Knowledge of neuroscience boosts motivation and awareness of learning strategies in science vocational education students
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1344/joned.v1i2.33035Keywords:
self-concept, neuroscience, learning strategies, metacognition, neuroeducation, student motivation, nature of learning, vocational education trainingAbstract
Interest in how neuroscience can support education has grown over the last few years. Based on the concept that neuroscience can help to tailor education, we carried out a workshop-based intervention for young adult students, with the goal of impacting their self-concept as learners. We surmised that educating participants about brain structure and function, and about the nature of learning, may change how students perceive themselves and elicit a positive mindset for learning situations. The aim of this research was to transform students’ self-concept, enhance their motivation, and provide them with useful tools for their education and long-life challenges as learners. For this, the MSLQ instrument and qualitative students’ assesment was used to collect data before, immediately after and 10 months after the intervention. Our results show that a program about neuroeducation and learning strategies, directly impacted student motivation. Also, students reported long-term use of such tools. We conclude that similar interventions may be useful in different learning contexts to help students become aware of self-motivation and the strategies they use, and thereby more effective learners.
References
1. Pietsch J, Walker R, Chapman E. The relationship among self-concept, self-efficacy, and performance in mathematics during secondary school. Journal of educational psychology. 2003; 95(3), 589. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.95.3.589
2. Núñez J, González‐Pienda JA, González-Pumariega S, Roces C, Alvarez, González P, et al. Subgroups of attributional profiles in students with learning difficulties and their relation to self‐concept and academic goals. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice. 2005; 2(20), 86-97. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5826.2005.00124.x
3. Thomas CR, Gadbois SA. Academic self‐handicapping: The role of self‐concept clarity and students’ learning strategies. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 2007; 1(27), 101–119. doi: 10.1348/000709905X79644
4. Mcinerney DM, Cheng RW, Mo M, Mok C, Kwok A, Lam H. Academic Self-Concept and Learning Strategies: Direction of Effect on Student Academic Achievement. Journal of Advanced Academics. 2012; 23(3), 249-269. doi: 10.1177/1932202X12451020
5. Jaiswal SK, Choudhuri R. Academic Self Concept and Academic Achievement of Secondary School Students. American Journal of Educational Research. 2017; 5(10), 1108-1113. doi: 10.12691/education-5-10-13
6. Fleming SM, Dolan RJ. The neural basis of metacognitive ability. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. 2012; 367(1594), 1338 1349. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2011.0417.
7. Molenberghs P, Trautwein FM, Böckler A, Singer T, Kanske P. Neural correlates of metacognitive ability and of feeling confident: a large-scale fMRI study. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. 2016; 11(12), 1942-1951. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsw093
8. Quartz SR. The constructivist brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 1999; 3(2), 48-57. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(98)01270-4
9. Anderson OR. Neurocognitive theory and constructivism in science education: A review of neurobiological, cognitive and cultural perspectives. Brunei International Journal of Mathematics and Science Education. 2009; 1(1), 1-32.
10. Dennick R. Constructivism: reflections on twenty five years teaching the constructivist approach in medical education. International Journal of Medical Education. 2016; 7(200). doi: 10.5116/ijme.5763.de11
11. Dweck CS, Leggett EL. A Social-Cognitive Approach to Motivation and Personality. Psychological Review. 1988; 95(2), 256. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256
12. Blackwell LS, Trzesniewski KH, Dweck CS. Implicit Theories of Intelligence Predict Achievement Across an Adolescent Transition: A Longitudinal Study and an Intervention. 2007; 78(1), 246-263. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00995.x
13. Dweck CS. Self-theories: their role in motivation, personality, and development (1st ed.). Psychology Press; 2013. doi: 10.4324/ 9781315783048
14. Yeager DS, Hanselman P, Walton GM, Murray JS, Crosnoe R, Muller C, et al. A national experiment reveals where a growth mindset improves achievement. Nature. 2019; 573(7774), 364-369. doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1466-y
15. Dommett EJ, Devonshire IM, Sewter E, Greenfield SA. The impact of participation in a neuroscience course on motivational measures and academic performance. Trends in Neuroscience and Education. 2013; 2, 122-138. doi: 10.1016/j.tine.2013.05.002
16. Aronson J, Fried CB, Good C. Reducing the Effects of Stereotype Threat on African American College Students by Shaping Theories of Intelligence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2002; 38(2), 113-125.
17. Gardner H. Frames of mind: the theory of multiple intelligences. Hachette Uk; 2011.
18. Butler DL, Winne PH. Feedback and Self-Regulated Learning: A Theoretical Synthesis. Review of Educational Research. 1995; 65(3), 245-281.
19. Sperling RA, Howard BC, Staley R, DuBois N. Metacognition and Self-Regulated Learning Constructs. Educational Research and Evaluation. 2004; 10(2), 117-139. doi: 10.1076/edre.10.2.117.27905
20. Sungur, S. (2007). Contribution of motivational beliefs and metacognition to students’ performance under consequential and nonconsequential test conditions. Educational Research and Evaluation. 2007; 13(2), 127-142. doi: 10.1080/13803610701234898
21. Becker SA, Brown M, Dahlstrom E, Davis A, DePaul K, Diaz V, et al. NMC horizon report: 2018 higher education edition. EDUCAUSE; 2018.
22. Higgins S, Hall E, Baumfield V, Moseley D. A meta-analysis of the impact of the implementation of thinking skills approaches on pupils. Project Report. EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London; 2005.
