Amy Shelton – Neuro-Education, Educational Neuroscience, and the Research-Practice Gap

so this is the me liberal unusual as I've told said to me wait a minute you're not talking about you're not talking about individual differences and I said quite frankly I'm not talking about my research at all and they said what a talk without Legos there are Legos in there I'm just not gonna actually talk about them so that's kind of your Where's Waldo thing you know can you find the Legos in my slides what I'm going to talk about instead is gonna sound a lot more like a commentary I'm gonna draw upon some pieces from what I call the research practice gap so I'm gonna make some terminology judgment calls and hopefully I can keep you with me on those but I'm gonna start by saying that I don't think I have to sell to anyone in this room that it's important to study the science of learning but I want to give you the frame of mind that I use when I'm thinking about why we study the science of learning I want to break it down into sort of there's two really serious goals that I always have when I'm thinking about my work and the first is discovery and that's really this we're just talking before with a petition about the reward of knowing something the reward of understanding something I think we are driven by that quite a bit and a lot of what we do in science is driven by that that desire to understand so how something happens why something happens what make things happen and what really we are doing in science also is we're solution driven we're doing this for some purpose that is in addition to the curiosity it is knowledge to improve the world in some way whether it's at this very level of a richer understanding just makes us stronger as intellectual individuals whether it's to inform further development when it's to inform practice in some way and so just to give you my mindset I think of my work in terms of discovery plus solutions and this is what I call a translation minded fundamental science approach that's just to give you kind of my framing of where I came from which leads to why I want to talk about the things I want to talk about today to really set the stage though in 2013 Stephen Rose wrote this quote brain imaging is apparently shown that ventral lateral prefrontal cortex lights up when adolescent girls experience social exclusion but does this provide guidance as to how youngsters might be helped and I found this quote very resonant you know very resonating very thought-provoking and actually very challenging because on the one hand I actually want to agree with it I thought well well yeah that you know on the face the the ability of that argument what would this really tell us but on the other hand I wanted to defend it I wanted to say well we were wait knowing this might help us depending on what else we know so for example in the psychology of persuasion do we know something about whether understanding the biological underpinnings helps us seek solution so would counselors and parents and such knowing this would it change the way they approach it more in line with the kind of work that I do in some of the work we've heard about today we we actually know quite a bit about the cognitive functions that might be associated with these areas of the prefrontal cortex we might start say well maybe this gives us a different model of what's happening in social exclusion and so it might lead to potential solutions or ways to think about solutions and so what I thought well so is it helpful I don't know but it could be and that could be though is predicated on something that could be is predicated on this other knowledge and that other knowledge in my opinion is what we call the research to practice gap that is saying how would we fill in from say this knowledge of the ventral lateral prefrontal cortex to something that could be useful and so what I'm going to talk about today and focus on is how are we filling this gap between research and practice for the science of learning and education so I'm going to focus on education but much what I'm going to say I think is relevant to the way we think about science to practice in general or at least I hope for it for most so this is just the basic roadmap of what I'm going to cover I'm gonna start by talking about what I consider sort of two core approaches to filling this gap in education one is bridge bringing knowledge to practitioners the others building the fundamental knowledge itself for each of these I'm going to talk a little bit what has worked I'm going to talk a lot about potential pitfalls because I think that's where we learn the most at this point and then I'm going to end on speculations that I have about what the critical features are for building this bridge so how do we really fill this gap what do we know so I'm gonna launch right into these core approaches so as I said I think when you look at what people are trying to do when they talk about a research to practice gap there's two things you see in education one is bringing knowledge to the practitioners and I'm actually going to distinguish two terms that are often used interchangeably so if you don't agree with this that's okay you just need keeping it for today and I'm gonna call that neuro education I'm gonna talk about neural education as the teaching of educators about neuroscience so we teach educators about neuroscience and cognitive science that should inform practice you're also gonna see me very much advocating for this use of cognitive so a lot of this has been couched as neuro but I think one of the critical pieces here is also that those cognitive functions play a critical role in how we think about it the other side of this is building the fundamental knowledge with problems of practice in mind that is what is the research we're doing going to do to inform practice and I'm going to call that the educational neuroscience now again these are often used interchangeably but I think making that distinction really does help us talk about what we're doing so I'm going to jump right into neuro education and the first going to do is say well why do we think we need this why why teach teachers about neuroscience and the first reason is that there's long been a push in education or a desire for evidence-informed practices there's there's things like what works where we're house you know places where people are going to find what's the evidence what does the evidence say about how we should practice and over the last several years people have really turned to neuroscience to say are there places in the neuroscience and in the cognitive psychology that tell us a lot about how we should be doing things in education but one of the bigger drivers underlying this has actually been what we call the brain myths and again they've been called brain myths you could call them educational miss you could call them psychological myths you could call them folk psychology things like you only use 10% your brain people are left or right brain teaching to a student's learning style will enhance learning and there's there's others as well but these are some of the key ones and these are things that most Jareau scientists will tell you that in some cases they may be decent metaphors but these are actually not do not bear out in the in the data and these we know these persist in the general public I could actually give a whole talk on the persistence of folk psychology in the general public but what about teachers well there's actually been a lot of work showing how this actually persists in teachers and I'm going to show you just for the furrow and some of the data that we see so one of the this is just one of many studies showing that when you actually ask teachers and these are international teachers what percentage of teachers believe in this like the bring the brain can shrink if you drink less than six to eight glasses of water a day children are less attention after sugary drinks use only 10% of our brain exercise can improve the integration of hemispheric brain function they had actually a whole host of other ones as well and what they found was that teachers tend to endorse the majority of the things that that when we dig down deeper maybe are not the best things for them to be emphasizing with their students now some of these you might say well that doesn't hurt because we actually know that drinking water is that is a good thing like having glasses of water so anything that encourages it isn't necessarily bad but in other cases there are things that you motivate difficult practices in the education so this has led to people like Eisenhart and hans saying things like well neuroscience should really be required for all educators in training so they're talking specifically about how we educate teachers both pre-service and in-service and then we need different eyes them with neuroscience in some meaningful way and what that has led to is a whole host of resources that are used for teachers these come in the forms of just books that the teachers can pick up that explain different aspects of neuroscience there's an awful lot of professional development workshops that can be attended there are certificate programs we actually have certificate and master's programs here at the School of Education and silicon's and all of these are intended to really sort of bring that neuroscience education to the teachers and so the first thing I do is talk about a couple of successes in that domain so what's going well in that in that space so this is just there's a couple of different examples this one is brand new which is a professional development that's been infused with neuroscience so a professional development in which teachers learn about brain facts and what they've been able to show is that in fact when you give teachers a brain 101 kind of course you get improvements in teacher knowledge so before they took the brain u101 they on a neurosis knowledge test think they're below 60 percent after they do the training they're up higher they've got some evidence showing that this last that they actually do remember brain the brain facts that they learned in addition something that is sorely needed education also is that they improve the confidence of the teachers in their ability to teach now they talked primarily about their ability to teach neuroscience but there is some evidence that it improves their general efficacy their comfort in the classroom so this again shows a pre and post-training or getting these big gains so this looks like you know good evidence that the teachers are learning something from the professional development for anyone who does professional development we don't often get a whole lot of data on the effectiveness of it because of the constraints of doing the work itself here at Hopkins some work by Rhonda Turnbull and Muriel Hardiman they have a mind brain teaching professional development as well they've also used multiple cohorts and what they tested was the teacher efficacy so so much of the confidence is how well do you feel you can teach they had questions on both their personal teaching but also how much does this kind of training how much does it affect general teaching approaches or would it affect it and they actually they're pretty the pretty meager results but they do find that the PD group will show higher efficacy than what were considered very high end matched controls individuals with a lot of additional training and people from the district in general not remarkably strong results but they're in the right direction and as they continue to build this the idea is that in fact you can build teacher knowledge you can build teacher confidence so there are some advantages at least with respect to teaching teachers about brain facts and in this case if you look at these training talking a lot about the underlying cognitive science that falls into this but also information that should help you with those things like those brain myths but when we dig a little deeper you have to ask some additional questions when I started looking at this neuro education because I actually big advocate thinking yeah people should know neuroscience and people should know cognitive science I wanted to know what about student outcomes so what do we know about how this kind of teaching