can the differences between education and neuroscience be overcome by mind, brain, and education?

MIND, BRAIN, AND EDUCATION

Volume 3—Number 1© 2009 the Author

Journal Compilation © 2009 International Mind, Brain, and Education Society and Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 45

ABSTRACT — The new fi eld of Mind, Brain, and Education (MBE) — sometimes called educational neuroscience — is pos-ited as a mediator between neuroscience and education. Several foundational concerns, however, can be raised about this emerging fi eld. The differences between neuroscience and education are many, including differences in their histo-ries, philosophies, and epistemologies. Historically, science and education have demonstrated separate, but interwoven, infl uences on society; philosophically, the values by which they operate are often in opposition; and epistemologically, the fi elds have relied on different conceptualizations of knowledge. Discussion about these differences has been largely absent in attempts to promote MBE. Two steps are proposed to respond to this omission. First, encouraging dis-cussion about disciplinary differences and assumptions may enable better understanding between disciplines and facili-tate the establishment of a more collaborative research com-munity. Second, a transdisciplinary framework that focuses on salient issues of interest across disciplines should be consid-ered. Transdisciplinarity aims for the creation of an inclusive research environment that transcends traditional disciplinary approaches to complex problems. This article initiates an ex-ploration of disciplinary differences and proposes commit-ment to transdisciplinarity as a guiding principle that may increase the viability of MBE as a mediating fi eld between neuroscience and education.

The new fi eld of Mind, Brain, and Education (MBE) — some-times called educational neuroscience — is proposed as a site

for encouraging greater interaction between neuroscience and education. Neuroscience has arguably taken the lead in this endeavor, both publicly by capitalizing on popular fasci-nation with “ brain science ” and also in the research commu-nity. Education has been the more ambivalent partner.

Questions about the feasibility or appropriateness of neu-roscience in education have been persistent ( Bruer, 1997; Davis, 2004; Szucs & Goswami, 2007 ), and although such concerns are generally acknowledged, responses to them have been less compelling. Prominent among the concerns is the relation between neuroscience research and classroom appli-cation; other concerns centre on the proliferation of “ neuro-myths ” and questionable “ brain-based ” pedagogies (Geake & Cooper, 2003; Goswami, 2006; Pickering & Howard-Jones, 2007 ), as well as the basic question of whether neuroscience fi ndings provide any unique contributions to educational research beyond what can be found using traditional behav-ioral methods. Similar questions have been raised about the implications of cognitive neuroscience for the fi eld of edu-cational psychology ( Berninger & Corina, 1998; Byrnes & Fox, 1998; Mayer, 1998; Schunk, 1998; Stanovich, 1998 ). In response to these concerns, there have been calls for changes in the ways future researchers and educators are prepared in their graduate training in both neuroscience and education ( Ansari & Coch, 2006; Berninger & Corina, 1998; Eisenhart, 2005; Lagemann, 2008 ). Such changes would presumably lead to the development of individuals who are equally comfortable in both domains.

The initial viability of MBE thus appears to be contingent upon whether the two major players are willing and able to commit themselves to the new fi eld and hence, to some degree, to each other. Gaining such a commitment, however, should not be assumed to be a straightforward or entirely rational matter, despite its promise and import. The differences between neuroscience and education are many, including dif-ferences in their histories, philosophies, and epistemologies.

1 Faculty of Education, University of Western Ontario

Address correspondence to Boba M. Samuels, Faculty of Education, University of Western Ontario, 1137 Western Road, London, Ontario, Canada N6G 1G7; e-mail: [email protected]

Can the Differences Between Education and Neuroscience be Overcome by Mind, Brain, and Education? Boba M. Samuels 1

Volume 3—Number 146

Overcoming Differences in MBE

Historically, science and education have demonstrated sepa-rate, but interwoven, infl uences on society that have led to a characterization of science as prestigious and education as failure ridden. Philosophically, the values by which they oper-ate are often in opposition; and epistemologically, the fi elds have relied on different conceptualizations of knowledge that have had powerful infl uences on each fi eld ’ s approach to research and practice. My fi rst aim in this article is to propose that these areas need attention if MBE is to establish itself and gain productivity. My second aim is to introduce transdis-

ciplinarity as an approach to creating a viable framework to support MBE ’ s development. Trandisciplinarity is a perspec-tive on knowledge creation that integrates disciplines at the level of particular issues. It is an approach ideally suited for fi nding complex solutions to complex problems.

SCIENCE AND EDUCATION

History

Many researchers have noted the diffi cult relationship between science and education ( Bruer, 1997; Feuer, Towne, & Shavelson, 2002; Goswami, 2006; Lagemann, 2000 ). Histori-cally, however, science and education have overlapped to a great extent, starting with the ancient Greeks. The most famous Greek philosophers, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, are famous not only for their philosophies but also for their infl u-ence on both education and science. Socratic questioning methods, Plato ’ s written records, and Aristotle ’ s systematic categorizations have provided pedagogical models that remain in use today. It is with the Greeks, too, that the par-ticular style of thinking that is scientifi c began to assert itself ( Lloyd, 1979 ). It was in the Age of Reason, however, that the great fl ourishing of scientifi c thought began, diverging from the holistic tradition of education, and continuing to the present. This 400 year long development of a scientifi c tradi-tion arguably represents humanity ’ s most productive attempt to learn about the world and our role in it and to infl uence its future ( Kuhn, 1970; Medawar, 1996 ). The effects of this scien-tifi c revolution have been pronounced, ranging from the secu-larization of society, to industrial developments, to our changing interactions with the environment.

Education, on the other hand, despite its common origins with science, has only recently become an identifi able force infl uencing the development of large proportions of people in society. Throughout history, access to education was often reserved for the select rather than the masses. During some periods, such as the Dark Ages, even many members of select groups such as clergy were uneducated, with learning and culture “ preserved ” in libraries rather than shared ( Dupuis, 1966 ). Into the Middle Ages, education usually involved some aspect of religious training, with monasteries, churches, and then universities operating as the primary sites of learning

( Bazerman & Rogers, 2008 ). The creation of universities at this time was an important landmark in the history of edu-cation. Apprenticeships and vocational guilds were available to some as alternative means of education. Following the invention of the printing press around 1447, access to written texts allowed more people to become literate, a hallmark of being educated. Greater literacy enabled people to interpret for themselves important religious and scientifi c documents ( Olson, 1994 ), thus setting the stage for confl icts between education, religion, and science. From the enlightenment onward, scientifi c thought became increasingly infl uential and contentious, and these confl icts eventually saw reli-gion losing its place as the dominant societal force. In this period, science fl ourished and education for purposes other than religious vocations became possible. Nevertheless, most people remained illiterate and uneducated; even in 19th cen-tury Europe there was debate about the merits and content of compulsory education for the general public (Clanchy, as cited by Olson, 1994 ). It was not until the mid-19th century that widespread public education began to establish itself ( Lagemann, 2000 ).

