Skip to content

The Principles and Practices of Educational Neuroscience: Comment on Bowers (2016)

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

Standard

The Principles and Practices of Educational Neuroscience : Comment on Bowers (2016). / Howard-Jones, Paul; Sashank, Varma; Ansari, Daniel; Butterworth, Brian; De Smedt, Bert; Goswami, Usha; Laurillard, Diana; Thomas, Michael.

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

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

Harvard

Howard-Jones, P, Sashank, V, Ansari, D, Butterworth, B, De Smedt, B, Goswami, U, Laurillard, D & Thomas, M 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

APA

Howard-Jones, P., Sashank, V., Ansari, D., Butterworth, B., De Smedt, B., Goswami, U., ... Thomas, M. (2016). The Principles and Practices of Educational Neuroscience: Comment on Bowers (2016). Psychological Review, 123(5), 620-627. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000036

Vancouver

Howard-Jones P, Sashank V, 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

Author

Howard-Jones, Paul ; Sashank, Varma ; Ansari, Daniel ; Butterworth, Brian ; De Smedt, Bert ; Goswami, Usha ; Laurillard, Diana ; Thomas, Michael. / The Principles and Practices of Educational Neuroscience : Comment on Bowers (2016). In: Psychological Review. 2016 ; Vol. 123, No. 5. pp. 620-627.

Bibtex

@article{4fd56b32fff8400697422ae6d04f4d72,
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 = "educational neuroscience, education, instruction, neuroscience, mind, brain, and education",
author = "Paul Howard-Jones and Varma Sashank and Daniel Ansari and Brian Butterworth and {De Smedt}, Bert and Usha Goswami and Diana Laurillard and Michael Thomas",
year = "2016",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1037/rev0000036",
language = "English",
volume = "123",
pages = "620--627",
journal = "Psychological Review",
issn = "0033-295X",
publisher = "American Psychological Association Inc.",
number = "5",

}

RIS - suitable for import to EndNote

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Principles and Practices of Educational Neuroscience

T2 - Comment on Bowers (2016)

AU - Howard-Jones, Paul

AU - Sashank, Varma

AU - Ansari, Daniel

AU - Butterworth, Brian

AU - De Smedt, Bert

AU - Goswami, Usha

AU - Laurillard, Diana

AU - Thomas, Michael

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 - educational neuroscience

KW - education

KW - instruction

KW - neuroscience

KW - mind, brain, and education

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 -