Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Educational Sciences: A Crossroad for Dialogue among Disciplines

  • Erik De Corte (a1)

Abstract

This article illustrates that due to the complexity of educational practices and of the educational system, their scientific study constitutes a crossroads for dialogue and possible conflicts among a variety of disciplines. The article focuses on school education. A first illustration shows how analyzing and improving classroom practices requires collaboration with and among different sub-disciplines of psychology. In the next section the recent domain of educational neuroscience is discussed as a crossroads of educational science, psychology and neuroscience. Thereafter, it is argued that research on mathematics education calls on the contribution of many disciplines such as mathematics, pedagogy, the psychology of cognition and math-related beliefs, and anthropology. The final example focuses on educational technology that requires interaction between educational science, psychology, computer science, economics, etc.

Copyright

References

Hide All
1. The Royal Society (2011) Brain Waves Module 2: Neuroscience. Implications for Education and Lifelong Learning (London: The Royal Society)
2. Mareschal, D., Butterworth, B. and Tolmie, A. (2014) Educational Neuroscience (Oxford, UK: Wiley Blackwell)
3. Dehaene, S. and Cohen, L. (1995) Towards an anatomical and functional model of number processing. Mathematical Cognition, 1, pp. 83120.
4. De Smedt, B. and Grabner, R. (2015) Applications of neuroscience to mathematics education. In A. Dowker and R. Cohen-Kadosh, (Eds) Oxford Handbook of Mathematical Cognition (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press), pp. 613636.
5. Butterworth, B. and Varma, S. (2014) Mathematical development. In D. Mareschal, B. Butterworth and A. Tolmie, (Eds) Educational Neuroscience (Oxford, UK: Wiley Blackwell), pp. 201236.
6. Butterworth, B., Varma, S. and Laurillard, D. (2011) Dyscalculia: From brain to education. Science, 332, pp. 10491053.
7. OECD (2010) The High Cost of Low Educational Performance: The Long-run Economic Impact of Improving Educational Outcomes (Paris: OECD), p. 17.
8. Ansari, D. (2008) Effects of development and enculturation on number representation in the brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9, pp. 278291.
9. Bruer, J.T. (1997) Education and the brain: A bridge too far. Educational Researcher, 26(8), pp. 416.
10. Thorndike, E.L. (1922) The Psychology of Arithmetic (New York: Macmillan)
11. Freudenthal, H. (1991) Revisiting Mathematics Education (Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer)
12. Schoenfeld, A.H. (1985) Mathematical Problem Solving (Orlando, FL: Academic Press), p. 45.
13. Picker, S.H. and Berry, J.S. (2000) Investigating pupils’ images of mathematicians. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 43, pp. 6594.
14. Lampert, M. (1990) When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer. American Educational Research Journal, 27, pp. 2963.
15. d’Ambrosio, U. (1985) Ethnomathematics and its place in the history and pedagogy of mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 5, pp. 4448.
16. Nunes, T.N., Schliemann, A.D. and Carraher, D.W. (1993) Street Mathematics and School Mathematics (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press)
17. Cuban, L. (1986) Teachers and Machines: The Classroom Use of Technology since 1920 (New York: Columbia University Teachers College Press)
18. Darrow, B. (1932) Radio: The Assistant Teacher (Columbus, Ohio: R.G. Adams & Company), p. 79.
19. Mayer, R.E. (2010) Learning with technology. In H. Dumont, D. Istance and F. Benavides, (Eds) The Nature of Learning. Using Research to Inspire Practice (Paris: OECD Publishing), pp. 179198.
20. Jansen, D. and Schuwer, R. (2015) Institutional MOOC Strategies in Europe. Status Report Based on a Mapping Survey Conducted in October – December 2015 (Heerlen, The Netherlands: EADTU), p. 13.
21. Laurillard, D. (2016) How should professors adapt to the changing digital education environment. In E. De Corte, L. Engwall and U. Teichler, (Eds) From Books to MOOCs? Emerging Models of Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, Wenner-Gren International Series, Volume 88 (London: Portland Press Ltd), pp. 315.
22. Fleming, B. (2013) Learning from MOOCs: Unmasking the Weaknesses of Online Education. http://www.eduventures.com/2013/04/learning-from-moocs-unmasking-the-weaknesses-of-online-education.
23. Corte, E. De, Engwall, I. and Teichler, U. (Eds) (2016) From Books to MOOCs? Emerging Models of Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, Wenner-Gren International Series, Volume 88 (London: Portland Press Ltd)
24. Berliner, D.C. (2002) Educational research: The hardest science of all. Educational Researcher, 31(8), pp. 1820, p. 19.

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed