Purdy neuroscience-ies08

This article was downloaded by: [University College Cork]
On: 1 October 2008
Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 785045793]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Irish Educational Studies
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t716100713

Neuroscience and education: how best to filter out the neurononsense from our
classrooms?
Noel Purdy a
a
Stranmillis University College, Belfast

Online Publication Date: 01 September 2008

To cite this Article Purdy, Noel(2008)'Neuroscience and education: how best to filter out the neurononsense from our
classrooms?',Irish Educational Studies,27:3,197 — 208
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/03323310802242120
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03323310802242120

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Irish Educational Studies
Vol. 27, No. 3, September 2008, 197Á208

Neuroscience and education: how best to ﬁlter out the neurononsense from
our classrooms?
Noel Purdy*

Stranmillis University College, Belfast

This article considers the extent to which neuroscience is being applied to education,
both on a classroom level and also on the level of curricular reform in Northern Ireland.
The article reviews recent research in the area of neuroscience and education and
examines a number of popular ‘neuromyths’. It urges the educational world to take a
Downloaded By: [University College Cork] At: 14:32 1 October 2008

more informed, cautious and critical approach to neuroscience in education, not least
in terms of the Northern Ireland Revised Curriculum, and also makes a plea to the
neuroscientific community to police in a more rigorous way the application and
misapplication of research findings in schools.
Keywords: neuroscience; education; curriculum

Introduction: exploring common ‘neuromyths’
Recent years have seen an astonishing rise in the popularity of educational packages and
programmes which claim to be based on the latest brain research. Where once neuroscience
and education seemed poles apart, it would appear that the gap is now being bridged.
However, while some are incredibly enthusiastic about the educational benefits to be
gained from neuroscience (Greenleaf 1999; Clark 2001), others have expressed reservations
and urged caution. Importantly, many of these criticisms have come from within
neuroscience itself, where several recent and authoritative publications have voiced
concern that neuroscience itself is being discredited by some of the classroom packages.
Goswami (2006), Director of the Centre for Neuroscience in Education at the University of
Cambridge, correctly diagnoses the core issue: despite continued uncertainty in
neuroscience, school teachers are being bombarded with ‘brain-based learning’ packages
which contain a number of significant ‘neuromyths’, a term first employed in the
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) report on brain
learning (OECD 2002).
The OECD report refers to three examples, which will be considered briefly in turn:
first, the over-literal interpretation of hemispheric specialisation, where brain attributes are
assumed to come from either one hemisphere or the other, and which has led to teachers
being encouraged to identify pupils as either ‘left-brained’ or ‘right-brained’ learners.
Those children who are artistic are seen as ‘right brained’ while those who are logical or
mathematical are seen as ‘left brained’. This over-interpretation of laterality has been
widely criticised (see Bruer 1997; OECD 2002; Goswami 2004; Hall 2005). The OECD
report notes that one part of the brain rarely works in isolation, and that, with few
exceptions, cognitive tasks require both hemispheres to work in parallel (OECD 2002,

*Email: n.purdy@stran.ac.uk

ISSN 0332-3315 print/ISSN 1747-4965 online
# 2008 Educational Studies Association of Ireland
DOI: 10.1080/03323310802242120
http://www.informaworld.com

198 N. Purdy

§4.6.2). Hall (2005, 3) adds that this notion of ‘laterality’ is based on a ‘gross over-
simplification which is not supported by the brain research literature’ and notes that it was
based largely on examination of ‘split brain’ patients rather than subjects with normal,
healthy brains. Despite this criticism, references to hemispheric specialisation abound. In
one recent publication (Spooner 2006) which aims to support trainee teachers, newly
qualified teachers (NQTs) and teaching assistants in their work with children with special
educational needs (SEN), it is claimed that the two sides of the brain have ‘different
processing styles’ and that ‘in spite of some shifts in recent years, many classrooms and
teaching styles still largely favour the left-brain processors’ (61).
Second, the OECD report considers the ‘neuromyth’ that certain ‘critical periods’ exist
during which the brain requires a specific type of environmental stimulation in order to
develop normally. This suggests that if the biological ‘window’ is not exploited, then the
opportunity to learn is missed for ever. The report argues that it is more accurate to speak
of ‘sensitive’ rather than ‘critical periods’. Goswami (2004, 11) adds that ‘there seem to be
almost no cognitive capacities that can be ‘‘lost’’ at an early age’ and that learning is

still possible even after a period of environmental deprivation. Blakemore and Frith (2005,
31Á2) note that much of the clear evidence has been gathered in relation to sensory
development (for instance, visual or auditory development in babies). It is simply not
known whether such sensitive periods exist in terms of the development in formal
educational settings of skills such as reading, writing and numeracy. This remains an area
where education must be wary of the groundless over-generalisation of research evidence
from one aspect of cognitive development (sensory) to all other forms. The OECD report
concludes that ‘although education at an early age is highly important, it does not mean
that a large part of a person’s education must be concentrated into the childhood years’
(OECD 2002, §4.6.3).
Third, the OECD report dispels the myth that the development of neural connections
or synapses (synaptogenesis) requires an enriched environment, the implication being that
children require enriched classroom environments in order to facilitate normal neural
development. The scientific basis for this neuromyth is discredited on the grounds of lack
of evidence (OECD 2002, §4.6.3). Blakemore and Frith (2005, 32) report that the original
research carried out by Greenough discovered that rats raised in an enriched environment
(with wheels, ladders and other rats to play with) had up to 25% more synapses per neuron
in sensory areas of the brain than rats who had been deprived of such stimulation. Rats
raised in enriched environments were also better at learning tasks and negotiated mazes
more effectively. Blakemore and Frith (2005, 32) make the point, however, that the so-
called enriched environment was actually much more like the normal environment in which
rats live in the wild. Consequently they suggest that it is more accurate to say that a
‘normal environment leads to more synaptic connections than a deprived environment’
(33). In relation to the education of children in schools, caution is once more urged: while
the evidence might suggest that there is a sensory threshold below which a child’s brain
might not develop normally, there is no necessity artificially to enrich a normal
environment as there is no evidence to suggest that there is any benefit. Indeed over-
enrichment or hot-housing young children may actually be harmful, but as Blakemore and
Frith (2005) make clear, once again there is no clear evidence to confirm the hypothesis.
Aside from these three myths which the OECD report highlights, Goswami (2006)
notes two further neuromyths that have become popular across the United Kingdom in
recent years. The first of these myths relates to learning styles, the use of which is
advocated by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA 2004a) and more locally

Irish Educational Studies 199

by Education and Library Boards (ELBs) in Northern Ireland (see, for instance,
Thompson and Maguire 2001). One of the most common models is the VAK classification
where learners are tested to discover whether they are visual, auditory or kinaesthetic
learners. Thompson and Maguire (2001) outline the different learning styles and suggest
strategies to promote greater learning: visual learners, it is claimed, learn better through
seeing pictures, diagrams, moving images and colour, and are encouraged to use pictures,
mind maps or different colour pens to help the brain remember better; auditory learners
learn by storing sounds in their brains and are encouraged to listen to music while
learning, repeat their work out loud in funny voices and make up raps about their work;
kinaesthetic learners learn by movement or touch and should do things practically, walk
around while reading, do brain gym exercises (see below) or squeeze a sponge or stress-
release ball while working. As Goswami (2006) reports, children often wear badges labelled
V, A, or K to show their learning style for the benefit of their teachers, who are in turn
encouraged to differentiate their lesson planning to accommodate these three styles. The
source of this VAK model is difficult to trace despite its widespread application, but has

been linked to Dryden and Vos (2001) and Dunn and Dunn (1992, 1993). Coffield et al.
(2004), in their comprehensive study of 13 leading models of learning style (including the
Dunn and Dunn model, about which they express serious reservations), maintain that
there is a need for ‘independent, critical, longitudinal and large-scale studies with
experimental and control groups to test the claims for pedagogy made by the test
developers’ (61) and agree with Curry’s summation (Curry 1990, 54) of the current position
of research into learning styles where ‘researchers and users alike will continue groping like
the five men in the fable about the elephant, each with a part of the whole but none with
full understanding’ (61). The appeal of the VAK model is clearly its simplicity and its use is
widespread, but there is a need for further research, taking into account the ‘Hawthorne
Effect’, and how long the purported gains last. Recent publications, however, do not take
this uncertainty into account. Spooner (2006) notes that ‘the teacher needs to present the
lesson in a way that enables sensory preferences to be used by the learners’ (61), while
Thompson and Maguire (2001, 15) advise pupils to ‘think about your preferred learning
styles and develop the method of learning which suits you best’.
The final myth recorded by Goswami (2006) is that of the ‘Brain Gym’ programme
(Dennison and Dennison 1988), which advocates exercises to encourage whole-brain
learning. The programme is based on the premise of brain laterality (see above) and
promotes exercises to develop the ability to cross the brain’s ‘midline’, from right to left or
from left to right, ‘an ability fundamental to academic success’ (Dennison and Dennison
1988, 1). For instance, one of the sections of the programme encourages pupils to massage
‘brain buttons’ to the left and right of the sternum with one hand while holding the navel
with the other (Dennison and Dennison 1988, 25). Such a movement, it is claimed,
improves reading, coordination, the correction of letter and number reversals (central to
dyslexia), consonant blending and the ability to keep one’s pace while reading. In a review
commissioned by the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA)
to examine research relevant to the Early Years Enriched Curriculum Project in Northern
Ireland, Sproule et al. (2001, vii) note that ‘there is no reputable, peer-reviewed
neuroscience research which has application to the theory or practice of education (except
in confirmation of some general inferences which were already available from other
sources)’ and warn against the over-interpretation of research findings, particularly, in this
case, in relation to early years education. Sproule et al. (2001) cite Camissa’s research into
the ‘Brain Gym’ programme (Camissa 1994) which found an improvement in motor skills

200 N. Purdy

following the programme but no significant change in academic performance. However,
Sproule et al. (2001) fail to condemn the programme outright and indeed consider that the
‘Brain Gym’ programme, though supported by ‘tenuous’ research evidence, ‘is unlikely to
cause harm’ (49). They further note that many teachers appreciate the value of the
programme ‘in promoting co-ordination and muscle control, the training of attention skills
and the use of language (particularly in the naming of body parts and in the use of
prepositions such as across)’ (49). Nonetheless, ‘Brain Gym’ represents one of the most
obvious instances of ‘neurononsense’ and, in contrast to the reaction of Sproule et al.
(2001), there is a clear need for the educational and neuroscientific community to speak out
against such programmes, given that they make unjustified claims to enhance not only
motor skills but also a wide range of other cognitive skills, such as literacy and numeracy.
As Goswami states:
In my view we should not remain quiet when claims that we know to be spurious are made,
such as that children can organise themselves for reading and writing by pressing their ‘brain
buttons’. (Goswami 2006, 7)

Goswami notes the urgency of the need to dispel such myths, but interestingly, in reporting
a recent conference for teachers and neuroscientists held in Cambridge, recounts the
frustration of the teachers in attendance at being told that there was no scientific basis for
the brain-based programmes in use in their schools. Moreover, Goswami acknowledges the
failure of neuroscience to communicate effectively to teachers, most of whom, it is claimed,
‘prefer broad brush messages with a ‘‘big picture’’, and being told ‘‘what works’’’ (6).
Unfortunately, although there have been words of caution voiced by the neuroscientific
community, numerous ‘scientifically spurious applications’ (7) remain unchecked in many
schools.
Criticism of the role of neuroscience in education is not new. Bruer, deemed ‘the most
outspoken critic of a premature application of brain research to education’ (Blakemore and
Frith 2005, 9) famously argued (Bruer 1997, 5) that the ‘neuroscience and education
argument may be rhetorically appealing, but scientifically, it’s a bridge too far’. Bruer
makes the case for cognitive psychology as a potential intermediate level of analysis,
necessary to link brain science to education, but urges caution in attempting to make direct
links between classroom learning and neuroscience:
Neuroscience has discovered a great deal about neurons and synapses, but not nearly enough to
guide educational practice. Currently, the span between brain and learning cannot support
much of a load. Too many people marching in step across it could be dangerous. (Bruer
1997, 15)

More recently Geake and Cooper (2003) argue for a more considered ‘middle path, but
with cautious optimism that the relationship between cognitive neuroscience and education
will be for the long term’ (7). They ask educationalists to give neuroscience a ‘fair hearing’
(8) and argue that the embrace of neuroscience by educationists is a necessary means to
stem the ‘increasing marginalisation of teachers as pedagogues’ (11) from politicians and
board room directors with their predominantly instrumental objectives. They hope that
with knowledge of neuroscience, teachers will be better equipped to play a greater role in
the future of educational policy-making. The danger in not doing so, they argue, is that
teachers’ autonomy will be further eroded and that they will be marginalised in their own
workplace. Geake and Cooper (2003) conclude that ‘there are implications and
applications for education in cognitive neuroscience’ (17) and they look forward to the


day when there might be enough known about brain activity to monitor learning and
evaluate the effectiveness of instruction.
Geake and Cooper (2003) present two future vignettes based on a parentÁteacher
evening at a primary school where a parent is discussing the poor mathematics results
achieved by her son, Chris. In the first scenario the teacher has available a neuro-imaging
report compiled as Chris undertook his assessment tasks wearing a neuro-imaging headset.
The results were later statistically analysed by computer and the parentÁteacher report
generated. On the basis of this computer-generated report, the class teacher identifies
Chris’s relatively weak short-term memory and recommends a remedial course to
strengthen the relevant circuit. The parent is pleased at the decisive action taken by the
teacher and is impressed by her ‘professionality’. In the second vignette the teacher admits
to a frustrated parent that she doesn’t know what is causing Chris’s problem, but
recommends that the parent goes to see an external agency (Cognitive Services Inc.)
specialising in cognitive processing. The teacher’s words succinctly express her lack of
confidence in herself and in her profession: ‘How would I know what to do? After all, I’m

only a teacher. I don’t know what is causing the problem’ (18).
Geake (2005, 12) is quick to point out that there have been mistakes made in the past as
‘intellectually unscrupulous characters’ have expounded over-simplistic theories, such as
learning styles, left- and right-brain thinking or ‘Brain Gym’ exercises (see above). Geake
insists that ‘university educationists need to provide a rigorous critical filter lest more
neuro-nonsense infects the nation’s schools’ (12). It is now time, Geake argues, that
education not only takes account of the developments in neuroscience but also begins to
make a contribution to the future agenda of neuroscientific research. Geake concludes that
‘a cognitive neuroscience-education nexus should be a two-way street’ (12).
As Geake and Cooper (2003) suggest, there has recently been a high level of interest in
brain functioning (Changeux 1985; Rose 1992; Greenfield 1997; Pinker 1998; Carter 2000;
Damasio 2000, 2004). In particular, interest has focused on the role of emotional
intelligence, spurred on by Goleman’s (1995) Emotional Intelligence. There has also been
increasing interest in the application of such neuroscientific findings to the social sciences
and, in particular, to education, most commonly on the micro scale of methodological
recommendations for the individual classroom. On a broader scale, the Qualifications and
Curriculum Authority (QCA 2004b, 7) has noted that ‘Developments in neuroscience, for
example, provide new insights into the way the brain works. We now know that intelligence
is multi-dimensional, that an individual’s capacity for learning is linked to their emotional
well-being and that people learn in a variety of ways.’ Perhaps more alarmingly, in
Northern Ireland, the education system is approaching an unprecedented curricular reform
(which was being phased in from September 2007) whose rationale is essentially based on
cognitive neuroscience.

Neuroscience and the Northern Ireland educational context
In its 2003 rationale for the new Northern Ireland curriculum at Key Stage 3, CCEA
(2003a) claims that neuroscience has ‘established’ factors about how we learn and notes
that these factors have been taken into account in the designing of the new curriculum.
CCEA suggests that these findings from neuroscience correspond with the findings of the
preceding Northern Ireland Cohort Study (Harland et al. 2002), a study of almost 3000
pupils in 51 schools, which had highlighted the need for the curriculum to be more
relevant, connected and skills-based. Significantly, however, following criticism of this

202 N. Purdy

over-emphasis on neuroscience, more recent statements by CCEA have reduced and, most
recently, removed altogether the mention of research into the brain as in any way shaping
the design of the new curriculum.
The ‘revised’ Northern Ireland curriculum (CCEA 2003a) comprises nine Learning
Areas (30): Learning for Life and Work (to include Education for Employability, Local
and Global Citizenship, and Personal Development, including PSHE and Home
Economics), and eight further General Learning Areas (the Arts; English and Irish;
Environment and Society; Modern Languages; Mathematics; Science and Technology;
Physical Education; Religious Education). It is further proposed that the following ‘skills
and capabilities’ should infuse every Learning Area: Personal and Interpersonal Skills,
Critical and Creative Thinking Skills, Communication, Application of Number, and
Information and Communication Technology (32). The statutory curriculum itself is
outlined as a minimum set of statements of entitlement, rather than as detailed
Programmes of Study. It is expected that this will give schools considerably more freedom

than at present to design a curriculum to suit the needs of their particular pupils, and,
indeed, schools will be encouraged to interpret and organise the entitlement framework in
different ways: options include organising the curriculum within Learning Areas,
combining subject strands from different Learning Areas, organising the curriculum
thematically or continuing to teach in discrete subject strands as before (33).
In a brief section of the rationale entitled The Learning Challenge, CCEA (2003b, 22)
notes that ‘recently neuroscience has established a number of factors which are critical to
learning and to motivation, about how our brains process information’. The following
paragraph sketches out the explicitly neuroscientific rationale for this major curricular
reform, although CCEA provides no references to the source literature:
We now know that the human brain creates meaning through perceiving patterns and making
connections and that thought is filtered through the emotional part of the brain first. The
likelihood of understanding taking place is therefore increased significantly if the experience
has some kind of emotional meaning, since the emotional engagement of the brain on some
level is critical to its seeing patterns and making connections. Learning is particularly effective
when we have opportunities to apply what is being learned and when we can transfer learning
from one situation to another. Neuroscience, therefore, highlights the need for learning to be
emotionally engaging to the learner, particularly during the 11Á14 age range when so much else
is going on with adolescents to distract them from school. (CCEA 2003a, 22)

