Neuropedagogy as a scientific subdiscipline – possibilities and limitations

Recent years have seen a rapid development of modern neuroimaging methods. The
published results were gradually becoming of interest to representatives of other fields of
science, for example psychologists and, recently, pedagogists. There was an increasing
number of publications that dealt with topics related to the education process and that referred
to research in the field of neurobiology (Goswami, 2006; Tokuhama-Espinosa, 2010;
Tokuhama-Espinosa, 2010a; Tokuhama-Espinosa, 2011; Howard-Jones, 2014; Sala,
Anderson, 2012; Mareschal, Tolmie, Butterworth, 2013, Trnikova, Petlak, 2010).
Interdisciplinary research started in mid-20th century. First, the research was carried out by
psychologists, doctors of medicine or neurobiologists within the existing scientific disciplines.
The research focussed mainly on cognitive aspects of human development. Therefore, in
recent years the discussion about “brain-friendly education” has also been joined by
pedagogists. At the same time, the endeavours to outline the theoretical and methodological
frameworks of the novel discipline – the area of research in neurobiology, psychology and
pedagogy – become more and more frequent. Due to the fact that the subject-matter was dealt
with by a large number of research institutions in diverse locations, various names were used
in the literature such as “neuroeducation”, “neuropedagogy”, “educational neurosciences”,
and Mind Brain Education Science (hereafter referred to as MBE).
This publication endeavours to define the theoretical assumptions of neuropedagogy.
This is the first, essential stage in the research process as scientific literature is missing this
scientific overview of the reality, based on which pedagogists would be able to design
pedagogical and neurobiological research. The need for publishing the theoretical
assumptions becomes even more urgent as there are more and more methods of work and
tools used in school environments around the world that are not subjected to any research
because there are no theoretical frameworks for that kind of research.