to teachers is affecting student outcomes is it mitigating these myths is the is the myth or the myths being mitigated by having this kind of training and then what role is sort of the persuasiveness or the appeal of neuroscience actually playing in this so how much of this is the the flash of seeing brain images acting the way in which people are thinking about what they do so first one student outcomes I'm gonna actually put a big fat question mark on that one because it turns out that and many many you who are in education know this this is actually remarkably difficult to know how to measure when you've got a bunch of teachers who come to you for a workshop from various places and you're teaching that teacher about information going back and figuring out how you've actually affected their student outcomes is is actually strikingly difficult what you see instead is that when it comes to students in this area of neuro education most what you see is there has been work but it's just been a jump right from what we do with teachers to what we're doing with students so things like thinking about the student in specific areas and saying well how can this dural education be apply at a specific kind of student that might be involved or infusing curriculum for students so taking their education from neuro education of teachers to neuro education of students and what that's all that's out there at the moment so this is an area we desperately need to figure out if we're gonna say that this is something we need to invest in for teachers we also need to think about whether or not it's actually working for the students that they're teaching I wouldn't argue that it's not I just would say we don't know we don't have the evidence what about mitigating those myths there's been a handful of different studies none of which have directly used the say one of the programs and said you know how does it mitigate the myths or not but there are some clues from the literature it's the study on European teachers and what they did was they actually measured neuroscience knowledge and interest you can think this is how much have they learned about neuroscience how much do they know and then they surveyed them on how much they endorsed brain myths as well and the results were again not not too similar to the other work that we've seen which is that there was actually a high rate of endorsing myths among teachers and and I were just talking about how a lot of this work has been done on teachers looking at how many teachers endorse brain mess in all cases they saw at least forty nine percent of the teachers often hire but the really striking result was that the more knowledge they had of brain facts correct brain facts was actually associated with greater endorsement of the brain myths so the same teachers who knew a lot about the brain we're also the ones who are most likely to actually endorse the brain myths what's happening here the best we can do at this point is speculate there's a lot of speculation about what it is one is that the training is not helping them to distinguish between science and pseudoscience this is the thing I think we could start to think about how we intervene on I think there's there's ways to think about training in that sense um the key here seems to be that what we might be seeing is an increased confidence with limited knowledge when you know a little bit you start to feel more confident you feel you can actually do it that's that's a very natural tendency I think we all can fall into that trap so we need to explore this further we need to figure out what's really going on why are these myths persisting after more training or more knowledge so for me this is a big one because I'm gonna talk a little bit later about the other side of this and mitigating the myths is something that I think could in some cases have pretty dramatic effects on the way we think about education we did some of this with some some recent professional development here the numbers actually wrong exact 148 sorry for the typo we did some profile we've done some professional development with in-service teachers now let me say this was not data that were collected for this purpose so they're not the perfect data but he's going to give you a taste of what we're seeing and we were able to actually with the help of the teachers these categories that's because they helped us sort of design the categories we wanted to get information on their background and this was to help us with what we were doing and so we got them to indicate how much cognition in neuroscience they'd actually had in their background and we were able to kind of classify that into different levels of how much experience they had and then we gave a brief survey survey had a bunch of things in it including understanding of certain educational practices understanding of some of the cognition but we included some of the learning styles statements and that was done for a specific reason to make a decision about what we needed to target and we had two kinds of questions in there we had some on the learning style statement which is things like teaching to a students preferred learning style improve learning or students can be classified as left or right brain and so we were able to then go back and say wait let's look across these different pools of people where we have this information and what do we see do we see them endorsing these so these are the data I drew this black line to show that anything above the black line means they're agreeing with these things the blue is learning styles the red is the left/right myth and what you can see is that regardless of how much training they've had up to this certificate here they're above this line and in fact seem to be increasing again very preliminary data not the most controlled setting for doing this it does seem to drop a little bit here with the degree although again I would not put a whole lot into the key here in all cases they are still endorsing these myths okay so this is just a more more a close to home case where even among teachers who are fantastic teachers by most measures that we see they're endorsing these brain myths and you know you have to ask how that's infecting their classroom well I can tell you directly with these teachers one away it's affecting their classroom is their inventory their students on learning styles every year and trying to figure out how to use that information so it seems that the training at least in these initial Casas that it really doesn't seem to mitigate endorsing the educational brain myths and so we're not doing the job we need to at least on this count the other piece of this that I think is worth thinking about when we talk about the teachers and doing this neuro education piece is we know that neuroscience itself is persuasive thism I think it was I don't worry was reviewer four or five asking about what parts of the brain people like to know what parts of the brain they really like that localization this was a study that was actually done by Weisberg and colleagues on explanations and so they took explains they took good ones midget bad ones of various phenomena and with each one they gave the explanation with out neuroscience so just what's the standard explanation and then they created explanations where they artificially enhanced it with neuroscience a fake neuroscience and then they asked people how satisfying are these explanations so this is just a question about does adding brain just adding some superficial brain to the explanation does it affect what people think so I'm going to show you three different groups they looked at they looked at novices these were people who really had no background in neuroscience and I think they excluded people who had even intro psychology neuroscience experts and then cognero students which they classified because these were students who had had some neuroscience background novices endorsed the blue good explanations they endorsed good explanations and as well as bad ones that were infused with neuroscience we're seeing in effect the neuroscience among the novices so adding superficial neuroscience made the explanations better made a more satisfying rest-assured neuroscience experts not only aren't persuaded by neuroscience but we're apparently not persuaded by good explanations either we do not endorse these we've not the satisfying ones were the good explanations without neuroscience we went for the straight facts so adding the artificial neuroscience is actually bad for neuroscience experts that's good that means we're actually able to filter that out at least to some degree and so where were these students who have some training the students have some training actually were closer to the novices they are endorsing actually good explanations without neuroscience much lower than what we would hope for and then when you add the neuroscience they're endorsing those Barragan endorsing bad explanations provided there's neuroscience so in some ways they're actually showing even a more substantial impact of having that neuroscience information in there now these are not the same as people who necessarily have gone through a teacher training or something but they are people with some neuroscience but not not as much as say an expert and the neuroscience is very compelling so again this is just as my title said a cautionary tale I think this raises questions about what we're doing when we talk about neural education suggest how much it matters a lot so artificial enhancement erro science actually increases credibility when you're talking about someone who is not a non-expert or at least not yet an expert so from the neurons ocation side it is bringing potentially useful information to educators I don't want to suggest that it's not but I say potentially useful we have evidence that it's improving their knowledge they do get the brain facts and it does seem to be boosting teacher confidence which again there should be some advantages to that but my caution here is that we clearly need more data on the effectiveness we need to really understand what's happening with these programs and we need to consider how much training is sufficient so as someone who early on has been a big fan of this kind of work of bringing neuroscience to two teachers I think we do need to be cautious about what we're doing in terms of do we really know that what we're doing is having the impact we hope it will and again as I said earlier we don't actually have student outcomes so in addition to not knowing whether it helps students we also don't know whether or not it's a neutral kind of thing but from a resource standpoint we really do need to know it's helping in some way now I'm going to switch to the other side of this which as I said I'm gonna call educational neuroscience and that's the neuroscience and cognitive research driven by and informing issues in education and I view this this is kind of where practice driven questions meet the basic science that is questions that you see out in the world of practice really need to intersect with what we're doing in in our labs and in other spaces the idea is really to extend what we learned from basic science to problems of practice and aim for more genuine evidence informed practices I'm gonna say a couple times over though I'm not suggesting the basic scientists need to get into the business of doing all the translational pieces this is more saying that what we generally need to do is think about being practice driven in some of what we do particularly if you're talking about something in education there are many many popular examples I could give you about how people have tried to translate science into educational practices there are things I am gonna talk a little bit about Gardner's multiple intelligences Dan's actually could talk more about the brain exercises but there are others things like taking advantage of plasticity the advantages testing for learning the introduction of brain breaks for refocusing attention many of these things are things that really did stem from various places in basic science and I can give you a whole host of others I think we all know that there are lots of programs popping up that are intended to be neuroscience based dan will talk more about what that really means but the key here is that we are doing these kinds of things that the world is out there bringing things to education there are some successful translations that and again I could I could pick several different examples of these as well so one that I think is is particularly useful to say that we do this well sometimes is that we do thing that came from work on dyslexia so dyslexia has a lot of different components to it but for some time it was really viewed as something was missing that it was a deficit that there was a hole in the processing or something was missing and that it would be qualitatively different from a typically developing brain but when you actually looked at the brain data and people started to say well what are we learning from that it turns out that it's not entirely qualitatively different and in fact one of the key arguments that came from this was that it looks more developmental in nature there are still there's still some controversy surrounding exactly how to interpret that but what has happened as a result of that is that there have been certain kinds of training that have really emerged from that for dyslexia that have also been able to then be used in other cases of reading difficulties at different to different degrees so this is really a case where knowing something about the brain did change the way people were thinking about dyslexia there's been a whole host of other things in the dyslexia world that have also tweaked that that argument as well so this is a case where people really did the filling in they did the filling in to figure out how do we go from our original view to flip to a new view and now now move that out into interventions but there are an awful lot of pitfalls in the translation as well and one has kind of got a good and a bad side to it is the use of multiple intelligences so this actually dates back to Gardner and actually there's some evidence from before this time as well but Gardner was the first to fully articulate it where tick you laid that intelligence for whatever that means but you as a person and York your capability is really common two dimensional form that is there's lots of different pieces that make you who you are from from the standpoint of your cognitive abilities and then a learner is a collection of those strengths and weaknesses this has been grounded very nicely in the multi-dimensional nature of brain processes in many ways in terms of being able to say yes there are different processes going on some of the work we've done on individual differences clearly suggests that you have different biases and strengths but there's a problem and that is when the research started to move from theory to measurable sets of characteristics we started to see it morph into a new kind of language people started doing indexes so we started seeing the emergence of things like learning styles inventories or indexes by modality and I will say the positive here is that it has been highly influential in getting advocators as well as others to think about individual differences I think that's actually a big plus so in a classically one-size-fits-all education system it's really nice that we now have this move towards individual differences I will say it has not proliferated our practices at the level we'd like it to but at the very least the acknowledgement of individual differences is important but what got lost in translation is that it started to peg students into these learning styles so if you go on on the web and you actually type in either multiple intelligences or learning styles or classifying learners you get things like this where it's no longer about you and the things you do but it's about you being this or you being that and what we saw in the world of Education was that actually became a marker where a lot of schools started and districts started looking at well how do I teach to the visual learner and how do I teach to the auditory learner and that sounds pretty good on the surface like yes let's meet students where they are however you have to ask again about the effectiveness and here's where the science has really failed to meet the practice because we actually do know a lot about whether this is effective and the answer is probably not there's a password in a review of this work there's been a lot of different kinds of studies looking at the role of preferred learning style and there's really no evidence that teaching to a single learning style is actually a good thing period but certainly matching it to a student's preferred learning style does not seem to have at all in addition to that we've done some work as well as others on the the difference between preference and ability so just cuz you prefer something a certain way does not mean that's the best thing for you we see a lot in spatial learning and navigation people who say they love Maps and can't actually read them on top of that it's contradictory to our known neural principles we know that multiple inputs means more connections means better learning focusing on any particular modality of learning for any given student is a mistake regardless of whether it's preferred or not in some ways because the other piece is that it suggests that learning is about pouring information into a vessel that's really not with only its own use but the process of learning right becoming a better learner and bringing the content along with it so from the processing standpoint we actually know that learning requires effort that that the easier you make it the less likely you are to actually learn something so don't make it easier on the learner which again was that matching between styles and and how you teach so the reality is that from the standpoint of the cognitive science and the neuroscience underlying it there's just very little evidence that we should do this and if anything a lot of what we're saying is that you should not but this is one of the things that is still wildly pervasive the number of students who take a learning styles inventory in school is staggering and we're you know how teachers use it may be differing but we can be pretty well assured that it's