Devonshire, I. M., & Dommett, E. J. (2010). Neuroscience: viable applications in education? The Neuroscientist : A Review Journal Bringing Neurobiology, Neurology and Psychiatry, 16(4), 349–56. doi:10.1177/1073858410370900
The premise of this article is that developments in neuroscience can help the field of education, but they don’t. The authors explore why this gap exists and give three theoretical barriers and two practical barriers to collaboration.
Theoretical barriers. The first theoretical barrier is that the two fields have fundamentally different goals and those goals are pursued in different ways. Neuroscientists are interested in the workings of the brain, the architecture of the mind, and how the two work together. Educators develop pedagogy. The second theoretical barrier is that the level on which they investigate is different. Devonshire and Dommett name five levels of investigation: individual genes/proteins, neurons, functional circuitry (brain regions and circuits), syndrome (all study related to a disorder), and normal behavior. Most neuroscientists work on the first three levels, while educators are involved with the last level. Neuroscience hasn’t made much contribution to the study of normal behavior, since most funding comes to the study of dysfunctions. The “gold standard” is to do research with healthy humans in suitable environments (page 352). This is a standard that is difficult to attain when dealing with children, schools, and funders. The third theoretical barrier is translating the content from one field to another. Teachers are enthusiatic about learning neuroscientists, but the neuroscientists are “cautious…for fear of seeing their work lost in translation” (page 349). Also, neuroscience can be used to assess educational theories and practices, but it is difficult to use it to create theories.
Practical barriers. The first practical barrier is that the two fields use a different working language, which creates a need for people who are bilingual. It is suggested that neuroscientists need to learn to communicate better with teachers and the general public. This lack of a common vocabulary means that neuroscientists and teachers have different definitions of such basics as “learning” and “research.” Research design in the two fields is very different–neuroscientists work in labs where they can isolate individual variables, while educators deal with a variety of variables and accept qualitative research as valid. Action research lacks the stringent controls that neuroscientists demand. The second practical barrier is finding time and a suitable environment for teachers and neuroscientists to collaborate.
Strengths and Critiques
This article is very well-organized into two main sections (theoretical and practical barriers), and each of these is divided into sub-sections. This structure, along with clear headings, makes it easy for the reader to follow the line of reasoning. However, the conclusion misses some of these points in its summary. Because the article was published in The Neuroscientist and due to the tone of the writing, the audience is neuroscientists and gives thoughts how to bridge the gap between science and society, in this case, educators. Unfortunately, it seemed to reinforce stereotypical characterizations of both scientists and educators. I am not sure if this is the fault of the authors or the reader. The picture painted is one of the scientist working in a sterile lab, unable and unwilling to communicate with outsiders. Teachers, on the other hand, lack the ability to understand research from a field as stringent as neuroscience, which is “impossible to understand by educators” (page 353). “Teachers know very little about the brain, and in some instances, their knowledge was not only poor, but actually incorrect” (page 352).
The article is a good read for contemplating why partnerships are not successful, and gives the reader hope that the gap can be bridged. There are very specific areas for work.
Relation to other readings
I found this to be an interesting follow-up to our class and readings about communities of practice. One thing that really stood out for me was the discussion of border practices, explained by Wenger (2000, pages 232-238). Devonshire and Dommett’s analysis of the barriers leads to the conclusion that something must be done to bridge the two communities of practice. The article is a step in the right direction, enlightening the two fields of the differences between them. Understanding these differences is the first step towards bridging the gap.
Wenger also points out that for collaboration between communities of practice to occur, there needs to be some common ground, as well as areas of real difference (page 233). Devonshire and Dommett clearly delineate the areas of difference, but leave the question of common ground unanswered. They even make a point of taking areas that seem to be common ground (i.e., learning takes place in the brain and mind) and change it into an area of difference (i.e., we disagree on what learning is).
I think Devonshire and Dommett would agree with Wenger when he says that the two communities need to find ways to “translate between repertoires so that experience and competence actually interact” (page 233).
Both articles point to the fact that much work needs to be done in order to have a true collaboration between neuroscientists and educators.
Implications for research
I see many important implicatons for my own research. First, I will need to learn more about the field of neuroscience, trying to educate myself so that I can see through the lens of the scientists. I will need to undertake what Devonshire and Dommett deem “impossible,” being an educator who is trying to understand neuroscience. There is nothing I like more than a challenge! I am now cognizant that words may have different definitions and connotations in neuroscience than they do in education, and that I will have to understand scientific research methods.
They also point out, through many examples, that information found in teacher magazines and mainstream media may be inaccurate. Two examples given are the idea that a person is right-brained or left-brained (both hemispheres work together) and the fact that there is no conclusive research about the causes of dyslexia, even though policy-makers and teachers ascribe to certain research-based beliefs, while ignoring other research that validates other ideas.
Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of Practice and Social Learning Systems. Organization, 7(2), 225–246. doi:10.1177/135050840072002