[!Cite] Della Sala, S., & Anderson, M. (2012). Neuroscience in EducationThe good, the bad, and the ugly. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199600496.001.0001

[!Synth] Contribution:: 

Related::

[!md] FirstAuthor:: Della Sala, Sergio   Author:: Anderson, Mike   ~     Title:: Neuroscience in EducationThe good, the bad, and the ugly Year:: 2012 Citekey:: dellasalaNeuroscienceEducationTheGood2012a itemType:: book Publisher:: Oxford University Press ISBN:: 978-0-19-960049-6

[!LINK] 

  PDF.

[!Abstract] .  

Notes

.

Annotations%% begin annotations %%

Imported: 2025-02-18 4:09 pm

Quote

In order to represent the themes and their inter-relationships we created an integrative framework (see Figure 2.2). Fig. 2.2 Framework representing common themes derived from the systematic review of the educational neuroscience literature. The circular background of the framework represents the body of works that discuss

Quote

Educational neuroscience as a eld necessitates a combination of knowledge from these disciplines and so members of the new, merged eld may nd themselves ‘torn between the somewhat con icting sets of responsibilities that have traditionally been associated with the two domains’ (Gardner, 2008, p. 167), a phenomenon referred to by Samuels (2009) as ‘disciplinary polarity’

Quote

Despite their common ground, di erences in the expression of basic concepts and accompanying vocabulary between disciplines can create misconnections between researchers and educators (Ansari & Coch, 2006), can be a practical barrier to merging the two elds (Devonshire & Dommett, 2010) and can contribute to di culties in translating terms and knowledge across elds (Blakemore & Frith, 2005; Byrnes & Fox, 1998; Ronstadt & Yellin, 2010; Tommerdahl, 2010). The issue of vocabulary is also reminiscent of the problems of Multiple disciplines, in that the meaning of certain words such as learning (e.g. Howard-Jones, 2008b) may di er signi cantly across disciplines and levels of analysis.

Quote

While Bruer (2002) and Howard-Jones (2008a) agree that there is some potential for neuroscience to contribute to education, they also critique the fact that neuroscience has little to contribute towards solving the problems that confront teachers in the classroom and cannot provide the type of explanations required for improving instruction and therefore lacks practical value (Bruer, 2002, 2006; Howard-Jones, 2008b)

Quote

Consistent with ideas about the value of making the neuroscience–education connection is the notion that conclusions and scienti c theories drawn from neuroscience should be ‘descriptive’ for education rather than ‘prescriptive’ (Cubelli, 2009; Howard-Jones, 2008a; Mason, 2009; Willingham, 2009). This approach to educational neuroscience is illustrated in the following statement: Rather than seeking from neuroscience directives informing educational practice directly (i.e., how can neuroscience lead to better teaching or learning), neuroscience research is most valuable in describing aspects of educational concern (e.g., why do readers with dyslexia read di erently) (Christodoulou & Gaab, 2009p. 555).

Quote

One of the problems evoked in relation to the di culties in establishing such collaborations is the lack of a common forum in which researchers and educators can interact (Ansari & Coch, 2006; Blakemore & Frith, 2005; Samuels, 2009) and the lack of opportunities for dialogue (Carew & Magsamen, 2010; Coch, et al., 2009)

Quote

. In improving collaboration between the education and neuroscience communities and identifying a common research ground, Varma et al. (2008) make the following recommendation for putting the focus on problems rather than on individual disciplines: One strategy is to stop putting forward our disciplines as the basis for our identities and instead to put forward the problems we study. Problems can serve as neutral ground and can anchor intellectual exchange. (…) When researchers identify themselves by the problems they study, then it is valuable to travel to foreign disciplines in search of new insights and to bring back souvenirs new methods, data and theories for answering the questions of one’s native discipline (p.149).

