Educational neuroscience and neuroscientific education: in search of a mutual middle-way

2.50
HDL Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/2428/49038
Title:
Educational neuroscience and neuroscientific education: in search of a mutual middle-way
Authors:
Geake, J
Publisher:
BERA
Journal:
Research Intelligence
Issue Date:
Aug-2005
URI:
http://hdl.handle.net/2428/49038
Additional Links:
http://www.tlrp.org/dspace/handle/123456789/498; http://www.bera.ac.uk/pdfs/92-P10-13.pdf
Type:
Article
Language:
en
Description:
Cognitive neuroscientific research into learning, especially literacy and numeracy, is well into its second decade. The potential benefits to education, particularly for SEN, were also noted many years ago (Byrnes & Fox, 1998), viz that cognitive neuroscience might offer new data and a fresh perspective on some hitherto intractable educational problems, for example, why do some children not learn to read as easily as most; why doesn’t every child ‘get’ fractions (O’Boyle & Gill, 1998)? The responses of the education profession, especially in the UK, have been mixed. On the one hand, there are those ageing education academics who, after a lifetime of not understanding and disparaging all science, see no need to change their ways now. On the other hand, there are the ‘brain-based’ enthusiasts who hope that the current fads of left-right thinking, brain gym, etc., will address the complexities and daily challenges of the mixed-ability classroom (Goswami, 2004). A middle-way would seem to involve neuroscientific education for both groups so that education can shape a professionally informative educational neuroscience research agenda of the future. This paper discusses five arguments (Geake, 1998) in favour of the development of an educational neuroscience.
Series/Report no.:
Research Intelligence; 92
Appears in Collections:
InclusionNeuroscience and EducationSpecial Educational NeedsLiteracyNumeracy/Mathematics

Full metadata record

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorGeake, J-
dc.date.accessioned2009-02-13T12:23:32Z-
dc.date.available2009-02-13T12:23:32Z-
dc.date.issued2005-08-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2428/49038-
dc.descriptionCognitive neuroscientific research into learning, especially literacy and numeracy, is well into its second decade. The potential benefits to education, particularly for SEN, were also noted many years ago (Byrnes & Fox, 1998), viz that cognitive neuroscience might offer new data and a fresh perspective on some hitherto intractable educational problems, for example, why do some children not learn to read as easily as most; why doesn’t every child ‘get’ fractions (O’Boyle & Gill, 1998)? The responses of the education profession, especially in the UK, have been mixed. On the one hand, there are those ageing education academics who, after a lifetime of not understanding and disparaging all science, see no need to change their ways now. On the other hand, there are the ‘brain-based’ enthusiasts who hope that the current fads of left-right thinking, brain gym, etc., will address the complexities and daily challenges of the mixed-ability classroom (Goswami, 2004). A middle-way would seem to involve neuroscientific education for both groups so that education can shape a professionally informative educational neuroscience research agenda of the future. This paper discusses five arguments (Geake, 1998) in favour of the development of an educational neuroscience.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherBERAen
dc.relation.ispartofseriesResearch Intelligenceen
dc.relation.ispartofseries92en
dc.relation.urlhttp://www.tlrp.org/dspace/handle/123456789/498en
dc.relation.urlhttp://www.bera.ac.uk/pdfs/92-P10-13.pdfen
dc.subjectliteracy and numeracyen
dc.subjectneuroscience and educationen
dc.subjectneuroscienceen
dc.subjectinclusionen
dc.subjectspecial educational needsen
dc.titleEducational neuroscience and neuroscientific education: in search of a mutual middle-wayen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.identifier.journalResearch Intelligenceen
All Items in ARRT are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.