MIND, BRAIN, AND EDUCATION

Can the Differences Between

Education and Neuroscience be
Overcome by Mind, Brain, and
Education?
Boba M. Samuels1
ABSTRACTThe

new eld of Mind, Brain, and Education

(MBE)sometimes called educational neuroscienceis posited as a mediator between neuroscience and education.
Several foundational concerns, however, can be raised about
this emerging eld. The differences between neuroscience
and education are many, including differences in their histories, philosophies, and epistemologies. Historically, science
and education have demonstrated separate, but interwoven,
inuences on society; philosophically, the values by which
they operate are often in opposition; and epistemologically,
the elds have relied on different conceptualizations of
knowledge. Discussion about these differences has been
largely absent in attempts to promote MBE. Two steps are
proposed to respond to this omission. First, encouraging discussion about disciplinary differences and assumptions may
enable better understanding between disciplines and facilitate the establishment of a more collaborative research community. Second, a transdisciplinary framework that focuses on
salient issues of interest across disciplines should be considered. Transdisciplinarity aims for the creation of an inclusive
research environment that transcends traditional disciplinary
approaches to complex problems. This article initiates an exploration of disciplinary differences and proposes commitment to transdisciplinarity as a guiding principle that may
increase the viability of MBE as a mediating eld between
neuroscience and education.

The new eld of Mind, Brain, and Education (MBE) sometimes called educational neuroscienceis proposed as a site
1

Faculty of Education, University of Western Ontario

Address correspondence to Boba M. Samuels, Faculty of Education,

University of Western Ontario, 1137 Western Road, London, Ontario,
Canada N6G 1G7; e-mail: bbsamuel@uwo.ca

Volume 3Number 1

for encouraging greater interaction between neuroscience

and education. Neuroscience has arguably taken the lead in
this endeavor, both publicly by capitalizing on popular fascination with brain science and also in the research community. Education has been the more ambivalent partner.
Questions about the feasibility or appropriateness of neuroscience in education have been persistent (Bruer, 1997;
Davis, 2004; Szucs & Goswami, 2007), and although such
concerns are generally acknowledged, responses to them have
been less compelling. Prominent among the concerns is the
relation between neuroscience research and classroom application; other concerns centre on the proliferation of neuromyths and questionable brain-based pedagogies (Geake &
Cooper, 2003; Goswami, 2006; Pickering & Howard-Jones,
2007), as well as the basic question of whether neuroscience
ndings provide any unique contributions to educational
research beyond what can be found using traditional behavioral methods. Similar questions have been raised about the
implications of cognitive neuroscience for the eld of educational psychology (Berninger & Corina, 1998; Byrnes &
Fox, 1998; Mayer, 1998; Schunk, 1998; Stanovich, 1998). In
response to these concerns, there have been calls for changes
in the ways future researchers and educators are prepared in
their graduate training in both neuroscience and education
(Ansari & Coch, 2006; Berninger & Corina, 1998; Eisenhart,
2005; Lagemann, 2008). Such changes would presumably
lead to the development of individuals who are equally
comfortable in both domains.
The initial viability of MBE thus appears to be contingent
upon whether the two major players are willing and able to
commit themselves to the new eld and hence, to some degree,
to each other. Gaining such a commitment, however, should
not be assumed to be a straightforward or entirely rational
matter, despite its promise and import. The differences
between neuroscience and education are many, including differences in their histories, philosophies, and epistemologies.

2009 the Author

Journal Compilation 2009 International Mind, Brain, and Education Society and Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

45

Overcoming Differences in MBE

Historically, science and education have demonstrated separate, but interwoven, inuences on society that have led to
a characterization of science as prestigious and education as
failure ridden. Philosophically, the values by which they operate are often in opposition; and epistemologically, the elds
have relied on different conceptualizations of knowledge
that have had powerful inuences on each elds approach to
research and practice. My rst aim in this article is to propose
that these areas need attention if MBE is to establish itself
and gain productivity. My second aim is to introduce transdisciplinarity as an approach to creating a viable framework to
support MBEs development. Trandisciplinarity is a perspective on knowledge creation that integrates disciplines at the
level of particular issues. It is an approach ideally suited for
nding complex solutions to complex problems.

SCIENCE AND EDUCATION

History
Many researchers have noted the difcult relationship
between science and education (Bruer, 1997; Feuer, Towne, &
Shavelson, 2002; Goswami, 2006; Lagemann, 2000). Historically, however, science and education have overlapped to a
great extent, starting with the ancient Greeks. The most
famous Greek philosophers, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, are
famous not only for their philosophies but also for their inuence on both education and science. Socratic questioning
methods, Platos written records, and Aristotles systematic
categorizations have provided pedagogical models that
remain in use today. It is with the Greeks, too, that the particular style of thinking that is scientic began to assert itself
(Lloyd, 1979). It was in the Age of Reason, however, that the
great ourishing of scientic thought began, diverging from
the holistic tradition of education, and continuing to the
present. This 400 year long development of a scientic tradition arguably represents humanitys most productive attempt
to learn about the world and our role in it and to inuence its
future (Kuhn, 1970; Medawar, 1996). The effects of this scientic revolution have been pronounced, ranging from the secularization of society, to industrial developments, to our
changing interactions with the environment.
Education, on the other hand, despite its common origins
with science, has only recently become an identiable force
inuencing the development of large proportions of people
in society. Throughout history, access to education was often
reserved for the select rather than the masses. During some
periods, such as the Dark Ages, even many members of select
groups such as clergy were uneducated, with learning and
culture preserved in libraries rather than shared (Dupuis,
1966). Into the Middle Ages, education usually involved some
aspect of religious training, with monasteries, churches, and
then universities operating as the primary sites of learning