23. Dignath C, Büttner G. Components of fostering self-regulated learning among students. A meta-analysis on intervention studies at primary and secondary school level. Metacognition and Learning. 2008; 3(3), 231-264. doi: 10.1007/s11409-008-9029-x
24. Klauer KJ, Phye GD. Inductive Reasoning: A Training Approach. Review of Educational Research. 2008; 78(1), 85-123. doi: 10.3102/0034654307313402
25. Donker AS, de Boer H, Kostons D, Dignath van Ewijk CC, van der Werf MPC. Effectiveness of learning strategy instruction on academic performance: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review. 2014; 11, 1-26. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2013.11.002
26. Pozuelos JP, Combita LM, Abundis A, Paz‐Alonso PM, Conejero Á, Guerra S, Rueda MR. Metacognitive scaffolding boosts cognitive and neural benefits following executive attention training in children. Developmental Science. 2019; 22(2), e12756.
27. Kelleher ME Readers’ theater and metacognition. The New England Reading Association Journal. 1997; 2(33), 4-12.
28. Mokhtari K, Sheorey R. Measuring ESL students’ awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Developmental Education. 2002; 3(25), 2-11.
29. Garner R. Metacognition and executive control. 1994.
30. Duncan T, Pintrich P, Smith D, Mckeachie W. Motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ) Manual. 2015. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2547.6968
31. Ramírez-Orantes C. Modelo causal de los factores asociados al aprendizaje autorregulado como mediador del rendimiento académico en estudiantes universitarios. Universidad Complutense de Madrid; 2016.
32. Burnette JL, Hoyt CL, Russell VM, Lawson B, Dweck CS, Finkel E. A growth mind-set intervention improves interest but not academic performance in the field of computer science. Social Psychological and Personality Science. 2020; 11(1), 107-116. doi: 10.1177/1948550619841631
33. Dweck CS. The Choice to Make a Difference. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2019; 14(1), 21-25. doi:10.1177/1745691618804180
34. Sisk VF, Burgoyne AP, Sun J, Butler JL, Macnamara BN. To what extent and under which circumstances are growth mind-sets important to academic achievement? Two meta-analyses. Psychological Science. 2018; 29(4), 549-571.
35. Cavanagh AJ, Chen X, Bathgate M, Frederick J, Hanauer DI, Graham MJ. Trust, growth mindset, and student commitment to active learning in a college science course. CBE-Life Sciences Education. 2018; 17(1), ar10.
36. Limeri LB, Carter NT, Choe J, Harper HG, Martin HR, Benton A, Dolan EL. Growing a growth mindset: Characterizing how and why undergraduate students’ mindsets change. International Journal of STEM Education. 2020; 7(1), 1-19.
37. Donohoe DR, Collins LB, Wali A, Bigler R, Sun W, Bultman SJ. The Warburg effect dictates the mechanism of butyrate-mediated histone acetylation and cell proliferation. Mol Cell. 2012; 48(4), 612-626. 10.1016/j.molcel.2012.08.033
38. Hoyert MS, O’Dell CD, Hendrickson KA. Using Goal Orientation to Enhance College Retention and Graduation Rates. Psychology Learning & Teaching. 2012; 11(2), 171-179. doi:10.2304/plat.2012.11.2.171
39. Heine SJ, Kitayama S, Lehman DR, Takata T, Ide E, Leung C, Matsumoto H. Divergent consequences of success and failure in japan and north america: an investigation of self-improving motivations and malleable selves. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology . 2001; 81(4), 599.
40. Pintrich PR. The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated learning. International Journal of Educational Research. 1999; 31.
41. Schunk DH, Zimmerman BJ. Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications. Routledge; 2012. doi: 10.4324/9780203831076
42. Macnabb C, Schmitt L, Michlin M, Harris I, Thomas L, Chittendon D et al.Article Neuroscience in Middle Schools: A Professional Development and Resource Program That Models Inquiry-based Strategies and Engages Teachers in Classroom Implementation. Life Sciences Education. 2006; 5, 144. doi: 10.1187/cbe.05–08–0109
43. Owens MT, Tanner KD. Teaching as Brain Changing: Exploring Connections between Neuroscience and Innovative Teaching. CBE-Life Sciences Education. 2017; 16(2), fe2. doi: 10.1187/cbe.17-01-0005
44. Sridharan D, Levitin DJ, Chafe CH, Berger J, Menon V. Neural dynamics of event segmentation in music: converging evidence for dissociable ventral and dorsal networks. Neuron, 55(3), 521-532. doi: 0.1016/j.neuron.2007.07.003
45. Thoma MV, La Marca R, Brönnimann R, Finkel L, Ehlert U, Nater UM. The effect of music on the human stress response. PloS one. 2013; 8(8), e70156. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0070156
46. Ooishi Y, Mukai H, Watanabe K, Kawato S, Kashino M. Increase in salivary oxytocin and decrease in salivary cortisol after listening to relaxing slow-tempo and exciting fast-tempo music. PloS one. 2017; 12(12), e0189075. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189075
47. Salimpoor VN, Benovoy M, Larcher K, Dagher A, Zatorre RJ. Anatomically distinct dopamine release during anticipation and experience of peak emotion to music. Nature Neuroscience. 2011; 14(2), 257. doi:10.1038/nn.2726
48. Wise RA. Dopamine, learning and motivation. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 2004; 5(6), 483. doi:10.1038/nrn1406
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
The authors who publish in this journal agree to the following terms:
a. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication
b. Texts will be published under a Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial License that allows others to share the work, provided they include an acknowledgement of the work’s authorship, its initial publication in this journal and the terms of the license, and not for commercial use.
