How to achieve synergy between medical education and cognitive neuroscience? An exercise on prior knowledge in understanding

Abstract

A major challenge in contemporary research is how to connect medical education and cognitive neuroscience and achieve synergy between these domains. Based on this starting point we discuss how this may result in a common language about learning, more educationally focused scientific inquiry, and multidisciplinary research projects. As the topic of prior knowledge in understanding plays a strategic role in both medical education and cognitive neuroscience it is used as a central element in our discussion. A critical condition for the acquisition of new knowledge is the existence of prior knowledge, which can be built in a mental model or schema. Formation of schemas is a central event in student-centered active learning, by which mental models are constructed and reconstructed. These theoretical considerations from cognitive psychology foster scientific discussions that may lead to salient issues and questions for research with cognitive neuroscience. Cognitive neuroscience attempts to understand how knowledge, insight and experience are established in the brain and to clarify their neural correlates. Recently, evidence has been obtained that new information processed by the hippocampus can be consolidated into a stable, neocortical network more rapidly if this new information fits readily into a schema. Opportunities for medical education and medical education research can be created in a fruitful dialogue within an educational multidisciplinary platform. In this synergetic setting many questions can be raised by educational scholars interested in evidence-based education that may be highly relevant for integrative research and the further development of medical education.

Building on Prior Knowledge: Schema-dependent Encoding Processes Relate to Academic Performance

“…We believe these findings are consistent with the model described above, when considering that newly learned information always either matches or mismatches to some extent with prior information. On the basis of earlier findings (Tse et al, 2007(Tse et al, , 2011van Kesteren, Rijpkema, et al, 2010;Maguire et al, 1999) and theories and the results described here, we thus hypothesize that mPFC serves to assimilate new information into a schema by activating (or retrieving) the schema enabling integration of novel information, whereas MTL detects mismatches with a schema and serves to bind directly different parts of the memory trace into a specific episodic memory (for further explanation, see Ruiter et al, 2012). Additional to encoding, differential effects of encoding on consolidation of schema-related and schema-unrelated memories are conceivable (see e.g., van Kesteren, Rijpkema, Tse et al, 2007).…”

What do faculties specializing in brain and neural sciences think about, and how do they approach, brain-friendly teaching-learning in Iran?

“…The importance of neuro-myths in neuroeducational studies was also emphasized by three of the participants. Neuro-myths originate from a crude relationship between neuroscience and education resulting from the different epistemic natures of the two sciences, so the neuroscientific findings must be interpreted in education with great caution (13,17,28,29).…”

“…Reuiter (2013), Cecillio-Fernandez (2016), Van Hoof (2018) mentioned that repetitive tests during learning facilitate retrieval from long-term memory. This strategy modifies the information based on the new knowledge and improves learning by the reconstruction of schemas (5,28,50).…”

Uncovering students’ misconceptions by assessment of their written questions

“…Construction and reconstruction of mental models is considered a central element of active student centered learning [38]. As Dennick stated, the constructivist theory implies that activation of prior knowledge may reveal incorrect conceptual understanding [37].…”