46

(Bazerman & Rogers, 2008). The creation of universities at

this time was an important landmark in the history of education. Apprenticeships and vocational guilds were available
to some as alternative means of education. Following the
invention of the printing press around 1447, access to written
texts allowed more people to become literate, a hallmark of
being educated. Greater literacy enabled people to interpret
for themselves important religious and scientic documents
(Olson, 1994), thus setting the stage for conicts between
education, religion, and science. From the enlightenment
onward, scientic thought became increasingly inuential
and contentious, and these conicts eventually saw religion losing its place as the dominant societal force. In this
period, science ourished and education for purposes other
than religious vocations became possible. Nevertheless, most
people remained illiterate and uneducated; even in 19th century Europe there was debate about the merits and content
of compulsory education for the general public (Clanchy, as
cited by Olson, 1994). It was not until the mid-19th century
that widespread public education began to establish itself
(Lagemann, 2000).
When education nally became more widely available in
the 19th century, the differences that had arisen between science and education did not diminish and arguably became
increasingly pronounced. In the United States, for instance,
the connection between public education and religion
remained strong, despite the constitutional separation of
church and state (Jacoby, 2008). Associating education with
moral upbringing, however, exacerbated the tensions already
present between education and science. Universities, which
often began as religious institutions, gradually shifted to align
themselves with science more than religion, contributing to
fragmentation within education. In addition, public education often remained a province of local governments more
than a national responsibility, so that most education was
highly dependent upon the resources of the local community
(Jacoby, 2008). Even in countries where education has operated under a strong national curriculum, its practices and
quality have varied widely between regions. As a result, education displays local characteristics and its quality is often
diverse, lacking the singular identication that has unied
science. Moreover, because of its association with children
and with teachers who were predominantly female, education came to be seen as a gendered, low-status eld, readily
susceptible to public criticism of its limitations (Lagemann,
2000). In comparison, science beneted from its institutionalization in universities and its association with a long history of privileged, primarily male learning. The result of these
differing histories is that science is generally perceived to be
cosmopolitan, successful, and powerful, whereas education
appears insular, fragmented, and failure ridden. These characterizations have had important inuences on practitioners
in these disciplines.

Volume 3Number 1

Boba M. Samuels

Attempts to reconnect scientic progress with education

have often suffered because of simplistic assumptions that
the failings of education can be directly remediated through
the application of science, an attitude that fails to consider
educations history and situatedness. For instance, the new
math and Man: A Course of Study were two programs
designed by researchers in the 1960s to improve teaching
of their respective subjects; both ultimately failed because
of a lack of insight into the complexities of the teaching
endeavor, including ignorance of the extent to which education is dependent upon local, political, and religious factors
(Lagemann, 2000). Underlying such misbegotten projects
we are likely to nd unexamined assumptions and lack of
awareness about the historical contexts of both elds.
Attempts to bridge the gap between science and education
continue to be made today (Blakemore & Frith, 2005; Fischer
et al., 2007; Stern, 2005). These attempts are made, however,
with scant acknowledgment that many educators are reluctant to engage with research and that this reluctance may
have its roots in the histories of the elds. As explanation for
their avoidance of research, educators identify factors such as
the perceived irrelevance of research to classroom practice,
lack of professional support for research activity, comprehensibility issues, and lack of condence (Boardman, Arguelles,
Vaughn, Hughes, & Klinger, 2005; Everton, Galton, & Pell,
2000; Gkdere, Kck, & Cepni, 2006; Pickering & HowardJones, 2007; Teppo, Rannikme, & Holbrook, 2006). Research
avoidance within the eld of education is most striking in the
pervasive view that educational psychology, which is perceived to be aligned with experimental research, is irrelevant
to educational practice (Berliner, 2006). The history of educational psychology is one of a eld caught between humanistic and scientic approaches to learning and ironically found
lacking by both: to our colleagues in psychology, we are too
educational, a disparaging label reecting our interest in
studying educationally relevant problems . . . [and] to our colleagues in education, we are too psychological, a disparaging
label reecting our interest in . . . scientic research methods and theories (Mayer, 2001). Such contradictions at the
researcher level are reproduced at the practitioner level. For
instance, even when educators are eager to grasp research,
they have been criticized as nave or gullible (see Berliner,
2006). The chastisement of educators for accepting neuromyths can be seen as continuing evidence of this tendency
to criticize educators both for ignoring scientic research on
the one hand and for uncritically accepting its claims on the
other.
In spite of the limiting effects of their histories as outlined here, there is promising evidence of growth in interactions between scientists and educators. The publication
literature, for instance, demonstrates that both scientists and
educationists are moving toward more integration. A recent
search of the major psychology database (PsychInfo) and a

Volume 3Number 1

major education database (ERIC) for articles on the topic

of neuroscience and education turned up 1,121 articles from
PsychInfo, whereas just 71 were found in ERIC.1 Many of the
articles agged in PsychInfo, however, were highly specialized for neuroscientists and provided few clear links to education beyond the clich that ndings may have implications
for educational practice. In contrast, articles from ERIC
were generally focused on the applicability of neuroscience
ndings to educational issues, suggesting that while fewer
educational researchers are addressing neuroscience in their
research, those that are doing so are likely to be committed to
an integrative approach.
A similar concern regarding the applications of cognitive
science research to education was examined by McNamara
(2006). In her study, McNamara found that journal articles in
cognitive science often claimed educational implications, but
results of these studies were rarely considered from the perspective of educators, nor did researchers attempt to include
educators in either creating research projects or conducting
analyses. Cognitive psychologists thus appeared to attempt
only supercial inclusion of educators in their research on
educational issues. These results have implications for the
call that cognitive psychology should play a mediating role
between education and neuroscience (Bruer, 1997). If cognitive psychology itself demonstrates few strong collaborations
with education, how can it act as a mediator for neuroscience
in education? Moreover, the possibility that collaboration
between such elds may be more supercial than integral
suggests that MBE needs to consider carefully the types of
interactions it wishes to promote, given the historical contexts of the two founding elds and then choose actions that
best support those interactions.

Philosophy
A second point to consider in founding the MBE partnership
is the philosophical tradition of education. Learning means
different things to different people. From the Greeks, we have
inherited the conict between episteme (pure knowledge)
and techne (craft or art). Thus began the philosophical
debate between a view of education as the enlightenment and
transformation of the individual, in opposition to a view of
education as application focused and pragmatic. This tension
continues to operate in the current context, and many educators may bristle at the notion that education is about the
shaping of individual brains via targeted experience in the
classroom (Szucs & Goswami, 2007, p. 114) a proposition
that seems to reduce education to an exercise in brain manipulation. Similarly, the suggestion that MBE be dened as the
study of the development of mental representations (p. 114)
is unlikely to be embraced by educators. It is not only the lexicon itself that is problematic but also the unexamined philosophical assumptions behind it.

