Scribd
Upload
43 views6 pages

Critique of Neuroeducation in Learning

This chapter critiques neuroeducation, or education based on brain research. It argues that neuroscience cannot replace psychology as the dominant discourse in education. While neuroscience research continues, it inherits the limitations of psychology as its "silent partner" and does not make psychologists obsolete. The growth of neuroeducation risks reducing how students see themselves and the world to only a neurological lens. Overall, the "neuroturn" remains dependent on psychology and the trend of "psychologization".

Uploaded by

Ana Testa
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
43 views6 pages

Critique of Neuroeducation in Learning

This chapter critiques neuroeducation, or education based on brain research. It argues that neuroscience cannot replace psychology as the dominant discourse in education. While neuroscience research continues, it inherits the limitations of psychology as its "silent partner" and does not make psychologists obsolete. The growth of neuroeducation risks reducing how students see themselves and the world to only a neurological lens. Overall, the "neuroturn" remains dependent on psychology and the trend of "psychologization".

Uploaded by

Ana Testa
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

The Educated Brain: A Critique of Neuroeducation

 Jan De Vos

This chapter offers a critique of neuroeducation (education based on scientific brain


research). The overarching question is: is the neuro strong enough to replace the century-
long dominion of the psychological discourse within education? The answer is no: I show
how psychologists are not made redundant, but, rather, remain in business as the primary
advocates of the neuro as they morph into neuro-educators. From here, I demonstrate that
neuroeducation cannot but become neuro-education, enjoining the pupils to see themselves,
others and the world through the lens of the neuro-discourse. The more general observation
is that the neuroturn is, as such, tributary to psychology and psychologization. Even at the
most fundamental level (e.g., basic fMRI-research) neuroscience’s silent partner is
psychology, and, hence, it inherits all psychology’s deadlocks.

References
1. Ansari, D., De Smedt, B., & Grabner, R. H. (2012). Neuroeducation—A critical
overview of an emerging field. Neuroethics, 5(2), 105–[Link] Scholar

2. Bakhurst, D. (2008). Minds, brains and education. Journal of Philosophy of


Education, 42(3–4), 415–[Link] Scholar

3. Bennett, M. R., & Hacker, P. M. S. (2003). Philosophical foundations of


neuroscience. Oxford: [Link] Scholar

4. Billiet, B. (Ed.). (2002). Het verleden in het heden: geschiedenis, historisch onderzoek
en de plaats van de historicus in de maatschappij van vandaag. Gent: Academia
[Link] Scholar

5. Boltanski, L., & Chiapello, E. (2007). The new spirit of capitalism (G. Elliott, Trans.).
London: [Link] Scholar

6. Bowers, F. B., & Gehring, T. (2004). Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi: 18th century Swiss
educator and correctional reformer. Journal of Correctional Education, 55(4), 306–
[Link] Scholar

7. Bruer, J. T. (1997). Education and the brain: A bridge too far. Educational
Researcher, 26(8), 4–[Link] Scholar

8. Burman, E. (2012). Deconstructing neoliberal childhood: Towards a feminist


antipsychological approach. Childhood, 19(4), 423–[Link] Scholar

9. Busso, D. S., & Pollack, C. (2014). No brain left behind: Consequences of


neuroscience discourse for education. Learning, Media and Technology (ahead-of-
print), 1–[Link] Scholar
10. Churchland, P. S. (2013). Touching a nerve: The self as brain. New York:
[Link] Scholar

11. Connolly, W. E. (2002). Neuropolitics: Thinking, culture, speed. Minneapolis, MN:


University of Minnesota [Link] Scholar

12. Crespo, E., & Serrano, A. (2010). The psychologisation of work: The deregulation of
work and the government of will. Annual Review of Critical Psychology, 8, 43–
[Link] Scholar

13. Davidson, R. J., Putnam, K. M., & Larson, C. L. (2000). Dysfunction in the neural
circuitry of emotion regulation—A possible prelude to violence. Science, 289(5479),
591–[Link] Scholar

14. Davis, A. J. (2004). The credentials of brain‐based learning. Journal of Philosophy of


Education, 38(1), 21–[Link] Scholar

15. De Vos, J. (2008). From panopticon to pan-psychologisation. International Journal of


Žižek Studies, 2(1), 1–[Link] Scholar

16. De Vos, J. (2009). “Now that you know, how do you feel?” The Milgram experiment
and psychologization. Annual Review of Critical Psychology, 7, 223–[Link]
Scholar

