy protected. F1000 Posters. Copyright protected. F1000 Posters. Copyright protected 000 Posters. Copyright protected. F1000 Posters. Copyright protected. F1 Copyright protected. F1000 Posters. Copyright tected. F1000 Poste
Transcript of Reframing the neuroeducation debate
Conclusions!Educators do not necessarily expect neuroscience to tell them how to teach. Instead, neuroscience can offer a host of less-tangible benefits. The potential for misunderstandings should not prevent neuroscientists from sharing their findings with teachers. On the contrary, evidence suggests that neuroscience research presented in appropriate ways may help prevent teachers from falling prey to misguided practices and neuro-marketing.6
A greater understanding of educators’ attitudes towards neuroscience and what it has to contribute to teaching practice will strengthen the relationship between neuroscientists and educators. Improving dialogue between the two disciplines will enrich research and practice in learning and the brain.
Findings!!1. Affirmation and authority!� Learning about neuroscience research affirms
educators’ beliefs about what makes for good educational practice. Being able to relate their practices to a larger scientific picture of the brain gives educators a sense of greater confidence in themselves.
"2. Maintaining perspective with difficult students!� Thinking of students’ brains as ‘unfinished,’ or
their behavior as not entirely under voluntary control, helps teachers cope with uncooperative or disruptive students.
� In particular, knowledge about plasticity and the development of prefrontal cortex may help teachers feel more patient and hopeful.
3. Professional satisfaction and self-image !� Just as we expect physicians to study chemistry,
despite virtually never using knowledge of organic synthesis in their work, respondents felt that educators should learn about the science of learning and brain development.
� Learning about research helps educators make more informed choices about “brain based” teaching methods.
4. Distinction between neuroscience and other !disciplines
� Educators who gave examples of ways that neuroscience influenced their classroom practice were invariably using an extremely broad definition of neuroscience, which extended into research that would more properly be called cognitive or educational psychology.
� The allure of “the brain” may lead educators to discover more educationally-relevant research in the cognitive sciences.
"!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!""""""!!! "
Background!Surveys indicate that teachers are interested in brain research and view it as relevant to what they do.1 The popularity of “brain based” books, programs, and conferences confirms teachers’ enthusiasm for neuroeducation. Yet neuroeducation has been criticized as being “a bridge too far”: at best, critics say, neuroscience offers only tenuous analogies between lab and classroom.2 While recent reviews have highlighted a growing body of scientific research of clear relevance to education3,4, there remains considerable doubt regarding the translation of research into pedagogical practice.5
The neuroeducation debate has traditionally been framed in terms of just two alternatives: neuroscience is either useful to educators by offering concrete guidance for instruction, or it is not useful at all. This project begins with the premise that the many thousands of educators seeking neuroscience knowledge may be finding neuroscience useful, professionally, in other ways than have been considered thus far.
Methods We conducted 13 semi-structured telephone interviews with working educators who attended multiple “Learning & the Brain” conferences. These conferences feature symposia and lectures by neuroscientists and neuroeducation specialists and are aimed at working educators. Transcripts were read by both authors, with the goal of answering three main questions: � Do educators expect neuroscience to help them with concrete matters of educational practice? � What else do they seek or find useful in neuroscience, particularly in their daily professional life? � Are there beliefs and motivations shared among the individuals of this sample that have not yet been discussed in the neuroeducation literature? Sample characteristics!
References 1. Pickering, S. J., & Howard-Jones, P. (2007). Educators’ views on the role of
neuroscience in education: Findings from a study of UK and international perspectives. Mind, Brain, and Education, 1(3), 109-113.
2. Bruer, J. T. (1997). Education and the brain: A bridge too far. Educational Researcher, 26(8), 4 -16.
3. Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2009). Dyslexia: A new synergy between education and cognitive neuroscience. Science, 325(5938), 280 -283.
4. Nieder, A., & Dehaene, S. (2009). Representation of number in the brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 32, 185-208.
5. Devonshire, I. M., & Dommett, E. J. (2010). Neuroscience: Viable applications in education? The Neuroscientist, 16(4), 349 -356.
6. Howard-Jones, P., Franey, L., Mashmoushi, R., & Liao, Y. C. (2009). The neuroscience literacy of trainee teachers. British Educational Research Association Annual Conference. University of Manchester.
Acknowledgments We thank Kelly Williams and Daniel LaGattuta for their assistance in subject recruitment, and Charlotte Pope for assistance with transcription. Funding for this project was provided by the University of Pennsylvania.
For further information Please contact [email protected]. More information on this and related projects can be obtained at www.neuroethics.upenn.edu.
Cayce Hook & Martha J. Farah, Ph.D.!Center for Neuroscience & Society, University of Pennsylvania"
Reframing the neuroeducation debate!Teachers and the role of neuroscience in the classroom!
The most significant change has been my tolerance of adolescent brains, and realizing that the teens that I’m teaching do not have fully functional brains, and they’re not going to be really fully functional until they’re 24, 25. It’s given me a lot more patience with them, and it gives me a little more leverage with other teachers I work with, in terms of getting them to include more realistic expectations, and it certainly gives me a good talking point with parents.
People picture educators waiting for knights in white lab coats to come and tell us how to do our jobs—the thing is teachers have their noses in gradebooks—we have a lot of s**t to do—we're not preoccupied with this stuff. Neuroscience is not just going to come along and change everything teachers do... But I’m working with kids, and their brains are going to change with my help or not, so I think the more I know about this work the better.
[Now] if I want to attend a one-day conference or workshop in this area… I look at what their credentials are. Rather than just saying “great title, great subject matter,” I’m a lot more picky about what I go to.
It confirms your intuitions... It puts an imperative on being patient with kids, because now I know it’s not just my gut feeling that I should be more patient, but there’s some science behind that.
0" 1" 2" 3" 4" 5"
Modifying the physical classroom environment"
Changing the structure of lessons to engage multiple senses"
Using repetition"
Encouraging students to adopt Dweck's flexible "mindset""
Employing specific strategies such as graphic organizers or decision
trees"
Incorporating more frequent movement breaks"
In this current job [high school learning specialist], I do spend more time citing research because it gives me a little more credibility.
A lot of times there is a neural component, but what I’ve read more of in the last five years is psychology. Maybe neuroscience creeps into these people’s work—whether it’s Carol Dweck or Jon Haidt or Leonard Sax—but I’m not reading about the brain as much as I’m reading about the mind.
If we are ever going to really be excellent teachers, and really understand what we’re doing, and get across to children, it is absolutely essential to understand how their brains work.
Impact on classroom practice!
Number of participants mentioning strategy!
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
te
