International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE)

IJCRSEE Editorial Team; Ali Nouri

doi:10.5937/IJCRSEE1601059N

Authors

Ali Nouri Assistant Professor in Curriculum Studies, Malayer University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5937/IJCRSEE1601059N

Keywords:

neuroeducational research, research methodology, neuroeducation studies, principles of research

Abstract

The present paper assembles contributions from the areas of education, psychology, cognitive science, and of course, neuroeducation itself to introduce the basic principles of research in the field of neuroeducation studies. It is particularly important, as such it is a useful way to justify researchers about what neuroeducation as a speci?c domain do that no other ?eld can do as well or cannot do at all. Based on the literature reviewed, neuroeducational research can be understood as an interdisciplinary endeavor to develop an insightful understanding and holistic picture of problems related to learning and education. It thus epistemologically is based on an integrated methodological pluralism paradigm. This requires researchers to understand multiple methods and methodologies and employ as they formulate their own research projects. Researchers have a critical role to play in providing systematic evidence and conclusions that are scientifically valid and reliable and educationally relevant and usable. One significant implication of this argument is the need to strengthen the quality of the research component in graduate programs of the field and train interested researchers in the identification and formulation of relevant research questions.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ansari, D., Coch, D., & De_Smedt, B. (2011). Connecting Education and Cognitive Neuroscience: Where will the journey take us. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(1), 37-42.

Ansari, D., De_Smedt, B., & Grabner, R. H. (2012). Neuroeducation–a critical overview of an emerging field. Neuroethics, 5(2), 105-117.

Battro, A. M. (2010). The teaching brain. Mind, Brain, and Education, 4(1), 28-33.

Brandt, R. (2012). How educational neuroscience will contribute to 21st century education. Creating an appropriate 21st century education. Information Age Education (pp. Eugene, Oregon, USA.

Brown, R. D., & Bjorklund, D. F. (1998). The biologizing of cognition, development, and education: approach with cautious enthusiasm.Educational. Psychology Review, 10(3), 355-373.

Bruer, J. T. (1999). In search of... brain-based education. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(9), 648-657.

Bryman, A. (1988). Quantity and quality in social research. London: London: Allen & Unwin.

Campbell, S. R. (2010). Embodied minds and dancing brains: New opportunities for research in mathematics education. In Theories of mathematics education (pp. 309-331). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Campbell, S. R. (2011). Educational Neuroscience: Motivations, methodology, and implications. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(1), 7-16.

Dewey, J. (1929). The sources of a science of education. New York: Liveright Publishing Corp.

Eisner, E. (1994). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school Programs. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

Ferrari, M. (2011). What Can Neuroscience Bring to Education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(1), 31-36.

Fischer, K. W. (2009). Mind, Brain, and Education: Building a Scientific Groundwork for Learning and. Teaching1. Mind, Brain, and Education, 3(1), 3-16.

Fischer, K. W., Goswami, U., & Geake, J. (2010). The future of educational neuroscience. Mind, Brain, and Education, 4(2), 68-80.

Gardner, H. (2009). An education grounded in biology: Interdisciplinary and ethical considerations. Mind, Brain, and Education, 3(2), 68-73.

Geake, J. (2011). Position statement on motivations, methodologies, and practical implications of educational neuroscience research: fMRI studies of the neural correlates of creative intelligence. Educational philosophy and theory, 43(1), 43-47.

Goswami, U. (2004). Neuroscience and education. British Journal of Educational Psychology,74(1), 1-14.

Hardiman, M., Rinne, L., Gregory, E., & Yarmolinskaya, J. (2012). Neuroethics, neuroeducation, and classroom teaching: Where the brain sciences meet pedagogy. Neuroethics, 5(2), 135-143. doi:10.1007/s12152-011-9116-6

Hardiman, M., Magsamen, S., McKhann, G., & Eilber, J. (2009). Neuroeducation: Learning, arts, and the brain. New York/Washington, DC: Dana.

Howard‐Jones, P. A. (2011a). A multiperspective approach to neuroeducational research. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(1), 24-30.

Howard-Jones, P. (2010). Introducing Neuroeducational Research. Abingdon, Routledge.

