Abstract
Educators strive to understand and apply knowledge gained through scientific endeavours. Yet, within the various sciences of learning, particularly within educational neuroscience, there have been instances of seemingly contradictory or incompatible research findings and theories. We argue that this situation arises through confusion between levels of analysis applicable to various disciplines. In this article, we propose a conceptual framework for the science of learning which integrates sociological, psychological, biological and neurological perspectives of learning. This framework seeks to recognise the distinction between learning—essentially a complex neurological phenomenon—and education, an even more complex sociocultural phenomenon. As such, the framework allows a coherent perspective to emerge that can help resolve a number of key issues. Specifically, we argue that its adoption will (a) provide the science of learning with a foundation to assist in the development of a translational paradigm for neuroscience, psychology and education professionals, (b) enable neuromyths to be more easily identified and (c) help prevent unhelpful debates in the future.
Highlights
To their credit, educators have long sought to advance their professional knowledge, skills and effectiveness through an understanding of the findings of scientific endeavours
While teachers can be informed by psychology and neuroscience, these disciplines cannot prescribe what teachers do in practice: recognising that educators have a unique expertise in pedagogical practice
A recent example of this disparity is the debate that has flared over the learning effects of brain training: A research group based at Stanford University released a “consensus” stating that 75 scientists agree that brain training is not effective (Stanford Center on Longevity, 2015), and this was quickly followed by a second consensus statement of 117 scientists who claimed that it is (Cognitive Training Data, 2015)
Summary
Some experts claim that brain-training is effective, and argue that it should be used by educators in classroom. Educational psychologists and learning scientists claim that such training is ineffective, and should not be used in educational practice. Given that educators are experts in education, not psychology or neuroscience, how can they make sense of these differing opinions. While teachers can be informed by psychology and neuroscience, these disciplines cannot prescribe what teachers do in practice: recognising that educators have a unique expertise in pedagogical practice. In the example of brain-training, we demonstrate how both neuroscientists and psychologists can both be correct in their assertions, and how educators can translate—meaningfully benefit from—this type of research. Subjects: Neuroscience; Philosophy of Education; School Psychology; Sociology of Education
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version
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