Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Educational trends in China point to an interest in the adoption of neurotechnology to support learning. Although these tools hold tremendous potential, their adoption and use may be negatively impacted by teachers’ lack of knowledge about how the brain learns. In this article, we present an argument for providing teachers in China with training in the Science of Learning in preparation for the potential adoption of neurotechnology. While the specific professional development requirements needed to prepare teachers to use neurotechnology are unknown, teacher deficits in neuroscience knowledge, along with previously reported benefits make training in the Science of Learning an attractive solution. This training may also pave the way for school-university research collaborations that further our understanding of how the brain learns in the real world. Ethical considerations, and recommendations for training development and implementation are also discussed.

Keywords

teacher education neurotechnology teacher professional development science of learning educational neuroscience

The use of neurotechnology, the “assembly of methods and instruments that enable a direct connection of technical components with the nervous system” (Müller & Rotter, 2017), continues to attract considerable attention as an innovative solution for supporting educational practices in classrooms around the world. Presently, it is unclear what form of professional development would support the successful adoption of these tools by classroom teachers. One possible solution can be found in providing teachers with training in the Science of Learning, “the scientific study of the underlying bases of learning with the goal of describing, understanding, or improving learning across developmental stages and diverse contexts,” (Privitera et al., 2023a). Because teachers are generally not introduced to the basic tenets of neuroscience (a key contributor to the Science of Learning) during their training, information provided by neurotechnology (e.g., differences in student attentional states) may be of little use in their teaching practice. Providing teachers with an introduction to learning-related neuroscience through training in the Science of Learning may build a sufficient foundation from which to draw, empowering them in their exploration of effective ways of acting on insights provided by neurotechnology.

In this article, we present an argument for providing training in the Science of Learning to teachers during pre-service education or in-service professional development. Growing evidence supports that training of this kind can provide teachers with a stronger understanding of how the brain learns, empowering them with an additional lens through which they can view pedagogical decisions (Privitera, 2021). We argue that training in the Science of Learning can simultaneously prepare teachers to effectively utilize neurotechnology in the classroom by directly addressing a current gap in their professional knowledge. Finally, this training may lay the foundation for school-university research collaborations in support of further developing our understanding of how the brain learns in the real world. While the argument we present is not necessarily specific to China, tremendous educational technology investment, interest in educational innovation, and government support create the ideal conditions for China to be the first country to successfully adopt neurotechnology on a wide scale.

China: A Future Epicenter for Educational Neurotechnology?

China gained international attention for their use of neurotechnology in October 2019 after one project at Jinhua Xiaoshun Primary School in Zhejiang Province was covered by the Wall Street Journal (Wang et al., 2019). The project in question was a classroom-based pilot investigation into the use of consumer-grade neurotechnology similar in design to electroencephalogram (EEG) systems widely used in research and clinical settings. Specifically, a small number of sensors capable of measuring the brain's electrical activity were embedded in a headband that could be unobtrusively worn by students during a classroom lesson. Drawing inspiration from research informed by cognitive learning theories that highlight the importance of attention in learning (e.g., Hedges et al., 2013; Keller et al., 2020; Polderman et al., 2010), this tool provided teachers with the ability to monitor their students’ attentional states in real time. Based on measured activity, a light attached to the headband would display a color that represented each student's attentional state: solid blue for “soft attention,” yellow for “mindful,” and red for “focused.” Together with specialized software capable of displaying attentional state data for an entire class on a single computer, teachers were provided with an innovative new way to gauge their students’ attention during a lesson. This approach is undeniably innovative, aligning with both an older trend in the use of technology to support learning and a recent trend in the use of wearables (Attallah & Ilagure, 2018; Hernandez-de-Menendez et al., 2019; Motti, 2019). While the adoption of educational technology is not a new phenomenon, the above example pushes this trend to a level previously unseen in a real-world educational environment.

The project described above provides one example of how neurotechnology can be used in real classroom settings in support of teaching and learning. To date, a number of studies have explored the application of these tools to provide insight into brain activity across diverse student populations (e.g., Babiker et al., 2019; Davidesco et al., 2023; Dikker et al., 2017; Ko et al., 2017; Poulsen et al., 2017; Ramírez-Moreno et al., 2021; Sezer et al., 2015; Sezer et al., 2017). One feature of these studies is the common use of modified EEG devices that are capable of measuring the brain's electrical activity at the scalp (but see Brockington et al., 2018). This trend is likely a consequence of the noninvasive nature of EEG, and the development of affordable, consumer-grade systems (Debener et al., 2012). These tools are often paired with intuitive software APPs that provide teachers with visualizations ranging from simplistic color or verbal labels for a student's attentional state (e.g., attentive, drowsy, etc.), to visualization of complex brain oscillations. Labels provided may be helpful in identifying students who are losing focus, but additional information about the student (e.g., Is the student working on a task?) and understanding of the brain (e.g., How do I address cognitive fatigue?) is needed before teachers are able to act on this information effectively.

Given China's unique position as the world financial leader in educational technology (Geromel, 2019), and with Chinese corporate giants including Tencent and Alibaba continuing to invest and innovate in education, the stage is set for an educational technology revolution. The adoption of neurotechnology in education has the potential to fundamentally change the way that teaching and learning occur. Technology that was once only available at high cost to skilled researchers can now be purchased by nonexperts for around the price of the latest smartphone. Together with intuitive user interface applications, these tools are being touted as the next big thing in education (Privitera & Du, 2022). While no doubt exciting, the use of neurotechnology in classrooms expands the job responsibilities of teachers into an area where they lack sufficient preparation. To become the world leader in educational neurotechnology, teacher educators in China must find a way to ensure that current and future teachers are prepared. One attractive solution can be found in providing teachers with foundational knowledge about how the brain learns based on research from the Science of Learning. Training of this kind would directly address an extant gap in professional knowledge that is highly relevant to teaching and learning, aligning with previous calls to educate teachers about the brain (Deans for Impact, 2015; Society for Neuroscience, 2009; The Royal Society, 2011). Crucially, this training may also provide teachers with the foundational knowledge and confidence needed to support the successful adoption of educational neurotechnology in their classrooms.

