Purdy neuroscience-ies08

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [University College Cork]On: 1 October 2008Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 785045793]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Irish Educational StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t716100713

Neuroscience and education: how best to filter out the neurononsense from ourclassrooms?Noel Purdy a

a Stranmillis University College, Belfast

Online Publication Date: 01 September 2008

To cite this Article Purdy, Noel(2008)'Neuroscience and education: how best to filter out the neurononsense from ourclassrooms?',Irish Educational Studies,27:3,197 — 208To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/03323310802242120URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03323310802242120

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t716100713

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03323310802242120

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

Neuroscience and education: how best to filter out the neurononsense fromour classrooms?

Noel Purdy*

Stranmillis University College, Belfast

This article considers the extent to which neuroscience is being applied to education,both on a classroom level and also on the level of curricular reform in Northern Ireland.The article reviews recent research in the area of neuroscience and education andexamines a number of popular ‘neuromyths’. It urges the educational world to take amore informed, cautious and critical approach to neuroscience in education, not leastin terms of the Northern Ireland Revised Curriculum, and also makes a plea to theneuroscientific community to police in a more rigorous way the application andmisapplication of research findings in schools.

Keywords: neuroscience; education; curriculum

Introduction: exploring common ‘neuromyths’

Recent years have seen an astonishing rise in the popularity of educational packages andprogrammes which claim to be based on the latest brain research. Where once neuroscienceand education seemed poles apart, it would appear that the gap is now being bridged.However, while some are incredibly enthusiastic about the educational benefits to begained from neuroscience (Greenleaf 1999; Clark 2001), others have expressed reservationsand urged caution. Importantly, many of these criticisms have come from withinneuroscience itself, where several recent and authoritative publications have voicedconcern that neuroscience itself is being discredited by some of the classroom packages.Goswami (2006), Director of the Centre for Neuroscience in Education at the University ofCambridge, correctly diagnoses the core issue: despite continued uncertainty inneuroscience, school teachers are being bombarded with ‘brain-based learning’ packageswhich contain a number of significant ‘neuromyths’, a term first employed in theOrganization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) report on brainlearning (OECD 2002).

The OECD report refers to three examples, which will be considered briefly in turn:first, the over-literal interpretation of hemispheric specialisation, where brain attributes areassumed to come from either one hemisphere or the other, and which has led to teachersbeing encouraged to identify pupils as either ‘left-brained’ or ‘right-brained’ learners.Those children who are artistic are seen as ‘right brained’ while those who are logical ormathematical are seen as ‘left brained’. This over-interpretation of laterality has beenwidely criticised (see Bruer 1997; OECD 2002; Goswami 2004; Hall 2005). The OECDreport notes that one part of the brain rarely works in isolation, and that, with fewexceptions, cognitive tasks require both hemispheres to work in parallel (OECD 2002,

*Email: [email protected]

Irish Educational StudiesVol. 27, No. 3, September 2008, 197!208

ISSN 0332-3315 print/ISSN 1747-4965 online

# 2008 Educational Studies Association of Ireland

DOI: 10.1080/03323310802242120

http://www.informaworld.com

Downloaded By: [University College Cork] At: 14:32 1 October 2008

http://www.informaworld.com

§4.6.2). Hall (2005, 3) adds that this notion of ‘laterality’ is based on a ‘gross over-simplification which is not supported by the brain research literature’ and notes that it wasbased largely on examination of ‘split brain’ patients rather than subjects with normal,healthy brains. Despite this criticism, references to hemispheric specialisation abound. Inone recent publication (Spooner 2006) which aims to support trainee teachers, newlyqualified teachers (NQTs) and teaching assistants in their work with children with specialeducational needs (SEN), it is claimed that the two sides of the brain have ‘differentprocessing styles’ and that ‘in spite of some shifts in recent years, many classrooms andteaching styles still largely favour the left-brain processors’ (61).

Second, the OECD report considers the ‘neuromyth’ that certain ‘critical periods’ existduring which the brain requires a specific type of environmental stimulation in order todevelop normally. This suggests that if the biological ‘window’ is not exploited, then theopportunity to learn is missed for ever. The report argues that it is more accurate to speakof ‘sensitive’ rather than ‘critical periods’. Goswami (2004, 11) adds that ‘there seem to bealmost no cognitive capacities that can be ‘‘lost’’ at an early age’ and that learning isstill possible even after a period of environmental deprivation. Blakemore and Frith (2005,31!2) note that much of the clear evidence has been gathered in relation to sensorydevelopment (for instance, visual or auditory development in babies). It is simply notknown whether such sensitive periods exist in terms of the development in formaleducational settings of skills such as reading, writing and numeracy. This remains an areawhere education must be wary of the groundless over-generalisation of research evidencefrom one aspect of cognitive development (sensory) to all other forms. The OECD reportconcludes that ‘although education at an early age is highly important, it does not meanthat a large part of a person’s education must be concentrated into the childhood years’(OECD 2002, §4.6.3).