47

Overcoming Differences in MBE

Currently, the division between theoretical (abstract)

knowledge and technical (practical) knowledge is reected
in the disciplinary polarity between the liberal arts and the
sciences. In this context, education aligns itself with the liberal arts and the notion of the holistic development of the
person in society, whereas science is aligned with empirical
and technical analysis that leads to veriable claims. Roughly,
this coincides with a characterization of constructivist education versus positivistic science, a false dichotomy that became
exemplied in the unproductive opposition of qualitative
and quantitative research methodologies. The pervasiveness
of these distinctions, their perceived values in our economically dominated societies, and their polarizing effects on
research communities should not be underestimated. They
are especially evident in the recent controversies within
education, as conventional scientic (i.e., experimental)
methods gained impetus from political actions such as the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001, leading to confrontations
between educational researchers from various backgrounds
(see Jacob & White, 2002).
The current emphasis on scientic perspectives has led
educational researchers from different traditions to feel marginalized and to voice legitimate concerns about the goals
of educational researchgoals that are inherently shaped
by values based in philosophical perspectives. Contributing
to the tension has been persistent criticism of the quality of
educational research, a critique that can be linked to educations history as a local, situated practice. In response, many
researchers have concluded that increased methodological
rigor, regardless of perspective, is necessary for the eld of
educational research to advance (Lagemann, 1999; Tooley &
Darby, 1998; Winne, 1999). Other developments, such as the
rise of mixed methods research, recognition that educational
solutions are more likely to be complex than simple, and
increasing evidence of sociocultural effects on behavior, may
nally be defusing these tensions that were recently so debilitating to educational researchers (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie,
2004; Mitchell & Haro, 1999).
Philosophical issues permeate education because education has tended to concern itself with learning in a very broad
meaning of the term, whereas science has valued increasing
specication. The question, What does it mean to be educated? is a difcult, value-laden concern that educators must
grapple with not only in armchair theorizing but also to inform
their approach to pedagogy, which can never be ideologically
neutral or objective. The art of teaching has thus never been
easily reconciled to the science of teaching. Complicating
the issue is the fact that educational expectations engender
much controversy among parents, students, administrators,
and public ofcials, something that the scientic community involved in highly specialized, difcult-to-understand
research has often not had to contend with directly. With the
increasing intrusion into our daily lives of scientic applica-

48

tions such as those of genetics, medical science, and industry,

however, the traditional distance between science and the
general public is shrinking, leading to growth in interdisciplinary elds such as medical ethics and environmental law
elds that expressly consider scientic practices in light of
normative evaluations and thus fulll a mediating function
with the public. Seen from this perspective, it may be that
MBE can benet from the values underpinning both founding
disciplines. Attention to philosophical issues could enable
MBE to play a vital, mediating role in building trust into the
interactions between researchers, educators, and the public.
In education, debates about philosophical and theoretical
perspectives often include contentious positions grounded
in radically different worldviews; for example, structural
approaches (Bowles & Gintis, 1976; Parsons, 1975), political approaches (Freire, 1970/2005; Gutmann, 1987), developmental approaches (e.g., Piaget), sociological approaches
(Bourdieu, 1977), and sociocultural approaches (Vygotsky,
1978). In comparison to the multiplicity of perspectives available in educational theory, traditional science offers a seemingly unied empirical view, focused on experimentation,
lacking the complex contradictions evident in theories of
education. Such a view neglects to acknowledge the important role of scientic debate in creating, analyzing, critiquing, comparing, and overturning scientic theories. Although
both elds are characterized by vigorous debate, the levels
at which debate has taken place have been different. MBE
will likely nd that it must accommodate itself to these
differences so that participants avoid talking past each other.

Epistemology
The most common epistemologies are those pitting rationalism (roughly, knowledge comes from what can be thought
about) against empiricism (knowledge comes from what can
be perceived). Traditionally, education has been founded on
the former, whereas science relies upon the latter. Consistent
with what has been said about educations history and philosophies, its underlying epistemologies favor holistic and
subjective perspectives over those identied with science,
namely analytic and objective perspectives.
The power of epistemological conceptualizations can be
seen, for example, in Freires (1970/2005) criticism of the
banking model of education, in which deposits of knowledge are made to the minds bank account. This metaphor
gured prominently in his pedagogy of the oppressed and
has been highly inuential in critical pedagogy in the 20th
century. As well, there is evidence that teachers theoretical
conceptualizations of knowledge inuence pedagogy and, in
turn, students epistemologies (Johnston, Woodside-Jiron, &
Day, 2001). In other words, epistemic beliefs in education have
far-reaching and observable implications. Currently, the prevalent
epistemic stance in education is that of constructivismthat

Volume 3Number 1

Boba M. Samuels

knowledge is constructed by the individualand uses a

metaphor of building to bring it to life. Constructivism is also,
however, increasingly inuencing scientic research such as
work in human development (e.g., Karmiloff-Smith, 2006).
This use of one disciplines epistemic concepts by another
is a hopeful sign for expanding and integrating knowledge
outside of traditional boundaries.
Science, of course, is not immune to epistemic positioning and has its own metaphors for traditional views of what
counts as knowledge and reality (e.g., knowledge is power),
as Lakoff and Johnson (1980) note. These metaphors help
to construct the myth of objectivism upon which science
has successfully operated, though they have been so widely
accepted as to be almost invisible and thus less open to critique. Because both science and education have relied on
different epistemologies, it might be expected that efforts
to bridge the elds would necessitate understanding these
epistemic differences.
A simple bridge between two epistemologies is not likely
to be sufcient, however. Increasingly, traditional conceptualizations of knowledge are being questioned. New conceptualizations include, but go beyond, questioning receptive
versus constructivist concepts, that is, that knowledge can
be transmitted to others versus that knowledge is created by
the individual. The view that knowledge refers to the content
of individuals brains, for instance, has been argued. Models
of knowledge as situated in communities (Lave & Wenger,
1991) or as something that emerges from a neural network are
inuential, such as the new connectionism model (Bereiter,
2002). Advances using computational modeling, such as that
used in complex systems analysis, emphasize the emergent
properties of knowledge and call into question the ability to
reduce this knowledge to rules-based actions on propositions
in mind (Goldstone, 2006; Sabelli, 2006; Westermann, Sirois,
Shultz, & Mareschal, 2006). Dynamic systems approaches
consider the inherent variability of the knowledge that people
demonstrate and try to explain this by using dynamic models
that account for the interaction of multiple contextual elements (Fischer & Bidell, 2006; van Geert, 1998). MBEs commitment to research via cutting edge technology also means
that advances in computer science and the learning sciences
should be included in its deliberations, along with these
elds conceptualizations of knowledge or intellectual property (Bereiter, 2002). The question of what knowledge is,
what the mind is, and what relation the brain has to these
elements are questions beyond the realm of any one discipline
and promise to be contentious and exciting for many years
to come. Creating a eld in which participants from multiple disciplines can consider these questions together is a goal
toward which MBE should want to strive. The notion that
MBE simply needs to reconcile the positions of those holding
to traditional rationalist and empiricist epistemologies is not
realistic at the start of the 21st century.

