2020 international survey v04

1
Evaluating what Mind, Brain, and
Education has taught us about
teaching and learning:
2020 International Survey
Tracey Tokuhama-Espinosa, Harvard University, Extension School
Ali Nouri, Malayer University, Education
David Daniel, James Madison University, Psychology
June 2020

2
Authors
Tracey Tokuhama-Espinosa, Ph.D. is an alumna of the Harvard Graduate School of
Education, and currently a professor at the Harvard University Extension School in a course
called Neuroscience of Learning: An Introduction to Mind, Brain, Health and Education. She
serves as Associate Editor of the Nature Partner Journal Science of Learning and is
affiliated with the Faculty of Social Science Research (FLACSO) in Quito, Ecuador. She has
published eight academic books with W.W. Norton, Teachers College Press, and Praeger,
five on the field of Mind, Brain, and Education Science and three titles on language and
multilingualism, as well as dozens of peer-reviewed articles. Her most recent work include
“The Learning Sciences Framework in Educational Leadership” (Frontiers in Education, Dec
2019), and the “Neuromyths” entry in Elsevier’s Encyclopedia of Behavioral Neuroscience
(2021).
Ali Nouri, Ph.D. is a curriculum specialist and educational neuroscientist who studies the
neurocognitive bases of learning and cognition, and their implications for curriculum design
and development. He works as associate professor in the department of educational studies
at Malayer University, Iran and is a part time professor in the Department of Mind, Brain and
Education at the Institute for Cognitive Studies and teaches courses on Educational
Neuroscience and Foundations of Mind, Brain and Education Science (MBES). He received
his Ph.D. in Curriculum and Instruction in from Tarbiat Modares University, Iran and
completed a sabbatical in cognitive science with Peter Gärdenfors, professor of cognitive
science at the Lund University, Sweden. Since 2012, his research focuses on issues
interfacing neuroscience and education to make meaningful connections across mind, brain,
and education.
David B. Daniel is an award-winning teacher with over 25 years of classroom experience.
He is a highly sought international speaker and scholar focused on developing evidence
demonstrated useable knowledge for educational practice and policy. A Fellow of the
Association for Psychological Science, David has been honored numerous times for his
teaching and translational efforts. In additional to earning many university/college level
teaching awards, his national honors include the Society for the Teaching of Psychology’s
Teaching Excellence Award, the Transforming Education through Neuroscience Award, and
being recognized as one of the top 1% of educational researchers influencing public debate
in the US. He was recently appointed to a select panel of the National Academy of Sciences
to update and extend the influential NRC report How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience,
and School and featured in the Princeton Review’s 300 Best Professors.

3
This report is dedicated to the memory of Kurt W. Fischer (1943-2020),
transdisciplinary thinker, and inspirational mentor.

4
Table of Contents
Preface.......................................................................................................................7
Summary....................................................................................................................9
Why ........................................................................................................................9
What .......................................................................................................................9
When .................................................................................................................... 10
Who ...................................................................................................................... 10
Where................................................................................................................... 12
How ...................................................................................................................... 12
Key Findings ............................................................................................................ 13
Part 1 What principles of learning are supported by MBE research? ....................... 14
Principle 1. Uniqueness........................................................................................ 15
Principle 2. Different Potentials............................................................................. 17
Principle 3. Prior Experiences............................................................................... 20
Principle 4. Constant Changes ............................................................................. 22
Principle 5. Plasticity............................................................................................. 24
Principle 6. Memory + Attention = Learning.......................................................... 25
Additional Principles? ........................................................................................... 27
Part 2 What tenets of learning are supported by MBE research? ............................ 29
Tenets 1: Motivation ............................................................................................. 31
Tenets 2: Emotions and Cognition........................................................................ 32
Tenets 3: Stress.................................................................................................... 33
Tenets 4: Anxiety.................................................................................................. 35
Tenets 5: Depression............................................................................................ 36
Tenets 6: Challenge and Threat ........................................................................... 37
Tenets 7: Facial Expressions................................................................................ 38
Tenets 8: Tones of Voice...................................................................................... 40
Tenets 9: Social Interactions ................................................................................ 42
Tenets 10: Attention.............................................................................................. 43
Tenets 11: Learning is Not Linear......................................................................... 45
Tenets 12: Conscious and Unconscious Processes............................................. 47
Tenets 13: Learning is Developmental as well as Experiential............................. 48
Tenets 14: Body and Brain ................................................................................... 49
Tenets 15: Sleep and Dreaming ........................................................................... 50
Tenets 16: Nutrition .............................................................................................. 52
Tenets 17: Physical Activity.................................................................................. 53
Tenets 18: Use It Or Lose It.................................................................................. 54
Tenets 19: Feedback............................................................................................ 56
Tenets 20: Relevant and Meaningful Contexts..................................................... 58
Tenets 21: Novelty and Patterns .......................................................................... 59
Part 3 What key concepts should be included in basic teacher knowledge?............ 62
Part 4 What are the lasting contributions of Mind, Brain, and Education science?... 70

5
Part 5 What is the main aim of education based on Mind, Brain, and Education
science?................................................................................................................... 74
Part 6 What changes are needed in Education from a Mind, Brain, and Education
perspective?............................................................................................................. 79
Part 7 What, if anything, should children be taught about the brain and learning?... 84
Part 8 How do you distinguish the field of Mind, Brain, and Education science from
Educational Neuroscience and Neuroeducation? .................................................... 88
Part 9 What are some possible careers for Mind, Brain, and Education science,
Educational Neuroscience and Neuroeducation graduates?.................................... 94
Contact Information................................................................................................ 105

6
Figures and Tables
Figure 1. Participants’ Fields (detailed).................................................................................................11
Figure 2. Participants’ Fields (Neuroscience, Psychology and Education) ..........................................11
Figure 3. Participants’ Countries of Origin ............................................................................................12
Figure 4. How Do You Distinguish MBE, Educational Neuroscience and Neuroeducation? ...............93
Figure 5. Possible Careers for MBE and Educational Neuroscience Graduates ...............................100
Table 1. Mind, Brain, and Education Principles 2020 Results..............................................................14
Table 2. Comments on the Principle of Uniqueness.............................................................................15
Table 3. Comments on the Principle of Different Potentials .................................................................18
Table 4. Comments on the Principle of Prior Experiences ...................................................................20
Table 5. Comments on the Principle of Constant Changes..................................................................22
Table 6. Comments on the Principle of Plasticity..................................................................................24
Table 7. Comments on the Principle of Memory Systems and Attention Systems...............................25
Table 8. Mind, Brain, and Education Tenets 2020 Results...................................................................29
Table 9. Comments on the Principle of Motivation ...............................................................................31
Table 10. Comments on the Tenet of Emotions and Cognition............................................................32
Table 11. Comments on the Tenet of Stress ........................................................................................34
Table 12. Comments on the Tenet of Anxiety.......................................................................................35
Table 13. Comments on the Tenet of Depression ................................................................................36
Table 14. Comments on the Tenet of Challenge and Threat................................................................37
Table 15. Comments on the Tenet of Facial Expressions....................................................................38
Table 16. Comments on the Tenet of Tones of Voice ..........................................................................40
Table 17. Comments on the Tenet of Social Interactions.....................................................................42
Table 18. Comments on the Tenet of Attention ....................................................................................43
Table 19. Comments on the Tenet of Learning is Not Linear...............................................................45
Table 20. Comments on the Tenet of Conscious and Unconscious Processes...................................47
Table 21. Comments on the Tenet of Learning is Developmental as well as Experiential...................48
Table 22. Comments on the Tenet of Body and Brain..........................................................................49
Table 23. Comments on the Tenet of Sleep and Dreaming .................................................................51
Table 24. Comments on the Tenet of Nutrition.....................................................................................52
Table 25. Comments on the Tenet of Physical Activity ........................................................................53
Table 26. Comments on the Tenet of Use It Or Lose It........................................................................55
Table 27. Comments on the Tenet of Feedback...................................................................................56
Table 28. Comments on the Tenet of Relevant and Meaningful Contexts...........................................58
Table 29. Comments on the Tenet of Novelty and Patterns.................................................................59
Table 30. The Original and Modified Basic Conceptual Knowledge Areas in Mind, Brain, and
Education ..............................................................................................................................................62
Table 31. New Areas of Teachers’ Basic Conceptual Knowledge based on Comments .....................65
Table 32. New Areas of Teachers’ Basic Conceptual Knowledge based on Open-Ended Questions.65
Table 33. Key Concepts in MBE Teacher Knowledge..........................................................................67
Table 34. Lasting Contributions of Mind, Brain, and Education............................................................70
Table 35. The Aim of Education............................................................................................................74
Table 36. Changes needed in education ..............................................................................................79
Table 37. What, if anything, should children be taught about the brain and learning?.........................84
Table 38. The Relationships between the fields of Mind, Brain, and Education science, Educational
Neuroscience and Neuroeducation.......................................................................................................88
Table 39. Careers options in Mind, Brain, and Education, Educational Neuroscience, and
Neuroeducation.....................................................................................................................................94
Table 40. Additional comments from participants...............................................................................102

