The promise and pitfalls of neuroeducation as a grounding for instructional practice

This narrative inquiry study explored how five educators from a language-based neuroeducation program apply and assess neuroeducation-grounded approaches in the classroom, and investigated their perceptions of the challenges and merits of neuroeducation implementation. It synthesized research from the domains of neuroscience, cognitive psychology, and language theory, and applied Neuro-Semantic Language Learning Theory (NsLLT) as its underpinning. The study found that teachers’ self-efficacy, feelings of isolation coupled with a lack of greater buy-in, and mindset mismatch are barriers to neuroeducation implementation, whereas the ability to meet students’ needs, the established results witnessed by participants, and the opportunity for a paradigm shift are merits. This study adds to the existing body of research on a neuroeducation model predicated on language function. PROMISE AND PITFALLS OF NEUROEDUCATION 3 Introduction The Need for Neuroeducation In order to meet the needs of learners, educators must have a foundational understanding of the brain and its workings. After all, “Can a profession whose charge is defined by the development of an effective and efficient human brain continue to remain uninformed about the brain” (Sylwester, 1995, p. 6)? Neuroscience sheds light on the mechanisms and neural underpinnings of learning, which in turn informs educational policies and practices (Goswami, 2008; Petitto, 2008). There are inherent barriers to seamlessly merging disparate domains, however. Tommerdahl (2010) noted it is unlikely that a single study in neuroscience will have a direct application to the school setting, but perhaps aggregations of various studies will inform teaching methodologies. Ferrari (2011) underscored the need for sensitive integration of neuroscientific insights into education, to avoid reductionism. Arnold (2016) suggested that a bridge between suggestion and prescription is lacking, and Tommerdahl (2010) posited that although neuroscience may have a role to play in education, complex relationships exist between the brain sciences and classroom-ready teaching methods. Since it is virtually impossible to directly transfer findings from the laboratory to the classroom (Tommerdahl, 2010), a third field of study is needed to mediate the relationship between neuroscience and education. Bruer’s (1997) seminal research suggested that psychology should be the third discipline included in the triad, as the learning theories borne of psychology serve as a filter through which to interpret neuroscientific and educational research. A model premised on interrelatedness and connectivity has the potential to propel educational practices, and neuroeducation is one such model by which to re-envision teaching and learning. Furthermore, neuroeducators (Fuller & Glendening, 1985; Gardner, 2008) play an important role PROMISE AND PITFALLS OF NEUROEDUCATION 4 in the transdisciplinary approach, serving as brokers who triangulate and share findings among the neuroeducational domains. They are the crucial linchpins whose translational work can exponentially inform educational practices. Making the Case for Language For the purpose of this study, neuroeducation is defined as a collective discipline that merges neuroscience, cognitive psychology, and language theory (Arwood, 2011). Seminal theorist Lev Vygotsky (1978) posited that the interrelatedness of thought and word is of indisputable importance, while Halliday (1993) contended that developing language is learning to mean: “Because human beings are quintessentially creatures who mean (i.e., who engage in semiotic processes, with natural language as prototypical), all human learning is essentially semiotic in nature” (p. 93). In accordance with this viewpoint, Arwood’s (2011) Neuro-Semantic Language Learning Theory (NsLLT) posits that the brain creates meaning as the basis for language function and suggests that learning occurs as a series of functional processes, as opposed to a set of additive structures. It also provides insights on language as a crucial mediator in learning, behavior, and socialization. If language is indeed the essential condition of knowing (Halliday, 1993), its role in learning and thinking cannot be minimized. According to Arwood and Young (2000), cognition pertains to the way people process information, or the way they think based on the way their brain functions. The authors contended that while some students are auditory processors, the majority of students are in fact visual learners who need to create pictorial images or visuals in their minds. Yet, the education system is solidly rooted in an auditory curriculum, thereby creating a disparity between students’ needs and schools’ orientations. This particular neuroeducational approach includes methods such as performing hand-over-hand drawing, creating picture dictionaries, and using pictorial images to PROMISE AND PITFALLS OF NEUROEDUCATION 5 represent ideas and concepts. The consideration of language in a neuroeducation model is novel, but Arwood (2011) posited that language is a key mediator in the triad, as language function represents thinking and is paramount to the learning process. Therefore, this research is framed by a novel language-based model of neuroeducation and underpinned by Arwood’s NeuroSemantic Language Learning Theory (NsLLT). Although neuroeducation has gained traction in recent years, there is a dearth of information on how it is implemented in the classroom. This is especially true for a neuroeducation model mediated by language theory, as it is a nascent field of study. Therefore, this study sought to investigate how neuroeducation has filtered into the school setting, the ways in which educators’ practices have been informed by Neuro-Semantic Language Learning Theory (NsLLT), and what those on the frontlines perceive as the benefits and challenges of neuroeducation. This research extrapolated salient findings from the literature on neuroscience, cognitive psychology, and language to determine where gaps exist and understand future directions for research. Self-Efficacy In order to explore the school-based implementation of an initiative such as neuroeducation, there must be a consideration of teachers’ self-efficacy. Bandura (1977) defined self-efficacy as people’s perceived capacity – whether accurate or not – to produce a desired effect. Researchers have discussed a lag in teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs as they attempt to put a new method into practice (Stein & Wang, 1988; Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). Teachers’ selfefficacy is often contingent upon feedback, encouragement, and support from others (TschannenMoran et al., 1998). According to Tunks and Weller (2009), implementation of an innovation increases significantly when accompanied by continuing, regular support. However, as PROMISE AND PITFALLS OF NEUROEDUCATION 6 neuroeducators are relatively scarce and tend to work in isolation, validation and feedback may be lacking. Teacher Isolation Another facet to consider in the adoption and implementation of neuroeducation relates to teachers’ feelings of isolation, or marginalization, within their respective settings. According to Lortie (1975), the egg-crate architecture of schools does little to engender collaboration. Insularity means that teachers have few opportunities to collaborate or observe colleagues at work (Davidson & Dwyer, 2014). A study by McQuat (2007) found that special education teachers are often isolated and marginalized. Moreover, they may lack social capital, which involves relationships, collaboration with colleagues, and ties to external experts and professional development. Although the study was couched in a different context, it may be fair to assume that neuroeducators are similarly isolated and marginalized. Their social capital may be diminished if they are unable to collaborate with likeminded individuals or engage in meaningful professional development centered on a topic to which they have devoted their professional lives. Methodology This research study utilized a narrative inquiry design. Narrative inquiry is a dynamic process in which a researcher studies the lives of participants and asks individuals to tell their stories (Creswell, 2014; Clandinin & Connelly, 2000). The researcher then relives and retells those stories in narrative form (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000). At its essence, narrative inquiry is a way to understand experience. As Glesne and Peshkin (1992) explained, the crucial role of a qualitative researcher is that of learner. The researcher is a “curious student who comes to learn from and with research participants” (p. 36) as opposed to an expert or authority on the given PROMISE AND PITFALLS OF NEUROEDUCATION 7 topic. Thus, in order to understand how neuroeducators are navigating implementation of this nascent approach, their stories must be heard. Five participants from a language-based neuroeducation program, who work in varying educational settings, comprised the study. This research utilized three forms of data collection as a means of triangulation: pre-interviews, classroom observations, and post-interviews. Intentional heterogeneity was desired in order to illuminate how neuroeducation neophytes and veterans embed neuroeducation in their instructional practices, and to determine how participants implement neuroeducation in various school sites. The data were “narratively coded” (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000, p. 131) to find interweaving storylines, apparent gaps or silences, and emerging continuities or discontinuities. Member checking is pivotal to the research process (Creswell, 2014; Maxwell, 2005), and especially so in a narrative inquiry design, wherein the researcher tells participants’ stories. Therefore, study participants had the opportunity to review the transcriptions and final narratives for accuracy. Findings Application and Assessment of Neuroeducational Approaches In regard to