Talk:Educational neuroscience

Page start

Welcome to the Talk:Educational Neuroscience page.

This page is an informal forum for questions, comments and debate on the topic of Educational Neuroscience.

This page can and will be edited and reorganised as the need emerges, but for now please use the edit buttons to add conference announcements, and to ask questions, respond to questions, or post comments on any relevant topic.

According to Wikipedia guidelines, please sign your posts (see above).

--Grprice (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice work Grprice! I've moved the page from Educational Neuroscience (both caps) to Educational neuroscience to conform to wikipedia rules on capitalization. A few other quick comments:

- The lede of the article is too short. We need to provide greater background for the novice.

- We need to make links to relevant pages, both from this article, and from other relevant articles. I can start on that now that the article is in the correct place. For example, Laura-Ann Pettito has an article, and we could link to this one. Educational psychology could link to this. Numerical cognition, Numeracy, Subitizing, Reading (process), Dyscalculia, Dyslexia... etc, etc. Just think of the things that are related to Educational neuroscience, and make some links.

- I've got some stuff that I worked on on a "sandbox" page User:Edhubbard/Mind_Brain_and_Education that we can probably also use. I'm going to be bold and improve the lede right now, and will probably start work on other aspects of the article shortly.

Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Another thing that we should do is to go through all of the references and find dois/pmids for all of them that have them. Even though some of the education journals aren't listed in pubmed, they should at least have dois. Edhubbard (talk) 19:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Additional clean-up issues: Some of the references, are not actually live when cited on the second or third appearance on the page. Also, I feel like the section on "A bridge too far?" is too long. A judicious summary of the points of the Ansari article and the Varma article would be better here. But, these are minor points. Edhubbard (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Backwards Copy (vio?)

Hi, I've just discovered that the following book, "Educational Neuroscience" "Edited" by Jesse Russell and Ronald Cohn appears to be a substantial backwards copy of this article. As the blurb for the book on Amazon states clearly: "High Quality Content by WIKIPEDIA articles! Educational neuroscience (also called Mind Brain and Education; MBE) is an emerging scientific field that brings together researchers in cognitive neuroscience, developmental cognitive neuroscience, educational psychology, educational technology, education theory and other related disciplines to explore the interactions between biological processes and education. Researchers in educational neuroscience investigate the neural mechanisms of reading,numerical cognition,attention and their attendant difficulties including dyslexia,dyscalculia and ADHD as they relate to education. Researchers in this area may link basic findings in cognitive neuroscience with educational technology to help in curriculum implementation for mathematics education and reading education. The aim of educational neuroscience is to generate basic and applied research that will provide a new transdisciplinary account of learning and teaching, which is capable of informing education. A major goal of educational neuroscience is to bridge the gap between the two fields through a direct dialogue between researchers and educators, avoiding the "middlemen of the brain-based learning industry". These middlemen have a vested commercial interest in the selling of "neuromyths" and their supposed remedies." http://www.amazon.com/Educational-neuroscience-Jesse-Russell/dp/551310850X/

Note that this is a verbatim copying of the lead of this article as it stood sometime around February 17, 2012 ([[1]]), the date this book was first "published". I am currently flagging this as a backwards copy for now, but given that they are selling this book for $19.95 (even with attribution) this appears to be a violation of the standard Creative Commons License that governs all contributions to wikipedia, which would actually make it a copyvio. I am currently working to open an investigation into this. Edhubbard (talk) 11:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Ed, the CC License permits commercial and derivative use with attribution, so I'm not seeing a problem here. For better or worse, there's a cottage industry of for-profit publishers repackaging Wikipedia content. Wikipedia permits it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey Tryptofish, Thanks for your input. I raised this over at the Administrators Noticeboard and the consensus there was that, even if we disagree with it morally, the CC license does permit this [2]... so, yeah, what you said. Even though it's not a vio, it is a clear backwards copy, which is all the tag at the top of the talk page indicates, so I'll leave that, but it's good to have a clear statement here that this isn't against the CC license. Honestly, at some point in the not too distant future, if we're rigorous about this, we'll just have to tag every article in wikipedia with the {{backwardscopy}} as it appears that VDM Publishing (through their various imprints) is just going to go through about every article in wikipedia. Cheers, Ed Edhubbard (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Link to 'Emotional Intelligence'?

Under the 'Social and emotional cognition' subtitle is a discussion of 'The concept of Emotional Intelligence' - there is a separate wikipedia page for 'Emotional Intelligence', so it would make sense to link through to it. However, I hesitate to add that link, as I perceive the text about EI on the 'educational neuroscience' page as more favourable to EI than the text on the EI page, which criticises EI on a substantial number of levels.

Learnwonder (talk) 08:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)Learnwonder

Thanks for pointing that out. I just added the link. I suspect we eventually ought to revise this page to make the treatment more balanced, in the sense of being more critical, but that's no obstacle to providing a link for our readers. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

How does Educational neuroscience differ from Neuroeducation?

Both pages are extant and both pages clearly link to each other via 'see also', however, I find it confusing - there have been any number of terms to refer to this emerging field (is it scientific, or academic?) - are both of these terms valid? who uses which term most? which one is more prevalent or do they have equal standing? If there is competition between the terms, perhaps this ongoing debate needs making more explicit?

From the two pages:

"Neuroeducation is an interdisciplinary field..."

"Educational neuroscience (also called Mind Brain and Education; MBE) is an emerging scientific field..."

Perhaps this distinction will suffice, but I wonder if a little more explication would help - certainly I find it hard to differentiate them. Maybe something more about naming would be really helpful, especially given the 'brain-based learning' etc 'movements' which do seem to have muddied the water somewhat...

It's great work here btw and I'm grateful for the time and attention given!

Cheers Learnwonder (talk) 09:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)Learnwonder

I put those "see also" links here just a few days ago, when I discovered that the other page existed. Actually, I think it's inappropriate to have both pages, and the other page should be merged into this one. I just didn't feel like going to the trouble of starting a merge discussion, so I put the "see also" links on each page and waited to see if there was any reaction. Seeing your comment here makes me more inclined to think that merging would be a good idea. It seems to me that the other page relies on a rather obscure neologism, that may fail Wikipedia's notability requirements. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think merging would make sense :-)

Learnwonder (talk) 10:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)Learnwonder

OK, then let's start to make it official. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Per the discussion immediately above, I propose to merge Neuroeducation into this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support. As proposer. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that it has become clear that there is no objection, and there has been enough time for an objection to show up, so I'm going to go ahead and carry out the merge. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I hope there is no objection - as far as I can tell on first readings, it's a seamless merging, really fantastic work!

Learnwonder (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC) Bill

Thanks! By the way, I don't really have an answer to the question you ask in the talk section below, but you should feel free to go ahead and delete anything you feel is not backed up by source material (per WP:BURDEN). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The role of educators - unsubstantiated claims

This is a very useful section, and I like the inclusion of Byrnes and Fox's categories, nice overview.

However, I take issue with the Bennett & Rolheiser-Bennett (2001) paragraph - I haven't read the article, and the text here looks fine until "The bodies of knowledge discussed include multiple intelligences, emotional intelligences, learning styles, the human brain, children at risk and gender."

multiple intelligences, emotional intelligence and learning styles have all been criticised and are largely unproven - and if gender refers to male brain vs female brain, it's a neuromyth.

Learnwonder (talk) 10:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Cheers, Bill

Section headings

Minor thing, but per MOS:SECTIONS, section headings should not contain questions. Does anyone know a good way to rename them? Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 01:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Plagiarism and copyright issues?

Section: Neuroscience and education: A bridge too far? A large part of this section appears to have been copied directly from this book: Cognitive Science in Education and Alternative Teaching Strategies, page 51. I suggest the offending parts be removed completely and replaced with balanced and referenced material. Any comments? John NH (talk) 13:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC)