Neuroscience Education for Prekindergarten–12 Teachers

Abstract

A debate rages concerning the ability of neuroscience to inform prekindergarten–12 teaching practice (Hirsh-Pasek and Bruer, 2007; Varma et al., 2008). Some educators charged with training future teachers argue that the mechanistic issues that concern neuroscientists are too far removed from the classroom context to be able to effectively inform practice (Hirsh-Pasek and Bruer, 2007). At the far end of our field, neuroscientists attempt to apply the techniques of cognitive neuroscience to educationally relevant issues. Understanding the physiological processes mediating dyslexia or attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder has the potential to lead to biomarkers for diagnosis and strategies for successful early interventions (Fischer, 2009; Goswami, 2009). Studies of the cognitive capacities of infants and toddlers are leading to strategies for incorporating innate lexical and mathematical abilities into educational progressions (Meltzoff et al., 2009; Gilmore et al., 2010). Psychologists view neuroscience research as providing the physiological justification for the behavioral interventions they have long studied (Diamond and Amso, 2008). Businessmen view neuroscience as an exploitable body of information that can be used to successfully market educational products and services (e.g., Jensen Learning, Brain Gym). Teachers view neuroscience as a complicated body of knowledge that may explain what goes on in their students’ heads (Brandt, 1999). Teachers feel that they need to understand both. However, the majority of neuroscientists are unaware of all of these issues.