CCEA also chooses to use neuroscience as the justification for placing collaborative
project work in which learning is contextualised, relevant and emotionally engaging at the
centre of the curriculum:
Recent brain research indicates that the brain searches for patterns and interconnections as its
way of making meaning. Researchers theorise that the human brain is constantly searching for
meaning and seeking patterns and connections. Authentic learning situations increase the
brain’s ability to make connections and retain new information. When we set the curriculum in
the context of human experience, it begins to assume a new relevance. (CCEA 2003b, 3)

CCEA argues that learning must be ‘connected’, and that learning must be approached ‘in
a more connected way’ (CCEA 2003a, 22). CCEA takes ‘connectedness’ to mean that the
traditional emphasis on teaching discrete subjects is being ‘questioned’ by recent
neuroscience. CCEA instead stresses the value of interdisciplinary skills and greater
collaboration between pupils and among subjects as a preparation for the world of work:


Our current emphasis on learning within separate subject disciplines dates back at least a
century and is based on the notion that each subject is a distinct form of knowledge with
separate characteristics, concepts and procedures which encourage efficient learning. Over the
last decade, we have begun to learn more about how the brain processes information and the
multi-faceted nature of work in the modern world. We are beginning to question the wisdom of
compartmentalising learning while expecting young people to cope with multi-dimensional
problems. There is growing recognition that separate subject teaching may prevent pupils from
seeing the relationships between subjects. (CCEA 2003b, 2Á3)

CCEA has already faced trenchant criticism of its overuse of neuroscience to justify the
curriculum innovations. Morrison (2006) refers to Strauss (2001), who argues that brain
research has been ‘oversold’. Strauss cites Kurt W. Fischer, director of the Mind, Brain
and Education programme at Harvard University’s Graduate School of Education, who
has written, ‘You can’t go from neuroscience to the classroom because we don’t know
enough about neuroscience.’ She also laments that many educators still believe that
education can be ‘reborn’ through neuroscience and therefore by buying what Sam

Wineburg, Professor at the College of Education at the University of Washington in
Seattle, calls ‘snake oil’.
CCEA responded to Morrison’s critique by claiming that it takes the ‘middle ground’
in terms of its application of neuroscience (CCEA 2006, 10). CCEA refers directly to a
review of the contribution of brain science to teaching and learning, commissioned by the
Scottish Executive Education Department (Hall 2005), in which a number of neuromyths
are dispelled (as in OECD 2002) and in which there is a cautious embrace of some findings
from neuroscientific research. CCEA (2006) concludes by playing down the foundational
role of neuroscience in the formation of the Revised Curriculum, despite evidence to the
contrary cited above in the earlier rationale of 2003:
CCEA emphasises, again, that neuroscience is not, and was not, the sole or prime foundation
for the review of the Northern Ireland curriculum. The review was based on a raft of research,
consultation and trialling to which neuroscience makes but one contribution. (CCEA 2006, 11)

Interestingly, however, in CCEA’s most recent rationale for the new curriculum at Key
Stage 3 (CCEA 2007a) there is no mention whatsoever of neuroscience, suggesting a
further reduction in emphasis even since their 2006 statement above. It is astounding
how CCEA’s faith in neuroscience could have been so quickly and comprehensively lost
in just four years. Nonetheless, CCEA has not withdrawn its support for a recently
reprinted, widely distributed publication (Thompson and Maguire 2001) aimed at
educational professionals in Northern Ireland and including sections on ‘Right and
Left Brain’, ‘Learning Styles’ and ‘Brain Gym’. In a foreword to the publication, the
Chief Executive of CCEA (at the time) notes that ‘it seems foolish to wait until we are
absolutely certain about everything, before we start to convey to young people some of
the basics about how the brain works and how this impacts on their learning’ (Boyd,
cited in Thompson and Maguire 2001, 2). Moreover in the most recent guidance offered
to teachers in advance of the implementation of the Revised Curriculum in September
2007, CCEA (2007b, 48) recommends using mind maps in the classroom as they ‘appeal
to different learning styles such as visual and kinaesthetic and encourage pupils to think
about connections in their learning content. They oblige pupils to use both sides of the
brain.’ Is the continued support for such ‘neuromyths’ really characteristic of taking the
‘middle ground’?

204 N. Purdy

While CCEA also claim that the new curriculum better reflects the views of employers
in Northern Ireland, it would appear that by mentioning neuroscience at all in the
rationale, CCEA had hoped to endow the reforms with credibility and a certainty, which,
as Goswami (2006) reminds us, neuroscientists themselves are simply not prepared to
endorse. If leading neuroscientists themselves are quite prepared to acknowledge the
uncertainty and limitations of their research, then CCEA should do likewise in any
publications.

Recommendations: a time for caution
In light of the reservations expressed by leading neuroscientists (Bruer 1997; Byrnes and
Fox 1998; OECD 2002; Goswami 2004, 2006; Blakemore and Frith 2005; Hall 2005), it is
clear that there is an urgent need to re-educate the educational community in relation to
the prevalent neuromyths which have been gaining in popularity over recent years. As
Goswami (2006, 2) remarks, anecdotal evidence would certainly suggest that ‘the speed

with which packages and programmes supposedly based on brain science have gained
widespread currency in schools is ‘‘astonishing’’’. And, as Geake reports (2005), even the
recently retitled Department for Children, Families and Schools has succumbed, with their
website seeming to endorse the use of VAK learning styles. As Geake notes with some
alarm:
It is not clear who should be more insulted: neuroscientists (for the misinterpretation of their
hard-won results), or teachers (for the implication that they are too dumb to understand
scientific complexities). (Geake 2005, 12)

This process of re-educating the educators will necessitate more effective dissemination of
the most recent neuroscientific research findings to the educational community. Until
now this has been attempted purely at the level of the academic journal or the textbook,
while it has been the more spurious publications which have made it into staffrooms and
classrooms through effective marketing and sales pitches. As a result of the inaccessibility
of much scientific research, most teachers remain unaware that many of the brain-based
learning packages being advocated are in fact based on generalisation, simplification and
dubious research evidence. Goswami (2006) criticises the neuroscientific community for
their inadequate communication skills and calls for a network of communicators of
neuroscientific research ‘who can bridge the current gulf between neuroscience and
education by providing high-quality knowledge in digestible form’ (7) and also for the
feeding back of research questions from the classroom to the scientists. Both Goswami
(2006) and Geake (2005) report the effectiveness of conferences in Cambridge and
Oxford to bring teachers and neuroscientists together and they can only be applauded
for their efforts. However, it is clear that only a small number of teachers can be
educated in this manner and that a more comprehensive strategy is required on a
national scale to address the problem before questionable practice becomes even more
entrenched.
The scale of this challenge is, however, immense in terms of the number of teachers who
need and deserve to be informed, first, of the latest insights to be gained from neuroscience,
and, second, of the limitations of the research to date. Part of the difficulty also lies in the
fact that the field of neuroscience is developing all the time, making it difficult for the non-
specialist to keep up to date with the progress. Nonetheless, Hall (2005) notes that there
has been something of a consensus in recent evaluations of the educational import of


neuroscience. These reviews, while not entirely dismissive of the ‘enthusiasts’, have
expressed some caution, and have argued against the neuroscientific ‘panacea’:
What has faded slightly is the belief that some grand scheme of ‘brain based education’ can be
made instantly available to transform learning and teaching. In its place is a more cautious and
incremental approach which acknowledges that our current state of knowledge is incomplete
and may be, in some aspects, inaccurate. (Hall 2005, 19)

The OECD report (2002) highlighted the need for ‘a healthy dose of scepticism’ (71) in
relation to the ‘neuromyths’ it identified, such as hemispheric dominance, synaptic
development, and critical periods and enrichment. Too often, it is claimed, ‘educators and
policy makers are left in a quandary discerning fact from fiction’ (70), as articles both for
and against these ‘neuromyths’ appear regularly in journals and the popular press.
However, in order to arrive at this position of scepticism, a certain foundation of
knowledge is required at classroom level, and, it would seem, at the level of the Education
and Library Boards/Local Authorities who have been actively promoting some of the most

spurious programmes in many schools. As the OECD report highlights, the situation is
complicated further by the varying degrees of certainty which exist in relation to different
neuroscientific findings. This only militates against the broad, brush-stroke messages
which, Goswami (2006) suggests, most teachers would like to receive. There is a need to
make the distinction between:
a) what is well-established (plasticity), b) what is probably so (sensitive periods), c) what is
intelligent speculation (the implications of gender) and d) what is a popular misconception or
oversimplification (the role of ‘left and right hemispheres’). (OECD 2002)

It now appears that there is a need for educationalists to reclaim some of the ground that
has been eroded from them by cognitive neuroscience researching on their ‘turf’ (Geake
2005, 11), and perhaps Geake is right to suggest that there is a valid self-interest argument
for educationalists to enter into dialogue, however sceptical they might be, lest their input
be completely overlooked by policy-makers. Moreover, Hall (2005) notes the increasing
acknowledgement that ‘any account of how education works which makes any claim to be
complete, coherent and scientific will need to be entirely congruent with what we know
about how the brain works’ (19). For those who are arch-sceptics, it would appear that
neuroscience is here to stay and that there is a real need to engage in the critical filtering
process to ensure that teachers are protected from programmes which make hollow claims.
There is an onus, therefore, on specialists in the field to publish their work in forms which
are more likely to reach a wide, general audience rather than purely limiting themselves to
academic journals.

Conclusion
This article has highlighted the common misapplication of brain science to education. It
has attempted to specify and dispel a number of the most common ‘neuromyths’ that are
in circulation and has made a number of recommendations so that teachers and
ultimately children in schools can be protected from the worst instances of ‘neuronon-
sense’ before any more time and money are wasted attempting, for instance, to cure
dyslexia by massaging ‘brain buttons’ on the sternum and navel. This article also
considers that to base an entire curricular reform on a neuroscientific rationale is
perhaps a little hasty, given the uncertainty which persists in many areas of neuroscience.

206 N. Purdy

It would appear, given the absence of neuroscience from its latest rationale for the new
curriculum in Northern Ireland (CCEA 2007a), that the CCEA may also have come to
the same realisation.
Three recommendations are made. First, education would be better served by
acknowledging the uncertainty which exists in terms of how children learn, an
uncertainty which neuroscientists are quite happy to accept. Bruer (1997) though highly
critical of the over-hasty, direct application of neuroscience to education, is, however,
hopeful with regard to the potential of cognitive psychology, which, he claims, is a ‘much
better bet’ (15) as a guide to educational practice and policy. Bruer notes the ‘possibility’
(15) that cognitive psychology in combination with brain imaging and recording
technologies could eventually offer insights into learning difficulties and facilitate the
development of more effective classroom intervention strategies. The language used by
Bruer is consistently tentative, reflecting his scepticism about brain-based educational
practice, and yet cautiously optimistic, redolent of his faith in the ‘two-bridge route’

(from neuroscience to cognitive psychology, and from cognitive psychology to the
classroom). While such guarded optimism is welcome in principle, there seems to be little
convincing evidence to suggest that the span between brain and learning is any more
robust even a decade later, or any more capable of supporting the ever-increasing
numbers of educators and parents ‘marching in step across it’ (15). To acknowledge
uncertainty should therefore not be seen as a weakness but rather as a welcome display
of honesty and humility.
Second, there is an urgent need for more rigorous scrutiny of learning programmes
which claim to be ‘brain based’ before implementing them in the classroom. At present
there is an urgent need for what Geake (2005, 12) refers to as a ‘critical filter’ provided by
those with enough specific knowledge to identify correctly the ‘neuromyths’ in new
publications destined for the classroom. The feasibility of such a filter is of course
questionable, given the proliferation of publications and the shortage of available critics
from within the neuroscientific community. However, this is undoubtedly an area which
must be addressed on a national level before further questionable practices are engaged in
at the level of the classroom. Currently many teachers who unwittingly follow the plethora
of brain-based learning packages are teaching ‘brain gym’ movements with the aim of
improving academic attainment, or are labelling children as ‘visual’, ‘auditory’ or
‘kinaesthetic’ learners, or are carrying out activities to promote greater balance in
development between left- and right-brain hemispheres, when there is no scientific
justification for any of these activities. Children too need to be disabused of the
misconceptions which may be passed on to them by their teachers and which encourage
a narrow focus on one learning style at the same time as the revised curriculum (influenced
by employers’ comments) aims to develop a broader range of skills as preparation for the
modern workplace (CCEA 2007a).
Third, there must be a greater and more meaningful dialogue between the educational
and neuroscientific communities. Conferences such as those held recently in Oxford and
Cambridge are welcomed in this regard but should be held regularly and on a much wider
geographical scale. Moreover, their conclusions should be disseminated to all schools in a
form which allows the non-specialist, busy classroom practitioner to read and discern what
is fact and what is fiction in brain-based learning packages.
Finally, in calling for greater humility, is it not time to admit how very little we still
know about the brain and about how children learn?


There is an enormous body of brain research, but with the brain being easily the most
complicated thing we know about in the universe we really still understand very little about it.
(Bryan D. Fantie, Director of the Human Neuropsychology Laboratory, American University,
cited in Strauss 2001)

Notes on contributor
Dr Noel Purdy is a Senior Lecturer in Education (Post-Primary) at Stranmillis University College,
Belfast. His research interests include neuroscience and education, modern language education and
special educational needs.

References
Blakemore, S.-J., and U. Frith. 2005. The learning brain: Lessons for education. Oxford: Blackwell.
Bruer, J.T. 1997. Education and the brain: A bridge too far. Educational Researcher 26, no. 8: 4Á16.
Byrnes, J.P., and N.A. Fox. 1998. The educational relevance of research in cognitive neuroscience.

Educational Psychology Review 10, no. 3: 297Á342.
Camissa, K.M. 1994. Educational kinesiology with learning disabled children: An efficacy study.
Perceptual and Motor Skills 78, February: 105Á6.
Carter, R. 2000. Mapping the mind. London: Phoenix.
Changeux, J. 1985. Neuronal man: The biology of mind. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Clark, B. 2001. Some principles of brain research for challenging gifted learners. Gifted Education
International 16, no. 1: 4Á10.
Coffield, F., D. Moseley, E. Hall, and K. Ecclestone. 2004. Should we be using learning styles? What
research has to say to practice. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre (LSRC).
Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA). 2003a. Proposals for curriculum
and assessment at Key Stage 3. Part 1: Background rationale and detail. Belfast: CCEA.
***. 2003b. Proposals for curriculum and assessment at Key Stage 3. Part 2: Discussion papers and
case studies. Belfast: CCEA.
***. 2006. Response to Dr Hugh Morrison’s criticisms of the revised curriculum and assessment
proposals including the pupil profile. http://www.ccea.org.uk.
***. 2007a. The Statutory Curriculum at Key Stage 3: Rationale and detail. Belfast: CCEA.
***. 2007b. Active learning and teaching methods for Key Stage 3. Belfast: CCEA.
Curry, L. 1990. A critique of the research on learning styles. Educational Leadership 48, no. 2: 50Á6.
Damasio, A. 2000. The feeling of what happens: Body and emotion in the making of consciousness.
London: Vintage.
***. 2004. Looking for Spinoza: Joy, sorrow and the feeling brain. London: Vintage.
Dennison, P., and G. Dennison. 1988. Brain gym Á teachers’ edition. Ventura: Edu-Kinesthetics Inc.
Dryden, G., and J. Vos. 2001. The learning revolution: To change the way the world learns. Stafford:
Network Educational Press in association with Learning Web.
Dunn, R., and K. Dunn. 1992. Teaching elementary students through their individual learning styles:
Practical approaches for grades 3Á6. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
***. 1993. Teaching secondary students through their individual learning styles: Practical
approaches for grades 7Á12. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Geake, J. 2005. Educational neuroscience and neuroscientific education: In search of a mutual
middle-way. Research Intelligence: News from the British Educational Research Association 92:
10Á3.
Geake, J., and P. Cooper. 2003. Cognitive neuroscience: Implications for education? Westminster
Studies in Education 26, no. 1: 7Á20.
Goleman, D. 1995. Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. London: Bloomsbury.
Goswami, U. 2004. Neuroscience and education. British Journal of Educational Psychology 74: 1Á14.
***. 2006. Neuroscience and education: From research to practice. Nature Reviews Neuroscience
7: 406Á13.
Greenfield, S. 1997. The human brain: A guided tour. London: Weidenfield and Nicholson.
Greenleaf, R.K. 1999. It’s never too late! What neuroscience has to offer high schools. National
Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin 83, no. 608: 81Á9.

208 N. Purdy

Hall, J. 2005. Neuroscience and education: A review of the contribution of brain science to teaching and
learning. Glasgow: Scottish Council for Research in Education.
Harland, J., H. Moor, K. Kinder, and M. Ashworth. 2002. Is the curriculum working? The Key Stage 3
phase of the Northern Ireland Curriculum Cohort Study. Slough: National Foundation for
Educational Research (NFER).
Morrison, H. 2006. Brain based learning? Fortnight 440: 9Á10.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2002. Understanding the brain:
Towards a new learning science. Paris: OECD.
Pinker, S. 1998. How the mind works. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Qualiﬁcations and Curriculum Authority (QCA). 2004a. Learning and teaching within a ﬂexible
curriculum. http://www.qca.org.uk/14-19/6th-form-schools/index_s3-3-learning-teaching.htm.
***. 2004b. Futures: Meeting the challenge. http://www.qca.org.uk/downloads/11493_futures_
meeting_the_challenge.pdf.
Rose, S. 1992. The making of memory. London: Bantam Books.
Spooner, W. 2006. The SEN handbook for trainee teachers, NQTs and teaching assistants. London:
David Fulton.
Sproule, L., R. Murray, V. Spratt, H. Rafferty, K. Trew, N. Sheehy, and C. McGuinness. 2001. A
review of recent research relevant to the early years enriched curriculum project. Belfast: School of

Psychology, Queen’s University.
Strauss, V. 2001. Brain research oversold, experts say. Washington Post, March 13.
Thompson, H., and S. Maguire. 2001. Mind your head: Get to know your brain and how to learn.
Antrim: North Eastern Education and Library Board (NEELB).

Purdy neuroscience-ies08

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Similaire à Purdy neuroscience-ies08

Similaire à Purdy neuroscience-ies08 (20)

Plus de Emma Grice

Plus de Emma Grice (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Purdy neuroscience-ies08