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/debate

29 Citations (Scopus)

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

Fingerprint

Neurosciences
Psychology
Teaching
Education
Research

Keywords

  • Education
  • Educational neuroscience
  • Instruction
  • Neuroscience

Cite this

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

The principles and practices of educational neuroscience : Comment on Bowers (2016). / Howard-Jones, Paul A.; Varma, Sashank; Ansari, Daniel; Butterworth, Brian; De Smedt, Bert; Goswami, Usha; Laurillard, Diana; Thomas, Michael S.C.

In: Psychological Review, Vol. 123, No. 5, 01.10.2016, p. 620-627.

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

Howard-Jones, PA, Varma, S, Ansari, D, Butterworth, B, De Smedt, B, Goswami, U, Laurillard, D & Thomas, MSC 2016, 'The principles and practices of educational neuroscience: Comment on Bowers (2016)', Psychological Review, vol. 123, no. 5, pp. 620-627. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000036
Howard-Jones PA, Varma S, Ansari D, Butterworth B, De Smedt B, Goswami U et al. The principles and practices of educational neuroscience: Comment on Bowers (2016). Psychological Review. 2016 Oct 1;123(5):620-627. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000036
Howard-Jones, Paul A. ; Varma, Sashank ; Ansari, Daniel ; Butterworth, Brian ; De Smedt, Bert ; Goswami, Usha ; Laurillard, Diana ; Thomas, Michael S.C. / The principles and practices of educational neuroscience : Comment on Bowers (2016). In: Psychological Review. 2016 ; Vol. 123, No. 5. pp. 620-627.
@article{e2d6b01cb1a14f42bdb2c92b4ea9f001,
title = "The principles and practices of educational neuroscience: Comment on Bowers (2016)",
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.",
keywords = "Education, Educational neuroscience, Instruction, Neuroscience",
author = "Howard-Jones, {Paul A.} and Sashank Varma and Daniel Ansari and Brian Butterworth and {De Smedt}, Bert and Usha Goswami and Diana Laurillard and Thomas, {Michael S.C.}",
year = "2016",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1037/rev0000036",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "123",
pages = "620--627",
journal = "Psychological Review",
issn = "0033-295X",
publisher = "American Psychological Association",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The principles and practices of educational neuroscience

T2 - Comment on Bowers (2016)

AU - Howard-Jones, Paul A.

AU - Varma, Sashank

AU - Ansari, Daniel

AU - Butterworth, Brian

AU - De Smedt, Bert

AU - Goswami, Usha

AU - Laurillard, Diana

AU - Thomas, Michael S.C.

PY - 2016/10/1

Y1 - 2016/10/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Education

KW - Educational neuroscience

KW - Instruction

KW - Neuroscience

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84988566317&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84988566317&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1037/rev0000036

DO - 10.1037/rev0000036

M3 - Comment/debate

VL - 123

SP - 620

EP - 627

JO - Psychological Review

JF - Psychological Review

SN - 0033-295X

IS - 5

ER -