17. De Vos, J. (2012a). The deadlock of Husserl’s life-world: From a critique of


psychologism to psychologization. Theory & Psychology, 22(3), 324–
[Link] Scholar

18. De Vos, J. (2012b). Psychologisation in times of globalisation. London:


[Link] Scholar

19. De Vos, J. (2013a). Interpassivity and the political invention of the brain: Connolly's
neuropolitics versus Libet’s veto-right. Theory & Event, 16(2). doi:
10.1353/tae.2013.0034Google Scholar

20. De Vos, J. (2013b). Psychologization and the subject of late modernity. New York:
Palgrave [Link] Scholar

21. Demarest, B. (2016). Kant’s transcendental organics: Systematicity and its historicity.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Ghent University. [Link] Scholar

22. Dennett, D. C. (1991). Consciousness explained. Boston, MA: Little [Link]


Scholar

23. Dumontheil, I., & Blakemore, S. J. (2012). Social cognition and abstract thought in
adolescence: The role of structural and functional development in rostral prefrontal
cortex. BJEP Monograph Series II, Number 8-Educational Neuroscience, 1(1), 99–
[Link] Scholar
24. Ecclestone, K., & Hayes, D. (2009). The dangerous rise of therapeutic education.
London: [Link] Scholar

25. Fletcher, J. M. (2012). Classification and identification of learning disabilities: An


integrative perspective. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham
(Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 30–56). New York: [Link]
Scholar

26. Hardie, P. (2002). Ovid’s poetics of illusion. Cambridge: Cambridge University


[Link] Scholar

27. Hardiman, M. (2010). The brain-targeted teaching model: A comprehensive model for
classroom instruction and school reform. New Horizons for Learning, 8(1), 1–
[Link] Scholar

28. Howard-Jones, P. (2008). Philosophical challenges for researchers at the interface


between neuroscience and education. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 42(3–4),
361–380. doi:10.1111/[Link] Scholar

29. Hruby, G. G. (2012). Three requirements for justifying an educational


neuroscience. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 1–
[Link] Scholar

30. Immordino‐Yang, M. H., & Damasio, A. (2007). We feel, therefore we learn: The
relevance of affective and social neuroscience to education. Mind, Brain, and
Education, 1(1), 3–[Link] Scholar

31. James, W. (1925). Talks to teachers on psychology and to students on some of life's
ideals. New York: Henri Holt and [Link] Scholar

32. Johnson, M. H. (2011). Interactive specialization: A domain-general framework for


human functional brain development? Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 1(1),
7–[Link] Scholar

33. Kant, I. (2007). Anthropology, history, and education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University [Link] Scholar

34. Kog, M., Moons, J., & Depondt, L. (1997). A box full of feelings. A playset for
children from 3 to 8. Leuven: [Link] Scholar

35. Kraft, V. (2012). Neuroscience and education: Blind spots in a strange


relationship. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 46(3), 386–[Link]
Scholar

36. Langelier, C. A. (2001). Mood management leader’s manual: A cognitive-behavioral


skills-building program for adolescents. Thousand Oaks, CA: [Link] Scholar
37. Langelier, C. A. (2005). Emotions and learning: Where brain based research and
cognitive-behavioral counseling strategies meet the road. River College Online
Academic Journal, 1(1), 1–[Link] Scholar

38. Maggil, F., & Colson, L. (2008). Journeys 3—Religious education for key stage 3—
Teachers’ Resource Website Retrieved
from [Link]
Education-Philosophy/Series-pages/Journeys-Religious-Education-for-Key-Stage-3-
North/Series-Boxes/Sample-Pages/[Link]

39. McLaughlin, K. (2010). Psychologisation and the construction of the political subject
as vulnerable object. Annual Review of Critical Psychology, 8, 63–[Link] Scholar

40. Metzinger, T. (2003). Being no one: The self-model theory of subjectivity. Cambridge,
MA: MIT [Link] Scholar

41. Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority. London: [Link] Scholar

42. Murray, B. (2000). From brain scan to lesson plan. Monitor on Psychology, 31(3), 22–
[Link] Scholar

43. Narvaez, D. (2012). Moral neuroeducation from early life through the
lifespan. Neuroethics, 5(2), 145–[Link] Scholar

44. Ovidius, N. P. (1958). The metamorphoses (H. Gregory, Trans.). New York: The
Viking [Link] Scholar

45. Parker, I. (2007). Revolution in psychology: Alienation to emancipation. London:


Pluto [Link] Scholar

46. Pasquinelli, E. (2013). Slippery slopes. Some considerations for favoring a good
marriage between education and the science of the mind–brain–behavior, and
forestalling the risks. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 2(3), 111–
[Link] Scholar

47. Pollefeyt, D. (2004). Het leven doorgeven. Religieuze traditie in de katholieke


godsdienstpedagogiek. Ontwikkelingen en toekomstperspectieven. In H. Van
Crombrugge & W. Meijer (Eds.), Pedagogiek en traditie, opvoeding en religie (pp.
133–150). Leuven: Lannoo [Link] Scholar

48. Purdy, N., & Morrison, H. (2009). Cognitive neuroscience and education: Unravelling
the confusion. Oxford Review of Education, 35(1), 99–[Link] Scholar

49. Raeymaekers, P. (2009). Meeting of minds for youth. Gent: Breinwijzer [Link]
Scholar

50. Ramaekers, S., & Suissa, J. (2012). The claims of parenting: Reasons, responsibility
and society (Vol. 4). Dordrecht: [Link] Scholar
51. Roelands, J., & Druine, N. (2000). Belgium. In C. Brock & W. Tulasiewicz
(Eds.), Education in a single Europe (2nd ed., pp. 70–100). London:
[Link] Scholar

52. Rose, N. (2006). The politics of life itself: Biomedicine, power & subjectivity in the
twenty-first century. Princeton: Princeton University [Link] Scholar

53. Rose, S. (2008). In search of the God neuron. The Guardian, 27. Retrieved
from [Link]/books/2008/dec/27/books-about-the-brain

54. Rose, S. (2011). The need for a critical neuroscience: From neuroideology to
neurotechnology. In S. Choudhury & J. Slaby (Eds.), Critical neuroscience: A
handbook of the social and cultural contexts of neuroscience (pp. 53–67). Oxford:
[Link] Scholar

55. Rousseau, J.-J. (1979). Emile: Or, on education. New York: Basic [Link]
Scholar

56. Schrag, F. (2013). Can this marriage be saved? The future of


‘neuro‐education’. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 47(1), 20–[Link]
Scholar

57. Steinberg, L. (2009). Should the science of adolescent brain development inform
public policy? American Psychologist, 64(8), 739–[Link]
Scholar

58. Swaab, D. F. (2014). We are our brains: A neurobiography of the brain, from the
womb to Alzheimer’s. New York: Spiegel & [Link] Scholar

59. Sylwester, R. (1994). How emotions affect learning. Educational Leadership, 52, 60–
[Link] Scholar

60. Szczerba, R. J. (2014). Brain training and the end of the Prozac generation. Forbes.
Retrieved from [Link]/sites/robertszczerba/2014/03/04/brain-training-and-
the-end-of-the-prozac-generation-2/

61. Thorndike, E. L. (1910). The contribution of psychology to education. Journal of


Educational Psychology, 1(1), 5–12. doi:10.1037/[Link] Scholar

62. Timimi, S., Gardner, N., & McCabe, B. (2010). The myth of autism: Medicalising
men’s and boy’s social and emotional competence. Basingstoke: Palgrave
[Link] Scholar

63. Timimi, S., & Radcliffe, N. (2005). The rise and rise of ADHD. In C. Newnes & N.
Radcliffe (Eds.), Making and breaking children’s lives (pp. 63–70). Ross-on-Wye:
PCCS [Link] Scholar
64. Vander Valk, F. (2012). Introduction. In F. Vander Valk (Ed.), Essays on
neuroscience and political theory: Thinking the body politic (pp. 1–22). London/New
York: [Link] Scholar

