If the gulf between neuroscience and education theory was unbridgeable, it may not be for much longer
EDUCATION is the 鈥渋nculcation of the incomprehensible into the indifferent by the incompetent鈥� according to the late economist John Maynard Keynes.
In recent years, a wide range of research has been used to inform education policy and practice. Arguably it could go further. In this issue we explore a few of the brain-boosting techniques currently under study, from meditation to music. Some of them could be useful as educational tools (see 鈥淢ental muscle: six ways to boost your brain鈥�).
Advertisement
Such research raises a much wider question. Wouldn鈥檛 it be handy if we found out how the brain really works 鈥� and how children learn best 鈥� and then apply these insights to everyday teaching practice?
鈥淲ouldn鈥檛 it be useful if we found out how the brain really works and applied the insights to teaching?鈥�
Over a decade ago, John Bruer of the James S. McDonnell Foundation in St Louis, Missouri, argued that it was possible to bridge the gap between neuroscience and cognitive science, and also the gap between cognitive science and education. But he concluded that the overall gap between the domains of neuroscience and education was 鈥溾��.
Even today, a grand theory of learning that can exert a direct influence on education looks a distant prospect.
There has been , though. A few days ago at the Royal Society in London, the UK government minister responsible for science and universities was given a picture of the potential and the limitations of neuroscience during one session of the society鈥檚 project, led by Uta Frith of University College London (UCL). The outlook was upbeat.
Neuroscience has underlined the importance of emotional engagement in learning, backing the claim of educational progressives that children learn best when actively involved rather than having facts drummed into them. That鈥檚 hardly rocket science but does at least provide insights that complement those of educational psychology.
Neuroscientists have revealed sensitive periods that affect learning, and shown that the brain remains receptive, even into adulthood. Measures of brain performance, even scans of neural activity, could go beyond the identification of major learning disorders to reveal individual strengths and weaknesses and also decide which teaching method, or indeed which teacher, is best suited to each child. One day we may be able to individualise teaching.
Another delegate at the Royal Society meeting, Sarah-Jayne Blakemore of UCL, says that one clear-cut application of neuroscience has been to dispel many myths that have come from the , such as the focus on multiple kinds of intelligence in children, rather than simply how 鈥渂right鈥� they are.
Other neuromyths include the value of 鈥渂rain training鈥�; the idea that some people are 鈥渓eft-brained鈥� and others 鈥渞ight-brained鈥�, when the hemispheres communicate constantly; and that we only use a fraction of our brain. Nonsense, we use all of it.
Now that we have dealt with the incompetent twisting of neuroscience, educational researchers are to inculcate the newly comprehensible into the fully engaged.