A Comprehensive Overview of Neuroeducation Studies

Year 2025, Issue: 65, 279 - 303, 19.09.2025

Tuğba Ulusoy , Seraceddin Levent Zorluoğlu , Selda Bakır

https://doi.org/10.9779/pauefd.1559967

Abstract

The aim of this study is to reveal the current state of neuroeducation research and to determine its future direction. In this context, the studies were examined using inductive and deductive content analysis, taking into account different variables. After a preliminary evaluation based on specific criteria, a total of 208 studies from the Web of Science, ERIC, and H. W. Wilson databases were included. The analysis revealed that most of the studies were published in education-related journals, the Web of Science was the most commonly used database, the studies were generally single-authored, and most of the researchers were based in the United States. It was found that theoretical studies were more commonly preferred, qualitative methods were mainly used for data collection, while quantitative methods were preferred for data analysis. It was observed that the sampling method was often not specified, educators were mostly selected as the sample group, and the sample size generally ranged from 0 to 50 participants. While the primary aim of these studies was to provide a general overview of neuroeducation, the findings indicated that neuroeducation has positive implications for educational practice.

Keywords

Neuroeducation , Neuro-education , Educational neuroscience , Neuroscience and education , Content analysis

Project Number

0949-DR-23

Nöroeğitim Çalışmalarına Kapsamlı Bir Bakış

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı nöroeğitim çalışmalarının mevcut durumunu ortaya koymak ve araştırmaların yönelimini belirlemektir. Bu doğrultuda incelenen çalışmaların yazar sayısı, yayın yılı, araştırmacıların ülkeleri, indeks, dergi alanı, örneklem grubu, örneklem büyüklüğü, örnekleme yöntemi, konu alanı, yöntem, veri toplama araçları, veri analiz yöntemi, araştırmanın amaçı, sonuç ve öneri dağılımları tümdengelim ve tümevarım içerik analizi kullanılarak incelenmiştir. Çalışma kapsamında incelenen çalışmalar Web of Science, ERIC ve H. W. Wilson veri tabanlarından elde edilmiştir. Çalışmalar ön değerlendirmeden geçirilerek belirlenen ölçütler doğrultusunda toplam 208 araştırma çalışma kapsamına dahil edilmiştir. Analiz sonuçlarına göre, çalışmaların çoğunluk ile eğitim alanındaki dergilerde yayımlandığı, veri tabanlarından WoS tercih edildiği, çalışmaların genellikle tek yazarlı olduğu ve araştırmacıların büyük çoğunluğunun Amerika Birleşik Devletleri’nden olduğu belirlenmiştir. Kuramsal düzeydeki çalışmaların daha fazla tercih edildiği, veri toplama aracı olacak nitel yöntemlerin ve veri analiz yöntemlerinden ise nicel yöntemlerin seçildiği belirlenmiştir. Çalışmalarda örnekleme yönteminin çoğu zaman belirtilmediği, örneklem grubu olarak en fazla eğitimcilerle çalışıldığı ve örneklem büyüklüğü genellikle 0-50 aralığında olduğu ortaya çıkmıştır. Çalışmaların amacı nöroeğitime genel bir bakış sunmak olurken, sonuçlar nöroeğitimin eğitimde faydalı olduğunu göstermiştir.

Keywords

Nöroeğitim , Nöro-eğitim , Eğitsel nörobilim , Nörobilim ve eğitim , İçerik analizi