65. Vlaamse Gemeenschap (n.d.). Development aims for nursery education—Dutch.


Retrieved
from [Link]
htm

66. Wang, A. T., Lee, S. S., Sigman, M., & Dapretto, M. (2006). Developmental changes
in the neural basis of interpreting communicative intent. Social Cognitive and Affective
Neuroscience, 1(2), 107–[Link] Scholar

67. Weiskopf, N. (2012). Real-time fMRI and its application to


neurofeedback. Neuroimage, 62(2), 682–[Link] Scholar

Common questions

Powered by AI

Jan De Vos argues that the discourse of neuroscience in education is tributary to psychology because it relies on psychological frameworks to interpret and apply neuroscientific findings. Despite the emergence of neuroeducation as a distinct field, it fundamentally depends on psychological concepts to make its findings relevant and actionable for educational practices. This interdependence suggests that neuroscience extends but does not replace psychological discourse, inheriting its limitations and challenges .

Jan De Vos argues that psychologization plays a significant role in neuroeducation and globalization by framing individual and societal issues through a psychological lens. This perspective reinforces the notion of the self as a psychological subject shaped by global forces, and neuroeducation extends this by viewing educational processes through neuroscientific concepts. Psychologization thus underscores the tension between scientific authority and personal agency in global contexts .

De Vos views the relationship between neuroscience and psychology as intertwined, with neuroscience not supplanting psychology but rather building upon it. He argues that neuroscience inherits psychological assumptions and deadlocks, implying that psychological discourse remains central to educational discussions. This relationship suggests that while neuroscience may offer new insights, its educational contributions are influenced by longstanding psychological theories and practices .

The concept of interpassivity relates to political and educational debates on neuroeducation by highlighting how individuals might disengage from active participation and critical thought, entrusting neuro-scientific authorities to explain their behaviors and learning processes. This disengagement supports a view where education is seen as a passive reception of scientific knowledge rather than an active, critical engagement with learning. Jan De Vos relates this to broader political trends, where relying on neuroeducation perpetuates power dynamics that favor expert over lay perspectives .

Educational neuroscience addresses the educational needs of adolescents by examining the structural and functional development of the brain, especially the prefrontal cortex, which is crucial for social cognition and abstract thought. Dumontheil and Blakemore emphasize that understanding these changes can help tailor educational interventions that align with adolescents' cognitive and emotional development, potentially enhancing learning outcomes during this critical developmental stage .

Critics argue that brain-based learning models within educational reform are often based on oversimplified interpretations of neuroscience, which are then used to justify educational practices without sufficient empirical support. These models risk reducing complex educational experiences to mere neurological processes, potentially ignoring the rich interplay of social, emotional, and cultural factors in learning. Furthermore, critics caution against pedagogical decisions that prioritize neuroscience over established educational theories and methods .

Neuroeducation risks perpetuating the concept of the self as a psychological subject by encouraging individuals to interpret their experiences primarily through a neuro-scientific lens. This approach can diminish the perception of personal agency and autonomy by framing learning and behavior as largely determined by brain function rather than individual choice or social context. De Vos suggests that this perspective aligns with broader trends in psychologization, where psychological interpretations dominate understandings of the self .

Jan De Vos critiques neuroeducation by arguing that psychology still holds a central position despite the rise of neuroeducation. He posits that psychologists have adapted to become neuro-educators, thereby maintaining their influence. De Vos highlights that neuroeducation is heavily reliant on psychological concepts and faces the same limitations as traditional psychological approaches, as exemplified by its dependence on psychology even at basic research levels such as fMRI studies .

The incorporation of neuroscience into education faces philosophical challenges because it attempts to bring neuro-scientific understanding into realms traditionally dominated by the social sciences and humanities. Researchers at this interface must confront issues such as the translation of complex neuro-scientific findings into educational practices and the potential reduction of educational experience to biological processes. Philosophers argue that an over-emphasis on neuroscience could overlook the role of cultural, social, and individual differences in learning .

Considering emotion regulation dysfunctions from a neuroscience perspective as a prelude to violence highlights the importance of understanding the neural mechanisms involved in emotional responses. Neuroscience can offer insights into how disruptions in these neural pathways may predispose individuals to violent behavior, informing more targeted interventions in educational settings. This perspective advocates for integrating neuroscience findings into emotional education, aiming to improve emotion regulation skills and reduce the risk of violence .

You might also like