7
Preface
Some questioned the need for more research on teacher knowledge related to Mind, Brain,
and Education science. A few participants actually said that this seems a little “ridiculous” as
“everyone already knows” this information. While we agree there is robust evidence, as seen
in the more than 4,200+ documents which are embedded in the descriptions of the principle,
tenets and guidelines in this report, it is precisely because this information is not yet
common knowledge for teachers that we decided to embark on this study.
Several initiatives are underway right now that promote the conscientious understanding,
research and application of evidence-based practices about human learning, including
knowledge about the brain and body in classroom settings and beyond. However, there
remain close to a hundred neuromyths that are commonly sprinkled throughout teacher
professional development, which are promoted by unknowing or unscrupulous teacher
trainers. We hope that the information here will serve as a broad, internationally accepted
parameter to guide educators’ professional development.
There were four important themes which were echoed throughout participant comments.
The first is that most experts in the fields of Mind, Brain, and Education science know many,
or even most, of the ideas presented in this report. While knowledgeable, however, most
have not spent a lot of time considering the classroom applications of this information in real
student-teacher learning dynamics. That is, the researcher-practitioner model remains
relatively rare. Few teachers research well; few researchers teach well. This suggests more
work is needed to nurture a new type of professional at the crossroads not only of mind
(psychology), brain (neuroscience) and education, but also at the intersection of research
and teacher practice.
Second, some participants in this study either over- or underestimated the impact of
certain scientific findings on learning. It was not uncommon to find a participant
acknowledge something as being true, but then labeling it as “unimportant in education”. For
example, one scientist said that it was true that facial expressions conveyed emotions, but
then commented that it was unclear how this had any role in education. Similar comments
were made about the ways that sleep and dreaming, physical activity, and challenges and
threat are related to learning. Such comments suggest many people remain unware of how
the teaching-learning dynamic can potentially be shaped by this information.
Third, several participants commented on the need to balance attention for the unique
aspects of human learning with the globally similar aspects of human learning. This
means that teachers should be taught both that humans as a species are remarkably similar
in how we learn to read or do math problems, while at the same time appreciate how and
why we also differ in learning these skills. Both the similarities of human minds and brains,
as well as the differences, should play a role in teacher education. Indeed, most of the
remarkable imaging research over the past decade calls attention to how amazingly similar
neural pathways are for estimating non-symbolic magnitude, common nutritional needs to
fuel thinking, or learning how to read, for example. Similar is not identical, however. This
means that while the differences between human brains must be acknowledged to tailor
learning experience to the individual, so should teachers be taught about the ways brains
are the same so that they can take advantage of “typical” learning trajectories.
Fourth, there was a sincere concern by many that short, abbreviated statements can
never capture the complexity of the science behind them. Several people agreed that
helping teachers have better access to information was important, but that this should not be

8
done through “edible science,” as one put it. One neuroscientist suggested that writing for a
general audience always puts the integrity of the science at risk. Several initiatives can help
here, including more and better researcher-practitioners in the field, improved scientific
literacy by all teachers, and a change in attitude that embraces complexity over quick fixes in
teacher education. This places a very important role on the translators and teacher trainers
that use this information, who must do so responsibly and based solely on the evidence.
Mind, Brain, and Education science, along with Educational Neuroscience and
Neuroeducation, are growing up and into their own potentials. As with any emerging entity,
there are many rough edges to refine, and many traits to define. The authors hope that this
report contributes to the discussions, debates and decisions about who we hope to become
as learning scientists in these exciting times.
Tracey Tokuhama-Espinosa, Ali Nouri and David Daniel
June 15, 2020

9
Summary
Why
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the current initiatives in the field of Mind, Brain,
and Education (MBE) science that have potentially impacted the teaching-learning dynamic.
Previous research, including a 2007-2008 International Delphi Panel on Mind, Brain, and
Education, and a 2017 International Delphi Panel 10-year follow-up (Tokuhama-Espinosa)1
served as the primary source of review.2
The 2019-2020 survey sought to confirm the
validity of the 2017 findings as well as to address additional components of teacher
practices.
The organizers hope that the results of this survey will further advance understanding of the
teaching-learning dynamic by determining what credible information should be shared with
teachers from Mind, Brain, and Education science.
What
This study sought to identify what, if anything, Mind, Brain, and Education science has
taught us about teaching and learning. Further, one of the goals of this study was to
determine if there was international agreement on what should be part of teachers’
pedagogical knowledge from a Mind, Brain, and Education science perspective.
The survey was divided into six parts: (a) Principles; (b) Tenets; (c) MBE Teacher
Knowledge; (d) Education Grounded in MBE; (e) the Scope of MBE; and (f) Demographics
of participants. The current study sought answers to nine questions:
1. What principles of learning are supported by Mind, Brain, and Education research?
2. What tenets of learning are supported by Mind, Brain, and Education research?
3. What concepts or domains of current Mind, Brain, and Education knowledge are
important for teachers to know?
4. What, if any, are the lasting contributions of Mind, Brain, and Education science to
educational practice, policy and/or research?
5. What is the main aim of education based on Mind, Brain, and Education science?
6. What changes should be made in the current education system?
7. What should children be taught about the brain and learning?
8. How do experts distinguish the field of Mind, Brain, and Education science from
Educational Neuroscience and Neuroeducation?
9. What are some possible careers for Mind, Brain, and Education science?
1
The 2017 International Delphi Panel on Mind, Brain, and Education can be found here.
2
This 100-page summary is meant to identify the highlights of the report. The full compiled report and raw data
are available from the authors. Contact tracey.tokuhama@gmail.com.

10
When
Data gathering took place between September and November 2019. The data download,
cleaning, and analysis occurred between December 2019 and April 2020. The bundle (mini-
libraries on topics) literature update took place in May 2020. The final report was compiled in
June 2020.
June 2020 marks 16 years after the birth of the Mind, Brain, and Education degree program
at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, 13 years after the launching of the
International Mind, Brain, and Education Society and the Mind, Brain, and Education journal,
and three years after the 2017 International Delphi panel on Mind, Brain, and Education.
Who
Participants were selected using a criterion-based sampling technique. The final list of
people invited to participate in the survey included 358 people who were identified as
influential in shaping MBE policy, practice and research. Of the 358 invitations sent, 112
people from 30 different countries completed the survey.
Invitation criteria
Inclusion Criteria
People were included in the survey if they met at least one of the following criteria:
• Participant in the 2008 or 2017 Delphi panel of experts on Mind, Brain, and Education.
• Influential in shaping MBE as evidenced by multiple citations of research in the field.
• Contributor to the MBE framework as evidenced by seminal publications.
• Contributor to a specific theory, activity, methodology, technique or other pedagogical tool
that was grounded in neuroscience.
The list of people invited to participate3
was amended for balance between people who had
self-identified as being from neuroscience, psychology, education, MBE, educational
neuroscience, neuroeducation and other learning science sub-fields. This meant, in effect,
adding more Educators to the list, which extended inclusion criteria to:
• MBE Practitioners
3
As this survey was conducted anonymously, the list of people who actually replied from this list of invitations
cannot be determined. Therefore, all invitees are listed here. This does not imply that they all agree with the
results.
358 invitations
10 incorrect
emails (348)
17 polite
declines
(331)
2 not
qualified
(329)
7 engaged in
alternate
format (322)
210 no reply
(112)
112
Participants

11
Participants’ fields
Most people who answered the survey self-identified as being from Education (23%), and
the second largest group was self-identified as Mind, Brain, and Education (19%) (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Participants’ Fields (detailed)
This was followed by Cognitive Neuroscience (10.00%), Educational Psychology (9%),
Educational Neuroscience (8.18%), Developmental Psychology (6%), Cognitive Psychology
(5%) and Neuroscience (5%). This created an imperfect, but relatively balanced input from
people from in different learning sciences. Figure 2 shows what the same people look like if
only the primary fields of MBE, Neuroscience, Psychology, and Education were used.
Figure 2. Participants’ Fields (Neuroscience, Psychology and Education)

12
Where
This survey cast a broad net in hopes of gathering an international perspective on the topic.
The final list of people who participated came from 29 different countries: Argentina,
Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Finland, France,
Germany, Holland, Hungarian, Iran, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Portugal,
Russia, Slovenia, South Korean, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, and USA.
The three primary investigators were North American and Iranian, and were in the USA,
Ecuador and Iran at the time of the survey. They did not participate in the survey.
Figure 3. Participants’ Countries of Origin
• Argentina
• Australia
• Austria
• Belgium
• Brazil
• Canada
• Chile
• China
• Costa Rica
• Finland
• France
• Germany
• Holland
• Hungary
• Iran
• Israel
• Italy
• Japan
• Mexico
• New Zealand
• Portugal
• Russia
• Slovenia
• South Africa
• South Korea
• Spain
• Sweden
• Switzerland
• UK
• USA
How
The present study employed a deductive qualitative online survey. Invitations were set
through email. Responses were gathered through SurveyMonkey© and only one response
was accepted per invitation. The survey had 42 questions and took an average of 22
minutes to complete. The wording of the survey questions on principles and tenets was
based on the consensus of the 2017 Delphi findings.
The key findings from the survey follow.

