Running Head: EDUCATIONAL NEUROSCIENCE – COMMENTARY 1 The Principles and Practices of Educational Neuroscience: Commentary on Bowers (2016) Howard-Jones, Paul., Varma, Sashank., Ansari, Daniel., Butterworth, Brian., De Smedt, Bert., Goswami, Usha., Laurillard, Diana and Thomas, Michael S. C. Author Notes: Paul Howard-Jones, Graduate School of Education, University of Bristol, UK. Sashank Varma, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Minnesota, USA. Daniel Ansari, Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, Canada. Brian Butterworth, Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, UK. Bert De Smedt, Faculty of Psychology and Educationaluncorrected Sciences, University of Leuven, Belgium. Usha Goswami, Centre for Neuroscience in Education, Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge, UK. press Diana Laurillard, InstituteIn of Education, University College London, UK. Michael S. C. Thomas, Centre of Educational Neuroscience, Birkbeck, University of London, UK. No part of this commentary has been published in a journal or on the internet, or presented at a conference or meeting, with the exception of quotes - and where these occur they have been clearly referenced. Running Head: EDUCATIONAL NEUROSCIENCE – COMMENTARY 2 Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Paul Howard-Jones, Graduate School of Education, University of Bristol, 35 Berkeley Square, Bristol BS81JA UK. Email
[email protected] uncorrected press In Running Head: EDUCATIONAL NEUROSCIENCE – COMMENTARY 3 Abstract In his recent critique of Educational Neuroscience, Bowers argues that neuroscience has no role to play in informing education, which he equates with classroom teaching. Neuroscience, he suggests, adds nothing to what we can learn from psychology. In this commentary, we argue that Bowers’ assertions misrepresent the nature and aims of the work in this new field.