Third, the OECD report dispels the myth that the development of neural connectionsor synapses (synaptogenesis) requires an enriched environment, the implication being thatchildren require enriched classroom environments in order to facilitate normal neuraldevelopment. The scientific basis for this neuromyth is discredited on the grounds of lackof evidence (OECD 2002, §4.6.3). Blakemore and Frith (2005, 32) report that the originalresearch carried out by Greenough discovered that rats raised in an enriched environment(with wheels, ladders and other rats to play with) had up to 25% more synapses per neuronin sensory areas of the brain than rats who had been deprived of such stimulation. Ratsraised in enriched environments were also better at learning tasks and negotiated mazesmore effectively. Blakemore and Frith (2005, 32) make the point, however, that the so-called enriched environment was actually much more like the normal environment in whichrats live in the wild. Consequently they suggest that it is more accurate to say that a‘normal environment leads to more synaptic connections than a deprived environment’(33). In relation to the education of children in schools, caution is once more urged: whilethe evidence might suggest that there is a sensory threshold below which a child’s brainmight not develop normally, there is no necessity artificially to enrich a normalenvironment as there is no evidence to suggest that there is any benefit. Indeed over-enrichment or hot-housing young children may actually be harmful, but as Blakemore andFrith (2005) make clear, once again there is no clear evidence to confirm the hypothesis.

Aside from these three myths which the OECD report highlights, Goswami (2006)notes two further neuromyths that have become popular across the United Kingdom inrecent years. The first of these myths relates to learning styles, the use of which isadvocated by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA 2004a) and more locally

198 N. Purdy


by Education and Library Boards (ELBs) in Northern Ireland (see, for instance,Thompson and Maguire 2001). One of the most common models is the VAK classificationwhere learners are tested to discover whether they are visual, auditory or kinaestheticlearners. Thompson and Maguire (2001) outline the different learning styles and suggeststrategies to promote greater learning: visual learners, it is claimed, learn better throughseeing pictures, diagrams, moving images and colour, and are encouraged to use pictures,mind maps or different colour pens to help the brain remember better; auditory learnerslearn by storing sounds in their brains and are encouraged to listen to music whilelearning, repeat their work out loud in funny voices and make up raps about their work;kinaesthetic learners learn by movement or touch and should do things practically, walkaround while reading, do brain gym exercises (see below) or squeeze a sponge or stress-release ball while working. As Goswami (2006) reports, children often wear badges labelledV, A, or K to show their learning style for the benefit of their teachers, who are in turnencouraged to differentiate their lesson planning to accommodate these three styles. Thesource of this VAK model is difficult to trace despite its widespread application, but hasbeen linked to Dryden and Vos (2001) and Dunn and Dunn (1992, 1993). Coffield et al.(2004), in their comprehensive study of 13 leading models of learning style (including theDunn and Dunn model, about which they express serious reservations), maintain thatthere is a need for ‘independent, critical, longitudinal and large-scale studies withexperimental and control groups to test the claims for pedagogy made by the testdevelopers’ (61) and agree with Curry’s summation (Curry 1990, 54) of the current positionof research into learning styles where ‘researchers and users alike will continue groping likethe five men in the fable about the elephant, each with a part of the whole but none withfull understanding’ (61). The appeal of the VAK model is clearly its simplicity and its use iswidespread, but there is a need for further research, taking into account the ‘HawthorneEffect’, and how long the purported gains last. Recent publications, however, do not takethis uncertainty into account. Spooner (2006) notes that ‘the teacher needs to present thelesson in a way that enables sensory preferences to be used by the learners’ (61), whileThompson and Maguire (2001, 15) advise pupils to ‘think about your preferred learningstyles and develop the method of learning which suits you best’.

