Trends in Neuroscience and Education 13 (2018) 17–25

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Trends in Neuroscience and Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tine

Review article

Three pillars of educational neuroscience from three decades of literature T

a,⁎ b
Jacob B. Feiler , Maureen E. Stabio
a
The University of Alabama, College of Education, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0231, United States
b
University of Colorado School of Medicine, Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, 13001 E. 17th Place Aurora, CO 80045

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: An on-going challenge for educational neuroscience is in defining the field, particularly in relation to the broader
Educational neuroscience fields of education, psychology and neuroscience. The field is rapidly growing; the number of papers published
Neuroeducation under search terms “neuroscience and education” has skyrocketed in recent decades with various viewpoints
Mind debated. As interest expands to teachers, policymakers, and the popular media, the answer to “What is educa-
Brain, and education
tional neuroscience?” becomes increasingly important. We approached this question through a systematic re-
view of the literature and thematically analyzed all reported definitions and mission statements with three major
themes emerging: application, interdisciplinary, and translation of language. This review discusses how these
pillars have served as a foundation for the field and must support its future growth.

1. Introduction circles, neuroeducation or Mind, Brain and Education. The develop-

ment of the field has been intensely discussed and debated by multiple
In 1985, the idea of a “neuroeducator” was posed by Jocelyn Fuller scholars [6–9]. Some of the earliest debates suggesting that the field is a
and James Glendening. These authors considered the development of a “bridge too far” originated from misunderstandings of what is educa-
field of science that would be interdisciplinary in nature and that would tional neuroscience, what is its mission, and what is the gap that this
highlight the importance of good teaching by utilizing knowledge of mission fulfills [9] (see Section 4.1). As Howard-Jones and colleagues
brain structure and function. The “neuroeducator” would have a place rebut, educational neuroscience is not just a way to improve, explain or
in schools and a place in the laboratory after thorough training in analyze teaching, but is far broader; it seeks to explain how students
disciplines relating to psychology, neuroscience, and learning sciences learn and how learning changes the brain and then apply these findings
[1]. Since the appearance of this term in 1985, there has been a soaring to into the classroom [9]. Indeed, to define an interdisciplinary field
interest in the role of neuroscience in education [2] paralleled by an that involves many perspectives and areas of expertise is challenging,
explosion of discoveries, innovations, and breakthroughs about the and the answer to “What is educational neuroscience?” or “Who is a
brain from institutes across the world. neuroeducator?” can still be misconstrued. To address this question, we
One of the most widely discussed consequences of what has been performed a systematic and comprehensive literature review and the-
called The Golden Age of Neuroscience [3] is its infiltration and impact matically analyzed all reported definitions and mission statements with
across disciplines, particularly the social sciences. The implications of three major themes emerging. In this paper, we review how these three
human brain research for education, in particular, are far reaching. themes have served and continue to serve as foundation pillars for the
New discoveries of child brain development, including the cognitive field; we discuss the debates and controversies surrounding them, and
networks and contexts underlying learning and motivation have the we propose how they support future growth of the field. We aim to be
potential to revolutionize school systems across the world [4]. Dozens clear that the goal of this review is not to argue for or against the po-
of institutes and programs have been formed in recent years [5], with tential of educational neuroscience, which has been done exceptionally
the goal of promoting crosstalk among educators, psychologists, policy well in previous works [6,7,10–16]; rather, the goal of this work is to
makers, and neuroscientists. Many of these programs offer workshops, characterize the thematic foundations of the field, as represented by the
certificates or graduate degrees dedicated to translating discoveries literature.
about the brain to help students learn (see Appendix A: supplementary
material).
This burgeoning field is called educational neuroscience, or in some

⁎
Corresponding author
E-mail address: [email protected] (J.B. Feiler).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2018.11.001
Received 9 July 2018; Received in revised form 30 October 2018; Accepted 14 November 2018
Available online 15 November 2018
2211-9493/ © 2018 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.
J.B. Feiler, M.E. Stabio Trends in Neuroscience and Education 13 (2018) 17–25

Fig. 1. Flow chart of the systematic approach used to analyze articles for definitions/mission statements.

2. A thematic analysis of educational neuroscience 3. Three emerging themes

Three electronic databases, PubMed, OVID PsychInfo and ERIC, 3.1. The application of neuroscience to classroom learning
were searched in the summer of 2017 using the following search terms:
“Educational Neuroscience”, “Neuroeducation”, “Neuroeducator”, The first major theme characterized in definitions and mission
Mind Brain Education”, and “Mind Brain and Education” (Fig. 1). Hand statements of educational neuroscience is application [18]. The focus of
searches of bibliographies were also conducted. Articles were screened these definitions is the application of discoveries about the brain to the
according to the following inclusion criteria: (1) published in English, classroom or the use of neuroscience to inform innovations in education
(2) published in peer-refereed journals, (3) contained relevant titles and direct novel approaches to teaching. Definitions and mission
that met title filtering criteria (see Fig. 1), and (4) contained an explicit statements within this theme included the key terms: advance, apply,
definition, goal statement, or mission statement of at least one of the enhance, improve, inform, and understand (Fig. 2(a)). A total of 37 of
search terms within the article. Papers categorized as original paper, the 64 articles (58%) used defining words along this theme (Table 1 and
original research article, article, theoretical note, review article, report, supplemental material). According to this theme, educational neu-
opinion article, commentary, perspective, editorial, or overview were roscience is unlike other related fields, such as cognitive neuroscience,
included. Literature sources categorized as book reviews, editor's in- because it extends beyond the basic sciences and into the social and
troductions to special edition journals, and comment forums were not applied sciences [19]. The key is that the impact of educational neu-
included. This resulted in a total of 64 articles with definitions that roscience is not merely in discoveries made but in its potential to
were thematically analyzed (Fig. 1; see Appendix A: supplementary “[improve] educational practices” [20]. In this respect, it has often
material). These articles represent publications from 38 different peer- been called a translational science.
reviewed journals published over the last 30 years (1985–2017) by Commonly discussed applications of neuroscience into the class-
researchers at institutions from 19 countries: Argentina, Australia, room include reading, language, numeracy, attention and memory, as
Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Greece, India, Italy, well as the effect of emotion, stress, and sleep on neuroplasticity. One
Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Switzerland, Turkey, specific (and successful) example of an educational neuroscience dis-
United Kingdom, and the United States. The definitions and/or mission covery with concrete application to the classroom comes from work by
statements from these papers were qualitatively and thematically ana- Rivera and colleagues [21]. This study determined that younger stu-
lyzed as outlined by Elo and Kyngas [17]. Each definition in the lit- dents utilize different brain regions to learn arithmetic compared to
erature fell broadly into one of three major themes: definitions that older students. Specifically, younger students require additional
focus on the application of neuroscience into the classroom to improve working memory and attention areas to attain the same level of ar-
educational practice, definitions that focus on collaboration or in- ithmetic competence as older students. Because older students lack
tegration of multiple disciplines, and definitions that focus on bridging activation in regions used by younger students, it is suggested that as
or translating language from different disciplines (Fig. 2). children grow, they depend less on working memory and attention
when solving math problems [21]. Unfortunately, a teacher cannot see
when and where a particular student's brain is activated while per-
forming arithmetic to gauge working memory. However, the conclu-
sions drawn from this study can be applied into the classroom strategi-
cally if teachers provide skills training for younger students to help

18
J.B. Feiler, M.E. Stabio Trends in Neuroscience and Education 13 (2018) 17–25

Fig. 2. Visual depictions of the three major themes of found within mission statements and definitions of the field of educational neuroscience: (a) application of
neuroscience discoveries into the classroom, (b) overlapping and interdisciplinary collaboration of psychology, neuroscience, and education, and (c) a bridge that
translates technical languages and jargon between education and neuroscience. © 2018 Chidsey Medical Media. All Rights Reserved.

them improve working memory and attention, in parallel to (or prior 3.2. An interdisciplinary collaboration
to) lessons on arithmetic. Bowers claims that a shortcoming of educa-
tional neuroscience is that it merely informs behavioral methodologies A second theme found in mission statements and definitions of
[7], but Howard-Jones and colleagues claim that this is a necessary educational neuroscience is “the interdisciplinary collaboration” in
component of educational neuroscience—techniques like neuroimaging which the whole is greater than the sum of parts. Key terms found
and electroencephalography (EEG) can help to inform new methods, within this theme include: integrate, interdisciplinary, join, collaborate,
but they need to be evaluated based on their effectiveness in behavioral blend, bring together, work together, synergy, combine, merge, and
contexts [22]. Thus, the application of neuroscience discoveries directly overlap. A total of 39 of the 64 articles analyzed (61%) used defining
to the classroom can be conceptualized here as both necessary and words along this theme (Table 1 and supplemental material).
important. The Venn diagram is often used to represent symbolically the in-
terdisciplinary collaboration that is considered critical for the field with

Table 1
Themes found within published definitions and mission statements of educational neuroscience*.
Theme Code words Citations that include code words Total # (%) of articles

Application Advance [1,4,7–9,13,18–20,22,23,30–32,34,37, 49,53,75–94] 37 (58%)

Apply
Enhance
Impact
Improve
Inform
Understand
Interdisciplinary collaboration Blend [1,4,13,18,20,23,25, 26,28,29,43,49,51, 53,56,77,80,82,84–86,88,90,91,94–108] 39 (61%)
Bring-together
Collaborate
Combine
Integrate
Interdisciplinary
Join
Merge
Multidisciplinary
Overlap
Synergy
Transdisciplinary
Work-together
Translation of language Bidirectional [4,18,19,25–37] 16 (25%)
Bridge
Transfer
Translate
Two-way
Two-way street

⁎
Note. Total number of articles analyzed was 64. Note that 27 of these (42%) had definitions or mission statements that fit within two or more themes (see also
Appendix).

19
J.B. Feiler, M.E. Stabio Trends in Neuroscience and Education 13 (2018) 17–25

contributions from neuroscience, psychology, and education each re- Thus, some sort of forum or formal exchange should take place to
presenting one ring in the diagram (Fig. 2, middle panel). Institutes connect teachers, researchers, and policy makers to ensure consistent
such as the Center for Educational Neuroscience and the Royal Society, and accurate translation of language [41]. This exchange will ulti-
for example, highlight the importance of interdisciplinary work for the mately shape the field of educational neuroscience and will become a
future development this field (see Appendix; also see [5] for a con- significant role of its practitioners [34].
tinuously updated list of labs associated with the field). Ansari and
colleagues claim that such interdisciplinary work provides for a smooth 4. Debates and controversies
transition between various disciplines and encourages multi-level ana-
lysis to answer difficult questions [22]. Promoting interdisciplinary Like any emerging field, educational neuroscience has generated a
studies among neuroscience and education enables educators to ask flourishing array of debate and arguments regarding its efficacy. There
neuroscientific questions and enables neuroscientists to ask educa- are three broad categories into which the arguments for and against this
tionally-relevant questions [22]. Carew and Magsamen note that our field can be grouped: that the field is better (or already) approached by
world is different than any other time in history—there are new tech- educational and behavioral psychologists; that the connection between
nologies and new innovations that can lead to better learning, and neuroscience and education is too weak; and that the field is compro-
parents and educators want access to these methods to help their mised by ‘neuromyths.’
children succeed now more than ever [23]. A prime example of suc-
cessful interdisciplinary collaboration is a study conducted by Neville 4.1. Is educational neuroscience “Just a new name for cognitive
et al., whose group utilized principles of neuroplasticity to design a psychology”?
family-based training program for at-risk preschool students that helps
them to develop skills in attention both in the classroom and at home How does educational neuroscience differ from cognitive psy-
[24] (Box 1). This study involved experts from many fields including chology or educational psychology? Cognitive psychology, according to
psychology, neuroscience, education and social work, as well as par- the American Psychology Association (APA), utilizes experimental
ents, teachers and students as illustrated schematically in Fig. 3. methods to study mental processes (e.g. learning) in order to modify
behavior [44]. Similarly, the APA defines educational psychology as a
3.3. A translator of languages field that uses theories of development to study how people learn, with
an aim to influence instruction [44]. A criticism of educational neu-
A third theme found in definitions and mission statements of edu- roscience is that it seeks to establish a field and to answer questions that
cational neuroscience is the translation of languages, thought paradigms, are best approached (or already addressed) by psychologists [6,7].
and methods that have historically belonged to different disciplines. These claims are somewhat defensible, as research in cognitive and
Definitions and mission statements along this theme maintain that the educational psychology has contributed vast amounts of knowledge to
fields of neuroscience and education are distinct, but that educational the broader field of education. Both cognitive psychology and educa-
neuroscience can help translate the languages used between the fields tional psychology produce behavioral data that impacts educational
as a professional interpreter. Mission statements within this theme often reform. In support of this, some scholars claim that behavioral mea-
include transportation imagery such as highways, bridges, and two-way surements of learning performance, which can be collected by well-
streets (Fig. 2, right panel) and include key words/phrases: translate, established psychological methods, are the most important outcomes by
bridge, two-way, two-way street, transfer, and bi-directional. This which to evaluate the effectiveness of instruction [7,14], and that
theme was found in 16 of the 64 articles analyzed (25%). “observed brain changes may or may not have an impact on the re-
While the bridge analogy is emphasized to be a “two-way street”, levant behavior” [7]. According to this perspective, neuroscience is
the lane running from neuroscience to education (i.e. the need to neither needed nor relevant and has no place in education; thus, edu-
translate the technical language of neuroscience) is particularly em- cational neuroscience is futile.
phasized in many discussions of the field [4,18,19, 25–37]. Neu- Rebuttals to Bower's criticisms of educational neuroscience state
roscience uses technical jargon and complex methods that are often that Bowers’ message “underestimates the scope of research in this new
unfamiliar to those outside of the scientific community; therefore, it is field and the complexity of interdisciplinary research spanning from
important to make the technical literature more accessible to educators neuroimaging centers to psychological labs to classrooms” [9]. This
who may not have had advanced training in the biological sciences. It is commentary by Howard-Jones and colleagues raises three major points
also critically important that neuroscience discoveries about learning that challenge Bower's criticism. First, Bowers provides no insight into
and the brain are conveyed and communicated to educational policy the shortcomings of behavioral research, or how additional experi-
makers. There are several examples of policy changes that have been mental approaches can bolster behavioral claims. Second, Howard-
attributed to educational neuroscience findings. Research in sleep, Jones and colleagues emphasize that educational neuroscience is not
circadian rhythms, and the developing brain, for example, has about competing with psychology—it is about collaboration and unity.
prompted some administrators to adjust school start times (e.g. [23], Educational neuroscience cannot exist without behavioral research; the
see also reviews by Zadina [38] and Thomas et al. [39] for additional field of cognitive neuroscience already exemplifies how neuroscience
examples). Furthermore, numerous organizations and institutes have and behavior can complement each other [9,15].
published educational neuroscience findings with efforts to inform the Finally, Howard-Jones and colleagues explain how the debate is
public (e.g. [12,40–42]). This information is important for scientists really a misunderstanding of terms, more specifically due to different
and non-scientists alike. definitions of educational neuroscience. Bowers’ arguments surround
Thus, individuals who can relay neuroscience information to edu- an incomplete definition: that the only goal of educational neuroscience
cators are critical [10], but whether that responsibility belongs to is to make teachers better at teaching through new instructional
educational neuroscientists or others is a topic of debate [10]. Fur- methods [7]. The fault here is that educational neuroscience seeks to do
thermore, neuroscience methods are very different from methods used more than just develop novel teaching methods—it is also positioned to
to study education; neuroscientists consider the brain as the main provide a way to improve student outcomes and lead to new discoveries
component involved in learning, but educationists examine the impact about the brain and learning. Bowers reviews several educational
of various environments and settings on student learning (e.g. class- neuroscience studies, claiming that their results are either trivial, mis-
rooms, home environment, playgrounds [43]. The Royal Society sug- leading, or unwarranted. He notes how phonics, a behavioral method
gests that because of such a vast language barrier between scientists and used to teach reading, is successful because it has been validated by
teachers, relevant findings get misinterpreted, leading to neuromyths. behavioral and education research, not neuroscience [7]. If educational