Howard-Jones, P. A. (2011b). From brain scan to lesson plan. Psychologist, 24(2), 110-113.

Howard-Jones, P. A., Winfield, M., & Crimmins, G. (2008). Co-constructing an understanding of creativity in drama education that draws on neuropsychological concepts. Educational Research, 50(2), 187-201.

Howard-Jones, P. A., & Fenton, K. D. (2012). The need for interdisciplinary dialogue in developing ethical approaches to neuroeducational research. Neuroethics, 5(2), 119-134.

Kim, S. (2013). Neuroscientific model of motivational process. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(1), doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00098

Lalancette, H., & Campbell, S. R. (2012). Educational Neuroscience: Neuroethical Considerations. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 7(1), 37-52.

Meltzoff, A. N., Kuhl, P. K., Movellan, J., & Sejnowski, T. J. (2009). Foundations for a new science of learning. Science, 325(5938), 284-288.

Mertens, D. M. (2005). Research and evaluation in education and psychology (2nd ed). Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks. London, New Delhi: Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks.

Sciences, A.o. (National), (2005). Facilitating interdisciplinary research. National Academies of Science, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. Washington DC: The National Academies: Press.

Nouri, A., & Mehrmohammadi, M. (2012). Defining the Boundaries for Neuroeducation as a Field of Study. Educational Research Journal, 27(1).

Nouri, A. (2013). Practical Strategies for Enhancing Interdisciplinary Collaboration in Neuroeducational Studies. International Journal of Cognitive Research in science, engineering and education (IJCRSEE), 1(2), 94-100.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2002).Understanding the brain: Towards a new learning science: OECD Publishing.

Pincham, H. L., Matejko, A. A., Obersteiner, A., Killikelly, C., Abrahao, K. P., & Benavides-Varela, S. (2014). Forging a new path for educational neuroscience: an international young-researcher perspective on combining neuroscience and educational practices. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 3(1), 28-31.

Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Roskies, A. (2002). Neuroethics for the new millenium. Neuron, 35(1), 21-23.

Sanders, D. P. (1981). Educational inquiry as developmental research. Educational. Researcher,10(3), 8-13.

Schwartz, M., & Gerlach, J. (2011). The Birth of a Field and the Rebirth of the Laboratory School. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(1), 67-74.

Sikes, P., Nixon, J., & Carr, W. (2003). The moral foundations of educational research: knowledge, inquiry and values. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).

Sheridan, K., Zinchenko, E., Illes, G. H., & J, (2006). Neuroethics in education, in Neuroethics: Defining the issues in theory, practice, and policy. USA: Oxford University Press.

Stein, Z., & Fischer, K. W. (2011). Directions for mind, brain, and education: Methods, models, and morality. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(1), 56-66.

Sylvan, L. J., & Christodoulou, J. A. (2010). Understanding the role of neuroscience in brain based products: A guide for educators and consumers. Mind. Brain, and Education, 4(1), 1-7.

Tallal, P., Miller, S. L., Bedi, G., Byma, G., Wang, X., Nagarajan, S. S., ... & Merzenich, M. M. (1996). Language comprehension in language-learning impaired children improved with acoustically modified speech. Science,271(5245), 81-84.

Wilson, A. J., Dehaene, S., Pinel, P., Revkin, S. K., Cohen, L., & Cohen, D. (2006). Principles underlying the design of “The Number Race”, an adaptive computer game for remediation of dyscalculia. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 2(19), 1-14.

Worden, J. M., Hinton, C., & Fischer, K. W. (2011). What Does the Brain Have to Do with Learning. What Does the Brain Have to Do with Learning?. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(8), 8-13.

Yang, O. S. (2001). An epistemological and ethical categorization of perspectives on early childhood curriculum. International Journal of Early Childhood, 33(1), 1-8.

Zambo, D. (2013). The Practical and Ethical Concerns of Using Neuroscience to Teach Young Children and Help Them Self-Regulate. In Early Childhood and Neuroscience-Links to Development and Learning (pp. 7-21). Springer Netherlands.

Zocchi, M., & Pollack, C. (2013). Educational neuroethics: A contribution from empirical research. Mind, Brain, and Education, 7(1), 56-62.