Quote

Alternately, it may be that neither neuroscientists nor educators are ideally placed to transmit research questions across the disciplinary divide, but that an intermediary is needed in the form of a network of communicators capable of translating high-quality knowledge (e.g. ex-scientists with an interest in education, Goswami, 2006). This notion is consistent with the need for ‘neuroscience-enriched educators’ and ‘pedagogically-enriched neuroscientists’

Quote

In order to represent the themes and their inter-relationships we created an integrative framework (see Figure 2.2). Fig. 2.2 Framework representing common themes derived from the systematic review of the educational neuroscience literature. The circular background of the framework represents the body of works that discuss

Quote

Educational neuroscience as a �eld necessitates a combination of knowledge from these disciplines and so members of the new, merged �eld may �nd themselves ‘torn between the somewhat con�icting sets of responsibilities that have traditionally been associated with the two domains’ (Gardner, 2008, p. 167), a phenomenon referred to by Samuels (2009) as ‘disciplinary polarity’

Quote

Despite their common ground, di�erences in the expression of basic concepts and accompanying vocabulary between disciplines can create misconnections between researchers and educators (Ansari & Coch, 2006), can be a practical barrier to merging the two �elds (Devonshire & Dommett, 2010) and can contribute to di�culties in translating terms and knowledge across �elds (Blakemore & Frith, 2005; Byrnes & Fox, 1998; Ronstadt & Yellin, 2010; Tommerdahl, 2010). The issue of vocabulary is also reminiscent of the problems of Multiple disciplines, in that the meaning of certain words such as learning (e.g. Howard-Jones, 2008b) may di�er signi�cantly across disciplines and levels of analysis.

Quote

While Bruer (2002) and Howard-Jones (2008a) agree that there is some potential for neuroscience to contribute to education, they also critique the fact that neuroscience has little to contribute towards solving the problems that confront teachers in the classroom and cannot provide the type of explanations required for improving instruction and therefore lacks practical value (Bruer, 2002, 2006; Howard-Jones, 2008b)

Quote

Consistent with ideas about the value of making the neuroscience–education connection is the notion that conclusions and scienti�c theories drawn from neuroscience should be ‘descriptive’ for education rather than ‘prescriptive’ (Cubelli, 2009; Howard-Jones, 2008a; Mason, 2009; Willingham, 2009). This approach to educational neuroscience is illustrated in the following statement: Rather than seeking from neuroscience directives informing educational practice directly (i.e., how can neuroscience lead to better teaching or learning), neuroscience research is most valuable in describing aspects of educational concern (e.g., why do readers with dyslexia read di�erently) (Christodoulou & Gaab, 2009p. 555).

Quote

One of the problems evoked in relation to the di�culties in establishing such collaborations is the lack of a common forum in which researchers and educators can interact (Ansari & Coch, 2006; Blakemore & Frith, 2005; Samuels, 2009) and the lack of opportunities for dialogue (Carew & Magsamen, 2010; Coch, et al., 2009)

Quote

. In improving collaboration between the education and neuroscience communities and identifying a common research ground, Varma et al. (2008) make the following recommendation for putting the focus on problems rather than on individual disciplines: One strategy is to stop putting forward our disciplines as the basis for our identities and instead to put forward the problems we study. Problems can serve as neutral ground and can anchor intellectual exchange. (…) When researchers identify themselves by the problems they study, then it is valuable to travel to foreign disciplines in search of new insights and to bring back souvenirs – new methods, data and theories for answering the questions of one’s native discipline (p.149).

Quote

Alternately, it may be that neither neuroscientists nor educators are ideally placed to transmit research questions across the disciplinary divide, but that an intermediary is needed in the form of a network of communicators capable of translating high-quality knowledge (e.g. ex-scientists with an interest in education, Goswami, 2006). This notion is consistent with the need for ‘neuroscience-enriched educators’ and ‘pedagogically-enriched neuroscientists’

%% end annotations %%i

%% Import Date: 2025-02-18T16:09:53.508-05:00 %%