*********************************************
ABSTRACT: I contrast the opinions of Judith Willis and John Bruer on
the potential benefit of neuroscience to education. Willis's positive
stance is moderated by her admission that neuroscience as applied to
education has not been firmly validated. Bruer's negative stance is
moderated by his belief that "eventually we will be able to bridge
neuroscience at its various levels of analysis with education, but .
. . all of these bridges will have a least one pier on the island of
psychology."
*********************************************
Judith Willis (2006), in an article rather positive regarding the
potential benefit of neuroscience to education titled "Add the
Science of Learning to the Art of Teaching to Enrich Classroom
Instruction," appearing in James Rhem's "National Teaching and
Learning Forum," wrote:
"It is only in the past 20 years that cognitive neuroscientists have
begun to study how our brain structures support mental functions
through neural circuits that enable us to think and learn.
Information attending, comprehending, and retrieval research is now
at the level of neural circuits, synapses, and neurotransmitters and
the time for advances in classroom teaching strategies is at hand.
The increasing scientific knowledge about the physiology of how the
human brain learns has the POTENTIAL [my CAPS] to significantly
impact classroom instruction. . . . . . It would be premature and
against my training as a physician to claim that any of these
[neuro-imaging] strategies are as yet firmly validated by the
complete meshing of simultaneous cognitive studies, neuroimaging, and
educational classroom research. It is for now a combination of the
art of teaching and the science of how the brain responds
metabolically to stimuli that will guide educators in finding the
best neurological ways to present information in such ways as to
obtain and maintain student attention and potentiate learning."
On the other hand, John Bruer (2006), in an article rather skeptical
regarding the potential benefit of neuroscience to education titled
"On the Implications of Neuroscience Research for Science Teaching
and Learning: Are There Any? A Skeptical Theme and Variations: The
Primacy of Psychology in the Science of Learning," wrote [bracketed
by lines "BBBBBBBB. . . ."; my CAPS; my insert at ". . . .[insert]. .
. "]
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
I am notorious for my skepticism about what neuroscience can
CURRENTLY offer to education. My skepticism derives from several
concerns, but a common theme runs through all of them: ATTEMPTS TO
LINK NEUROSCIENCE WITH EDUCATION PAY INSUFFICIENT ATTENTION TO
PSYCHOLOGY. . . .[and, in my opinion, psychology pays insufficient
attention to classroom research as indicated in Hake (2005)]. . . In
what follows, I will present four variations on this theme. First,
for those who are committed to developing a science-based pedagogy
and solving existing instructional problems, cognitive psychology
offers a mother-lode of still largely untapped knowledge. Second,
attempts to link developmental neurobiology to brain development and
education ignore, or are inconsistent with, what cognitive psychology
tells us about teaching and learning. Third, cognitive neuroscience
is the brain-based discipline that is most likely to generate
educationally relevant insights, but cognitive neuroscience
presupposes cognitive psychology and, to date, rarely constrains
existing cognitive models. And fourth, the methods of cellular and
molecular neuroscience are powerful, but it is not always clear that
the concepts of learning and memory used by neuroscientists are the
same as those used by psychologists, let alone by classroom teachers.
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
And Bruer concludes:
"So I remain skeptical about the implications of neuroscience for
education currently and into the near future. Maybe I should say the
direct implications of neuroscience for education. I do believe that
eventually we will be able to bridge neuroscience at its various
levels of analysis with education, but I am convinced that all of
these bridges will have a least one pier on the island of
psychology." [See Bruer's (1997) "Education and the Brain: A Bridge
Too Far."]
So Bruer's conclusion appears to be consistent with Willis emphasis
that "It would be premature . . . to claim that any of these
[neuro-imaging] strategies are as yet firmly validated by the
complete meshing of simultaneous cognitive studies, neuroimaging, and
educational classroom research.
BTW, for references on "brain-based learning" generated in 2000 on
the POD and PhysLrnR list see my posts Hake (2000a,b,c,d).
REFERENCES
Bruer, J.T. 1997. "Education and the Brain: A Bridge Too Far,"
Educational Researcher 26(8), 4-16 (1997), online "soon" (but don't
hold your breath) at <http://www.aera.net/publications/?id=331>.
Bruer, J.T. 2006. "Points of View: On the Implications of
Neuroscience Research for Science Teaching and Learning: Are There
Any? A Skeptical Theme and Variations: The Primacy of Psychology in
the Science of Learning," CBE-Life Sciences Education Vol. 5, 104
-110, Summer 2006, online at
<http://www.lifescied.org/cgi/reprint/5/2/104>. See also Bruer (1997).
Hake, R.R. 2005. "Do Psychologists Research the Effectiveness of
Their Courses? Hake Responds to Sternberg," online at
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0507&L=pod&P=R11939&I=-3>.
Post of 21 Jul 2005 22:55:31-0700 to AERA-C, AERA-D, AERA-J, AERA-L,
ASSESS, EvalTalk, PhysLrnR, POD, & STLHE-L.
Willis, J. 2006. "RESEARCH WATCH II: Add the Science of Learning to
the Art of Teaching to Enrich Classroom Instruction," National
Teaching and Learning Forum 15(5), online to subscribers at
<http://www.ntlf.com/FTPSite/issues/v15n5/research2.htm>. If your
institution doesn't have a subscription, then IMHO it should!