Howard-Jones Paul A, Varma Sashank, Ansari Daniel, Butterworth Brian, De Smedt Bert, Goswami Usha, Laurillard Diana, Thomas Michael S C
Graduate School of Education, University of Bristol.
Department of Educational Psychology, University of Minnesota.
Psychol Rev. 2016 Oct;123(5):620-7. doi: 10.1037/rev0000036.
In his recent critique of Educational Neuroscience, Bowers argues that neuroscience has no role to play in informing education, which he equates with classroom teaching. Neuroscience, he suggests, adds nothing to what we can learn from psychology. In this commentary, we argue that Bowers' assertions misrepresent the nature and aims of the work in this new field. We suggest that, by contrast, psychological and neural levels of explanation complement rather than compete with each other. Bowers' analysis also fails to include a role for educational expertise-a guiding principle of our new field. On this basis, we conclude that his critique is potentially misleading. We set out the well-documented goals of research in Educational Neuroscience, and show how, in collaboration with educators, significant progress has already been achieved, with the prospect of even greater progress in the future. (PsycINFO Database Record
在最近对教育神经科学的批评中,鲍尔斯认为神经科学在为教育提供信息方面没有作用,他将教育等同于课堂教学。他认为,神经科学对于我们从心理学中学到的东西毫无增益。在这篇评论中,我们认为鲍尔斯的断言歪曲了这个新领域工作的性质和目标。相比之下,我们认为心理学和神经学层面的解释是相互补充而非相互竞争的。鲍尔斯的分析也没有考虑到教育专业知识的作用——这是我们这个新领域的一项指导原则。在此基础上,我们得出结论,他的批评可能会产生误导。我们阐述了教育神经科学研究中记录充分的目标,并展示了与教育工作者合作如何已经取得了重大进展,且未来有望取得更大的进展。(《心理学文摘数据库记录》)