20
J.B. Feiler, M.E. Stabio Trends in Neuroscience and Education 13 (2018) 17–25

neuroscience is restricted to a definition that only includes behavioral Box 1

studies of teaching methods (e.g. phonics), then there is no need for an
interdisciplinary field; however, if educational neuroscience is defined Educational neuroscience at work: a prime example
in a way that incorporates interdisciplinary work and translation of
language, then Bowers’ argument falls short because it neglects the
notion that neuroimaging data from phonics instruction enables re- A study conducted by Neville and colleagues provides a prime
searchers to look inside the brain at areas of interest and to understand example of the interdisciplinary collaboration uniquely char-
how a student might actually learn via a novel tool. Thus, Bowers’ ar- acteristic of educational neuroscience and exemplifies the
guments are understandable, but they collapse when a broader defini- fundamental contributions from fields of psychology, neu-
tion of educational neuroscience is applied. roscience, and education. In brief, the authors utilized an
eight-week training program aimed at helping pre-school
4.2. Educational neuroscience: “A bridge too far” children from lower socioeconomic statuses to be more suc-
cessful in school. The program was oriented to target selective
Another common critique of educational neuroscience is that it is a attention. The novelty of this study rests in the authors’ ability
‘bridge too far’ [16]; neuroscience cannot be applied to the classroom to integrate the fields of multiple disciplines: psychology,
because teachers and students are unable to transfer neuroscience di- neuroscience, and education. The authors determined a be-
rectly into useful educational practices [6,7,16,45]. Bruer opposes the havior (attention) that is relevant to education, psychology,
development of the field, asserting that the scientific community knows and neuroscience. Psychological methods were used to ex-
too little about neuroscience and how the brain develops to actually amine the behavior itself and how it changed based on in-
link it to classroom learning and teaching [16]. Bruer asserts that sy- tervention, and neuroscience methods (event-related brain
naptogenesis and critical periods cannot directly inform educators how potentials) were used to measure the change in behavior at a
to teach students or what methods may actually benefit student neural level. Research findings in neuroscience also helped to
learning. Bruer's ideas should certainly be considered, but it should also motivate the intervention, as the authors utilized previous
be noted that neuroscience research has progressed significantly since work on the neuroplasticity of attention as rationale for their
this article was published in 1997. In particular, significant discoveries study. (Fig. 3). The study involved psychologists, neu-
have been made relating to synaptogenesis and critical periods of brain roscientists, teachers, and parents, who all shared a common
development. For example, while the brain is much more sensitive in objective: to improve the educational outcome of students
the first few years of life to experiences that shape development (such [24]. Thus, successful examples of educational neuroscience
as language and face recognition) we know that the brain is capable of in practice, such as this one, illustrate the point that educa-
changing through the entire lifespan and not just during critical periods tional neuroscience should not replace psychology-related
[11,46] (see also Chapters 6, 8, 10, 12 of [11]). Moreover, recent work disciplines or even neuroscience-related disciplines but in-
in adult human hippocampus demonstrates that while neuroplasticity stead stand upon the shoulders of these giants and add to them
declines in aging in some areas of the hippocampus, other areas of the using advanced neuroscience technologies to peer into the
hippocampus display preserved neurogenesis throughout life [47] active human brain.
challenging other studies claiming that such neurogenesis is not pre-
served in the aging brain (e.g. [48]). Nonetheless, conclusions drawn
from research on neuroplasticity and classroom applications made
based on this work must be approached with caution as described in a 4.3. Educational neuroscience: “A producer and perpetuator of
more recent discussion on this topic by Mareschal ([11]; see After- neuromyths”
word).
Horvath and Donoghue apply Bruer's work to argue that the field is Neuromyths, a frequently used neuroscience colloquialism, are
unsustainable because neuroscience and education have “in- considered another common critique of educational neuroscience be-
commensurable levels-of-organization [45].” Educationally-relevant cause they lead to false perceptions of neuroscience research. In actu-
neuroscience knowledge must first pass through a psychological inter- ality, these myths can actually promote the study of educational neu-
pretation before it can be applied to an educational setting to help roscience, as they captivate the interest of students, parents, and
students and teachers. Because educational effectiveness is measured on teachers and encourage them to think about how the brain works. An
a behavioral level, neuroscience can only inform the psychology of analysis of neuromyths has been conducted in various reviews
learning, which in turn informs behavior and, thus, education [45]. [10,49,50], and some of the most ubiquitous of these myths include:
Others suggest, however, that direct paths from neuroscience to edu- that humans only use 10% of their brain; that some people are right-
cation can be made; for example, suggest the impact of metabolism, brain dominant or left-brain dominant; and that children are best
exercise, nutrition, stress hormones, or environmental pollutants on taught certain skills during a ‘critical period’ of development.
brain function (including learning) can be examined without psycho- Ferrari claims that caution must be taken when educators approach
logical approaches or interpretations [39]. Nevertheless, as emphasized neuroscience; educators may accept neuroscience facts regarding their
in Figs. 2(b) and 3, the field is interdisciplinary; there is neither an teaching practice even though said facts do not explicitly add substance
institute nor educational program dedicated to educational neu- to the material being used or to the lesson being taught [51]. The ad-
roscience that establishes a program based entirely on one discipline dition of irrelevant neuroscientific explanations to descriptions of psy-
[5]. The field of educational neuroscience should integrate behavioral chological phenomena made them more satisfying to non-experts and
research, education research, and neuroscience research (Fig. 2(b)). even made what were considered ‘bad-explanations’ sound viable to
Educational neuroscience programs and institutes are not created to these non-experts [52,53]. Neuromyths spawn from challenges in the
replace psychology or other related fields—rather, they are created to communication of educational neuroscience, rather than the validity of
train practitioners that can communicate within and use methods from the science itself; such communication challenges are not unique to
multiple disciplines with the utmost goal of advancing research, in- educational neuroscience, but common to all translational or applied
forming educational policy makers, and improving student learning. sciences that engage multiple disciplines. Moreover, neuromyths high-
Thus, perhaps the third pillar, “translation of language” (Fig 1(c)) light the need for educational neuroscientists to ensure false claims
cannot exist without the second pillar of interdisciplinary collaboration about neuroscience are not promoted; their incidence ought to motivate
(Fig 1(b)). scholars to ensure that neuroscience is not used to promote unrelated

