A Brief History of the Science of Learning, Part 2. By Tracey Tokuhama-Espinosa. January 2011

Tracey Tokuhama-Espinosa, Ph.D. Jan 2011
Article published in New Horizons in Education
John Hopkins School of Education
http://education.jhu.edu/newhorizons
NewHorizons_SOE@jhu.edu
6740 Alexander Bell Drive - Columbia, MD 21231
410-516-9755

A
BRIEF
HISTORY
OF
THE
SCIENCE
OF
LEARNING:

Part
2
(1970s-present)

Abstract

The
history
of
how
we
teach
is
fascinating.
By
understanding
not
only
how
people

learn
but
also
how
we
have
learned
how
to
teach,
we
can
become
better

professionals.
In
this
article
we
review
the
history
of
human
learning
and
the

progress
of
teaching
over
the
past
5,500
years.

The
following
is
an
excerpt
from
Mind,
Brain,
and
Education
Science:
A

comprehensive
guide
to
the
new
brain-based
teaching
(W.W.
Norton)
a
book

based
on
over
4,500
studies
and
with
contributions
from
the
world’s
leaders

in
MBE
Science.

Neuroimaging
Boosts
Knowledge
about
the
Brain

Technology
funding
was
given
a
boost
in
response
to
the
first
modern

computer
developments
in
the
1970s.
The
use
of
automated
robots
on
assembly

lines
in
Japan
in
the
1970s
triggered
new
discoveries
in
other
fields,
such
as

medicine.
In
the
1980s
improvements
in
neuroimaging
and
eventually
the

development
of
in
vivo
imaging
techniques
enabled
observation
of
the
learning

brain,
providing
insights
into
the
brain’s
perceptual,
cognitive,
and
emotional

functions,
with
clear
relevance
for
education.
Despite
the
existence
of

electroencephalographs
(EEGs)
since
1929
and
early
computerized
axial

tomography
(CAT)
scans
and
magnetic
resonance
imaging
(MRI)
(both
1973),

neuroimaging
did
not
reach
broad
use
until
the
introduction
of
positron
emission

tomography
(PET)
scans
in
1979,
transcranial
magnetic
stimulation
(TMS)
in
1985,

and
functional
magnetic
resonance
imaging
(fMRI)
in
1990,
when
there
was
an

explosion
of
studies.
With
more
refined
neuroimaging
tools,
more
and
more
work

was
done
on
healthy
patients,
not
only
those
who
had
suffered
traumas
or
lesions.

Much
of
the
earlier
work
with
brain
imaging
techniques
on
healthy
patients
focused

on
the
areas
of
language
and
attention.
The
excitement
over
increased
empirical

evidence
on
learning
mechanisms
triggered
further
interest
from
teacher

practitioners
in
education.

Writings
and
Early
Attempts
at
MBE
Science

410-516-9755
The
first
dissertation
on
MBE
science
was
written
in
1981
(O’Dell,
1981),

entitled
Neuroeducation:
Brain
Compatible
Learning
Strategies.
O’Dell
was
ahead
of

his
time
and
probably
unaware
that
his
visionary
view
of
the
teaching
and
learning

process
would
become
the
norm
30
years
later.
Speculation
about
neural

mechanisms
involved
with
cognition
and
consideration
of
applications
to
education

began
in
earnest
in
the
early
1980s.1
The
implications
of
selective
brain
research
on

the
philosophy
of
education2
also
hinted
at
the
first
considerations
of
what
is
known

today
as
neuroethics:
how
choices
are
made
with
new
knowledge
about
brain

functions.
The
link
to
educational
practice
was
encouraged
further
by
the
attempt
to

label
the
emerging
learning
science
as
“applied
educational
psychology”
in
the
early

1980s.3
It
can
be
speculated
that
the
reason
this
title
did
not
enjoy
popular
support

is
due
to
the
lack
of
neuroscientific
backing
used
to
support
claims.

“Education
is
discovering
the
brain
and
that's
about
the
best
news
there
could
be.
.
.
.

Anyone
who
does
not
have
a
thorough,
holistic
grasp
of
the
brain's
architecture,

purposes,
and
main
ways
of
operating
is
as
far
behind
the
times
as
an
automobile

designer
without
a
full
understanding
of
engines.”

—Leslie
Hart,
Human
Brain,
Human
Learning,
(1983/1999,
p.
xi
)

Two
popular
books
for
educators
that
were
published
at
this
time
were

Howard
Gardner’s
Frames
of
Mind
(1983)
and
Leslie
Hart’s
Human
Brain,
Human

Learning
(1983).
These
two
books
are
considered
influential
in
educational
circles

because
they
marked
the
start
of
interest
in
the
brain–learning
connection
in
the

teaching
profession.
Though
Gardner
was
inspired
by
his
work
with
“shattered

brains”
at
Boston
Veteran’s
Hospital
in
the
1970s,4
he
did
not
claim
that
his
theory
of

multiple
intelligences
related
to
specific
brain
areas,
nor
that
it
was
supported
by

neuroscience,
though
he
has
clearly
documented
that
at
least
some
of
the

intelligences
(language,
music,
arithmetic)
can
be
isolated
by
a
neuronal
lesion.

Gardner’s
work
struck
a
cord
with
teachers,
parents,
and
educational
psychologists

because
he
challenged
the
accepted
view
of
“intelligence”
and,
in
doing
so,
Gardner

invited
a
general
questioning
of
what
we
believe
to
be
true
about
all
educational

measurements.
In
contrast,
Hart’s
work
was,
indeed,
focused
on
how
the
brain

learns.
Hart
was
one
of
the
first
to
call
attention
to
the
lack
of
attention
given
to
the

brain
in
educational
practice.
Hart
said
that
designing
educational
experiences

without
an
understanding
of
the
brain
was
like
designing
a
glove
without
an

1
See Posner (1981).
2
See McDonnold (1981).
3
Gaddes (1983).
4
See Gardner’s first book (1974), The Shattered Brain, for a better understanding of how his theory
evolved. Also see Battro and Denham’s work (2007) on digital intelligence (La inteligencia digital), which
gives a good overview of the definition of intelligence in this broader perspective.

410-516-9755
understanding
of
the
human
hand
(1983),
and
he
called
on
teachers
to
become

savvier
in
their
practice.
Hart’s
work
was
monumental
in
emphasizing
the
“why”
as

well
as
the
“how”
of
teaching.
If
there
is
one
book
that
likely
laid
the
groundwork
for

a
new
genre
in
writing
about
the
brain
and
learning,
it
was
most
likely
Hart’s.

Connectivity,
Cognitivism,
and
Constructivist
Models

In
parallel
with
the
new
view
of
the
brain
and
learning
offered
by
Hart,
and

the
new
understanding
of
intelligence
proposed
by
Gardner,
the
mid-‐1980s
marked

the
beginning
of
discussion
on
the
connectivist
model
in
psychology.5
These
models

began
to
offer
a
more
sophisticated
view
of
the
brain
as
a
complex
integration
of

various
systems
(thus
the
connectivist
idea),
rather
than
just
the
simple
localization

theories
of
the
past
(which
believed
that
X
function
was
located
in
Y
spot
of
all

brains).
The
1980s
also
noted
a
shift
from
behavioral
studies
in
educational

psychology
to
those
of
cognitivism
and
constructivist
theories.
The
general
idea
of

cognitivism
is
that
mental
functions
can
and
should
be
explained
by
evidence
of

brain
activities
that
can
be
measured
through
experimentation.
On
the
other
hand,

the
constructivist
model
of
learning,
often
attributed
to
Piaget,
suggests
that
people

construct
their
own
knowledge
based
on
their
experiences.
Viewed
together,

cognitivism
and
constructivist
models
of
learning
pointed
to
the
increasingly

complex
understanding
of
how
human
mental
capacity
grows
over
the
course
of

one’s
lifetime,
and
how
this
growth
can
be
measured
both
in
relative
and
absolute

terms.
Since
this
early
movement
away
from
behaviorism
(the
belief
that
all
things

organisms
do
can
and
should
be
regarded
as
behaviors)
toward
cognitivism,

psychology
took
a
turn
toward
the
hard,
rather
than
soft,
social
sciences.
The

interdisciplinary
view
of
learning
and
its
natural
counterpart
of
teaching
were

firmly
established
in
the
1980s.

