Geake John (2008). Â« Neuromythologies in education Â». Educational Research, vol. 50, nÂ° 2, p. 123–133.
Added by: Marie Gaussel (28 Feb 2013 11:07:59 Europe/Paris)
|Resource type: Journal Article
BibTeX citation key: Geake2008
|Categories: Apprentissages et psychologie
Subcategories: Neurosciences et Ă©ducation
Keywords: dĂ©veloppement cognitif, neurosciences
Collection: Educational Research
Views index: 22%
Popularity index: 5.5%
Background: Many popular educational programmes claim to be âbrain-basedâ, despite pleas from the neuroscience community that these neuromyths do not have a basis in scientific evidence about the brain.
Sources of evidence: The basis for the argument put forward includes a literature review of relevant cognitive neuroscientific studies, often involving neuroimaging, together with several comprehensive education reviews of the brain-based approaches under scrutiny.
Main argument: The main elements of the argument are as follows. We use most of our brains most of the time, not some restricted 10% brain usage. This is because our brains are densely interconnected, and we exploit this interconnectivity to enable our primitively evolved primate brains to live in our complex modern human world. Although brain imaging delineates areas of higher (and lower) activation in response to particular tasks, thinking involves coordinated interconnectivity from both sides of the brain, not separate left- and right-brained thinking. High intelligence requires higher levels of inter-hemispheric and other connected activity. The brainâs interconnectivity includes the senses, especially vision and hearing. We do not learn by one sense alone, hence VAK learning styles do not reflect how our brains actually learn, nor the individual differences we observe in classrooms. Neuroimaging studies do not support multiple intelligences; in fact, the opposite is true. Through the activity of its frontal cortices, among other areas, the human brain seems to operate with general intelligence, applied to multiple areas of endeavour. Studies of educational effectiveness of applying any of these ideas in the classroom have failed to find any educational benefits. Conclusions: The main conclusions arising from the argument are that teachers should seek independent scientific validation before adopting brain-based products in their classrooms. A more sceptical approach to educational panaceas could contribute to an enhanced professionalism of the field.
Added by: Catherine Reverdy Last edited by: Marie Gaussel