Lo s works:
new is not only the recent contributions in the referred Findings. It is, rather, already known educational theories, as they were performed before all of the education reformers. The demand for more free work place, for example, when Maria Montessori . The requirement of " easy to the heavy " to go, as well as first approaches to project work and the finding that learning is associated with pleasure and emotionally colored contents are retained better than neutral diving, even at Comenius in the 17th Century.
The difference is the type of reasoning, that is in reference to the scientific foundation, with the stress, the brain researchers their own relevance to education. Moreover, it is with all the findings presented here at very basal learning processes, as explained already in post 3 1 / 2 to allocate more to the privileged learning. The question as , what and why should provide certain content can not be derived from the neuro-scientific findings. This is because they are based largely on the question of what factors are involved, so that knowledge is stored in the memory as effectively as possible. It will therefore represent a very technocratic understanding of education, which, though in times of "Pisa - misery" of the policy could give hope that it is likely to qualify due to the lack of differentiation of the statements: The fact that happy and relaxed students can learn better, can you can not deduce how to create such a learning environment. This is further complicated by the neuro-scientific fact that every student is different brain structures, their own experience brings with it and maybe something else entirely, a "relaxed work" feels.
also the realization that light stress on the motivation of the students is beneficial, great stress should be avoided, however, would ultimately lead to a learning paradigm that is formulated as "g ute teaching somewhere between promote and demand hot "would be. Only with such statements could begin a teacher so very little. It would even give the issue that, as Elsbeth Stern says (see the article "Brain Research and Pedagogical gik) due to the lack of differentiation at the mercy of individual teachers in the selection of the methodology" will open the floodgates "and IF THE ABOVE scientific character, which one would prevail in the school education lead to absurdity.'d
The statement by Manfred Spitzer, that prior to the training of teachers especially the "professional" and less "teaching tricks" should take precedence, lacks any basis in my view, and seems more his personal opinion regarding represent the teachers. The enthusiasm for a subject makes a teacher is not necessarily a good teacher. The reference to the attractiveness of the teacher passes from reality. (see article 9) my opinion, but rather the ability to build a sustainable relationship to his group, and the ability to use different teaching aids to the different "learning styles" enter into, make up a good teacher.
Moreover, the question is whether one is really only because of his enthusiasm in the position of the complicated subject material for the students to "wrap" into understandable words. It would also be clarified how to measure the enthusiasm for a subject with a teacher? Until this is possible, one should rather assume that the student teacher has chosen his subjects because he is very interested in them and from them, and therefore developed its pedagogical and didactic-methodological skills in training.
The theory of operational closure and the state determined nature of the brain also suggests that it is not possible at all to teach targeted, that is, outside an improvement to introduce the teaching, as the responsibility lies with the student. It also seems to state that improving teaching can be reached already by the fact that the students can construct their knowledge actively to develop therefore have plenty of undifferentiated, as leaving open whether it is to be transferred to any school and learning style. It should first be investigated whether these constructivist teaching both in the primary, secondary, and junior high school and in high school is recommended since it requires that the student has mastered certain techniques to learn independently already. This way of working requires a high degree of autonomy, which is by no means expected of each student and can not be learned by each student.
Becker noted this problem in terms of Gruehn that "show studies on the relationship between teaching methods and student performance, d ass" forms of direct instruction (...) A high positive relationship hang with professional learning and having constructivist-oriented report "only in high school classes has powerful beneficial effects, while" repeating ve forms of exercise lead (...) only in secondary schools to larger learning gains
. " (Becker 2007 p.97)
do in the arguments of the brain researchers themselves sometimes some contradictions: that forms the brain of the education and socialization, as it formulates Hüther 185 not speak, but that should guide the teaching and education to the brain, as of the brain researchers postulated. Where then would be the relevance of the education? Brain research would be superfluous to their own findings. There are misunderstandings on the subject of neuroplasticity. I had already indicated that some scientists estimate the general plasticity of the human brain as a very large, others than less. As Nicole Becker shows the reason is that the pro-and contra arguments relating to various studies. For example, believes the part of the scientific community, which is based on animal studies, we have found in them a proof that the learning ability influential in the first three years of life and whose failure would not catch up, while those scientists who are on studies imaging belong, rather the view is that the first three years of life just would not decisive, because the brain would be a life characterized by its Plas ticity . ( see Becker 2006 p. 212F)
Conclusion
I therefore determined to date that the improvement of teaching can not be achieved by having understood how the brain learns. In addition, the statements of neuroscientists to undifferentiated than that from you concrete methods could be derived for use in schools. They also say the science of education is nothing new. It is merely a confirmation of known pedagogical knowledge. Thus, it can already say at this time that brain research is nothing new to contribute to the design of instruction and teaching.
A pure neuroscience research on teaching is the current actual mainly not imagine, simply because of the autonomy of different levels of description (see article 3 1 / 2) because ultimately, the Neuroscience work with the concepts that has set the education of science and psychology already.
remain, Until then I, as a previous conclusion, in the words of cognitive scientist Elsbeth Stern:
"Brain research is not the basic science of learning. You
has been shown that learning takes place in the brain. "
close of this paper I for the next days and weeks from the first issue for me, without, however, be at the end. Other topics have included my thesis yet "Neuro Science Education" and "Ethical implications of neurobiological science education." These two topics I will include in this blog yet (if time remains time) and explain. Otherwise, I thank you for your attention and I hope that you could learn something from my examination of the brain research and take.
0 comments:
Post a Comment