Supporting Institution

Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi

Project Number

0949-DR-23

References

• Allee-Herndon, K. A., & Roberts, S. K. (2018). Neuroeducation and early elementary teaching: Retrospective innovation for promoting growth with students living in poverty. International Journal of the Whole Child, 3(2), 4-8.
• Arıkan, R. (2018). Anket yöntemi üzerinde bir değerlendirme. Haliç Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 1(1), 97-159.
• Aslan, R., & Arslantaş, H. (2022). Nörobilim ve psikiyatri hemşireliğinde kullanımı: Hayal ya da gerçek? Sakarya Tıp Dergisi, 12(1), 202-213.
• Bellert, A., & Graham, L. (2013). Neuromyths and neurofacts: Information from cognitive neuroscience for classroom and learning support teachers. Special Education Perspectives, 22(2), 7–20.
• Bei, E., Argiropoulos, D., Van Herwegen, J., Incognito, O., Menichetti, L., Tarchi, C., & Pecini, C. (2023). Neuromyths: Misconceptions about neurodevelopment by Italian teachers. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 100219.
• Bishop Dorothy, V. M. (2014). What is educational neuroscience? https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1030405.v1
• Birkle, C., Pendlebury, D. A., Schnell, J., & Adams, J. (2020). Web of Science as a data source for research on scientific and scholarly activity. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1), 363-376.
• Bowers, J. (2016). The practical and principled problems with educational neuroscience. Psychological Review, 123(5), 600-612.
• Brockington, G., Balardin, J. B., Zimeo Morais, G. A., Malheiros, A., Lent, R., Moura, L. M., & Sato, J. R. (2018). From the laboratory to the classroom: the potential of functional near-infrared spectroscopy in educational neuroscience. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 1840.
• Bruer J. T. (1997). Education and the brain: A bridge too far. Educational Researcher, 26(8), 1 13.
• Busso, D. S., & Pollack, C. (2015). No brain left behind: Consequences of neuroscience discourse for education. Learning, Media and Technology, 40(2), 168-186.
• Campbell, S. R. (2011). Educational Neuroscience: Motivations, methodology, and implications. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(1), 7-16.
• Ching, F. N., So, W. W., Lo, S. K., & Wong, S. W. (2020). Preservice teachers’ neuroscience literacy and perceptions of neuroscience in education: Implications for teacher education. Trends in neuroscience and education, 21, 100144.
• Choudhury, S., & Wannyn, W. (2022). Politics of plasticity: Implications of the new science of the “teen brain” for education. Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry, 46(1), 31-58.
• Clark, C. A., Hudnall, R. H., & Pérez-González, S. (2020). Children's neural responses to a novel mathematics concept. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 20, 100128.
• Compagno, G., Albanese, M., & Giancarlo, G. (2023). NeuroTeaching. To bring educational neuroscience into the classroom. Q-TIMES WEBMAGAZINE, 1(1), 60-72.
• Cubelli, R., & Della Sala, S. (2022). Neuroscience in education: Not a recipe book. Italian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(3), 6-15.
• Cui, Y., & Zhang, H. (2021). Educational neuroscience training for teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge construction. Frontiers in psychology, 12, 792723. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.792723
• Davies, P. (2000). The relevance of systematic reviews to educational policy and practice. Oxford review of education, 26(3-4), 365-378.
• Dekker, S., Lee, N. C., Howard-Jones, P., & Jolles, J. (2012). Neuromyths in education: Prevalence and predictors of misconceptions among teachers. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 429.
• Doukakis, S., & Alexopoulos, E. C. (2020). Knowledge transformation and distance learning for secondary education students-the role of educational neuroscience. In 2020 5th South-East Europe Design Automation, Computer Engineering, Computer Networks and Social Media Conference (SEEDA-CECNSM) (pp. 1-5). IEEE.
• Dursun, I., Kabadayi, E. T., & Yürüyen, H. (2022). Bilimsel Araştırmalarda İnternet Temelli Anketlerin Kullanımı: Akademisyenlerin Görüş, Tercih ve Kaygıları. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 23(1), 1-23.
• Dündar-Coecke, S. (2021). Neuromodulation: A Glance to the Future From the Junction of Education and Neuroscience. The Journal of Turkish Educational Sciences, 19 (1), 542-567. https://doi.org/10.37217/tebd.868102
• Dündar, S., & Gündüz, N. (2016). Misconceptions regarding the brain: The neuromyths of preservice teachers. Mind, Brain, and Education, 10(4), 212-232.
• Elouafi, L., Lotfi, S., & Talbi, M. (2021). Progress report in neuroscience and education: Experiment of four neuropedagogical methods. Education Sciences, 11(8), 373.
• Feiler, J. B., & Stabio, M. E. (2021). “Three pillars of educational neuroscience from three decades of literature”: Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 13, 17-25.
• Ferrero, M., Garaizar, P., & Vadillo, M.A. (2016). Neuromyths in education: Prevalence among Spanish teachers and an exploration of cross-cultural variation. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10, 1-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00496