When education fi nally became more widely available in the 19th century, the differences that had arisen between sci-ence and education did not diminish and arguably became increasingly pronounced. In the United States, for instance, the connection between public education and religion remained strong, despite the constitutional separation of church and state ( Jacoby, 2008 ). Associating education with moral upbringing, however, exacerbated the tensions already present between education and science. Universities, which often began as religious institutions, gradually shifted to align themselves with science more than religion, contributing to fragmentation within education. In addition, public educa-tion often remained a province of local governments more than a national responsibility, so that most education was highly dependent upon the resources of the local community ( Jacoby, 2008 ). Even in countries where education has oper-ated under a strong national curriculum, its practices and quality have varied widely between regions. As a result, edu-cation displays local characteristics and its quality is often diverse, lacking the singular identifi cation that has unifi ed science. Moreover, because of its association with children and with teachers who were predominantly female, educa-tion came to be seen as a gendered, low-status fi eld, readily susceptible to public criticism of its limitations ( Lagemann, 2000 ). In comparison, science benefi ted from its institution-alization in universities and its association with a long his-tory of privileged, primarily male learning. The result of these differing histories is that science is generally perceived to be cosmopolitan, successful, and powerful, whereas education appears insular, fragmented, and failure ridden. These char-acterizations have had important infl uences on practitioners in these disciplines.

Volume 3—Number 1 47

Boba M. Samuels

Attempts to reconnect scientifi c progress with education have often suffered because of simplistic assumptions that the failings of education can be directly remediated through the application of science, an attitude that fails to consider education ’ s history and situatedness. For instance, the “ new math ” and “ Man: A Course of Study ” were two programs designed by researchers in the 1960s to improve teaching of their respective subjects; both ultimately failed because of a lack of insight into the complexities of the teaching endeavor, including ignorance of the extent to which educa-tion is dependent upon local, political, and religious factors ( Lagemann, 2000 ). Underlying such misbegotten projects we are likely to fi nd unexamined assumptions and lack of awareness about the historical contexts of both fi elds.

Attempts to bridge the gap between science and education continue to be made today ( Blakemore & Frith, 2005; Fischer et al., 2007; Stern, 2005 ). These attempts are made, however, with scant acknowledgment that many educators are reluc-tant to engage with research and that this reluctance may have its roots in the histories of the fi elds. As explanation for their avoidance of research, educators identify factors such as the perceived irrelevance of research to classroom practice, lack of professional support for research activity, comprehen-sibility issues, and lack of confi dence ( Boardman, Arguelles, Vaughn, Hughes, & Klinger, 2005; Everton, Galton, & Pell, 2000; Gökdere, Kücük, & Cepni, 2006; Pickering & Howard-Jones, 2007; Teppo, Rannikmäe, & Holbrook, 2006 ). Research avoidance within the fi eld of education is most striking in the pervasive view that educational psychology, which is per-ceived to be aligned with experimental research, is irrelevant to educational practice ( Berliner, 2006 ). The history of edu-cational psychology is one of a fi eld caught between humanis-tic and scientifi c approaches to learning and ironically found lacking by both: “ to our colleagues in psychology, we are too educational, a disparaging label refl ecting our interest in studying educationally relevant problems . . . [and] to our col-leagues in education, we are too psychological, a disparaging label refl ecting our interest in . . . scientifi c research meth-ods and theories ” ( Mayer, 2001 ). Such contradictions at the researcher level are reproduced at the practitioner level. For instance, even when educators are eager to grasp research, they have been criticized as naïve or gullible (see Berliner, 2006 ). The chastisement of educators for accepting neuro-myths can be seen as continuing evidence of this tendency to criticize educators both for ignoring scientifi c research on the one hand and for uncritically accepting its claims on the other.

In spite of the limiting effects of their histories as out-lined here, there is promising evidence of growth in inter-actions between scientists and educators. The publication literature, for instance, demonstrates that both scientists and educationists are moving toward more integration. A recent search of the major psychology database (PsychInfo) and a

major education database (ERIC) for articles on the topic of neuroscience and education turned up 1,121 articles from PsychInfo, whereas just 71 were found in ERIC. 1 Many of the articles fl agged in PsychInfo, however, were highly special-ized for neuroscientists and provided few clear links to edu-cation beyond the cliché that “ fi ndings may have implications for educational practice. ” In contrast, articles from ERIC were generally focused on the applicability of neuroscience fi ndings to educational issues, suggesting that while fewer educational researchers are addressing neuroscience in their research, those that are doing so are likely to be committed to an integrative approach.

A similar concern regarding the applications of cognitive science research to education was examined by McNamara (2006) . In her study, McNamara found that journal articles in cognitive science often claimed educational implications, but results of these studies were rarely considered from the per-spective of educators, nor did researchers attempt to include educators in either creating research projects or conducting analyses. Cognitive psychologists thus appeared to attempt only superfi cial inclusion of educators in their research on educational issues. These results have implications for the call that cognitive psychology should play a mediating role between education and neuroscience ( Bruer, 1997 ). If cogni-tive psychology itself demonstrates few strong collaborations with education, how can it act as a mediator for neuroscience in education? Moreover, the possibility that collaboration between such fi elds may be more superfi cial than integral suggests that MBE needs to consider carefully the types of interactions it wishes to promote, given the historical con-texts of the two founding fi elds and then choose actions that best support those interactions.

Philosophy

A second point to consider in founding the MBE partnership is the philosophical tradition of education. Learning means different things to different people. From the Greeks, we have inherited the confl ict between episteme ( “ pure ” knowledge) and techne (craft or art). Thus began the philosophical debate between a view of education as the enlightenment and transformation of the individual, in opposition to a view of education as application focused and pragmatic. This tension continues to operate in the current context, and many educa-tors may bristle at the notion that education is about “ the shaping of individual brains via targeted experience in the classroom ” ( Szucs & Goswami, 2007 , p. 114) — a proposition that seems to reduce education to an exercise in brain manip-ulation. Similarly, the suggestion that MBE be defi ned as “ the study of the development of mental representations ” (p. 114) is unlikely to be embraced by educators. It is not only the lexi-con itself that is problematic but also the unexamined philo-sophical assumptions behind it.



Currently, the division between theoretical (abstract) knowledge and technical (practical) knowledge is refl ected in the disciplinary polarity between the liberal arts and the sciences. In this context, education aligns itself with the lib-eral arts and the notion of the holistic development of the person in society, whereas science is aligned with empirical and technical analysis that leads to verifi able claims. Roughly, this coincides with a characterization of constructivist educa-tion versus positivistic science, a false dichotomy that became exemplifi ed in the unproductive opposition of qualitative and quantitative research methodologies. The pervasiveness of these distinctions, their perceived values in our economi-cally dominated societies, and their polarizing effects on research communities should not be underestimated. They are especially evident in the recent controversies within education, as conventional scientifi c (i.e., experimental) methods gained impetus from political actions such as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, leading to confrontations between educational researchers from various backgrounds (see Jacob & White, 2002 ).

