Educational neuroscience: bridging theory and practice

View correction statement:

Correction

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” (Howard-Jones 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 broader social and environmental factors such as socioeconomic status, communal relationships, sleep, stress, or exercise. At its core then, the objective of EN is to leverage multiple levels of data points and descriptives to better understand, and augment explanatory power for an integrated learning perspective. Such integrations are oriented towards design for the specificity of interventions and personalisation of learning tools to optimise learning. Integrated learning perspectives are in turn informed by multiple theoretical lenses and data that spans from cultural-historical to social, behavioural and biological levels, aimed at impacting diverse group of learners (e. g. K-12; mixed abilities) at the micro-individual level, collectives such as educational institutions at the meso-collective level and policies at the macro-global level (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Understanding and designing for learning from multiple theoretical lens.

On a continuum between broad-based education for the masses and personalised learning for individuals, what is critical to note, and as highlighted by Blakemore and Frith (2005), is that EN carefully avoids a direct ‘brain scan to lesson plan’ claim. Rather, there is an important need to, firstly, focus on understanding learning and secondly, on how this understanding can then feed into the design of what happens in the classroom. Understanding brain mechanisms that underlie learning and teaching will not linearly transform educational practices in the classroom, rather it exists to augment and deepen our understanding for how learners learn that in turn inform the design of educational strategies and programs that “optimize learning for learners of all ages and of all needs” (Blakemore & Frith, 2005, p. 459).

While research in EN has been traditionally viewed to be especially pertinent for children with learning difficulties struggling to progress in mainstream curriculum, insights into variations in brain development coupled with related variation in cognitive, affective, and social development represents convergence of evidence from multiple sources of experimentation that are valuable for the development of robust and valid learning theories (Gabrieli, 2016) for all learners. To this end, intervention design, implementation and translation (i.e., the core work of Learning Sciences researchers), remain a critical mediating bridge that can link neuroscience to educational practice, albeit in recognisably indirect and complex ways, through interdisciplinary collaborations. Importantly, as the field of EN draws on powerful insights from advances in neuroscience research to inform and extend the substantial knowledge base of educational research, deeply rooted disciplinary cultures with field-specific methods and language of neuroscience and education – which traditionally create inherent challenges for experts from one field to use and extend the knowledge from another – become disrupted. Rather, EN as a new discipline has the propensity to propel evolution of knowledge towards a more scientific-based, evidence-informed and comprehensive understanding of learning. The latter in turn represents the compelling driving force to facilitate broader goals in education, which includes human well-being and development, societal cohesion and sustainable economic growth.

In this Special Issue of Learning: Research and Practice, the collection of papers promote an integrative learning perspective from early-life signals to the developing brain at pre-school entry to development of brain literary courses and policies that can empower educators to meet diverse learner needs. The papers demonstrate how EN can be informed through multiple theoretical lenses and dataset from cognitive, behavioural, and neural modalities. In elucidating the translations between neuroscience and education applications, this issue forms the impetus to resolve inherent tensions between conflicting conceptualisations of EN as a basic science, EN as a monolithic strand of developmental cognitive neuroscience and EN as a translational field towards optimising learning for all. It is in our view that progress in education is best served and strengthened when an integrated learning perspective is taken to deeply understand tenets of learning and how best to design learning towards maximising every learner’s potential for optimal outcomes.

This edition

Educational neuroscience: learners’ perspectives

The impact of neuroscientific work for education requires perspectives from investigating both learner and teacher outcomes to reform education. In this first section, the two papers are oriented towards reviewing and reporting educational neuroscience work for learners’ outcomes. Rifkin-Graboi, Khng, Cheung, Tsotsi, Sun, Kwok, Yu, Xie, Yang, Chen, Ng, Hu and Tan reviewed the importance of early life cues for the young brain to maximise its chance of developing in a manner consistent with future needs. Focusing on linguistic exposure and sensitive caregiving quality, their review paper articulated how parents, caregivers and homes, provide early-life signals on environmental conditions allowing our brains to interpret such information as indications to the types of environments that will be faced, causing our brains to adapt accordingly. They described how bilingual exposure and sensitive caregiving quality affect domain-general neurocircuitry, and its associated functioning such as emotional regulation, executive functioning, and pre-academic outcomes. Findings from their review point towards the importance of an emphasis of early upstream intervention programs that seek to bridge gaps between community, home and school environments in tending to the development of the child. To this end, they emphasised on the criticality of a positive environmental context for brain development and propose a ‘Be Positive’ study as a step towards building upon pre-schoolers’ strengths to enhance classroom success.

Weber, Denyer, Yeganeh, Maja, Murphy, Martin, Chiu, Nguy, White and Boyd investigated preliminary outcomes of a neuroimaging and behavioural study to mitigate underlying weaknesses in cognitive processing for young to adolescent learners, aged 9–16. The growing interest in cognitive interventions to alleviate challenges in learning has prompted the Arrowsmith program – an intervention program comprising multiple exercises, focusing on different cognitive processes. The effectiveness of this program was evaluated by examining the cognitive and academic growth of students who participated in the program for a year. Baseline MRI-driven myelin water fraction (MWF) and cognitive performance were used to examine whether they correlated with intervention outcomes. Overall, the results of the cognitive and academic outcomes indicated a general improvement, with some areas of cognitive and academic skill growth being significantly correlated, hence indicating a relationship in skill improvement. The findings further indicated that the Arrowsmith program might be associated with improvements in fundamental cognitive and academic skills, with possibilities of supporting higher-order academic achievements for students in future. The data also highlighted the importance of taking into account baseline differences in individual characteristics and skills when evaluating intervention outcomes.

Educational neuroscience: educators’ perspectives

Recognising teachers as arbiters of change, impactful educational neuroscience work need to take into consideration teacher development that can be optimised through EN-informed research. Tham, Walker, Tan, Low, and Chen sought to understand whether translating neuroscientific articles would enable teachers to have a better grasp of their content. With the increasing momentum and interest in neuroscience-informed teaching and learning methods in education, the translation of neuroscience to education will involve the accurate and simplification of information about neuroscience to teachers. They used surveys, experimental manipulation and focus groups to obtain information, of which they found that the translated abstracts did not improve attitudes significantly. However, through the focus group discussions, they found that teachers are interested in the application of neuroscience research in classroom pedagogy, thus further highlighting the importance of bridging the gap between neuroscience and education.

Diversifying teaching instructions in the classrooms to meet individual learning needs remains a critical skill, which teachers have to develop. Walker, Hale, Chen, and Poon highlighted the rationale behind why brain literacy training is vital in teacher education and offered three important aspects for consideration regarding the applicability of educational neuroscience in classrooms. First off, the foundations and historical perspective of educational neuroscience were discussed to bring awareness to the changes surrounding brain-based scientific discoveries and pedagogical practices, which may have surfaced over the years. This is followed by a brief account of the influence of Science of Learning; in particular, contribution to empirical learning sciences literature was examined. Thirdly, the potential impact of brain literacy on curriculum design, instruction, and student outcomes were explored by recognising factors that affects the effectiveness of brain literacy, and evaluating the curriculum and instruction differences between traditional teaching practices and brain literate training. Lastly, the authors provided three main recommendations on how brain-literacy instruction for educators can be improved with the intention of bridging the gap between brain literacy knowledge and translated classroom teaching practices.

Educational neuroscience: progress and promises

Kwok and Ansari summarised the progress which educational neuroscience has made over the years, particularly how neuroscience has shaped our deeper understanding of children’s literacy and numeracy development, provided insights of brain development by studying educational processes, as well as improve existing policy-making decisions and pedagogy. Situating their discussions within the context of learning differences such as dyslexia and dyscalculia, they drew insights to the cognitive and neurological mechanisms that may underlie these disorders, yet not discounting possible applications to typically developing learners too. Possible future applications of neuroscience pertaining to early detection of learning difficulties in children, as well as the potential challenges which may arise in the future of educational neuroscience were highlighted. Kwok and Ansari emphasised that although neuroscience research has indeed positively evolved the implementation of various targeted and efficient intervention methodologies, collaborations between other fields of studies such as clinical and behavioural research are pre-eminent in adding a more holistic understanding of the learning processes of typical and atypical development.

Jamaludin, Hung and Lim provided an exposition on the important balance needed between the art and science of learning, in the context of educational neuroscience. Exemplifying how educational neuroscience has impacted theorisations of learning, their commentary highlighted the intertwining relationships between curriculum, teaching, learning and assessment as important constructs of education. While the ethos of integrating educational neuroscience into education is driven by an overarching, scientific evidence-informed orientation, they argue that the art of designing optimal learning contexts for students cannot be ignored. They posit that research into the science of learning are inherently mediated by the art of teachers’ readiness, skilfulness and adaptivity in widening their repertoire of teaching approaches to skilfully include understandings from educational neuroscience work into their pedagogical designs.

Notes

1 This article was originally published with errors, which have now been corrected in the online version. Please see Correction (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2020.1794194)