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

Authors

Paul A. Howard-Jones, Graduate School of Education, University of Bristol.
Sashank Varma, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Minnesota.
Daniel Ansari, Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario.Follow
Brian Butterworth, Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London.
Bert De Smedt, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Leuven.
Usha Goswami, Centre for Neuroscience in Education, Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge.
Diana Laurillard, Centre for Educational Neuroscience, University College London.
Michael S. Thomas, Centre for Educational Neuroscience, Birkbeck, University of London.

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

10-1-2016

Journal

Psychological review

Volume

123

Issue

5

First Page

620

Last Page

7

URL with Digital Object Identifier

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. (PsycINFO Database Record