Volume 3Number 1

It is clear that space should be made within MBE for various

types of researchers, along with respect for their epistemological perspectives. Assuming that everyone shares the same
epistemology is unrealistic and treating the differences as if
they do not really matter is either nave or arrogant. Neither
approach will enhance MBEs viability. Epistemic differences
are unlikely to be easily resolved but are most likely to be successfully accommodated within a collaborative framework
for knowledge creation, namely transdisciplinary inquiry, the
approach I propose as most likely to succeed.

TRANSDISCIPLINARY FRAMEWORK

Quick solutions to mediating differences between neuroscience and education are not possible. As outlined, there are
deep and persistent differences between the elds in terms of
history, philosophy, and epistemology. A central concern for
a nascent MBE has been that it must provide a framework for
collaboration between educators and neuroscientists (Ansari &
Coch, 2006). The framework I propose, one that readily
facilitates considering issues such as the disciplinary differences noted here, is transdisciplinarity. Transdisciplinarity is an
approach to examining and solving complex problems
through the collaborative efforts of multiple diverse partners.
It recognizes that knowledge is inherently something that is
constituted at the level of the group and the activity rather
than each individual participant (Russell, 2000). What this
means is that the type of knowledge being pursued here is
not the sum of individual knowledges shared by experts or
specialized groups (multidisciplinarity) nor the knowledge
that is created at the intersection of established disciplines
(interdisciplinarity), but a new kind of knowledge that arises
from the interaction of diverse people within an entirely new
group (transdisciplinarity). Figure 1 illustrates these different
approaches. What connects transdisciplinary participants is
not a common theoretical perspective or methodology or
epistemology, but a common issue to which all apply their
own particular expertise with the goal of reaching a holistic
understanding of the issue.
One example of transdisciplinarity in practice that is
particularly relevant to MBE because it too relies on a joint
foundation with education is that of educational linguistics.
In Australia, educational linguistics began with the aim of
creating a transdisciplinary eld that would unite theory
with practicelinguistic theory (in particular, Systemic
Functional Linguistics) with educational practice, in the
service of improving student literacy. The goal of educational linguistics was to understand the role of language in
social life and thereby improve the writing achievements
of struggling and marginalized students. Martin (2000)
described the evolution of the new eld over 20 years and
showed how linguists and educators worked together to

49

Overcoming Differences in MBE

Fig. 1. What is transdisciplinary research? (Adapted from Holistic

Education Network, http://www.hent.org/transdisciplinary.htm).

create a successful approach to literacy dubbed the Sydney

School. Prominent in his account is the necessity for cooperation between many disparate partners toward a common
goal and the need to address the tensions and resistances
put up in the face of a new and, to some, threatening academic endeavor. The transdisciplinary framework Martin
describes served to enable the eld to direct itself to particular projects and to engage participants in meaningful work,
a process that allowed the eld of educational linguistics
to become established in the face of internal and external
opposition.
Martins account highlights the benets of an issues-based
approach in a transdisciplinary framework. Other researchers have also recognized the value of an issues focus for MBE
(Varma, McCandliss, & Schwartz, 2008). Clearly, however,
a transdisciplinary framework, focused on issues-based collaboration, is not an approach for everyone or all situations
nor is it meant to be. Specialized, unidisciplinary knowledge
creation will always be necessary (Somerville, 2000). The
particular expertise needed to work with neuroscientic
technologies, for instance, is not easily achieved or shared.
Transdisciplinarity recognizes, however, that the knowledge
fragments created by one discipline often need to become
integrated with knowledge from other disciplines in order
to have benecial application to real-world problems and
to more comprehensive theory development. This integration of knowledge is accomplished in transdisciplinarity not
merely by bringing diverse participants together to share
their knowledge, but by requir[ing] transcendence, the giving up of sovereignty on the part of any one of the contributing disciplines, and the formation, out of the diverse mix,
of new insight by way of emergent properties (Somerville &
Rapport, 2000, p. xv).

50

One way to consider whether an issues-based approach

may be suitable for MBE is to consider how the eld has been
operating to date. As a result of early concerns regarding the
application of neuroscience to the classroom, calls for a cautious approach to MBE were made. The alarm was raised,
for instance, about neuromyths. Lack of knowledge about
the brain and neuroscience is one factor that has reasonably
been linked to peoples susceptibility to such oversimplications and misrepresentations. An appropriate response to
this concern has been efforts to improve the level of scientic knowledge about the brain, thus enabling the public and
educationists to become more critical of claims associated
with neuroscience. Various attempts ranging from books to
conferences to calls for changes in graduate training have
been directed to the goal of improving neuroscientic literacy (see Berninger & Corina, 1998; Blakemore & Frith, 2005;
Goswami, 2006; Pickering & Howard-Jones, 2007).
Deeper consideration, however, of the conditions and
forces that contribute to misunderstandings such as neuromyths have only just begun (e.g., Singh, Hallmayer, & Illes,
2007). Interestingly, a recent study has shown that the allure
of neuroscience is sufcient to inuence the judgment even
of those with a moderate degree of neuroscience knowledge,
that is, students taking a class in cognitive neuroscience.
Weisberg, Keil, Goodstein, Rawson, and Gray (2008) found
that only people deemed experts in the eld were sufciently
critical to be able to judge that the addition of irrelevant
neuroscience information in an explanation did not improve
it. Both nave participants and those with moderate knowledge were inuenced by the inclusion of such information to
believe that explanations with irrelevant neuroscience were
more satisfying than those without neuroscience. Moreover,
this effect was particularly striking for bad explanations.
The persuasive appeal of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)
images themselves has also been reported (McCabe & Castel,
2008).
Taken together, these reports suggest that plans to educate
teachers and the general public so that they are able to evaluate neuroscientic claims may be overly optimistic. Simply
teaching neuroscience basics and a few prominent ndings
are unlikely to be sufcient in stemming the misinterpretations and misuses that are possible, and expecting widespread
expertise in neuroscience is unrealistic. The question, then, is
what else besides neuroscientic literacy is needed to avoid
future misunderstandings and mistrust?
Creating an environment in which participants can discuss, with more than just passing acknowledgment, the concerns that have been raised to date and what might be done
to resolve them is one response. Many educators and educational researchers have been reticent in airing their views
on the subject of MBE, possibly to avoid involvement in yet
another educational fad that fails, a critique often levied at
the eld of education (Jorgenson, 2003; Lagemann, 1999).