13
Key Findings
Findings indicate a growing, though not universal, consensus of what should be included in
teachers’ basic pedagogical knowledge as related to contributions from MBE.
The findings from the nine parts of the survey are summarized below.
• Part 1 Principles
• Part 2 Tenets
• Part 3 Teacher Knowledge
• Part 4 Lasting Contributions of Mind, Brain, and Education
• Part 5 The Main Aim of Education
• Part 6 Recommended Changes in Education
• Part 7 Should Children Be Taught About the Brain?
• Part 8 Relationships between MBE, Educational Neuroscience, and Neuroeducation
• Part 9 Possible Careers for MBE Professionals

14
Part 1 What principles of learning
are supported by MBE research?
In this survey, the term principle is referred to as a concept which is “universal” and has
robust evidence for human brains independent of age, gender, or culture. Participants were
asked to review six statements that are listed as the principles of learning (Tokuhama-
Espinosa, 2017) (Table 1) and to answer if they agreed, disagreed or had no basis to reply.
They were also invited to comment after each statement, if they chose.
Table 1. Mind, Brain, and Education Principles 2020 Results
Principle Agree Disagree
No basis
to answer
Principle 1. UNIQUENESS: Human brains are unique as human
faces. While the basic structure of most humans’ brains is the same
(similar parts in similar regions), no two brains are identical. The
genetic makeup unique to each person combines with life experiences
and free will to shape neural pathways.
94.64% 4.46% 0.89%
Principle 2. DIFFERENT POTENTIALS: Each individual’s brain is
differently prepared to learn different tasks. Learning capacities are
shaped by the context of the learning, prior learning experiences,
personal choice, an individual’s biology and genetic makeup, pre-and
peri-natal events, and environmental exposures.
90.18% 8.04% 0.89%
Principle 3. PRIOR EXPERIENCE: New learning is influenced by
prior experience. The efficiency of the brain economizes effort and
energy by ensuring that external stimuli are first decoded, compared,
both passively and actively, with existing memories.
84.68% 7.21% 7.21%
Principle 4. CONSTANT CHANGES IN THE BRAIN: The brain
changes constantly with experience. The brain is a complex, dynamic,
integrated system that is constantly changed by individual
experiences. These changes occur at a molecular level either
simultaneously, in parallel, or even before they are visible in
behavior.
93.69% 1.80% 3.60%
Principle 5. PLASTICITY: The brain is plastic. Neuroplasticity
exists throughout the lifespan though there are notable developmental
differences by age.
96.40% 3.60% 0.00%
Principle 6. MEMORY+ATTENTION=LEARNING: There is no
new learning without some form of memory and some form of
attention. Most school learning requires well-functioning short,
working and long-term memory systems and conscious attention.
However, procedural learning, habituation, sensitization and even
episodic memory can occur without conscious attention.
74.55% 15.45% 9.09%

15
The participants agreed with all six tenets, but to differing degrees, as seen in Table 1. The
sixth principle received less that 75% agreement (74.55%), suggesting it should not be
included as a principle.
Having said that, both memory and attention systems were brought up by participants and
were included as recommendations for inclusion in teachers’ conceptual knowledge (see
Part 3). This suggests both memory systems and attention systems are important teacher
knowledge, but that they should likely be treated as separate concepts rather than a single
principle. As a consequence, possible re-wording of this principle is suggested below based
on the participants’ comments.
The evidence supporting the principles supplied by the 2017 Delphi panel and updated by
the authors in June 2020 can be found here.
Principle 1. Uniqueness
Principle 1. UNIQUENESS: Human brains are unique as human faces. While the basic
structure of most humans’ brains is the same (similar parts in similar regions), no two
brains are identical. The genetic makeup unique to each person combines with life
experiences and free will to shape neural pathways.
Table 2. Comments on the Principle of Uniqueness
A1. Brain plasticity supports this principle, while the question of causal efficacy
remains open
A2. Need to add in last sentence: the genetic makeup "and random developmental
factors", unique to each person
A3. One small thing: “experiences” has the connotation of an event/happening
consciously for the individual. Does it adequately encompass thing like the effects
of gut microbiome?
A4. too many different ideas to agree with. Some are blatantly incorrect whereas
the "life experiences' does lead to different knowledge that will impact learning.
A5. It would be important to mention the relevance of both variables
(internal/genes and external/environment) in specific fields of cognition and
behavior.
A6. From a Developmental Relational System (RDS) meta-theoretical perspective,
it is not possible to conceive universal statements such as "... human brains
independent of age, gender, or culture". The ontosystemic [sic] aspects of
development (e.g., individual brain development) is always embedded in other
developmental contexts which include social and cultural moderators and
mediators.
A7. I selected agree, but I really think we don't know enough yet to make this claim
with authority.
1.
Scope
B1. I would question the use of the term free will. Both because some evidence
brings the extent of free will into question and secondly because much learning can
take place without conscious awareness.
B2. I agree with most of it, but n to. the free will part/ In fact I cannot see how
genetic makeup and free will combine?
B3. I would delete 'and free will' as this falls under 'life experiences'
2.
Free will

16
B4. I think the phrase "and free will" is unnecessary and potentially distracting
B5. "free will" means our conscious and deliberate choices of connecting life
experiences into constructed clusters of ideas, thoughts, and inferences.
B6. The general intent of this statement is clear, however of course the use of the
term "free will" can be controversial from a psychological and philosophical
perspective. However, I agree the CNS is a feedback system and our actions and
instantaneous internal representations feedback into the complexity of network
systems that contribute to our further neurocognitive responses to the environment
and our internal state at any point in time.
B7. I'm not sure about the "free will" part. I tend to think that way but others see a
kind of predetermination in the way the brain and body's structure interacts with its
environment, and I can't discount that.
B8. Not sure what is meant by free will but I interpreted it as self-generated action.
B9. I question whether free will can directly shape neural pathways although it may
be important to doing so through specific exercises.
C1. The brain is unique even if twins have practically the same experiences during
their lives!
C2. I am [in] agree[ment] based on the "elastic ribbon" principle. We have all a
genetic material with a myriad of possibilities, but the environment, the experience
and so forth will increase the probability to use the maximal potential our genes
have.
C3. The brain changes constantly in response to stimuli, so it is possible that human
brains are even MORE unique than human faces!
C4. I would add that not only genetic makeup and life experiences, or free will,
shape neural pathways. There are individual developmental trajectories, not exactly
in the realm of free will, that interact with this triad as well.
3.
Emphasis of unique
characteristics
D1. I disagree with the comparison to human faces as that analogy serves as a gross
understatement of the inherent diversity of the human brain, especially when
compounded with experience. Example: The face does not change with experience
to the extent that the brain does.
D2. Yale University published research in 2015 that looks at this as well but use the
finger print as the comparison. https://news.yale.edu/2015/10/12/imaging-study-
shows-brain-activity-may-be-unique-fingerprints Another thought - neurodiversity
has historically been related to individuals on the spectrum or with a disability;
however, there are increasing references to neurodiversity as being the fact that all
brains are unique. Consideration may want to be given to each brain being unique
and neurodiversity.
4.
Analogy of faces
E1. This is a huge implication for teaching students. 5.
Important
implications for
teaching
F1. So what? This is true, but what bearing does this have on anything? 6.
Unimportant idea
G1. I agree with the statement, but it’s kind of misleading. You could just as well
write a statement emphasizing the ways in which all brains are similar
G2. The differences seem evident and important, but it also seems wise to note that
there are fundamental similarities across many brains.
7.
Not just unique, but
also the same.

17
G3. I agree with that principle. However, I believe we have to be carefully when
talking about it, and emphasize that basic learning mechanisms are the same for all
learners. Too many teachers think that, because everyone has a unique brain, we
must G4. adapt teaching strategies to the learning style or intelligence type of each
student to optimize learning, which is simply not based on evidence.
G5. For the most part the structure of the human brain is quite the same across
people. The same mechanisms play a role in language, literacy, math...The field of
psychology is about these broader principles not about the more minor deviations
one can get by having different experiences. I think this statement is misleading at
best.
G6. My answer will depend on the grain size of analysis:" Comparing people, no
two are alike; comparing people to e.g., dogs, then their brains are representative of
humanity and so vary around a shared form
H1. Insert as before unique so reads as unique as.
H2. Not a well worded statement.
H3. I could quibble with the details, but more agree than not
H4. I don’t think the term "neural pathways" is helpful here. It presupposed a
neurophysiological mechanism that is not necessary to the question.
8.
Wording
The comments fell into eight different categories: (a) Scope; (b) Free will; (c) Emphasis on
the unique characteristics of the brain; (d) analogy to faces; (e) the important implications for
teaching; (f) the unimportance of this idea; (g) the facts that brains are not just unique, but
also very similar; (h) wording of statement.
Of the 34 comments, 26% concerned the inclusion of the concept of “free will,” suggesting
that a thorough review of the evidence related to free will be reviewed. Twenty percent
suggested that the scope of this single statement was either too broad or too narrow.
Eighteen percent wanted it noted that human brains are both unique as well as very similar.
This comment was repeated throughout the survey and suggests that a preface to the
principles should include reference to the great similarities among human brains, rather than
emphasis on the differences.
Twelve percent were concerned that the wording could be more precise, and another 12%
said that there is further evidence for the uniqueness of human brain that could be added.
Six percent noted that the analogy of the brain to faces could be extended further. There
was one comment saying this has huge implications for teaching, and one other saying this
statement is unimportant.
There is robust evidence for Principle 1: Uniqueness in the literature, which should also be
taken into consideration.
Principle 2. Different Potentials
Principle 2. DIFFERENT POTENTIALS: Each individual’s brain is differently prepared to
learn different tasks. Learning capacities are shaped by the context of the learning, prior
learning experiences, personal choice, an individual’s biology and genetic makeup, pre-
and peri-natal events, and environmental exposures.

