At the beginning of the 21st century, educational neuroscience was regarded as a magical force that could completely change the face of schools, and this field was highly anticipated.

At that time, many people believed that it would sweep across the education field like a storm. However, 20 years later, although some results have been achieved, it has not fully achieved the expected goals. This gap can't help but make people think deeply.

Around 2000, educational neuroscience was recognized as a promising new approach to school system reform.

The research results at that time revealed the learning mechanism and brought hope to improve students' multi-faceted learning abilities.

In some places, educational institutions and schools actively promote projects related to educational neuroscience and invest a lot of manpower and material resources to explore various novel teaching methods, aiming to comprehensively improve students' learning effects.

People at the time firmly believed that this new field had the potential to take education to a whole new level.

But as time went by, the early excitement gradually turned cold water on reality.

Some learning improvement measures based on educational neuroscience theory have made slow progress in actual operation, and the results are not very obvious.

This gap has caused many people to re-examine this field.

Researchers have successfully developed promising learning tools, but the dramatic changes expected have not materialized.

Data obtained in the laboratory cannot be easily transferred to the classroom.

However, scientists have discovered some useful information for education.

When it comes to increasing student engagement and attracting attention, research has found that alternating learning sessions with testing sessions is more effective.

And activating knowledge multiple times can allow it to enter long-term memory.

This provides teachers with an effective teaching idea.

Professor Nicole Vidal of the Center for Advanced Education in Freiburg, Germany, pointed out that laboratory research results are not easy to directly affect teaching activities.

She believes that while helpful in overcoming certain problems, it cannot revolutionize teaching methods.

This illustrates the challenges of application in the field of educational neuroscience, as real-life teaching processes are constrained by numerous complex factors.

Educational neuroscience shows the role of emotions in learning.

Pleasurable emotions, for example, have been found to be beneficial to learning in some educational instances.

Some punishments and grading methods have been met with skepticism in the past, with people questioning whether they actually benefit education. This method of leaving a deep imprint on students is often ineffective.

Some schools have actively promoted punitive education. However, this approach has not had a positive effect on the overall development of students.

A set routine for students to enter a learning state was also found to be important.

This conclusion has been confirmed in numerous long-term education tracking surveys. For example, in a comparative study of teaching in multiple schools in a certain city over several years, it was found that students' performance fluctuated less in classes that followed fixed learning plans.

Many conclusions drawn in the field of neuroscience cannot be easily translated into practical teaching in the classroom.

Professor Vidal pointed out this point from his own point of view.

In a teaching evaluation activity organized by an organization, it is quite challenging to apply neuroscience theories to specific teaching situations.

Although some aspects of educational neuroscience are relatively straightforward, their practical application requires coordination and preparation in many aspects.

Teachers also encounter difficulties. For example, in Austria, schools have not systematically integrated neuropedagogy into daily teaching.

Most teachers are open to research data from neuroscience, however, they lack the methods and resources needed to effectively integrate these recommendations into their teaching.

In schools in remote areas, implementation is particularly difficult due to insufficient educational resources and insufficient teacher training.

School system reform currently lacks support from real research and is often influenced by commercial interests.

Professor Vidal is concerned about this because it does not comply with the code of conduct for empirical research.

In a market economy environment, there are many so-called innovative educational products that claim to be based on educational neuroscience, but in fact they are just means used by businesses to attract consumers.

Some products claim to be developing intelligent learning tools based on neuroscience. Investigations have found that they lack scientific support but are still sold on the market at high prices, misleading parents and schools.

Although educational neuroscience is not a panacea, it still brings valuable information to teachers.

Teachers can learn from practices that have been proven to work.

In a well-known example of education reform, teachers drew on the research results of educational neuroscience to optimize teaching methods, thereby improving students' performance to a certain extent.

It is necessary for teachers to understand the research results in this field.

Nowadays, many teachers lack awareness of this. For example, in teacher training, this aspect is rarely explained systematically.

Schools and society should take more measures to allow teachers to have access to such results.

How do you see the future direction of educational neuroscience so that it can more effectively support education?