Teacher Education: Learning to Change the Brain by Ignoring the Brain?

In China, like elsewhere in the world, the role of teacher encompasses a diverse set of duties far beyond the stereotypical and inaccurate “deliverer of content knowledge.” Teachers are facilitators of learning who hone their students’ cognitive and practical skills, support their moral, emotional, and social development, while simultaneously serving as role models, coaches, and cheerleaders. Teachers as reflective practitioners are also, in a sense, scientists, as they generate hypotheses through their observations and reading of educational theories, conduct studies in their classes, and share their findings with fellow teachers and school administrators. To prepare for this role, teachers are generally expected to earn a degree from a college or university, pass a certification exam, and participate in ongoing professional development during their career.

Becoming a teacher in China typically begins with enrollment at a Normal University or College. During their course of study, students complete training in the educational and behavioral sciences, often with a focus on pedagogy and psychology (Chen, 2001). While preparation in these disciplines gives teachers a solid foundation to draw from in their practice, critics have expressed concern over the lack of focus on classroom application in these courses (Jin, 2007). Additionally, while cognitive, developmental, and social psychology are essential topics in any introductory psychology course, the lack of neuroscience or biological psychology coverage neglects one of the core pillars of psychology (American Psychological Association, 2014), creating a void in knowledge about the organ that is most relevant in the context in which teachers operate. While the above criticism could be seen as an indictment of teacher education in China, the lack of educationally relevant neuroscience content (i.e., findings from the Science of Learning) appears to be an issue across teacher preparation programs worldwide (Coch, 2018).

The surprising lack of content on the Science of Learning in teacher training, given that learning is inherently a result of brain activity, raises questions. Despite the clear and undeniable link between the brain and learning, the incorporation of neuroscience findings into education remains contentious. Although there is some belief that findings from neuroscience are of limited or no use to those in the field of education (Bruer, 1997; , Horvath & Donoghue, 2016), many researchers remain optimistic (Colvin, 2016; Dubinsky et al., 2022; Goswami, 2006; Sigman et al., 2014; Thomas et al., 2019). To many, the inclusion of research findings from the Science of Learning in teacher training makes perfect sense given the role that teachers play in supporting student cognitive development. Despite this, as well as expressed interest from teachers (Zambo & Zambo, 2011), and policy recommendations in the United Kingdom (The Royal Society, 2011) and the United States (Society for Neuroscience, 2009), coverage of these topics in teacher training is almost entirely nonexistent. While some exceptions exist, including Harvard's Mind, Brain, and Education program, and the integration of educational neuroscience concepts into psychology and pedagogy courses at East China Normal University (Gao, 2015), these serve a very small minority of teachers. This lack of action could be interpreted as evidence that teacher educators believe that findings from the Science of Learning are of little benefit to teachers; a reasonable conclusion given the limited research on the topic (reviewed in Privitera, 2021). Alternatively, it may stem from the misinterpretation of calls to provide teachers with training in neuroscience as calls to train teachers as neuroscientists. The presentation of findings from the Science of Learning with an emphasis on application to teaching can better support teachers in making use of this important information (Coch, 2018).

Consequences of Not Educating Teachers About the Brain

While the majority of teacher education programs worldwide have not begun to incorporate topics from the Science of Learning into their curriculum, the opposite trend can be observed outside of academia. Organizations including Learning & the Brain provide multiple professional development workshops annually that are purportedly based on the latest research findings from the Science of Learning. Outside of professional development, a number of predatory programs including Brain Gym claim to provide teachers with the latest in research-based tools to support teaching and learning in their classrooms. Although the purported benefits of these programs are attractive to motivated teachers in search of opportunities to improve their effectiveness, most of these programs are designed based on neuromyths, “a misconception generated by a misunderstanding, a misreading, or a misquoting of facts scientifically established (by brain research) to make a case for use of brain research in education and other contexts” (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2002). Teachers lacking training in the Science of Learning are unable to evaluate these claims and may find themselves advocating for the adoption of programs that are costly, ineffective, and not based on findings from actual research.

Teachers’ simultaneous interest and lack of training in how the brain learns may, in part, support the perpetuation of neuromyths (e.g., students learn better when information is presented in their preferred learning style) in the field of education (Goswami, 2006; Howard-Jones, 2014). Despite large-scale attempts to address these misconceptions in the early 2000s (e.g., the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development's Brain and Learning Project) recent studies report that these neuromyths still persist among educators in countries across the globe (Torrijos-Muelas et al., 2021), including China (Pei et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2019). While it is reasonable to expect that belief in neuromyths could negatively impact teaching quality, the relationship may not be entirely straightforward. In one study, Horvath et al. (2018) found no difference in the acceptance of neuromyths on 87% of survey items when comparing samples of award-winning and nonaward winning teachers from the United Kingdom, the United States, and Australia (Dekker et al., 2012; Deligiannidi & Howard-Jones, 2015; Howard-Jones et al., 2009; Karakus et al., 2015). While these findings suggest that neuromyths may not have a direct negative effect on teaching quality, it is possible neuromyth belief does not negatively impact exceptional teachers in a way that can be measured. Alternatively, the criteria used to determine which teachers receive awards may not be sensitive to outcomes that are impacted by belief in neuromyths. Although the question of whether neuromyth belief can negatively impact education remains open, the connection between teacher beliefs and practices supports that the potential exists (Ainley & Carstens, 2018).

Why Teachers Should Learn About the Brain

The exclusion of research findings from the Science of Learning in teacher training should not be taken as evidence that training of this kind is thought to have negative effects. While there is no known evidence that training in the Science of Learning is harmful for teachers, there is a growing body of evidence to support that this training can provide a number of significant benefits (Privitera, 2021). It is important to reiterate that the proposal to incorporate findings from the Science of Learning into teacher training is not calling for teachers to be trained as neuroscientists. Teaching and scientific research represent distinct professions, each with its own unique priorities and objectives. The skills developed by a neuroscientist may not be applicable or beneficial to a classroom teacher, and conversely, the skills honed by a teacher may not align with those required by a neuroscientist. For this reason, it is important that findings from the Science of Learning be presented with a focus on the end goal of teaching, not research (Coch, 2018). This information offers a novel perspective for educators to evaluate their pedagogical decisions, enabling them to contemplate the implications of these choices in relation to how the brain learns.

Given the prevalence of neuromyths among educators (e.g., Deligiannidi & Howard-Jones, 2015; Ferrero et al., 2016; Karakus et al., 2015; Pei et al., 2015; Torrijos-Muelas et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2019), along with the potential that these beliefs could lead to less effective teaching and learning, a primary aim of training teachers in the Science of Learning should be to reduce belief in neuromyths. Previous work has indeed found that training of this kind reduces belief in neuromyths (Macdonald et al., 2017; McMahon et al., 2019). Similar results were reported in a sample of pre-service teachers from South Korea participating in an educational psychology course that included coverage of topics from the Science of Learning (Im et al., 2018). While both of these studies reported a reduction in neuromyth belief, neither reported that belief in neuromyths was completely eliminated. This finding is understandable given that no single course of study in the Science of Learning or educational psychology can realistically protect against all neuromyths. The development of teacher training aimed at dispelling specific neuromyths in education may best address these issues directly.

Beyond the reduction in the belief in neuromyths, there are thought to be additional benefits to training teachers in the Science of Learning. Schwartz et al. (2019) assessed the impact of participation in an educational neuroscience workshop on the pedagogical choices of teachers lacking a strong background in science. Content for this workshop was adapted, in part, from the Society for Neuroscience's Core Concepts (Society for Neuroscience, 2008) as reworded by Dubinsky et al. (2013). Aside from increasing participating teachers’ knowledge about the neuroscience of learning and memory, those completing the workshop reported feeling more confident in their ability to apply findings from the Science of Learning to their lesson planning strategy. Teachers who participated in the training also reported revising their lesson plans to allow for more student-centered pedagogy based on the neuroscience concepts they learned. This work supports that even with limited teacher training in the Science of Learning (in this case, 36 h) positive changes can be observed in pedagogical choices that are aligned with more impactful educational experiences for students. Longer duration courses (160 h over a 3-year period) with similar content have also reported significant improvements in the use of student-centered teaching practices among participant teachers (primarily science teachers) when compared with nonparticipating controls (Dubinsky et al., 2013).

Benefits associated with training teachers in the Science of Learning are not limited to those captured using self-report instruments. Two studies (Anderson et al., 2018; Roehrig et al., 2012) directly investigated the impact of this training on teacher practice through the use of lesson observations that occurred after training participation. In both studies, participating teachers increased their use of student-centered classroom practices. Teachers completing a 2-week workshop on the Science of Learning earned higher ratings on Higher Order Thinking, Deep Knowledge, Substantive Conversations, and Connections to the World standards from the Standards of Authentic Classroom Instruction (Newmann & Wehlage, 1993) compared to nonparticipating teachers (Roehrig et al., 2012). Teachers participating in an additional 1-week workshop continued to show improvement in their lesson observation rating. To date, only one study has assessed whether these classroom changes have any impact on student academic performance. Anderson et al. (2018) reported that students of teachers participating in a Science of Learning workshop focused on neuroplasticity, the brain's ability to change through experience (Pascual-Leone et al., 2005), performed better on a standardized math assessment when compared to the students of a nonparticipating teachers. While these studies support that training teachers in the Science of Learning can result in measurable impact on classroom practice and student achievement, additional research is needed in order to assess whether these findings are reproducible.

Why does learning about the brain positively impact teacher classroom practice and student achievement? It is possible that learning about how the brain functions provides teachers with more insight into how the brain learns in the real world (Tan et al., 2019). This insight can provide an additional lens through which teachers can view the decisions they make in the classroom. Additional work by Howard-Jones et al. (2020) found that participation in a short (i.e., 90 min) workshop on the Science of Learning resulted in teachers reporting an increase in the value of scientific concepts in their teaching, a change that was still measurable during a follow-up survey 6 to 12 weeks postworkshop. There were also measurable decreases in the perceived value of performative concepts, behaviors that appear to support effective learning but actually do not, which may push teachers to adopt more evidence-based strategies. While research on this topic is limited, these results support that introducing teachers to research from the Science of Learning may increase their adoption of effective strategies in the classroom.

It must be stressed that, while results from these limited studies are promising, methodological issues prevent strong conclusions from being drawn. As noted in one scoping review, the majority of studies investigating the impact of Science of Learning training for teachers do not include control groups in their designs (Privitera, 2021). While there are exceptions (Anderson et al., 2018; Im et al., 2018; Roehrig et al., 2012), the impact of training was confounded by the addition of instructional coaching, lesson observations, and coverage of topics in educational psychology. Additionally, while changes in teacher beliefs are commonly assessed, changes in behavior and, most importantly, student learning are almost never assessed (but see Anderson et al., 2018). Assessing the impact of any program on teacher practice and student learning is especially crucial given the mixed findings that permeate the literature on teacher training and professional development (e.g., Harris & Sass, 2011; Hill et al., 2013; Kennedy, 2016), including those reported in the Chinese context (e.g., Loyalka et al., 2019). While the unique benefits of Science of Learning training for teachers require further investigation (see discussion in Privitera, 2021), there is currently no evidence of negative outcomes associated with this training.

Supporting the Adoption of Neurotechnology

To date, no study has assessed what the necessary training requirements are for adopting neurotechnology. For this reason, previous research on the adoption of other forms of educational technology may guide future teacher preparation efforts, and can also provide insight into teacher perceptions around the adoption of new technology in the classroom. In a proactive measure, the Chinese Ministry of Education established the “educational technology standard for teachers” to address teacher competence gaps in communication and information technology skills (Han & Wang, 2010). The launch of this national standard signals a commitment to developing and sustaining a cadre of skilled teachers who are prepared to embrace new technologies in their work. Efforts to address these competence gaps are especially relevant for teachers in China, a group that do not feel prepared to successfully use technology as part of their job (Zhou et al., 2011). While a step in the right direction, this national standard is only the beginning of what will likely be a huge effort to prepare technologically competent teachers in China during the current technological wave (Lynch, 2004).

The Ministry of Education's “educational technology standard for teachers” provides no guidance on whether formal training should be offered, or the content of such training. This is surprising when considering the key role that training plays in the development of comfort and self-efficacy in teachers during the adoption of other forms of technology in education (Hall & Trespalacios, 2019). As neurotechnology is unique compared to other forms of educational technology that are commonly used, providing teachers with general training on the adoption of technology in the classroom is unlikely to have the desired impact. In one systematic review, Tondeur et al. (2017) reported that professional development in support of educational technology adoption should emphasize not only technical skills, but meaningful integration of these tools, and with outcomes that fit within existing teacher beliefs. Training in the Science of Learning may support teachers in finding meaning in their use of neurotechnology, seeing it not merely as a piece of equipment, but as a new window into the process of learning (Privitera, 2021). Training efforts can also be augmented by leveraging the skills of teachers with previous training in the Science of Learning who can act as guides to support the adoption and use of these tools by their colleagues (Zhu, 2010).

Science of Learning training is an intuitive solution for addressing teachers’ lack of preparedness in the use of educational neurotechnology. While the color-coded light system utilized by the headbands in the Jinhua Xiaoshun Primary School pilot project is not complex, an understanding of how the brain produces the different attentional states represented by those lights can inform teacher intervention strategies. How should a teacher intervene when a student's headband indicates they are not focused? Additionally, students might have much to gain from being able to monitor their brain's activity externally (e.g., Wang & Hsieh, 2013). Buy-in from all stakeholders is also essential if an educational project is to be successful. Will parental and community support for educational neurotechnology projects increase if teachers are able to explain what is being measured and how these data are used to support student learning? Empowering teachers through training in the Science of Learning may not only increase the utility of neurotechnology in the classroom, but has the potential to support the success of these projects.

A final yet crucial area to consider in discussions around adopting neurotechnology in schools are the ethical concerns related to data collected from student brains. While researchers in both education and neuroscience are bound by the ethical requirements of their institutions of employment, the creation and submission of proposals for review by an ethics or institutional review board is not generally within the responsibilities of a school administrator or classroom teacher. Some guidance can be obtained from the field of neuroethics (Farah, 2005; Roskies, 2002), including calls to better educate the public about findings from neuroscience in support of developing neuroliteracy. However, given the nascent state of educational neurotechnology, many of the unique ethical dilemmas are likely to take shape in the years ahead as these tools become more widely adopted. Previously, concerns have been expressed regarding the unknown influence of neurostimulation and neurofeedback on child brain development (Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 2013), as well as the potential for neurotechnology to interfere with typical neural processes (Ienca & Andorno, 2017). While some concerns surpass the capabilities of currently available tools, other ethical considerations demand prompt attention and discussion including the utilization and custodianship of school-collected data, as well as issues related to data privacy and ownership (Williamson, 2019). While the topic of ethics in the use of neurotechnology is not unique to China, the establishment of China-specific ethical practices will require careful consideration of current national policies on data privacy (Feng & Papadopoulos, 2018; Yao-Huai, 2005), especially in light of the increased use of cloud-based solutions for data storage (Pernot-Leplay, 2020).

In the Tradition of Dewey: Laying a Foundation for School-Based Research Collaborations

Providing teachers with training in the Science of Learning may open new doors for research collaborations between schools, universities, and research institutes. Currently, there is a lack of research in the areas of educational neuroscience and cognitive science focusing specifically on what happens in an actual classroom environment. One possible hurdle preventing research of this nature is that the conduct of neuroscience research in a live classroom is too disruptive to the learning environment. However, if schools are currently using neurotechnology in their classrooms, and if teachers are familiar with the foundations of the Science of Learning, then research collaborations could become much easier to facilitate. Data already being collected by consumer-grade EEG systems that provide teachers with real-time information on student attentional states can be used to ask more complex questions about brain activity (e.g., Privitera, 2022; Privitera & Sun, 2024) or core cognitive abilities correlated with differences in academic performance (e.g., Cortés Pascual et al., 2019; Privitera et al., 2023b). These collaborations have the potential to illuminate our understanding of how the brain learns in the real world instead of in a laboratory, supporting the development of additional bridges connecting neuroscience to education (Ansari & Coch, 2006). The conduct of short, nonintrusive studies can also sow the seeds needed to develop long-lasting lab/school partnerships, an idea first implemented by John Dewey at the University of Chicago, and continued by groups such as the Harvard Graduate School of Education (Dewey, 1896; Glennon et al., 2013; Tanner, 1997).

Researchers are not the only ones who stand to gain tremendously from school-based research collaborations. Through this work, teachers can gain access to and understanding of individual student data that were otherwise completely unavailable to them. These data may prove useful in their classroom practice as well as their understanding of how to address individual student issues related to learning. Students, through their participation in actual research, can develop a first-hand understanding of how science is conducted. It is even possible that older, more advanced students could be asked to support these studies by serving as research assistants. Less interactive experiences, such as participation in an on-campus talk hosted by a neuroscientist, have previously been shown to improve positive feelings toward science and learning in students (Fitzakerley et al., 2013). It is possible that these experiences could also inspire students to pursue university study in the sciences, leading to careers in high-need research fields.

Currently, there exists a government-supported model for school-based teaching research in China. Active and constant collaboration between researchers and practitioners has allowed for the dynamic evaluation of many aspects of teaching and learning. This model, which integrates instruction-oriented, project-oriented, and learning-oriented research focuses, has supported China's movement toward pedagogical innovation, and the development of educators into “teachers as researchers” (Yu, 2020). Previously, insights from these collaborations have been essential in guiding decisions on the rollout of national curriculum changes, and developing a collection of “best practices” in classroom teaching. The existence of a national model driving school-based research collaboration would reduce the difficulties associated with expanding areas of inquiry into the Science of Learning and neurotechnology, and can support the adoption of educational neurotechnology on a national scale.

Implementing Science of Learning Training for Teachers

Despite the lack of specific guidance on how to implement such programs in the Chinese context, previous studies can provide insight into the content and format of teacher training in the Science of Learning. Development of such programs would ideally occur collaboratively between neuroscientists and teacher educators (Howard-Jones et al., 2020; Pickering & Howard-Jones, 2007), focused on concepts that are most relevant to education. Although neuroscientists excel in providing precise content knowledge about the brain, educators play a critical role in discerning and prioritizing the aspects of this knowledge that are most applicable within a given contextual framework. Accordingly, the most crucial aspect of any training program is a clear focus on the end goal of teaching (Coch, 2018; Guskey & Yoon, 2009). These translational efforts can, in part, be supported by pre-existing resources that summarize the most significant concepts in the Science of Learning in a manner that is easily understood (e.g., Society for Neuroscience, 2008).

Among the foundational concepts in the Science of Learning, only those with high relevance to teaching and learning merit coverage for educators. One excellent case can be found in neuroplasticity, a foundational concept that is highly relevant in the context of human learning (e.g., Lindenberger & Lövdén, 2019). To date, the majority of teacher training interventions based on the Science of Learning have included coverage of neuroplasticity (Privitera, 2021). Additionally, coverage of findings on brain development can help teachers better understand the neurobiological strengths and limits of their students (Roehrig et al., 2012). Considering that currently available educational neurotechnology can provide limited information on the brain's electrical activity, basic coverage of neural oscillations (i.e., brainwaves) that are measured by these devices can support teachers in understanding what these patterns of activity reflect. Importantly, presentation of concepts from the Science of Learning should not be “dumbed down” based on the false assumption that teachers would be incapable of understanding concepts rooted in science (Hardiman et al., 2012). This consideration is essential in order to establish mutual respect between neuroscientists and educators, and to support the bridging of their distinct areas of expertise.

Discussions of the ethical considerations surrounding the adoption and use of neurotechnology are ongoing (Baselga-Garriga et al., 2022). Despite this, it is important to adopt a proactive approach when providing ethical training in neurotechnology for teachers. Training of this kind is essential to ensure responsible and informed use of these tools in educational settings. Such training should encompass a range of topics, including the ethical implications of collecting and analyzing brain data, ensuring privacy and confidentiality, and obtaining informed consent from students and their guardians (Susser & Cabrera, 2024). Teachers must also be educated on the potential biases inherent in neurotechnology and how to mitigate them to prevent reinforcing inequalities among students (Goering et al., 2021). While many ethical considerations regarding the adoption and use of educational neurotechnology are culturally universal, any training provided in the Chinese context must align with relevant national policies including those related to the collection and use of student data (Feng & Papadopoulos, 2018). By equipping teachers with the knowledge and skills needed to navigate the ethical complexities of neurotechnology, we can promote ethical conduct, safeguard student welfare, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness in education.

In regard to format, there is likely no “one-size-fits-all” approach for teacher training, even in the Chinese context. While some efforts have been made to introduce courses on the Science of Learning during initial teacher training in China (e.g., Gao, 2015), decades-old models for school-based professional development for in-service teachers is arguably the most viable option (Paine & Ma, 1993). Ideally, offerings should be flexible in order to fit within teachers’ busy schedules, and should aim to provide high-quality opportunities for teacher cooperation and collegiality, factors shown to impact on teacher efficacy beyond even the frequency of training (Ke et al., 2019). The duration of training is also potentially flexible as positive results have been reported after as little as 90 min of Science of Learning teacher training in both pre-service (McMahon et al., 2019) and in-service teachers (Howard-Jones et al., 2020).

A more accessible solution can be found in the use of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), in which teachers can asynchronously participate at their convenience. While MOOCs are an attractive solution discussed widely in the broader literature on teaching and learning, concerns over the lack of synchronous discussion and collaboration between teachers during professional development has generated concern (Ji & Cao, 2016). Considerable work is needed to identify how asynchronous options like MOOCs can be adapted to teacher professional development in China, although some large-scale studies have reported promising results (e.g., Wang et al., 2018). In navigating the complexities of professional development, especially within the Chinese context, it becomes evident that emphasizing flexibility, quality, and opportunities for collegiality are key considerations in the development of Science of Learning training for teachers.

Concluding Remarks

China is uniquely positioned to be the first country to implement a wide-scale neurotechnology initiative due to tremendous financial backing, fast-paced technological innovation, and crucial governmental support. In the not-too-distant-future, teachers in China may have access to neurophysiological data from individual students in real time. However, due to the current lack of training, the potential benefits of this new technology may be lost. While it is unclear what training is required to best prepare teachers to use neurotechnology, training in the Science of Learning merits consideration. Taking the additional steps to prepare teachers in support of this initiative will increase the likelihood of its success and maximize the positive impact of neurotechnology on teaching and learning.

Footnotes

Ethical Considerations

No ethical approval was required as human participants were not involved in the present review.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

A. J. Privitera

References

Ainley

Carstens

(2018). Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) 2018 conceptual framework.

American Psychological Association. (2014). Strengthening the common core of the introductory psychology course. Author.

Anderson

Boaler

Dieckmann

(2018). Achieving elusive teacher change through challenging myths about learning: A blended approach. Education Sciences, 8(3), 98. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8030098

Ansari

Coch

(2006). Bridges over troubled waters: Education and cognitive neuroscience. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(4), 146–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.02.007

Attallah

Ilagure

(2018). Wearable technology: Facilitating or complexing education. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 8(6), 433–436. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2018.8.6.1077

Babiker

Faye

Mumtaz

Malik

A. S.

Sato

(2019). EEG In classroom: EMD features to detect situational interest of students during learning. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 78(12), 16261–16281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-018-7016-z

Baselga-Garriga

Rodriguez

Yuste

(2022). Neuro rights: A human rights solution to ethical issues of neurotechnologies. In Protecting the mind: Challenges in law, neuroprotection, and neurorights (pp. 157–161). Springer.