18
Table 3. Comments on the Principle of Different Potentials
A1. As with many neuroscientific applications to teaching and learning, there are
rich connections possible to a broader literature, and here prior research in
psychology on individual differences among learners would be a natural bridge
to bring teacher educators within the context of this brain-based research.
A2. Individuality has the limits of the species, so at same point there are
universal conditioning aspects.
A3. Individual brains reside in bodies and are integrally bound to a dynamic
environmental context in which many of these factors are interrelated (e.g., brain
on 2 hours sleep and hung over from a party is part of its learning context
A4. Overall nutrition and the ingestion of toxic chemicals is an important
contributing factor to the validity of this principle, especially at the pre- and peri-
natal stage.
1.
More knowledge is
needed to understand
the nuances of this
concept
B1 Same as above [see uniqueness]
B2. See comment above [about uniqueness]
2.
Not different from
Uniqueness.
C1. Again, you could write a statement emphasizing similarities in the cognitive
architecture across individuals.
C2. No, again this is very misleading as in principal human brains have similar
structure and mechanisms.
3.
Should not fail to
remember that
similarities as well as
differences should be
considered.
D1. I don't think this is asking about learning styles (i.e. that students learn best
through their preferred learning style), which is a pervasive and annoying
neuromyth still believed in many educational circles. The wording in the first
sentence connoted "preferred learning styles," though the following sentences
made the principle clearer.
D2. While this is generally true, statements like these have been used in negative
narratives of racial and gender differences.
D3. Yes. But... too often America's educational system is designed for a
"balanced" (think Bell curve) mind, and in reality that leaves 50% really weak in
areas.
4.
True but can be
mistaken for a myth.
E1. All good, but should biology be “biological” to match with “makeup”?
E2. In addition, I would add the way the material or skill to be learned is
presented and the learning activities are structured, and the intrinsic and extrinsic
motivations for learning.
E3. This does not imply that only some people should learn certain things. Every
human has the potential to learn. The speed and depth of learning may differ.
How is this so different from your principle #1?
E4. Weird question. Starts with individual brains being different, and then talks
about different contexts of development. There are two questions here. I agree
with the latter claim, whereas the former (brains are differently prepared) seems
trivial except in the tails of the distribution.
E5. This language is a bit of a disambiguation of the brain from the body, but yes
I agree in full.
E6. I agree, but maybe the title of the principle (different potentials) is
misleading. Intuitively, it seems to me that potential refers only to the genetic.
Here, many cited variables are environmental. Therefore, the link between the
title and the description can be viewed as contradictory.
E7. Learning "capacities" follow a trajectory of unfoldment, and that is
influenced by those factors you name and more. In speaking of genetics make
sure to include epigenetics.
E8. When you use the word potential, it sounds like destiny. The description is
more about experiences that shape but the title suggests that it is more fixed.
5.
Wording: Precision

19
F1. Jesus - you mixed about 5 different themes in that question. I agree with
some, not with others. What am I to do?
F2. Yes I agree with all those, but you leave out a lot. What about other kinds of
experiences, such as the negative effects of emotional trauma, physical traumas
such as disease and accidents, as well as positive aspects of emotional, social,
political and physical experiences? When you talk about the brain's
'preparedness' to learn, this is not a one-off, as it keeps changing all the time in
response to all these factors. And preparedness to learn what? A physical
disability may have no effect at all on the capability to learn one kind of
knowledge, skill or attitude, but be a total barrier to other kinds. And so on.
Learning capacities are so complex, but this statement seems to me to seriously
under-represent that complexity. In that sense I disagree with it.
F3. Lots of words and concepts -- I would love to see these combined to show a
specific example of how all of these weave together. Then I would feel more
comfortable agreeing.
F4. I am not certain if the statement means there are differences in capacities to
learn, or basic differences in tasks learned. I disagree with the former but agree
with the latter, if it implies choices made.
F5. Need to add: "and random developmental factors" (after genetic makeup).
Also need to add at the end: ...and the society that the individual is born into
(including e.g. social status of parents and grandparents; political volatility etc.)
F6. Agreed, but the list might also include things like culture, support systems,
social dynamics, emotional condition, etc.
6.
Wording: Too many
(few) details
The comments fell into six categories: (a) More knowledge is needed to understand the
nuances of this principle; (b) Is this the same Uniqueness principle?; (c) Why only focused
on differences rather than on similarities?; (d) This risks being considered a neuromyth; (e)
Wording (precision); and (f) Wording (too many or too few words).
Of the 25 comments, four people suggest that more knowledge would be needed to
understand the nuances of this concept. Two mentioned that this principle seems the same
as the “Uniqueness” principle. Two others suggested that the wording could be structured
around the similarities, rather than on the differences. One person was concerned that this
kind of wording can be mistaken for support of learning styles myth and two others
suggested this could also promote other neuromyths. There were eight comments
suggesting more precise wording would improve the principle, and six suggesting that the
statement had too many word/concepts already.
While over 90% of the participants agreed with this principle, a review of the wording may
improve acceptance. It should be noted that the 2017 Delphi Panel choose to embellish the
wording because they felt that more details were necessary to avoid neuromythical
interpretations. This may be reflective of the general concern that brief statements are
inadequate; deeper education about core MBE concepts requires more than brief
statements.
There were also thee comments that indicated there is evidence to support this. Indeed,
there robust evidence for Principle 2: Different Potentials in the literature, which should also
be taken into consideration.

20
Principle 3. Prior Experiences
Principle 3. PRIOR EXPERIENCE: New learning is influenced by prior experience. The
efficiency of the brain economizes effort and energy by ensuring that external stimuli are
first decoded, compared, both passively and actively, with existing memories.
Table 4. Comments on the Principle of Prior Experiences
A1. I would generally agree with this principle once the 'pruning' stage of post-
natal neuronal development has occurred. Death of excess neurons coupled
with axonal retraction early in life may be the brain's clever way of solving the
learning paradox. That is, to accommodate learning that is >not< influenced by
prior experience.
A2. Brain built new information based on old one.
A3. Which external stimuli? which existing memories? Even the over-
simplification of brain science does not expect the brain to attend to all external
stimuli, and compare all existing memories on the occasion of each experience.
So it cannot 'ensure' this. There are circumstances under which you could make
this statement, no doubt, but again, it is too simplistic for me to agree with it in
general. You would have to rephrase it in a way that nuances that principle to
something more helpful for learning contexts. Of course new learning is
influenced by prior experience, but cognitive psychology has a lot to say about
how the mind interferes with the brain functions you describe here.
A4. But surely there are degrees of this and an initial interpretation of a basic
experience may be pretty limited. On the other hand a deliberate search for
relevant prior experience and knowledge through connections as simple as
similarities and analogies may deliver powerful constructed knowledge and
understanding.
1.
Additional information is
needed to understand the
nuances of this principle.
B1. I find this principle to be very complex in the way it is written. The
reference to effort and energy as things that the brain does seems odd to me too
B2. I think the wording could be improved
B3. Same concern as question #3. There is a statement of a good principle (new
learning depends on prior experience). But then there is a claim about the
specific mechanisms. I am not sure which statement I am responding to.
B4. This wording just is too specific with regard to both "decoding" and
"comparing". Also stating the word first...as demanding this sequence is too
much. Learning is more ubiquitous. We must begin to understand multiple
forms of learning and as teachers take advantage of these. Does the brain
decode information when we experience "priming" or "inhibition of return"? I
don't think this is the right term.
2.
Wording: Too complex
C1. I think this would benefit from including the notion of 'association' - as
learning is the forming, altering or removing of associations - which by
definition require prior experience
C2. Need to add: influenced by prior experience "as well as evolutionary given
(innate) priors"
3.
Wording: Additions
needed

21
D1. The second sentence is awkwardly phrased; its relationship to the first
sentence isn't as clear/direct as it should be. 1
D2. The second sentence is a little odd. I think I understand it, but it needs to be
unpacked a bit
D3. The first sentence is fairly unambiguous, but the second is hard to interpret,
would need to be put in a theoretical context to be meaningful.
D4. Not certain influence is a strong enough word given the power of prior
experience to impact new learning.
D5. You could say influenced, you could say biased. For better or for worse.
Does evolution constitute prior experience? Epigenetics?
D6. New learning CAN be influenced (otherwise how can we learn brand new
notions) and then the remainder can apply
D7. Disagree slightly, but with the "stimuli are first decoded" part. Predictive
processing theorists say that we impose models from memory (top-down
generative hierarchical models) even before the stimuli are received. Still, I
pushed "agree."
D8. I´m not sure about 'efficiency of the brain' as an explanatory factor here,
but agree that prior experience has a role in much processing of relevant
stimuli.
4.
Wording: Precision
E1. Why bring the brain into this? The first sentence made sense, the r[e]st is
just silly phrasing with no real meaning.
E2. Regarding this par: "The efficiency of the brain economizes effort and
energy by ensuring that external stimuli are first decoded, compared, both
passively and actively, with existing memories." - I am unsure of what papers
would serve as evidence for this from neuroscience, but would be more
confident that info exists from models in cog sci.
E1. Again, here, there is a broad and substantially recent (relatively) base of
cognitive research on how prior knowledge influences our responses to, and
cognitive representation of, new information to be learned.
5.
No need to bring the
brain into this discussion
F1. There is no doubt that new learning is influenced by prior experience.
However, I'm not aware of any strong evidence (i.e. energy data) supporting
this claim.
F2. There are many different kinds of learning supported by brain. Not sure all
occur in same way in brain.
F3. New learning is influenced by prior experience. But I am not sure exactly
how it does it.
6.
True, but unsure why
G1. It works as cognitive anchors as references for new information giving
significance to the unknown.
G2. New learning passes through the filter of previous experience and existing
knowledge
G3. I agree that new learning is influenced by prior experience, but I don't use
this framework of encoding, decoding, and comparing memories.
G4. However, while it commonly activates existing memories it may not
always do so and the idea that the brain economizes effort in all cases suggests
an optimality which may be lacking.
7.
Heuristics: How does all
learning passes through
the filter of prior
experience?
The comments on the principle of prior experiences were categorized into seven topics: (a)
Additional information needed to understand the nuances; (b) Complexity of wording; (c)
Additional wording needed; (d) Precision of wording; (e) Cognitive psychology, not the brain
should be the focus of the explanation; (f) While true, unsure why so; (g) All learning passes
through the filter of prior experience is true, but this is not always optimal.

22
Of the 29 comments made, there were four about the need to add more nuances to better
explain memory systems. This was countered with four other comments that suggested that
the wording was already too complex. Two comments suggested additional words (“as well
as”; “association”) to improve clarity. There was one comment that globally indicated that
“wording can be improved” but offered no suggestions.
There were eight comments asking for more precision in the statement, specifically noting
that the first sentence was clear and acceptable, while the second was overly complicated. It
should be noted that the original principle from 2008 only indicated the first sentence,
whereas the 2017 Delphi Panel added the second sentence because it lacked clarity.
There was one comment that there was agreement “10 times the above” previous comment.
Finally, there were four comments about the precise interaction of neural mechanisms of
prior experience processing and their role in heuristics and whether or not this is optimal.
There were three comments suggesting that cognitive science would better explain memory
systems, and that the brain might overly complicate this information. This was counter-
balanced with three comments that assured this statement was true, but lacked the exact
explanation of how this occurred. This brings into question the level of knowledge needed by
teachers to adequately understand how prior experiences influence the teaching-learning
dynamic. There robust evidence for Principle 3: Prior Experiences in the literature, which
should also be taken into consideration. However, based on the comments here, the precise
level of detail teachers need, is less clear.
Principle 4. Constant Changes
Principle 4. CONSTANT CHANGES IN THE BRAIN: The brain changes constantly with
experience. The brain is a complex, dynamic, integrated system that is constantly
changed by individual experiences. These changes occur at a molecular level either
simultaneously, in parallel, or even before they are visible in behavior.
Table 5. Comments on the Principle of Constant Changes
A1. There is much evidence in support of this principle aside from on-going
dynamics of action potentials and synapses constantly being formed,
reinforced, diminished, broken. There are effects of hemodynamics,
microtubules, and quantum level activity to consider. What is less evident, as
indicated above, is the extent to which individual experiences are
precipitating these brain activities, or whether they are precipitated by them.
A2. Better technology allows us to see even more discreet changes in the
brain
A3. This is so important. You have articulated this so well.
A4. Absolutely! And even without experience. The mix of the 150000
proteins and other substances in the brain change across the lifespan just due
to genetic influence.
1.
Confirmation, and beyond
B1. Need to add "within limits" i.e. there is stability as well as change. E.g.,
the Self is a construct based on continuity rather than constant change.
B2. Important to mention that most (maybe more than 90%) of the brain is
stable, which makes it possible for the changes to take place (learning).
B3. Examples where there may be changes with significant delay as the
integration of the experience into the more established perspective of the self
can take time.
2.
Stability as well as change

23
B4. Although the brain changes some aspects of its structures and functions
over time some structures and functions may stay constant.
B5. Perhaps constant is too rigid. Better to say adapts to changing
circumstances
B6. careful -- yes this is correct just be 'being' but may not be changing to
improve, to learn, but just to survive
C1. Not sure they only occur at a 'molecular' level, e.g. when new axons are
formed/connected. Maybe call it 'neuronal level' instead?
C2. Changes not only occur at a molecular level but also at other levels of
organization (e.g., cellular, network).
C3. Although behavioral changes might be seen before our current methods
allow us to find the underlying molecular events
3.
Not just molecular
D1. Sounds good, but for me until we have some good examples I want to say
that this is still speculative.
D6. I agree with the second sentence. As to the dynamic signature of brain
changes in relation to behaviour - that begs many questions.
4.
Questioning the evidence
E1. However, I don't think the brain can be isolated in this way, except as a
purely abstract exercise.
5.
Remember to put the
brain in its context
F1. The everyday plasticity!
F2. The plasticity of brain processes is huge and constantly allow new
connections, new options.
6.
Renaming plasticity
G1. Again - so what? What is this survey looking for? 7.
So what?
Nineteen people commented on the principle of constant changes. These comments were
divided into seven categories: (a) Confirmation; (b) Stability as well as change; (c) Changes
are not just molecular; (d) Agree, but unsure of the evidence; (e) Reminder to consider
constant changes in context; (f) Plasticity and constant changes; (g) So what?
Four comments enthusiastically backed the principle and added additional details as to how
constant changes occur in the brain. Six participants suggested that this statement should
be balanced by adding that the constant changes are also experienced in a move towards
greater stability over time. Three comments related to the word “molecular”. One person was
unsure how this was measured, one suggested that a more precise word might be
“neuronal” and one suggested a more precise wording would be at the level of networks.
One person cautioned that the constant changes in the brain must always be considered in
context and that without such context this was a “purely abstract exercise”. Two people
suggested that these constant changes is the same as “everyday plasticity”; this brings up
the question of whether or not the principle of constant changes and the principle of plasticity
should be one single principle. One person agreed, but asked “so what” suggesting that this
information is not necessary for teacher practice.
Two people, while agreeing that there are constant changes, said that the evidence for this
was still unclear. There robust evidence for Principle 4: Constant Changes in the literature,
which should also be taken into consideration, and which appears to be absent from teacher
training thus far, given these comments.

24
Principle 5. Plasticity
Principle 5. PLASTICITY: The brain is plastic. Neuroplasticity exists throughout the
lifespan though there are notable developmental differences by age.
Table 6. Comments on the Principle of Plasticity
A1. Plasticity changes over life not only in aspects related to quantity but also
related to quality. This has an evolutionary significance.
A2. The term plasticity is highly ambiguous and should be qualified. Which
plasticity are you referring to, neuronal, synaptic, connectivity, dendrites...
A3. The evidence from much research during the 'Decade of the Brain' has
provided substantial evidence of brain plasticity.
1.
Confirmation, and beyond
B1. by age. <-- I would add also by topic/construct
B2. Not just age, but from major interventions via education (for example)
B3. Older, more myelinated pathways could take more effort and time to
change, whereas younger brains are likely to be more malleable
B4. The developmental plasticity!
B5. Important to distinguish between healthy neuroplasticity and pathologic
processes.
B6. I think that puberty is an example which should be added to this language.
It is often overlooked by those who focus on early childhood development.
B7. Yes, more neuroplasticity earlier in life, less so later in life.
2.
Distinguish between types of
plasticity (developmental;
plasticity; experiential vs.
recuperation)
C1. Principle 5 follows from Principle 4.
C2. The distinction between this principle and the previous on (constant
changes in the brain) isn't clear to me.
C3. Your principles 3 [prior experiences] and 4 [constant changes] are subsets
or consequences of plasticity. An additional consequence is that rehearsal,
application and repetition are all necessary for learning.
C4. I don't see much difference between this statement and #5
3.
Relationship between the
principles
D1. The only thought is that the brain is not actually plastic. For someone
unfamiliar with neuroplasticity, this may be a bit confusing. In most online
searches for "The brain is plastic" you will see this is often addressed by
stating, "The brain is not plastic"......
D2. The brain is not plastic, it is organic material. I would re-word the
opening sentence.
4.
Wording, “plastic”
E1. Now this I have experienced in others, and it is an exciting idea. It needs a
clearer notion of what plasticity is.
E2. Need to add 'within limits'.
5.
Wording, clarifications
F1. No one would disagree with this. So what? 6.
So what?
G1. This fact is crucial!
G2. E3. Although the term plastic may indicate it will always change which
may not be so.
7.
Other
There were 21 comments on the principle of plasticity. There were divided into seven
categories: (a) Confirmation and beyond; (b) Distinguish between types of plasticity
(developmental; plasticity; experiential vs. recuperation); (c) Relationship between the
principles; (d) The word “plastic”; (e) Wording; (f) So what?; (g) Other.

25
There were three comments confirming neuroplasticity and suggesting that there were
additional facts that should be added. There were seven comments about different types of
plasticity that should be distinguished, including the differences between developmental
versus experiential plasticity and the difference between learning versus recuperation.
There were four comments about the close relationships between principles 3, 4, and 5.
These came with suggestions that they were the same, and others that 3 and 4 were a sub-
set of 5. This brings up the question as to whether 3, 4, and 5 should be considered different
principles, or a single principle.
There were two comments about word clarification, with one specific word change and
another more globally requesting a clearer definition. One person wrote, “So what” indicating
that this information might not be necessary for teacher knowledge. One person counter-
balanced the “so what” with “this is crucial”. There was a final comment which was missing
some words, making an interpretation impossible.
There were two comment about the word “plastic” and its inaccuracy when referring to the
brain. This brings up the question as to whether or not colloquial terms should be
incorporated into teacher training, or if it would be preferable to maintain scientific
terminology. A compromise word would be “neuroplasticity” or “neuronal plasticity” which is
accepted in both popular press as well as scientific settings. To respond to this important
observation, this principle should be reworded:
Principle 5. NEUROPLASTICITY: The brain is neuro-plastic. Neuroplasticity exists
throughout the lifespan though there are notable developmental differences by age.
There is robust evidence supporting Principle 5: Neuroplasticity, which should be taken into
consideration when planning teacher education programs.
Principle 6. Memory + Attention = Learning
Principle 6. MEMORY+ATTENTION=LEARNING: There is no new learning without
some form of memory and some form of attention. Most school learning requires well-
functioning short, working and long-term memory systems and conscious attention.
However, procedural learning, habituation, sensitization and even episodic memory can
occur without conscious attention.
Table 7. Comments on the Principle of Memory Systems and Attention Systems
A1. See my caveat to Principle 3. 1.
Overlap with principle 3 on
prior experiences
B1 While memory and attention are necessary ingredients, I cannot agree
with this statement as learning implies so much more.
B2. But these are necessary and not yet sufficient conditions. We sometimes
need a goal -- a purpose -- for sorting out specific forms of learning that are
produced in this way. Without at least this the "learning" can be very trivial,
isolated, and of insignificant meaning.
B3. There's more to learning than just memory and attention - for example,
reasoning and other executive functions, and motivation.
B4. There is far more to learning!
B5. You're driving me crazy. I cannot parse the question. Memory +
Attention are not sufficient for complex learning, but they are necessary. Are
you asking if they are sufficient or necessary?
2.
Learning is more than just
memory and attention

