BMERG Blog

In this week’s top topic blog, Dr Fiona Holmes explores the challenges and realms of our minds in her blog on neuroeducation.

“Education is not the learning of facts, but the training of the mind to think.” – Albert Einstein

I’ve spent most of my career so far as a neuroscientist, but more recently my role and research interests have an education focus. So, in this blog I’m combining both and discussing neuroeducation: the application of neuroscientific evidence to pedagogy to understand and enhance learning.

Since learning happens in the brain, the link between neuroscience research and educational research should be a no-brainer – right? Well, it’s rather complex and controversial and so far, neuroeducation research has not yet revealed a magic strategy to make geniuses of us all – but it’s relatively early days!

The idea of brain-based learning

Caine and Caine (1990)¹ proposed the following 12 basic principles, extrapolated from the neuroscience-derived ideas at the time:

1. The brain processes multiple things in parallel therefore teaching should orchestrate all the dimensions of parallel processing by teaching in complex multi-sensory environments;
2. Learning engages the entire physiology so teaching must incorporate stress management, nutrition, and exercise;
3. The search for meaning is innate so teaching should incorporate a stable and rich environment to facilitate this;
4. The search for meaning occurs through patterning so teaching should incorporate thematic teaching, curriculum integration, and life-relevant approaches to learning;
5. Emotions are critical to patterning so ensure a supportive emotional environment and co-operative learning;
6. The brain simultaneously perceives and creates parts (details) and wholes (global concepts) so learning is cumulative and developmental;
7. Learning involves both focused attention and peripheral perception therefore utilise the entire sensory context of the learning through appropriate visual and emotional stimuli;
8. Learning involves conscious (remembering) and unconscious (priming) processes so incorporate active learning and reflection in teaching;
9. There are at least two types of memory: spatial memory system (strongest) and rote learning memory, so avoid just fact memorisation;
10. The brain understands and remembers best when facts and skills are embedded in contextual (spatial) memory therefore use a multisensory experiential learning approach;
11. Learning is enhanced by challenge and inhibited by threat so maintain an environment of relaxed alertness;
12. Each brain is unique and uniquely adaptable therefore use multifaceted teaching to address diversity.

But are these principles really novel and does a neuroscience-focused approach to evidencing, understanding and advancing these ideas provide strategies to improve educational practice?

A key aim for neuroeducation is to work out what happens in the brain when it learns and then how to best stimulate this in an educational environment. It has been shown that neuroeducation research may help inform, refine, select, and support aspects of pedagogy, alongside other methods.

There have been numerous studies over the last 20 years or so which support a neuroeducational strategy, including the identification of brain areas involved in reading – and the proposed neurobiological basis of dyslexia; the neural circuitry of numerosity; the neural substrates of attention, emotion and social cognition, relevant for further understanding of e.g. attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autistic spectrum disorder.

It has potential for neuroprognosis (i.e. predicting educational intervention outcomes); assessing the effect of educational, genetic and/or environmentally induced changes on neurophysiology and cognition; engagement, motivation, and risk to potentiate learning. Furthermore, neuroeducation could influence curriculum design and educational reform.

Neuromyths

However, such principles and popular brain science may over-simplify and over-interpret complex and incomplete neuroscience research and may contribute to the establishment and perpetuation of neuromyths – misconceptions generated by a limited or misunderstanding of data from brain research, albeit based on a kernel of truth, e.g. the learning styles myth^2,3.

Despite its widespread acceptance, research fails to support the idea that teaching which aims to fit an apparent learning style enhances learning. So, is ‘a little knowledge a dangerous thing’? There is concern that significant resources may be invested in policies, training, research, and practice based on half-truths. This has emphasised the importance of bidirectional education, mutual cultural understanding and shared experience of each other’s environments between neuroscientists and teachers and students.

Useful advances in the field can come from reciprocal training in relevant knowledge, concepts, and research methods, ensuring robust, relevant and practically applicable research findings through co-constructing research projects; and using neuroscience to distinguish between educational theories rather than drive them. An appreciation of each other’s knowledge and perspectives through co-education and collaboration will facilitate increasingly beneficial outcomes for education and help to bust neuromyths.