Brockington

Balardin

J. B.

Zimeo Morais

G. A.

Malheiros

Lent

Moura

L. M.

Sato

J. R.

(2018). From the laboratory to the classroom: The potential of functional near-infrared spectroscopy in educational neuroscience. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1840. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01840

Bruer

J. T.

(1997). Education and the brain: A bridge too far. Educational Researcher, 26(8), 4–16. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X026008004

10.

Chen

(2001). Teacher education and teaching in China. Perspectives in Learning, 2(1), 56–59.

11.

Coch

(2018). Reflections on neuroscience in teacher education. Peabody Journal of Education, 93(3), 309–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2018.1449925

12.

Colvin

(2016). Optimising, generalising and integrating educational practice using neuroscience. npj Science of Learning, 1(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1038/npjscilearn.2016.12

13.

Cortés Pascual

Moyano Muñoz

Quilez Robres

(2019). The relationship between executive functions and academic performance in primary education: Review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1582. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01582

14.

Davidesco

Laurent

Valk

West

Milne

Poeppel

Dikker

(2023). The temporal dynamics of brain-to-brain synchrony between students and teachers predict learning outcomes. Psychological Science, 34(5), 633–643. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976231163872

15.

Deans for Impact. (2015). The science of learning.

16.

Debener

Minow

Emkes

Gandras

De Vos

(2012). How about taking a low-cost, small, and wireless EEG for a walk? Psychophysiology, 49(11), 1617–1621. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2012.01471.x

17.

Dekker

Lee

N. C.

Howard-Jones

Jolles

(2012). Neuromyths in education: Prevalence and predictors of misconceptions among teachers. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 429. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00429

18.

Deligiannidi

Howard-Jones

P. A.

(2015). The neuroscience literacy of teachers in Greece. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 3909–3915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.1133

19.

Dewey

(1896). The university school. University Record (University of Chicago), 1, 417–419.

20.

Dikker

Wan

Davidesco

Kaggen

Oostrik

McClintock

Rowland

Michalareas

Van Bavel

J. J.

Ding

(2017). Brain-to-brain synchrony tracks real-world dynamic group interactions in the classroom. Current Biology, 27(9), 1375–1380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2017.04.002

21.

Dubinsky

J. M.

Roehrig

Varma

(2013). Infusing neuroscience into teacher professional development. Educational Researcher, 42(6), 317–329. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X13499403

22.

Dubinsky

J. M.

Roehrig

Varma

(2022). A place for neuroscience in teacher knowledge and education. Mind, Brain, and Education, 16(4), 267–276. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12334

23.

Farah

M. J.

(2005). Neuroethics: The practical and the philosophical. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(1), 34–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.12.001

24.

Feng

Papadopoulos

(2018). Student (K-12) data protection in the digital age: A comparative study. Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa, 51(2), 261–287. https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC-13299976a7

25.

Ferrero

Garaizar

Vadillo

M. A.

(2016). Neuromyths in education: Prevalence among Spanish teachers and an exploration of cross-cultural variation. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10, 496. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00496

26.

Fitzakerley

J. L.

Michlin

M. L.

Paton

Dubinsky

J. M.

(2013). Neuroscientists’ classroom visits positively impact student attitudes. PLoS ONE, 8(12), e84035. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0084035

27.

Gao

(2015). The reconstruction and development of teachers’ profession from the perspective of educational neuroscience. Global Education, (11), 9.

28.

Geromel

(2019). Why is China the world's leader in Edtech? Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ricardogeromel/2019/04/05/why-is-china-the-worlds-leader-in-edtech/#b59f8b75756e.

29.

Glennon

Hinton

Callahan

Fischer

K. W.

(2013). School-based research. Mind, Brain, and Education, 7(1), 30–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12004

30.

Goering

Klein

Specker Sullivan

Wexler

Agüera y Arcas

Carmena

J. M.

Fins

J. J.

Friesen

Gallant

(2021). Recommendations for responsible development and application of neurotechnologies. Neuroethics, 14(3), 365–386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-021-09468-6

31.

Goswami

(2006). Neuroscience and education: From research to practice? Nature Reviews Neurosciences, 7(5), 406–411. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1907

32.

Guskey

T. R.

Yoon

K. S.

(2009). What works in professional development? Phi Delta Kappan, 90(7), 495–500. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170909000709

33.

Hall

A. B.

Trespalacios

(2019). Personalized professional learning and teacher self-efficacy for integrating technology in K–12 classrooms. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 35(4), 221–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2019.1647579

34.

Han

Wang

(2010). Capability building in educational technology for teachers in China. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(4), 607–611. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01089.x

35.

Hardiman

Rinne

Gregory

Yarmolinskaya

(2012). Neuroethics, neuroeducation, and classroom teaching: Where the brain sciences meet pedagogy. Neuroethics, 5(2), 135–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-011-9116-6

36.

Harris

D. N.

Sass

T. R.

(2011). Teacher training, teacher quality and student achievement. Journal of Public Economics, 95(7–8), 798–812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.11.009

37.

Hedges

J. H.

Adolph

K. E.

Amso

Bavelier

Fiez

J. A.

Krubitzer

McAuley

J. D.

Newcombe

N. S.

Fitzpatrick

S. M.

Ghajar

(2013). Play, attention, and learning: How do play and timing shape the development of attention and influence classroom learning? Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1292(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.12154

38.

Hernandez-de-Menendez

Díaz

C. E.

Morales-Menendez

(2019). Technologies for the future of learning: State of the art. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM), 14, 683–695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-019-00640-0

39.