26
B6. Although I would take out the equation sign. Memory and attention are
foundational components of learning. Also, we are over-reliant in our
teaching on working memory and executive function. I would love to see
teachers take advantage of long-term memory systems like episodic
memory, and prepare their students with priming techniques before
introducing new concepts. This is an untapped area for teachers.
B7. I think learning also requires practice.
B8. I more or less agree with this, but would add that truly effective learning
should be joyful and playful.
C1. Learning and memory are two sides of the same coin. Attention can
potentiate or modify both. I would not state this as a mathematical equation.
That is a gross oversimplification and misplaces attention. You contradict
yourself by stating that learning can occur without conscious attention. So
this is not only poorly worded, but has the potential to result in a myth.
C2. attention is needed for episodic memory and also for complex
procedural learning
3.
Two sides of the same coin
D1. There are a lot of terms here. If you do not understand what attention
and procedural learning and all the other terms are this is a hard principle to
grasp
D2. I totally agree with this, but I wonder if this might be confusing to a
layperson. The common understanding of “attention” doesn’t often overlap
with the idea of “non-conscious attention”. It feels like something like the
idea of non-conscious awareness (or possibly mentioning subliminal
messages as an example) might help to clarify this.
D3. Again - you've made many competing points. This survey is really
difficult to address meaningfully.
4.
Complexity of principle
E1. As many educators, psychologists and neuroscientist note today
attention/focus has lost its relevance. "NO ATTENTION TO
ATTENTION!" This means no more memory formation. Then no more
learning.
E2. it is helpful for teachers to understand the fundamentals of memory and
how this can impact the design of learning engagements and retrieval in their
classrooms.
E3. Define School Learning
5.
Role in classroom learning
F1. How is "well-functioning" being defined. Just a consideration.
F2. this is mostly right, I guess? not sure what's meant by episodic memory
w/o conscious attention.
F3. I agree with the second sentence, but the first and third sentences seem
to contradict one another. Also, I don't think procedural learning defined as
the kind (or the only kind) of learning that does not require attention.
F4. I would add that attention does not mean engagement which I think is
also needed.
F5. I don't understand this. Using Kirschner et al's definition learning is
memory. This question seems to confuse learning-verb (the processes by
which memory is changed) and learning-noun (the result of those processes)
F6. Actually I agree with all of this up until the last clause, since even
procedural learning requires attention, just at what some have called an
implicit or enactive level.
6.
Wording, precision
G1. Yes to memory, not necessarily to attention. I learn sometimes
surreptitiously; learning can occur later when connections are made and I
may not have been attending. The second sentence yes, the first sentence not
quite
G2. In general, I agree, but in terms of it being an absolute statement,
cannot. there is a lot of learning (meaning neural change) happening outside
of consciousness and awareness. Examples include learning from dreaming,
neural structural change caused by interoception, etc.
G3. This principle may go to[o] far in saying some for of attention is needed.
We really don’t know that it all cases.
7.
Definition of attention

27
There were 26 comments about the principle of attention+memory=learning. These
comments were divided into seven categories: (a) Overlap with principle 3 of prior
experiences; (b) Learning is more than memory and attention; (c) Attention and memory are
two sides of the same coin; (d) Complexity of this principle; (e) Role in classroom learning;
(f) Wording, precision; (g) Definition of attention.
Two people expressed the idea that attention and memory are two sides of the same coin.
The two comments suggested that there cannot be attention without memory or memory
without attention. This observation suggests that knowledge about the neural networks of
attention and of memory are not yet shared as there are distinct, while sometimes
overlapping circuits. Two people also suggested that while memory and attention are easily
understood concepts, many laypeople do not appreciate the complexity of these systems,
nor their scope. Specifically, this person noted that attention spans the spectrum of
consciousness, not only alert states. None of the comments rejected the role of attention
and the role of memory; all suggested additional elements. There was one comment
referring to the overlap with principle 3 on prior experience. Some participants suggested
that repetition, play and joy are also ingredients of successful learning.
There were eight comments explaining that learning involves more than just attention and
memory. This group of comments suggests that the mathematical expression of this
principle as a formula (+, =) should be modified to include words only and add other
elements.
A suggested re-wording which considers all of these comments would be:
Principle 6. MEMORY SYSTEMS AND ATTENTION SYSTEMS ARE NEEDED FOR
LEARNING: Learning involves multiple cognitive processes, including memory and
attention. There is no new learning without some form of memory and some form of
attention. Learners are not always conscious of these processes. Most school learning
requires well-functioning short, working and long-term memory systems and conscious
attention. However, other types of learning can occur without conscious attention (e.g.,
procedural learning, habituation, sensitization and even episodic memory).
There is robust evidence supporting Principle 6 MEMORY SYSTEMS AND ATTENTION
SYSTEMS ARE NEEDED FOR LEARNING, which should be taken into consideration when
planning teacher education programs.
Additional Principles?
Participants were asked if they would like to add any new principles. Fifty-seven percent
(57.32%) said yes. It is interesting that 10 years ago the majority of experts queried were
hesitant to say that there were any principles at all, and in the current survey more than half
feel that the six principles mentioned were not enough.
Of the 47 comments made, most suggestions were to add a principle about concepts that
are currently labeled tenets in this study. This shows that there is support for core ideas
about teaching and learning, but that most participants did not distinguish between the
concept of a principle – true for all learners independent of age and culture – and tenets –
true but with broad human variation.4
4
The authors acknowledge there are no “truths” in science, but rather evidence or lack thereof. The use of the
word “true” is to establish acceptance rather than an epistemological foundation.

28
The most suggested new principle was about the role of emotions in learning (n=9). This
was closely followed by the role of social context, situated learning and classroom contexts
for learning (n=8). There were also comments about the role of executive functions,
including working memory (n=5), motivation (n=3), the reminder that learning is
developmental (n=2), and metacognition (n=2). The connection between the physical and
mental was also emphasized related to sleep and dreaming (n=2), physical activity (n=2),
and nutrition (n=2). All of these suggestions are already included but as tenets, not
principles.
Additionally, there were comments suggesting that learning is a behavior; that the
universality of learning processes outweighs the differences; and that epigenetics should be
included. There was also one suggestion to avoid neuromyths, such as multi-tasking.
Four participant agreed that there were likely to be more principles, but they did not know of
any specific ones at this time. There were also suggestions for improvements on wording
related to memory, which should be considered. Finally, there was one comment indicating
the need for further definitions before the use of terms, such as learning. There was also one
comment criticizing this survey process.
The distinctions between concepts should be revisited to determine if anything should be
moved from tenets to principles.
WHAT PRINCIPLES OF LEARNING ARE SUPPORTED BY MIND,
BRAIN, AND EDUCATION SCIENCE?
Principle 1. UNIQUENESS: Human brains are unique as human faces. While the
basic structure of most humans’ brains is the same (similar parts in similar regions),
no two brains are identical. The genetic makeup unique to each person combines
with life experiences and free will to shape neural pathways.
Principle 2. DIFFERENT POTENTIALS: Each individual’s brain is differently
prepared to learn different tasks. Learning capacities are shaped by the context of
the learning, prior learning experiences, personal choice, an individual’s biology and
genetic makeup, pre-and peri-natal events, and environmental exposures.
Principle 3. PRIOR EXPERIENCE: New learning is influenced by prior experience.
The efficiency of the brain economizes effort and energy by ensuring that external
stimuli are first decoded, compared, both passively and actively, with existing
memories.
Principle 4. CONSTANT CHANGES IN THE BRAIN: The brain changes constantly
with experience. The brain is a complex, dynamic, integrated system that is
constantly changed by individual experiences. These changes occur at a molecular
level either simultaneously, in parallel, or even before they are visible in behavior.
Principle 5. NEUROPLASTICITY: The brain is neuro-plastic. Neuroplasticity exists
throughout the lifespan though there are notable developmental differences by age.
Principle 6. MEMORY SYSTEMS AND ATTENTION SYSTEMS ARE NEEDED
FOR LEARNING: Learning involves multiple cognitive processes, including
memory and attention. There is no new learning without some form of memory and
some form of attention. Learners are not always conscious of these processes.
Most school learning requires well-functioning short, working and long-term memory
systems and conscious attention. However, other types of learning can occur
without conscious attention (e.g., procedural learning, habituation, sensitization and
even episodic memory).

29
Part 2 What tenets of learning are
supported by MBE research?
In this survey, the term tenet is a concept that is true for all people but with a large degree of
human variation either due to culture, genetics, or prior experiences. Participants were
asked to review 21 statements that are listed as the tenets of learning and to answer if they
agreed, disagreed or had no basis to reply.
The participants agreed with all 21 tenets, but to differing degrees, as seen in Table 8.
Table 8. Mind, Brain, and Education Tenets 2020 Results
Tenet Agree Disagree
No basis
to answer
Tenet 1. MOTIVATION influences learning. However, what
motivates one person and how may not motivate another in the same
way.
97.72% 0.91% 0.00%
Tenet 2. EMOTIONS AND COGNITION are mutually influential.
Not all stimuli result in the same affective state for all people.
98.18% 0.00% 1.82%
Tenet 3. STRESS influences learning. However, what stresses one
person and how may not stress another in the same way.
95.45% 2.73% 0.91%
Tenet 4. ANXIETY influences learning. However, what causes
anxiety in one person may not cause anxiety in another.
97.25% 1.83% 0.92%
Tenet 5. DEPRESSION influences learning. However, what causes
depression in one person may not cause depression in another.
93.64% 0.00% 5.45%
Tenet 6. Learning is influenced by both CHALLENGE AND
THREAT as perceived by the learner. What a person finds
challenging or threatening is highly individualized as are their
reactions to the stimuli.
88.99% 3.67% 5.50%
Tenet 7. Reactions to FACIAL EXPRESSIONS are highly
individualized: they reflect prior experience, both personal and in
response to cultural expectations.
74.55% 8.18% 16.36%
Tenet 8. The brain interprets TONES OF VOICES unconsciously
and almost immediately. However, the reaction to the tones of voices
is based in part on prior experience and therefore individualized.
73.39% 5.50% 20.18%
Tenet 9. SOCIAL INTERACTIONS influence learning. Humans
are social beings who learn from and with each other. Different
amounts of social interactions around learning are desired by
different people.
96.36% 0.00% 2.73%
Tenet 10. ATTENTION is a complex phenomenon comprised of
multiple systems supporting functions such as metacognition, self-
reflection, mindfulness, states of high alertness, selective attention
and focused attention. These systems work to different degrees in
different people. These systems also have different relationships with
one another in different people.
88.99% 4.59% 4.59%

30
Tenet 11. Most LEARNING IS NOT LINEAR but rather advances
and retracts based on stages of growth, reflection and the amount of
repetition to which one is exposed.
86.24% 6.42% 5.50%
Tenet 12. Learning involves CONSCIOUS AND UNCONSCIOUS
PROCESSES, which may differ by individuals based on their
training and other individual experiences. Learning is also described
as implicit (passive or unaware processes) and explicit (active or
aware processes).
92.66% 1.83% 4.59%
Tenet 13. Learning is DEVELOPMENTAL (nature and nurture) as
well as EXPERIENTIAL (nurture). A person's age, cognitive stage
of development and past experiences all contribute to learning and do
so differently for each person.
89.81% 7.41% 1.85%
Tenet 14. Learning engages the entire physiology: The BODY AND
BRAIN interact to play a role in learning processes.
78.70% 11.11% 10.19%
Tenet 15. SLEEP AND DREAMING influence learning in different
ways. Sufficient sleep permits the brain the pay attention during
wakeful states and dreaming contributes to memory consolidation.
The amount of sleep and dreaming individuals need can vary based
on culture, circumstances, motivation, genetics and rehearsed sleep
hygiene practices.
72.22% 3.70% 22.22%
Tenet 16. NUTRITION influences learning. Basic nutritional needs
are common to all humans, however, the frequency of food intake
and some dietary needs vary by individual.
90.74% 0.00% 8.33%
Tenet 17. PHYSICAL ACTIVITY influences learning. However,
different individuals need different amounts of physical activity to
perform optimally. Interspersing physical and cognitive activity may
improve learning.
87.16% 5.50% 6.42%
Tenet 18. USE IT OR LOSE IT. Brains that remain active
cognitively help development and can also stave off cognitive decline
in the aging brain. Individual variations including experiences and
genetic predispositions influence the final outcomes of interventions,
however.
83.49% 5.50% 7.34%
Tenet 19. FEEDBACK about learning progress influences learning
outcomes. Feedback itself can be a source of learning. The type,
frequency and use of feedback can influence learning outcomes,
which varies by individual.
96.26% 0.93% 2.80%
Tenet 20. It is easier to retrieve memories when facts and skills are
embedded in individually RELEVANT AND MEANINGFUL
CONTEXTS. However, what is relevant or meaningful varies by
individual.
92.59% 1.85% 4.63%
Tenet 21. Brains detect NOVELTY and seek out PATTERNS.
However, what is novel to or recognized as a pattern by one
individual may not be novel or may not be recognized as a pattern by
another.
93.52% 2.78% 3.70%

31
All of the 21 tenets received a high degree of agreement from the participants, with the
exception of the roles of facial expressions (74.55%), tones of voices (73.39%), and the
importance of sleep and dreaming for learning (72.22%). This suggests further research is
needed to determine why participants are less aware of the evidence in these three tenets
than other areas, and whether or not they merit attention in teacher education. Additionally,
a more thorough review of the literature related to these concepts in teacher education is
warranted as there is robust evidence supporting the influence of facial expressions, tones
of voices, and the role of sleep and dreaming in learning, as well as the overall influence of
the body-brain connection in learning.
The evidence supporting the tenets supplied by the 2017 Delphi panel and updated by the
authors can be found here.
Tenets 1: Motivation
Tenet 1. MOTIVATION influences learning. However, what motivates one person and
how may not motivate another in the same way. (Percent agreement by participants:
97.72%.)
Table 9. Comments on the Principle of Motivation
A1. a lack of dopamine can almost destroy the motivation to learn 1.
Confirmed, and more
B1. One aspect of motivation that Spinoza referred to as 'conatus' is likely to
be shared by all but the most despondent.
B2. We shall differentiate automatically, low-order from deliberative, high-
order motivation, just as attention. Students shall learn how to get motivated
by themselves. Educators have this responsibility!
B3. And desires -- the desire to find the truth, curiosity, and the desire to
communicate clearly and accurately are some of the powerful motivators of
learning
B4. Motivation is more why we do x rather than y, but too often it is construed
as a push and pull. So agree if the former. 9
2.
Definition of Motivation
C1. Principle of individual differences
C2. Webster defines Tenet as principles within a group or organization. So
your separation of principles or layering here is tenuous. If motivation stems
from processing in emotional areas of the brain that provide value to decisions
or experiences, why isn't this a universal principle? What's the difference in
being motivated differently than in humans being unique or having different
potentials?
C3. motivation dictates sustained attention and as we have already said,
attention is required for learning.
3.
Related to principles
D1. The 2nd sentence is awkwardly constructed: "what motivates one person
and how" isn't a grammatically parallel construction, and it's serving as the
subject of the verb "may." Clearer sentence structure would communicate the
concept more clearly. For example: "People are motivated in different ways by
different forces." Or: "learners respond in different ways to different school
motivations."
4.
Wording, precision
E1. Culture and image of self as learner are significant variables that most
teachers will recognize
5.
Variables in motivation

32
F1 But learning influences motivation too: See Garon-Carrier et al (2016)
F2. Motivation not only influences learning, but determine it
F3. A number of studies support the evidence that learning and competency
cause motivation (not motivation causes/influences learning).
6.
Learning and Motivation
are mutually influential
G1. I suppose most of the 22 items here will be "painfully obvious," like this
one.
G2. Air is also what we breathe - though we do it in different volumes.
7.
This is not surprising
Fifteen people commented on the tenet of motivation in seven categories: (a) Confirmation;
(b) Definition of motivation; (c) Motivation is related to the principles; (d) Precise wording; (e)
Variables in motivation; (f) Mutually influential relationship between learning and motivation;
(g) No surprise.
One person added that dopamine is important for motivation. Four people suggested
extending and clarifying the definition of motivation. Three people suggested that motivation
was related to the principles, mentioned earlier. One person suggested rewording the tenet.
One person suggested that motivation is influenced by self-perception as well as culture,
which should be included. Three people suggested that motivation and learning are mutually
influential and that this relationship should be explained. Two people said that this tenet was
“painfully obvious” suggesting that this tenet is already well-known.
There is robust evidence supporting the tenet of Motivation, which should be considered
when planning teacher education programs.
Tenets 2: Emotions and Cognition
Tenet 2. EMOTIONS AND COGNITION are mutually influential. Not all stimuli result in
the same affective state for all people. (Percent agreement by participants: 98.18%.)
Table 10. Comments on the Tenet of Emotions and Cognition
A1. So long as neural connections between the limbic system and the neocortex
are not compromised, emotions and cognition are likely to remain mutually
influential to some extent, despite one's best efforts to be objective and rational.
A2. This should probably be a principle
1.
Confirmed, and more
B1. update recommendation: Not all stimuli result in the same affective or
cognitive state for all people.
B2. I agree with the second part that not all stimuli result in the same affective
state, but what do you mean by mutually influential?
B3. I don't really like the wording "mutually influential". Cognition is
embodied, and is thus integrated into the functioning of the whole organism,
including bodily states and affect. The wording of this item creates the
impression that "emotions" and "cognition" are clearly separate phenomena. It
may create the impression that "cognition" refers to conscious thought
(cogitation), when in fact much complex cognition takes place at the intuitive or
unconscious level. I find that competing uses of the term "cognition" create
confusion.
B4. I think it is more reciprocal
2.
Wording

33
C1. To me emotions are cognitions and not separate.
C2. At brain level, it seems odd to me to make this strong distinction between
emotions and cognition.
3.
Emotions and cognition
are not separate
D1. It depends on individual differences, age, experiences among others
D2. Importance of culturally responsive and linguistically diverse classrooms
are significant factors that can support or impede student's emotional
connection to learning
4.
Context
E1. I agree, but like my earlier comment about the layperson‘s understanding of
the word “attention”, I wonder if they would fully understand how broad the
term “emotion” is here. Again, I think extra clarification night help people to
better understand what this entails.
5.
Definitions needed
F1. No one would disagree. 6.
No surprise
G1. That doesn't mean this isn't a universal. My comments above stand and can
be applied to much of the rest of your list. I disagree with your layering and will
not edit more of these.
7.
Too much layering
H1. Neuroscience repeatedly acknowl[…]
H2. Emotions are in control of the brain's cockpit!
8.
Other
Fifteen people commented on the tenet of emotions and cognition in seven categories: (a)
Confirmation; (b) Wording; (c) No separation between emotion and cognition; (d) Context;
(e) Definitions; (f) No surprise; and (g) Too much layering.
There were two comments that confirmed the tenet, and suggested addition information was
available to support it. One person suggested that this should be a principle. There were four
comments about wording, specifically about the concept “mutually influential” and the
reciprocal nature of the emotions and cognition. There were two comments saying that
emotions and cognition are not separate in the brain. There were two comments about how
emotions and cognition are influenced by culture, age, and linguistic differences. One
participant suggested that the average person might not define emotions and cognition in
the same way and that a clearer definition would be useful. One person indicated that “no
one would disagree” with this tenet. One person wrote, in frustration, that there was too
much layering of conceptual knowledge in this tenet. There were two comments which were
classified under “Other”. The first was an incomplete sentence, and the second echoed the
importance of emotions in decision making, age, and culture.
There is robust evidence supporting the tenet of Emotions and Cognition, which should be
considered when planning teacher education programs.
Tenets 3: Stress
Tenet 3. STRESS influences learning. However, what stresses one person and how
may not stress another in the same way. (Percent agreement by participants: 95.45%.)