probably not particularly informative the other area that we see this a second example is the co-opting of synaptogenesis and exuberant periods earlier is better so we do know that there exhibit periods early in development these are the periods of massive brain reorganization but that message got transmitted into the education world in a way that simply said earlier is better that this has been used to push learning earlier and earlier we are seeing a backlash to that in the play movement now which is excellent because it suggested that there were quote that we may have critical periods that would close for learning and so if you don't start early you're gonna miss it there may be some things for which that is true but it got seriously overextended and that's because it was overextending very specific data to everything so you started to see preschools introducing math way too early and I say way too early only because I want the kids to be playing in the preschool it was too restrictive for many types of learning so many times only this doesn't make sense we're not there yet and the other really interesting thing about this particular example was that the actual critical data were actually fairly old data from developmental psychology that would feed how you should really think about these critical periods and learning so it really wasn't about those low-level brain processes and wasn't particularly new so there's some difficulty just in this case this is just another case of that massive overextension of the science so in my brief overview of educational neuroscience there are many promising avenues for translation we heard some of them today but we're still struggling with some poor issues one is the over extension the other is the illusion that we have something new making leaps rather than building bridges and so that leads me to my sort of I'm gonna cap this off with some speculation about what do I see having sort of looked at all of this as some of the key critical features that we're gonna need to bridge this gap and now I really like this gap metaphor and I like the idea of a bridge building across it but I have a second graphic that I've been using when we think about it in education and that is this sort of cycle that we have from basic research to applied research to evidence informed application everything in between because I think we have a tendency to think about these things as as individuals but in fact there's a lot of gray area even in what we heard today there's a lot of spaces where we heard about doing things in classrooms or you know moving to different spaces that move you in different places along this spectrum and so we need to start thinking about what are we trying to understand so are we asking questions about what works and when and for which people in that case something like applied research are we asking about why does it matter we're probably out here in the world where we're trying to connect up the evidence informed application to basic research when we're talking about why and how does it work there's where we're more in the basic or what I call foundational kinds of research and then how can we make it work better that actually often comes from the evidence based practice that is when you're out in the world of practice and you see where it's not working we can start to think about okay what what information do we need to know to make it better and so my my this is sort of a second framing of the way I think about this so we think about this in the science of learning and education what does that mean some of these critical pieces are well one is I'm gonna say knowing your place in this space so when we think about what we're doing in our research one question is – maybe alright so a lot of what we heard about today is right up in here and we know there's different levels of explanation within the basic research but we did see some trending down here into into things that start to sound closer to the applied world and so thinking about the work in terms of what am I actually doing and how far is my reach what is the coverage I actually have in terms of the way I can think about my dance so how far to my yet does my evidence actually go and then the second is an appreciation for that whole space so what additional input would be informative not necessarily how do I immediately translate my work but just what information from these other parts of the space would help me to think about what I'm doing and at what stage so together these two pieces are really about that extending versus over extending understanding understanding this space the other one is that the interim steps are critical so the example they gave about kind of jumping right from the science into practice is really the critical piece of don't leap the gap the gap is there it needs to be it needs to be bridged and so figuring out how we build those bridges and I have to say when I think about this I'm gonna be honest and say that understanding the right steps that get you from your evidence to a practice is probably the hardest part figure out who's gonna do that I find that to be probably my most challenging piece of all this when I start to think about the work I'm doing in throughout the spectrum I'm always thinking what really where is the critical where are those critical steps and what do we need to do and am I really going to do these probably not in many cases but who is so what do I need to be talking to a big piece of this also means collaborative teams so as we've been talking throughout the day and the question has been coming up I think we already know in the basic science area that talking to each other helps us an awful lot and that's true also when you're talking about translation and this this goes in two directions one is the appropriate expert jeez so Barbara was mentioning our project on block building where we knew we needed expertise from engineering to help us along the way the other part of it though is also stakeholder input and this goes back to that idea of progress who can help you who is this likely to affect and how can they help you as well so what should