Nice article.

I haven't really got anything to add, but I did read a nice quote the other day in relation to neuroscience and the increasing incidence of what was called "brain-porn."

"For now, our ability to understand how all those parts relate is quite limited, sort of like trying to understand the political dynamics of Ohio from an airplane window above Cleveland."

Article available at: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/12/what-neuroscience-really-teaches-us-and-what-it-doesnt.html#ixzz2EcRKqim8

The infatuation with neuroscience on the part of educators (and indeed, the general public) is due to the way it's presented by science journalists in the mainstream media. Science journalists may be covering science, but at the heart of it all, they're journalists - they're after the story. Often, the story is one devised by the marketing people at the university or institute where the research is being done (they'll ask the academics in question to explain what their research is about, and pick the most marketable interpretation) and released in a press release to the various media organisations, then printed pretty much as is. There's never an actual link to the paper itself (and most people wouldn't be able to access the papers, not being subscribed to the various databases of scholarly journals required) so as far as most people are concerned, the story they read in the newspaper (or online), or hear from the TV or the radio is all there is.

When (or rather if) we later learn that the story we heard wasn't the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, we get angry at science, rather than at journalism.

There's also the Dunning-Kruger effect (or rather, one of its offshoots) to consider. People who are educationalists and pedagogues are highly trained in their area of specialisation. They know what they know there, and they know what they DON'T know, which is more important. However, when it comes to other areas of specialisation, they're less well informed - and that can lead to what I nickname the "manager's assumption" - namely that something you don't know anything about must be comparatively simple. So they assume the stories they've run across in the mainstream press about neuroscience are the whole of the picture, because they aren't aware that there's anything more to be aware of, and they aren't aware of the complexity of the field.

I'm not too sure how to solve these problems, although I suspect a short-term solution might be to ensure that science journalism gets links to the original studies, and publishes these so that members of the general public can actually read the study report and get an idea of what the story really is. Okay, so that means at least one area of school curriculum which might come out of this (at a high school level at least) is "how to read and understand a published study in a scientific journal", but even so - aren't we supposed to be teaching kids how to find out the answers for themselves?

A very timely reminder of the dangers of over-interpretation and over-simplification of neuroscience, particularly neuroimaging findings.

As someone who uses neuroimaging in my own research and supervises and teaches researchers in the field, the question I always remind people to ask is "What does the neuroimaging component of the study actually add to the science?" In many cases, the answer is little to nothing. For example, the mere fact that some type of human behaviour can be "seen" to be happening in the brain is not interesting. Where else would it be happening?

There are, I believe, many cases in which neuroimaging can be informative, though exactly when and how is the topic of a fascinating ongoing debate (to which Prof. Coltheart is a major contributor). For example, which networks of brain regions become active during certain cognitive or emotional states might be informative if that information can be related to the relative presence of absence of certain neurotransmitters in those regions, or if some of those regions connect with other brain regions known to drive specific motor or physiological responses.

But neuroimaging is at best a very blunt tool, which even in the best designed experiment can only help us narrow down the range of possible explanations for cognition and behaviour. At the moment, there is a long history of high-quality psychology research which is a far better basis for improving education. If and when neuroscience has developed to the stage where it can justifiably be used to guide approaches to learning, the story will almost certainly be far more complicated than the simple, headline-grabbing stuff we see now.

I appreciate the cautionary urging to be mindful of putting too many eggs in the basket of brain imaging. I agree to the extent that we often jump to conclusions beyond what the data tells us. (Baby Einstein, anyone?)

Yet, I also know there is much to be gained from neuroscience for educators. The way fear and stress affect cognitive development is of use when it comes to thinking about classroom environments, early learning programs, and education policy. The research on brain plasticity can (and should) inform how teachers approach students, using a growth mindset rather than the archaic idea of a fixed intelligence (which is more pervasive than we'd like to think -- among teachers AND students). And the emerging neuro-education programs at places such as Columbia, Harvard, and Johns Hopkins are working to bridge the gap between neuro-theory and pedagogical practice.

This is important and necessary work, not just because it stands to increase student and teacher understanding (or at least appreciation) of this most complex and perplexing organ. But also because there is clearly a demand for thinking about teaching and learning outside the text book.

Nobody wants their work to be misrepresented and used to make someone else's case. Neuroscientists included (as they reiterated again and again a few weeks ago at the Learning and Brain Conference in Boston). And us lay people have a long history of reading too much into small findings. Yet, as a classroom educator for 11 years, I appreciated the lessons from Judy Willis, Kurt Fisher, and All Kinds of Minds, who work to translate cognitive research into frames of mind for approaching and working with students. John Medina's "Brain Rules" has important lessons for educators and Gabrielle Principe unpacks cognitive development against the backdrop of modern childhood and school in her book, "Your Brain on Childhood." These contributions need heralding, support, and cast as effective contrasts to the uninformed use of oxygenated blood flow to sell products. Let's be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water. There are applications of neuroscience for educational purposes.

Daniel Willingham shares how neuroscience might inform education theories here: http://www.danielwillingham.com/uploads/5/0/0/7/5007325/willingham__lloyd_2007.pdf