Educational neuroscience: bridging theory and practice

Abstract

Research advancements in the field of educational neuroscience (EN) have been remarkably compelling with proponents extolling its potential impact on educational practices. Through the development of judicious interrelation of insights associated with diverse theoretical perspectives – from neuroscientific, pedagogical and classroom praxis – EN draws upon an ethos of evidence-informed scientific understandings about brain–behaviour relationships to inform the development of new teaching and learning strategies. Yet the application of EN remains limited in its direct impact on teacher training or classroom practice. Horvath, Lodge, and Hattie (2017) note that although there may be varied reasons, a primary concern is the lack of a proper translation framework from theoretical and ‘neat’ laboratory research to effective teaching and learning strategies in ‘complex’ classrooms. While theoretical advances have led to controlled laboratory experiments that have the potential to improve education, but translation into effective teaching and learning strategies that positively impact learners in classrooms remain absent from the field. Educational neuroscience is frequently associated with the ‘science’ of learning. While it encompasses a broad range of scientific disciplines, from basic neuroscience to cognitive psychology to computer science to social theory, at its core is a resonant objective to determine and develop methods that teachers and students can use to improve the learning experience. Bowers (2016) identified a rapidly growing number of researchers engaged in work across disciplines that include neuroscience and education, under more contemporary interdisciplinary labels such as ‘Mind, Brain, and Education’ and ‘Neuroeducation’. However, there exists a contention that “research and findings from EN are trivial and are unlikely to add value to the improvement of classroom teaching and learning beyond insights from psychological and behavioural research” (p. 601). Within this vein, Howard-Jones et al. (2016) highlighted that there has been confusion about the scope of EN that has been framed as focusing only on neural levels of explanation for educational efficacy, in isolation from psychology or other disciplines (e.g., see Bowers (2016)). Theoretically, such claims have proven to be underestimations. On the contrary, EN is an expanding field characterised by interdisciplinary research spanning from “neuroimaging centres to psychological labs to classrooms” (HowardJones et al., 2016, p. 620), concerned with making links between the neural substrates of mental processes and behaviours, particularly that related to learning, but not solely favouring neural levels of explanation and “certainly does not suggest that educational efficacy should be evaluated solely on the basis of neural function” (p. 621). Within this vein, exploitation of data from neuroscience research is situated within part of a larger sphere of ecological influences (Jamaludin & Hung, 2019) operating on educational outcomes, which, for example, includes a focus beyond just cognitive developments to unpacking possible correlations or causal relationships between learning and LEARNING: RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 2019, VOL. 5, NO. 2, 93–98 https://doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2019.1685027