Neurophilia: Guiding Educational Research and the Educational Field?

Abstract

For a decade or so there has been a new ‘hype’ in educational research: it is called educational neuroscience or even neuroeducation (and neuroethics)—there are numerous publications, special journals, and an abundance of research projects together with the advertisement of many positions at renowned research centres worldwide. After a brief introduction of what is going on in the ‘emerging sub‐discipline’, a number of characterisations are offered of what is envisaged by authors working in this field. In the discussion that follows various problems are listed: the assumption that ‘visual proof’ of brain activity is supposedly given; the correlational nature of this kind of research; the nature of the concepts that are used; the lack of addressing and possibly influencing the neurological mechanism; and finally the need for other insights in educational contexts. Following Bakhurst and others, a number of crucially relevant philosophical issues are highlighted. It is argued that though there are cases where neuroscience insights may be helpful, these are scarce. In general, it is concluded, not a lot may be expected from this discipline for education and educational research. A reminder is offered that the promise of neurophilia may be just another neuromyth, which needs to be addressed by philosophy and education.

Simple Answers and Quick Fixes: Dyslexia and the Brain on the Internet

“…Researchers have identified many limitations of this body of research. For one, most imaging studies employ correlational methods, so claims of causality are not appropriate (Pasquinelli, 2012; Smeyers, 2016). The question that correlational research cannot address is which came first—differences in the brain structure or challenges in reading.…”

“…In addition to concerns about methodology and validity, the way neuroscience research is presented can be misleading. Some articles illustrate findings and ideas with images highlighting areas of the brain that purportedly “light up” in response to stimuli or intervention, and these are often misconstrued by nonexperts as showing “‘visual proof’ of brain activity” (Smeyers, 2016, p. 67). Hruby and Goswami (2011) clarify that the “colorful images are, in fact, statistical charts, indicating the difference between an experimental and a comparison condition averaged over a group of participants and trials” (p. 158).…”

“…Hruby and Goswami (2011) clarify that the “colorful images are, in fact, statistical charts, indicating the difference between an experimental and a comparison condition averaged over a group of participants and trials” (p. 158). Every human brain is distinctive, so it is not valid to apply these averaged findings to individuals (Smeyers, 2016).…”

“…For example, neuroscience may explore phonological processing at the word level but rarely considers classroom practices that support literacy development. Although Smeyers (2016) notes that many neuroscience researchers are cautious about making claims for neuroscience to inform educational practice, others overstate the potential implications. According to Joldersma (2018), fMRI and other imaging techniques are useful for studying the brain, but “they have often led to overhasty conclusions and applications, temptations that philosophers caution ought to be resisted” (p. 1265).…”

Current Trends, Dilemmas and Future Directions in Neuropedagogy in the Field of Early Childhood

“…For example Nouri (2016) uses the term of neuroeducational studies which is "defined as a growing interdisciplinary field based on synergetic connection between neuroscience, cognitive science, psychology, and education in an effort to improve our theoretical and practical understanding of learning and education" (p.59). Other theorists call this field of studies as, for example, educational neuroscience, neuroeducation (Smeyers, 2016), Mind and Brain and Education TRAINING AND PRACTICE  2018. VOLUME 16.…”