Neuroeducation-informed practice

It will come as no big surprise that we should be designing teaching that engages mental activities that enhance the acquisition, processing, storing and use of knowledge in a diversity of learners, as well as promoting meta-cognition – thinking about thinking. So… we must be aware of cognitive diversity and use a variety of teaching methods to accommodate and engage all our students. Lets think about afew ideas and examples:

Active experiences linked to positive emotions are critical for learning: Provide student-centred, active and adaptive learning-by-doing memorable experiences such as problem-based, project-based and co-operative in a supportive environment. Simulation and gamification places students in an environment where they can experience how to be, how to do, and has been shown to increase concentration and reduce tension.  Get students to use the learning at different times in different contexts. Include repetition, retrieval, and association tasks to enhance efficient memory systems.

Memory acquisition relies on attention: Engage and motivate students by starting a session with something provocative and relevant to contextualise the teaching and learning process. It could be an anecdote, an image or question that affects and connects with the lives and interests of your students. This will enable reflective discussion and critical analysis to help them acquire knowledge through their own conclusions.

Encourage students to be active in their own learning journey: This can be achieved through reflection, problem-solving and critical thinking as well as providing them with specific, meaningful, actionable, and timely feedback.

Implement mental and/or physical activities at the beginning of a session: A puzzle or meditation can aid concentration and therefore assimilation of knowledge. Include games, fun, social interaction, and reward to foster interest and pleasure, ensuring the learning objective is clear so that the students will be able to appropriate and transform the acquired knowledge.

Educational Neurotechnology: Brain scan to lesson plan

Exciting advances in the technologies to study the neurophysiology of learning in an education environment are continually developing. This will be the topic of my next blog.

Further reading:

1. Caine R and Caine G (1990). Understanding a brain-based approach to learning and teaching. Education Leader 48(2): 66-71.
2. Howard-Jones P A (2014). Neuroscience and education: myths and messages. Nat Rev Neuro 15: 817-24.
3. Newton P M et al (2021). The learning style neuromyth is still thriving in medical education. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 15: 1-5.

Congratulations to our BMERG and TLHP colleague Sarah Mclaughlin on her latest publication in the Journal Medical Education this week all about positionality in medical education research. Through her ‘when I say’ article she encourages “medical education researchers to reflect upon who they are and how they impact their research project during its various stages. Through engaging reflexively with their positionality, researchers can work towards a transparent, trustworthy and credible approach to qualitative medical education research.”

Read the article in Medical Education: Mclaughlin S. When I say … positionality. Med Educ. 2024; 1-2. doi:10.1111/medu.15427

In the latest publishing blog, BMERG blog editor Dr Sarah Allsop explores what research metrics are and if these are the only way for medical educators to show their impact.

We are often told that we need to publish, we need to think about journal metrics, we need to build our research profile; but what do these things actually mean and they the best way for education researchers to show and share their impact?

Lets start by taking a look at the term ‘research metrics’.

Research metrics (or indicators) are numerical markers designed to help evaluate research outputs. There are a number of different metrics in use, considered at different levels depending on whether they are indicators about an article, a journal or the author. Some of the most common metrics are citation counts, altmetrics, h-index and journal impact factors.

Citation counts: This is an article metric and is a simple count of the number of times an article has been cited in others work. It is a very commonly used metric aiming to quantitatively measure the impact and influence of a publication.

Altmetrics: Short for alternative metrics, this is an article metric, but in contrast to the traditional citation count includes tracking the online attention and engagement received by research outputs, including social media mentions, downloads, views, and media coverage. This is often displayed as a colourful ‘donut’. Altmetrics therefore potentially offer a broader perspective on the impact and reach of research beyond citations. Tools like Altmetric Explorer can help you to track this type of metric.

H-index: This is one of the most commonly used author metric proposed as a way to measure both the quantity (number of publications) and the quality (number of citations) of an author’s work. An author has an h-index of h, if h of their publications have been cited at least h times each, for example, an h-index of 5, means at least 5 papers that have been cited at least 5 times each.

Journal Impact Factors: The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is perhaps the most commonly used journal metric, and assesses the average number of citations received by articles published in a specific journal within a particular timeframe. Of note whilst it is an indicator of reach and popularity, it has been criticised as a measure of prestige rather than necessarily quality [1].

So, are there other ways to show impact?