Hill

H. C.

Beisiegel

Jacob

(2013). Professional development research: Consensus, crossroads, and challenges. Educational Researcher, 42(9), 476–487. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X13512674

40.

Horvath

J. C.

Donoghue

G. M.

(2016). A bridge too far–revisited: Reframing Bruer’s neuroeducation argument for modern science of learning practitioners. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 377. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00377

41.

Horvath

J. C.

Donoghue

G. M.

Horton

A. J.

Lodge

J. M.

Hattie

J. A. C.

(2018). On the irrelevance of neuromyths to teacher effectiveness: Comparing neuro-literacy levels amongst award-winning and non-award winning teachers. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1666. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01666

42.

Howard-Jones

P. A.

(2014). Neuroscience and education: Myths and messages. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 15(12), 817–824. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3817

43.

Howard-Jones

P. A.

Franey

Mashmoushi

Liao

Y.-C.

(2009). The neuroscience literacy of trainee teachers. British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Manchester.

44.

Howard-Jones

Jay

Galeano

(2020). Professional development on the science of learning and teachers’ performative thinking—A pilot study. Mind, Brain and Education, 14(3), 267–278. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12254

45.

Ienca

Andorno

(2017). Towards new human rights in the age of neuroscience and neurotechnology. Life Sciences, Society and Policy, 13(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-017-0050-1

46.

S.-H.

Cho

J.-Y.

Dubinsky

J. M.

Varma

(2018). Taking an educational psychology course improves neuroscience literacy but does not reduce belief in neuromyths. PLoS ONE, 13(2), e0192163. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192163

47.

Cao

(2016). A prospective study on the application of MOOC in teacher professional development in China. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4(9), 2061–2067. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2016.040917

48.

Jin

(2007). Study on the curriculum and teaching in teacher education. Studies in Foreign Education, 34(4), 19–22.

49.

Karakus

Howard-Jones

P. A.

Jay

(2015). Primary and secondary school teachers’ knowledge and misconceptions about the brain in Turkey. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 1933–1940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.858

50.

Yin

Huang

(2019). Teacher participation in school-based professional development in China: Does it matter for teacher efficacy and teaching strategies? Teachers and Teaching, 25(7), 821–836. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2019.1662777

51.

Keller

A. S.

Davidesco

Tanner

K. D.

(2020). Attention matters: How orchestrating attention may relate to classroom learning. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 19(3), fe5. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-05-0106

52.

Kennedy

M. M.

(2016). How does professional development improve teaching? Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 945–980. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626800

53.

L.-W.

Komarov

Hairston

W. D.

Jung

T.-P.

Lin

C.-T.

(2017). Sustained attention in real classroom settings: An EEG study. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11, 388. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00388

54.

Lindenberger

Lövdén

(2019). Brain plasticity in human lifespan development: The exploration–selection–refinement model. Annual Review of Developmental Psychology, 1, 197–222. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-devpsych-121318-085229

55.

Loyalka

Popova

Shi

(2019). Does teacher training actually work? Evidence from a large-scale randomized evaluation of a national teacher training program. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 11(3), 128–154. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20170226

56.

Lynch

(2004). Neurotechnology and society (2010–2060) [https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1305.016]. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1013(1), 229–233. https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1305.016

57.

Macdonald

Germine

Anderson

Christodoulou

McGrath

L. M.

(2017). Dispelling the myth: Training in education or neuroscience decreases but does not eliminate beliefs in neuromyths. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1314. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01314

58.

McMahon

Yeh

C. S. H.

Etchells

P. J.

(2019). The impact of a modified initial teacher education on challenging trainees’ understanding of neuromyths. Mind, Brain, and Education, 13(4), 288–297. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12219

59.

Motti

V. G.

(2019). Wearable technologies in education: a design space. International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Cham.

60.

Müller

Rotter

(2017). Neurotechnology: Current developments and ethical issues. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 11, https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2017.00093

61.

Newmann

Wehlage

(1993). Five standards of authentic instruction. Educational Leadership, 50(7), 8–12.

62.

Nuffield Council on Bioethics. (2013). Novel neurotechnologies: Intervening in the brain. In: Nuffield Council on Bioethics London.

63.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2002). Understanding the brain: Towards a new learning science. OECD Publishing.

64.

Paine

(1993). Teachers working together: A dialogue on organizational and cultural perspectives of Chinese teachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 19(8), 675–697. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-0355(93)90009-9

65.

Pascual-Leone

Amedi

Fregni

Merabet

L. B.

(2005). The plastic human brain cortex. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 28, 377–401. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.27.070203.144216

66.

Pei

Howard-Jones

P. A.

Zhang

Liu

Jin

(2015). Teachers’ understanding about the brain in east China. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 3681–3688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.1091

67.

Pernot-Leplay

(2020). China's approach on data privacy law: A third way between the US and the EU? Penn State Journal of Law & International Affairs, 8, 49.

68.

Pickering

S. J.

Howard-Jones

(2007). Educators’ views on the role of neuroscience in education: Findings from a study of UK and international perspectives. Mind, Brain, and Education, 1(3), 109–113. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-228X.2007.00011.x

69.

Polderman

T. J. C.

Boomsma

D. I.

Bartels

Verhulst

F. C.

Huizink

A. C.

(2010). A systematic review of prospective studies on attention problems and academic achievement. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 122(4), 271–284. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.2010.01568.x

70.

Poulsen

A. T.

Kamronn

Dmochowski

Parra

L. C.

Hansen

L. K.

(2017). EEG in the classroom: Synchronised neural recordings during video presentation. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep43916

71.

Privitera

A. J.

(2021). A scoping review of research on neuroscience training for teachers. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 100157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2021.100157

72.

Privitera

A. J.

(2022). On the utility of the p3 as a neuromarker of academic performance: A brief review. Italian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(3), 33–44. https://doi.org/10.17471/2499-4324/1264

73.

Privitera

A. J.

(2022). Educational neurotechnology: Where do we go from here? Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 100195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2022.100195

74.

Privitera

A. J.

S. H. S.

Chen

S. H. A.

(2023a). Defining the science of learning: A scoping review. Trends in Neuroscience and Education. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2023.100206

75.

Privitera

A. J.

Sun

(2024). The P3 and academic performance in healthy adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Educational Research, 128, 102462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2024.102462

76.

Privitera

A. J.

Zhou

Xie

(2023b). Inhibitory control as a significant predictor of academic performance in Chinese high schoolers. Child Neuropsychology, 29(3), 457–473. https://doi.org/10.1080/09297049.2022.2098941

77.

Ramírez-Moreno

M. A.

Díaz-Padilla

Valenzuela-Gómez

K. D.

Vargas-Martínez

Tudón-Martínez

J. C.

Morales-Menendez

Ramírez-Mendoza

R. A.

Pérez-Henríquez

B. L.

Lozoya-Santos

J. d. J.

(2021). EEG-based tool for prediction of university students’ cognitive performance in the classroom. Brain Sciences, 11(6), 698. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11060698

78.

Roehrig

G. H.

Michlin

Schmitt

MacNabb

Dubinsky

J. M.

(2012). Teaching neuroscience to science teachers: Facilitating the translation of inquiry-based teaching instruction to the classroom. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 11(4), 413–424. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12-04-0045

79.

Roskies

(2002). Neuroethics for the new millennium: Commentary. Neuron, 35(1), 21–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(02)00763-8

80.

The Royal Society. (2011). Brain waves module 2: Neuroscience: Implications for education and lifelong learning.

81.

Schwartz

M. S.

Hinesley

Chang

Dubinsky

J. M.

(2019). Neuroscience knowledge enriches pedagogical choices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 83, 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.04.002

82.

Sezer

Inel

Seçkin

AÇ

Uluçinar

(2017). The relationship between attention levels and class participation of first-year students in classroom teaching departments. International Journal of Instruction, 10(2), 55–68. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2017.1024a

83.

Sezer

İnel

Seçkin

Uluçınar

(2015). An investigation of university students’ attention levels in real classroom settings with Neurosky's mindwave mobile (EEG) device.

84.

Sigman

Peña

Goldin

A. P.

Ribeiro

(2014). Neuroscience and education: Prime time to build the bridge. Nature Neuroscience, 17(4), 497–502. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3672

85.

Society for Neuroscience. (2008). Neuroscience core concepts. The essential principles of neuroscience. http://www.sfn.org/index.aspx?pagename=core_concepts.

86.

Society for Neuroscience. (2009). Neuroscience research in education summit: The promise of interdisciplinary partnerships between brain sciences and education.

87.

Susser

Cabrera

L. Y.

(2024). Brain data in context: Are new rights the way to mental and brain privacy? AJOB Neuroscience, 15(2), 122–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2023.2188275

88.

Tan

Y. S. M.

Amiel

J. J.

Yaro

(2019). Developing theoretical coherence in teaching and learning: Case of neuroscience-framed learning study. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 8(3), 229–243. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijlls-10-2018-0072

89.

Tanner

(1997). Dewey's laboratory school. Teachers college press.

90.

Thomas

M. S. C.

Ansari

Knowland

V. C. P.

(2019). Annual research review: Educational neuroscience: Progress and prospects. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 60(4), 477–492. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12973

91.

Tondeur

Van Braak

Ertmer

P. A.

Ottenbreit-Leftwich

(2017). Understanding the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education: A systematic review of qualitative evidence. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(3), 555–575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9481-2

92.

Torrijos-Muelas

González-Víllora

Bodoque-Osma

A. R.

(2021). The persistence of neuromyths in the educational settings: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 3658. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.591923

93.

Wang

Chen

Fan

Zhang

(2018). MOOCs as an alternative for teacher professional development. examining learner persistence in one Chinese MOOC. Foundation for Information Technology Education and Development Inc. (FIT-ED).

94.

Wang

Hong

Tai

(2019). China’s efforts to lead the way in AI start in its classrooms. The Wall Street Journal, https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-efforts-to-lead-the-way-in-ai-start-in-its-classrooms-11571958181 .

95.

Wang

J.-R.

Hsieh

(2013). Neurofeedback training improves attention and working memory performance. Clinical Neurophysiology, 124(12), 2406–2420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2013.05.020

96.

Williamson

(2019). Brain data: Scanning, scraping and sculpting the plastic learning brain through neurotechnology. Postdigital Science and Education, 1(1), 65–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-018-0008-5

97.

Yao-Huai

(2005). Privacy and data privacy issues in contemporary China. Ethics and Information Technology, 7(1), 7–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-005-0456-y

98.

(2020). School-based teaching research in China. In Handbook of education policy studies (pp. 223–236). Springer.

99.

Zambo

(2011). Teachers’ beliefs about neuroscience and education. Teaching Educational Psychology, 7(2), 25–41.

100.

Zhang

Jiang

Dang

Zhou

(2019). Neuromyths in Chinese classrooms: Evidence from headmasters in an underdeveloped region of China. Frontiers in Education, 4, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00008

101.

Zhou

Zhang

(2011). Are secondary preservice teachers well prepared to teach with technology? A case study from China. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(6), 943–960. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.922 .

102.

Zhu

(2010). Teacher roles and adoption of educational technology in the Chinese context. Journal for Educational Research Online, 2(2), 72–86.

Bringing the Brain Into Teacher Education: Supporting Neurotechnology Adoption and Effective Teaching in China

Abstract

Keywords

China: A Future Epicenter for Educational Neurotechnology?

Teacher Education: Learning to Change the Brain by Ignoring the Brain?

Consequences of Not Educating Teachers About the Brain

Why Teachers Should Learn About the Brain

Supporting the Adoption of Neurotechnology

In the Tradition of Dewey: Laying a Foundation for School-Based Research Collaborations

Implementing Science of Learning Training for Teachers

Concluding Remarks

Footnotes

Ethical Considerations

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

ORCID iD

References