21
J.B. Feiler, M.E. Stabio Trends in Neuroscience and Education 13 (2018) 17–25

Fig. 3. A sample model of educational neuroscience collaboration in practice (A) Students, teachers, parents and experts form the fields of psychology, neuroscience,
and education contribute the diversity of participants in successful educational neuroscience research. Colored arrows point to each person's role in various com-
ponents of the research which creates a complex web-like structure characteristic of fruitful multidisciplinary collaboration. (B) A sample experimental design model
for an effective educational neuroscience includes: the identification of a problem, recruitment of a team of scholars from various disciplines, pre-test, intervention,
post-test, and conclusions which initiate the process of educational reformation. Recent work by Neville and colleagues [24] can be used as a model for implementing
multidisciplinary research (C) A sampling of methods from each of the three disciplines involved in educational neuroscience and how they can be applied to each
part of the experimental design.
IQ – Intelligence Quotient; fMRI – Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging;
MEG – Magnetoencephalography; PET – Positron Emission Tomography;
EEG – Electroencephalography; ERP – Event Related Potential.

educational information in classrooms simply because it ‘sounds good’ the high interest level among teachers, students, and parents in un-
As demonstrated above, there is certainly evidence to support how derstanding how to learn best and most effectively. An article published
neuromyths can detract from the aims of education by incorporating by the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) describes neuromyths and
false neuroscience claims; however, neuromyths can also be used to their pervasiveness in classrooms and how educators constantly use
support the foundation and growth of educational neuroscience. methods that can detract from and even hinder learning. Regarding the
Several authors claim that we should use educational neuroscience it- neuromyth of learning styles (e.g. visual, auditory, kinesthetic), the
self to counter neuromyths that lead to ineffective or unsupported in- authors claim that this practice leads to students neglecting other
structional methods (e.g. right brain/left brain and learning style learning modalities, as the students are taught based on their preferred
[49,54,55]. This can be achieved by suggesting that educators have style of learning [61]. Others claim that it is a mistake to use educa-
access to training in basic neuroscience or scientific methods tional neuroscience to refute neuromyths because neuroscience is
[25,30,40,41,55–59]. This training could empower teachers with the exploited in the education arena and becomes sensationalized; thus,
knowledge to refute and dismiss neuromyths, which would prevent any type of neuroscience related to education is ‘meaningless’ [7].
them and other teachers from adopting ill-researched methodologies in However, when we consider the potential of neuroscience to actually
the classroom [55]. Additionally, practitioners of educational neu- inform the public in realms such as language development, literacy,
roscience could educate teachers and school administrators and policy mathematics, and social and emotional development, there is sub-
makers as to what is supported by research and what is really a myth stantial promise. There have been several significant bodies of work
[54,60]. A good example of educational neuroscientists doing just this published in the last several years that have summarized the promise of
comes from the Centre for Educational Neuroscience [60]. educational neuroscience in each of these areas [e.g. 10, 11, 12, 13].
The appeal of neuroscience presents a challenge to developing Relating to the appeal of neuroscience, it should be emphasized that
educational neuroscience because of neuromyths, but it also illustrates teachers are generally receptive to learn about neuroscience and apply it

