The principles and practices of educational neuroscience: Comment on Bowers (2016)

Howard-Jones, P. A., Varma, S., Ansari, D., Butterworth, B., De Smedt, B., Goswami, U., Laurillard, D., & Thomas, M. S. C. (2016). The principles and practices of educational neuroscience: Comment on Bowers (2016). Psychological Review, 123(5), 620-627. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/rev0000036

ABSTRACT

In his recent critique of Educational Neuroscience, Bowers argues that neuroscience has no role to play in informing education, which he equates with classroom teaching. Neuroscience, he suggests, adds nothing to what we can learn from psychology. In this commentary, we argue that Bowers’ assertions misrepresent the nature and aims of the work in this new field. We suggest that, by contrast, psychological and neural levels of explanation complement rather than compete with each other. Bowers’ analysis also fails to include a role for educational expertise—a guiding principle of our new field. On this basis, we conclude that his critique is potentially misleading. We set out the well-documented goals of research in Educational Neuroscience, and show how, in collaboration with educators, significant progress has already been achieved, with the prospect of even greater progress in the future.

Click here to download full text (pdf) / Cliquer ici pour télécharger l'article (pdf)

 

See also / Voir aussi:

Bowers, J. S. (2016). The practical and principled problems with educational neuroscience. Psychological Review, 123(5), 600-612. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/rev0000025

Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2016). The promise of educational neuroscience: Comment on Bowers (2016). Psychological Review, 123(5), 613-619. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/rev0000034

Bowers, J. S. (2016). Psychology, not educational neuroscience, is the way forward for improving educational outcomes for all children: Reply to Gabrieli (2016) and Howard-Jones et al. (2016). Psychological Review, 123(5), 628-635. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/rev0000043