Whilst it is undoubtedly true that research metrics are important, you can also highlight reach, value and impact of your work in other ways. This can range widely and can also incorporate a more qualitative approach to impact evidence sharing your own story, plus testimonials from others. Examples include:

Using case studies: Do you have examples of where you have advised others on their practice or shared techniques or guidance with other institutions? Use these as case studies of external impact of your expertise.

Exploring networks: Think big – are you involved with working with other associations, companies or professional bodies? Don’t forget to highlight and share your work in this way and the extended reach these activities might have. Think local – are you involved with local mentoring schemes or other programmes of work that support others to achieve. Not all examples have to be national or international to show profound impact for those around you.

Using multimedia: Are there other ways you can be communicating your work that might raise awareness and increase the audience for your work. You could consider a blog, writing for a website, making YouTube videos, podcasts or designing infographics of your work. Thinking outside the box can have amazing consequences, perhaps leading to invitations to speak at new places due to sharing your work more innovatively and visibly.

Which leads me on to my one really important point – in order to show your impact, you need to think about your visibility. Are you visible on your institution’s profile pages? Do you have professional social media accounts or ResearchGate, Google Scholar or LinkedIn profiles? Consideration for how you build your profile using these tools will allow you to highlight your achievements and share your resources to a potentially wider audience. Watch out for a new blog coming soon on maximising your external profile.

Read more about research metrics:

• What are research metrics? University of Bristol Information for Researchers. www.bristol.ac.uk/staff/researchers/metrics/
• Metrics to avoid – the impact factor. University College London. www.ucl.ac.uk/research/sites/research/files/metrics_to_avoid_-_the_impact_factor.pdf
• What’s wrong with the journal impact factor in 5 graphs. Nature Index. www.nature.com/nature-index/news/whats-wrong-with-the-jif-in-five-graphs

The BMERG blog series on building community continues to grow, with our journal club meeting bi-monthly. This month our BMERG Journal Club lead Dr Claire Hudson reflects on the discussion from our March journal club on Playful Learning.

Paper reviewed: Macdonald I, Malone E, Firth R. How can scientists and designers find ways of working together? A case study of playful learning to co-design visual interpretations of immunology concepts. Studies in Higher Education. 2022;47(9):1980-96. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2021.2020745

I was intrigued by this paper for quite simple reasons; the terms ‘playful learning’ and ‘co-design’ grabbed my attention, as well as the reference to ‘scientists’. Although I am also an educator, I am a scientist at heart. Before everyone with a clinical background switches off, the paper actually discusses concepts that could apply to all disciplines, and it certainly provoked some fruitful discussion within our group.  

At the University of Bristol, we design our academic programmes to align with a Curriculum Framework, which includes a set of six interconnected dimensions that convey the educational aspirations of the University. Ideas of how to embed these dimensions within our teaching are always welcome, and this paper aligned with at least two of these dimensions: Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary (allowing students to engage beyond their discipline)and Inspiring and innovative (challenging, authentic and collaborative learning). So, I read this paper hoping to find some inspiration.

What was the research?

In summary, the authors designed an interdisciplinary activity with Biological Science students and Product Design students, aiming to communicate an immunology concept (for example allergies, vaccination or transplantation) using digital storytelling. Initially, the scientists pitched their immunology concepts to the designers, and then both sets of students took part in regular co-design workshops held in the design studios to create their final products. The researchers conducted semi-structured interviews with the students and collected Likert questionnaire data, to explore their “preconceptions, experience and future learnings of working in interdisciplinary groups”, analysed using thematic analysis.

What were the findings?

Four themes emerged from their research, summarised below:

1. The influence of environment –Being in the design studio fostered creativity in the Science students and developed different ways of thinking.

2. Playfulness as a creative approach –Freedom from assessment (this activity was outside of the curriculum) allowed for risk taking.

3. Storytelling as a means of expression –Translating information in a visual form enhanced understanding of the immunology material.

4. Recognition of the value of Interdisciplinary working – Relevance to authentic working relationships, exploiting individual strengths.

What did we think?

Limitations of the study

We did have some concerns about the study, such as not being explicit about the objectives and the possibility of confirmation bias. At the end of the introduction the authors state “This study aimed to use interdisciplinary co-design workshops to create opportunities for bringing scientists and designers to work together”; this may have been the purpose of the learning activity, but this didn’t explain the objectives of their research. What did they want to find out?

We discussed the limitations of case studies, however, we agreed that this type of study is useful to disseminate practice and generate ideas, provided the researchers are transparent about the wider relevance. We noted that the findings closely matched the themes presented in their introduction, thereby reconfirming previous assumptions rather than generating novel data, which led us to question the depth of the thematic analysis. This confirmation bias could also have arisen due to the nature of the sample; this was a voluntary task, and it is likely that the participating students were highly motivated. 

How could this be relevant to our own practice?

We all agreed that this was an interesting learning experience for the students, and I love hearing about novel ideas for communicating complex scientific concepts. Often, we retain and understand information with the use of a good metaphor, so perhaps we should all integrate more storytelling into our teaching!

However, since this activity was purely extra-curricular, how relevant is it? Do we really have the time/scope to create these opportunities ‘just for fun’? Creating a genuine interdisciplinary task within a curriculum seems challenging, with potential inter-Programme/School/Faculty logistics to navigate. Some of these perceived obstacles arise from imagining a summative task, however we all agreed that creating formative interdisciplinary tasks would be simpler; and in agreement with the authors, would allow students the freedom to experiment and be ‘playful’, stepping out of their comfort zones without being assessed. A great example of this freedom is the ‘creative piece’ produced by our medical students during year 1 Foundations of Medicine. Students are required to take part, but not awarded an explicit grade, which enables risk taking.

Overall reflections

This paper certainly sparked some great discussion about interdisciplinary and group working (clinical perfusion and medical students, medical and nursing students…), but how do we measure the benefit of such collaborations? At BMERG, our focus is turning these ideas into opportunities for research, so watch this space!

---

Read more of our journal club reflections:

• BMERG Journal Club Review: Self-regulated Learning
• BMERG Journal Club Review: Cultural Competency

---

Building on our previous BMERG Publishing in Medical Education blogs, in this post Dr Sally Dowling introduces our Writing for Publication Conference Series. Here she talks about a different sort of writing and dissemination of your work – responding to calls for conference presentations and posters.

Why should you present your work at academic conferences?

Academics choose to present their work at conferences and meetings for a range of reasons. It’s an important part of the dissemination of finished research projects, but it can also be an opportunity to gain feedback on ‘work in progress’, as well as to hear from and meet others in your field and those whose work may be related to yours.

If you are an early career researcher it can be a good way to build connections and network. If you are able to obtain funding to attend a conference it can be a good way to have some ‘time-out’ from everyday pressures to think about, and discuss, your work. You may also get the opportunity to visit some interesting places! Post-covid, some conferences now offer hybrid attendance and others have remained online.

What’s the difference between a paper presentation and a poster?

A paper presentation, sometimes called an oral presentation (or if you are the main speaker, a ‘keynote’ presentation) is where someone delivers a talk to an audience. In some disciplines this might mean literally reading a paper (similar to a journal article); in others it is more usual to deliver a talk accompanied by a slide presentation.

This may be to a large lecture hall full of people or to a smaller audience in parallel sessions – depending on the type and structure of the conference. Length of presentations varies and may or may not include time for questions. Sometimes all presenters in a session will give their presentations and questions will follow, addressed to the speakers as a panel.

Conference posters are usually displayed for the duration of the conference – they are large (often A1 or A0) posters presenting reports of a research project or other work, usually including words and images. Recently the use of electronic posters is also becoming more common, either made available to view online or physically on large screens at the conference venue.

The aim is to give conference attendees the chance to find out about a range of relevant work and, usually, to ask questions of the researcher or representative of the research team. Some conferences expect poster presenters to stand with their posters at specific times (coffee breaks or lunchtimes, or an early evening session, for example) in order to ‘talk to’ their poster if required.

What is a ‘call for papers’?

Many conferences publish a ‘call for papers/posters’ well in advance of the conference. These will usually be on the websites of relevant organisations (such as AMEE or ASME). You can keep an eye out and find out what time of year these usually appear by visiting our BMERG Abstract Calls! page.