22
J.B. Feiler, M.E. Stabio Trends in Neuroscience and Education 13 (2018) 17–25

in the classroom. Several studies and surveys have been conducted that and psychologists have concluded that digitalizing classrooms is not
evaluate overall perceptions of neuroscience as it relates to education a guaranteed way to improve learning. Instead, these devices can
among teachers, education researchers, and neuroscientists [57,62–64]. actually have negative impacts in the classroom, where these de-
Importantly, one study found that teachers commonly use very broad vices can inhibit neuroplasticity, lead to addiction behavior, dis-
definitions of educational neuroscience that extend into research that tract classmates, and lead to lower performance on exams [65–69].
would properly be called cognitive psychology or educational psy- Yet, these devices are marketed to schools as a means to improve
chology [57]. Within the population sampled, teachers also seem to have learning and to resuscitate suffering school systems without evi-
a genuine interest in the brain as it relates to teaching and learning and dence from the literature. We do not mean to suggest that digital
are interested in more than just acquiring new instructional methods devices necessarily be excluded from the classroom; instead, we
[57]. A study conducted by Pickering and Howard-Jones found that entreat that the incorporation of digital devices be designed and
teachers in the UK have a devoted interest in learning about the brain, used strategically – at the proper time and to meet the proper
but they want it to be accessible and relatable to their profession [62]. An learning goal - based on evidence, so that it improves, not inhibits,
article by Bruno della Chiesa et al. discusses the challenges faced by the learning. To achieve this goal, it is imperative that more research is
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's report on performed to understand the effect of digital devices on the student
Learning Sciences and Brain Research project, highlighting that, while brain, not merely behavioral measures of student performance, and
educational researchers and neuroscientists seemed hesitant to accept that this information is applied to the classroom and conveyed to
findings and to engage in open, interdisciplinary dialogue, actual tea- educational stakeholders. The use of tablets in the classroom is only
chers and practitioners were much more open and encouraged by the one example, but these guiding principles for effective application
open-dialogue. It is suggested that the reason for this is because, aside can be extended to many examples, including the use of “brain
from students, teachers are the most impacted by the potential benefits training” products [70] or other popular strategies designed to
educational neuroscience [63]. Conceivably, what is important to re- improve cognition or learning (reviewed in [38,39]).
cognize here is that educators seem to be invested in the promising im- (2) Interdisciplinary collaboration: This review has emphasized how
plications of educational neuroscience, and they should have a sig- collaboration between educators, psychologists and neuroscientists
nificant voice in the development of the discipline. is a crucial pillar for the field of educational neuroscience. There are
many examples of interdisciplinary teams collaborating effectively
5. Future directions and recommendations (see Box 1 and Appendix). However, there are perhaps too many
examples in which practitioners have remained in silos or have
Perhaps one of the most curious topics neglected in the literature is argued over territory, ownership, or objectives [6–9]. We hope the
the perspective of those it aims to affect most: students. In particular, three pillars described here provide a unifying vision that motivates
none of the 64 articles analyzed in this systematic review investigated scholars from all disciplines; moreover, the advancement of serious
the opinions or perspectives of students who have been impacted by or interdisciplinary research programs in educational neuroscience
learned about educational neuroscience in the course of their educa- such as those referenced in Table 1 (in Appendix) will produce more
tion; this is an important goal for future studies. What do students think and more examples of the successful applications, collaborations
of this field? What do they see as its potential? What do they want from and translations between neuroscience and education to spur pro-
the field? As the field continues to grow, there is a need for more studies gress in the field (e.g. [11,12,29,39–41,51]). Beyond these goals,
that examine student perspectives, opinions and desires of the field. we suggest that interdisciplinary collaboration should expand be-
Moreover, we suggest that definitions and mission statements of edu- yond the disciplines of education, psychology and neuroscience to
cational neuroscience not only incorporate the three pillars revealed by also include medicine, law, business, science and technology. The
the last 30 years of literature (application, interdisciplinary, and majority of research in educational neuroscience has been focused
translation of language) but that they also include a focus on learners. on elementary education, but there is a great potential for the field
We suggest a working definition in Box 2: to impact how we train adult students, including medical students,
Box 2 doctoral students, law school students, and business students. Many
of these adult training programs include learning environments of
Educational neuroscience: an integrated definition incorporating the great stress, intense competition, high stakes endurance testing
three themes (board exams or the bar exam) and severe sleep deprivation (i.e.
medical resident training), all relatively untouched areas of edu-
cational neuroscience research.
The integration of education, psychology, and neuroscience
into an interdisciplinary field that is devoted to helping stu-
Medical schools across the United States, as a particular example,
dents learn. Educational Neuroscience communicates the
continue to undergo curricular change, reorganization, and reform in a
language of multiple disciplines and applies methods from
response to accreditation mandates for more self-directed learning ex-
multiple disciplines to translate discoveries about the brain
periences, self-assessment opportunities, and advanced technology re-
and its networks into educationally relevant outcomes.
sources to help students develop core clinical competencies [71]. In
response, medical educators seek new approaches to teaching such as
The three pillars discussed in this review are recurring themes in the flipped classroom, team-based learning, case-based learning and new
educational neuroscience literature over the last 30 years and have educational technologies. Virtual reality simulation, haptic simulators,
been foundational to the development of the field. However, weak spots wearable devices (google glass), mobile apps, podcasts and videos are
exist; we offer some recommendations to fortify and strengthen these being explored as ways to facilitate basic knowledge acquisition, skill
pillars: coordination, decision making skills, and practice for clinical events
[72]. These innovations require large investments of finances and fa-
(1) Application: Neuroscience discoveries are oftentimes ignored or culty time; yet, as in the case of tablets mentioned above, there is little
overlooked by important educational decision makers and stake- evidence to support their validity and reliability (e.g. [73]). Most stu-
holders. To induce change, they must be applied to the classroom. A dies are anecdotal and very few investigate the impact of such tech-
prime example of this surrounds the debate regarding the use of nologies on neural networks in the brain (see [74] for one research
computer screens and tablets in classrooms. Many neuroscientists study performed in the context of patient education). There is a prime
opportunity for educational neuroscientists to address questions related