New
Organizations

The
interdisciplinary
nature
of
MBE
science
was
reflected
in
the
mission

statements
of
many
new
organizations
in
the
1980s.
In
1983
the
Economic
and

Social
Research
Council
(ESRC)
in
the
United
Kingdom
and
the
Medical
Research

Council
(MRC)
were
founded
to
encourage
“innovative
and
multidisciplinary

research
proposals
that
link
basic
or
health-‐related
neuroscience
to
social
factors

and
social
behaviour.”6

The
ESRC
focuses
on
“links
between
the
mind,
brain,
innate

traits,
society,
culture
and
behaviour,
whether
normal
or
abnormal.”7

The
social

research
angle
promoted
by
these
groups
was
complemented
by
a
return
to
an

appreciation
of
the
natural
sciences
in
the
mid-‐1980s.
The
influence
of
genetics
and

5
See McClelland, Feldman, Adelson, Bower, & McDermott (1986).
6
See the ESRC Society Today website
(http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/about/CI/CP/Social_Sciences/issue63/neuroscience.as
px).
7
Ibid.

410-516-9755
heritability
on
general
intelligence
refocused
attention
on
the
roles
that
both
nature

and
nurture
play
in
learning,8
maintaining
a
firm
spotlight
on
the
link
between

biology
and
pedagogy.

The
Birth
of
Neuroscience

Between
1984
and
1989
the
birth
of
neuroscience
began
with
the
projection

of
the
new
field,9
and
then
books
about
neuroscience
itself.10
For
some,

neuroscience,
rather
than
educational
neuropsychology,
is
the
true
birth
mother
of

MBE
science.
Neuroscience
was
one
of
the
first
truly
transdisciplinary
fields,
and

some
authors,
such
as
Gardner
(1987),
included
fields
as
obvious
as
psychology
and

as
distant
as
linguistics,
artificial
intelligence,
and
philosophy.
Neuroscience
gave

theorists
a
large
conceptual
umbrella
under
which
they
could
posit
hypotheses

about
the
biological
foundations
of
thinking
at
all
levels.
The
emergence
of

neuroscience
was
not
lost
on
educators,
who
quickly
unified
around
the
new

information.

Education’s
Interest
in
the
Brain

Whereas
education
had
been
discussed
in
social–political
terms
during
the

greater
part
of
the
1960s
and
1970s,
in
the
1980s
the
focus
changed
from
“equity”

to
“excellence,”11
and
in
doing
so,
there
was
a
stronger
emphasis
on
learning

mechanisms
in
the
brain
more
than
on
legislation.
The
Brain,
Neurosciences,
and

Education
Special
Interest
Group
(SIG)
of
the
American
Educational
Research

Association
(AERA)
was
formed
in
1988.
This
SIG
of
the
AERA
was
originally
formed

as
the
Psychophysiology
and
Education
SIG
and
is
the
oldest
organizational
entity

specifically
dedicated
to
linking
research
in
the
neurosciences
and
education
in
the

United
States.
It
was
once
the
only
organizational
group
in
the
world
that
hosted
an

annual
peer-‐reviewed
venue
for
authors
to
present
papers
linking
research
and

theory
in
the
neurosciences
and
education.
The
purpose
of
the
current
SIG
remains

to
promote
an
understanding
of
neuroscience
research
within
the
educational

community,
and
it
achieves
this
goal
by
promoting
neuroscience
research
that
has

implications
for
educational
practice
and
by
providing
a
forum
for
the
issues
and

controversies
connecting
these
fields.12
In
many
ways
the
AERA’s
established
focus

on
the
psychophysiology
of
learning
was
slightly
ahead
of
its
time
when
founded.

Shortly
after
the
SIG’s
founding,
an
avalanche
of
findings
marked
the
Decade
of
the

Brain.

The
Early
1990s:
The
Decade
of
the
Brain

8
See Fancher (1985) for details.
9
Gazzaniga (1984) and Posner (1989).
10
See Gardner (1987) and Posner (1989).
11
E-notes.com (2009).
12
AERA Brain, Neurosciences, and Education (2008).

410-516-9755
The
Decade
of
the
Brain
(1990–1999)
spurred
the
development
of
thousands

of
new
findings
and
dozens
of
theories
about
the
brain
and
learning.
Two
basic

types
of
learning
theories
were
strengthened
at
this
time:
modular,
domain
specific

versus
global
theories.

Modular,
domain-specific
theories
mainly
focus
on
explaining
the
neural

mechanisms
of
skills
such
as
mathematics,13
reading,14
attention,15
and
memory.16

These
studies
tend
to
be
very
precise
studies
of
very
specific
skills,
such
as
how
the

brain
perceives
phonemes,
or
how
a
specific
aspect
of
the
brain
is
responsible
for

human
face
memories.
These
are
discussed
in
further
detail
in
Chapter
6
on
Topics

in
MBE
Science.

Global
theories
of
learning
provide
overarching
beliefs
about
how
the
brain

learns
best.
Kurt
Fischer
and
others,
for
example,
recognized
the
value
of

neuroscience
research
in
education
and
began
to
envision
an
independent
field
at

this
time.
Cognitive
neuroscientists
such
as
Bruce
McCandliss
and
Sally
Shaywitz

and
researchers
at
the
U.S.
National
Institutes
of
Health
(NIH)
and
the
U.S.
National

Institute
of
Child
Health
and
Human
Development
(NICHD)
began
doing

experiments
in
neuroscience
labs
that
had
more
direct
applications
to
education

based
on
global
theories
of
how
the
brain
worked
in
terms
of
teaching
and
learning

experiences.

The
1990s
were
also
the
beginning
of
the
move
to
bring
more
accountability

to
American
education.
Who
was
responsible
for
good
(or
bad)
educational
efforts?

Were
the
states
individually
responsible
for
the
country
as
a
whole?
How
about

teachers?
Accountability
measures
put
a
great
deal
of
pressure
on
local
educational

systems
to
find
the
root
causes
of
success
or
failure
in
their
school
system.
What

began
as
finger-‐pointing
from
the
macro-‐level
eventually
reached
the
most
micro-‐
level
possible:
the
individual
student
and
his
or
her
brain.
Many
states
began
taking

a
hard
look
at
their
local
populations
and
considered
how
certain
characteristics,

such
as
low
socioeconomic
status,
poverty,
poor
nutrition,
and
lack
of
early

educational
support
impacted
the
general
learning
levels
achieved
by
their
students.

Even
well-‐off
states
realized
that,
once
again,
the
chain
was
only
as
strong
as
its

weakest
link.
Educational
interventions
moved
from
the
state
level
to
the
individual,

which
created
the
demand
for
increasingly
personalized
measures.

Early
attempts
by
scientists
to
move
closer
to
teacher-‐friendly
information

and
products
began
to
escalate
in
the
early
1990s.
Experimental
psychologist
Paula

Tallal,
originally
at
Cambridge
University
(now
at
Rutgers),
and
neurophysiologist

Michael
Merzenich,
originally
from
Johns
Hopkins
University
(now
at
University
of

California
at
San
Francisco),
began
organizing
brain-‐based
conferences
for

educators
through
their
Scientific
Learning
Corporation
(best
known
for
the
Fast

ForWord
language
program).
These
meetings
resonated
well
with
teachers
and

13
For good examples, see Dehaene (1999a, 1999b).
14
See Klein & McMullen (1999).
15
For exemplary work, see Posner & Rothbart (1998a); Posner & Rothbart (1998b).
16
For an example, see Anderson (1995).