• Francois, C., Grau-Sanchez, J., Duarte, E., & Rodriguez-Fornells, A. (2015). Musical training as an alternative and effective method for neuro-education and neuro-rehabilitation. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 475.
• Gabrieli, J.D.E. (2016). The promise of educational neuroscience: Comment on Bowers (2016). Psychological Review, 123, 613–619
• Giannopoulou, P., Papalaskari, M. A., & Doukakis, S. (2020). Neuroeducation and Computer Programming: A Review. GeNeDis 2018: Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, 59-66.
• Gkintoni, E., Dimakos, I., Halkiopoulos, C., & Antonopoulou, H. (2023). Contributions of Neuroscience to Educational Praxis: A Systematic Review. Emerging Science Journal, 7, 146-158.
• Gola, G., Compagno, G., & Albanese, M. (2023). NeuroTeaching. To bring educational neuroscience into the classroom, QTimes, XV (1), 60-72.
• Goldwater, M. B., Hilton, C., & Davis, T. H. (2021). Developing an educational neuroscience of category learning. Mind, Brain, and Education, 16(2), 167-182.
• Goswami, U. (2011). Principles of learning, ımplications for teaching: A cognitive neuroscience perspective. Journal of Philosophy of Education 42(3 4), 381 399. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9752.2008.00639.x
• Grospietsch, F., & Mayer, J. (2020). Misconceptions about Neuroscience – Prevalence and Persistence of Neuromyths in Education. Neuroforum 26(2), 63–71. https://doi:10.1515/nf-2020-0006
• Gui, X. U. E., Chuansheng, C. H. E. N., Zhong-Lin, L. U., & Qi, D. O. N. G. (2010). Brain imaging techniques and their applications in decision-making research. Xin li xue bao. Acta psychologica Sinica, 42(1), 120.
• Gülsün, Y., & Köseoğlu, P. (2020). Determining biology teachers' neuromyths and knowledge about brain functions. Education and Science, 45(204).
• Howard-Jones, P. A., Varma, S., Ansari, D., Butterworth, B., De Smedt, B., Goswami, U., ... & Thomas, M. S. (2016). The principles and practices of educational neuroscience: Comment on Bowers (2016). Psychological Review, 123, 620–627.
• Howard-Jones, P., Ott, M., van Leeuwen, T., & De Smedt, B. (2015). The potential relevance of cognitive neuroscience for the development and use of technology-enhanced learning. Learning, media and technology, 40(2), 131-151.
• Hughes, B., Sullivan, K. A., & Gilmore, L. (2020). Why do teachers believe educational neuromyths? Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 21, 100145.
• Jang, C. S., Lim, D. H., You, J., & Cho, S. (2021). Brain-based learning research for adult education and human resource development. European Journal of Training and Development, 46(5/6), 627-651.
• Jenkins, R. T. (2018). Using educational neuroscience and psychology to teach science. Part 2. A case study review of ‘The Brain-Targeted Teaching Model’and ‘Research-Based Strategies to Ignite Student Learning’. School Science Review, 100(371), 66-75.
• Jolles, J., & Jolles, D. D. (2021). On neuroeducation: Why and how to improve neuroscientific literacy in educational professionals. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 752151. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.752151
• Kaku, M. (2014). The Golden age of neuroscience has arrived. Wall Street Journal, 20. http://www.wsj.com/articles/michio-kaku-the-golden-age-of-neuroscience-has-arrived-1408577023
• Караджя, В. М., Міулеску, М. Л., Баліка, М., & Войнеа, Л. (2017). Educational neuroscience: the rise of a new research field in educational sciences. Український педагогічний журнал, (3), 89-101.
• Kara, H., (2021). Eğitsel nörobilim ve eğitimde yansımaları. Eğitimde güncel akademik çalışmalar (pp.3-32). İksad Yayınevi.
• Keçeci, T., & Çolak, I. (2022). The ethical limits of our search to understand the brain in the light of advances in neurotechnology and neuroethics. REFLEKTIF Journal of Social Sciences, 3(1), 133–143. https://doi.org/10.47613/reflektif.2022.60
• Kılıç, Z., & Güven, S. (2018). The effect of braın based learnıng approach on students academıc achıevement and attıtudes levels ın anatomy and physıology class. Journal Of International Social Research, 11(60).
• Knowland, V. C., & Thomas, M. S. (2014). Educating the adult brain: How the neuroscience of learning can inform educational policy. International Review of Education, 60, 99-122.
• Koçak, G. (2020). Beyin araştırmalarının eğitime yansımaları: Geleceğin eğitimi üzerine. Edu 7: Yeditepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(11), 1-16.
• Li, K., Rollins, J., & Yan, E. (2018). Web of Science use in published research and review papers 1997–2017: A selective, dynamic, cross-domain, content-based analysis. Scientometrics, 115(1), 1-20.
• Linn, M. C., Gerard, L., Matuk, C., & McElhaney, K. W. (2016). Science education: From separation to integration. Review of Research in Education, 40(1), 529-587.
• Macdonald, K., Germine, L., Anderson, A., Christodoulou, J., & McGrath, L. M. (2017). Dispelling the myth: Training in education or neuroscience decreases but does not eliminate beliefs in neuromyths. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1314. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01314
