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

Paul A. Howard-Jones, Sashank Varma, Daniel Ansari, Brian Butterworth, Bert De Smedt, Usha Goswami, Diana Laurillard, Michael S.C. Thomas

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debatepeer-review

47 Scopus citations

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)620-627
Number of pages8
JournalPsychological Review
Volume123
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2016

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2016 American Psychological Association.

Keywords

  • Education
  • Educational neuroscience
  • Instruction
  • Neuroscience

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The principles and practices of educational neuroscience: Comment on Bowers (2016)'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this