34
Table 11. Comments on the Tenet of Stress
A1. I agree that stress impacts learning but there are some fairly common
stressors that trigger the amygdala for all humans. Others stressors May
develop because of personal experience or trauma.
A2. this is a bit general...there are some universal stressors, e.g., hunger, bodily
harm...
A3. Although there are some universal stressors, the phrase "in the same way"
as a qualifier makes this statement true.
A4. Fear is the greatest stress on learning
1.
Universal stressors
B1. We shall differentiate optimal stress from excessive stress. No stress at all
is not adaptive. What is stressful today tomorrow may not be stressful anymore.
Students have the right to learn how!
B2. Toxic vs. episodic stress are two very different types of stress that teachers
should be aware of.
2.
Types of stress
C1. should highlight eustress vs what we usually think of as [negative] 'stress'
C2. Yes, there is distress and eustress, where the latter can be a strongly
motivating factor.
C3. And stress may not be negative. Also, stress is a mismatch between
perceived demand and perceived capability.
C4. Would it be valuable to introduce the eustress/distress dichotomy?
C5. Delineate between eustress and chronic forms.
C6. stress has both positive effects (if the stressor and learning area overlap)
and negative effects (non-stressor related information is blocked from being
learned for up to an hour.)
3.
Stress is not always
negative
D1. Neuroscience repeatedly acknowledges the primacy of affect/emotion in
human function, including learning.
D2. However, stressors can interfere with learning.
4.
Stress and learning
E1. And what is stress???? An ur-emotion?
E2. Too vague
5.
Definition
F1. No it is more our coping strategies to stress that makes the difference. It is
not the stress, it is the coping strategies that influence learning .
F2. Distinguish between different stress responses.
6.
Stress responses
G1. See previous comment (under motivation) about sentence structure. 7.
Too much layering
H1. Empowering students to identify and then practice strategies to cope with
their unique stress triggers is powerful
8.
Empowering students
I1. See breathing comment above 9.
No surprise
There were 21 comments made about the tenet of stress divided into nine categories: (a)
Universal stressors; (b) Types of stress; (c) Stress is not always negative; (d) Stress and
learning; (e) Definition; (f) Stress responses; (g) Too much layering; (h) Empowering
students; and (i) No surprises.

35
There were four comments that suggested an acknowledgement about “universal stressors,”
such as fear, would be a useful addition. Two comments suggested incorporating different
types of stress (toxic, optimal, episodic). There were six comments suggesting an
acknowledgement that not all stress is negative and that eustress should be more explicitly
noted in this tenet. There were two comments about the role of stress and learning, and two
others requesting a clearer definition of the word stress. There were two comments
recommending that stress itself should be less prominent than the response to stress. There
was one participant who echoed previous tenet comments that the tenet should not be so
packed and that there was too much “layering” of ideas. There was one comment that
knowledge of stress and learning should be used to empower students. Finally, there was
one comment that said this tenet was of no surprise.
There is robust evidence for the tenet of Stress, which should be considered when planning
teacher education programs.
Tenets 4: Anxiety
Tenet 4. ANXIETY influences learning. However, what causes anxiety in one person
may not cause anxiety in another. (Percent agreement by participants: 97.25%.)
Table 12. Comments on the Tenet of Anxiety
B1. Often times one can experience anxiety based on a bad experience in one's
past where the cause of that anxiety is consciously long forgotten but
unconsciously triggered by similar circumstances that gave rise to that
experience.
1.
Unconscious anxiety
C1. again, there are some universals 2.
Universal emotions
D1. Does anxiety need to be separated out from stress? Might want to make the
distinction clear.
D2. same as above [see Stress]
3.
Stress and Anxiety
E1. But once again -- what does anxiety involve : fear -- of failure, of humiliation,
etc.
E2. Too vague
E3. Define anxiety. Influences is too broad, but yes it is hard to argue with
influences.
4.
Definitions
F1. Younger learners in particular can benefit from support in identifying and
articulating their anxiety
5.
Learner support
G1. Anxiety interferes with learning to varying degrees and ways across learners. 6.
Anxiety interferes with
learning
H1. These are getting silly. 7.
Other

36
There were 10 comments on the tenet of anxiety divided into seven categories: (a)
Unconscious anxiety; (b) Universal emotions; (c) Stress and anxiety; (d) Definitions; (e)
Learner support; (f) Anxiety and learning. Finally, there was one comment under (g) “Other”.
There was one comment that both conscious and unconscious anxiety should be considered
in this tenet. There was one comment that suggested that there are some universal causes
of anxiety. There were two comment suggesting that the relationship between stress and
anxiety should be more clearly defined. There were three comments recommending a
clearer definition of anxiety. There was one comment suggesting that knowledge of this
tenet would be beneficial to learners. There was also one comment agreeing that anxiety
interferes with learning. Finally, there was one comment suggesting that “these are getting
silly”.
There is robust evidence for the tenet of Anxiety, which should be considered when planning
teacher education programs.
Tenets 5: Depression
Tenet 5. DEPRESSION influences learning. However, what causes depression in one
person may not cause depression in another. (Percent agreement by participants:
93.64%.)
Table 13. Comments on the Tenet of Depression
A1. Again there are some universal triggers. Should we be focusing on this
aspect? What are the universals?
1.
Universal triggers of
depression
B1. In my experience, depression is a natural governor that forces one to slow
down, thereby providing a better, less distracted, opportunity to reassess one's
choices and options in life.
2.
Use of depression to
improve choices
C1. Stress (threat) generates anxiety (conflict) which can in turn leads to
depression (giving up)!
C2. The end-game of anxiety.
3.
Relationship between
stress, anxiety, and
depression
D1. So, I totally agree that this is true, but it does raise the question: out of all of
the disorders listed in the DSM5 (e.g. Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
(ADHD), Autism Spectrum Disorder, Conduct Disorder, Disruptive Mood
Dysregulation Disorder, Eating Disorders, Internet Gaming Disorder. etc. ), why
is “major depressive disorder” the only one to get its own tenet?
D2. Is this clinically-diagnosed depression, or just depressed affect.
4.
Why only Depression?
E1. Define depression is more important that its influence. Don't put the cart
before the horse here. The hard problem is defining depression.
E2. This term suggests a clinical diagnosis/condition. Perhaps negative affect or
sadness?
E3. Sure. These statements re: "influences" of depression/stress/anxiety are
vague, though. For depression, are you suggesting that it's more than just
decreased motivation to learn? Also some cognitive component, such as reduced
memory functioning?
E4. Too vague
E5. Depression is a term defining a precise pathology
5.
Definitions
F1. Again, can be challenging to identify in younger learners
F2. There are differences in how depression may interfere with learning among
individuals.
6.
Depression and learning
So what!? 7.
So what?

37
There were 14 comments on the tenet of depression in seven categories: (a) Universal
triggers of depression; (b) Depression can improve choices; (c) Complex relationships
between stress, anxiety and depression; (d) Why only depression?; (e) Definitions; and (f)
Depression and learning. There was also one comment that said, “So what?” suggesting
that there is push-back to the tenet, albeit unspecified. There were two comment about
refining the definition of depression. There were two comments questioning the definition of
depression. There were five comments suggesting a refined definition of depression.
There was one comment suggesting that there were universal triggers of depression. There
was one conference that suggested that being depressed slows down reflection and permits
better choice. There were two comments related to the relationships between stress,
anxiety, and depression. These comments suggest that the neurotransmitters and
chemically nuanced differences between “negative” emotional states is not yet shared with
teachers and might be a beneficial addition. There were two comments related to the
relationship between depression and learning. Finally, there was a suggestion that this was
of no importance (“so what?”).
This is robust evidence to support the tenet of Depression, which should be taken into
consideration when planning teacher education programs.
Tenets 6: Challenge and Threat
Tenet 6. Learning is influenced by both CHALLENGE AND THREAT as perceived by
the learner. What a person finds challenging or threatening is highly individualized as
are their reactions to the stimuli. (Percent agreement by participants: 88.99%.)
Table 14. Comments on the Tenet of Challenge and Threat
A1. Some threats are universal. If a dog approaches you with teeth bared, you
will see it as a threat. Other threats are individual.
1.
Threats are universal
B1. Culture can also play a role here, in the teacher-student dynamic 2.
Culture and student-
teacher dynamic
C1. This tenet captures much of what is meant to distinguish intrinsic from
extrinsic motivation.
3.
Link between motivation
as compared with
challenge and threat
D1. Let's celebrate the art of transforming threats into challenges! 4.
Threats into challenges
E1. I've never heard the term "threat" used to describe an influence on
learning. That threw me off a bit, and I'd like to learn more.
E2. Challenge, threat, fear of failure, but also self-confidence.
E3. I'm not sure what constitutes a challenger or a threat, or whether "both"
means at the same time.
E4. Again, what are the universal components of what allows us to perceive
something as a challenge vs threat, and what are the universals of threat. I am
comparing this approach to that Jaak Panksepp took in looking for the basic
emotional networks/systems that are conserved throughout evolution. Is there
more value in this approach?
E5. Agree, but would have added self-efficacy notions -- our confidence is a
major precursor to taking on challenges and threats
5.
Definitions
F1. It is always put up against the perpendicular axis of skill/ability 6.
Relativity

2020 international survey v04

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 2020 international survey v04

Similar to 2020 international survey v04 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

2020 international survey v04