Fri, Nov 22, 2024
| فارسی
Volume 24, Issue 3 (Autumn 2022)
Advances in Cognitive Sciences 2022, 24(3): 57-72 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Nouri A. The NeuroEduTeacher program: An in-service teacher development program for promoting neuroeducation literacy of teachers. Advances in Cognitive Sciences 2022; 24 (3) :57-72
URL: http://icssjournal.ir/article-1-1226-en.html
URL: http://icssjournal.ir/article-1-1226-en.html
Associate Professor of Curriculum and Instruction, Department of Educational Sciences, Malayer University, Malayer, Iran
Abstract: (1214 Views)
Introduction
The field of educational neuroscience is growing rapidly with the support of international organizations, professional journals, and academic programs to become an interesting and exciting subject for both academic researchers and professional educators. The field's ultimate goal is to bring together insights from neuroscience, psychology, cognitive science, and education to enhance teaching and learning (10, 13). However, the scholar's efforts in this direction have not been very successful or have not yet achieved the desired outcomes. Several studies have recently shown that many teachers are still not well trained in translating brain knowledge into pedagogical practice and the neuromyths are still believed by many teachers in different countries (18-29).
To this understanding, during the last two decades, an increasing existed emphasis on incorporating the science of learning into teacher professional development programs to effectively enhance teachers’ neuroeducational literacy and lower the misleading influence of neuromyths on their understandings of learning and pedagogy (26). This issue is cricial because designing effective education programs for in-service teacher professional development is now widely recognized as the most critical of many important factors that combine to create the overall quality of education.
Although several studies have been published on the importance of educational neuroscience for educational policy and practice (9-15), few species have translated education neuroscience for teachers (40-42). Similarly, educational neuroscience training has not yet been included in teacher-training programs or professional development (33). To this end, the present study was conducted to develop a curriculum framework that would improve the neuroeducational literacy of teachers as a part of their professional knowledge.
Methods
The present study is a systematic review (30) of the literature that has focused on the concepts and issues related to teachers’ neuroeducational literacy. To select the documents, the peer-review articles and books written in English searched using the terms: “Neuroeducation and Teacher”, “Teachers and Educational Neuroscience”, “Mind, Brain and Education and Teachers”, “Education, Neuroscience, and Teachers Training”, “Neuroscience for teachers”. The articles were searched using keywords through the ERIC and PubMed databases, and the books by title through the Google Books website. The initial search identified 147 articles in ERIC and 447 articles in PubMed. Since several articles were indexed jointly in both databases, a total of 512 articles were considered as a collection of research articles. In addition, in search of the books, 32 books were identified on Google Books website. After an overview of the titles and topics of the selected sources, only the items selected were related to the research problem. As a result of this process, eight articles and three related books were identified as being of sufficiently high quality for this systematic review. These documents were first reviewed with a brief overview to obtain a general understanding of the topics. Subsequently, each was carefully analyzed, and key points related to the research topic were extracted from them. In the next step, the key points extracted from all the reviewed sources were combined and organized according to the purpose of the research in the categories of objectives, content, learning opportunities, and assessment, which were the basic components or elements of a curriculum design.
Results
The proposed curriculum framework derived from this study was constructed by adopting a systematic review of the previous literature, which has predominantly focused on educational neuroscience training for teachers (31-42). The developed framework, so-called “NeroEduTeacher Program”, characterizes the four primary components (i.e., instructional objectives, curriculum content, instructional strategies, and assessment procedures), which collectively form the essential components for a curriculum design aimed to enhance the neuroeducational literacy of teachers. It starts with learning outcomes, moves to syllabus planning, and incorporates learning experiences, followed by assessing participants’ performance.
In terms of learning outcomes, the NeroEduTeacher program is systematically designed to extend teachers’ knowledge and understanding of essential concepts, and terminology used in educational neuroscience to improve teachers’ literacy and awareness of those aspects of neuroeducational knowledge, which are relevant to their professional practice, to develop teachers’ understanding of the neuroeducation-supported principles underlying learning and effective strategies for teaching derived from those principles, to extend teachers’ familiarity with educational neuroscience resources and materials useful for their teaching profession, to develop teachers’ skills and attitudes to evaluate the current neuroeducation knowledge, and, where appropriate, to adapt or create new useful knowledge.
To achieve these learning outcomes, the curriculum syllabus should contain coverage of eleven units, including “the foundations for educational neuroscience”, “neuroeducational research methodology”, “neuroplasticity and brain development”, “social cognition”, “computational modeling”, “language development and literacy acquisition”, “mathematics cognition”, “scientific reasoning”, “arts and aesthetics”, “developmental disabilities”, and “neuromythology”.
Teaching the proposed syllabus successfully requires adopting a situated learning approach and providing a variety of authentic learning opportunities to create a learning environment that encourages problem-solving, engagement, and active collaboration. A need to provide a variety of learning opportunities existed for teachers situated in a context in which teaching takes place. There is also a need to thoughtfully provide teachers with neuroeducational bases of teaching at a level that is clear and easily understood yet does not compromise scientific validity. The program needs a duration of 55 to 70 hours of intensive training to show reasonable changes in the learning outcomes.
Teachers need to participate effectively in the course and meet the assessment requirements. They are required to show knowledge and understanding of relevant concepts and principles to contain in the curriculum syllabus through performance-based or authentic assessment procedures. Teachers need to be able to draw on this knowledge and understand to evaluate their strengths and weaknesses and develop solutions.
Conclusion
Educational neuroscientists strongly suggest that teaching the basics, concepts, and findings of educational neuroscience should be the focus of teacher training programs to equip teachers with valid neuroeducational knowledge and to reduce the spread of neuromyths. Accordingly, the present study, by combining the results of previous studies proposes a curriculum- the NeroEduTeacher program- to promote teachers' neuroeducational literacy during their in-service training courses as a part of teachers’ professional knowledge development. The program has the potential to promote teachers’ neuroeducational literacy and consequently reduce the spread of neuromyths among teachers. Therefore, it is suggested that this literature study on the matter be followed by an expert survey, then a case study, and ending with analyses of teachers’ efficacy and their attitudes toward the program.
Ethical Considerations
Compliance with ethical guidelines
Ethical approval is not required since the data synthesized in this systematic review are the results extracted from m already published studies.
Authors’ contributions
The author of this paper has not received any contribution in the writing process.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the present research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Acknowledgments
The author thanks Mahmoud Talkhabi for his guidance and constructive feedback on reporting the study findings.
Conflict of Interest
The author declared no conflict of interest.
The field of educational neuroscience is growing rapidly with the support of international organizations, professional journals, and academic programs to become an interesting and exciting subject for both academic researchers and professional educators. The field's ultimate goal is to bring together insights from neuroscience, psychology, cognitive science, and education to enhance teaching and learning (10, 13). However, the scholar's efforts in this direction have not been very successful or have not yet achieved the desired outcomes. Several studies have recently shown that many teachers are still not well trained in translating brain knowledge into pedagogical practice and the neuromyths are still believed by many teachers in different countries (18-29).
To this understanding, during the last two decades, an increasing existed emphasis on incorporating the science of learning into teacher professional development programs to effectively enhance teachers’ neuroeducational literacy and lower the misleading influence of neuromyths on their understandings of learning and pedagogy (26). This issue is cricial because designing effective education programs for in-service teacher professional development is now widely recognized as the most critical of many important factors that combine to create the overall quality of education.
Although several studies have been published on the importance of educational neuroscience for educational policy and practice (9-15), few species have translated education neuroscience for teachers (40-42). Similarly, educational neuroscience training has not yet been included in teacher-training programs or professional development (33). To this end, the present study was conducted to develop a curriculum framework that would improve the neuroeducational literacy of teachers as a part of their professional knowledge.
Methods
The present study is a systematic review (30) of the literature that has focused on the concepts and issues related to teachers’ neuroeducational literacy. To select the documents, the peer-review articles and books written in English searched using the terms: “Neuroeducation and Teacher”, “Teachers and Educational Neuroscience”, “Mind, Brain and Education and Teachers”, “Education, Neuroscience, and Teachers Training”, “Neuroscience for teachers”. The articles were searched using keywords through the ERIC and PubMed databases, and the books by title through the Google Books website. The initial search identified 147 articles in ERIC and 447 articles in PubMed. Since several articles were indexed jointly in both databases, a total of 512 articles were considered as a collection of research articles. In addition, in search of the books, 32 books were identified on Google Books website. After an overview of the titles and topics of the selected sources, only the items selected were related to the research problem. As a result of this process, eight articles and three related books were identified as being of sufficiently high quality for this systematic review. These documents were first reviewed with a brief overview to obtain a general understanding of the topics. Subsequently, each was carefully analyzed, and key points related to the research topic were extracted from them. In the next step, the key points extracted from all the reviewed sources were combined and organized according to the purpose of the research in the categories of objectives, content, learning opportunities, and assessment, which were the basic components or elements of a curriculum design.
Results
The proposed curriculum framework derived from this study was constructed by adopting a systematic review of the previous literature, which has predominantly focused on educational neuroscience training for teachers (31-42). The developed framework, so-called “NeroEduTeacher Program”, characterizes the four primary components (i.e., instructional objectives, curriculum content, instructional strategies, and assessment procedures), which collectively form the essential components for a curriculum design aimed to enhance the neuroeducational literacy of teachers. It starts with learning outcomes, moves to syllabus planning, and incorporates learning experiences, followed by assessing participants’ performance.
In terms of learning outcomes, the NeroEduTeacher program is systematically designed to extend teachers’ knowledge and understanding of essential concepts, and terminology used in educational neuroscience to improve teachers’ literacy and awareness of those aspects of neuroeducational knowledge, which are relevant to their professional practice, to develop teachers’ understanding of the neuroeducation-supported principles underlying learning and effective strategies for teaching derived from those principles, to extend teachers’ familiarity with educational neuroscience resources and materials useful for their teaching profession, to develop teachers’ skills and attitudes to evaluate the current neuroeducation knowledge, and, where appropriate, to adapt or create new useful knowledge.
To achieve these learning outcomes, the curriculum syllabus should contain coverage of eleven units, including “the foundations for educational neuroscience”, “neuroeducational research methodology”, “neuroplasticity and brain development”, “social cognition”, “computational modeling”, “language development and literacy acquisition”, “mathematics cognition”, “scientific reasoning”, “arts and aesthetics”, “developmental disabilities”, and “neuromythology”.
Teaching the proposed syllabus successfully requires adopting a situated learning approach and providing a variety of authentic learning opportunities to create a learning environment that encourages problem-solving, engagement, and active collaboration. A need to provide a variety of learning opportunities existed for teachers situated in a context in which teaching takes place. There is also a need to thoughtfully provide teachers with neuroeducational bases of teaching at a level that is clear and easily understood yet does not compromise scientific validity. The program needs a duration of 55 to 70 hours of intensive training to show reasonable changes in the learning outcomes.
Teachers need to participate effectively in the course and meet the assessment requirements. They are required to show knowledge and understanding of relevant concepts and principles to contain in the curriculum syllabus through performance-based or authentic assessment procedures. Teachers need to be able to draw on this knowledge and understand to evaluate their strengths and weaknesses and develop solutions.
Conclusion
Educational neuroscientists strongly suggest that teaching the basics, concepts, and findings of educational neuroscience should be the focus of teacher training programs to equip teachers with valid neuroeducational knowledge and to reduce the spread of neuromyths. Accordingly, the present study, by combining the results of previous studies proposes a curriculum- the NeroEduTeacher program- to promote teachers' neuroeducational literacy during their in-service training courses as a part of teachers’ professional knowledge development. The program has the potential to promote teachers’ neuroeducational literacy and consequently reduce the spread of neuromyths among teachers. Therefore, it is suggested that this literature study on the matter be followed by an expert survey, then a case study, and ending with analyses of teachers’ efficacy and their attitudes toward the program.
Ethical Considerations
Compliance with ethical guidelines
Ethical approval is not required since the data synthesized in this systematic review are the results extracted from m already published studies.
Authors’ contributions
The author of this paper has not received any contribution in the writing process.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the present research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Acknowledgments
The author thanks Mahmoud Talkhabi for his guidance and constructive feedback on reporting the study findings.
Conflict of Interest
The author declared no conflict of interest.
Keywords: Educational neuroscience, Professional development, Teacher training, Neuroeducation literacy, In-service training
Received: 2020/12/15 | Accepted: 2022/07/21 | Published: 2022/11/15
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
