MIND, BRAIN, AND EDUCATION

Under the Magnifying Glass: AnExamination of FundamentalConcepts in Mind, Brain,and EducationCourtney Pollack1 and Meghan Taevs1

ABSTRACT—This special section explicitly introducesaspects of Mind, Brain, and Education (MBE) in order tohelp those new to the field develop a better understandingof and participate effectively in MBE. Researchers, policymakers, and practitioners who are already active in MBEwill also benefit from the varied perspectives on MBE funda-mentals to better understand key concepts in the field. Thecurrent issue includes two articles concerning communica-tion in MBE: The article by Tina Grotzer outlines potentialbarriers to understanding scientific work, and the articleby Rebecca Martin and Jennifer Groff presents examples ofMBE collaborations in action. Subsequent articles will focuson interdisciplinary work and communication among variousstakeholders to address meaningful questions in MBE.

In 2007, Fischer, Daniel, Immordino-Yang, Stern, Battro, andKoizumi introduced Mind, Brain, and Education (MBE) asan ‘‘alliance that can illuminate human learning and devel-opment’’ (p. 1). The goal of this alliance is to bring together‘‘biology, cognitive science, development, and education’’ (Fis-cher, 2009, p. 3) to provide education with a stronger researchfoundation and to build fundamental knowledge. As MBE hasblossomed over the past 10 years, discussions have emergedaround tenets, potential, and relevance of the field, and nascentcollaborations within it. Several scholars (e.g., Fischer, 2009;Fischer & Daniel, 2009; Fischer, Goswami, Geake, & theTask Force on the Future of Educational Neuroscience, 2010;Goswami, 2006) have written about the necessary components

1Harvard Graduate School of EducationAddress correspondence to Courtney Pollack, Harvard Graduate Schoolof Education, Larsen Hall G-05, Appian Way, Cambridge, MA 02138;e-mail: courtney.pollack@post.harvard.edu.

of a strong research foundation for education, such as avoidingpervasive incorrect beliefs about genetics and the brain andconducting meaningful research that involves bi-directionalcommunication among practitioners and researchers. Othershave investigated questions of the role and relevance of MBE,including the significance and consequences of neuroscience ineducation (e.g., Blakemore & Frith, 2005; Greenwood, 2009;Mason, 2009; Szucs & Goswami, 2007; Willingham, 2009;Willingham & Lloyd, 2007). More recently, researchers andpractitioners have shared first-hand accounts of collaborativeefforts in MBE (e.g., Coch, Michlovitz, Ansari, & Baird, 2009;Kuriloff, Reichert, Stoudt, & Ravitch, 2009).

In this special section, we hope to further the conversationby putting MBE under the magnifying glass, to examine moreclosely what it means to do MBE work. We have solicitedarticles to explicitly introduce aspects of work in MBE, suchas understanding, communication, and collaborative partner-ships. Consideration of work in MBE-related disciplines suchas cognitive science or neuroscience is relatively novel toeducators; they are reliant on others to help them interpretresearch findings and understand the applicability of thosefindings (Greenwood, 2009). Similarly, scientists who are pri-marily researchers lack the specific expertise of teaching andpedagogy that educators possess (Hinton & Fischer, 2008).One goal of this special section is to help facilitate MBE workof interested researchers, educators, and others who bringtheir own expertise yet can benefit from understanding theexpertise of those in other disciplines.

As we highlight below, we believe this special section willhelp those new to the field develop a better understandingof MBE and will support effective participation in the field.In addition, we believe that researchers, policy makers, andeducators who are already active in MBE will benefit fromthe varied perspectives offered herein. In the current issue,

© 2011 the AuthorsVolume 5—Number 3 Journal Compilation © 2011 International Mind, Brain, and Education Society and Blackwell Publishing, Inc. 105

Under the Magnifying Glass

we introduce the special section with two articles relatingMBE work to communication. The first article outlines poten-tial barriers to understanding scientific work and the secondarticle presents examples of MBE collaborations in action.

Although evidence indicates that the public, includingeducators, is enthusiastic about bringing together neuro-science and education (e.g., Greenwood, 2009; Pickering &Howard-Jones, 2007), Fischer et al. (2007) caution that soci-ety’s expectations for the outcome of this work tend to beunrealistic, as people tend to oversimplify the connectionbetween research and practice or expect research alone toanswer important educational questions. For this reason, peo-ple who are new to MBE or who are interested in the field canbenefit from information that will aid them in setting practicalobjectives for MBE work. In order to improve communica-tion, especially between scientists and non-scientists, peopleboth within and outside the field of MBE can keep in mindthe potential pitfalls to understanding the science involved inMBE. The paper ‘‘Public Understanding of Cognitive Neuro-science Research Findings: Trying to Peer Beyond EnchantedGlass’’ by Tina A. Grotzer addresses these two needs: It pro-vides a realistic picture of the nature of science and presentspotential barriers to public understanding of cognitive neuro-science findings and of MBE findings in particular.

Carew and Magsamen (2010) state that ‘‘the ‘translational’potential of [neuroscience] work is often not discovered,explored, or further evaluated’’ (p. 685) because neurosciencework tends to remain in academic circles. They suggest thatcommunication and collaboration across disciplines is essen-tial for realizing this translational potential. Collaborationsbetween scientists and practitioners are suggested elsewhereas well (e.g. Fischer et al., 2007; Pickering & Howard-Jones,2007; Greenwood, 2009); however, examples of successfulcollaborations are scarce. Furthermore, the quality of suchcollaborations warrants consideration. Dommett, Devonshire,Plateau, Westwell, and Greenfield (2011) performed a 6-monthproject to determine the efficacy of a collaboration betweenneuroscientists and educators. Although the collaborations inthis study were found to be effective, they consisted merely ofteacher-training in basic neuroscience by neuroscientists. Theoutcome measure was the training’s effect on teacher thinkingand practice. These were not the bi-directional partnershipsthat have been presented as the gold-standard in the MBEfield. As Fisher (2009) commented, the traditional model ofone-way communication, in which research may be dissem-inated to educators, simply does not work. This inauthenticcollaboration between researchers and practitioners needsto be replaced with a collaboration in which educators andresearchers are working together to shape research agendas.

