A couple of interesting articles have come my way and both espouse different attitudes of requiring teachers (pre-college) to know "neuroscience". One source is Education Week that argues that teachers should know neuroscience and can be accessed here: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/06/06/33teachers.h31.html?tkn=PRNFe3%2BxJn7xh0kjpWMFPZNbw4cNvElPG40E&cmp=clp-edweek
The other is an article in the Washington Post which argues against teaching neuroscience, instead, argues for informing teachers of myths of neuroscience; see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/why-teachers-shouldnt-learn-neuroscience/2012/06/04/gJQAD8AdEV_blog.html I find this "debate" somewhat amusing because I've been investigating the origins of psychology at NYU. NYU first offered courses in 1831 and during most of the 19th century offered the "old" psychology in the dept of philosophy until Wundt's "new" psychology was "established" in circa 1879. This would give rise to separate departments of psychology in colleges in America, usually in the school of Liberal Arts or Arts and Sciences. NYU was unusual because it established its first psychology lab (1894) within its "School of Pedagogy" (later School of Education) and the first professor in charge of the lab, Charles Bliss, was the "Professor of Physiological and Experimental Psychology", a position that would be subsequently held by others. Bliss and others would also have an appointment in the NYU Graduate School of Arts and (Pure) Science (GSAS) but there few students studying psychology in GSAS which explains why there were so few Ph.D.s in psychology from NYU during the period 1890-1920. In contrast, the School of Pedagogy had huge enrollments for its graduate program (it award the Masters of Pedagogy [M.Ped.] and Doctor of Pedagogy [D.Ped.]). Various factors, such as schools requiring an advanced degree for higher administrative positions in school (e.g., principals) and vagaries of NY state law concerning credentialing, contributed to a large influx of students to the School of Pedagogy (Teacher's college up at Columbia was somewhat more selective, so NYU got their business). Back to the original point, it is amusing to see courses in physiological psychology and/or "physiological pedagogics" being offered in the early bulletins of the School of Pedagogy because one has to wonder what possible interest would these courses have to pupils who, for the most part, were interested in an advanced degree in education in order to get a higher level post in administration. I think that this might have been one reason why there was rapid turnover of psychology faculty in the School of Pedagogy (with faculty going to universities where psychology was done like they did in the "old country"). It wasn't until the 1900s that such courses were eliminated and replaced by courses that were more relevant to classroom management and administration. So, why do teachers need to learn neuroscience? Is there a direst connection between what we know in neuroscience and content knowledge, classroom management, teaching planning, and administration that isn't already know? Or do just have to make sure the teachers know what is true and false in neuroscience so that they don't promote neuromyths? That is, if anyone can figure what is actually factual and what is false in neuroscience. ;-) -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=18229 or send a blank email to leave-18229-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
