Under the microscope #1: neuropedagogy
The world of learning is constantly evolving, with its technologies, its innovations, its uses... and its jargon! While real advances exist, misunderstandings or fantasies can also cause confusion. Our “Under the microscope” section aims to analyze these latest learning trends, in light of the research and scientific knowledge we have to date, in order to better understand them and identify the contexts conducive to their good use.
Neuropedagogy, as it is classically considered, covers only a part of the scientific disciplines that can inform the trainer's practice. If we want to be exhaustive, it is therefore better to talk aboutEvidence-based learning. More than a fashion,Evidence-based Learning consists in choosing training methods whose effectiveness has been proven by scientific research. This work makes it possible to guide certain educational choices (should I put my learners into activity?) as well as some strategic choices (can we train The learners the oldest?).
Who, in the world of training, has never heard of neuropedagogy? This movement, which claims to make teaching methods and content more respectful of our brain, has become one of the biggest trends in training. There are countless popular books, thematic conferences, and training courses for trainers on this subject. Some teachers even train there in their free time! Relying on the neurosciences, that is to say the study of the anatomy and functioning of the brain, the promise of neuropedagogy is ambitious : improve the memorization of educational content using methods from the laboratory.
Because it gives us a glimpse of what's going on in our personal black box, neuropedagogy is fascinating: isn't it amazing to see our brains learn using the latest imaging techniques?
This results in a kind of “neurofascination”, which precisely gives us positive preconceived views on everything that talks about mastermind... regardless of the quality! This bias was demonstrated when researchers presented learners with texts describing a cognitive phenomenon (memory, attention, etc.) (1). For the same phenomenon, the researchers varied two properties:
On average, The learners found explanations of phenomena more satisfactory with neuroscientific vocabulary, regardless of the real quality of the explanation. This effect is all the stronger for poor explanations, whose poor quality is compensated for in the eyes of learners by neuro-jargon. In summary, as soon as we hear about the brain, we are already half convinced because it seems so serious to us! But once this fascination is neutralized, what does neuropedagogy really contribute to training?
When you read neuropedagogy guides for training professionals, you will find a bit of everything: generalities on the functioning of memory (“before entering into long-term memory, the information that is extracted from the environment goes through working memory.”) or scientific results from neurosciences (“When learning to read, we notice a specialization of a part of the visual cortex in letter processing”). However, sometimes, these guides provide trainers with little information to adjust their teaching content accordingly.
Take the case of learning by active recollection (Retrieval practice), a pedagogical method that requires learners to make an effort to remember by themselves and without help the concepts that have just been taught to them. During a neuroscience study, learners were laid down in an MRI scanner and had to learn a list of words, which they then revised either by active recollection or by simply rereading it. We note that those who actively remembered the list of words mobilized their anterior hippocampus, lateral temporal cortex, and medial prefrontal cortex more strongly than other learners (2). The researchers conclude that learning by remembering allows better encoding of information and a closer relationship with pre-existing knowledge. The process at work during active memory learning is thus better understood, but what can the trainer of this information do ? If studies conducted in other disciplines show that this method is more effective, how can we, thanks to this result alone, effectively implement such learning with more complex educational content and in varied training contexts?
In reality, neuroscience from which neuropedagogy is based have, alone, little to offer to trainers. Their ambition is to describe the way in which the brain changes its anatomy and its functioning following an apprenticeship, that is to say The what. For their part, the trainer's objective is to put in place the most favourable conditions for this learning, i.e. The how. Thus, while neuroscience is very useful for researchers, it is much less useful for training.
However, should we reject everything related to neuropedagogy? Of course not: neuroscience provides results that are undeniably useful. In addition to explaining why certain pedagogies are more effective, they make it possible to deconstruct certain prejudices. For example, it has been shown that thanks to brain plasticity, the oldest learners are still able to learn, which challenges fatalistic ideas that “nothing is possible after 50” (3). However, to get real benefits, you have to look beyond the brain.. Learning is a complex activity, which covers many dimensions, first of all cognitive (the way in which we perceive, analyze and remember information), but also social (the relationship we have with our identity and our group). Other scientific disciplines address them more specifically and provide answers to the practical needs of trainers. More than neuropedagogy, it is therefore better to talk about “”Evidence-based learning”, that is to say educational practices based on scientific studies from various fields (and not only neuroscience).
Let's go back to the example of learning by active recollection. Another discipline, cognitive psychology studies how we perceive, analyze, and remember information from our environment. Several studies in this discipline have looked at learning through active memory, which we discussed earlier. A first compared the effectiveness of two ways of putting learners into activity: by having them do a mind map (or Mindmap) the concepts contained in the teaching material (which was always available) or by asking them to take a quiz on the concepts studied (with no pedagogical support available) (4). At first glance, these two activities require effort on the part of the learners. However, it turns out that the realization of Mindmap was equivalent to a passive learning method, while using quizzes was more effective both for pure memory questions and for questions where the learner has to transfer what they have learned to new situations.
Other studies in cognitive psychology show that the effectiveness of learning by active memory depends on the complexity of the concepts to be transmitted: while it is interesting to put learners into activity on simple concepts, complicated concepts are best learned through passive and explicit transmission (5).
From these two results, the trainer draws practical recommendations to be adapted according to the context he is facing... and better understands the neuroscience result presented previously.. THEEvidence-based Learning is therefore a rich approach, which makes it possible to reinforce the different dimensions of an apprenticeship and to maximize the chances that your training will leave a trace in the memory of your learners!
1) Weisberg, D.S., Keil, F.C., F.C., Goodstein, J., J., Rawson, E., & Gray, J.R. (2008). The Seductive Allure of Neuroscience Explanations. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 20 (3), 470-477.
2) Wing, E.A., Marsh, E.J., & Cabeza, R. (2013). Neural correlates of retrieval-based memory enhancement: an fMRI study of the testing effect. Neuropsychology, 51 (12), 2360-2370.
3) Marcotte, K. & Ansaldo, A.I. (2014). Age-related behavioural and neurofunctional patterns of second language word learning: Different ways of being successful. Brain and Language. 135, 9-19.
4) Karpicke, J.D., & Blunt, J.R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science, 331 (6018), 772-775.
5) Van Gog, T., & Sweller, J. (2015). Not New, but Nearly Forgotten: The Testing Effect Decreases or Even Disappears as the Complexity of Learning Materials Increases. Educational Psychology Review, 27 (2), 247-264.
Prenez directement rendez-vous avec nos experts du eLearning pour une démo ou tout simplement davantage d'informations.
Under the magnifying glass
Under the magnifying glass
