Neurodidactics

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neurodidactics is a collective term for various practice-oriented approaches that claim to develop didactic or pedagogical concepts, taking into account the findings of the neurosciences and especially recent brain research .

Emergence

The term “neurodidactics” has entered the popular discussion about the pedagogical relevance of brain research in the recent past, but it has had a certain shadowy existence in specialist pedagogical literature. Overall, however, it can be stated that the number of qualified publications on the topic has been increasing somewhat for some time.

This term was suggested in the late 1980s by the didactic specialist Gerhard Preiss, "to emphasize the importance of making the results of modern brain research accessible for didactics and to test their pedagogical applicability" (Friedrich 2005, p. 8). Nonetheless, Preiss himself hardly contributed to the substantiation of the content. Since the beginning of the 1990s, Gerhard Friedrich has also devoted himself to the development of "neurodidactics" and expanded it to include general didactic issues in his habilitation thesis. Above all, Friedrich also investigates the extent to which well-known pedagogical findings and didactic principles can be confirmed and substantiated in more depth by modern brain research. Independent didactics or even subject didactics cannot justify neurodidactics, says Friedrich. For fundamental reasons, neurobiological statements are too unspecific for these subject areas.

In the meantime there is a wide variety of authors (scientists and practically working didactics) who use the term to denote their didactic positions.

Basic assumptions

Most neurodidactic works are based on the (scientifically based) assumption that the material prerequisite for all psychological or intellectual performance (including learning) is only the brain or the central nervous system . She goes on to assume (in relation to traditional didactics and pedagogical teaching-learning research) that comprehensive knowledge of the material processes occurring in the brain is required in order to be able to design learning environments efficiently and effectively.

Building on this, some neuroscientists (e.g. Spitzer 2003a, 2003b, 2005), but also educators (e.g. Friedrich 2005, Herrmann 2006) are of the opinion that the knowledge available today about neuronal brain processes already provides sufficient indications for development such new, more efficient didactic methods provide and have proposed appropriate recommendations and concepts. The most prominent here are probably the so-called number garden by the mathematics didacticist Preiss and the project Come along to numbers , which the educational scientist Friedrich and the psychologist Munz have scientifically investigated.

Learning processes

According to Margret Arnold (Herrmann, Ulrich, p. 189ff) there are (based on Renate Nummela Caine) twelve principles that structure or should structure learning / teaching:

  • Students must have the opportunity to have concrete experiences.
  • When learning processes are integrated into social situations, they are more effective.
  • Learning processes are more effective when the interests and ideas of the learners are taken into account.
  • Learning is more effective when the existing prior knowledge is mobilized.
  • If positive emotions are incorporated into learning, it is more effective.
  • If students understand how the learned details are related to a whole, they can memorize the details better.
  • With the appropriate learning environment, learning becomes more intense.
  • Learning is improved when there is time to reflect.
  • Learning is better when students can combine information and experience.
  • Learning processes are more effective when individual differences between learners are addressed.
  • Students learn better when they are in a supportive, motivating, and challenging environment.
  • Learning is more effective when talents and individual skills are taken into account.

With these aspects, other focal points in learning processes are named and emphasized than is e.g. B. learning theory does, although it might be difficult to formulate essential contrasts, for example to instrumental conditioning (reinforcement learning). (See also: Margret Arnold, 2009, pp. 190–192)

criticism

It is largely undisputed that the neurosciences provide interesting insights into basic learning processes at the neuronal level. What is questionable, however, is the further thesis that these insights are of practical relevance for the design of school learning environments. This criticism is presented not only by educators and psychologists, but also by well-known brain researchers such as Gerhard Roth (cf. Becker / Roth 2004); see also the research report of the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF, 2005 Teaching and Learning Research and Neurosciences ( Memento from May 16, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) (PDF; 1.2 MB)).

The criticism of neurodidactics starts at various points. In a nutshell, developmental psychologist Elsbeth Stern (cf. Blakemore & Frith 2006, introduction) advocates the following thesis: The attempt to improve the German education system with the help of neurosciences is comparable to the plan to use a neurophysiological description of hunger to reduce malnutrition in the world fight.

In detail, the criticism of the practical relevance of the neuroscientific knowledge gained so far for pedagogy / didactics includes the following core theses:

  • Critics point out in particular that neurodidactic methods or concepts can not be derived from the neuroscientific studies or research findings to which they refer; corresponding especially imaging methods ( fMRI ; cf. Bopp 2006 [2] ) are too coarse with regard to their spatial and temporal resolution, investigate learning processes and learning content that are too primitive and their overall too artificial and far from school to allow concrete information on the design of school learning environments ( low external validity). Here, the long and methodologically differentiated tradition of empirical teaching research (cf. e.g. Terhart 2000) would still be the more appropriate way of empirically checking didactic concepts with regard to their effectiveness.
  • In addition, the neurodidactic methods or concepts presented so far are not essentially new , but rather reformulated with a new terminology what has been part of the repertoire of methods in general didactics and educational psychology for a long time (partly since reform pedagogy at the beginning of the 20th century); So it is largely a question of old wine in new bottles.
  • Brain research, if at all, will only be of practical use in the near future in special areas of educational diagnostics.
  • The term neurodidactics is therefore used by many authors as a marketing label to give their own didactic position more attention and authority by referring to a currently highly regarded natural science. What is striking is the arbitrariness of the conclusions that neurodidactists and others who are interested in pedagogical use draw from neuroscientific research results. Mostly, a general relevance of neurodidactics is assumed, which is somehow good for everything - whether it is confirmation, correction or renewal. First and foremost, “neuroconformity semantics” (Müller 2005, p. 84) are used here, “which are intended to create the impression of something innovative and neuroscientific” (ibid.).

However, critics of neurodidactics (cf. Becker 2006) also point out that despite their insignificance for the planning of educational practice, pedagogy / educational science should nevertheless take a critical view of the neurosciences for reasons of discipline policy . B. To be able to use arguments to counter attempts to replace educational teaching-learning research with neuroscience.

They see opportunities for cooperation between educational science and the neurosciences most likely where the investigation of neurophysiological correlates of learning and behavioral disorders (e.g. reading disorders, language development disorders, attention disorders ( ADHD ), etc.) is concerned. However, a look into the brain cannot replace a pedagogical-psychological diagnosis, and therapeutic interventions cannot be derived from such findings (cf. also Goswami 2004).

literature

  • Arnold, M. (2002): Aspects of a modern neurodidactics. Emotions and cognitions in the learning process. Munich: Ernst Vögel Verlag
  • Arnold, Margret: Brain-based Learning and Teaching - Principles and Elements, in Herrmann, Ulrich: Neurodidaktik (2009), Beltz Verlag, Weinheim (2nd edition), pp. 182–195
  • Becker, N. & Roth, G. (2004): Brain Research and Didactics. A look at current reception perspectives. In: Adult Education, 50, no. 3, pp. 106–110.
  • Becker, N. (2006a): Review article on: Friedrich, Gerhard (2005): Allgemeine Didaktik und Neurodidaktik. An investigation into the importance of theories and concepts of learning, especially neurobiological ones, for general didactic theory formation. Peter Lang. Frankfurt am Main. In: Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 20, H. 1–2 / 2006. Pp. 125-130.
  • Becker, N. (2006b): The Neuroscientific Challenge of Education. Bad Heilbrunn / Obb .: Publishing bookstore Julius Klinkhardt.
  • Becker, N. (2007): Learning Neuromodally. In: WOZ - Die Wochenzeitung, edition of May 24, 2007, page 23. Online at: http://www.woz.ch/artikel/2007/nr21/wissen/14986.html
  • Blakemore, Sarah-Jayne & Frith, Uta (2006): How We Learn. What brain research knows about it. Munich: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 2006. ISBN 3421059225
  • Friedrich, G. (1994). Suggestive teaching and learning methods from a neurodidactic point of view. In: Pädagogik und Schulalltag, 49, (pp. 209–217).
  • Friedrich, G. (1995). The practicality of neurodidactics. An analysis and evaluation tool for subject didactics. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
  • Friedrich, G. u. Streit, Chr. (2002). What goes on in the head. Findings from brain research and their significance for elementary education. In: Herder Verlag; Kindergarten today, September, (pp. 6–11).
  • Friedrich, G. u. Preiss, G. (2003). Neurodidactics. Building blocks for building bridges between brain research and didactics. In: Pädagogische Rundschau, March / April, 57th year, (pp. 181–199).
  • Friedrich, G. (2004). Build the bridge from two sides. What can neurodidactics offer education? In: Theory and Practice of Social Pedagogy. Edition 2/2004 (pp. 36–38).
  • Friedrich; G. u. Preiß, G. (2005). Teaching with brains. In: Spectrum of Science; Brain & Mind (Dossier 2), (pp. 32–39).
  • Friedrich, G. (2005): General Didactics and Neurodidactics. An investigation into the importance of theories and concepts of learning, especially neurobiological ones, for general didactic theory formation. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
  • Friedrich, G. (2006). “Neurodidactics” - a new didactics? Two practical reports from new methodological and didactic territory. In: Herrmann, U. (Ed.) Neurodidaktik. Beltz Verlag, pp. 217-233.
  • Friedrich, G. u. Munz, H. (2006). Promotion of previous school skills through the didactic concept “Come with us in the land of numbers”. In: Psychology in Education and Teaching, 2006, 53 (pp. 132–144).
  • Friedrich, G. u. Galgóczy, V. (2010). Come with us to the land of numbers. A playful journey of discovery into the world of mathematics. 5th edition Freiburg: Herder.
  • Giesinger, Johannes (2006): Education of the Brain? Free will, brain research and education. In: Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft 9 / Heft 1, pp. 97–109.
  • Goswami, U. (2004): Neuroscience and Education. In: British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 74, No. 1, pp. 1-14.
  • Herrmann, U. (Ed.) (2006): Neurodidactics - Basics and suggestions for brain-friendly teaching and learning. Weinheim and Basel: Beltz Verlag, pp. 215–228.
  • Heckmair, B. et al. Michl, Werner (2012): From the hand to the brain and back. Moving learning in the focus of brain research. Augsburg: ZIEL Verlag 2012
  • Löwenstein, Sascha: "People-Images. Imaging Methods in Brain Research and Their Significance for Educational Sciences", in: Helmer, K. / Herchert, G. / Löwenstein, S. (Ed.) (2009): Image - Education - Argumentation. Würzburg: Königshausen and Neumann, pp. 157–178. Easily understandable introduction to the technology of imaging processes and the creation of "brain images" as well as critical appreciation of their importance for pedagogy and didactics.
  • Frank Chr. Petersen: "Limits of learning", Verlag Dr. Müller
  • Müller, T. (2005): Pedagogical Implications of Brain Research. Neuroscientific findings and their discussion in educational science. Berlin: Logos Verlag.
  • Schumacher, Ralph : Brain research and school learning, in: Herrmann, U. (Hrsg.) (2006): Neurodidaktik - Basics and suggestions for brain-friendly teaching and learning. Weinheim and Basel: Beltz Verlag, pp. 124–133
  • Spitzer, M. (2003a): Learning. Brain research and the school of life. Korr. Nachdr. Heidelberg, Berlin: Spectrum, Akad. Verl.
  • Spitzer, M. (2005): Beware of the screen! Electronic media, brain development, health and society. Stuttgart, Düsseldorf Leipzig: Ernst Klett Verlag.
  • Stern, Elsbeth : How Much Brain Does School Need , in: Herrmann, U. (Ed.) (2006): Neurodidaktik - Basics and Suggestions for Brain-Appropriate Teaching and Learning. Weinheim and Basel: Beltz Verlag, pp. 116–133.
  • Terhart, E. (2000): Teaching-learning methods. 3rd edition Weinheim: Juventa.
  • Treml, AK (2006): Does education have to be reinvented ?, quarterly journal for scientific pedagogy, issue 3, 2006, p. 388ff.

Web links

  • Becker, N. (2006): Pedagogy and brain research - a preliminary assessment of the discussion. German Youth Institute (10/2006). Topic of the month: change and continuity in the life course. View from outside I. [3]
  • Becker, N. (2007): Learning Neuromodally. In: WOZ - Die Wochenzeitung, edition of May 24, 2007, page 23. Online at: http://www.woz.ch/artikel/2007/nr21/wissen/14986.html
  • Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) (2005): Teaching-Learning-Research and Neurosciences - Expectations, Findings, Research Perspectives. Educational Reform Series Volume 13, Bonn, Berlin [4] (PDF; 1.2 MB)
  • Bopp, M. (2006): Review of “Manfred Spitzer: Caution Screen! Electronic media, brain development, health and society. Stuttgart, Düsseldorf Leipzig: Ernst Klett Verlag 2005 ”. In: Erziehungswissenschaftliche Revue 5, 2006. Julius Klinkhardt Verlag. [5]
  • DIE ZEIT (July 1, 2004 No. 28): Who makes school smart? Brain research, says neuroscientist Manfred Spitzer. The learning researcher Elsbeth Stern contradicts: Germany's teachers need better tools for teaching [6]
  • DIE ZEIT: In the land of fairytale numbers. http://www.zeit.de/2003/40/Neurodidaktik4
  • Paulus, J. (2003): Learning recipes from the brain laboratory. With the help of neurobiology, scientists want to revolutionize education. The evidence for their theses is scanty. DIE ZEIT September 11, 2003 No. 38 [7]
  • Spitzer, M. (2003b): Medicine for Education. Why we can't afford not to study learning scientifically. An answer to Jochen Paulus' attack against "neurodidactics". DIE ZEIT September 18, 2003 No. 39 [8]

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ z. B. Becker 2006, 2006a, 2006b, Bopp 2006, Paulus 2003, star in DIE ZEIT from July 1, 2004 No. 28 [1]