Directions for Mind, Brain, and Education: Methods, Models, and Morality
Abstract
In this article we frame a set of important issues in the emerging field of Mind, Brain, and Education in terms of three broad headings: methods, models, and morality. Under the heading of methods we suggest that the need for synthesis across scientific and practical disciplines entails the pursuit of usable knowledge via a catalytic symbiosis between theory, research, and practice. Under the heading of models the goal of producing usable knowledge should shape the construction of theories that provide comprehensive accounts of human learning and development spanning multiple levels of analysis. Under the heading of morality usable knowledge must be put to good use: Its application and dissemination ought to be infused with moral considerations gleaned from dialogue among all those potentially affected. Generally, the field should be shaped not only by its constituent scientific disciplines but also by its applications to education and learning. Thus we argue for the adoption of a kind of pragmatism that would be best actualized by building research‐school collaborations between researchers and practitioners.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Stein and Fischer insisted that the study of morality be included in educational research and practice and that there is such a standard as "good".
“In this call for comprehensive models, Stein and Fischer (2011) not only insisted that the study of morality be included in educational research and practice, they insisted there is such a standard as “good” (p.57).”
From Differences of Mean Scores on the Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test (PSAT) for Classical Christian Schools Compared to Non-Classical Christian Schools (2019) · cites this paper as Stein & Fischer, 2011
Mind, Brain, and Education (MBE) is a new interdisciplinary field seeking to combine research and practice among the biological, psychological, and educational sciences.
“According to Stein and Fischer (2011), Mind, Brain, and Education (MBE) is a new field of study and is an interdisciplinary field seeking to combine research and practice among the biological, psychological, and educational sciences.”
From Differences of Mean Scores on the Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test (PSAT) for Classical Christian Schools Compared to Non-Classical Christian Schools (2019) · cites this paper as Stein & Fischer, 2011
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Vaughan, C. A. (2019) · Journal of Research on Christian Education · doi:10.1080/10656219.2019.1704326 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Stein, Z., & Fischer, K. W.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- ORCID
- Stein, Zachary
- Venue
- Educational Philosophy and Theory
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2011-01
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 56-66
- ISSN
- 0013-1857 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-5812
- OpenAlex
- W1981658716
- Cited by
- 51
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 1.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Educational Philosophy and Theory (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroscience, Education and Cognitive Function
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational theories and practices
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Education, Philosophy, and Society
- Keywords
- usable knowledge, levels of analysis, pragmatism, interdisciplinary research, research dissemination
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review