410-516-9755
school
districts
alike
who
clamored
for
interventions
that
were
closer
to
their

realm—that
of
the
individual
student.
Teacher
enthusiasm
led
to
more
innovations

in
the
classroom.
Though
some
of
this
work
was
of
high
quality,
in
some
cases

“innovation”
was
not
tempered
by
reality
checks
in
research,
and
in
others
it
meant

promoting
neuromyths.

International
Cooperation
in
MBE
Science
and
New
Institutions

The
early
1990s
also
saw
international,
interdisciplinary
cooperation
in
the

discipline
increase.
In
1990
the
James
S.
McDonnell
Foundation,
based
in
St.
Louis,

and
the
Pew
Charitable
Trusts
of
Philadelphia,
helped
found
the
Centre
for

Neuroscience
at
the
University
of
Oxford.
The
Centre
“encourages
work
in
all
areas

of
neuroscience
across
all
relevant
disciplines
and
embraces
research
on

experimental,
theoretical,
and
clinical
studies
of
perceptual
analysis,
memory,

language,
and
motor
control,
including
philosophical
approaches
to
cognition.”17

In

1994
The
Max
Planck
Institute
for
Human
Cognitive
and
Brain
Science
(MPI
CBS)
in

Germany
was
founded
and
“revolves
around
human
cognitive
abilities
and
cerebral

processes,
with
a
focus
on
language,
music,
and
action.”18

According
to
the
MPI

website:
“In
1917,
the
first
interdisciplinary
brain
research
institute
in
the
world

was
established
in
Munich,
the
‘Deutsche
Forschungsanstalt
für
Psychiatrie’
(German

Research
Institute
of
Psychiatry).”
Both
of
these
centers
are
pioneers
in
the
study
of

neuroscience
and
its
application
in
education.
For
the
first
time
there
was
significant

funding
available
to
focus
on
the
brain
in
educational
settings.
However,
with

increased
research
and
formalization
of
the
discipline
came
doubts
about
the
lofty

goal
to
link
education
and
neuroscience,
and
along
with
these
doubts,
a
good
deal
of

skepticism.

Late
1990s:
Healthy
Skepticism
of
the
Emerging
Discipline
of
MBE
Science

Healthy
skepticism
of
the
discipline
was
flamed
by
John
T.
Bruer’s
article

“Education
and
the
Brain:
A
Bridge
Too
Far”
(1997),
which
was
followed
by
a

discussion
of
the
educational
relevance
of
research
in
neuroscience
by
James
Byrnes

and
Nathan
Fox
in
two
seminal
articles:
“The
Educational
Relevance
of
Research
in

Cognitive
Neuroscience”
(1998a)
and
“Minds,
Brains,
and
Education:
Part
II.

Responding
to
the
Commentaries”
(1998b).
Byrnes
and
Fox’s
articles
and
the
peer

commentary
that
followed
stimulated
the
beginning
of
a
vibrant
debate
about
what

could
and
should
link
neuroscience
and
education.
Educators
who
agreed
with

Bruer
(1997)
noted
that
teachers
could
not
translate
neuroscience
research
directly

into
practice.
Many
of
those
in
agreement
with
Bruer
believed
that
teachers
should

rather
embrace
cognitive
psychology
to
enhance
their
understanding
of
learning
or

other
preexisting
fields.19
Calls
for
“making
neuroscience
educationally
relevant”20

17
Oxford Centre for Cognitive Neuroscience website (www.cogneuro.ox.ac.uk/centre/about.html).
18
Max Planck Institute website (www.cbs.mpg.de/).
19
For an example, see Caine, Nummela-Caine, & Crowell (1999).

410-516-9755
and
the
need
for
“creating
bidirectional
collaborations
between
educational

psychology
and
neuroscience”21
were
numerous
at
the
end
of
the
1990s.
Faculty

seminars,
such
as
the
one
held
in
1998
at
the
University
of
Cambridge,
considered

the
implications
of
neuroscience
for
education,22
and
more
and
more
teachers
began

to
become
more
directly
involved
in
MBE,
rather
than
simply
being
blind
consumers

of
neuroscience
publications,
which
often
did
not
have
direct
application
in
the

classroom.

Educational
Use
of
MBE
Tools

In
1998
the
Education
Commission
of
the
States
published
a
consideration
of

how
neuroscience
could
have
educational
policy
implications.
There
was
a
boom
in

pedagogical
rethinking
at
the
end
of
the
1990s,
including
attempts
to
unite
teachers

around
a
set
of
accepted
best-practice
teaching
elements23
and
curriculum/lesson

planning.24
While
these
methods
were
not
the
product
of
neuroscientific
research,

they
knowingly
or
not
applied
MBE
standards,
thus
giving
them
credibility
beyond

the
field
of
education.
This
point
is
very
important
because
it
makes
the
distinction

between
information
produced
by
the
new
MBE
discipline
and
information
that
is

used
in
the
field
of
education
that
adheres
to
MBE
principles.
For
example,
it
is

important
to
note,
that
curriculum
planning
in
Wiggins
and
McTighe’s

Understanding
by
Design
is
structured
around
attention
spans
and
memory,
two

aspects
that
are
fundamental
to
MBE
science,
though
the
authors
do
not
claim
to

base
their
theory
on
MBE
principles.

Some
teachers
began
hearing
certain
messages
from
neuroscience,
such
as

the
belief
that
there
are
no
two
brains
alike,
and
began
formulating
their
practice

around
these
neuroscientific
findings.
For
example,
there
was
a
movement
to

differentiate
instruction
based
on
the
recognition
of
individual
learning
abilities
and

needs.25
One
of
the
most
influential
books
related
to
learning
was
sponsored
by
the

National
Research
Council26
and
updated
in
2003
by
Bransford,
Brown,
and
Cocking.

Their
How
People
Learn
(2003)
remains
an
invaluable
reference
for
teachers.
Other

high-‐quality
research
was
also
produced
at
this
time,
resulting
in
teaching

interventions
that
were
proven
in
the
lab
and
applied
in
classrooms
and
homes

around
the
United
States.
For
example,
new
neuroscientifically
based
reading

curricula,
such
as
the
Fast
ForWord,27
and
RAVE-‐O
(retrieval,
automaticity,

20
This is the title of an article by Berninger & Corina (1998).
21
This is the title of an article by Schunk (1998).
22
For documentation of this event, see Geake & Cooper (2001).
23
This extremely important pedagogical feat was conducted by Zemelman, Harvey, & Hyde (1998).
24
The most important attempt in this area that coincides with MBE science is that of Wiggins and McTighe
(1998) in their groundbreaking book Understanding by Design.
25
An excellent example of work in this area is Carol Ann Tomlinson’s work (1999).
26
Bransford, Brown, Cocking, Donovan, & Pellegrino (1999)
27
For more details on this program, see Chapter 7 and articles by Gillam (1999); Lavin (2005); Loeb,
Store, & Fey (2001); Scientific Learning Corporation, (n.d.).

410-516-9755
vocabulary,
engagement
with
language,
orthography),28
were
developed
by

neuroscientists
and
have
been
applied
in
the
classroom
successfully
since
the
late

1990s
(see
Chapter
7).
The
initial
evaluations
of
these
programs
indicated
very

favorable
results,
demonstrating
that
collaborative
endeavors
between

neuroscientists
and
educators
can,
indeed,
prove
fruitful.
By
the
late
1990s
global

learning
theories
sought
to
offer
an
overarching
explanation
of
the
human
teaching–
learning
process.
One
such
concept
was
the
universal
design
for
learning
(UDL),

which
is
“defined
by
research
on
diversity,
brain-‐based
research,
multiple

intelligences,
and
the
flexibility
of
digital
media,”
(Gray
Smith,
2008,
p.
vii).
UDL
is

meant
to
guide
the
creation
of
“flexible
learning
environments”
that
are
conducive

to
differentiated
learning
structures
in
the
classroom.
UDL
not
only
joins

neuroscience
and
education
but
also
integrated
technology
as
well
as
having
an
eye

toward
the
psychological
well-‐being
of
all
students
in
the
classroom.

Popular
Press
Tries
to
Fill
the
Void
with
Varying
Degrees
of
Success

Teacher
interest
in
the
brain
grew,
but
few
professional
programs
in

universities
offered
courses
in
this
discipline,
and
thus
popular-‐press
books
about

brain-‐based
learning
flourished
to
fill
the
void
at
the
end
of
the
1990s.
One
of
the

best
selling
books
of
all
time
aimed
at
teachers,
Teaching
with
the
Brain
in
Mind,
was

published
in
its
first
edition
at
this
time.29
In
1999
the
first
Learning
Brain
EXPO
in

San
Diego
gathered
over
700
teachers
and
scientists,
attesting
to
the
popularity
of

anything
labeled
brain-based
at
the
time.

The
first
“Learning
&
the
Brain
Conference”

took
place
on
the
Harvard

University
and
MIT
campuses
in
1997
and
sought
to
elevate
the
caliber
of
teacher–
neuroscientist
encounters
and
began
formal
meetings
at
the
end
of
the
1990s.
The

26th
conference
in
this
series
took
place
in
May
2010
and
drew
over
2,000
people
in

attendance,
mostly
educators,
pointing
to
an
increasing
interest
by
teachers
in
the

emerging
discipline.
The
current
conference
series
is
cosponsored
by
the
Mind,

Brain,
and
Education
Program
at
Harvard
Graduate
School
of
Education,
the
School

of
Education
at
Johns
Hopkins
University,
the
Comer
School
Development
Program

(Yale
University
School
of
Medicine),
the
Neuroscience
Research
Institute

(University
of
California,
Santa
Barbara),
the
School
of
Education
at
Stanford

University,
the
Center
for
the
Study
of
Learning
at
Georgetown
University,
the
Dana

Alliance
for
Brain
Initiatives,
the
Cognitive
Control
and
Development
Lab

(University
of
California,
Berkeley),
the
National
Association
of
Elementary
School

Principals,
the
National
Association
of
Secondary
School
Principals,
and
others.

The

wide
range
of
high-‐quality
sponsors
of
this
conference
series
demonstrates
a
deep

interest
by
learning
institutions
to
incorporate
more
neuroscience
understanding

into
their
teacher
education.

28
See Wolf (2008) for a complete explanation.
29
Jensen (1998).

410-516-9755
The
growth
in
publications
during
the
1990s
shows
the
impact
that
the

Decade
of
the
Brain
had
on
encouraging
research
in
the
discipline,
as
well
as
the

great
impact
that
technology
has
played
in
providing
continually
improved
means
of

observing
healthy,
functioning
�� healthy,
human
brains.
By
2010
the
number
of

important
work
directly
related
to
MBE
science—rather
than
that
derived
from
the

parent
fields
of
neuroscience,
psychology,
or
pedagogy—was
numerous
signaling

growing
interest,
research,
and
application
of
concepts
in
the
emerging
discipline.

However,
many
questioned
the
quality
of
the
information
to
which
teachers
were

being
exposed.

New
Academic
Programs
in
MBE
Science

In
the
late
1990s
many
formal
associations
were
launched
around
the

emerging
discipline
in
order
to
try
and
put
parameters
on
quality-‐control
questions.

Cornell
University’s
Sackler
Institute
for
Developmental
Psychobiology
was
founded

in
1998
and
has
increasingly
focused
on
educational
neuroscience.
Across
the

Atlantic,
the
Belgian
Society
for
Neuroscience
was
founded
in
the
same
year,

showing
that
the
interest
in
the
brain
and
learning
was,
indeed,
an
international

phenomenon.
Academic
programs
also
began
to
grow
at
this
time.
After
several

years
of
planning
(1997-‐2001)
Harvard
University
launched
its
Master’s
Program
in

Mind,
Brain,
and
Education
in
2001–2002.
In
a
like
fashion,
the
University
of

Cambridge’s
Program
in
Psychology
and
Neuroscience
in
Education
started
in
2004.

The
Transfer
Centre
for
Neuroscience
and
Learning
in
Ulm,
Germany
(2004),
Bristol

University’s
Centre
for
Neuroscience
and
Education
(2005),
and
the
start
of
The

Learning
Lab
in
Denmark
(2005)
were
all
landmark
beginnings
in
an
attempt
to

structure
the
emerging
discipline.
Other
programs
available
in
MBE
science
by
2005

included
those
at
the
University
of
Texas
at
Arlington,
the
University
of
Southern

California,
Beijing
Normal
University,
and
Southeast
University
in
Nanjing.

The
2000s:
(Mis)Interpretations
of
Neuroscience
in
Education

From
2000
to
2005
there
was
a
refinement
of
knowledge
about
the

developmental
processes
of
learning,30
which
led
to
a
proliferation
of

neuroscientific
information
written
for
and
by
educators.31
While
some
educators

shared
measured,
quality
advice
to
teachers,
some
popular
press
writers
promoted

commercially
attractive
but
neuroscientifically
inaccurate
claims.
For
example,

discussions
about
“right-brained
children
in
a
left-brained
world,”32
or
guides
on
how

to
use
“right-brain
styles
for
conquering
clutter,
mastering
time,
and
reaching
your

goals,”33
which
were
popular
in
the
1990s,
continued
to
be
bought
in
the
thousands,

30
An excellent example of this can be found in Posner, Rothbart, Farah, & Bruer (2001).
31
Examples of these kinds of work include Jensen (2006); Levine (2000); Sousa (2000); Weiss (2000a);
Westwater & Wolfe (2000); Wolfe (2001a); Zull (2002).
32
Freed & Parsons (1998).
33
Luhmkuhl (1993).

410-516-9755
as
in
the
case
of
Boost
Your
Brain
Power
Week
by
Week:
52
Techniques
to
Make
You

Smarter.34
This
easy
acceptance
of
false
information
earned
many
teachers
a
bad

reputation
in
hard
science
circles.
Teachers
were
accused
of
looking
for
“quick
fixes”

rather
than
respected
as
quality
researchers
themselves.
This
poor
reputation
led
to

the
rejection
of
the
label
“brain-‐based
education”
because
it
was
associated
with

many
false
claims
about
the
brain
and
learning.

Cutting-Edge
Technology

Brain
imaging
technology
took
a
leap
at
the
turn
of
the
century
with
Hideaki

Koizumi’s
development
of
Optical
Topography™,
which
was
announced
in
1995
and

commercialized
by
Hitachi
Medical
Corporation
in
2001
as
“a
safe,
patient-‐friendly

brain
imaging
technique
that
uses
light
to
measure
hemodynamic
changes
in
the

brain.”35
This
technology
was
revolutionary
in
that
“there
is
no
need
for
a
special

measuring
environment
or
patient
restraint
during
examinations,
[so]
brain

functions
can
be
measured
in
a
natural
state.”36

This
technology
made
it
possible
to

image
brain
functions
of
babies,
for
example,
previously
thought
impossible,
which

opened
a
myriad
of
possible
“application[s]
in
studies
of
learning
and
education.”37

This
technological
advance
was
a
huge
steppingstone
along
the
path
toward
better

links
between
the
laboratory
and
the
classroom.
Koizumi’s
invention
is
a
great
move

towards
moving
laboratory
accuracy
into
realistic
classroom
settings.