The final myth recorded by Goswami (2006) is that of the ‘Brain Gym’ programme(Dennison and Dennison 1988), which advocates exercises to encourage whole-brainlearning. The programme is based on the premise of brain laterality (see above) andpromotes exercises to develop the ability to cross the brain’s ‘midline’, from right to left orfrom left to right, ‘an ability fundamental to academic success’ (Dennison and Dennison1988, 1). For instance, one of the sections of the programme encourages pupils to massage‘brain buttons’ to the left and right of the sternum with one hand while holding the navelwith the other (Dennison and Dennison 1988, 25). Such a movement, it is claimed,improves reading, coordination, the correction of letter and number reversals (central todyslexia), consonant blending and the ability to keep one’s pace while reading. In a reviewcommissioned by the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA)to examine research relevant to the Early Years Enriched Curriculum Project in NorthernIreland, Sproule et al. (2001, vii) note that ‘there is no reputable, peer-reviewedneuroscience research which has application to the theory or practice of education (exceptin confirmation of some general inferences which were already available from othersources)’ and warn against the over-interpretation of research findings, particularly, in thiscase, in relation to early years education. Sproule et al. (2001) cite Camissa’s research intothe ‘Brain Gym’ programme (Camissa 1994) which found an improvement in motor skills

Irish Educational Studies 199


following the programme but no significant change in academic performance. However,Sproule et al. (2001) fail to condemn the programme outright and indeed consider that the‘Brain Gym’ programme, though supported by ‘tenuous’ research evidence, ‘is unlikely tocause harm’ (49). They further note that many teachers appreciate the value of theprogramme ‘in promoting co-ordination and muscle control, the training of attention skillsand the use of language (particularly in the naming of body parts and in the use ofprepositions such as across)’ (49). Nonetheless, ‘Brain Gym’ represents one of the mostobvious instances of ‘neurononsense’ and, in contrast to the reaction of Sproule et al.(2001), there is a clear need for the educational and neuroscientific community to speak outagainst such programmes, given that they make unjustified claims to enhance not onlymotor skills but also a wide range of other cognitive skills, such as literacy and numeracy.As Goswami states:

In my view we should not remain quiet when claims that we know to be spurious are made,such as that children can organise themselves for reading and writing by pressing their ‘brainbuttons’. (Goswami 2006, 7)

Goswami notes the urgency of the need to dispel such myths, but interestingly, in reportinga recent conference for teachers and neuroscientists held in Cambridge, recounts thefrustration of the teachers in attendance at being told that there was no scientific basis forthe brain-based programmes in use in their schools. Moreover, Goswami acknowledges thefailure of neuroscience to communicate effectively to teachers, most of whom, it is claimed,‘prefer broad brush messages with a ‘‘big picture’’, and being told ‘‘what works’’’ (6).Unfortunately, although there have been words of caution voiced by the neuroscientificcommunity, numerous ‘scientifically spurious applications’ (7) remain unchecked in manyschools.

Criticism of the role of neuroscience in education is not new. Bruer, deemed ‘the mostoutspoken critic of a premature application of brain research to education’ (Blakemore andFrith 2005, 9) famously argued (Bruer 1997, 5) that the ‘neuroscience and educationargument may be rhetorically appealing, but scientifically, it’s a bridge too far’. Bruermakes the case for cognitive psychology as a potential intermediate level of analysis,necessary to link brain science to education, but urges caution in attempting to make directlinks between classroom learning and neuroscience:

Neuroscience has discovered a great deal about neurons and synapses, but not nearly enough toguide educational practice. Currently, the span between brain and learning cannot supportmuch of a load. Too many people marching in step across it could be dangerous. (Bruer1997, 15)

More recently Geake and Cooper (2003) argue for a more considered ‘middle path, butwith cautious optimism that the relationship between cognitive neuroscience and educationwill be for the long term’ (7). They ask educationalists to give neuroscience a ‘fair hearing’(8) and argue that the embrace of neuroscience by educationists is a necessary means tostem the ‘increasing marginalisation of teachers as pedagogues’ (11) from politicians andboard room directors with their predominantly instrumental objectives. They hope thatwith knowledge of neuroscience, teachers will be better equipped to play a greater role inthe future of educational policy-making. The danger in not doing so, they argue, is thatteachers’ autonomy will be further eroded and that they will be marginalised in their ownworkplace. Geake and Cooper (2003) conclude that ‘there are implications andapplications for education in cognitive neuroscience’ (17) and they look forward to the

200 N. Purdy


day when there might be enough known about brain activity to monitor learning andevaluate the effectiveness of instruction.

Geake and Cooper (2003) present two future vignettes based on a parent!teacherevening at a primary school where a parent is discussing the poor mathematics resultsachieved by her son, Chris. In the first scenario the teacher has available a neuro-imagingreport compiled as Chris undertook his assessment tasks wearing a neuro-imaging headset.The results were later statistically analysed by computer and the parent!teacher reportgenerated. On the basis of this computer-generated report, the class teacher identifiesChris’s relatively weak short-term memory and recommends a remedial course tostrengthen the relevant circuit. The parent is pleased at the decisive action taken by theteacher and is impressed by her ‘professionality’. In the second vignette the teacher admitsto a frustrated parent that she doesn’t know what is causing Chris’s problem, butrecommends that the parent goes to see an external agency (Cognitive Services Inc.)specialising in cognitive processing. The teacher’s words succinctly express her lack ofconfidence in herself and in her profession: ‘How would I know what to do? After all, I’monly a teacher. I don’t know what is causing the problem’ (18).