that look like the NSF has been emphasizing advisory boards more and more for grants and oftentimes when you talk to how to put together an advisory board it's not necessarily all other scientists you know in many cases it's who's out in the world that this might affect so that you can really get that stakeholder input the other piece is well-defined acceptable evidence so in the work that Pasteur did on learning styles one of the really satisfying pieces of it was laying out what would I count as evidence what would I take to be meaningful evidence and I think this actually speaks to both what constitutes support and what supports extension of this work as well and then what's missing from that evidence so in what we do have and then I said I think we're missing an awful lot of evidence on effectiveness but what would it look like what would what would satisfy my my concern about that and I actually think that this particular piece of well-defined acceptable evidence is something we need to be thinking about both in terms of the way we do the educational neuroscience that is our actual practice of science but I think it's also really important in the neuro education realm as well that is when we're talking about how do we teach teachers we probably need to be thinking about this evidence piece in a very serious way that gets back to this whole notion of if they're not distinguishing science from pseudoscience we're not doing a very good job of teaching them about evidence and the last piece is one that I'm sure Kelly you'll resume let's meet with Kelly very well because she's heard me say this and she says it this relationship really does need to be bi-directional that is if we are serious about bridging that gap we need to be thinking from both sides as to how we're how our goals are related and I would argue that what this means is we're talking about evidence inform practice when we talk about taking the science and bringing it out to practice but I also think that we need to be doing practice research of her serious about these kinds of gaps the impact and translation will really only happen if we can actually understand each other's goals so what I'm advocating for here is practitioners talking to scientists scientists talking to practitioners and one teacher I went to a professional development and I started with so tell me a little bit about some of the problems you have in your classroom and she looked at me with this look of just complete shock at first and she said but you're a neuroscientist and and I said well I know but I said I I do want to hear and she said well it's not gonna be relevant I'm like why are you at a professional with me if you think of what I do you think I don't think your problems are relevant it was a very interesting conversation and I will say that part of this is also driven just by experience there's a lot of the work I've done over the years I used to actually separate my outreach and here's my research and I started to realize how much those were impacting each other because what the teachers were saying to me was actually helping to shape even the way I thought about my basic science so this is sort of avoid just being the talking head you know we are often the experts coming in with knowledge for the teachers but we need to hear what they say as well okay so I'm gonna end on just the parting thoughts first I just would say that I think though I've kind of taken a bit of a negative slant on a lot of this to say oh there's problems there's problems there's problems I actually do think it's a really exciting time to be part of the science of learning because it has this potential to strongly impact areas like education education itself is interdisciplinary science of learning is interdisciplinary and so I think that there's a natural relationship here that we really could exploit if we start thinking about it carefully I think we're actually poised for this kind of impact as well as impact on the foundational knowledge as well so for me this is in just a great space to be in the second is that I talked about translation minded or practice minded if you're talking about education specifically that translation minded does not necessarily mean that your work is translational research I'm not suggesting I'm not advocating for everyone in the room to suddenly there's a new translational research I work I work in a more of an applied space don't do necessarily direct translational research but being translation minded simply means having that as part of the the scheme and then the last which I'm going to just emphasize one more time is that the research to practice gap really does require genuine crosstalk between scientists and practitioners in order to make a difference and so my hope is that this is really just the start of this kind of conversation what we need is some models to actually drive it we need to be thinking more about how do we create these various things as I said figuring out the steps that it takes to go from one to the other and I'm gonna dance gonna probably get up here and talk a little more specifically about some you know some of the specific areas but I'm really hoping that this is the start of the way we sort move into this space and with that I will again thank everybody I know it's going to be the end of the day I appreciate your attention I'm just curious we all have had plenty of anecdotes and studies about the persistence of students with misconceptions about how they don't want it we've all seen how they can wallpaper over a misconception have the sufficient explanation that is scientific and even regurgitate it on the exam and so we've trained them and they yet misconception persists and I guess I'm just curious as to what do we know about what is necessary how do we go about removing the misconceptions they have to be done first before you can really layer on a new knowledge and and what do we know in this neuroscience sense how do you learn something if you will learn a new a better paradigm shift I mean I can I can intercept primarily from the standpoint of how we think about this in in the context of of these really strongly persistent myths less so for say in a classroom where you've taught one concept in but the mists themselves persist because they're often comfortable and they're often validate so take learning style it's not a big surprise that those have persisted because someone who comes and say they do a workshop on on you know neuroscience and we teach them let's say we do an workshop we teach them that the learning styles data suggest doing that's not necessarily helpful if I haven't gotten them to really buy into why buy into the evidence for it buy into the strength of it or I haven't done that enough so one question here is how much is enough training so you know it's neuroscience experts didn't didn't have problems with some of these pieces but you know what is really enough training so if I don't do enough training and now the teacher goes back into their setting their classrooms doesn't be a teacher we go back into life and all around us it's really easy to see something like learning styles persist for example I like information visually I will fully confirm that if you gave me a learning styles inventory I would come out as someone who'd be labeled as a visual learner I love graphs I like to put graphics up I'm very very comfortable with things being presented to me visually if I'm not very very knowledgeable about the fact that that still shouldn't drive how I learned things and in fact if anything I should challenge my other my other modalities some I'm gonna fall back into that so teacher goes back into a classroom her coal or his goal that day is going to be to deal with these thirty kids that are there and in many cases thinking about it that way is just an easier way to go back to and in fact we've built a lot of educational tools around that so all of the resources that I have have those pieces in mind as well and that makes such as very challenging so I think we're still gonna have to figure out so what would it take and how important is it for us to change it at a system level as well so that that can infiltrate down and that's a problem that maybe isn't necessarily for those of us in the direct research realm but it's certainly something that should be part of the conversation that is what at the system level needs to change as well I have two questions one is is there a single example of some fundamental from neuroscience that has made it into educational practice anything anything at all and seconds what happened to the relationship between education and psychology I mean who needs neuro signs anyway don't we have perfectly good psychological theories that should have primacy over weird integration of neuro babble into incoherent classroom practices so as a cognitive psychologist prior to being a neuroscientist I actually so in a lot of cases I've kind of conflated the the cognitive science and the neuroscience here I think and the rationale for that has been actually to get to your point would be that I think when we're starting to talk teachers we should actually default first to what we what do we know about cognitive science there's a whole lot in cognitive science that we have in psychology that has not gotten into the educational system and for the same reasons I'm pointing out here the interesting thing about that is there is it hasn't been this cognitive education its neuro education actually if you look at the neural education programs the bulk of it is is psychology and cognitive science with a little marker added to it for neuroscience and maybe that has to do with the persuasive nature of the neuroscience they tagged it with a brain image and it makes it more satisfying we have to wrestle with why that is and what we do about that we know that's true in the media we know it's true in the educational realm so I actually would largely agree with you that a lot of what we could translate could be done from what we know about the psychology of learning I tend to group those things kind of into the big bundle of science of learning oh I know you're gonna come back to that see me try to dodge that directly from neuroscience into education I mean the closest one is a dyslexia case where the things that have been developed for dyslexia are actually helping with reading programs now in ways that I don't think would have happened if there hadn't been that shift in the dyslexia oh so that's removed but it's got the right steps something direct like I said I'm a big believer that you have to have these in between steps and in many cases the in between steps are a better understanding of the cognition I just want to offer one answer to David's question which is my answer is somewhat flat I did when I realized when I said it's flat footed I didn't mean your question but but you know I think that I I think it's a point well taken that specific findings from neuroscience haven't properly made it into education and maybe they shouldn't but an awareness that change takes place in the brain and that brains can change with learning is enormous ly empowering to educators to think that when they are doing something there's something going on in this organ and that that's a change that that in and of itself it's not very profound in a way it's not what we would sort of take as news but I think that's actually very very empowering so that's all I'm okay abut and also Amy showed us the evidence from Deena Weisberg and Frank Kyle that if you stick in some some totally pointless doesn't help anything brain references mumbo-jumbo in your description people rate it higher okay so so unlike Howard Gardner's multiple intelligences of the psychology and apply that or you could pay attention to some mumbo jumbo about the brain and apply and try and apply that and the data show us that humans are very strongly in favor of hearing things about what lights up and what does that and so the teachers are just humans like any other humans they just want to hear about that and they just want to learn that way although I would say as Amy said for the gardener work sometimes hearing things the way you want to hear them isn't the best thing for you [Applause]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *