Exploring the Nature and Meaning of Theory in the Field of Neuroeducation Studies
Authors: Ali Nouri
Neuroeducation is one of the most exciting research fields which is continually evolving. However, there is a need to develop its theoretical bases in connection to practice. The present paper is a starting attempt in this regard to provide a space from which to think about neuroeducational theory and invoke more investigation in this area. Accordingly, a comprehensive theory of neuroeducation could be defined as grouping or clustering of concepts and propositions that describe and explain the nature of human learning to provide valid interpretations and implications useful for educational practice in relation to philosophical aspects or values. Whereas it should be originated from the philosophical foundations of the field and explain its normative significance, it needs to be testable in terms of rigorous evidence to fundamentally advance contemporary educational policy and practice. There is thus pragmatically a need to include a course on neuroeducational theory into the curriculum of the field. In addition, there is a need to articulate and disseminate considerable discussion over the subject within professional journals and academic societies.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1126019Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 1091
 Cubelli R. (2009). Theories on mind, not on brain, are relevant for education. Cortex, 45, 562–4.
 Nouri, A. (2013). Practical Strategies for Enhancing Interdisciplinary Collaboration in Neuroeducational Studies. International Journal of Cognitive Research in science, engineering and education (IJCRSEE), 1 (2).
 Donmoyer, R. (1999). The continuing quest for a knowledge base: 1976-1998. In J. Murphy & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration (2nd ed.) (pp. 25-43). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
 Stein, Z. & Fischer, K. W. (2011). Directions for mind, brain, and education: Methods, models, and morality. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43 (1), 56-66.
 Immordino –Yang, M. H. (2011). Implications of affective and social neuroscience for educational theory. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43 (1), 98-103.
 Hirsh-Pasek, K. & Bruer, J. T. (2007). The brain / education barrier, Science, 317, 1293.
 Kerlinger, F. N. (1973). Foundations of behavioral research (2nd ed). New York: Holt & Winston.
 Ball. S. J. (1995). Intellectuals or technicians? The urgent role of theory in educational studies, British Journal of Educational Studies, 43 (3), 255-271, DOI: 10.1080/00071005.1995.9974036.
 Dow, P. B. (1991). School house politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
 Imsen, G. (1999). Reflection as a bridging concept between normative and descriptive approaches to didactics. TNTEE Publications, 2 (1), 95- 106.
 Kelly, A. E. (2011). Can cognitive neuroscience ground a science of learning? Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43 (1), 17-23.
 Eisner, E. W. (1995). The Educational Imagination (third edition). Macmillan College Publishing Company: New York.
 Dewey, J. (1963). Experience and education. Macmillan, New York.
 Kazepides, T. (1994). “Assembling reminders for a particular purpose”: The nature and dimensions of educational theory. Canadian Journal of Education, 19 (4), 448-463.
 Adams, J., Cochrane, M. & Dunne, L. (2011). Applying theory to educational research: An introductory approach with case studies. Wiley-Blackwell
 Devonshire, I.M. & Dommett, E.J. (2010). Neuroscience: Viable applications in education? The Neuroscientist 16(4) 349 –356.
 Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientiﬁc discovery. New York: Basic Books.