Search

This paper critically examines the application of research into cognitive neuroscience to educational contexts. It first considers recent warnings from within the neuroscientific community itself about the limitations of current neuroscientific knowledge and the urgent need to dispel popular 'neuromyths' which have become accepted in many classrooms. It also criticises the use of over-simplified neuroscience to add scientific credibility to curricular reform, as has been the case in the rationale behind the recent implementation of the Northern Ireland Revised Curriculum. The paper then draws on the philosophy of Wittgenstein to highlight a further conceptual confusion which often surrounds the application of neuroscience to education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent policy in England has suggested that educational outcomes will be raised if schools specialise in particular subjects. In contrast, calls for the reform of 16-19 education have suggested that these outcomes will be improved if students become less specialised in their studies. At present, there is a limited evidence base from which to judge these arguments. In particular, we do not know the extent to which students' achievements in 16-19 education are higher when they choose subjects which play to their perceived strengths. We also do not know whether students are more likely to choose to study subjects taught by more effective departments. That is, outcomes may be affected by the relative strengths of students or departments in circumstances where there is freedom to choose. In this paper we provide evidence of the existence and strength of these relationships. This evidence suggests that reducing the scope within schools for specialisation or competition will reduce average student attainment and these effects ought to be taken into account when evaluating alternative curriculum policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]