Volume 3Number 1

Boba M. Samuels

The benet of a transdisciplinary approach in this context is

its responsiveness to the needs of participants. In adopting
a transdisciplinary view, the elements to be included in the
framework need to be negotiated by participants to clarify
and promote positions not only on the content of the eld but
also on its vision, partners, and goals (Somerville & Rapport,
2000). Expending efforts on this framework will allow MBE
to capitalize on the various areas of expertise of its participants, go some way toward resolving existing problems, build
trust, and increase the likelihood that ecologically valid and
important work will result.
Of particular relevance to MBE is that transdisciplinarity has been compared to postnormal science, which refutes
identifying science with precision and certainty and dissolves
the expert-lay dichotomy toward knowledge (Klein, 2000).
In transdisciplinary research, everyone is seen to contribute
expertise, an attitude that may go a long way to overcoming
one of the major reasons cited for resistance to transdisciplinarity, namely lack of condence, which is also, as mentioned
earlier, associated with teachers reluctance to participate in
educational research. Somerville (2000) notes, one of the
major barriers to undertaking transdisciplinary activity is fear
of being out of ones depth: being thought to be intellectually
unsound (and, indeed, possibly being so) and being considered a dilettante (p. 95). In a discussion about studies of
discourse communities of teachers and researchers, Putnam
and Borko (2000) reported: individual teachers . . . bring with
them very different areas of expertise; some are extremely
knowledgeable about subject matter, whereas others bring
specialized knowledge of students . . . members of the university team gained new insights about the time, effort, and
trust required to reform the professional culture of teaching
(p. 9). Taken together, these comments suggest that creating
a transdisciplinary framework in MBE requires going beyond
establishing bidirectional communication to share information. It requires creating a particular kind of intellectual culture. An important question this raises is whether educators
and neuroscientists (and others) can be motivated to take on
such an endeavor? Given the complexities of transdisciplinarity and the disciplinary differences described in the rst part
of this article, is focusing on common issues enough to keep
MBE together and make it productive?
Using issues to provide a focal point for collaboration has
been successful in other transdisciplinary efforts around the
world. Disciplines such as medicine have organized programs
around issues, resulting in notable growth in elds such as
bioethics. Medicine has a long history of both collaboration
with other disciplines and paradoxically, of increasing specialization within the eld (Benatar, 2000; McMurtry, 2000).
In Canada, Queens University, for instance, has operated a
Training Program in Transdisciplinary Cancer Research, with
the goal of training new researchers in ve broad research
themes ranging from molecular epidemiology to cancer

Volume 3Number 1

treatment to service delivery, all delivered by drawing on

the expertise of those in multiple elds (Mulligan, 2003). In
Toronto, Sunnybrook Medical Centres Trauma Unit has successfully drawn involvement from over 22 different specialties to optimize care for severely injured patients (McMurtry,
2000).
In MBE, the issues of literacy and mathematics have been
prominent as examples of successful neuroscienceeducation integration and have resulted in advances in our understanding of dyslexia and dyscalculia. Excellent overviews and
summaries of this research have received widespread attention (e.g., Goswami, 2006; Katzir & Par-Blagoev, 2006), and
there is little doubt that ongoing neuroscientic research will
be useful in providing constraining evidence that will assist
in dening and identifying dyslexia and dyscalculia, as well as
in evaluating interventions suitable for classroom practice.
Many of the currently most intractable research problems, however, are not those of nding results but of how to
interpret the results that are found. Reviewing the ndings
of many neuroimaging studies related to linguistic processing, for instance, Van Lancker Sidtis (2006) reported widespread evidence of both left and right hemisphere activation
rather than what is commonly emphasized, that is, left hemisphere domination for language tasks. Multiple explanations
from numerous theoretical bases had been forwarded for
this bilateral activity. As she notes, however, particularly for
complex tasks, whether increased activation represents
greater competence (specialization) or incompetence (working harder) on any particular task, or something else altogether, is unclear, and this means that our ability to construct
explanations based on these neuroimaging data is limited.
Other research ndings also suggest that much more information about the connections between brain activation and
performance are needed, as evidenced by the claim that the
effect of environmental factors such as socioeconomic status mediate the brainbehavior relationships seen in reading
(Noble, Wolmetz, Ochs, Farah, & McCandliss, 2006). This,
of course, is not meant to suggest that neuroscience has little
current contribution to make to literacy research or any other
eld but only that we should keep in mind that neuroscience
is in need of a great deal of input from other methods and disciplines if its ndings are to be interpreted in any useful way.
Moreover, these other disciplines also bear a responsibility
to consider how their theoretical models are constrained by
evidence emerging from neuroscience.
MBE has positioned itself to facilitate just that type of
disciplinary interaction. To date, however, the eld appears
to favor reports that foreground neuroscience and treat education as background or context. For instance, studies that
use imaging technologies to examine students with learning
decits are prominent and primarily of interest to researchers
because of their focus on structural or functional elements of
the brain; however, imaging studies in which specic teaching

51

Overcoming Differences in MBE

practices are evaluated against each other are less common

and would arguably be of most interest to teachers. The contributions of teachers are directed primarily to the areas of
identifying problems, helping to design appropriate tasks
for experiments, and implementing classroom interventions
that might arise from research ndings. Although not insignicant, these roles suggest that a multidisciplinary approach
is being taken, in which the expertise of particular participants is mined for the benet of the group. This is not quite
the same vision as the one from transdisciplinarity, in which
roles are less clear. There are benets, in the transdisciplinary
view, of researchers intruding into others areas of expertise. Referring to his experience with transdisciplinarity in
educational linguistics, Martin (2000) noted: The stronger
the intrusion into one anothers elds, the more we learned
from one another (p. 85). A question that needs to be asked
is how this level of intrusion can be more actively sought out
as MBE becomes established.

Future Orientation
There are promising signs that MBE is establishing itself. The
appearance of numerous groups and activities around the
world that recognize the possibilities in linking neuroscience
with education suggest that the time may be right for collaboration. These groups include the International Mind, Brain,
and Education Society, the Japanese Society of Baby Science,
and growing participation in special interest groups such as
the Brain, Neurosciences and Education SIG of the American
Educational Research Association. Conferences linking
teachers, educational researchers, and neuroscientists have
occurred around the world and drawn substantial interest.
Large entities such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development have recognized MBE as an
important new approach to addressing educational issues.
Universities have begun to offer graduate programs linking
neuroscience with education (e.g., Harvard, Cambridge)
while others try to address MBE through existing programming, seminars, and conferences. Most recently, the establishment of research schools has been proposed to bring
researchers and teachers together in practice in functioning
classrooms (Hinton & Fischer, 2008). Research schools are
welcome as one element that would enable and support a culture of transdisciplinarity in MBE, though transdisciplinarity
is not something that should be restricted to particular locations. These various developments suggest that, although
perhaps not yet at a critical mass, there is certainly evidence
of increasing recognition that neuroscience and education
have much to contribute to each other.
One development that lends immediacy to collaborative
efforts is the rapid progress being made with new scientic
technologies. Where once it was necessary for educators to
ignore the possible implications of the biological nature of

52

the brain because we lacked technological expertise to study

brains in vivo, the advent of MRI, functional MRI, event
related potentials, positron emission tomography, and other
technologies means that ignorance of our brains biological
properties is no longer an option. Neural constraints do matter to learning and their identication is targeted with these
technologies. Educators possible discomfort with technological encroachments into the realm of learning will not
prevent the scientic community from forging ahead to new
discoveries about how people learn. More importantly, avoidance of brain science will not allow educators to inuence
the development of MBE in areas they may see as important.
Geake and Cooper (2003) note, [we] urge educationists to
become involved in the cognitive neuroscientic enterprise
lest educationists nd themselves even further professionally
marginalized than some politicians and education bureaucrats seem intent on pushing them. (p. 17). Referring to
interactions between genomics and education, Grigorenko
(2007) commented, It would be wise for educators to start
preparing for the infusion of genomic knowledge into their
everyday practice. They need to be in the vanguard of the
dissemination and popularization of this knowledge, or they
will nd themselves in the rearguard of it (p. 21). If educators
have misgivings about these developments, what is needed is
a forum for discussion of these concerns. MBE is currently our
best hope as an appropriate site for this engagement.
Generative actions that can be undertaken at this stage
include making available more information about joint activities involving researchers and educators. If MBE is to provide
a forum for collaboration on learning issues, evidence of such
collaborative projects is needed. There are doubtless many
examples of various types of partnerships, but these need
public exposure so that they can serve as examples for others
to draw on. The experience of education with design experiments, in which teachers and researchers actively collaborate
in classroom research, may be helpful here (Brown, 1992).
Similarly, when the focus of MBE is primarily on technologies
and neuroscientic data in noncontextualized experiments,
enlisting the participation of researchers and educators without these areas of expertise is difcult. When the focus is
wider, as demonstrated in the fascinating examination of two
boys who each live with only one hemisphere of their brain
(Immordino-Yang, 2007), the possibilities for meaningful collaboration with various partners become evident and exciting
(Christoff, 2008).
The eld needs more reports on the experiences of scientists, educators, and others at MBE conferences. What sorts
of concerns have been raised at these conferences and how
have they been addressed? What sorts of effects do these
meetings havedo they change practice? Have they led to
new collaborations? Have they inspired new projects or
directions? Given that the eld is new, more effort needs to be
made to share experiences so that the mistakes and successes

Volume 3Number 1

Boba M. Samuels

of one group can be instructive for others. Some conferences

are expressly organized to link neuroscience developments
to wider educational and public communities (e.g., Brain
Development & Learning in Vancouver, 2006 and 2008, and see
Goswami, 2006), but more needs to be made known about
how these interactions were established and their results. It
appears, for instance, that most conferences are organized
either to provide teachers and/or the public with information
or to share information among university-based researchers, and these have certainly proven popular and been well
received. It is unknown, however, whether any presentations or conferences have occurred in which collaborative
presentations with diverse partners, including teachers, have
been held. Recently, I participated in a modest effort at just
this sort of collaborationa panel discussion promoting the
notion of MBE to a multidisciplinary audience at an academic
conference. The participants in our panel were a neuroscientist, two educational researchers (in mathematical cognition
and in literacy), a primary school teacher, and a teacher with
special education focus. As expected, the neuroimaging pictures drew the most attention, but interest in the notion of
MBE, its potential and its practical challenges, was piqued.
Most successful, in our opinion, was the synergy created by
not merely talking about collaboration, but by actually demonstrating it in action. This was not neuroscience presented
to an audience of teacher consumers, but a demonstration of
how neuroscientists and educationists can work together
on equal footing. Have other such collaborative events been
organized or were we correct in wondering if our small effort
was the rst?

CONCLUSIONS

In its facilitative role between education and neuroscience,

MBE represents a hope for productive collaboration between
the elds. It is constrained, however, by the elds histories,
by societal limitations and philosophical values, and by disciplinary epistemic demands. These concerns, however, are
not insurmountable, and may be addressed by adoption of
a transdisciplinary framework for research, following the
examples of educational linguistics or medicine.
The success of MBE stands to have wide-ranging effects on
classroom pedagogies and curriculum, on special education,
on the development of graduate education programming and
graduate neuroscience programming, and even on scientic
agencies and education ministries that have a goal of creating and assessing educational interventions. Of course, the
most profound effect may be on students and their families,
who rely on professionals for the bulk of their educational
experience.
Effects in any of these areas, however, may also include
unexpected developments. Already, commercial applica-

