The DOI matches its Crossref record; 110 of the 110 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Annual Research Review: Educational neuroscience: progress and prospects
Open accessAbstract
Educational neuroscience is an interdisciplinary research field that seeks to translate research findings on neural mechanisms of learning to educational practice and policy and to understand the effects of education on the brain. Neuroscience and education can interact directly, by virtue of considering the brain as a biological organ that needs to be in the optimal condition to learn (‘brain health’); or indirectly, as neuroscience shapes psychological theory and psychology influences education. In this article, we trace the origins of educational neuroscience, its main areas of research activity and the principal challenges it faces as a translational field. We consider how a pure psychology approach that ignores neuroscience is at risk of being misleading for educators. We address the major criticisms of the field comprising, respectively, a priori arguments against the relevance of neuroscience to education, reservations with the current practical operation of the field, and doubts about the viability of neuroscience methods for diagnosing disorders or predicting individual differences. We consider future prospects of the field and ethical issues it raises. Finally, we discuss the challenge of responding to the (welcome) desire of education policymakers to include neuroscience evidence in their policymaking, while ensuring recommendations do not exceed the limitations of current basic science.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Michie, S., van Stralen, M. M., & West, R. (2011) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-6-42 · Cited by 13,697
Diamond, A. (2013) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750 · Cited by 13,268
(2005) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 3,609
The attention system of the human brain: 20 years after
Petersen, S. E., & Posner, M. I. (2012) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev-neuro-062111-150525 · Cited by 3,439
Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100612453266 · Cited by 3,138
Understanding adolescence as a period of social–affective engagement and goal flexibility
Crone, E. A., & Dahl, R. E. (2012) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn3313 · Cited by 2,507
Education for Growth: Why and for Whom?
Krueger, A. B., & Lindahl, M. (2001) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.39.4.1101 · Cited by 2,060
Best, J. R., Miller, P. H., & Naglieri, J. A. (2011) · Learning and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2011.01.007 · Cited by 1,294
The influence of improvement in one mental function upon the efficiency of other functions. (I).
Woodworth, R. S., & Thorndike, E. L. (1901) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0074898 · Cited by 1,223
Do “brain-training” programs work?
Simons, D. J., Boot, W. R., Charness, N., Gathercole, S. E., Chabris, C. F., Hambrick, D. Z., & Stine-Morrow, E. A. L. (2016) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100616661983 · Cited by 1,183
Cited by
Bogo, M., Kourgiantakis, T., Burns, D., King, B., & Lee, E. (2021) · Clinical Social Work Journal · doi:10.1007/s10615-020-00777-6 · Cited by 24
Metadata
- Authors
- Thomas, M. S. C., Ansari, D., & Knowland, V. C. P.
- Venue
- Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2018-10-22
- Volume
- 60
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 477-492
- ISSN
- 0021-9630 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-7610
- OpenAlex
- W2912341603
- Cited by
- 265
- References
- 110
- FWCI
- 9.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.