Geake (2005, 12) is quick to point out that there have been mistakes made in the past as‘intellectually unscrupulous characters’ have expounded over-simplistic theories, such aslearning styles, left- and right-brain thinking or ‘Brain Gym’ exercises (see above). Geakeinsists that ‘university educationists need to provide a rigorous critical filter lest moreneuro-nonsense infects the nation’s schools’ (12). It is now time, Geake argues, thateducation not only takes account of the developments in neuroscience but also begins tomake a contribution to the future agenda of neuroscientific research. Geake concludes that‘a cognitive neuroscience-education nexus should be a two-way street’ (12).

As Geake and Cooper (2003) suggest, there has recently been a high level of interest inbrain functioning (Changeux 1985; Rose 1992; Greenfield 1997; Pinker 1998; Carter 2000;Damasio 2000, 2004). In particular, interest has focused on the role of emotionalintelligence, spurred on by Goleman’s (1995) Emotional Intelligence. There has also beenincreasing interest in the application of such neuroscientific findings to the social sciencesand, in particular, to education, most commonly on the micro scale of methodologicalrecommendations for the individual classroom. On a broader scale, the Qualifications andCurriculum Authority (QCA 2004b, 7) has noted that ‘Developments in neuroscience, forexample, provide new insights into the way the brain works. We now know that intelligenceis multi-dimensional, that an individual’s capacity for learning is linked to their emotionalwell-being and that people learn in a variety of ways.’ Perhaps more alarmingly, inNorthern Ireland, the education system is approaching an unprecedented curricular reform(which was being phased in from September 2007) whose rationale is essentially based oncognitive neuroscience.

Neuroscience and the Northern Ireland educational context

In its 2003 rationale for the new Northern Ireland curriculum at Key Stage 3, CCEA(2003a) claims that neuroscience has ‘established’ factors about how we learn and notesthat these factors have been taken into account in the designing of the new curriculum.CCEA suggests that these findings from neuroscience correspond with the findings of thepreceding Northern Ireland Cohort Study (Harland et al. 2002), a study of almost 3000pupils in 51 schools, which had highlighted the need for the curriculum to be morerelevant, connected and skills-based. Significantly, however, following criticism of this



over-emphasis on neuroscience, more recent statements by CCEA have reduced and, mostrecently, removed altogether the mention of research into the brain as in any way shapingthe design of the new curriculum.

The ‘revised’ Northern Ireland curriculum (CCEA 2003a) comprises nine LearningAreas (30): Learning for Life and Work (to include Education for Employability, Localand Global Citizenship, and Personal Development, including PSHE and HomeEconomics), and eight further General Learning Areas (the Arts; English and Irish;Environment and Society; Modern Languages; Mathematics; Science and Technology;Physical Education; Religious Education). It is further proposed that the following ‘skillsand capabilities’ should infuse every Learning Area: Personal and Interpersonal Skills,Critical and Creative Thinking Skills, Communication, Application of Number, andInformation and Communication Technology (32). The statutory curriculum itself isoutlined as a minimum set of statements of entitlement, rather than as detailedProgrammes of Study. It is expected that this will give schools considerably more freedomthan at present to design a curriculum to suit the needs of their particular pupils, and,indeed, schools will be encouraged to interpret and organise the entitlement framework indifferent ways: options include organising the curriculum within Learning Areas,combining subject strands from different Learning Areas, organising the curriculumthematically or continuing to teach in discrete subject strands as before (33).

In a brief section of the rationale entitled The Learning Challenge, CCEA (2003b, 22)notes that ‘recently neuroscience has established a number of factors which are critical tolearning and to motivation, about how our brains process information’. The followingparagraph sketches out the explicitly neuroscientific rationale for this major curricularreform, although CCEA provides no references to the source literature:

We now know that the human brain creates meaning through perceiving patterns and makingconnections and that thought is filtered through the emotional part of the brain first. Thelikelihood of understanding taking place is therefore increased significantly if the experiencehas some kind of emotional meaning, since the emotional engagement of the brain on somelevel is critical to its seeing patterns and making connections. Learning is particularly effectivewhen we have opportunities to apply what is being learned and when we can transfer learningfrom one situation to another. Neuroscience, therefore, highlights the need for learning to beemotionally engaging to the learner, particularly during the 11!14 age range when so much elseis going on with adolescents to distract them from school. (CCEA 2003a, 22)

CCEA also chooses to use neuroscience as the justification for placing collaborativeproject work in which learning is contextualised, relevant and emotionally engaging at thecentre of the curriculum:

Recent brain research indicates that the brain searches for patterns and interconnections as itsway of making meaning. Researchers theorise that the human brain is constantly searching formeaning and seeking patterns and connections. Authentic learning situations increase thebrain’s ability to make connections and retain new information. When we set the curriculum inthe context of human experience, it begins to assume a new relevance. (CCEA 2003b, 3)

CCEA argues that learning must be ‘connected’, and that learning must be approached ‘ina more connected way’ (CCEA 2003a, 22). CCEA takes ‘connectedness’ to mean that thetraditional emphasis on teaching discrete subjects is being ‘questioned’ by recentneuroscience. CCEA instead stresses the value of interdisciplinary skills and greatercollaboration between pupils and among subjects as a preparation for the world of work:

202 N. Purdy


Our current emphasis on learning within separate subject disciplines dates back at least acentury and is based on the notion that each subject is a distinct form of knowledge withseparate characteristics, concepts and procedures which encourage efficient learning. Over thelast decade, we have begun to learn more about how the brain processes information and themulti-faceted nature of work in the modern world. We are beginning to question the wisdom ofcompartmentalising learning while expecting young people to cope with multi-dimensionalproblems. There is growing recognition that separate subject teaching may prevent pupils fromseeing the relationships between subjects. (CCEA 2003b, 2!3)

CCEA has already faced trenchant criticism of its overuse of neuroscience to justify thecurriculum innovations. Morrison (2006) refers to Strauss (2001), who argues that brainresearch has been ‘oversold’. Strauss cites Kurt W. Fischer, director of the Mind, Brainand Education programme at Harvard University’s Graduate School of Education, whohas written, ‘You can’t go from neuroscience to the classroom because we don’t knowenough about neuroscience.’ She also laments that many educators still believe thateducation can be ‘reborn’ through neuroscience and therefore by buying what SamWineburg, Professor at the College of Education at the University of Washington inSeattle, calls ‘snake oil’.

CCEA responded to Morrison’s critique by claiming that it takes the ‘middle ground’in terms of its application of neuroscience (CCEA 2006, 10). CCEA refers directly to areview of the contribution of brain science to teaching and learning, commissioned by theScottish Executive Education Department (Hall 2005), in which a number of neuromythsare dispelled (as in OECD 2002) and in which there is a cautious embrace of some findingsfrom neuroscientific research. CCEA (2006) concludes by playing down the foundationalrole of neuroscience in the formation of the Revised Curriculum, despite evidence to thecontrary cited above in the earlier rationale of 2003:

CCEA emphasises, again, that neuroscience is not, and was not, the sole or prime foundationfor the review of the Northern Ireland curriculum. The review was based on a raft of research,consultation and trialling to which neuroscience makes but one contribution. (CCEA 2006, 11)

Interestingly, however, in CCEA’s most recent rationale for the new curriculum at KeyStage 3 (CCEA 2007a) there is no mention whatsoever of neuroscience, suggesting afurther reduction in emphasis even since their 2006 statement above. It is astoundinghow CCEA’s faith in neuroscience could have been so quickly and comprehensively lostin just four years. Nonetheless, CCEA has not withdrawn its support for a recentlyreprinted, widely distributed publication (Thompson and Maguire 2001) aimed ateducational professionals in Northern Ireland and including sections on ‘Right andLeft Brain’, ‘Learning Styles’ and ‘Brain Gym’. In a foreword to the publication, theChief Executive of CCEA (at the time) notes that ‘it seems foolish to wait until we areabsolutely certain about everything, before we start to convey to young people some ofthe basics about how the brain works and how this impacts on their learning’ (Boyd,cited in Thompson and Maguire 2001, 2). Moreover in the most recent guidance offeredto teachers in advance of the implementation of the Revised Curriculum in September2007, CCEA (2007b, 48) recommends using mind maps in the classroom as they ‘appealto different learning styles such as visual and kinaesthetic and encourage pupils to thinkabout connections in their learning content. They oblige pupils to use both sides of thebrain.’ Is the continued support for such ‘neuromyths’ really characteristic of taking the‘middle ground’?



While CCEA also claim that the new curriculum better reflects the views of employersin Northern Ireland, it would appear that by mentioning neuroscience at all in therationale, CCEA had hoped to endow the reforms with credibility and a certainty, which,as Goswami (2006) reminds us, neuroscientists themselves are simply not prepared toendorse. If leading neuroscientists themselves are quite prepared to acknowledge theuncertainty and limitations of their research, then CCEA should do likewise in anypublications.

Recommendations: a time for caution

In light of the reservations expressed by leading neuroscientists (Bruer 1997; Byrnes andFox 1998; OECD 2002; Goswami 2004, 2006; Blakemore and Frith 2005; Hall 2005), it isclear that there is an urgent need to re-educate the educational community in relation tothe prevalent neuromyths which have been gaining in popularity over recent years. AsGoswami (2006, 2) remarks, anecdotal evidence would certainly suggest that ‘the speedwith which packages and programmes supposedly based on brain science have gainedwidespread currency in schools is ‘‘astonishing’’’. And, as Geake reports (2005), even therecently retitled Department for Children, Families and Schools has succumbed, with theirwebsite seeming to endorse the use of VAK learning styles. As Geake notes with somealarm:

It is not clear who should be more insulted: neuroscientists (for the misinterpretation of theirhard-won results), or teachers (for the implication that they are too dumb to understandscientific complexities). (Geake 2005, 12)

This process of re-educating the educators will necessitate more effective dissemination ofthe most recent neuroscientific research findings to the educational community. Untilnow this has been attempted purely at the level of the academic journal or the textbook,while it has been the more spurious publications which have made it into staffrooms andclassrooms through effective marketing and sales pitches. As a result of the inaccessibilityof much scientific research, most teachers remain unaware that many of the brain-basedlearning packages being advocated are in fact based on generalisation, simplification anddubious research evidence. Goswami (2006) criticises the neuroscientific community fortheir inadequate communication skills and calls for a network of communicators ofneuroscientific research ‘who can bridge the current gulf between neuroscience andeducation by providing high-quality knowledge in digestible form’ (7) and also for thefeeding back of research questions from the classroom to the scientists. Both Goswami(2006) and Geake (2005) report the effectiveness of conferences in Cambridge andOxford to bring teachers and neuroscientists together and they can only be applaudedfor their efforts. However, it is clear that only a small number of teachers can beeducated in this manner and that a more comprehensive strategy is required on anational scale to address the problem before questionable practice becomes even moreentrenched.

The scale of this challenge is, however, immense in terms of the number of teachers whoneed and deserve to be informed, first, of the latest insights to be gained from neuroscience,and, second, of the limitations of the research to date. Part of the difficulty also lies in thefact that the field of neuroscience is developing all the time, making it difficult for the non-specialist to keep up to date with the progress. Nonetheless, Hall (2005) notes that therehas been something of a consensus in recent evaluations of the educational import of

204 N. Purdy


neuroscience. These reviews, while not entirely dismissive of the ‘enthusiasts’, haveexpressed some caution, and have argued against the neuroscientific ‘panacea’:

What has faded slightly is the belief that some grand scheme of ‘brain based education’ can bemade instantly available to transform learning and teaching. In its place is a more cautious andincremental approach which acknowledges that our current state of knowledge is incompleteand may be, in some aspects, inaccurate. (Hall 2005, 19)

The OECD report (2002) highlighted the need for ‘a healthy dose of scepticism’ (71) inrelation to the ‘neuromyths’ it identified, such as hemispheric dominance, synapticdevelopment, and critical periods and enrichment. Too often, it is claimed, ‘educators andpolicy makers are left in a quandary discerning fact from fiction’ (70), as articles both forand against these ‘neuromyths’ appear regularly in journals and the popular press.However, in order to arrive at this position of scepticism, a certain foundation ofknowledge is required at classroom level, and, it would seem, at the level of the Educationand Library Boards/Local Authorities who have been actively promoting some of the mostspurious programmes in many schools. As the OECD report highlights, the situation iscomplicated further by the varying degrees of certainty which exist in relation to differentneuroscientific findings. This only militates against the broad, brush-stroke messageswhich, Goswami (2006) suggests, most teachers would like to receive. There is a need tomake the distinction between:

a) what is well-established (plasticity), b) what is probably so (sensitive periods), c) what isintelligent speculation (the implications of gender) and d) what is a popular misconception oroversimplification (the role of ‘left and right hemispheres’). (OECD 2002)

It now appears that there is a need for educationalists to reclaim some of the ground thathas been eroded from them by cognitive neuroscience researching on their ‘turf’ (Geake2005, 11), and perhaps Geake is right to suggest that there is a valid self-interest argumentfor educationalists to enter into dialogue, however sceptical they might be, lest their inputbe completely overlooked by policy-makers. Moreover, Hall (2005) notes the increasingacknowledgement that ‘any account of how education works which makes any claim to becomplete, coherent and scientific will need to be entirely congruent with what we knowabout how the brain works’ (19). For those who are arch-sceptics, it would appear thatneuroscience is here to stay and that there is a real need to engage in the critical filteringprocess to ensure that teachers are protected from programmes which make hollow claims.There is an onus, therefore, on specialists in the field to publish their work in forms whichare more likely to reach a wide, general audience rather than purely limiting themselves toacademic journals.

Conclusion

This article has highlighted the common misapplication of brain science to education. Ithas attempted to specify and dispel a number of the most common ‘neuromyths’ that arein circulation and has made a number of recommendations so that teachers andultimately children in schools can be protected from the worst instances of ‘neuronon-sense’ before any more time and money are wasted attempting, for instance, to curedyslexia by massaging ‘brain buttons’ on the sternum and navel. This article alsoconsiders that to base an entire curricular reform on a neuroscientific rationale isperhaps a little hasty, given the uncertainty which persists in many areas of neuroscience.



It would appear, given the absence of neuroscience from its latest rationale for the newcurriculum in Northern Ireland (CCEA 2007a), that the CCEA may also have come tothe same realisation.

Three recommendations are made. First, education would be better served byacknowledging the uncertainty which exists in terms of how children learn, anuncertainty which neuroscientists are quite happy to accept. Bruer (1997) though highlycritical of the over-hasty, direct application of neuroscience to education, is, however,hopeful with regard to the potential of cognitive psychology, which, he claims, is a ‘muchbetter bet’ (15) as a guide to educational practice and policy. Bruer notes the ‘possibility’(15) that cognitive psychology in combination with brain imaging and recordingtechnologies could eventually offer insights into learning difficulties and facilitate thedevelopment of more effective classroom intervention strategies. The language used byBruer is consistently tentative, reflecting his scepticism about brain-based educationalpractice, and yet cautiously optimistic, redolent of his faith in the ‘two-bridge route’(from neuroscience to cognitive psychology, and from cognitive psychology to theclassroom). While such guarded optimism is welcome in principle, there seems to be littleconvincing evidence to suggest that the span between brain and learning is any morerobust even a decade later, or any more capable of supporting the ever-increasingnumbers of educators and parents ‘marching in step across it’ (15). To acknowledgeuncertainty should therefore not be seen as a weakness but rather as a welcome displayof honesty and humility.

Second, there is an urgent need for more rigorous scrutiny of learning programmeswhich claim to be ‘brain based’ before implementing them in the classroom. At presentthere is an urgent need for what Geake (2005, 12) refers to as a ‘critical filter’ provided bythose with enough specific knowledge to identify correctly the ‘neuromyths’ in newpublications destined for the classroom. The feasibility of such a filter is of coursequestionable, given the proliferation of publications and the shortage of available criticsfrom within the neuroscientific community. However, this is undoubtedly an area whichmust be addressed on a national level before further questionable practices are engaged inat the level of the classroom. Currently many teachers who unwittingly follow the plethoraof brain-based learning packages are teaching ‘brain gym’ movements with the aim ofimproving academic attainment, or are labelling children as ‘visual’, ‘auditory’ or‘kinaesthetic’ learners, or are carrying out activities to promote greater balance indevelopment between left- and right-brain hemispheres, when there is no scientificjustification for any of these activities. Children too need to be disabused of themisconceptions which may be passed on to them by their teachers and which encouragea narrow focus on one learning style at the same time as the revised curriculum (influencedby employers’ comments) aims to develop a broader range of skills as preparation for themodern workplace (CCEA 2007a).

Third, there must be a greater and more meaningful dialogue between the educationaland neuroscientific communities. Conferences such as those held recently in Oxford andCambridge are welcomed in this regard but should be held regularly and on a much widergeographical scale. Moreover, their conclusions should be disseminated to all schools in aform which allows the non-specialist, busy classroom practitioner to read and discern whatis fact and what is fiction in brain-based learning packages.

Finally, in calling for greater humility, is it not time to admit how very little we stillknow about the brain and about how children learn?

206 N. Purdy


There is an enormous body of brain research, but with the brain being easily the mostcomplicated thing we know about in the universe we really still understand very little about it.(Bryan D. Fantie, Director of the Human Neuropsychology Laboratory, American University,cited in Strauss 2001)

Notes on contributor

Dr Noel Purdy is a Senior Lecturer in Education (Post-Primary) at Stranmillis University College,Belfast. His research interests include neuroscience and education, modern language education andspecial educational needs.

References

Blakemore, S.-J., and U. Frith. 2005. The learning brain: Lessons for education. Oxford: Blackwell.Bruer, J.T. 1997. Education and the brain: A bridge too far. Educational Researcher 26, no. 8: 4!16.Byrnes, J.P., and N.A. Fox. 1998. The educational relevance of research in cognitive neuroscience.

Educational Psychology Review 10, no. 3: 297!342.Camissa, K.M. 1994. Educational kinesiology with learning disabled children: An efficacy study.

Perceptual and Motor Skills 78, February: 105!6.Carter, R. 2000. Mapping the mind. London: Phoenix.Changeux, J. 1985. Neuronal man: The biology of mind. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Clark, B. 2001. Some principles of brain research for challenging gifted learners. Gifted Education

International 16, no. 1: 4!10.Coffield, F., D. Moseley, E. Hall, and K. Ecclestone. 2004. Should we be using learning styles? What

research has to say to practice. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre (LSRC).Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA). 2003a. Proposals for curriculum

and assessment at Key Stage 3. Part 1: Background rationale and detail. Belfast: CCEA.***. 2003b. Proposals for curriculum and assessment at Key Stage 3. Part 2: Discussion papers and

case studies. Belfast: CCEA.***. 2006. Response to Dr Hugh Morrison’s criticisms of the revised curriculum and assessment

proposals including the pupil profile. http://www.ccea.org.uk.***. 2007a. The Statutory Curriculum at Key Stage 3: Rationale and detail. Belfast: CCEA.***. 2007b. Active learning and teaching methods for Key Stage 3. Belfast: CCEA.Curry, L. 1990. A critique of the research on learning styles. Educational Leadership 48, no. 2: 50!6.Damasio, A. 2000. The feeling of what happens: Body and emotion in the making of consciousness.

London: Vintage.***. 2004. Looking for Spinoza: Joy, sorrow and the feeling brain. London: Vintage.Dennison, P., and G. Dennison. 1988. Brain gym ! teachers’ edition. Ventura: Edu-Kinesthetics Inc.Dryden, G., and J. Vos. 2001. The learning revolution: To change the way the world learns. Stafford:

Network Educational Press in association with Learning Web.Dunn, R., and K. Dunn. 1992. Teaching elementary students through their individual learning styles:

Practical approaches for grades 3!6. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.***. 1993. Teaching secondary students through their individual learning styles: Practical

approaches for grades 7!12. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Geake, J. 2005. Educational neuroscience and neuroscientific education: In search of a mutual

middle-way. Research Intelligence: News from the British Educational Research Association 92:10!3.

Geake, J., and P. Cooper. 2003. Cognitive neuroscience: Implications for education? WestminsterStudies in Education 26, no. 1: 7!20.

Goleman, D. 1995. Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. London: Bloomsbury.Goswami, U. 2004. Neuroscience and education. British Journal of Educational Psychology 74: 1!14.***. 2006. Neuroscience and education: From research to practice. Nature Reviews Neuroscience

7: 406!13.Greenfield, S. 1997. The human brain: A guided tour. London: Weidenfield and Nicholson.Greenleaf, R.K. 1999. It’s never too late! What neuroscience has to offer high schools. National

Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin 83, no. 608: 81!9.



Hall, J. 2005. Neuroscience and education: A review of the contribution of brain science to teaching andlearning. Glasgow: Scottish Council for Research in Education.

Harland, J., H. Moor, K. Kinder, and M. Ashworth. 2002. Is the curriculum working? The Key Stage 3phase of the Northern Ireland Curriculum Cohort Study. Slough: National Foundation forEducational Research (NFER).

Morrison, H. 2006. Brain based learning? Fortnight 440: 9!10.Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2002. Understanding the brain:

Towards a new learning science. Paris: OECD.Pinker, S. 1998. How the mind works. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA). 2004a. Learning and teaching within a flexible

curriculum. http://www.qca.org.uk/14-19/6th-form-schools/index_s3-3-learning-teaching.htm.***. 2004b. Futures: Meeting the challenge. http://www.qca.org.uk/downloads/11493_futures_

meeting_the_challenge.pdf.Rose, S. 1992. The making of memory. London: Bantam Books.Spooner, W. 2006. The SEN handbook for trainee teachers, NQTs and teaching assistants. London:

David Fulton.Sproule, L., R. Murray, V. Spratt, H. Rafferty, K. Trew, N. Sheehy, and C. McGuinness. 2001. A

review of recent research relevant to the early years enriched curriculum project. Belfast: School ofPsychology, Queen’s University.

Strauss, V. 2001. Brain research oversold, experts say. Washington Post, March 13.Thompson, H., and S. Maguire. 2001. Mind your head: Get to know your brain and how to learn.

Antrim: North Eastern Education and Library Board (NEELB).

208 N. Purdy


Purdy neuroscience-ies08

Education

Transcript of Purdy neuroscience-ies08