Building the Bridge Between Science and Practice: Essential Characteristics of a Translational Framework

Abstract

Mind, brain, and education is a field developed with two key purposes: (1) to accelerate the knowledge developed through research by using an interdisciplinary approach, and (2) to create a bridge to connect and apply this knowledge to educational practice. While great progress has been made with regard to the interdisciplinary efforts of mind, brain and education, a chasm remains between the fields of science and educational practice. This article presents the case for bridging that chasm through the development of a translational and bidirectional framework that allows the fields of science and educational practice to access and influence each other. The characteristics of such a framework are proposed as theory‐driven and perspective‐neutral, interdisciplinary and interdependent, grounded in the science of development, context‐sensitive, and allowing for falsifiability. Potential enablers for the successful implementation of such a framework are proposed.

A Bridge No Longer Too Far: A Case Study of One School's Exploration of the Promise and Possibilities of Mind, Brain, and Education Science for the Future of Education

“…To that end, we present a case study to illustrate that John Bruer's () infamous “bridge” is no longer too far. In addition, in reply to Stafford‐Brizard, Cantor, and Rose (), we outline a series of steps for successful translation in the hope that our practical experience can shed some insights to further the field in this important direction.…”

“…In doing so, we have gained practical insights into how to make MBE translation work. Stafford‐Brizard et al () proposed a strong case for MBE translation. In this article, we offer suggestions on how to make this work in schools.…”

“UNIFIED”: Bridging the Researcher–Practitioner Divide in Mind, Brain, and Education

“…This means that theoretical research from one field can inform and shape empirical research in other disciplines (Willingham & Lloyd, ), such as education and psychology's constructivism finding new validation in neuroscience's neuroconstructivism (Mareschal et al, ; Szűcs & Goswami, ). It is clear that pedagogy can also inform theories in psychology and neuroscience (LaRusso et al, ) and test the applicability of neuroscience and psychology theories in the real world (Kuriloff et al, ; Stafford‐Brizard et al, ), just as psychology can help explain how and why some practices foster learning and development, while others do not (Ansari & Coch, ; Christodoulou & Gaab, ). For example, Sigman et al () described how an understanding of the neuroscience of visual learning could have predicted the superiority of a letter‐by‐letter “phonics” system over the whole word approach to the teaching of reading, saving the field a decades‐long debate (e.g., Castles et al, ).…”

“…A threat exists, therefore, in different perceptions of what can and should be measured and the possible conflicts this can create between teacher and researcher. This sentiment was echoed by Stafford‐Brizard et al () when they noted, “the evolution will no doubt create tension on both sides of the bridge as each side will prioritize meeting standards for rigor in their respective fields” (p. 9). This suggests that success criteria for educational outcomes may have to be renegotiated between parties before beginning the research.…”

“…In light of these goals, MBE science cannot fulfill its stated aims as a transdisciplinary endeavor (Leavy, 2016) unless information sharing and expertise is a three-way process, with strong, reciprocal "bridges" between each field (Coldwell et al, 2017;Stafford-Brizard, Cantor, & Rose, 2017). Despite a growing enthusiasm from the education community (Pickering & Howard-Jones, 2007), many teachers lack confidence and/or skills in research (Coldwell et al, 2017), and many in the neuroscience community fail to link their work to real classrooms (Rose, Daley, & Rose, 2011).…”