Recently a small number of first-person accounts of moreauthentic collaborative efforts have emerged; we briefly high-light two of them here. Kuriloff et al. (2009) wrote of apartnership between researchers and a set of private schools.

They discussed the research process (e.g., research in teamsthat include educators, students, and sometimes parents),potential barriers to a successful collaboration (e.g., aligningideas across various stakeholders), and implications for futurework (e.g., setting clear expectations). Similarly, Coch et al.(2009) wrote of making connections across mind, brain, andeducation through collaborations between researchers andeducators. In this endeavor, Coch et al. opened up neurosciencelaboratories for teachers and teachers-in-training, participatedin a conference series designed specifically for researchersand educators, and shaped research questions with educa-tors through dialogue. The paper ‘‘Collaborations in Mind,Brain, and Education: An Analysis of Research-PractitionerPartnerships in Three Elementary School Intervention Stud-ies’’ by Rebecca E. Martin and Jennifer S. Groff presents asynthesis of three separate, yet similar, reciprocal collabo-rations between scientists and educators. Martin and Groffanalyze common trends among these collaborations, in termsof characteristics, challenges, and benefits. Along with addingto examples of bi-directional collaborations in the literature,this article highlights commonalities among distinct collabo-rations and provides a realistic picture of MBE work as it ishappening now.

Subsequent papers in this special section will continue tofocus on interdisciplinary work and communication amongvarious stakeholders to address meaningful questions in MBE.Articles will discuss the need for interdisciplinary work, espe-cially in terms of what questions can be asked and answeredby MBE and what the potential barriers to communicationmay be. We will also present another example of MBE work inaction. The goal of this special section is to be accessible andbeneficial to many. Researchers can take note of suggestionsfor and examples of reciprocal communication, interdisci-plinary work, and keys to help laypeople develop an improvedunderstanding of scientific research so that communicationcan be more effective. For example, certain characteristics(e.g., bi-directional, ongoing, awareness of different groups’distinct goals and needs) appear to improve communication,as supported by the articles in this section. Educators andother practitioners can be encouraged to take an active role,bringing their expertise into collaborations as equal partnerswith researchers (Greenwood, 2009). As demonstrated in thearticles here, a balance between the needs of the researchersand the needs of the educators is necessary for good collabo-ration. Finally, people just entering the field of MBE can lookto examples of MBE work in action to better envision whatthis work will entail. We hope this special section aids thoseinterested in participating in MBE work and sparks interestin future MBE collaborators.

Acknowledgments—Thank you to Kurt Fischer for his help andguidance during the preparation of this special section.

106 Volume 5—Number 3

Courtney Pollack and Meghan Taevs

REFERENCES

Blakemore, S. J., & Frith, U. (2005). The learning brain: Lessons foreducation: A precis. Developmental Science, 8, 459–471.

Carew, T. J., & Magsamen, S. H. (2010). Neuroscience and education:An ideal partnership for producing evidence-based solutions toguide 21st century learning. Neuron, 67, 685–688.

Coch, D., Michlovitz, S. A., Ansari, D., & Baird, A. (2009). Buildingmind, brain, and education connections: The view from theupper valley. Mind, Brain, and Education, 3, 27–33.

Dommett, E. J., Devonshire, I. M., Plateau, C. R., Westwell, M. S., &Greenfield, S. A. (2011). From scientific theory to classroompractice. The Neuroscientist, 17(4), 382–388.

Fischer, K. W. (2009). Mind, brain, and education: Building ascientific groundwork for learning and teaching. Mind, Brain,and Education, 3, 3–16.

Fischer, K. W., & Daniel, D. B. (2009). Need for infrastructure toconnect research with practice in education. Mind, Brain, andEducation, 3, 1–2.

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

Fischer, K. W., Goswami, U., Geake, J., & The Task Force on theFuture of Educational Neuroscience. (2010). The future ofeducational neuroscience. Mind, Brain, and Education, 4, 68–80.

Goswami, U. (2006). Neuroscience and education: From research topractice. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 7, 2–7.

Greenwood, R. (2009). Where are the educators? What is our role inthe debate? Cortex, 45, 552–554.

Hinton, C., & Fischer, K. W. (2008). Research schools: Groundingresearch in educational practice. Mind, Brain, and Education, 2,157–160.

Kuriloff, P., Reichert, M., Stoudt, B., & Ravitch, S. (2009). Buildingresearch collaboratives among schools and universities: Lessonsfrom the field. Mind, Brain, and Education, 3, 34–44.

Mason, L. (2009). Bridging neuroscience and education: A two-waypath is possible. Cortex, 45, 548–549.

Pickering, S. J., & Howard-Jones, P. (2007). Educators’ views on therole of neuroscience in education: Findings from a study ofUK and international perspectives. Mind, Brain, and Education, 1,109–113.

Szucs, D., & Goswami, U. (2007). Educational neuroscience: Defininga new discipline for the study of mental representations. Mind,Brain, and Education, 1, 114–127.

Willingham, D. T. (2009). Three problems in the marriage ofneuroscience and education. Cortex, 45, 544–545.

Willingham, D. T., & Lloyd, J. W. (2007). How educational theoriescan use neuroscientific data. Mind, Brain, and Education, 1,140–149.

Volume 5—Number 3 107