23
J.B. Feiler, M.E. Stabio Trends in Neuroscience and Education 13 (2018) 17–25

to the use of advanced educational technologies in the graduate learner [3] M. Kaku, The Golden Age of Neuroscience Has Arrived, Wall Street J. (2014)
and the adult brain. How do virtual reality educational interfaces im- Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/michio-kaku-the-golden-age-of-
neuroscience-has-arrived-1408577023.
pact neural networks in medical trainees (and how might this differ [4] K.B. Stafford-Brizard, P. Cantor, L.T. Rose, Building the bridge between science
compared to the use of these technologies in the developing brain of the and practice: essential characteristics of a translational framework, Mind Brain
elementary or adolescent learner)? Do these technologies impact long Educ. 11 (4) (2017) 155–165.
[5] IMBES-MBE Labs, Accessed 1/8/2018 http://www.imbes.org/MBE-labs, (2018)
term retention or clinical decision making? What types of educational Accessed 1/8/2018.
goals are best met via these advanced technologies and which are better [6] J.S. Bowers, Psychology, not educational neuroscience, is the way forward for
met with traditional didactic approaches? At what stage in a student's improving educational outcomes for all children: Reply to Gabrieli (2016) and
Howard-Jones et al. (2016) 123 (5) (2016) 628–635.
training are these best introduced? What can these educational in- [7] J.S. Bowers, The practical and principled problems with educational neuroscience,
novations teach us about how the brain learns? Psychol. Rev. 123 (5) (2016) 600–612.
[8] J.D. Gabrieli, The promise of educational neuroscience: Comment on Bowers,
Psychol. Rev. 123 (5) (2016) 613–619.
(3) Translation of language: The first two pillars of educational neu-
[9] P. Howard-Jones, S. Varma, D. Ansari, B. Butterworth, B. De Smedt, U. Goswami,
roscience listed above depend on effective translation of discipline- D. Laurillard, M.S. Thomas, The principles and practices of educational neu-
specific language. Thus, there is a need for more translators who roscience: comment on Bowers (2016), Psychol. Rev. 123 (5) (2016) 620–627.
can speak the language of both education and neuroscience. [10] U. Goswami, Neuroscience and education: from research to practice? Nat. Rev.
Neurosci. 7 (5) (2006) 406–413.
Furthermore, there is a need for more funding for training programs [11] D. Mareschal, B. Butterworth, A. Tolmie, Educational Neuroscience, Wiley-
like the ones listed (see Table 1 in Appendix) dedicated to creating Blackwell, 2013.
scholars trained in multiple disciplines who can do the hard work [12] OECD, Understanding the Brain: The Birth of a Learning Science, OECD
Publishing, Paris, 2007.
required of the first two pillars. [13] M. Sigman, M. Pea, A.P. Goldin, S. Ribeiro, Neuroscience and education: prime
time to build the bridge, Nat. Neurosci. 17 (4) (2014), https://doi.org/10.1038/
6. Conclusions nn.3672.
[14] R. Cubelli, Theories on mind, not on brain, are relevant for education, Cortex 45
(4) (2009) 562–564.
Our work reveals that the field of educational neuroscience over the [15] B. De Smedt, D. Ansari, R.H. Grabner, M. Hannula-Sormunen, M. Schneider,
last 30 years has been defined by three major themes that include ap- L. Verschaffel, Cognitive neuroscience meets mathematics education: it takes two
to tango, Educ. Res. Rev. 6 (3) (2011) 232–237.
plication, interdisciplinary collaboration, and translation of language. [16] J.T. Bruer, Education and the brain: a bridge too far, Educ. Res. 26 (8) (1997)
These themes have served as foundational pillars for the field and 4–16.
support its future growth. Educational neuroscience should not replace [17] S. Elo, H. Kyngas, The qualitative content analysis process, J. Adv. Nurs. 62 (1)
(2008) 107–115.
psychology-related disciplines or even neuroscience-related disciplines
[18] K. Palghat, J.C. Horvath, J.M. Lodge, The hard problem of ‘educational neu-
but should, instead, stand upon the shoulders of these giants and add to roscienceș, Trends in Neuroscience and Education 6 (2017) 204–210.
them using the advanced technologies and methodologies offered by [19] S.R. Campbell, Educational neuroscience: motivations, methodology, and im-
neuroscience to explore and understand the brain. Importantly, it is plications, Educ. Philos. Theory 43 (1) (2011) 7–16.
[20] Z. Stein, K.W. Fischer, Directions for mind, brain, and education: methods, models,
worth emphasizing that educational neuroscience seeks to help stu- and morality, Educ. Philos. Theory 43 (1) (2011) 56–66.
dents—its aims should encourage students to understand how they [21] S.M. Rivera, A.L. Reiss, M.A. Eckert, V. Menon, Developmental changes in mental
learn best so as to minimize imbalanced difficulties in the classroom arithmetic: evidence for increased functional specialization in the left inferior
parietal cortex, Cereb. Cortex 15 (11) (2005) 1779–1790.
and to promote achievement throughout life. [22] D. Ansari, B. De Smedt, R.H. Grabner, Neuroeducation–a critical overview of an
emerging field, Neuroethics 5 (2) (2012) 105–117.
7. Author contributions [23] T.J. Carew, S.H. Magsamen, Neuroscience and education: an ideal partnership for
producing evidence-based solutions to guide 21st century learning, Neuron 67 (5)
(2010) 685–688.
JBF conducted the literature review and analysis. MES provided study [24] H.J. Neville, C. Stevens, E. Pakulak, T.A. Bell, J. Fanning, S. Klein, E. Isbell,
design and supervision. Both authors wrote and revised the manuscript. Family-based training program improves brain function, cognition, and behavior
in lower socioeconomic status preschoolers, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 110 (29) (2013)
12138–12143.
Acknowledgments [25] D. Ansari, D. Coch, Bridges over troubled waters: education and cognitive neu-
roscience, Trends Cogn. Sci. 10 (4) (2006) 146–151.
[26] J.S. Dion, G. Restrepo, A systematic review of the literature linking neural cor-
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
relates of feedback processing to learning, Zeitschrift fur Psychologie 224 (4)
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Thanks to (2016) 247–256.
Janet Zadina for helpful conversations prior to the start of this project. [27] G.M. Donoghue, J.C. Horvath, Translating neuroscience, psychology and educa-
Special thanks to Berrien Chidsey from Chidsey Medical Media for tion: An abstracted conceptual framework for the learning sciences, Cogent Educ.
3 (1) (2016).
creating the illustration used in Fig. 2. Thanks to Jacob Klein for as- [28] S. Dünder, A. Ülkü, From cognitive to educational neuroscience, Int. Educ. Stud. 9
sistance with early web searches, as well as the University of Colorado (9) (2016) 50–57.
Health Sciences Library for assistance with the literature searches. [29] K.W. Fischer, Mind, brain, and education: building a scientific groundwork for
learning and teaching, Mind Brain Educ. 3 (1) (2009) 3–16.
Thanks to Jennifer Thurston at University of Colorado School of Med- [30] M. Hardiman, L. Rinne, E. Gregory, J. Yarmolinskaya, Neuroethics, neuroeduca-
icine and Jonathon Wisco at Boston University School of Medicine for tion, and classroom teaching: where the brain sciences meet pedagogy,
helpful discussions and suggestions for the manuscript. Finally, thanks Neuroethics 5 (2) (2012) 135–143.
[31] R.E. Mayer, How can brain research inform academic learning and instruction?
to the reviewers and editors for their time and insights. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 29 (4) (2017) 835–846.
[32] E. Pasquinelli, Neuromyths: why do they exist and persist? Mind Brain Educ. 6 (2)
Supplementary materials (2012) 89–96.
[33] K.E. Patten, The somatic appraisal model of affect: paradigm for educational
neuroscience and neuropedagogy, Educ. Philos. Theory 43 (1) (2011) 87–97.
Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in [34] H.L. Pincham, A.A. Matejko, A. Obersteiner, C. Killikelly, K.P. Abrahao,
the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.tine.2018.11.001. S. Benavides-Varela, F.C. Gabriel, J.R. Rato, L. Vuillier, Forging a new path for
educational neuroscience: an international young-researcher perspective on
combining neuroscience and educational practices, Trends Neurosci. Educ. 3 (1)
References (2014) 28–31.
[35] S. Stringer, J. Tommerdahl, Building bridges between neuroscience, cognition and
[1] J.K. Fuller, J.G. Glendening, The Neuroeducator: Professional of the Future, education with predictive modeling, Mind Brain Educ. 9 (2) (2015) 121–126.
Theory Pract. 24 (2) (1985) 135–137. [36] A. van der Meulen, L. Krabbendam, D. de Ruyter, Educational neuroscience: its
[2] P. Howard-Jones, Neuroscience and Education: A Review of Educational position, aims and expectations, Br. J. Educ. Stud. 63 (2) (2015) 229–243.
Interventions and Approaches informed by Neuroscience, (2014). [37] M. Zocchi, C. Pollack, Educational neuroethics: a contribution from empirical
research, Mind Brain Educ. 7 (1) (2013) 56–62.

24
J.B. Feiler, M.E. Stabio Trends in Neuroscience and Education 13 (2018) 17–25

[38] J.N. Zadina, The emerging role of educational neuroscience in education reform, [72] P.A. Guze, Using technology to meet the challenges of medical education, Trans.
Psicología Educativa 21 (12) (2015) 71–77. Am. Clin. Climatol. Assoc. 126 (2015) 260–270.
[39] M. Thomas, D. Ansari, V. Knowland, Annual research review: educational neu- [73] E.Z. Barsom, M. Graafland, M.P. Schijven, Systematic review on the effectiveness
roscience: progress and prospects, J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry (2018). of augmented reality applications in medical training, Surg. Endosc. 30 (10)
[40] Society for Neuroscience, Neuroscience Research in Education Summit: The (2016) 4174–4183.
Promise of Interdisciplinary Partnerships Between Brain Sciences and Education, [74] V. Gatica-Rojas, G. Méndez-Rebolledo, Virtual reality interface devices in the re-
http://www.ndcbrain.com/articles/SocietyforNeuroscience- organization of neural networks in the brain of patients with neurological diseases,
EducationSummitReport.pdf, (2009). Neural Regen. Res. 9 (8) (2014) 888–896.
[41] The Royal Society, Brain Waves Module 2: Neuroscience: Implications for [75] J. Clark, Philosophy, neuroscience and education, Educ. Philos. Theory 47 (1)
Education and Lifelong Learning, https://royalsociety.org/∼/media/Royal_ (2015) 36–46.
Society_Content/policy/publications/2011/4294975733.pdf, (2011). [76] N.D. Clement, T. Lovat, Neuroscience and education: issues and challenges for
[42] Centre for Educational Neuroscience, Resources, http://www. curriculum, Curric. Inq. 42 (4) (2012) 534–557.
educationalneuroscience.org.uk/resources/, (2018) Accessed 29-October-2018. [77] L. Curtis, J. Fallin, Neuroeducation and music: collaboration for student success,
[43] S. Varma, B.D. McCandliss, D.L. Schwartz, Scientific and pragmatic challenges for Music Educ. J. 101 (2) (2014) 52–56.
bridging education and neuroscience, Educ. Res. 37 (3) (2008) 140–152. [78] N. Düvel, A. Wolf, R. Kopiez, Neuromyths in music education: prevalence and
[44] Behavioral and Cognitive Psychology, Accessed 27-July-2017 http://www.apa. predictors of misconceptions among teachers and students, Front. Psychol. 8 (629)
org/ed/graduate/specialize/behav.aspx, (2017) Accessed 27-July-2017. (2017).
[45] J.C. Horvath, G.M. Donoghue, A bridge too far–revisited: reframing Bruer's neu- [79] J. Geake, Position statement on motivations, methodologies, and practical im-
roeducation argument for modern science of learning practitioners, Front. Psychol. plications of educational neuroscience research: fMRI studies of the neural cor-
7 (377) (2016). relates of creative intelligence, Educ. Philos. Theory 43 (1) (2011) 43–47.
[46] A.L. Tierney, C.A. Nelson III, Brain development and the role of experience in the [80] G.G. Hruby, Three requirements for justifying an educational neuroscience, Br. J.
early years, Zero Three 30 (2) (2009) 9–13. Educ. Psychol. 82 (1) (2012) 1–23.
[47] M. Boldrini, C.A. Fulmore, A.N. Tartt, L.R. Simeon, I. Pavlova, V. Poposka, [81] M.L. Kalbfleisch, Educational neuroscience, constructivism, and the mediation of
G.B. Rosoklija, A. Stankov, V. Arango, A.J. Dwork, R. Hen, J.J. Mann, Human learning and creativity in the 21st century, Front. Psychol. 6 (133) (2015).
hippocampal neurogenesis persists throughout aging, Cell Stem Cell 22 (4) (2018) [82] D. Ansari, D. Coch, Connecting education and cognitive neuroscience: Where will
589–599 e5. the journey take us? Educ. Philos. Theory 43 (1) (2011), https://doi.org/10.1111/
[48] S.F. Sorrells, M.F. Paredes, A. Cebrian-Silla, K. Sandoval, D. Qi, K.W. Kelley, j.1469-5812.2010.00705.x.
D. James, S. Mayer, J. Chang, K.I. Auguste, E.F. Chang, A.J. Gutierrez, [83] B. Baker, From “somatic scandals” to “a constant potential for violence”? the
A.R. Kriegstein, G.W. Mathern, M.C. Oldham, E.J. Huang, J.M. Garcia-Verdugo, Z. culture of dissection, brain-based learning, and the rewriting/rewiring of “the
Yang, A. Alvarez-Buylla, Human hippocampal neurogenesis drops sharply in child”, J. Curric. Pedag. 12 (2) (2015) 168–197.
children to undetectable levels in adults, Nature 555 (2018) 377. [84] J.T. Bruer, Where is educational neuroscience? Educ. Neurosci. 1 (2016).
[49] P.A. Howard-Jones, Neuroscience and education: myths and messages, Nat. Rev. [85] R. Colvin, Optimising, generalising and integrating educational practice using
Neurosci. 15 (12) (2014), https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3817. neuroscience, Npj Sci. Learn. 1 (2016) 16012.
[50] J. Geake, P. Cooper, Cognitive neuroscience: implications for education? [86] R. Knox, Mind, brain, and education: a transdisciplinary field, Mind Brain Educ. 10
Westminst. Stud. Educ. 26 (1) (2003) 7–20. (1) (2016) 4–9.
[51] M. Ferrari, What can neuroscience bring to education? Educ. Philos. Theory 43 (1) [87] H. Lalancette, S.R. Campbell, Educational neuroscience: neuroethical considera-
(2011), https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00704.x. tions, Mind Brain Educ. 7 (1) (2012) 37–52 Special Issue.
[52] D.S. Weisberg, F.C. Keil, J. Goodstein, E. Rawson, J.R. Gray, The Seductive Allure [88] R.E. Martin, J.S. Groff, Collaborations in mind, brain, and education: an analysis of
of Neuroscience Explanations, J. Cognit. Neurosci. 20 (3) (2008) 470–477, researcher–practitioner partnerships in three elementary school intervention stu-
https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2008.20040. dies, Mind Brain Educ. 5 (3) (2011) 115–120.
[53] S.H. Im, K. Varma, S. Varma, Extending the seductive allure of neuroscience ex- [89] A. Norton, K. Deater-Deckard, Mathematics in mind, brain, and education: a neo-
planations effect to popular articles about educational topics, Br. J. Educ. Psychol. Piagetian approach, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 12 (3) (2014) 647–667.
87 (4) (2017) 518–534. [90] L.-A. Petitto, New discoveries from the bilingual brain and mind across the life
[54] J.N. Zadina, The emerging role of educational neuroscience in education reform, span: implications for education, Mind Brain Educ. 3 (4) (2009) 185–197.
Psicolog \' i a Educativa 21 (2) (2015) 71–77. [91] D.L. Rodgers, The biological basis of learning: neuroeducation through simulation,
[55] I.M. Devonshire, E.J. Dommett, Neuroscience: viable applications in education? Simul. Gaming 46 (2) (2015) 175–186.
Neuroscientist 16 (4) (2010) 349–356. [92] P. Smeyers, Neurophilia: guiding educational research and the educational field?
[56] C. Beauchamp, M.H. Beauchamp, Boundary as bridge: an analysis of the educa- J. Philos. Educ. 50 (1) (2016) 62–75.
tional neuroscience literature from a boundary perspective, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 25 [93] C. Watagodakumbura, Principles of curriculum design and construction based on
(1) (2013) 47–67. the concepts of educational neuroscience, J. Educ. Learn. 6 (3) (2017) 54–69.
[57] C.J. Hook, M.J. Farah, Neuroscience for educators: what are they seeking, and [94] L.A. Petitto, K.N. Dunbar, Educational neuroscience: new discoveries from bilin-
what are they finding? Neuroethics 6 (2) (2013) 331–341. gual brains, scientific brains, and the educated mind, Mind Brain Educ. 3 (4)
[58] I.M. Devonshire, E.J. Dommett, C.R. Plateau, M.S. Westwell, S.A. Greenfield, From (2009) 185–197. The official journal of the International Mind, Brain, and
scientific theory to classroom practice, Neuroscientist 17 (4) (2010) 382–388. Education Society.
[59] D. Coch, D. Ansari, Thinking about mechanisms is crucial to connecting neu- [95] J.M. Black, C.A. Myers, F. Hoeft, The utility of neuroimaging studies for informing
roscience and education, Cortex 45 (4) (2009) 546–547. educational practice and policy in reading disorders, New Dir. Child Adolesc. Dev.
[60] V. Knowland, Neuro-hit or neuro-myth? http://www.educationalneuroscience. (147) (2015) 49–56 2015.
org.uk/resources/neuromyth-or-neurofact/, (2018). [96] J.A. Bugos, Greasing the skids of the musical mind: connecting music learning to
[61] C. Arnold, Lack of Evidence Plauges Neuroeducation Programs, PBS, NOVA mind brain education, General Music Today 29 (1) (2015) 5–11.
Website, 2016. [97] D.S. Busso, C. Pollack, No brain left behind: consequences of neuroscience dis-
[62] S.J. Pickering, P. Howard-Jones, Educators’ views on the role of neuroscience in course for education, Learn. Media Technol. 40 (2) (2015) 168–186.
education: findings from a study of UK and international perspectives, Mind Brain [98] J.P. Byrnes, L.T. Vu, Educational neuroscience: definitional, methodological, and
Educ. 1 (3) (2007) 109–113. interpretive issues, Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Cogn. Sci. 6 (3) (2015) 221–234.
[63] B. Della Chiesa, V. Christoph, C. Hinton, How many brains does it take to build a [99] D. Coch, S.A. Michlovitz, D. Ansari, A. Baird, Building mind, brain, and education
new light: knowledge management challenges of a transdisciplinary project, Mind connections: the view from the upper valley, Mind Brain Educ. 3 (1) (2009) 27–33.
Brain Educ. 3 (1) (2009) 17–26. [100] C. Pollack, M. Taevs, Under the magnifying glass: an examination of fundamental
[64] E.J. Dommett, I.M. Devonshire, C.R. Plateau, M.S. Westwell, S.A. Greenfield, From concepts in mind, brain, and education, Mind Brain Educ. 5 (3) (2011) 105–107.
scientific theory to classroom practice, Neuroscientist 17 (4) (2011) 382–388. [101] J. Ravet, J.H.G. Williams, What we know now: education, neuroscience and
[65] P.A. Mueller, D.M. Oppenheimer, The pen is mightier than the keyboard: ad- transdisciplinary autism research, Educ. Res. 59 (1) (2017) 1–16.
vantages of longhand over laptop note taking, Psychol. Sci. 25 (6) (2014) [102] B.M. Samuels, Can the differences between education and neuroscience be over-
1159–1168. come by mind, brain, and education? Mind Brain Educ. 3 (1) (2009) 45–55.
[66] M. Spitzer, Digitale Demenz, Droemer Knaur, Munich, Germany, 2012. [103] K.W. Fischer, D.B. Daniel, M.H. Immordino-Yang, E. Stern, A. Battro, H. Koizumi,
[67] C.B. Fried, In-class laptop use and its effects on student learning, Comput. Educ. 50 Why mind, brain, and education? why now? Mind Brain Educ. 1 (1) (2007) 1–2.
(3) (2008) 906–914. [104] K.W. Fischer, U. Goswami, J. Geake, The future of educational neuroscience, Mind
[68] S.P. Carter, K. Greenberg, M.S. Walker, The impact of computer usage on academic Brain Educ. 4 (2) (2010) 68–80.
performance: evidence from a randomized trial at the United States Military [105] K. Macdonald, L. Germine, A. Anderson, J. Christodoulou, L.M. McGrath,
Academy, Econ. Educ. Rev. 56 (2017) 118–132. Dispelling the myth: training in education or neuroscience decreases but does not
[69] F. Sana, T. Weston, N.J. Cepeda, Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning eliminate beliefs in neuromyths, Front. Psychol. 8 (1314) (2017).
for both users and nearby peers, Comput. Educ. 62 (2013) 24–31. [106] D. Szűcs, U. Goswami, Educational neuroscience: defining a new discipline for the
[70] D.J. Simons, W.R. Boot, N. Charness, S.E. Gathercole, C.F. Chabris, D.Z. Hambrick, study of mental representations, Mind Brain Educ. 1 (3) (2007) 114–127.
E.A.L. Stine-Morrow, Do “brain-training” programs work? Psychol. Sci. Public [107] P.N. Tandon, N.C. Singh, Educational neuroscience: challenges and opportunities,
Interes. 17 (3) (2016) 103–186. Ann. Neurosci. 23 (2) (2016) 63–65.
[71] Liaison Committee on Medical Education, Functions and Structure of a Medical [108] Z.D. Théodoridou, L.C. Triarhou, Fin-de-Siècle advances in neuroeducation: Henry
School: Standards for Accreditation of Medical Education Programs Leading to the Herbert Donaldson and Reuben Post Halleck, Mind Brain Educ. 3 (2) (2009)
MD Degree, 2017. 119–129.

25