Volume 3Number 1

tions of educational interventions based upon early neuroscience research results are being designed and marketed
(Tallal, 2004), with concomitant complications (see A cure
for dyslexia?, 2007). Another development is the use of neuroscience research in applications that seem to have no link
to education, such as advertising and marketing (see Brain
scam?, 2004; Brammer, 2004; Wells, 2008), an offshoot of a
potentially important integration of economic theories with
neuroscience, which may provide insight into goal-directed
behavior (Oullier & Kelso, 2006; Sanfey, Loewenstein,
McClure, & Cohen, 2006). Whether such scenarios actually contribute to learning theories or result in new advertising practices, the ethical implications of such practices are
issues that should be considered by those of us with a stake
in the future of neuroscience and education. Such developments may be seen as either encouraging or troubling, but
they deserve careful evaluation by researchers with expertise in the connections between neuroscience and learning. Facilitating discussions among MBE participants can
contribute to the creation of experts who can address these
concerns in ways that are accessible to the general public. At
this time, we should consider the possibility that many uses
of neuroscience may potentially impact education and take
seriously our responsibility for developing MBE practitioners who are capable of addressing such developments from a
variety of perspectives and for a variety of audiences.
By adopting the seemingly paradoxical approach of
acknowledging existing areas of difference while concurrently adopting a unifying transdisciplinary framework, it is
possible to increase the likelihood that MBE will become viable, respected, and valuable. The factors that make a transdisciplinary effort successful appear to be complex and subtle,
inuenced as much by things such as commitment and trust
as by rationality or expedience. While focusing on exciting
neuroscientic ndings, MBE needs to remember that education is inherently a social endeavor, and those who would
inuence education through MBE need to give greater prominence to the social aspects of developing this new eld.
AcknowledgmentsI thank Daniel Ansari, Donna Kotsopoulos,
and Allen Pearson for their comments on earlier drafts of this
work, as well as Kurt W. Fischer and the anonymous reviewers for their generous suggestions.

NOTE

1 These articles were found using database searching in April

2007. The search was not meant to be inclusive of all articles
published across elds, but rather to be representative of those
found in the most commonly used databases for educational
research, namely PsychInfo and ERIC. Search terms used were
neuroscience, education, brain, not medic*, and not psychiatr*.

53

Overcoming Differences in MBE

REFERENCES
Ansari, D., & Coch, D. (2006). Bridges over troubled waters: education and cognitive neuroscience. Trends in Cognitive Science, 10(4),
146151.
Bazerman, C., & Rogers, P. (2008). Writing and secular knowledge
within modern European institutions. In C. Bazerman (Ed.),
Handbook of research on writing: History, society, school, individual, text
(pp. 157175). New York: Erlbaum.
Benatar, S. (2000). Transdisciplinarity: A personal odyssey. In M. A.
Somerville & D. J. Rapport (Eds.), Transdisciplinarity: Recreating
integrated knowledge (pp. 171178). Oxford, UK: EOLS.
Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Berliner, D. C. (2006). Educational psychology: Searching for essence
throughout a century of inuence. In P. A. Alexander & P. H.
Winner (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed.,
pp. 327). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Berninger, V. W., & Corina, D. (1998). Making cognitive neuroscience educationally relevant: Creating bidirectional collaborations between educational psychology and cognitive
neuroscience. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 343354.
Blakemore, S., & Frith, U. (2005). The learning brain. Lessons for education. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Boardman, A. G., Arguelles, M. E., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., &
Klingner, J. (2005). Special education teachers views of
research-based practices. Journal of Special Education, 39, 168180.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice (R. Nice, Trans.).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America. (New
York: New Books.
Brain scam? (2004). [Editorial]. Nature Neuroscience, 7, 683.
Brammer, M. (2004). Letter to the editor (Brain scam?), Nature
Neuroscience, 7, 1015.
Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141178.
Bruer, J. T. (1997). Education and the brain: A bridge too far.
Educational Researcher, 26(8), 416.
Byrnes, J. P., & Fox, N. A. (1998). The educational relevance of
research in cognitive neuroscience. Educational Psychology Review,
10, 297342.
Christoff, K. (2008). Applying neuroscientic ndings to education:
The good, the tough, and the hopeful. Mind, Brain, and Education,
2, 5558.
A cure for dyslexia? (2007). [Editorial]. Nature Neuroscience, 10, 135.
Davis, A. (2004). The credentials of brain-based learning. Journal of
Philosophy of Education, 38, 2135.
Dupuis, A. M. (1966). Philosophy of education in historical perspective.
Chicago: Rand McNally.
Eisenhart, M. (2005). Hammers and saws for the improvement of
educational research. Educational Theory, 55, 245261.
Everton, T., Galton, M., & Pell, T. (2000). Teachers perspectives
on educational research: knowledge and context. Journal of
Education for Teaching, 26, 167182.
Feuer, M. J., Towne, L., & Shavelson, R. J. (2002). Scientic culture
and educational research. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 414.
Fischer, K. W., & Bidell, T. R. (2006). Dynamic development
of action and thought. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.),

54

Theoretical models of human development. Handbook of child psychology

(6th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 313399). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Fischer, K. W., Daniel, D. B., Immordino-Yang, M. H., Stern, E.,
Battro, A., & Koizumi, H. (2007). Why mind, brain, and education? Why now? Mind, Brain, and Education, 1, 12.
Freire, P. (1970/2005). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum\
International Publishing Group.
Geake, J., & Cooper, P. (2003). Cognitive neuroscience: Implications
for education? Westminster Studies in Education, 26, 720.
Gkdere, M., Kck, M., & Cepni, S. (2006). Turkish primary science teachers perceptions of the nature and value of educational research. Journal of Science Education, 7, 122125.
Goldstone, R. L. (2006). The complex systems see-change in education. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 3543.
Goswami, U. (2006). Neuroscience and education: from research to
practice? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 7, 406413.
Grigorenko, E. L. (2007). How can genomics inform education? Mind,
Brain, and Education, 1, 2027.
Gutmann, A. (1987). Democratic education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Hinton, C., & Fischer, K. W. (2008). Research schools: Grounding
research in educational practice. Mind, Brain, and Education, 2,
157160.
Immordino-Yang, M. H. (2007). A tale of two cases: Lessons for education from the study of two boys living with half their brains.
Mind, Brain, and Education, 1, 6683.
Jacob, E., & White, C. S. (Eds.). (2002). Scientic culture and educational
research [Special issue]. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 329.
Jacoby, S. (2008). The age of American unreason. New York: Pantheon
Books.
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods
research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational
Researcher, 33(7), 1426.
Johnston, P., Woodside-Jiron, H., & Day, J. (2001). Teaching and
learning literate epistemologies. Journal of Educational Psychology,
93(1), 223233.
Jorgenson, O. (2003). Brain scam? Why educators should be
careful about embracing brain research. Educational Forum,
67, 364369.
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (2006). The tortuous route from genes to behavior:
A neuroconstructivist approach. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral
Neuroscience. Special Issue: Genes, Brain, and Behavior, 6(1), 917.
Katzir, T., & Par-Blagoev, J. (2006). Applying cognitive neuroscience research to education: The case of literacy. Educational
Psychologist, 41, 5374.
Klein, J. T. (2000). Voices of Royaumont. In M. A. Somerville & D. J.
Rapport (Eds.), Transdisciplinarity: Recreating integrated knowledge
(pp. 313). Oxford, UK: EOLSS.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientic revolutions (2nd ed.).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lagemann, E. C. (2000). An elusive science. The troubling history of education research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lagemann, E. C. (2008). Education research as a distributed activity
across universities. Educational Researcher, 37, 424429.
Lagemann, E. L. (1999). An auspicious moment for education
research? In E. C. Lagemann & L. S. Shulman (Eds.), Issues in education research: Problems and possibilities (pp. 316). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

