Abstract

Since emergence of the field ‘Educational Neuroscience’ (EN) in the late nineties of the previous century, a debate has emerged about the potential this field holds to influence teaching and learning in the classroom. By now, most agree that the original claims promising direct translations to teaching and learning were too strong. I argue here that research questions in (health professions) education require multi-methodological approaches, including neuroscience, while carefully weighing what (combination of) approaches are most suitable given a research question. Only through a multi-methodological approach will convergence of evidence emerge, which is so desperately needed for improving teaching and learning in the classroom. However, both researchers and teachers should become aware of the so-called ‘seductive allure’ of EN; that is, the demonstrable physical location and apparent objectivity of the measurements can be interpreted as yielding more powerful evidence and warranting stronger conclusions than, e.g., behavioral experiments, where in fact oftentimes the reverse is the case. I conclude that our tendency as researchers to commit ourselves to one methodological approach and to addressing educational research questions from a single methodological perspective is limiting progress in educational science and in translation to education.

Highlights

  • Convergence of evidenceDismissing a scientific (sub)discipline based on the methods it identifies with, is one bridge too far

  • Since emergence of the field ‘Educational Neuroscience’ (EN) in the late nineties of the previous century, a debate has emerged about the potential this field holds to influence teaching and learning in the classroom

  • EN is a basic neuroscience that relates to educational theory (Willingham and Lloyd 2007) and that has as its object the characteristics and development of the learning brain, or context factors that relate to the learning brain (e.g., work on teachers’ neuromyths, (Dubinsky et al 2013)

Read more

Summary

Convergence of evidence

Dismissing a scientific (sub)discipline based on the methods it identifies with, is one bridge too far. Contemplation should take place deliberating whether a neuroscience approach is indispensable or a more cost effective behavioral approach could produce similar (or perhaps better) effects For those studies standing the test of these two recommendations, the question arises what type of EN research endeavors are promising for health sciences education. When cognitive processes are mostly implicit or too fast to unravel behaviorally, such as in pattern recognition (System 1 reasoning), neuroscience research can tap into the nature of these processes in a more fine grained manner and compare with neurocognitive processes similar to pattern recognition (e.g., object recognition, Wang et al 2016) Note that these fast processes are typically observed in experts, and relate to components of expertise theory, adding to the conclusion that EN research in health sciences education appears to bear most value in relation to expertise-related questions

The seductive allure of Educational Neuroscience
Conclusions
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call