Neuroscience has become the new scientific sensation of our time, especially when it comes to its possible intersections with education. Many educational programs have been adhering to the so called “brain-based” or “brain-friendly” methods of teaching. And it is clear that marketing strategies are leaning on the huge appeal that neuro-anything has on consumers (or for the purposes of this article, on teachers, students, school boards, etc.). Studies even suggest that the mere use of brain imaging seems to have stronger persuasive power than other methods of presenting an idea (graphs, for example)¹.

But, is neuroscience REALLY innovating the teaching practice?

As for any other education theoretical approach, it is crucial that educators reflect on its real practicability in the teaching-learning process. I don't want to be cynical and pretend that advances in neuroscience have not been huge and, in some cases, extremely important.

As a matter of fact, neuroscience studies have advanced rapidly and positively lately. Many mental health issues are being better addressed because of such advances. And I do believe this is just the very beginning of this scientific discipline, which will likely progress much further and be of much help in many contexts in the future.

However, many neuroscientists themselves have warned the teaching community that their work is far from being of practical usage in the classroom². It follows that, one must still be careful when considering a neuroscience-based teaching methodology or a "brain-friendly miraculous learning strategy for only $9999 !!!" and here are 3 reasons why:

1. Neuroscience Studies Haven't Come Up With Any New Educational Method that Educators Don't Already Know About

Nowadays we see and hear so many people talk about neuroscience latest discoveries about how the brain works and, more specifically, how it learns more effectively. It sounds very exciting when a neuroscience enthusiast claims to have found a new way to teach that makes children learn more or faster, based on the brain function.

But the problem is that, up to now, the latest discoveries in neuroscience concerning how the brain works, and more specifically, how it learns more effectively (the ones that are not neuromyths) are not new to pedagogues. As a matter of fact, educators have been discussing the same teaching strategies proposed by neuroscientists for centuries.

As early as 490 BC, the Greek philosopher, Socrates, used analogies and connections to prior experiences to help his interlocutors (or students) to comprehend and assimilate new concepts. Recently, neuroscience studies have shown that the brain better consolidates new knowledge by connecting it to prior-knowledge or, in other words, that it learns by establishing connections between what we already know and new information. Isn't this what Socrates was doing when he would make analogies between new concepts and things his interlocutors already knew to facilitate their understanding?

 The same can be said about recent neuroscience studies that show active learning practices (comparing, discussing, explaining, analyzing, solving problems) as much more effective than only passively receiving information (reading, listening to the teacher). Pedagogues have advocated for active learning practices for centuries. From Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in the XVIII century, proposing learning through exploration, to John Dewey, in the XX century, proposing learning through problem-solving. Active learning has been a strategy suggested by many educators throughout history.

As a matter of fact, to an educated pedagogue, the neuroscience findings in educational processes do not seem much different from the Montessori educational approach. In the XVII century, the educator Maria Montessori had already stated the importance of working with the student's initiative, intrinsic motivation, and own interests. All of which are practices recently suggested by the neuroscience community.

2. Neuroscience Research Doesn't Fully Grasp the Reality of a Classroom

Neuroscientists conduct extremely important research and have had many helpful results for various issues, we cannot deny that. However, due to its complexity, neuroscience research is done in highly controlled contexts that are far from the reality of a classroom.

Trying a specific teaching method in a controlled environment, with one student at a time, does not resemble the reality of the majority of teachers and educational programs worldwide. Even more so when the test is about only one aspect of the learning process. By that I mean testing if students learn one mathematical concept under a certain condition or if they focus more on one explanation under other conditions, for example. These tests are interesting in themselves and for sure shed light on unknown aspects of the human brain. But they don't consider the multiple elements that are at play in a real classroom.

The teaching-learning process in a classroom involves emotional, intellectual, social, and individual elements. It depends on the specificity of each student and on the divergence between the students and between the students and the teacher. It is about learning something on different levels: understanding it, doing it, analyzing it, comparing it to something else, modifying it, solving it, playing with it, etc.

Even the idea of "learning" is usually not clearly explained in neuroscience research when examining the learning process. When a study suggests that students learn better or faster under x conditions, what does it even mean by "learning"?

Is "learning" when the student can repeat what the teacher said? When they can answer a question about it? When they can analyze it? When they can solve a problem using it? Educators have reflected on this issue for centuries, it is not an absolute truth, and yet research is conducted to test "learning" as a known and fixed result.

The reality of teaching, in formal and informal settings, is much more diverse, complex, and subjective than a test in a lab can recreate and examine. The discipline of neuroscience still has much to work on and to evolve before it can truly test the learning process in a context that resembles that of the reality of most students and teachers.

3. Most Neuroscience Research Findings Are Not of Practical Use for Teaching

Despite its innovative research and cutting-edge findings, neuroscience doesn't provide much practical knowledge to teachers. Again, this does not mean that neuroscience is useless to all disciplines. Neuroscience has definitely made great discoveries that will help different fields of work and science, however education is not one of these fields just yet.

Most findings in neuroscience concern brain activity and function. It is crucial to know how the brain functions in order to advance medicine, psychology, and human development studies; however, when it comes to the classroom, teachers are not interacting with brain activity alone, but with whole human beings, which demand more than just activation of specific brain functions.

How does knowing what part of the brain is activated when learning an algorithm possibly help a math teacher to plan his/her next lesson? It doesn't. At least not in the present moment. It is an interesting finding that opens many doors in science, but it does not present any practical use for teachers just yet.

Instead, it is the discipline of pedagogy that considers the teaching practice in its intricacies and complexities. Teaching goes far beyond the brain function alone. Learning is connected to inter- and intra-personal relations, emotions, subjectivity, curiosity, motivation, physical and social contexts, prior-knowledge, and other elements that can possibly interfere in teaching and learning processes.

So, Is Neuroscience Completely Useless to Education?

Absolutely not!

After reading the arguments made in this article, you might ask yourself if neuroscience does have any relevance to education after all. And although it hasn't contributed much practical use for teaching yet, it does present educators with valuable tools.

As mentioned before, neuroscience did not come up with any new educational method or approach, however it does offer scientific justification and empirical evidence of the advantages and outcomes of different teaching methods. Pedagogy and neuroscience can cooperate richly in the sense that neuroscience can give empirical evidence to pedagogical theories.

As the neuroscientists Anna C. Márquez and Marta P. Tresserra brilliantly state in their book '10 key ideas of neuroscience and education: contributions to the classroom': "educational neuroscience doesn't come up with anything new, it only provides a scientific foundation based on the neural mechanisms that intervene in the learning and memory processes, which justifies why some teaching methodologies are more effective than others." (own translation, p. 24)⁴. 

If you want to learn more about how neuroscience can TRULY be a tool for education, with real scientific basis from knowledgeable neuroscientists and educators, I highly recommend:

 '10 Ideas Clave Neurociencia y Educación: Aportaciones para el Aula'  by Anna C. Márquez and Marta P. Tresserra (for Spanish readers).

'Educational Neuroscience: The Basics' by Cathy Rogers and Michael S. C. Thomas

REFERENCES

1- McCabe, M.P.; CASTEL, A.D. (2008): "Seeing is believing: the effect of brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning". Cognition, vol. 107(1), p. 343-352.  &  WEISBERG, D.S. et. al. (2008): "The seductive allure of Neuroscience explanations". Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, vol. 20(3), p. 470-477.

2- Goswami, U. (2006): "Neuroscience and education: from research to practice?". Natural Review Neuroscience, vol. 7, p. 406–413. 

3- Westerhoff, N. (2010): "La neurodidáctica a examen". Mente y cerebro, vol. 44, p. 34-40.

4- Márquez, A. C.; Tresserra, M. P. (2018): "10 ideas clave neurociencia y educación: Aportaciones para el aula". Editorial GRAÓ, 1st edition.