Bridging neuroscience and education: a two-way path is possible.

From my experience, it seems that teachers hold some of the ‘‘neuromyths’’ described in the literature (Della Sala, 1999; Goswami, 2004). In particular, a frequent teacher misconception is that since students preferentially use one type of processing, they can be divided into ‘‘left-brained’’ and ‘‘right-brained’’, that is processing language, logic and number, or forms, images, and spatial elements, respectively. Another incorrect conception is that a certain type of learning only occurs within a critical period, otherwise it becomes very difficult or is lost forever. Why is this misinformation, based on an over-simplification and over-generalization of issues from neuroscientific research, found in school? Multiple reasons may underlie this negative phenomenon. The commercial interest of the ‘‘brain-based learning industry’’, outside the scientific research world, plays a not entirely marginal role. From my perspective as an educational psychologist, however, one of the main reasons echoes what Bruer (1997) defined years ago as ‘‘a bridge too far’’. That is, the relationship between education and neuroscience, is still distant. No doubt what is known about neurons, neural networks, brain plasticity, distributivity, redundancy and development has the potential to contribute to educational research and practice (Blakemore and Frith, 2005). However, the direct or automatic applications of neuroscience findings to education should not be encouraged. This is not (or not only) simply because neuroscientists use a language that is scarcely understood by teachers, nor because they are too focused on the rigor of their experimental research, and therefore they are not the most qualified communicators with the practitioners of education, who need ‘‘broad brush messages’’ and prefer to be told ‘‘what works’’ (Goswami, 2007). These direct applications must be avoided,