Volume 3Number 1

Boba M. Samuels

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral

participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lloyd, G. E. R. (1979). Magic, reason and experience. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Martin, J. R. (2000). Grammar meets genre: Reections on the
Sydney School. Arts: The Journal of the Sydney University Arts
Association, 22, 4795.
Mayer, R. E. (1998). Does the brain have a place in educational
psychology? Educational Psychology Review, 10, 389396.
Mayer, R. E. (2001). What good is educational psychology? The
case of cognition and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 36,
8388.
McCabe, D. P., & Castel, A. D. (2008). Seeing is believing: The effect
of brain images on judgments of scientic reasoning. Cognition,
10, 343352.
McMurtry, R. R. (2000). Reections on transdisciplinarity. In M. A.
Somerville & D. J. Rapport (Eds.), Transdisciplinarity: recreating
integrated knowledge (pp. 179184). Oxford, UK: EOLS.
McNamara, D. S. (2006). Bringing cognitive science into education,
and back again: The value of interdisciplinary research. Cognitive
Science, 30, 605608.
Medawar, P. (1996). The strange case of the spotted mice and other classic
essays on science. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Mitchell, T. R., & Haro, A. (1999). Poles apart: Reconciling the
dichotomies in education research. In E. C. Lagemann & L. S.
Shulman (Eds.), Issues in education research: Problems and possibilities (pp. 4262). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mulligan, L. (2003). Building a better cancer researcher: more than
the sum of our parts. Retrieved April 21, 2007, from http://
sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_development/previous_issues/
Noble, K. G., Wolmetz, M. E., Ochs, L. G., Farah, M. J., & McCandliss,
B. D. (2006). Brain-behavior relationships in reading acquisition are modulated by socioeconomic factors. Developmental
Science, 642654.
Olson, D. R. (1994). The world on paper: The conceptual and cognitive implications of writing and reading. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Oullier, O., & Kelso, J. A. S. (2006). Neuroeconomics and the metastable brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 353354.
Parsons, T. (1975). The school class as a social system: Some of its
functions in American society. In R. S. Holger (Ed.), The sociology
of education: A source book (pp. 188218). Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
Pickering, S. J., & Howard-Jones, P. (2007). Educators views on
the role of neuroscience in education: Findings from a study
of UK and international perspectives. Mind, Brain, and Education,
1, 109113.
Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 415.
Russell, W. (2000). Forging new paths: Transdisciplinarity in universities. WISENET Journal, 53. Retrieved April21, 2007, from
http://www.wisenet-australia.org/issue53/transdis.htm

Volume 3Number 1

Sabelli, N. H. (2006). Complexity, technology, science, and education. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 59.
Sanfey, A. G., Loewenstein, G., McClure, S. M., & Cohen, J. D.
(2006). Neuroeconomics: cross-currents in research on decision-making. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(3), 108116.
Schunk, D. H. (1998). An educational psychologists perspective
on cognitive neuroscience. Educational Psychology Review, 10,
411417.
Singh, J., Hallmayer, J., & Iles, J. (2007). Interacting and paradoxical
forces in neuroscience and society. Nature Reviews Neuroscience,
8, 153160.
Somerville, M. A. (2000). Transdisciplinarity: Structuring creative tension. In M. A. Somerville & D. J. Rapport (Eds.),
Transdisciplinarity: recreating integrated knowledge (pp. 94107).
Oxford, UK: EOLS.
Somerville, M. A., & Rapport, D. J. (Eds.). (2000). Transdisciplinarity:
recreating integrated knowledge. Oxford, UK: EOLS.
Stanovich, K. E. (1998). Cognitive neuroscience and educational
psychology: What season is it? Educational Psychology Review, 10,
419426.
Stern, E. (2005). Pedagogy meets neuroscience. Science, 310, 745.
Szucs, D., & Goswami, U. (2007). Educational neuroscience:
Dening a new discipline for the study of mental representations. Mind, Brain, and Education, 1, 114127.
Tallal, P. (2004). Improving language and literacy is a matter of time.
Nature Reviews, 5, 721728.
Teppo, M., Rannikme, M., & Holbrook, J. (2006). Bridging the gap
between research and practiceWhat do teachers nd useful
from a research report? Journal of Science Education, 7, 7882.
Tooley, J., & Darby, D. (1998). Educational research: A critique.
Manchester, UK: OFSTED.
van Geert, P. (1998). A dynamic systems model of basic developmental mechanisms: Piaget, Vygotsky, and beyond. Psychological
Review, 105, 634677.
Van Lancker Sidtis, D. (2006). Does functional neuroimaging
solve the questions of neurolinguistics? Brain and Language, 98,
276290.
Varma, S., McCandliss, B. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (2008). Scientic
and pragmatic challenges for bridging education and neuroscience. Educational Researcher, 37, 140152.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Weisberg, D. S., Keil, F. C., Goodstein, J., Rawson, E., & Gray,
J. R. (2008). The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations.
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 470477.
Wells, J. (2008, March 15). Advertisings Holy Grail. The Globe and
Mail, B4B5.
Westermann, G., Sirois, S., Shultz, T. R., & Mareschal, D. (2006).
Modeling developmental cognitive neuroscience. Trends in
Cognitive Sciences, 20(5), 227232.
Winne, P. H. (1999). How to improve the credibility of research
in education. Issues in Education, 5, 273278.

55