History of research on biological determinants of education – a concise

review of most significant theories

The search for biological determinants of the learning process dates back to the
ancient times (the detailed description can be found in: Tokuhama-Espinosa 2011). However,
it was not until the second half of the 19th century that significant scientific discussions
regarding the above subject-matter began to evolve in a more rapid manner. First, the
discussions consisted in looking for correlations between the broadly-understood biological
determinants and the effectiveness of the learning process. In 1869 Franciszek Galton started
a discussion on what affects the learning process more significantly: biological determinants
or upbringing. It was also the time of the appearance of the so-called Baldwin Theory
implying that if learning is prerequisite for the survival of the species, then the ability to learn
is inherited biologically through genes (Broughton, 1981 after: Ferrari and McBride, 2011).
Those assumptions were reflected, i.a. in the research conducted by Jean Piaget, who not only
defined the four stages of the cognitive development but also attempted to find a biological
explanation for those stages (Piaget, 1970; after: Ferrari and McBride, 2011).
In the 50s of the 20th century the study of process of learning was still the realm of
psychologists’ and biologists’ research. In 1949 Donald Hebb made a supposition that there
was a relation between neuroscience and learning. He presented a concept by Ivan Pavlov in
relation to a network of neurons. Hebb supposed that the combination of two different stimuli
created new neural connections and, as a result, a new reaction occurred. Based on those
suppositions, Hebb endeavoured to explain a higher efficacy of the learning process organised
in an atmosphere of positive emotions. Nowadays, this theory, among other ones, constitutes
the basis for research on neuroplasticity (Tokuhama-Espinosa, 2011). In 1958 Mark R.
Rosenzweig and Marian C. Diamond published the results of the experiments that showed
dendritic growth in rats induced by the learning process (after: Johansson, Belichenko, 2001).
Twenty years later a Russian psychologist Alexander Łuria, proved, based on that theory, that
the learning process in the brain involves various memory systems and that information can
be coded in various “formats” by means of various neural pathways (Tokuhama-Espinosa,
2011).
Towards the end of the 20th century the first attempts were made to create a new,
separate scientific subdiscipline. In 1978 two works were published: “Brain Research and
Learning” (Claycomb, 1978) and “Education and The Brain” (Chall, Mirsky,1978). Their
authors attempted to integrate neurology and education as a new, independent subdiscipline.
They focused only on researching the learning process, omitting the teaching process. Perhaps
this is the reason why that discipline did not find many advocates and did not get as much
recognition as the other area of interdisciplinary research that took shape at the same time,
namely Mind, Brain and Education Science (MBE).
The subject-matter literature describes American scientists as the forerunners of MBE.
In 1981 in the USA James Lee O’Dell was the first to use the notion Mind, Brain and
Education (MBE) in his book „Neuroeducation: Brain Compatible Learning Strategies”. He
stressed that only by understanding the neural mechanisms of cognitive processes would we
be able to design truly effective syllabuses. Around the same time, in 1983, American
psychologists published further two important works on the subject-matter under discussion:
„Frames of Mind” by Howard Gardner and „Human Brain, Human Learning” by Leslie A.
Hart. Gardner developed a new concept of multiple intelligences, pointing out directly to
several types of intelligence being located in specific areas of the brain. On the other hand,
Hart stressed that designing educational experiments without understanding the brain was like
designing gloves without understanding the human hand. It is the work by Hart that is
generally considered to be the first scientific publication in the area of the new subdiscipline
being developed, which was labelled neuroeducation.
 At the same time, also in Europe scientists started their research on neurobiological
determinants of the learning process. In fact, according to scientific sources, European
scientists contributed to developing the bases of neuroscience over 100 years ago when a
Spaniard Santiago Ramon y Cajal was engaged in a dispute with Carl Ludwig Schleich about
the significance of neurons and glial cells for human behaviour. However, it was not until
1988 that Gerhard Priess (professor of didactics at the University of Freiburg in Germany,
expert on early-age mathematical education) introduced the notion of neurodidactics,
claiming that those who deal with school pedagogy and didactics in general must keep in
mind that teaching and learning are brain-based. Conditions of learning process optimisation
were meant to be the research area of neurodidactics. According to assumptions made by
Preiss, neurodidactics was meant to be a new branch of the theory of education, the
representatives of which were supposed to attempt to develop a teaching strategy and learning
methods, utilising objective results of brain research. Since then the term “neurodidactics has
been the subject of discussion, frequently taken as an interface of neurology, didactics,
pedagogy and psychology (Sonnier, Goldsmith, 2005; Preiss, 1998). Therefore, it is
frequently used interchangeably with the term neuropedagogy and neuroeducation.
In recent years attempts have been made to define the above notions. Nowadays,
according to some authors, through its in-depth insight into the processes underlying human
conscience, learning and development, neuroeducation brings the knowledge about the
development of the nervous system to pedagogical practice (Tokuhama-Espinosa, 2010a;
Sousa, Tomlinson 2010). Whereas the understanding of the principles of how the brain works
significantly affects the planning of the education process (teaching methods), it is less
important in terms of the selection of the contents of the curriculum (base curriculum)
(Pickering, Howard-Jones, 2007; Serpati, Loughan, 2012). Therefore, neuroeducation would
be a discipline that does not propose radical changes in the areas of curriculum content, but
rather it postulates emphasizing the development of cognitive abilities relevant to the
upbringing and learning processes as well as postulating the educational space to be created to
support optimal use of the potential of students’ brains.
Over time, the notion of neuroeducation was more and more frequently identified with
a more popular discipline, the above-described MBE or with educational neurosciences
(Szuts, Goswani 2007; Lalancette, Campbell 2012; Battro, Fischer and 2010).
Summing up, the beginnings of the scientific theories regarding the combination of
neurobiology with the learning process can be traced back to the 19th century, and both
American and European (including Polish) scientists from various scientific can be named as
the forerunners of those theories. At the same time, depending on the location in which the
research was conducted, the novel discipline was labelled educational neuropsychology,
MBE, educational neuroscience or, less frequently, neuroeducation.

Contemporary neurosciences – the analysis of the concept of combining

scientific disciplines
 In recent years there have been numerous publications the authors of which attempted
to synthesis of the hitherto conducted research in the area of neural references to the
education process (Meltzer, 2007; Santoianni, Sabatano, 2007; Olson, Torrance, 1996;
Friedman, Klivington, Peterson, 1986). The inspirations in this regard can also be found in
concepts by A.Ş. Neill’s Summerhill School, Sudbury school , Reggio Emilia, Montessori,
International Baccalaureate and Steiner-Waldorf. This means that for a long time attempts
were made in numerous scientific centres to analyse neurobiological references to the
processes of learning and teaching. At that time the terms neuropedagogy, educational
neuropsychology, neurobiology of education, neurodidactics, and MBE were already in use.
Faced with the multitude of names and the necessity to find a place for the novel discipline in
the system, scientists and practitioners endeavoured to systematize those names. The efforts
were two-directional.
The first method involved a traditional approach based on the interrelations between
disciplines, with a specific scientific discipline (and its subdisciplines) being in the centre of
those disciplines. This method draws the knowledge from other disciplines in a consistent
manner, i.e. in the manner that is necessary (primary interrelations), frequent (secondary
interrelations) or sporadic (tertiary interrelations). Some disciplines may constitute the subject
of the activities of the central discipline (quaternary interrelations). The aim is the
development of the discipline with an emphasis on its autonomy.

Figure 1. Interrelations of pedagogy with another discipline

QUATERNARY INTERRELATIONS

TERTIARY INTERRELATIONS (economics,

SECONDARY INTERRELATIONS (history,

PRIMARY INTERRELATIONS:

PEDAGOGY

Source: own work

 The other method of describing the relations is based on the interrelation between the
disciplines. The focus is not just on a single discipline. Rather, there can be several disciplines
in the centre of attention as the focus is on the scope of cooperation between those disciplines.
One can speak of the lack of cooperation (separateness of disciplines), multidisciplinarity,
interdisciplinarity, and transdisciplinarity. Canosa and Collado-Ruano, having adopted the
concept by Nicolescu (1996) for a basis, related those notions to the newly-developing
disciplines dealing with neurobiology and education.

In this context, multidisciplinarity can be spoken of when the same problem is dealt
with by specialists from various disciplines. However, their activities are limited only to their
own discipline. Scientists do not cooperate in an interactive but only in a cumulative manner.
The so-called education sciences can serve as an example here. In educational sciences
various aspects of education can be studied by psychologists, sociologists, philosophers etc. If
scientists start an interactive cooperation (going beyond the frameworks of their own
disciplines) and involve the people with hands-on experience in the discussions
(acknowledging their knowledge and experience as being an equivalent and valuable for the
purposes of decision-making), then such a situation becomes a basis for creating a new
research field and, with time, also for a new discipline. All the participants address the same
issue and they focus their expert knowledge on it. In such a case we speak of
transdisciplinarity (Smuels 2009). The previously described MBE can serve as an example.
Interdisciplinarity is the final type of interrelation. Transdisciplinarity means that research is
conducted at the interface of various disciplines. In case of interdisciplinary studies
interactions between academics (without the involvement of those with hands-on experience,
albeit their activities are the sources of research problems and can be used to verify
hypotheses) can result in the developments of a new academic discipline (e.g. psychology of
education or neuropsychology).

Discussing the issue of relations between the disciplines, especially in the context of
transdisciplinarity, it is worth paying attention to the determinants of interdisciplinarity.
Collective, issue-based work is not a good approach in all situations. There are numerous
situations when a specialized, unidisciplinary knowledge is required, the knowledge that is
not available to those with the so-called hands-on experience. Then, they should not be
involved in the discussion. A study showed that within the area of neurobiology only the
experts were critical and reliable enough regarding the provided information such as
neuromyths (Weisberg et all. 2008). Both “ordinary” participants as well as students with
limited knowledge on the subject claimed that the explanation of phenomena by evidence
unsupported by research but related to neurobiology is more reliable and satisfactory than if
they were not related to neurobiology. The occurrence of situations like the one mentioned
above is proven by numerous popular science publications the authors of which quote (often
unreliably, not objectively and without presenting research-based evidence) excerpts from
neurobiology to support their theories. Scientific research has also proven that magnetic
resonance imaging has the so-called authenticating and scientifying effect (McCabe and
Castel, 2008). The above-mentioned research implies that, as regards teachers, courses in the
basics of neurobiology or neuroscience research will not significantly affect the objectivity of
assessing other reports grounded in neuroresearch. Samuels goes as far as claiming that
teachers are not able to acquire specialist neurobiological knowledge (Samuels 2009).

Summing up, the systematization of the naming convention is based on interrelations

of various kinds, determined by i.a. the subject-matter of research. The most popular among
the attempts to systematize the developing neurosciences is the one that combines two
concepts: physics and neurobiology by Hideaki Koizumi, and pedagogy and psychology by
Boby Samuels. Both scientists focused on MBE.

Figure 2. Diagram of theoretical assumptions of MBE

Source: Tokuhama-Episona 2010

They assumed the new field of research to be of transdisciplinary nature and involves
both people with hands-on experience and theoreticians in the area of psychology,
neurosciences, and education. Those assumptions were proven and complemented in 2005
during an interdisciplinary conference in Delphi. Over 30 experts in neurobiology,
psychology, and pedagogy met there to look into the available literature and organize the body
of knowledge within the newly-developing discipline. The conference participants adopted
the name Mind Brain and Education Science as the one that best describes the novel
discipline that constitutes the field for an interdisciplinary discussion, first and foremost
between pedagogists, psychologists, and the representatives of neurosciences (biology,
chemistry, physics, or medicine). In the course of numerous discussions, the participants
demonstrated that MBE specialists should accept various historical roots of three disciplines
(cf. Fig. 2) This means, for example, that teachers must realize that although psychology and
neurobiology have different goals, methods and procedures than those of education, both are
equally useful for planning the learning and the teaching processes. In a similar vein,
psychologists practising the new discipline must acknowledge that the information from the
area of neurology and education are equally valuable despite the differences in
 methodology. On the other hand, neurologists should, for example, learn to appreciate the
significance of qualitative research. In addition, Bruno della Chiesa, Vanessa Christoph and
Christina Hinton (2009) demonstrated that scientists practising MBE must verify research
hypotheses based on the methods available for each of the disciplines and to recognise the
obtained results as equally valid. Such an approach is also highlighted by the very name of the
discipline that implies a three-way information flow. This means that if some results are to be
adapted in a novel discipline, pedagogists, psychologists and neurologists must prove their
hypotheses not only in their own disciplines but also in the other two (Fischer et all., 2007).
In 2016, during the following meeting in Delphi, over 50 scientists from eleven
countries held another interdisciplinary discussion. Among the guidelines for work for the
following ten years was the popularization of the postulate that MBE and educational
neurosciences or neuroeducation were not the same thing (Tokuhama-Espinosa 2017). This
way, for the first time a group of specialists representing various disciplines adopted an
official position regarding the scopes of meaning of new terms. The differences between them
are presented below.

Figure 3. Comparison of neurosciences

Cogni v
e Mind, Brain
learning neurosci Educa onal and
sciences ences neurosciences Neuroeduca on Educa on

people ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
animals ✓

REFE plants ✓
RENC humanity ✓ ✓
E
GRO society ✓ ✓
UP class/group ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
en ty ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
“molecular” level ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
SUBJEC learning ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
T-
MATTE
R
teaching ✓ ✓ ✓

separate discipline ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

AUTO two-way communica on ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

NOM
transdisciplinarity ✓
Y
subdiscipline of subdiscipline of
no subdiscipline neurosciences educa on ✓

Source: own work based on Tokuhama-Espinosa, T. 2019

ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
 The above table presents the most common sciences related to education and
neurobiology with regard to their subject-matter of research, reference group and autonomy
among academic disciplines. Learning sciences seems to be the broadest term (learning
understood as the acquisition of skills, capabilities, and knowledge), i.e. all academic
disciplines which in some way deal with the issue in relation to plants, animals or people
(from a molecular to social level). In this case relations between the disciplines are based on
an interdisciplinary discussion involving only academics. On the other hand, cognitive
neurosciences, in which we can include medicine and neuropsychology, seem to have the
narrowest meaning. The assumptions describing the educational neurosciences and
neuroeducation seem interesting. They are identical, except that the former is the
subdiscipline of neurosciences (understood as a group of all disciplines that deal with
neuronal aspects of the education process), while the latter is the subdiscipline of education.
This distinction seems to result from the orientation of the research i.e. whether it is only
basic research that focuses on the human nervous system or, rather, applied research focussing
on practical applications within the education system.

Neuropedagogy within the system of sciences

To be able to relate to neuropedagogy, one must first raise the issue of the naming
convention applied to the disciplines. In the deliberations hitherto replacing the term
pedagogy with education has become prominent. In the USA, in the Scandinavian countries
and in the Anglosphere any research dealing with the school and studying is labelled as
education, which is not classified as an academic discipline. The term pedagogy is practically
absent from the literature (cf. Feiler, Stabio 2018). In Western Europe, in turn, the term
educational sciences is commonly used. In Germany, Switzerland and Austria it constitutes a
separate academic discipline (although it shares the methodology, terminology, and the
subject-matter of research with pedagogy). On the other hand, in the Czech Republic and in
Slovakia the term educational sciences is also used, but not in relation to the discipline. In
other Central European Counteies, Brazil and, for example, in Australia most academics (cf.
Tanaś 2015, Genovesi 1999, Saviani 2007, Zogla 2018) regard pedagogy as a separate
academic discipline (has its own methodology, terminology, and the subject-matter of
research), the subject-matter of which is education (understood mainly as upbringing,
teaching, and learning at the same time), with didactics being one of its subdisciplines.