When you look at the call there will be important information to note:

• Submission format: Some conferences will want you to submit your abstract as an attachment – others will use an online platform, which may require you to register.
• Deadline: There will usually be a strictly-enforced deadline.
• Word count: This is usually very specific and may be constrained by allowances of online text boxes.
• Structure: It is important to note whether the abstract should be structured or unstructured. If they require that the abstract is structured it will often follow a Background, Aim, Methods, Results, Conclusions format (see figure 1 below) – if there are different headings to be used make sure you are aware of this.
• References: Instructions may also specify whether or not you can use references and, if so, may give a limit (usually a small number).
• Themes and Streams: Details should be on the conference website of themed conference streams or specific types of sessions you can submit to; make sure you are clear about these and indicate which you prefer if asked.
• Presentation format: You may be asked if you are submitting for an oral or a poster presentation, and if there is more than one author you will usually be asked to indicate who will be the presenter.

Example of conventional headings for a structured abstract
Heading	Content
Background	Specify the nature and size of the problem; outline its importance to practice, and the gap that needs to be addressed. This section should emphasise the relevance and significance of the issue to the conference delegates and should embrace a relevant theme
Aim	Specify this clearly and simply, including study design/approach
Methods	Sample Data collection Data analysis Ethical issues
Results/ Findings	Report this clearly and succinctly to provide the reader with a fair impression of the data
Conclusion	It is important to be specific and produce a balanced conclusion based on the results and how it captures the selected conference theme

What should I put in my abstract?

Writing a good abstract will maximise your chances of acceptance. It’s also a way for people to read about your project in advance, or after the conference. Some conferences publish abstracts after the event; sometimes as a supplement to a journal connected to the conference.

What you say in your abstract will act as a ‘hook’ to bring people to your presentation or poster, or to want to contact you to find out more about your work. Use an engaging and academically persuasive tone, take time to refine what you have written and proof-read carefully before submission. Asking a critical friend to read through your abstract can be helpful.

Guidance on how to format your abstract
Guideline
Name of lead presenter and contact details	You will be required to provide details of your place of work and qualifications
Name of authors, titles and contact details	Obtain full addresses, titles, professional qualifications and contact details including email address
Title	This should be kept to 12 words or less. If reporting the results of a study, audit or service improvement, it is good practice to include methodology in the title. A good title should provoke interest, curiosity and relate to the chosen theme
Headings	Employ the headings as suggested and in the order recommended
Word limit	This will range between 200–300 words maximum—abbreviations are often discouraged, check this out
Key terms	You may be invited to provide 4–6 search terms that embrace the content of your abstract
Font size and type	This will normally be prescribed—ensure you follow the recommendations.
Referencing style and number	Confirm the referencing style permitted prior to drafting the abstract, and how many are allowed; some will limit the number to a maximum of three
Conflicts of interest	If you have any conflicts of interest, declare these
Funding	Some scientific committees expect you to state whether your project was externally funded; if it has, confirm this
Permission to publish your abstract	Should you be accepted to present, the abstract may be published as part of conference proceedings. Note that you may not have the opportunity to revise
Abbreviations	Generally these are discouraged, so it is sensible to check the guidelines; it is likely that only universally accepted abbreviations may be permitted

What happens to my abstract after submission?

Most conferences will have a conference committee who will review abstracts received before the deadline (so this is a form of peer review). Depending on the conference preparation timeline, it can take some time to hear, so be patient! Some conferences will give a date on their webpages, telling you when you will hear from them; others don’t do this. Wait to hear and then start preparing for your conference!

The next blog in this series coming soon: Tips on how to produce your conference poster

Further reading:

Albarran, J. & Dowling, S., 2017, Writing an effective conference abstract British Journal of Cardiac Nursing. 12, 7, pp. 324-328

Higgins, M., Eogan, M., O’Donoghue K., Russell, N. (2013) How to write an abstract that will be accepted. BMJ, 346: 2974 doi:10.1136/bmj.f2974 

Pieper, P. (2014) Writing Your Journal or Conference Abstract. Journal of Pediatric Surgical Nursing. 3(2), pp. 47-50

---

More about this blog’s author

Sally is a Lecturer at Bristol Medical School, working both for the Health Professions Education programme and as Co-Director of the MSc Reproduction and Development. She also runs a series of writing for publication workshops (see programme here) for the Faculty of Health Sciences at the University of Bristol.

---

Check out our previous Publishing in Medical Education Posts

• How to get started
• The process of writing and submission
• Matching your work to a journal
• Open Access publication
• Dealing with rejection

---