• McHugh, M. L. (2011). Multiple comparison analysis testing in ANOVA. Biochemia medica, 21(3), 203-209.
• McMahon, K., Yeh, C. S. H., & Etchells, P. J. (2019). The impact of a modified initial teacher education on challenging trainees' understanding of neuromyths. Mind, Brain, and Education, 13(4), 288-297. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12219
• OECD (2007). Understanding the brain: The birth of a learning science. Understanding the Brain: The Birth of a Learning Science.
• Papatzikis, E. (2017). The educational neuroscience perspective of ABR and lullabies: Setting up an infants brain development study. Int. J. Cross Disciplinary Sub. Educ, 8, 3179-3185.
• Parr, T. L. (2016). A brain-targeted teaching framework: Modeling the intended change in professional development to increase knowledge of learning sciences research and influence pedagogical change in K-12 public classrooms. [Doctoral dissertation, Drexel University].
• Patton, M. Q. (2014). Nitel araştırma ve değerlendirme yöntemleri (Çev: Bütün, M. ve Demir, S. B). Pegem Akademi Yayınları.
• Polat, M. (2014). What ıs the essence of brain based learning. Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 3(2).
• Raichle, M. E., & Mintun, M. A. (2006). Brain work and brain imaging. Annu. Rev. Neurosci., 29(1), 449-476.
• Rato, J. R., Abreu, A. M., & Castro-Caldas, A. (2013). Neuromyths in education: What is fact and what is fiction for Portuguese teachers? Educational Research, 55(4), 441-453. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2013.844947
• Rousseau, L. (2021). Interventions to Dispel Neuromyths in Educational Settings—A Review. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.719692
• Sayan, H. (2020). Neuro-educatıon. The Journal of Academic Social Sciences, 102(102), 205–217. https://doi.org/10.29228/ASOS.41652
• Saygıner, Ş., Balaman, F., & Tiryaki, S. H. (2022). The current trend in educational neuroscience research: A descriptive and bibliometric study. Journal of Computer and Education Research, 10(19), 184-201.
• Spüler, M., Walter, C., Rosenstiel, W., Gerjets, P., Moeller, K., & Klein, E. (2016). EEG-based prediction of cognitive workload induced by arithmetic: a step towards online adaptation in numerical learning. ZDM Mathematics Education 48, 267 278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-015-0754-8
• Simoes, E., Foz, A., Petinati, F., Marques, A., Sato, J., Lepski, G., & Arévalo, A. (2022). Neuroscience Knowledge and Endorsement of Neuromyths among Educators: What Is the Scenario in Brazil? Brain Sciences, 12(6), 734.
• Singh, V. K., Singh, P., Karmakar, M., Leta, J., & Mayr, P. (2021). The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 126, 5113-5142.
• Shyman, E. (2017). Please wait, processing: a selective literature review of the neurological understanding of emotional processing in ASD and its potential contribution to Neuroeducation. Brain Sciences, 7(11), 153.
• Şereflioğlu, Y. T., & Mocan, D. K. (2021). Analysis of researches on educational neuroscience in Turkey. Turkish Scientific Researches Journal, 6(2), 468-480.
• Tham, R., Walker, Z., Tan, S. H. D., Low, L. T., & Annabel Chen, S. H. (2019). Translating education neuroscience for teachers. Learning: Research and Practice, 5(2), 149-173.
• Thomas, M. S. C., Ansari, D., & Knowland, V. C. P. (2019). Annual research review: educational neuroscience: Progress and prospects. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 60, 477-492.
• Torrijos-Muelas, M., González-Víllora, S., & Bodoque-Osma, AR. (2021) The persistence of neuromyths in the educational settings: A systematic review. Front. Psychol, 11, 591923. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.591923
• Uzbay, İ. T. (2015). Beyni anlamak sadece nörobilim ile mümkün mü? Beyin yüzyılında nörolojik bilimlerden sosyal bilimlere yeni açılımlar, yeni yaklaşımlar. Üsküdar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (1), 119-155. https://doi.org/10.32739/uskudarsbd.1.1.12
• Vaughn, A. R., Brown, R. D., & Johnson, M. L. (2020). Understanding conceptual change and science learning through educational neuroscience. Mind, Brain, and Education, 14(2), 82-93.
• Ventura-Campos, N., Ferrando-Esteve, L., & Epifanio, I. (2022). The underlying neural bases of the reversal error while solving algebraic word problems. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 21654.
• Wortha, S. M., Bloechle, J., Ninaus, M., Kiili, K., Lindstedt, A., Bahnmueller, J., ... & Klein, E. (2020). Neurofunctional plasticity in fraction learning: An fMRI training study. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 21, 100141.
• Wu, W. (2023). Teacher factors that affect their research self-efficacy confidence in the ınterdisciplinary field of neuroeducation [Doctoral dissertation, Regent University].
• Youdell, D., Lindley, M., Shapiro, K., Sun, Y., & Leng, Y. (2020). From science wars to transdisciplinarity: The inescapability of the neuroscience, biology and sociology of learning. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 41(6), 881-899.
• Zhang, R., Jiang, Y., Dang, B., & Zhou, A. (2019). Neuromyths in Chinese classrooms: Evidence from headmasters in an underdeveloped region of China. Frontiers in Education, 4, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00008