From its beginnings, pedagogy, which derives from the Greek word pediagogos, has
been associated with upbringing, understood as supporting the child in physical and, later,
also in moral development (Smith 2006). An academic status of pedagogy began to develop in
the Enlightenment (Komeński, Radke, Roussau, Peztalozzi). At the end of the 18th century
courses in pedagogy were made available at some German universities. The world’s first chair
of pedagogy was established by E.C Trapp at an university in Halle, Germany. In 1870 Trapp
published a treatise for students titled “Versuch einer Pädagogik” in which he acknowledged
pedagogy not only as an independent academic discipline but also stressed that pedagogy is
based on anthropology and medicine. However it is J.F. Herbert who is regarded as the
founding father of academic pedagogy. He separated pedagogy from philosophy and based it
on philosophical ethics (which defines the goals of upbringing) and on psychology (which
indicates the means to those goals). He was the first to point out to the duality of pedagogy
which, on one hand, is grounded in the humanities, but one the other hand – in social science
(Smith 2006). This is because pedagogy deals with both describing the reality and
establishing the directives for actions to be taken to change this reality. Therefore, it comes as
no surprise that some pedagogists are strongly in favour of treating their discipline as a
science that explains the realities studied. On the other hand, others see the sense in practising
pedagogy as a science that interprets the existing educational reality and in reflecting over that
reality. Others still use either the methods of social sciences or of humanities depending on
what is the subject-matter of their research and which methods are better suited to solve the
basic problem of their research. Therefore, pedagogy studies the reality which it creates. This
is why philosopher Radim Palouš claims that the essence of pedagogy is exemplified not by
the prefix ped but by the suffix agogy as pedagogy, after all, deals also with adults and the
elderly. Agogé derives from a Greek notion for “leading”, “upbringing”, “discipline”, ”way of
life”, “crossing”, “departure”, where agón means “competition”, ”effort”, “striving”; agein
means “to lead”, “haul”; and age means “further”, “up”. In that sense agogy can deal with the
theory of education in two ways:

1) fundamental – where it searches for the sources, sense and ontological premises of
upbringing,
2) practical (applied) – when it sets current and specific goals and means of upbringing
(Palous 1991).
Therefore, abandoning the term pedagogy in the above sense in favour of the
schooling-related term education also means confining the research to education understood
as “contextual” activity that is guided neither by the awareness of goals nor by the conviction
of understanding the nature of upbringing. Therefore, it seems legitimate to point out that
the branch of science should be called pedagogy, whereas education is the subject-matter
of its research.
The term education is generally understood as a process of teaching, training and
learning, especially in schools, colleges or universities, to improve knowledge and develop
skills (Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries). In that context education is the subject-matter of
research in psychology, sociology but also in neurobiology.
However, if we assume that educational activities affect the emotional and educational
as well as cognitive processes , the meaning of the term becomes broader. The former
processes concern feelings, motives, attitudes and values, while the latter concern knowledge,
skills, and effectiveness of actions. Depending on the role of those aspects in designing,
performing and evaluating the results of educational activities we can distinguish: upbringing
(emotional education), learning (cognitive education), teaching (sustainable education)
(Niemierko 2009). Within this concept the term education has the broadest meaning,
encompassing all the above-mentioned activities – cf. Figure 4.
Summing up, the term education can be understood in a narrower sense (as teaching
and learning) or in a broader sense – as activities encompassing upbringing, educating and
teaching. It is this broader context that defines the subject-matter of research in pedagogy.

Figure 4. A diagram of educational activities

Source: B. Niemerko (2009). Diagnostyka edukacyjna. Warsaw PWN, p.35.

Based on the above, one can attempt to place neuropedagogy in the system of
sciences.

Assuming that the term pedagogy describes an academic discipline the subject-matter
of which is education, then the pattern of relations between the disciplines could look as
presented in Figure 5.
 Figure 5. Diagram of relations between specific neurosciences

NEUROPSYCHOPEDAGOGY
brain, mind, educa on
PEDAGOGY
upbringing, teaching,
NEUROPEDAGOGY educa ng
neuronal determinants of educa onal PSYCHOLOGY OF EDUCATION
ac ons in the course of life
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY

PSYCHOLOGY
NEUROSCIENCES
mind, emo ons,
brain, EEG, MRI, NIRS temperament,
personality

NEUROPSYCHOLOGY

Source: own work

Therefore, neuropedagogy should be regarded as an interdisciplinary field of research

in pedagogy and neurosciences (i.a. biological and medical neurosciences), where a given
thesis should be proven using research methods of both neuropedagogy and
neurosciences. Therefore, the process of education i.e. upbringing, educating and
teaching would constitute the subject-matter of neuropedagogy, analysed within the
context of neurosciences, while a person describing him- or herself as neuropedagogist
should have thorough knowledge in the area of three disciplines, with pedagogy being
the core area.
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
Figure 6. Neuropedagogy as the field of research of three disciplines (the diagram also
shows the scope of knowledge it draws from the three discipline)

Source: own work

The presented concept is not only based on a clear distinction of the terms
pedagogy and education but also postulates the conscious usage of those terms in
academic publications. If theoretical considerations are made at the level of academic
disciplines, then the term pedagogy should be used in texts, diagrams and charts. On the
other hand, the word education could be retained in the naming convention of
interdisciplinary fields of research/areas of research, when the representatives of various
disciplines focus exclusively on the social aspect of education, without delving into its history
or axiology. However, the above term must not be used to label an academic discipline or
subdiscipline, and so far, despite its growing popularity, it has not gained the status of an
academic discipline or subdiscipline in any publication. Moreover, the scope if its meaning in
that context would be narrower, i.e. it would cover only the learning and teaching processes in
the course of life.
Based on the above, Figure 3 should be modified.
Figure 7. Actual place of neuropedagogy among neurosciences