Figure
3.8
Hideaki
Koizumi
and
Hitachi’s
new
Brain
Imaging
Technology:
Optical

Topography

34
Lucas (2006).
35
Hitachi (2008).
36
Hitachi (2008).
37
Ibid.

410-516-9755

Source:
World
Press
Report
of
Hitachi
Brain
Machine
Interface,

http://www.google.com.ec/imgres?imgurl=http://autoassemble.files.wordpress.com/
2006/11/hitachi_bmi.jpg&imgrefurl=http://autoassemble.wordpress.com/2006/11/1
9/hitachi-brain-machine-
interface/&usg=__r2QIcUAogn6_NbkocEgXBm6DDVs=&h=255&w=324&sz=37&hl=es&
start=1&sig2=B3ZOjJrVr0iDqSpTC5O6KQ&itbs=1&tbnid=4yeAhD_ujODRrM:&tbnh=93
&tbnw=118&prev=/images%3Fq%3DHitachi%2BOptical%2BTopography%26hl%3D
es%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26sa%3DG%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-
US:official%26gbv%3D2%26tbs%3Disch:1&ei=zk75S5iUO8T68Aayuc2lCQ

The
Birth
of
a
New
Discipline:
MBE
Science

It
can
be
said
that
the
MBE
discipline
was
"born"
in
several
different
places
at

once,
all
across
the
globe.
At
the
turn
of
the
21st
century
formal
attempts
to
unify

interdisciplinary
concepts
in
learning
and
teaching
were
numerous.
In
2000
the

Australian
National
Neuroscience
Facility
was
founded
to
synthesize
and
integrate

various
institutional
findings
in
order
to
elevate
the
level
of
neuroscience
and

education
research.
In
2000
the
Neurosciences
India
Group
was
also
founded
with

the
mission
to
“empower
through
education”
by
pursuing
cutting-‐edge
research
on

learning.
Both
realized
the
usefulness
of
MBE
research
for
classroom
purposes.

Many
universities,
such
as
the
University
of
Melbourne
in
its
Mind,
Brain
and

Behaviour
forum
series,
led
global
reflection
on
the
relationship
between

intelligence
and
education
from
a
neuroscientific
perspective.38

38
For a more complete history on this entity, see Geake (2000).

410-516-9755
Some
of
the
earliest
formal
organizations
promoting
MBE
beliefs
around
the

world
included
INSERM’s
(French
National
Institute
of
Health
and
Medical

Research)
Cognitive
Neuroimaging
Unit
in
France
(2001),
and
the
Oxford

Neuroscience
Education
Forum
(2001)
in
the
United
Kingdom.
But
perhaps
the

greatest
leader
in
this
movement
was
the
consorted
effort
of
the
Organisation
for

Economic
Co-‐operation
and
Development
(OECD),
which
conducted
three

international
conferences
at
this
time
to
synthesize
opinions
and
concerns
and
to

design
agendas
for
research
in
the
emerging
discipline
at
the
intersection
of

neuroscience,
psychology,
and
education.
These
conferences
took
place
in
New
York

(2000),
Granada,
Spain
(2001),
and
Tokyo
(2001)
and
served
to
identify
leaders,
as

well
as
the
major
challenges
facing
them.
The
400th
anniversary
meeting
of
the

Pontifical
Academy
of
Sciences
in
November
2003
also
focused
on
mind,
brain,
and

education
and
provided
historical
context
for
understanding
the
significant
changes

in
education
that
would
result
from
the
birth
of
this
new
learning
science.

Government
Efforts
to
Unite
the
Brain
and
Learning
Initiatives

Several
government
programs
related
to
the
emerging
discipline
started
in

the
early
2000s
as
well.
The
Japan
Research
Institute
of
Science
and
Technology

(2001)
and
the
subsequent
creation
of
the
RIKEN
Institute
in
Japan
(2002)

emphasized
flexible,
interdisciplinary
research
about
the
brain
and
learning.
At
the

end
of
2002,
the
Dutch
Science
Council,
in
consultation
with
the
Dutch
Ministry
of

Education,
Culture
and
Science,
set
up
the
Brain
and
Learning
Committee.
The
Dutch

Science
Council
undertook
initiatives
to
stimulate
an
active
exchange
among
brain

scientists,
cognitive
scientists,
and
educational
scientists
about
educational

practices.
This
exchange
culminated
in
a
book
of
state-‐of-‐the-‐art
findings,
Learning

to
Know
the
Brain
(Dutch
Science
Council,
2005).
The
trend
toward
applying

neuroscientific
concepts
in
educational
settings
was
paralleled
by
an
increasingly

receptive
society,
eager
for
new
tools
to
combat
problems
in
education.

The
First
International
Society
Related
to
MBE
Science

In
2004
the
formation
of
the
International
Mind,
Brain,
and
Education
Society

(IMBES)
was
announced
at
the
conference
on
Usable
Knowledge
in
Mind,
Brain,
and

Education
at
Harvard
University.
Since
its
inception,
IMBES
has
held
increasingly

larger
society
meetings,
a
fact
that
speaks
to
the
willingness
of
members
to
wear
the

MBE
“hat,”
as
opposed
to
remaining
solely
in
their
field
of
formation
(as
educational

psychologists,
cognitive
neuroscientists,
or
otherwise).
In
2005
the
Mexican
Society

for
the
Neurosciences
was
founded,
demonstrating
the
spread
of
MBE
values
in

places
other
than
Europe,
Japan,
and
the
United
States.
This
was
followed
by
an

innovative
doctorate
program
in
the
same
year:
The
Joint
International

Neuroscience
Ph.D.
Program
united
various
world
perspectives
on
the
emerging

discipline
and
was
sponsored
by
the
University
of
Bologna
(Italy),
Université
Claude

Bernard
(Lyon,
France),
University
College
of
London
(U.K.),
University
of
Bangor

410-516-9755
(Wales,
U.K.),
and
Wake
Forest
University,
School
of
Medicine
(North
Carolina,

U.S.A.).
Innovations
in
the
discipline
began
to
snowball
by
2010s.

The
New
Challenge:
Transdisciplinary
Communication

These
various
initiatives
converged
to
create
the
global
transdisciplinary

discipline
of
MBE
science.
Between
2004
and
2006
many
concrete
suggestions

circulated
about
how
to
improve
interdisciplinary
communication
in
the
emerging

discipline.39
Activists
promoting
a
formal
union
called
attention
to
the
lack
of

common
vocabulary
and
the
challenges
different
worldviews
placed
on

advancements
in
the
discipline.
This
challenge
was
faced,
head
on,
by
a
handful
of

professionals
who
studied
within
two,
if
not
all
three,
of
the
parent
fields
(some
of

their
suggestions
are
found
in
Chapter
9).
An
increasing
number
of
individuals
who

were
formally
trained
in
both
pedagogy
and
neuroscience
began
to
publish
work

that
is
acceptable
to
neuroscientists,
useful
to
educators,
and
with
an
appeal
to

psychologists
as
well.
Usha
Goswami
and
Judy
Willis
are
examples
of
neuroscientists

turned
educators
in
the
new
profession
of
MBE
science.40
Their
expertise
on
the

brain
and
their
clear
and
coherent
friendly
writing
styles
brought
many
a
teacher
to

the
MBE
flock.
Similarly,
Patricia
Wolfe
and
David
Sousa
went
from
teacher
status
to

MBE
experts.
They,
too,
provide
coherent
and
easy-‐to-‐read
evidence-‐based

information
to
teachers
and
help
neuroscientists
view
learning
problems
in
the

more
practical
light
of
the
classroom
setting.

