Brain‐Based Learning and Educational Neuroscience: Boundary Work

Abstract

Much attention has been given to “bridging the gap” between neuroscience and educational practice. In order to gain better understanding of the nature of this gap and of possibilities to enable the linking process, we have taken a boundary perspective on these two fields and the brain‐based learning approach, focusing on boundary‐spanning actors, boundary objects, and boundary work. In 26 semistructured interviews, neuroscientists and education professionals were asked about their perceptions in regard to the gap between science and practice and the role they play in creating, managing, and disrupting this boundary. Neuroscientists and education professionals often hold conflicting views and expectations of both brain‐based learning and of each other. This leads us to argue that there are increased prospects for a neuroscientifically informed learning practice if science and practice work together as equal stakeholders in developing and implementing neuroscience research.

Hybridization of Islamic Education and Neuroscience: Transdisciplinary Studies of 'Aql in the Quran and the Brain in Neuroscience

“…Although Tommerdahl has provided a solution by building a bridge between the laboratory and the classroom with five steps, it still leaves a distance. Even Edelenbosch's offer to directly focus on brain-based learning is not a solution (Edelenbosch, at al., 2015).…”

Neuromyths as a Challenge and Opportunity for the Learning and Teaching of Neuroscience

“…A working relationship between neuroscientists and practitioners is needed in this pursuit. Research shows that neuroscientists and educators usually have incompatible expectations about brain-based learning and divergent perspectives of each other (Edelenbosch, Kupper, Krabbendam & Broerse, 2015). Studies and interventions in various fields such as educational neuroscience attempt to build a stronger bridge between the two parties.…”

Neurociencias, educación y entorno sociocultural

“…544-545). Edelenbosch et al (2015) presentan una revisión centrada tanto en la "brecha" entre neurociencia y práctica educativa como en los intentos por construir conexiones entre estos campos (Ansari, Coch y De Smedt, 2011;Hruby, 2012;Koch et al, 2013;Samuels, 2009). Se revisan algunos factores que alejan esta relación: expectativas poco realistas sobre el impacto directo de la neurociencia educativa (Ansari, De Smedt y Grabner, 2011); barreras del idioma y la falta de comunicación entre los investigadores científicos y profesionales de la educación (Pickering y Howard-Jones, 2007); diferencias filosóficas y epistemológicas entre la investigación y la práctica, y la historia de la educación como un campo un tanto impermeable a la influencia científica (Samuels, 2009); la forma en que a los niños se les debe enseñar no debe seguir una visión neurofisiológica porque no tiene en cuenta argumentos morales y políticos (Davis, 2004).…”