When Problems are Located to their Brains

Author(s):

Anita Norlund(presenting / submitting)Marianne Strömberg

Conference:

ECER 2016

Network:

28. Sociologies of Education

Format:

Paper

Session Information

28 SES 12, Education Mismatch, Adult Education And Neurobiology

Paper Session

Time:

2016-08-26

09:00-10:30

Room:

NM-B101

Chair:

Gyöngyvér Pataki

Contribution

This presentation aims at providing an overview of illustrations of a neurological discourse and how this discourse operates within two municipal practices. The research approach should be understood as a pedagogically oriented discourse analysis, opening for a critical perspective on a contemporary neurological discourse. According to Hacking (2004) the beginning of the 21st century is the beginning of 'the brain century', a matter of which has influenced politicians (Gaussel & Reverdy, 2013) policy makers, textboook producers and others (Norlund & Strömberg, submitted).

The conviction that students have different brain characteristics and in consequence ought to be met with different teaching approaches is old and widespread. For example, the idea of learning styles has occurred repeatedly over the years, although emerging in different versions (Kornhall, 2014). In parallel with its persistency, several scholars (Ortega & Vidal 2011; Dekker, Lee, Howard-Jones & Jolles 2012) contend that brain research is attracting a renewed and growing interest. The same scholars refer to this idea as a ’neuromyth’.

The two municipal projects in focus of the paper has an overarching ambition of creating equity for a particular student group, i. e. students with a diagnosis within autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Taking as a point of origin that education in general and the municipal projects in particular have intentions of change, the sociologist of education Basil Bernstein contributes a theoretical frame by providing the conceptual pair of ‘intra-individual’ vs ‘inter group’ - oriented discourses (Bernstein 1990, p. 72). Intra-individual change refers to change within the individual student, whereas inter group-change refers to change between sociologically anchored groups. The project target reveal that inter group-change is of high priority.

Method

The data for the presentation is derived from the two municipal projects mentioned above. The first project contributes eight interviews with teacher teams, six interviews with students and 24 remedial action plans for students with ASD. The second project contributes five interviews with student health teams and five interviews with teacher teams. Also other information has been made available and is considered in this paper.

Expected Outcomes

The findings show some salient neurological convictions. For example, one of the municipalities offered in-service development activities, arranged by a private company and based on the idea of Brain Gym.The basic assumption for the Brain Gym idea is that students learn through activities that help them cross the brain's midline. Purdy and Morrison (2009 ) emphasize that schools today are awashed with similar offers of competence development with neurological content, something that also meet teachers' thirst for information on the brain. However, according to Purdy (2008 ) the assumption that the brain's midlines must be crossed lacks scientific support. The pedagogically oriented critical discourse analysis shows how a neuroscientific discourse exerts power by primarily directing the involved staff to individual phenomena, and as such emphazising intra- individually oriented change.. This is despite the project interventions and the pronounced emphasis on change between the group of students with a diagnosis within autism spectrum disorder and others. The analysis also shows that interventions might be counter-productive, interrupting the students chances of acquiring broad, academic repertoires. This circumstance is not verbalized by the participants. Instead, it only operates as a tension in the material.

References

Bernstein, Basil (1990). Class, codes and control. Vol. 4, The structuring of pedagogic discourse. London: Routledge. Dekker, Sanne, Lee, Nikki C., Howard-Jones, Paul & Jolles, Jelle (2012). Neuromyths in education: Prevalence and predictors of misconceptions among teachers. Front. Psychol. 3: 429, 1-8. Gaussel, Marie & Reverdy, Catherine (2013). Neurosciences et éducation: la bataille des cerveaux. Dossier d’actualité Veille et Analyses IFÈ, n° 86, septembre. Lyon: ENS de Lyon. Hacking, Ian (2004, 24 juni). Minding the Brain. The New York Review of Books. Kornhall, Per (2014, 28 november). Lärarna måste vara på tårna och fråga: Vilken vetenskap? Skolvärlden. Norlund, Anita & Strömberg, Marianne (submitted). När problem lokaliseras till elevers hjärnor. Ortega, Francisco & Vidal, Fernando (Eds.) (2011). Neurocultures. Glimpses into an Expanding Universe. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Purdy, Noel (2008). Neuroscience and Education: How Best to Filter out the Neurononsense from Our Classrooms? Irish Educational Studies, 27(3), 197-208. Purdy, Noel & Morrison, Hugh (2009). Cognitive Neuroscience and Educat-ion: Unravelling the Confusion. Oxford Review of Education, 35(1), 99-109.

Author Information

Anita Norlund (presenting / submitting)

University of Borås

Marianne Strömberg