The current emphasis on scientifi c perspectives has led educational researchers from different traditions to feel mar-ginalized and to voice legitimate concerns about the goals of educational research — goals that are inherently shaped by values based in philosophical perspectives. Contributing to the tension has been persistent criticism of the quality of educational research, a critique that can be linked to educa-tion ’ s history as a local, situated practice. In response, many researchers have concluded that increased methodological rigor, regardless of perspective, is necessary for the fi eld of educational research to advance ( Lagemann, 1999; Tooley & Darby, 1998; Winne, 1999 ). Other developments, such as the rise of mixed methods research, recognition that educational solutions are more likely to be complex than simple, and increasing evidence of sociocultural effects on behavior, may fi nally be defusing these tensions that were recently so debili-tating to educational researchers ( Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Mitchell & Haro, 1999 ).

Philosophical issues permeate education because educa-tion has tended to concern itself with learning in a very broad meaning of the term, whereas science has valued increasing specifi cation. The question, “ What does it mean to be edu-cated? ” is a diffi cult, value-laden concern that educators must grapple with not only in armchair theorizing but also to inform their approach to pedagogy, which can never be ideologically neutral or objective. The “ art ” of teaching has thus never been easily reconciled to the “ science ” of teaching. Complicating the issue is the fact that educational expectations engender much controversy among parents, students, administrators, and public offi cials, something that the scientifi c commu-nity involved in highly specialized, diffi cult-to-understand research has often not had to contend with directly. With the increasing intrusion into our daily lives of scientifi c applica-

tions such as those of genetics, medical science, and industry, however, the traditional distance between science and the general public is shrinking, leading to growth in interdiscipli-nary fi elds such as medical ethics and environmental law — fi elds that expressly consider scientifi c practices in light of normative evaluations and thus fulfi ll a mediating function with the public. Seen from this perspective, it may be that MBE can benefi t from the values underpinning both founding disciplines. Attention to philosophical issues could enable MBE to play a vital, mediating role in building trust into the interactions between researchers, educators, and the public.

In education, debates about philosophical and theoretical perspectives often include contentious positions grounded in radically different worldviews; for example, structural approaches ( Bowles & Gintis, 1976; Parsons, 1975 ), politi-cal approaches ( Freire, 1970/2005; Gutmann, 1987 ), devel-opmental approaches (e.g., Piaget), sociological approaches ( Bourdieu, 1977 ), and sociocultural approaches ( Vygotsky, 1978 ). In comparison to the multiplicity of perspectives avail-able in educational theory, traditional science offers a seem-ingly unifi ed empirical view, focused on experimentation, lacking the complex contradictions evident in theories of education. Such a view neglects to acknowledge the impor-tant role of scientifi c debate in creating, analyzing, critiqu-ing, comparing, and overturning scientifi c theories. Although both fi elds are characterized by vigorous debate, the levels at which debate has taken place have been different. MBE will likely fi nd that it must accommodate itself to these differences so that participants avoid talking past each other.

Epistemology

The most common epistemologies are those pitting rational-ism (roughly, knowledge comes from what can be thought about) against empiricism (knowledge comes from what can be perceived). Traditionally, education has been founded on the former, whereas science relies upon the latter. Consistent with what has been said about education ’ s history and phi-losophies, its underlying epistemologies favor holistic and subjective perspectives over those identifi ed with science, namely analytic and objective perspectives.

The power of epistemological conceptualizations can be seen, for example, in Freire ’ s (1970/2005) criticism of the “ banking model ” of education, in which deposits of knowl-edge are made to the mind ’ s bank account. This metaphor fi gured prominently in his pedagogy of the oppressed and has been highly infl uential in critical pedagogy in the 20th century. As well, there is evidence that teachers ’ theoretical conceptualizations of knowledge infl uence pedagogy and, in turn, students ’ epistemologies ( Johnston, Woodside-Jiron, & Day, 2001 ). In other words, epistemic beliefs in education have far-reaching and observable implications. Currently, the prevalent epistemic stance in education is that of constructivism — that


Boba M. Samuels

knowledge is constructed by the individual — and uses a metaphor of building to bring it to life. Constructivism is also, however, increasingly infl uencing scientifi c research such as work in human development (e.g., Karmiloff-Smith, 2006 ). This use of one discipline ’ s epistemic concepts by another is a hopeful sign for expanding and integrating knowledge outside of traditional boundaries.

Science, of course, is not immune to epistemic position-ing and has its own metaphors for traditional views of what counts as knowledge and reality (e.g., knowledge is power), as Lakoff and Johnson (1980) note. These metaphors help to construct the myth of objectivism upon which science has successfully operated, though they have been so widely accepted as to be almost invisible and thus less open to cri-tique. Because both science and education have relied on different epistemologies, it might be expected that efforts to bridge the fi elds would necessitate understanding these epistemic differences.

A simple bridge between two epistemologies is not likely to be suffi cient, however. Increasingly, traditional conceptu-alizations of knowledge are being questioned. New concep-tualizations include, but go beyond, questioning receptive versus constructivist concepts, that is, that knowledge can be transmitted to others versus that knowledge is created by the individual. The view that knowledge refers to the content of individuals ’ brains, for instance, has been argued. Models of knowledge as situated in communities ( Lave & Wenger, 1991 ) or as something that emerges from a neural network are infl uential, such as the “ new ” connectionism model ( Bereiter, 2002 ). Advances using computational modeling, such as that used in complex systems analysis, emphasize the emergent properties of knowledge and call into question the ability to reduce this knowledge to rules-based actions on propositions in mind ( Goldstone, 2006; Sabelli, 2006; Westermann, Sirois, Shultz, & Mareschal, 2006 ). Dynamic systems approaches consider the inherent variability of the knowledge that people demonstrate and try to explain this by using dynamic models that account for the interaction of multiple contextual ele-ments ( Fischer & Bidell, 2006 ; van Geert, 1998). MBE ’ s com-mitment to research via cutting edge technology also means that advances in computer science and the learning sciences should be included in its deliberations, along with these fi elds ’ conceptualizations of knowledge or “ intellectual prop-erty ” ( Bereiter, 2002 ). The question of what knowledge is, what “ the mind ” is, and what relation the brain has to these elements are questions beyond the realm of any one discipline and promise to be contentious and exciting for many years to come. Creating a fi eld in which participants from multi-ple disciplines can consider these questions together is a goal toward which MBE should want to strive. The notion that MBE simply needs to reconcile the positions of those holding to traditional rationalist and empiricist epistemologies is not realistic at the start of the 21st century.

It is clear that space should be made within MBE for various types of researchers, along with respect for their epistemo-logical perspectives. Assuming that everyone shares the same epistemology is unrealistic and treating the differences as if they do not really matter is either naïve or arrogant. Neither approach will enhance MBE ’ s viability. Epistemic differences are unlikely to be easily resolved but are most likely to be suc-cessfully accommodated within a collaborative framework for knowledge creation, namely transdisciplinary inquiry, the approach I propose as most likely to succeed.

TRANSDISCIPLINARY FRAMEWORK

Quick solutions to mediating differences between neuro-science and education are not possible. As outlined, there are deep and persistent differences between the fi elds in terms of history, philosophy, and epistemology. A central concern for a nascent MBE has been that it must provide a framework for collaboration between educators and neuroscientists ( Ansari & Coch, 2006 ). The framework I propose, one that readily facilitates considering issues such as the disciplinary differ-ences noted here, is transdisciplinarity . Transdisciplinarity is an approach to examining and solving complex problems through the collaborative efforts of multiple diverse partners. It recognizes that knowledge is inherently something that is constituted at the level of the group and the activity rather than each individual participant ( Russell, 2000 ). What this means is that the type of knowledge being pursued here is not the sum of individual knowledges shared by experts or specialized groups (multidisciplinarity) nor the knowledge that is created at the intersection of established disciplines (interdisciplinarity), but a new kind of knowledge that arises from the interaction of diverse people within an entirely new group (transdisciplinarity). Figure 1 illustrates these different approaches. What connects transdisciplinary participants is not a common theoretical perspective or methodology or epistemology, but a common issue to which all apply their own particular expertise with the goal of reaching a holistic understanding of the issue.

One example of transdisciplinarity in practice that is particularly relevant to MBE because it too relies on a joint foundation with education is that of educational linguistics. In Australia, educational linguistics began with the aim of creating a transdisciplinary fi eld that would unite theory with practice — linguistic theory (in particular, Systemic Functional Linguistics) with educational practice, in the service of improving student literacy. The goal of educa-tional linguistics was to understand the role of language in social life and thereby improve the writing achievements of struggling and marginalized students. Martin (2000) described the evolution of the new fi eld over 20 years and showed how linguists and educators worked together to



create a successful approach to literacy dubbed “ the Sydney School. ” Prominent in his account is the necessity for coop-eration between many disparate partners toward a common goal and the need to address the tensions and resistances put up in the face of a new and, to some, threatening aca-demic endeavor. The transdisciplinary framework Martin describes served to enable the fi eld to direct itself to particu-lar projects and to engage participants in meaningful work, a process that allowed the fi eld of educational linguistics to become established in the face of internal and external opposition.

Martin ’ s account highlights the benefi ts of an issues-based approach in a transdisciplinary framework. Other research-ers have also recognized the value of an issues focus for MBE ( Varma, McCandliss, & Schwartz, 2008 ). Clearly, however, a transdisciplinary framework, focused on issues-based col-laboration, is not an approach for everyone or all situations nor is it meant to be. Specialized, unidisciplinary knowledge creation will always be necessary ( Somerville, 2000 ). The particular expertise needed to work with neuroscientifi c technologies, for instance, is not easily achieved or shared. Transdisciplinarity recognizes, however, that the knowledge fragments created by one discipline often need to become integrated with knowledge from other disciplines in order to have benefi cial application to real-world problems and to more comprehensive theory development. This integra-tion of knowledge is accomplished in transdisciplinarity not merely by bringing diverse participants together to share their knowledge, but by “ requir[ing] ‘ transcendence, ’ the giv-ing up of sovereignty on the part of any one of the contrib-uting disciplines, and the formation, out of the diverse mix, of new insight by way of emergent properties ” ( Somerville & Rapport, 2000 , p. xv).

One way to consider whether an issues-based approach may be suitable for MBE is to consider how the fi eld has been operating to date. As a result of early concerns regarding the application of neuroscience to the classroom, calls for a cau-tious approach to MBE were made. The alarm was raised, for instance, about “ neuromyths. ” Lack of knowledge about the brain and neuroscience is one factor that has reasonably been linked to people ’ s susceptibility to such oversimplifi -cations and misrepresentations. An appropriate response to this concern has been efforts to improve the level of scien-tifi c knowledge about the brain, thus enabling the public and educationists to become more critical of claims associated with neuroscience. Various attempts ranging from books to conferences to calls for changes in graduate training have been directed to the goal of improving neuroscientifi c liter-acy (see Berninger & Corina, 1998; Blakemore & Frith, 2005; Goswami, 2006; Pickering & Howard-Jones, 2007 ).

Deeper consideration, however, of the conditions and forces that contribute to misunderstandings such as neuro-myths have only just begun (e.g., Singh, Hallmayer, & Illes, 2007). Interestingly, a recent study has shown that the allure of neuroscience is suffi cient to infl uence the judgment even of those with a moderate degree of neuroscience knowledge, that is, students taking a class in cognitive neuroscience. Weisberg, Keil, Goodstein, Rawson, and Gray (2008) found that only people deemed experts in the fi eld were suffi ciently critical to be able to judge that the addition of irrelevant neuroscience information in an explanation did not improve it. Both naïve participants and those with moderate knowl-edge were infl uenced by the inclusion of such information to believe that explanations with irrelevant neuroscience were more satisfying than those without neuroscience. Moreover, this effect was particularly striking for bad explanations. The persuasive appeal of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) images themselves has also been reported ( McCabe & Castel, 2008 ).

Taken together, these reports suggest that plans to educate teachers and the general public so that they are able to evalu-ate neuroscientifi c claims may be overly optimistic. Simply teaching neuroscience basics and a few prominent fi ndings are unlikely to be suffi cient in stemming the misinterpreta-tions and misuses that are possible, and expecting widespread expertise in neuroscience is unrealistic. The question, then, is what else besides neuroscientifi c literacy is needed to avoid future misunderstandings and mistrust?

Creating an environment in which participants can dis-cuss, with more than just passing acknowledgment, the con-cerns that have been raised to date and what might be done to resolve them is one response. Many educators and edu-cational researchers have been reticent in airing their views on the subject of MBE, possibly to avoid involvement in yet another educational fad that fails, a critique often levied at the fi eld of education (Jorgenson, 2003; Lagemann, 1999 ).

Fig. 1. What is transdisciplinary research? (Adapted from Holistic Education Network, http://www.hent.org/transdisciplinary.htm ).


Boba M. Samuels

The benefi t of a transdisciplinary approach in this context is its responsiveness to the needs of participants. In adopting a transdisciplinary view, the elements to be included in the framework need to be negotiated by participants to clarify and promote positions not only on the content of the fi eld but also on its vision, partners, and goals ( Somerville & Rapport, 2000 ). Expending efforts on this framework will allow MBE to capitalize on the various areas of expertise of its partici-pants, go some way toward resolving existing problems, build trust, and increase the likelihood that ecologically valid and important work will result.

Of particular relevance to MBE is that transdisciplinar-ity has been compared to postnormal science, which refutes identifying science with precision and certainty and dissolves the expert-lay dichotomy toward knowledge ( Klein, 2000 ). In transdisciplinary research, everyone is seen to contribute expertise, an attitude that may go a long way to overcoming one of the major reasons cited for resistance to transdiscipli-narity, namely lack of confi dence, which is also, as mentioned earlier, associated with teachers ’ reluctance to participate in educational research. Somerville (2000) notes, “ one of the major barriers to undertaking transdisciplinary activity is fear of being out of one ‘ s depth: being thought to be intellectually unsound (and, indeed, possibly being so) and being consid-ered a dilettante ” (p. 95). In a discussion about studies of discourse communities of teachers and researchers, Putnam and Borko (2000 ) reported: “ individual teachers . . . bring with them very different areas of expertise; some are extremely knowledgeable about subject matter, whereas others bring specialized knowledge of students . . . members of the uni-versity team gained new insights about the time, effort, and trust required to reform the professional culture of teaching ” (p. 9). Taken together, these comments suggest that creating a transdisciplinary framework in MBE requires going beyond establishing bidirectional communication to share informa-tion. It requires creating a particular kind of intellectual cul-ture. An important question this raises is whether educators and neuroscientists (and others) can be motivated to take on such an endeavor? Given the complexities of transdisciplinar-ity and the disciplinary differences described in the fi rst part of this article, is focusing on common issues enough to keep MBE together and make it productive?

Using issues to provide a focal point for collaboration has been successful in other transdisciplinary efforts around the world. Disciplines such as medicine have organized programs around issues, resulting in notable growth in fi elds such as bioethics. Medicine has a long history of both collaboration with other disciplines and paradoxically, of increasing spe-cialization within the fi eld ( Benatar, 2000; McMurtry, 2000 ). In Canada, Queen ’ s University, for instance, has operated a Training Program in Transdisciplinary Cancer Research, with the goal of training new researchers in fi ve broad research “ themes ” ranging from molecular epidemiology to cancer

treatment to service delivery, all delivered by drawing on the expertise of those in multiple fi elds ( Mulligan, 2003 ). In Toronto, Sunnybrook Medical Centre ’ s Trauma Unit has suc-cessfully drawn involvement from over 22 different special-ties to optimize care for severely injured patients ( McMurtry, 2000 ).

In MBE, the issues of literacy and mathematics have been prominent as examples of successful neuroscience – educa-tion integration and have resulted in advances in our under-standing of dyslexia and dyscalculia. Excellent overviews and summaries of this research have received widespread atten-tion (e.g., Goswami, 2006; Katzir & Paré-Blagoev, 2006 ), and there is little doubt that ongoing neuroscientifi c research will be useful in providing constraining evidence that will assist in defi ning and identifying dyslexia and dyscalculia, as well as in evaluating interventions suitable for classroom practice.

Many of the currently most intractable research prob-lems, however, are not those of fi nding results but of how to interpret the results that are found. Reviewing the fi ndings of many neuroimaging studies related to linguistic process-ing, for instance, Van Lancker Sidtis (2006) reported wide-spread evidence of both left and right hemisphere activation rather than what is commonly emphasized, that is, left hemi-sphere domination for language tasks. Multiple explanations from numerous theoretical bases had been forwarded for this bilateral activity. As she notes, however, particularly for complex tasks, whether increased activation represents greater competence (specialization) or incompetence (work-ing harder) on any particular task, or something else alto-gether, is unclear, and this means that our ability to construct explanations based on these neuroimaging data is limited. Other research fi ndings also suggest that much more infor-mation about the connections between brain activation and performance are needed, as evidenced by the claim that the effect of environmental factors such as socioeconomic sta-tus mediate the brain – behavior relationships seen in reading ( Noble, Wolmetz, Ochs, Farah, & McCandliss, 2006 ). This, of course, is not meant to suggest that neuroscience has little current contribution to make to literacy research or any other fi eld but only that we should keep in mind that neuroscience is in need of a great deal of input from other methods and dis-ciplines if its fi ndings are to be interpreted in any useful way. Moreover, these other disciplines also bear a responsibility to consider how their theoretical models are constrained by evidence emerging from neuroscience.

MBE has positioned itself to facilitate just that type of disciplinary interaction. To date, however, the fi eld appears to favor reports that foreground neuroscience and treat edu-cation as background or context. For instance, studies that use imaging technologies to examine students with learning defi cits are prominent and primarily of interest to researchers because of their focus on structural or functional elements of the brain; however, imaging studies in which specifi c teaching



practices are evaluated against each other are less common and would arguably be of most interest to teachers. The con-tributions of teachers are directed primarily to the areas of identifying problems, helping to design appropriate tasks for experiments, and implementing classroom interventions that might arise from research fi ndings. Although not insig-nifi cant, these roles suggest that a multidisciplinary approach is being taken, in which the expertise of particular partici-pants is mined for the benefi t of the group. This is not quite the same vision as the one from transdisciplinarity, in which roles are less clear. There are benefi ts, in the transdisciplinary view, of researchers “ intruding ” into others ’ areas of exper-tise. Referring to his experience with transdisciplinarity in educational linguistics, Martin (2000) noted: “ The stronger the intrusion into one another ’ s fi elds, the more we learned from one another ” (p. 85). A question that needs to be asked is how this level of intrusion can be more actively sought out as MBE becomes established.

Future Orientation

There are promising signs that MBE is establishing itself. The appearance of numerous groups and activities around the world that recognize the possibilities in linking neuroscience with education suggest that the time may be right for collabo-ration. These groups include the International Mind, Brain, and Education Society, the Japanese Society of Baby Science, and growing participation in special interest groups such as the Brain, Neurosciences and Education SIG of the American Educational Research Association. Conferences linking teachers, educational researchers, and neuroscientists have occurred around the world and drawn substantial interest. Large entities such as the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development have recognized MBE as an important new approach to addressing educational issues. Universities have begun to offer graduate programs linking neuroscience with education (e.g., Harvard, Cambridge) while others try to address MBE through existing program-ming, seminars, and conferences. Most recently, the estab-lishment of “ research schools ” has been proposed to bring researchers and teachers together in practice in functioning classrooms ( Hinton & Fischer, 2008 ). Research schools are welcome as one element that would enable and support a cul-ture of transdisciplinarity in MBE, though transdisciplinarity is not something that should be restricted to particular loca-tions. These various developments suggest that, although perhaps not yet at a critical mass, there is certainly evidence of increasing recognition that neuroscience and education have much to contribute to each other.

One development that lends immediacy to collaborative efforts is the rapid progress being made with new scientifi c technologies. Where once it was necessary for educators to ignore the possible implications of the biological nature of

the brain because we lacked technological expertise to study brains in vivo, the advent of MRI, functional MRI, event related potentials, positron emission tomography, and other technologies means that ignorance of our brains ’ biological properties is no longer an option. Neural constraints do mat-ter to learning and their identifi cation is targeted with these technologies. Educators ’ possible discomfort with techno-logical encroachments into the realm of learning will not prevent the scientifi c community from forging ahead to new discoveries about how people learn. More importantly, avoid-ance of “ brain science ” will not allow educators to infl uence the development of MBE in areas they may see as important. Geake and Cooper (2003) note, “ [we] urge educationists to become involved in the cognitive neuroscientifi c enterprise lest educationists fi nd themselves even further professionally marginalized than some politicians and education bureau-crats seem intent on pushing them. ” (p. 17). Referring to interactions between genomics and education, Grigorenko (2007) commented, “ It would be wise for educators to start preparing for the infusion of genomic knowledge into their everyday practice. They need to be in the vanguard of the dissemination and popularization of this knowledge, or they will fi nd themselves in the rearguard of it ” (p. 21). If educators have misgivings about these developments, what is needed is a forum for discussion of these concerns. MBE is currently our best hope as an appropriate site for this engagement.

Generative actions that can be undertaken at this stage include making available more information about joint activi-ties involving researchers and educators. If MBE is to provide a forum for collaboration on learning issues, evidence of such collaborative projects is needed. There are doubtless many examples of various types of partnerships, but these need public exposure so that they can serve as examples for others to draw on. The experience of education with design experi-ments, in which teachers and researchers actively collaborate in classroom research, may be helpful here ( Brown, 1992 ). Similarly, when the focus of MBE is primarily on technologies and neuroscientifi c data in noncontextualized experiments, enlisting the participation of researchers and educators with-out these areas of expertise is diffi cult. When the focus is wider, as demonstrated in the fascinating examination of two boys who each live with only one hemisphere of their brain ( Immordino-Yang, 2007 ), the possibilities for meaningful col-laboration with various partners become evident and exciting ( Christoff, 2008 ).

The fi eld needs more reports on the experiences of scien-tists, educators, and others at MBE conferences. What sorts of concerns have been raised at these conferences and how have they been addressed? What sorts of effects do these meetings have — do they change practice? Have they led to new collaborations? Have they inspired new projects or directions? Given that the fi eld is new, more effort needs to be made to share experiences so that the mistakes and successes


Boba M. Samuels

of one group can be instructive for others. Some conferences are expressly organized to link neuroscience developments to wider educational and public communities (e.g., Brain

Development & Learning in Vancouver, 2006 and 2008, and see Goswami, 2006 ), but more needs to be made known about how these interactions were established and their results. It appears, for instance, that most conferences are organized either to provide teachers and/or the public with information or to share information among university-based research-ers, and these have certainly proven popular and been well received. It is unknown, however, whether any presenta-tions or conferences have occurred in which collaborative presentations with diverse partners, including teachers, have been held. Recently, I participated in a modest effort at just this sort of collaboration — a panel discussion promoting the notion of MBE to a multidisciplinary audience at an academic conference. The participants in our panel were a neuroscien-tist, two educational researchers (in mathematical cognition and in literacy), a primary school teacher, and a teacher with special education focus. As expected, the neuroimaging pic-tures drew the most attention, but interest in the notion of MBE, its potential and its practical challenges, was piqued. Most successful, in our opinion, was the synergy created by not merely talking about collaboration, but by actually dem-onstrating it in action. This was not neuroscience presented to an audience of teacher consumers, but a demonstration of how neuroscientists and educationists can work together on equal footing. Have other such collaborative events been organized or were we correct in wondering if our small effort was the fi rst?

CONCLUSIONS

In its facilitative role between education and neuroscience, MBE represents a hope for productive collaboration between the fi elds. It is constrained, however, by the fi elds ’ histories, by societal limitations and philosophical values, and by dis-ciplinary epistemic demands. These concerns, however, are not insurmountable, and may be addressed by adoption of a transdisciplinary framework for research, following the examples of educational linguistics or medicine.

The success of MBE stands to have wide-ranging effects on classroom pedagogies and curriculum, on special education, on the development of graduate education programming and graduate neuroscience programming, and even on scientifi c agencies and education ministries that have a goal of creat-ing and assessing educational interventions. Of course, the most profound effect may be on students and their families, who rely on professionals for the bulk of their educational experience.

Effects in any of these areas, however, may also include unexpected developments. Already, commercial applica-

tions of educational interventions based upon early neuro-science research results are being designed and marketed ( Tallal, 2004 ), with concomitant complications (see A cure for dyslexia?, 2007 ). Another development is the use of neu-roscience research in applications that seem to have no link to education, such as advertising and marketing (see Brain scam?, 2004; Brammer, 2004; Wells, 2008 ), an offshoot of a potentially important integration of economic theories with neuroscience, which may provide insight into goal-directed behavior ( Oullier & Kelso, 2006; Sanfey, Loewenstein, McClure, & Cohen, 2006 ). Whether such scenarios actu-ally contribute to learning theories or result in new advertis-ing practices, the ethical implications of such practices are issues that should be considered by those of us with a stake in the future of neuroscience and education. Such develop-ments may be seen as either encouraging or troubling, but they deserve careful evaluation by researchers with exper-tise in the connections between neuroscience and learn-ing. Facilitating discussions among MBE participants can contribute to the creation of experts who can address these concerns in ways that are accessible to the general public. At this time, we should consider the possibility that many uses of neuroscience may potentially impact education and take seriously our responsibility for developing MBE practition-ers who are capable of addressing such developments from a variety of perspectives and for a variety of audiences.

By adopting the seemingly paradoxical approach of acknowledging existing areas of difference while concur-rently adopting a unifying transdisciplinary framework, it is possible to increase the likelihood that MBE will become via-ble, respected, and valuable. The factors that make a transdis-ciplinary effort successful appear to be complex and subtle, infl uenced as much by things such as commitment and trust as by rationality or expedience. While focusing on exciting neuroscientifi c fi ndings, MBE needs to remember that edu-cation is inherently a social endeavor, and those who would infl uence education through MBE need to give greater promi-nence to the social aspects of developing this new fi eld.

Acknowledgments — I thank Daniel Ansari, Donna Kotsopoulos, and Allen Pearson for their comments on earlier drafts of this work, as well as Kurt W. Fischer and the anonymous review-ers for their generous suggestions.

NOTE

1 These articles were found using database searching in April 2007. The search was not meant to be inclusive of all articles published across fi elds, but rather to be representative of those found in the most commonly used databases for educational research, namely PsychInfo and ERIC. Search terms used were neuroscience, education, brain, not medic*, and not psychiatr*.



REFERENCES

Ansari , D. , & Coch , D . ( 2006 ). Bridges over troubled waters: educa-tion and cognitive neuroscience . Trends in Cognitive Science , 10 ( 4 ), 146 – 151 .

Bazerman , C. , & Rogers , P . ( 2008 ). Writing and secular knowledge within modern European institutions . In C. Bazerman ( Ed .), Handbook of research on writing: History, society, school, individual, text ( pp . 157 – 175 ). New York : Erlbaum .

Benatar , S . ( 2000 ). Transdisciplinarity: A personal odyssey . In M. A. Somerville & D. J. Rapport ( Eds .), Transdisciplinarity: Recreating

integrated knowledge ( pp . 171 – 178 ). Oxford, UK : EOLS . Bereiter , C . ( 2002 ). Education and mind in the knowledge age . Mahwah,

NJ : Erlbaum . Berliner , D. C . ( 2006 ). Educational psychology: Searching for essence

throughout a century of infl uence . In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winner ( Eds .), Handbook of educational psychology ( 2nd ed. , pp . 3 – 27 ). Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum .

Berninger , V. W. , & Corina , D . ( 1998 ). Making cognitive neuro-science educationally relevant: Creating bidirectional col-laborations between educational psychology and cognitive neuroscience . Educational Psychology Review , 10 , 343 – 354 .

Blakemore , S. , & Frith , U . ( 2005 ). The learning brain. Lessons for educa-

tion . Malden, MA : Blackwell . Boardman , A. G. , Arguelles , M. E. , Vaughn , S. , Hughes , M. T. , &

Klingner , J . ( 2005 ). Special education teachers ’ views of research-based practices . Journal of Special Education , 39 , 168 – 180 .

Bourdieu , P . ( 1977 ). Outline of a theory of practice ( R. Nice, Trans .). Cambridge, UK : Cambridge University Press .

Bowles , S. , & Gintis , H . ( 1976 ). Schooling in capitalist America . ( New York : New Books .

Brain scam? ( 2004 ). [ Editorial ]. Nature Neuroscience , 7 , 683 . Brammer , M . ( 2004 ). Letter to the editor (Brain scam?) , Nature

Neuroscience , 7 , 1015 . Brown , A. L . ( 1992 ). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodo-

logical challenges in creating complex interventions in class-room settings . Journal of the Learning Sciences , 2 ( 2 ), 141 – 178 .

Bruer , J. T . ( 1997 ). Education and the brain: A bridge too far . Educational Researcher , 26 ( 8 ), 4 – 16 .

Byrnes , J. P. , & Fox , N. A . ( 1998 ). The educational relevance of research in cognitive neuroscience . Educational Psychology Review , 10 , 297 – 342 .

Christoff , K . ( 2008 ). Applying neuroscientifi c fi ndings to education: The good, the tough, and the hopeful . Mind, Brain, and Education , 2 , 55 – 58 .

A cure for dyslexia? ( 2007 ). [ Editorial ]. Nature Neuroscience , 10 , 135 . Davis , A . ( 2004 ). The credentials of brain-based learning . Journal of

Philosophy of Education , 38 , 21 – 35 . Dupuis , A. M . ( 1966 ). Philosophy of education in historical perspective .

Chicago : Rand McNally . Eisenhart , M . ( 2005 ). Hammers and saws for the improvement of

educational research . Educational Theory , 55 , 245 – 261 . Everton , T. , Galton , M. , & Pell , T . ( 2000 ). Teachers ’ perspectives

on educational research: knowledge and context . Journal of

Education for Teaching , 26 , 167 – 182 . Feuer , M. J. , Towne , L. , & Shavelson , R. J . ( 2002 ). Scientifi c culture

and educational research . Educational Researcher , 31 ( 8 ), 4 – 14 . Fischer , K. W. , & Bidell , T. R . ( 2006 ). Dynamic development

of action and thought . In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner ( Eds .),

Theoretical models of human development. Handbook of child psychology ( 6th ed. , Vol. 1 , pp . 313 – 399 ). Hoboken, NJ : Wiley .

Fischer , K. W. , Daniel , D. B. , Immordino-Yang , M. H. , Stern , E. , Battro , A. , & Koizumi , H . ( 2007 ). Why mind, brain, and educa-tion? Why now? Mind, Brain, and Education , 1 , 1 – 2 .

Freire , P . ( 1970/2005 ). Pedagogy of the oppressed . New York : Continuum\International Publishing Group .

Geake , J. , & Cooper , P . ( 2003 ). Cognitive neuroscience: Implications for education? Westminster Studies in Education , 26 , 7 – 20 .

Gökdere , M. , Kücük , M. , & Cepni , S . ( 2006 ). Turkish primary sci-ence teachers ’ perceptions of the nature and value of educa-tional research . Journal of Science Education , 7 , 122 – 125 .

Goldstone , R. L . ( 2006 ). The complex systems see-change in educa-tion . Journal of the Learning Sciences , 15 ( 1 ), 35 – 43 .

Goswami , U . ( 2006 ). Neuroscience and education: from research to practice? Nature Reviews Neuroscience , 7 , 406 – 413 .

Grigorenko , E. L . ( 2007 ). How can genomics inform education? Mind,

Brain, and Education , 1 , 20 – 27 . Gutmann , A . ( 1987 ). Democratic education . Princeton, NJ : Princeton

University Press . Hinton , C. , & Fischer , K. W . ( 2008 ). Research schools: Grounding

research in educational practice . Mind, Brain, and Education , 2 , 157 – 160 .

Immordino-Yang , M. H . ( 2007 ). A tale of two cases: Lessons for edu-cation from the study of two boys living with half their brains . Mind, Brain, and Education , 1 , 66 – 83 .

Jacob , E. , & White , C. S. ( Eds .). ( 2002 ). Scientifi c culture and educational

research [ Special issue ]. Educational Researcher , 31 ( 8 ), 3 – 29 . Jacoby , S . ( 2008 ). The age of American unreason . New York : Pantheon

Books . Johnson , R. B. , & Onwuegbuzie , A. J . ( 2004 ). Mixed methods

research: A research paradigm whose time has come . Educational

Researcher , 33 ( 7 ), 14 – 26 . Johnston , P. , Woodside-Jiron , H. , & Day , J . ( 2001 ). Teaching and

learning literate epistemologies . Journal of Educational Psychology , 93 ( 1 ), 223 – 233 .

Jorgenson , O . ( 2003 ). Brain scam? Why educators should be careful about embracing ‘ brain research. ’ Educational Forum , 67 , 364 – 369 .

Karmiloff-Smith , A . ( 2006 ). The tortuous route from genes to behavior: A neuroconstructivist approach . Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral

Neuroscience . Special Issue: Genes, Brain, and Behavior , 6 ( 1 ), 9 – 17 . Katzir , T. , & Paré-Blagoev , J . ( 2006 ). Applying cognitive neuro-

science research to education: The case of literacy . Educational

Psychologist , 41 , 53 – 74 . Klein , J. T . ( 2000 ). Voices of Royaumont . In M. A. Somerville & D. J.

Rapport ( Eds .), Transdisciplinarity: Recreating integrated knowledge ( pp . 3 – 13 ). Oxford, UK : EOLSS .

Kuhn , T. S . ( 1970 ). The structure of scientifi c revolutions ( 2nd ed .). Chicago : University of Chicago Press .

Lagemann , E. C . ( 2000 ). An elusive science. The troubling history of educa-

tion research . Chicago : University of Chicago Press . Lagemann , E. C . ( 2008 ). Education research as a distributed activity

across universities . Educational Researcher , 37 , 424 – 429 . Lagemann , E. L . ( 1999 ). An auspicious moment for education

research? In E. C. Lagemann & L. S. Shulman ( Eds .), Issues in edu-

cation research: Problems and possibilities ( pp . 3 – 16 ). San Francisco : Jossey-Bass .

Lakoff , G. , & Johnson , M . ( 1980 ). Metaphors we live by . Chicago : University of Chicago Press .


Boba M. Samuels

Lave , J. , & Wenger , E . ( 1991 ). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral

participation . Cambridge, UK : Cambridge University Press . Lloyd , G. E. R . ( 1979 ). Magic, reason and experience . Cambridge, UK :

Cambridge University Press . Martin , J. R . ( 2000 ). Grammar meets genre: Refl ections on the

“ Sydney School. ” Arts: The Journal of the Sydney University Arts

Association , 22 , 47 – 95 . Mayer , R. E . ( 1998 ). Does the brain have a place in educational

psychology? Educational Psychology Review , 10 , 389 – 396 . Mayer , R. E . ( 2001 ). What good is educational psychology? The

case of cognition and instruction . Educational Psychologist , 36 , 83 – 88 .

McCabe , D. P. , & Castel , A. D . ( 2008 ). Seeing is believing: The effect of brain images on judgments of scientifi c reasoning . Cognition , 10 , 343 – 352 .

McMurtry , R. R . ( 2000 ). Refl ections on transdisciplinarity . In M. A. Somerville & D. J. Rapport ( Eds .), Transdisciplinarity: recreating

integrated knowledge ( pp . 179 – 184 ). Oxford, UK : EOLS . McNamara , D. S . ( 2006 ). Bringing cognitive science into education,

and back again: The value of interdisciplinary research . Cognitive

Science , 30 , 605 – 608 . Medawar , P . ( 1996 ). The strange case of the spotted mice and other classic

essays on science . Oxford, UK : Oxford University Press . Mitchell , T. R. , & Haro , A . ( 1999 ). Poles apart: Reconciling the

dichotomies in education research . In E. C. Lagemann & L. S. Shulman ( Eds .), Issues in education research: Problems and possibili-

ties ( pp . 42 – 62 ). San Francisco : Jossey-Bass . Mulligan , L . ( 2003 ). Building a better cancer researcher: more than

the sum of our parts . Retrieved April 21, 2007, from http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_development/previous_issues/

Noble , K. G. , Wolmetz , M. E. , Ochs , L. G. , Farah , M. J. , & McCandliss , B. D . ( 2006 ). Brain-behavior relationships in reading acquisi-tion are modulated by socioeconomic factors . Developmental

Science , 642 – 654 . Olson , D. R . ( 1994 ). The world on paper: The conceptual and cognitive implica-

tions of writing and reading . Cambridge, UK : Cambridge University Press .

Oullier , O. , & Kelso , J. A. S . ( 2006 ). Neuroeconomics and the metast-able brain . Trends in Cognitive Sciences , 10 , 353 – 354 .

Parsons , T . ( 1975 ). The school class as a social system: Some of its functions in American society . In R. S. Holger ( Ed .), The sociology

of education: A source book ( pp . 188 – 218 ). Homewood, IL : Dorsey . Pickering , S. J. , & Howard-Jones , P . ( 2007 ). Educators ’ views on

the role of neuroscience in education: Findings from a study of UK and international perspectives . Mind, Brain, and Education , 1 , 109 – 113 .

Putnam , R. T. , & Borko , H . ( 2000 ). What do new views of knowl-edge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learn-ing? Educational Researcher , 29 ( 1 ), 4 – 15 .

Russell , W . ( 2000 ). Forging new paths: Transdisciplinarity in uni-versities . WISENET Journal , 53 . Retrieved April21, 2007, from http://www.wisenet-australia.org/issue53/transdis.htm

Sabelli , N. H . ( 2006 ). Complexity, technology, science, and educa-tion . Journal of the Learning Sciences , 15 ( 1 ), 5 – 9 .

Sanfey , A. G. , Loewenstein , G. , McClure , S. M. , & Cohen , J. D . ( 2006 ). Neuroeconomics: cross-currents in research on deci-sion-making . Trends in Cognitive Sciences , 10 ( 3 ), 108 – 116 .

Schunk , D. H . ( 1998 ). An educational psychologist ’ s perspective on cognitive neuroscience . Educational Psychology Review , 10 , 411 – 417 .

Singh , J. , Hallmayer , J. , & Iles , J . ( 2007 ). Interacting and paradoxical forces in neuroscience and society . Nature Reviews Neuroscience , 8 , 153 – 160 .

Somerville , M. A . ( 2000 ). Transdisciplinarity: Structuring crea-tive tension . In M. A. Somerville & D. J. Rapport ( Eds .), Transdisciplinarity: recreating integrated knowledge ( pp . 94 – 107 ). Oxford, UK : EOLS .

Somerville , M. A. , & Rapport , D. J. ( Eds .). ( 2000 ). Transdisciplinarity:

recreating integrated knowledge . Oxford, UK : EOLS . Stanovich , K. E . ( 1998 ). Cognitive neuroscience and educational

psychology: What season is it? Educational Psychology Review , 10 , 419 – 426 .

Stern , E . ( 2005 ). Pedagogy meets neuroscience . Science , 310 , 745 . Szucs , D. , & Goswami , U . ( 2007 ). Educational neuroscience:

Defi ning a new discipline for the study of mental representa-tions . Mind, Brain, and Education , 1 , 114 – 127 .

Tallal , P . ( 2004 ). Improving language and literacy is a matter of time . Nature Reviews , 5 , 721 – 728 .

Teppo , M. , Rannikmäe , M. , & Holbrook , J . ( 2006 ). Bridging the gap between research and practice — What do teachers fi nd useful from a research report? Journal of Science Education , 7 , 78 – 82 .

Tooley , J. , & Darby , D . ( 1998 ). Educational research: A critique . Manchester, UK : OFSTED .

van Geert , P . ( 1998 ). A dynamic systems model of basic developmen-tal mechanisms: Piaget, Vygotsky, and beyond . Psychological

Review , 105 , 634 – 677 . Van Lancker Sidtis , D . ( 2006 ). Does functional neuroimaging

solve the questions of neurolinguistics? Brain and Language , 98 , 276 – 290 .

Varma , S. , McCandliss , B. D. , & Schwartz , D. L . ( 2008 ). Scientifi c and pragmatic challenges for bridging education and neuro-science . Educational Researcher , 37 , 140 – 152 .

Vygotsky , L . ( 1978 ). Mind in society: The development of higher psycho-

logical processes . Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press . Weisberg , D. S. , Keil , F. C. , Goodstein , J. , Rawson , E. , & Gray ,

J. R . ( 2008 ). The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations . Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience , 20 , 470 – 477 .

Wells , J . ( 2008, March 15 ). Advertising ’ s Holy Grail . The Globe and

Mail , B4 – B5 . Westermann , G. , Sirois , S. , Shultz , T. R. , & Mareschal , D . ( 2006 ).

Modeling developmental cognitive neuroscience . Trends in

Cognitive Sciences , 20 ( 5 ), 227 – 232 . Winne , P. H . ( 1999 ). How to improve the credibility of research

in education . Issues in Education , 5 , 273 – 278 .

can the differences between education and neuroscience be overcome by mind, brain, and education?

Documents