Institutes
and
organizations
devoted
exclusively
to
the
goals
of
the
emerging

discipline
continued
to
grow,
as
with
the
Oxford
University
Institute
for
the
Future

of
the
Mind
(2006),
evidence
of
the
continual
formalization
of
the
discipline.
The

short
but
elegant
book,
The
Birth
of
a
Learning
Science
(OECD,
2007),
added
to
the

global
recognition
of
a
new
discipline
as
a
shared
view
by
the
30
OECD
member

countries
(Australia,
Austria,
Belgium,
Canada,
Czech
Republic,
Denmark,
Finland,

France,
Germany,
Greece,
Hungary,
Iceland,
Ireland,
Italy,
Japan,
Korea,

Luxembourg,
Mexico,
Netherlands,
New
Zealand,
Norway,
Poland,
Portugal,
Slovak

Republic,
Spain,
Sweden,
Switzerland,
Turkey,
United
Kingdom,
United
States).
In
a

landmark
event,
the
new
discipline
of
MBE
science
launched
the
first
issue
of
the

international
Mind,
Brain,
and
Education
Journal
in
March
2007,
thanks
to
efforts
by

Kurt
Fischer
and
David
Daniel.
This
scholarly
journal
managed
what
few

publications
before
had
done:
Establish
a
readership
that
included
cognitive

neuroscientists,
teachers,
and
educational
psychologists
all
in
one.

Uniting
the
Discipline:
Teachers,
Psychologists
and
Neuroscientists
Working

Together

39
Some of the most convincing and articulate of these arguments can be found in Ansari (2005); Geake
(2005); Goswami (2004); Goswami (2005a); Goswami (2005b); Howard-Jones (2005); Wunderlich, Bell,
& Ford (2005).
40
Excellent examples of this interdisciplinary approach can be found in Goswami (2006); Willis (2006).

410-516-9755
Starting
about
2007
there
were
many
concerted
efforts
to
further
integrate

teachers
into
the
research
process
through
conferences
and
society
meetings,
as

with
Sue
Pickering
and
Paul
Howard-‐Jones’s
Educator’s
Views
on
the
Role
of

Neuroscience
in
Education:
Findings
from
a
Study
of
UK
and
International

Perspectives
(2007),
and
the
first
International
Mind,
Brain,
and
Education
Society

conference
in
2007
in
Fort
Worth,
Texas,
organized
by
Marc
Schwartz
and
the

Southwest
Center
for
MBE
at
the
University
of
Texas
at
Arlington.
Developmental

psychology,
neuroscience,
and
learning
theory
became
a
more
common
combination

in
publications
such
as
Human
Behavior,
Learning,
and
the
Developing
Brain:
Typical

Development
(Coch,
Fischer,
&
Dawson,
2007),
and
The
Jossey-Bass
Reader
on
the

Brain
and
Learning
(Wiley,
2008).
The
second
conference
of
the
International
Mind,

Brain,
and
Education
Society
was
held
in
Philadelphia
in
May
2009,
with

membership
steadily
on
the
rise.
With
both
publications
and
society
meeting

attendance
increasing,
it
seems
that
MBE
professional
formation
is
growing.
With

increased
acceptance,
however,
comes
an
increased
responsibility.
Starting
around

2004
questions
of
neuroethics
began
to
emerge.

Neuroethics
and
Self-Criticism
in
MBE
Science

As
the
discipline
became
more
established,
consequences
of
its
work
were

considered
and
there
was
a
growing
concern
about
neuroethics.41
Calls
for

neuroethical
decisions
began
to
increase
as
the
proper
use
of
information
about

individual
brains
became
more
publicly
available.
For
example,
there
are
increased

calls
for
position
statements
on
memory-‐
enhancing
drugs,
the
benefits
and

potential
drawbacks
of
scanning
students’
brains
for
“defects,”
and
the

responsibilities
that
teachers
and
parents
have
for
the
proper
care
of
children’s

brains.42
All
of
these
different
ethical
areas
pose
complex
challenges
to
practitioners

in
the
future.
The
discipline
as
a
whole,
as
well
as
each
individual
professional,
will

have
to
reflect
upon
these
issues.

Linked
to
ethical
concerns
were
articles
that
challenged
findings
in
the
1990s

related
to
learning
concepts
in
the
developing
discipline.43
New
self-‐criticisms
are

reflective
of
maturation,
which
is
now
old
enough
to
look
back
at
its
own
research

and
critique
itself.
Numerous
articles
began
to
appear
gave
a
slap
on
the
wrist
to

those
who
dared
to
promote
half-‐truths
and
neuromyths
about
the
discipline.
This

healthy
judgment
of
research
in
the
discipline
helped
to
elevate
standards,
but
it

also
increased
tensions
in
the
relationships
formed
by
professionals
in
education,

psychology,
and
neuroscience.
Pleas
from
all
sides
called
for
improved

communication
and
sharing
by
the
early
2000s.
Teachers
begged
neuroscience
to

tell
them
which
information
was
“good”
and
what
was
“bad”
during
the
IMBES

conferences
(2007).
Neuroscientists
reacted
to
criticisms
that
their
work
related
to

41
Excellent coverage of the neuroethic theme can be found in the Farah (2007); Glannon (2007); Illes
(2005); Illes & Raffin (2002).
42
These specific examples are found in Sheridan et al. (2005); Iles (2005).
43
An example can be found in Coles (2004).

410-516-9755
laboratory
animals,
not
to
teachers
and
their
students,
and
asked
teachers
for
“real-‐
life”
problems
upon
which
to
structure
future
research.
Psychologists
began
to
react

to
educators’
calls
to
ground
theory
in
more
practice.

A
Pendulum
Swing
from
the
Mind
to
the
Brain
and
Back
Again

By
the
end
of
2007
it
became
clear
that
MBE
science
had
experienced
a

pendulum
swing.
From
the
time
of
the
Greeks
through
the
Decade
of
the
Brain
in
the

1990s
there
was
an
demand
to
ground
teaching
in
science,
or
more
specifically,
in

information
about
the
brain.
Around
the
start
of
the
21st
century,
there
was
a

change,
however.
Many
scientists
reminded
the
discipline
that
it
was
“losing
its

mind
in
favor
of
the
brain,”44
and
that
a
move
toward
“biological
determinism”45

was
unbalanced,
at
best,
and
dangerous,
at
worst.
These
observations
returned
a

more
human
face
to
the
emerging
discipline
and
demanded
a
happy
medium

between
research
and
practice
as
well
as
between
the
laboratory
and
the
classroom.

This
pendulum
swing
brings
the
balance
back
to
the
middle
and
values
both
the

science
as
well
as
the
art
of
teaching.

In
2008
an
international
Delphi
panel
of
20
experts
in
the
emerging

discipline
sought
to
create
a
framework
for
standards.46
The
concerted
efforts
by

neuroscientists,
psychologists,
and
educators
on
this
panel
brought
many
key

questions
from
the
backburner
into
the
spotlight.
Who
should
teach
and
how
and

what
should
be
taught
to
take
advantage
of
knowledge
about
the
brain
became
the

key
issues
in
education.
These
issues
included
the
creation
of
standards
and
a

shared
language
as
well
as
core
topics
and
themes
in
the
new
science
of
teaching

and
learning,
all
of
which
is
discussed
in
the
following
chapters.

By
the
end
of
the
first
decade
in
the
new
millennium
the
numbers
in
MBE

science
increased
from
a
handful
of
enthusiasts
to
thousands.
International

gatherings
such
as
“Explorations
in
Learning
and
the
Brain”;
“Learning
and
the

Brain”;
“The
International
Mind,
Brain,
and
Education
Conference”;
“Learning
Brain

Europe”;
“Primary
Teacher
UK:
Learning
Brain
Europe
Conference,”
and
the

“Behavior
and
Brain
Conference”
were
just
a
few
of
the
society
meetings
that
took

place
in
the
United
States
and
the
United
Kingdom
in
2008.
For
the
first
time,
books

used
the
“mind,
brain,
and
education”
label
in
their
titles:
The
Developmental

Relations
between
Mind,
Brain
and
Education:
Essays
in
Honor
of
Robbie
Case;47
Mind,

Brain,
and
Education
in
Reading
Disorders;48
and
The
New
Science
of
Teaching
and

Learning:
Using
the
Best
of
Mind,
Brain,
and
Education
Science
in
the
Classroom49

were
all
published
between
2009
and
2010.

44
Siegel (1999, p. xii).
45
Siegel (1999, p. xiii).
46
To see the complete study, see Tokuhama-Espinosa (2008).
47
Ferrari & Vuletic (2010).
48
Fischer, Bernstein, & Immordino-Yang (2007).
49
Tokuhama-Espinosa (2010).

410-516-9755
MBE
science
has
its
roots
in
thousands
of
years
of
academic
reflection.
This

brief
history
of
MBE
science
tracks
its
parallel
development
around
the
world
in

psychology,
education,
and
neuroscience—a
development
that
became
an

integrated
effort
in
the
1990s
and
a
new
academic
discipline
around
2004–2006.

Once
unified,
the
new
discipline
asked
some
obvious
questions
of
its
membership:

Most
importantly,
what
are
the
goals
of
the
new
discipline,
and
by
what
standards

are
members
bound?
These
questions
are
explored
in
Mind,
Brain,
and
Education

Science
(Tokuhama-‐Espinosa,
2010).

References

AERA
(American
Educational
Research
Association)
Brain,
Neurosciences
and

Education.
(2008).
Retrieved
April
4,
2008,
from

http://Www.Tc.Umn.

Edu/~Athe0007/Bnesig/.

Anderson,
J.
(1995).
Learning
and
memory:
An
integrated
approach.
New
York:

Wiley.

Ansari,
D.
(2005a,
Nov).
Paving
the
way
towards
meaningful
interactions
between

neuroscience
and
education.
Developmental
Science,
8(6),
466–467.

Ansari,
D.
(2005b).
Time
to
use
neuroscience
findings
in
teacher
training.
Nature

(Scientific
Correspondence),
437(7055),
26.

Berninger,
V.,
&
Corina,
D.
(1998).
Making
cognitive
neuroscience
educationally

relevant:
Creating
bidirectional
collaborations
between
educational

psychology
and
cognitive
neuroscience.
Educational
Psychology
Review,

10(3),
343–354.

Bransford,
J.,
Brown,
A.L.,
&
Cocking,
R.R.
(2008).
Mind
and
brain.
In
The
Jossey-Bass

reader
on
the
brain
and
learning
(pp.
89–108).
San
Francisco:
Wiley.

Bransford,
J.,
Brown,
A.L.,
&
Cocking,
R.R.
(Eds.).
(2003).
How
people
learn:
Brain,

mind,
experience
and
school.
Washington,
DC:
National
Academy
Press.

Bransford,
J.,
Brown,
A.L.,
Cocking,
R.R.,
Donovan,
M.S.,
Pellegrino,
J.W.
&
National

Research
Council.
(Eds.).
(1999).
How
people
learn:
Bridging
research
and

practice.
Washington,
DC:
National
Academy
Press.

Bruer,
J.
(1997).
Education
and
the
brain:
A
bridge
too
far.
Educational
Researcher,

26(8),
4–16.

Byrnes,
J.,
&
Fox,
N.
A.
(1998a).
The
educational
relevance
of
research
in
cognitive

410-516-9755
neuroscience.
Educational
Psychology
Review,
10,
297–342.

Byrnes,
J.,
&
Fox,
N.
A.
(1998b).
Minds,
brains,
and
education:
Part
II.
Responding
to

the
commentaries.
Educational
Psychology
Review,
10,
431–439.

Caine,
G.,
Nummela-‐Caine,
R.,
&
Crowell,
S.
(1999).
Mindshifts:
A
brain-based
process

for
restructuring
schools
and
renewing
education
(2nd
ed).
Tucson,
AZ:

Zephyr
Press.

Coch,
D.,
Fischer,
K.
W.
&
Dawson,
G.
(Eds.).
(2007).
Human
behavior,
learning,
and

the
developing
brain:
Typical
development.
New
York:
Guilford
Press.

Coles,
G.
(2004).
Danger
in
the
classroom:
“Brain
glitch”
research
and
learning
to

read.
Phi
Delta
Kappan,
85(5),
344.

Economic
and
Social
Research
Council
Teaching
and
Learning
Research

Programmes
(ESRC
TLRP)
seminar
series.
(2005,
July).
Collaborative

frameworks
for
neuroscience
and
education.
Paper
presented
at
the
Teaching

and
Learning
Conference,
Cambridge
University,
Cambridge.
Retrieved

January
28,
2008,
from
www.tlrp.org.

Fancher,
R.
(1985).
The
intelligence
men:
Makers
of
the
IQ
controversy.
New
York:

Norton.

Farah,
M.
(2007).
Social,
legal,
and
ethical
implications
of
cognitive
neuroscience:

"Neuroethics"
for
short.
Journal
of
Cognitive
Neuroscience,
19(3),
363–364.

Ferrari,
M.,
&
Vuletic,
L.
(2010).
The
developmental
relations
between
mind,
brain
and

education:
Essays
in
honor
of
Robbie
Case.
New
York:
Springer.

Fischer,
K.W.,
Bernstein,
J.,
&
Immordino-‐Yang,
M.H.
(2007).
Mind,
brain,
and

education
in
reading
disorders.
New
York:
Cambridge
University
Press.

Freed,
J.,
&
Parsons,
L.
(1998).
Right-brained
children
in
a
left-brained
world:

Unlocking
the
potential
of
your
ADD
child.
New
York:
Simon
&
Schuster.

Gaddes,
W.
(1983).
Applied
educational
neuropsychology:
Theories
and
problems.

Journal
of
Learning
Disabilities,
16,
511–515.

Gardner,
H.
(1974).
The
shattered
mind.
New
York:
Knopf.

Gardner,
H.
(1987).
The
mind’s
new
science:
A
history
of
the
cognitive
revolution.
New

York:
Basic
Books

Gardner,
H.
(1993b).
Multiple
intelligences:
The
theory
in
practice.
New
York:
Basic

Books.

410-516-9755
Gazzaniga,
M.
(Ed.).
(1984).
Handbook
of
cognitive
neuroscience.
New
York:
Plenum

Press.

Geake,
J.
(2000).
Knock
down
the
fences:
Implications
of
brain
science
for
education.

Principal
Matters,
April,
41–43.

Geake,
J.
(2005a).
Educational
neuroscience
and
neuroscientific
education:
In
search

of
a
mutual
middle
way.
Research
Intelligence,
92,
10–13.

Geake,
J.,
&
Cooper,
P.
(2003).
Cognitive
neuroscience:
implications
for
education?

Westminster
Studies
in
Education,
26(1),
7–20.

Gillam,
R.
(1999).
Computer-‐assisted
language
intervention
using
Fast
ForWord:

Theoretical
and
empirical
considerations
for
clinical
decision-‐making.

Language,
Speech
and
Hearing
Services
in
Schools,
30(4),
363–370.

Glannon,
W.
(Ed.).
(2007).
Defining
right
and
wrong
in
brain
science:
Essential

readings
in
neuroethics.
New
York:
Dana
Press.

Goswami,
U.
(2004).
Neuroscience
and
education.
British
Journal
of
Educational

Psychology,
74,
1–14.

Goswami,
U.
(2005a).
The
brain
in
the
classroom?
The
state
of
the
art.

Developmental
Science,
8(6),
468–469.

Goswami,
U.
(2006).
Neuroscience
and
education:
From
research
to
practice.
Nature

Reviews
Neuroscience
7(5),
406–413.

Hart,
L.
(1999).
Human
brain
and
human
learning
(5th
ed.).
Kent,
WA:
Books
for

Educators.
(Original
published
in
1983).

Howard-‐Jones,
P.
(2005).
An
invaluable
foundation
for
better
bridges.

Developmental
Science,
8(6),
470–471.

Howard-‐Jones,
P.,
&
Pickering,
S.
(2006).
Perception
of
the
role
of
neuroscience
in

education:
Summary
report
for
the
DfES
Innovation
Unit.
Retrieved
January

14,
2008,
from
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/education/research/networks/nenet.

Illes,
J.
(2005).
Neuroethics
in
the
21st
century.
Oxford,
UK:
Oxford
University
Press.

Illes,
J.
(2005).
Neuroethics
in
the
21st
century.
Oxford,
UK:
Oxford
University
Press.

Illes,
J.,
&
Raffin,
T
(2002).
Neuroethics:
A
new
discipline
is
emerging
in
the
study
of

brain
and
cognition.
Brain
and
Cognition
50(3),
341–344.

Jensen,
E.
(1998b).
Teaching
with
the
brain
in
mind.
Alexandria,
VA:
Association
for

410-516-9755
Supervision
and
Curriculum
Development.

Jensen,
E.
(2006a).
Enriching
the
brain:
How
to
maximize
every
learner’s
potential.

San
Francisco:
Wiley.

Klein,
R.,
&
McMullen,
P.
(Eds.).
(1999).
Converging
methods
for
understanding

reading
and
dyslexia.
Cambridge,
MA:
MIT
Press.

Lavin,
E.
(2005).
Using
technology
to
develop
phonemic
awareness
and
auditory

processing
skills
to
enhance
academic
performance:
A
qualitative
analysis
of

the
Fast
ForWord
language
product.
Master’s
thesis,
Bank
Street
College

of
Education,
New
York,
NY.

Levine,
M.
(2000).
A
mind
at
a
time.
New
York:
Simon
&
Schuster.

Loeb,
D.,
Store,
C.,
&
Fey,
M.E.
(2001).
Language
changes
associated
with
Fast

ForWord-‐language:
Evidence
form
case
studies.
American
Journal
of
Speech–
Language
Pathology,
10(3),
216–231.

Lucas,
B.
(2006).
Boost
your
brain
power
week
by
week:
52
techniques
to
make
you

smarter.
London:
Duncan
Baird.

Luhmkuhl,
D.
(1993).
Organizing
for
the
creative
person:
Right-brain
styles
for

conquering
clutter,
mastering
time,
and
reaching
your
goals.
New
York:
Three

Rivers
Press.

McClelland,
J.,
Feldman,
J.,
Adelson,
B.,
Bower,
G.,
&
McDermott,
D.
(1986).

Connectionist
models
and
cognitive
science:
Goals,
directions,
and
implications.

Washington,
DC:
Report
to
the
National
Science
Foundation.

McDonnold,
L.
(1981).
Implications
of
selective
brain
research
for
the
philosophy
of

education.
Doctoral
dissertation,
University
of
Oklahoma,
Norman,
OK.
AAT

8129402.

O’Dell,
J.
(1981).
Neuroeducation:
Brain
compatible
learning
strategies.
Doctoral

dissertation,
University
of
Kansas,
Lawrence,
KS.
AAT
8218826.

Posner,
M.
(1981).
Cognition
and
neural
systems.
Cognition,
10,
261–266.

Posner,
M.
(1989).
Foundations
of
cognitive
science.
Cambridge,
MA:
MIT
Press.

Posner,
M.,
&
Rothbart,
M.K.
(1998a).
Attention,
self-‐regulation
and
consciousness.

Philosophical
Transactions
of
the
Royal
Society
of
London,
353(1377),
1915–
1927.

Posner,
M.,
&
Rothbart,
M.K.
(1998b).
Developing
attention
skills.
In
J.
Richards
(Ed.),

410-516-9755
Cognitive
neuroscience
of
attention:
A
developmental
perspective
(pp.
317–
323).
Hillsdale,
NJ:
Erlbaum.

Posner,
M.I.,
Rothbart,
M.K.,
&
Rueda,
M.R.
(2008)

Brain
mechanisms
and
learning
of

high
level
skills
(pp151-‐165).
In
Battro,
A.M.,
Fischer,
K.W.
&
Lena,
P.J.
eds.

The
Educated
Brain.

Cambridge
UK:Cambridge
University
Press

Schunk,
D.
(1998).
An
educational
psychologist's
perspective
on
cognitive

neuroscience.
Educational
Psychology
Review,
10(4),
411–417.

Scientific
Learning
Corporation.
(2009).
Scientific
learning:
FastForWord.
Retrieved

August
4,
2009,
from
http://www.scilearn.com/.

Sheridan,
K.,
Zinchenko,
E.,
&
Gardner,
H.
(2005).
Neuroethics
in
education.
In
J.
Illes

(Ed.),
Neuroethics
(pp.
281–308).
Oxford,
UK:
Oxford
University
Press.

Retrieved
September
10,
2007,
from

http://www.tc.umn.edu/~athe0007/BNEsig/papers/Neuroethics

Siegel,
D.
(2007).
The
mindful
brain:
Reflection
and
attunement
in
the
cultivation
of

well-being.
New
York:
Norton.

Sousa,
D.
(2000).
How
the
brain
learns.
Thousand
Oaks,
CA:
Corwin
Press.

Tokuhama-‐Espinosa,
T.
(2008b).
Summary
of
the
international
Delphi
expert
survey

on
the
emerging
field
of
neuroeducation
(Mind,
rain,
and

Education/educational
neuroscience).
Unpublished
manuscript.

Tomlinson,
C.
(1999).
The
differentiated
classroom:
Responding
to
the
needs
of
all

learners.
Alexandria,
VA:
Association
for
Supervision
and
Curriculum

Development.

Weiss,
R.
(2000a).
Brain-‐based
learning.
Training
and
Development,
54(7),
20.

Westwater,
A.,
&
Wolfe,
P.
(2000).
The
brain-‐compatible
curriculum.
Educational

Leadership,
58(3),
49–52.

Wiggins,
G.,
&
McTighe,
J.
(1998/2005).
Understanding
by
design.
Alexandria,
VA:

Association
for
Supervision
and
Curriculum
Development.

Willis,
J.
(2006).
Research-based
strategies
to
ignite
student
learning:
insights
from
a

neurologist
and
classroom
teacher.
Alexandria,
VA:
Association
for

Supervision
and
Curriculum
Development.

Wolf,
M.
(2008).
A
triptych
of
the
reading
brain:
Evolution,
development,
pathology,

and
its
interventions.
In
A.
Battro,
K.
W.
Fischer,
&
P.J.
Léna
(Eds.),
The

410-516-9755
educated
brain
(pp.
183–197).
Cambridge,
UK:
Cambridge
University
Press.

Wolfe,
P.
(2001a).
Brain
matters:
Translating
research
into
classroom
practice.

Alexandria,
VA:
Association
for
Supervision
and
Curriculum
Development.

Wunderlich,
K.,
Bell,
A.,
&
Ford,
A.
(2005).
Improving
learning
through

understanding
of
brain
science
research.
Learning
Abstracts,
8(1),
41–43.

Zemelman,
S.,
Daniels,
H.
&
Hyde,
A.
(2005).
Best
practice:
New
standards
for

teaching
and
learning
in
America’s
schools,
(3rd
ed.).
New
Hampshire:

Heinemann.

Zull,
J.
(2002).
The
art
of
changing
the
brain.
Herdon,
VA:
Stylus

Books
on
this
topic
by
Tracey
Tokuhama-Espinosa:

T.
(2010).
The
new
science
of
teaching
and
learning:
Using
the

best
of
mind,
brain,
and
education
science
in
the
classroom.
New
York:

Columbia
University
Teachers
College
Press.

T.
(2010).
Mind,
Brain,
and
Education
Science:
The
new
brain-
based
learning.
New
York,
NY:
W.W:
Norton.

A Brief History of the Science of Learning, Part 2. By Tracey Tokuhama-Espinosa. January 2011

More Related Content

A Brief History of the Science of Learning, Part 2. By Tracey Tokuhama-Espinosa. January 2011