Learning Cognitive Educational Neuropedagogy MBE

sciences neurosciences neuroscience
s
Ob People
jec a) humanity + +
t of
res b) society + + +
ear
c) class/group + + + +
ch
d) entity + + + + +
e) body cell + + + +

Animals +

Plants +

Su Learning + + + + +
bje
ct- Teaching + + +
att
er

Re Interrelations Field of Field of Field of Subdiscipline of Separate

sea of disciplines research of research of research of pedagogy discipline,
rch separate separate separate no
aut disciplines disciplines with disciplines subdisciplines
on neuronal with neuronal
om determinants of determinants
y cognitive of education
processes being being their
their research research
subject subject
Relations Interdiscipli Interdisciplinar Interdisciplina Interdisciplinary Transdisciplin
with other nary y ry ary
disciplines

Examples of i.a. i.a. psychology, i.a. pedagogy, pedagogy, pedagogy,

discipline psychology, medicine, psychology, medicine, psychology,
(acc. to sociology, biology medicine, and medicine,
classification biology, and biology and subdisciplines biology and
applicable in medicine subdisciplines subdisciplines thereof other
Poland) and thereof thereof disciplines
subdisciplin involving the
es thereof study of
human
Source: own work

Based on the above, it must be stressed that neuropedagogy is identical neither to

MBE nor to educational neurosciences. As opposed to MBE and educational neurosciences,
neuropedagogy:
- studies the society to analyse historical references and to set axiological goals i.a. of the
education process,
- its studies do not have to cover the nervous system at a molecular level as neuropedagogists
will not search for neuromarkers required for diagnosing disorders, but rather, they will verify
the available teaching or therapeutic methods (i.e. the so-called interventions). Hence the
suggestion to utilize achievements of medicine rather than biology;
- it can be classified as a subdiscipline of pedagogy (just as neuropsychology is the
subdiscipline of psychology).
The analyses of relations between the disciplines and research areas presented in the
table allow for even more precise definition of the meaning of “neuropedagogy”, which
should study neuronal determinants (causes, course, consequences) of the education
process, i.e. any broadly understood interventions regarding the upbringing, educating
and teaching aimed at persons in varying age and health condition. Any hypotheses
should be subjected to the research process utilising the methods available in pedagogy
and medicine. Therefore, a neuropedagogist should be thoroughly educated in pedagogy
(as a core discipline) as well as having the knowledge of medicine (in particular,
neurobiology and neuroimaging techniques) at least at an intermediate level.
Summing up, neuropedagogy and the subject-matter(s) of its interest can be finally
graphically represented as below:

Figure 8. Actual scope of the meaning of the term neuropedagogy

Source: own work

Instead of a summary

The adoption of the method of defining neuropedagogy described herein is justified

considering the methodology of future research in the newly-developing subdiscipline.
Supposing the research to be interdisciplinary, one must acknowledge that suppositions or
hypotheses adopted by neuropedagogists should be verified using the methods and tools used
in medicine and pedagogy.
It is, however, difficult because there are currently significant differences between the
research methodologies of the above-mentioned disciplines. Medical analyses are governed
by stringent, structured and consistent procedures but are only quantitative in nature. On the
other hand, in pedagogy standard tools are hardly available and the rapidly evolving stream of
qualitative research seems to not to be applicable to medical sciences at all. However, what
medicine and pedagogy have in common is the rapidly developing concept of “evidence-
based practice”. The said concept assumes that when making a decision a doctor of medicine/
teacher should take into consideration the evidence (results of reliable tests, metanalyses,
expert recommendations), patient’s/student’s current needs and limitations and his/her own
experience. It is assumed that in such a situation the quantitative methods (evidence, doctor’s/
teachers knowledge) should be combined with qualitative methods (patient’s/student’s
subjective opinion, doctor’s/teacher’s intuition). The development of the methodology of
neuropedagogy will also facilitate the development of neuroimaging methods and improve the
availability of near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS). This method does not require
immobilization (a person can perform various educational activities), the equipment is mobile
(tests can be conducted in natural developmental environments) and makes it possible to test
several people simultaneously. Therefore, pedagogists can combine the pedagogical methods
with brain imaging in their research, obtaining data from a certified medical tool.
This type of research procedure makes it possible to obtain reliable and objective data
which can make the so-called “evidence-based education and “neuroevidence-based
education” more widespread.
Naming convention in neuropedagogy remains another important issue. Terminology,
in a similar vein to methodology, should take into account the interdisciplinarity of this
field, i.e. the terms typical of pedagogy (upbringing, education, teacher, care, or social
rehabilitation) should be included in/combined with/complemented with medical
terminology (brain, nervous system, neuroplasticity, magnetic resonance imaging). It is
also important that the neuropedagogical terminology include only the terms that are
scientifically proven and well-established in previous publications.

The deliberations undertaken herein constitute only the first stage in the development
of a new subdiscipline. Neuropedagogy is the answer to the increasing interest in brain
research among teachers and to the increasing number of pseudo-scientific theories, methods,
and therapies making their way into the education process, claiming to be “neuroresearch-
based”. The scientists must base their activities on theoretical assumptions to be prepared for
the newly-developing field of research which is likely to become a new subdiscipline. Not
only will the standardization of the naming convention facilitate the interdisciplinary
international research cooperation but it will also allow for an objective and reliable dialogue
between scientists on the one side, and teachers, parents and other institutions involved in the
education process on the other side.

Abstract

In recent years teachers have intensified their efforts to find the ways to improve the quality
of their work. Methods, therapies and teaching aids labelled as “neuroresearch-based” have
made their way into the available scientific publications and commercial offers. Terms such as
neuroeducation, neurodidactics, educational neurosciences, educational neurosciences or
„Mind, Brain & Education” have gained popularity.
The present article endeavours to systematize the theory regarding the issues of the
application of neuroresearch in education, setting them, first and foremost, in neuropedagogy
– a novel subdiscipline of pedagogy. The proposed concept can constitute the basis for
designing research methodologies and procedures which will make it possible to verify the
neuroscience-based solutions proposed, among others, to teachers. Notwithstanding the
above, the current situation (crisis of education, increase in professional burn-out cases among
teachers, low prestige of the teaching profession, increasing interest in brain research among
those involved in education, and readily available and aggressively promoted pseudo-
scientific theories and solutions) obliges scientists to take active actions based on reliable
evidence.

Bibliography:

1. Battro, A.M., Fischer, K.W & Lena, P.J (2010) The educated brain: Essays in
neuroeducation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2. Broughton, JM (1981). The genetic psychology of James Mark Baldwin. American
Psychologist, 36, 396–407.
3. Buckingham, D. (2003). Media Education: Literacy, Learning and Contemporary
Culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.
4. della Chiesa, B., Christoph, V., Hinton, C. (2009). How many brains does it take to
build a new light: knowledge management challenges of a transdisciplinary project.
Mind Brain and Education, 3(1), 17 – 26.
5. Ruano J.C., Canosa A.F. (2019). Transdisciplinary epistemological foundations of
education and neuroscience. Sophia, Colección de la Educación, 26(1), 83-112.
6. Chall, J. S., Mirsky, A. F. (Eds) (1978). Education and the brain. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
7. Claycomb, M. (1978). Brain research and learning: a position paper. Washington, D.C:
National Education Association.
8. Feiler, J.B., Stabio M.E., (2018), Three pillars of educational neuroscience from three
decades of literature. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 13, 17-25.
9. Ferrari, M., & McBride, H. (2011). Mind, Brain, and Education: The birth of a new
science. Learning Landscapes, 5(1), 85-100.
10. Fischer, K.W., Daniel, D.B., Immordino-Yang, M.H., Stern E., Battro, A. Koizumi H.
(2007), Why mind, brain, and education? Why now? Journal Compillation, 1(1), 1-2.
11. Friedman, S.L., Klivington, K.A., Peterson, R.W. (1986). The brain, cognition, and
education. New York: Academic Press.
12. Genovesi, G. (1999). Pedagogía, dall'empiria verso la scienza. Bologna: Pitagora.
13. Goswami, U. (2006). Neuroscience and education: from research to practice? Nature
reviews neuroscience, 7(5), 406-413.
14. Gundem, B. B. (1998). Understanding European didactics – an overview: Didactics
(Didaktik, Didaktik(k), Didactique). Oslo: University of Oslo. Institute for
Educational Research.
15. Hebb, D.O. (1949). The organization of behavior. New York: Wiley.
16. Howard-Jones, P.A. (2014), Neuroscience and education: myths and messages,
Natural Review Neuroscience, 15 (12).
17. Feiler, J.B., Stabio, M.E. (2018). Three pillars of educational neuroscience from three
decades of literature, Trends in Neuroscience and Education, Elsevier.
18. Lalancette H., Campbell, S.R., (2012), Educational Neuroscience: neuroethical
considerations, Mind Brain Education, 7(1) , 37-52.
19. Mareschal, D., Butterworth, B., Tolmie, A., (2013), Educational Neuroscience. Wiley-
Blackwell.
20. McCabe, D.P., Castel A.D., (2008). Seeing is believing: The effect of brain images on
judgments of scientific reasoning, Cognition, 107, 343-352.
21. Meltzer, L. (Ed.). (2007). Executive function in education: From theory to practice.
Guilford Press.
22. Moricca, C., Pellegrini, M. (2016). Evidence-Based Education. Ten points of dispute.
Form@re - Open Journal Per La Formazione in Rete, 16(2), 365-373.
23. Nicolescu, B. (1996) La transdisciplina. Manifiesto. Mónaco: Du Rocher.
24. Niemierko B. (2009) Kształcenie szkolne. Podręcznik skutecznej dydaktyki.
Warszawa.
25. Olson D.R., Torrance, N. (1996). Models of thought. Explorations in Culture and
Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
26. Palouš R. (1991). Čas výchovy. Praha : Státní pedagogické nakladatelství.
27. Piaget, J. (1970). Piaget’s theory. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael’s manual of child
psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 703–723). New York: Wiley.
28. Pickering S.J., Howard-Jones P., (2007), Educators’ views on the role of neuroscience
I education: findings from a study of UK and international perspectives, Mind Brain
Education, 1(3), 109–113;
29. Preiss, G. (1998). Neurodidaktik. Theoretische und praktische Beitrage. Herbolzheim:
Centaurus.
30. Sala, D., Anderson, M. (2012), neuroscience in Education: The good, the bad, and the
ugly. Oxford Univesity Press.
31. Samuels, B.M. (2009), Can the Differences Between Education and Neuroscience be
Overcome by Mind, Brain, and Education?. Mind, Brain, and Education, 3: 45-55.
doi:10.1111/j.1751-228X.2008.01052.x
32. Santoianni, F., Sabatano, C., (2007), Brain development in learning environments.
Embodied and perceptual advancements. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
33. Saviani D. (2007). Pedagogy: the space for education at the University, Cad. Pesqui.
vol.37 no.130 São Paulo Jan./Apr. 2007
34. Serpati, L., & Loughan, A.R. (2012). Teacher Perceptions of NeuroEducation: A
Mixed Methods Survey of Teachers in the United States. [Article]. Mind Brain and
Education, 6(3), 174-176.
35. Smith, M. J. (2006). ‘The Role of the Pedagogue in Galatians’, Faculty Publications
and Presentations. Liberty University. [Link]
36. Samuels, B. M. (2009). Can the differences between education and neuroscience be
overcome by mind, brain, and education?. Mind, Brain, and Education, 3(1), 45-55.
37. Sonnier I.L., Goldsmith J., 1985, The Role of brain lateralization in learning and
behavior modification. „Methods and Techniques of Holistic Education”, 11–16.
38. Sousa, D.A., Tomlinson C.A. (2010). Differentiation and the Brain: How
Neuroscience Supports the Learner-Friendly Classroom.
39. Szűcs D, Goswami U (2007), Educational neuroscience: Defining a new discipline for
the study of mental representations. Mind, Brain and Education 114-127.
40. Tanaś M. (2015). Distance Education as an Object of Study and Reflection of
Pedagogy in Poland, International Journal of Electronics and Telecommunications,
61(3).
41. Tokuhama-Espinosa T., 2010, Mind, brain, and education science. A comprehensive
guide to the new brain-based teaching. W. W. Norton & Company, Nowy Jork.
42. Tokuhama-Espinosa, T. (2011). A brief history of the science of learning: Part 1 (3500
B.C.E.-1970 C.E.) & Part 2 (1970–the present). New Horizons for Learning, 9(1).
Published on line ([Link]
43. Tokuhama-Espinosa, T. (2017). Mind Brain, and Education science: An International
Delphi Survey 2016-2017. Quito, Ecuador: Author.
44. Tokuhama-Espinosa, T. (2019). An Overview of the Historical Development of the
Field of Mind, Brain, and Education Science [on line] [Link]
p u b l i c a t i o n /
331960601_An_Overview_of_the_Historical_Development_of_the_Field_of_Mind_
Brain_and_Education_Science
45. Trníková J., Petlák E., 2012, Neuroscience as a basis for innovations in education.
„Acta Technologica Dubnicae”, vol. 2, s. 43–51.
46. Weisberg, D. S., Keil, C., Goodstein, J., Rawson, E., & Gray, J. R. (2008). The
seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,
20(3), 470–477.
47. Zogla I. (2018).Science of Pedagogy: Theory of Educational Discipline and Practice,
Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability 20(2), 31-43