Educational Neuroscience Training for Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Construction

Abstract

The attention to the laws of the brain and the mechanism of learning in the smart education era becomes the starting point for the convergence and development of education and neuroscience, which also inspired educational neuroscience (EN) affecting the teacher’s development. Although teachers always have a general curiosity about EN and its applications, the limited knowledge hinders their general practice, neuromyths begin to emerge, and there is no evidence to directly show the connection between EN and teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) knowledge. Based on an EN teacher training program for 216 teachers, this study verifies that EN training programs can promote teachers’ understanding of EN-related knowledge, and EN is also correlated to teachers’ TPACK. However, the EN training program does not promote high well-being and satisfaction. The research also analyzes the process of teachers’ EN knowledge dissemination based on interviews, and the research conclusion can further reveal the necessity of EN training for teachers in the future.

Full text

fpsyg-12-792723 December 20, 2021 Time: 15:35 # 1
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
published: 24 December 2021
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.792723
Edited by:
Emilio Crisol Moya,
University of Granada, Spain
Reviewed by:
Karla Olmo-Sánchez,
Universidad Autónoma de Ciudad
Juárez, Mexico
Liliana Herrera Nieves,
University of Atlántico, Colombia
*Correspondence:
Yulu Cui
724201647@qq.com
Hai Zhang
zhangh219@nenu.edu.cn
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to
Organizational Psychology,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Psychology
Received: 11 October 2021
Accepted: 26 November 2021
Published: 24 December 2021
Citation:
Cui Y and Zhang H (2021)
Educational Neuroscience Training
for Teachers’ Technological
Pedagogical Content Knowledge
Construction.
Front. Psychol. 12:792723.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.792723
Educational Neuroscience Training
for Teachers’ Technological
Pedagogical Content Knowledge
Construction
Yulu Cui1*and Hai Zhang2*
1School of Information Science and Technology, Northeast Normal University, Changchun, China, 2School of Media
Science, Northeast Normal University, Changchun, China
The attention to the laws of the brain and the mechanism of learning in the smart
education era becomes the starting point for the convergence and development
of education and neuroscience, which also inspired educational neuroscience (EN)
affecting the teacher’s development. Although teachers always have a general curiosity
about EN and its applications, the limited knowledge hinders their general practice,
neuromyths begin to emerge, and there is no evidence to directly show the connection
between EN and teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)
knowledge. Based on an EN teacher training program for 216 teachers, this study
verifies that EN training programs can promote teachers’ understanding of EN-related
knowledge, and EN is also correlated to teachers’ TPACK. However, the EN training
program does not promote high well-being and satisfaction. The research also analyzes
the process of teachers’ EN knowledge dissemination based on interviews, and the
research conclusion can further reveal the necessity of EN training for teachers in
the future.
Keywords: neuroscience, educational neuroscience, brain, teachers development, TPACK
INTRODUCTION
In the 21st century, the development of information and communications technologies (ICTs)
has promoted profound changes in education, and great changes have taken place in the teaching
process and methods (Liu and Zhang, 2021). The construction of intelligent learning environment
produced multimodal educational data, which provides great help in understanding the learner and
teaching and even further promotes the professional development of teacher (Hai et al., 2020). The
new learning technologies, tools, and platforms can provide for leaners to enhance and generate
better experiences (Cui et al., 2019). Especially in the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 and 2021, it
is more important for teachers to use new technology and carry out professional development
to improve the educational quality, promote the reform, and reconstruct education (Mo et al.,
2021). However, it is obviously not easy for teachers to bridge the gap between theory and practice,
especially in a scientific way (Zhang et al., 2020b).
In educational research and practice, evidence-based research and practice have gradually
become the concern and discussion of teachers, school leaders, and educational researchers. In
these discussions, topics about learning and the brain often appear in the smart education era.
As more and more researchers begin to recognize the important role of the human brain and its
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1December 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 792723

fpsyg-12-792723 December 20, 2021 Time: 15:35 # 2
Cui and Zhang EN Training for Teachers’ TPACK
mechanism in learning, the field of neuroscience has revealed
more natural secrets about humans, especially the way we learn,
leading to educational neuroscience (EN) gradually becoming
one of the future directions of educational research. Thomas
(2013) indicated that future educational practice can be changed
by neuroscience, just like the contribution of science to medicine
in history. In a report published by Welcome Trust, involving
more than 1,000 teachers, more than 90% of these teachers said
their understanding of neuroscience is affecting them and 80%
of teachers said they would cooperate with neuroscientists on
educational research (Simmonds, 2014). Although teachers have
a general curiosity about EN and its applications, the limited
knowledge hinders their general practice. Besides, professional
practice based on EN is even more difficult even if they
understand the mechanisms of the brain and learning, and this
is obviously beyond their abilities (Simmonds, 2014).
Although EN is considered to be beneficial to teachers, some
researchers still questioned if it is too far from the laboratories
and classrooms. From the perspective of discipline logic, as an
interdisciplinary research field, the construction of EN itself
integrates the research paradigms of neuroscience, pedagogy,
psychology, and other disciplines, and different paradigms
promote the attention of EN to the learning process and cognitive
law from the physiological level. But this is complex for teachers
and leaders in the school. Neuroscience research aims to study
the human brain and neural mechanism, which can be roughly
divided into five levels: the gene and molecular genetic level,
the neuronal activities and their links, the brain circuits and
functional systems, the behavioral disorders and syndrome,
and the human behaviors, where the first three levels are less
applicable to education and are unlikely to affect the practical
process of education and teaching (Devonshire and Dommett,
2010). A famous conclusion on EN and education is that the
distance between neuroscience laboratory and classroom is a
“bridge too far” by Bruer (1977). Besides, limited knowledge
hinders teachers’ general practice, and lots of teachers do not
know how EN occurs and affects their teaching, leading to
neuromyth wide spreads. A survey of 583 teachers shows that
although teachers are very interested in EN, no matter what
subject or content basis, neuromyth is easy to produce (Rato
et al., 2013). Researchers emphasize that when there is a lack
of understanding of EN knowledge, it is very easy to be misled
by neuromyth, especially in the implementation of teaching
process without scientific judgment (Zhifeng, 2021). In China,
this phenomenon is also common, for instance, many teachers
recognize brain utilization rate, the critical period of brain
learning, and the hemispheric advantage of the brain are of great
value, which may lead them to inappropriate business training
programs for teenagers.
Researchers emphasize that extensive teacher training
programs should be promoted to increase teachers’
understanding of EN in practice (Dubinsky et al., 2013;
Wilcox et al., 2020;Suresh et al., 2021). Although these views
are considered to be helpful for teachers, there is still a lack
of studies in training EN to promote teacher practice, or the
knowledge construction in practice, which means not enough
evidence is explored to verify the EN effectiveness in training
EN programs for teachers. Besides, although it is well known
that EN is useful to teachers, there is still not enough research to
confirm whether EN can help teachers’ knowledge construction.
Thus, in this research, researchers aimed at verifying the
effectiveness of an EN training program for teachers based on
the technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)
framework. Besides, the relationship between EN and TPACK
elements is examined through questionnaires and interviews.
Furthermore, the possible EN knowledge transmission path is
further considered. These attempts help to understand whether
teacher EN training program is effective and how to promote
teachers’ knowledge construction in a smart education era to
promote teacher professional development.
Educational Neuroscience
Neuroscience is a science of the human nervous system. In
early research, neuroscientists divided the brain according to the
structural details of the brain and the working status of different
regions, for example, dividing each hemisphere into four different
regions and each region corresponds to different functions
of cognition and learning, such as listening, memory, self-
movement, and so on (Yanyun and Wenchao, 2011). Research
on the brain prompts people to pay attention to the specific
cognitive functions rather than analyzing the brain as a complex
and whole part, leading to different research on reasoning,
attention, memory, and reading. With the development of new
technology, neuroscience provides a way to locate brain regions
that are active in different processes or tasks, and these brand-
new technics rely on the exploration of neurons: when neurons
are active, their blood flow supply changes which in turn does
help in tracking the active neurons in the brain (Abdullaev,
2014). The development of neuroscience helps to promote the
basic understanding of the neural mechanism of the learning
process, and this interdisciplinary research practice prompted
EN to establish.
Educational neuroscience is related to neuroscience,
psychology, and education. As an interdisciplinary research
field, it also has different names, such as brain-based learning,
cognitive neuropsychology, neuroeducation, etc. Researchers
often use “educational neuroscience” because, in essence, it is to
scientifically combine the findings of neuroscience research with
the educational theory and practice to improve teaching and
learning (Amran et al., 2019). Many studies conducted in this
field are aimed at studying the brain because it is closely related
to education. In this emerging research field, professionals,
cognitive scientists, and neuroscientists collaborate to apply
neuroscience research to change education (Nouri, 2016), and
EN also better reflects a knowledge field centered on education,
characterized by neuroscience and technology, and based on
experiential, social, and biological evidence (Howard-Jones,
2011). The rise of EN stems from the change of neuroscience
to education because anything that influences learning will
eventually be based on the brain. Therefore, the understanding
of how the brain works will affect educational practice and
research. The demand for EN comes from two directions:
neuroscientists emphasize that their work has the potential
to improve education, and educators are keen to understand
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 2December 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 792723

fpsyg-12-792723 December 20, 2021 Time: 15:35 # 3
Cui and Zhang EN Training for Teachers’ TPACK
what neuroscience can provide for their practice (Howard-
Jones, 2014). The establishment of the field of EN marks
the arrival of an era that focuses on human brain learning
models and mechanisms, which gives researchers, leaders,
and teachers specific opportunities to reexamine educational
practice and research.
Especially for teachers, it is necessary to review the teaching
process under EN-related works. Researchers pointed out that
if teachers know more about the brain of learners, the more
they will be able to recognize the differences in many ways
of teaching and learning (Amiel and Tan, 2019;Doukakis and
Alexopoulos, 2020), and EN can help teachers understand the
brain operating mechanism, promote teachers to change teaching
strategies, and optimize teaching design, to implement better
teaching activities (Sigman et al., 2014). Latest research indicated
that it is very important to understand these physiological
data because these cues generated from the intelligent learning
environment, such as heart rate, respiration, and pupil, can be
used to judge learners’ physical discomfort, fear, or reluctance
to help better understand learning and teaching (Zhang et al.,
2020c). Many studies have also confirmed the important role
of EN for teachers, such as correctly dealing with obstacles
and correcting mistakes in the learning process will help to
connect nerves and promote the transformation of knowledge
(Moser et al., 2011) and retrieving information with consistent
patterns leads to stronger neural connections (Fernández and
Morris, 2018). The learners will feel more enjoyable and stronger
motivation to deal with the task when the learning task is in the
zone of proximal development (Baars and Wijnia, 2018). In many
cases, it is beneficial to teachers’ curriculum design and learning
process and they can try to avoid asking mechanical, trivial, and
non-challenging questions but put forward multi-dimensional
methods to consider a concept or idea, and the neural pathways
and learning results will also be strengthened in return (Doukakis
and Alexopoulos, 2020). Besides, understanding the EN is proved
valuable to focus on special learning disabilities and special
learning groups, for instance, brain tracking technologies (fMRI,
PET, MRI, and EEG) help find the differences in the brain
structure of dyslexia children, such as reduced brain functional
plasticity, insufficient neural network activation, etc., leading to
good educational guidance and teaching intervention to alleviate
children’s dyslexia and improve their attention (Qiang and Meiqi,
2021). The practice of EN can also help teachers pay attention
to special learning groups such as ADHD and ASD, and these
concerns help teachers design reasonable courses and effective
methods in improving education and teaching (Churches et al.,
2017). Studies also provide teachers with “unprecedented insight”
into a formative assessment in real time and offer valuable
information about students’ overall participation and teaching
effect (Campbell, 2020).
The above research shows that it is of positive significance to
consider learners and the learning process from the perspective
of EN research. Teachers can rethink the design of teaching
activities, use the developmental characteristics of brain evidence
to promote participation, and create an ideal and harmonious
classroom atmosphere with EN research conclusions. In a word,
the emergence of EN for teachers reflects a research-based
or evidence-centered teaching method (Tomlinson and Sousa,
2020), and the EN-based intervention may help to improve
students’ self-efficacy, affect school performance, and have a
positive impact on student’s progress in the future (Cherrier
et al., 2020). This means that promoting the perceptions
of EN knowledge may be conducive to teachers’ knowledge
construction, especially for the understanding of teaching
practice in the smart education era.
Technological Pedagogical Content
Knowledge
Theoretical construction is necessary for any research field,
especially for the teachers’ knowledge construction and practice
under a background of integrating technology in the 21st century.
TPACK framework is proposed by Mishra and Koehler (2006),
which contains three main components: content knowledge
(CK), technology knowledge (TK), and pedagogy knowledge
(PK), and the complex interactions between them in teacher
knowledge. TPACK framework is regarded as a breakthrough
in teacher knowledge research because it integrates technical
knowledge into the traditional views of the integration of
contents and pedagogy and forms an integrated knowledge
framework with technology. Koehler and Mishra (2009) pointed
that relationships between teaching and technology with
technology due to social and contextual factors also complicate,
and teachers are facing new challenges with technology. TPACK
is considered as a theory of knowledge in action because it origins
from pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) and the capabilities
can be infused into teacher curriculum to support teaching and
learning (Tondeur et al., 2017). It is greatly beneficial to teachers,
especially preservice teachers, on account of the integration of
technology, pedagogy, and content, which promotes the process
of teaching practice (Tondeur et al., 2020). Nowadays, there
are many studies on TPACK because it has brought beneficial
enlightenments to teachers’ knowledge development, such as
research in MOOC, STEM, Math, Chemistry, and all kinds of
disciplines (Chong, 2021).
The increase of EN knowledge also affects teachers’ knowledge
structure. Geake (2011) noted that understanding EN is many
advantages, one of which is conducive to “new possibilities
in pedagogy or curriculum design.” Gang (2020) also stressed
that EN is conducive to the deep and further understanding of
various educational elements such as instructional design and
students evaluation process. Schwartz et al. (2019) indicated
that EN “enriches pedagogical choices” and promoted much
more student-centered pedagogies after a set of EN concepts
courses. Improving teaching becomes an important dimension
of EN application because the understanding of students’ brains
is an effective way to improve the teaching process, which in
turn contributes to better achievements for both teachers and
students. Especially in some international investigations, for
instance, BrainU courses have been implemented on a large
scale, and these projects have effectively promoted continuous
reflection on teachers’ teaching process and understanding of
class practice (Dubinsky et al., 2019). The EN-related teacher
programs have been promoted by many institutions over the
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 3December 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 792723

fpsyg-12-792723 December 20, 2021 Time: 15:35 # 4
Cui and Zhang EN Training for Teachers’ TPACK
past decades, such as the Royal Society in the United Kingdom,
the International Society for Neuroscience, the Organisation
for Economic Cooperation and Development, etc., and these
projects are used to promote teachers’ understanding of EN
and their teaching practice (Coch, 2018). Studies also stressed
its benefits for empowering teachers’ abilities and promoting
education reforms, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic
period (Joseph and Thomas, 2021). These findings mean that
teachers need to consider their practical skills and promote
their literacy (Zhang et al., 2020a), especially technology-
related skills under the perspective of EN to promote teaching
effect in their instruction. Ching et al. (2020) also emphasized
the necessity of forming a teacher’s neuroscience literacy and
noted that an understanding of EN can also help against
neuromyths. These understandings need to be conducted into
operable teaching steps and to integrate related data-based
decision-making literacy with subject content and teaching
method knowledge (Mandinach and Schildkamp, 2021). In other
words, in the whole complex process of taking instruction,
teachers need not only TK, CK, and PK but also literacy
and understanding related to the new technologies and EN-
related works.
The existing studies paid much attention to teachers; however,
not enough works were conducted on the role of EN knowledge
in promoting teachers’ TPACK construction; considering the
studies of EN and its benefits for teachers, we formed the idea
that teachers’ TPACK may be formed based on EN. Due to the
addition of a new element (EN), teachers’ knowledge structure
also changes on the basis of EN-related concepts, works, and
research, and a new composite knowledge framework may form
by the integration of CK, TK, PK, and EN, as shown in Figure 1.
Although EN knowledge is considered to be helpful to promote
teachers’ knowledge, existing studies have failed to reveal the
specific relationships between EN and various elements in the
TPACK framework.
METHODOLOGY
Measures
The understanding of EN cannot directly change teaching, but
on the contrary, it will promote teachers’ understanding of
learning, to implement better teaching (Jamaludin et al., 2019).
Thus, in this study, the relationship between EN and teachers’
TPACK structure (Q1), and the effectiveness of the EN training
program (Q2) through EN knowledge, TPACK-21, and mental
engagement are explored. The research framework has been
established to illustrate the possible impact of these three aspects
as is shown in Figure 2:
Educational neuroscience: EN knowledge scale is measured
from three aspects: knowledge about the brain (ENB, three
items), knowledge about the development and change of
teenagers (ENT, three items), and the knowledge about the
practice with EN (ENP, three items). These three aspects were
established according to the contents of the EN training program
and were generated through discussions by researchers to ensure
its reliability.
TPACK-21: TPACK scale employed TPACK-21 questionnaire,
including CK (four items), PK (seven items), TK (four items),
TCK (four items), PCK (six items), TPK (six items), and TPACK
(seven items) developed by Valtonen et al. (2017). TPACK-21
was grounded on 21st-century skills, such as creativity, critical
thinking, and problem solving. The questionnaire has been
validated by CFA, and all statements have reached an adequate
reliability level (α>0.80).
Mental engagement: Mental engagement scale is considered
from well-being (WB, seven items) and satisfaction (SA, six
items), and each part has high reliability and validity according
to Mo et al. (2021). These two aspects were considered because
they are highly related to teacher training, especially satisfaction,
and it is the best way to assess the effectiveness of the training
program (Aimsrikul and Thitinaruemit, 2019).
Procedure
The research constructs the initial questionnaire items through
the Wenjuanxing platform1and invites some teachers to fill in
these questions. After the first investigation, researchers made
appropriate adjustments to the questionnaire items according to
the teachers’ feedback to better match the in-service participants.
The survey was conducted after a teacher EN training program,
lasting for a week. This program was designed for inspiring
teachers with EN-related concepts, including content about the
cognitive structure of the brain and the latest results of EN
research on the classroom, such as why teenagers’ language
sensitivity will become slow with age, why do teenagers writing
skills improve little after middle school, and why teenagers always
like to stay together and do things together. The content of the EN
training program can be found in Appendix A, and the origin
training content can be found in My Teen Brain, a teacher EN
workshop implemented by Coleman (2021). After the program,
teachers were invited to summarize the effects of this training and
report remaining issues that will affect their understanding of EN
in the program. Then, the interviewed data are further analyzed
to conduct findings.
Participants
The information of participants is sorted out after the
questionnaire, where age, gender, working experience,
educational background, EN experience before training
(pre-EN), and EN training opportunity are considered. The
participants contain 216 in-service teachers (men = 71,
women = 145) in Jinlin Province, China. As is shown in Table 1,
these teachers are recruited from the main subjects of elementary
and secondary schools, for instance, Chinese, mathematics,
English, etc. In terms of educational background, most of
the teachers have a bachelor’s degree (N= 113, 52.3%) and
master’s or above master’s degree (N= 71, 32.8%), with an
average age = 34.2. Although these teachers have considerable
teaching experience, for instance, most of the teachers have
over 5 years of experience (68.1%), they responded that they
had little understanding of EN before the training, ranking
score from 1 to 2 on pre-EN experience, and only 3.2% teachers
1https://www.wjx.cn/
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 4December 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 792723

fpsyg-12-792723 December 20, 2021 Time: 15:35 # 5
Cui and Zhang EN Training for Teachers’ TPACK
FIGURE 1 | How EN influences TPACK and forms a new knowledge structure.
FIGURE 2 | The research framework.
reported that they have a moderate understanding of EN.
The feedback from participants shows that in-service teachers
significantly lack opportunities for EN, and nearly 90% of
teachers reported few opportunities to get appropriate EN
training. This shows that the implementation of an EN training
program for teachers is necessary.
RESULTS
Data Analysis
In this work, SPSS 23.0 was used to examine in-service teachers’
EN knowledge, TPACK-21, and mental engagement after an EN
training program.
First, the descriptive statistics and reliability analysis of each
subscale are examined through SPSS, as shown in Table 2. From
the measurement results of reliability statistics, the Cronbach’s
alpha value of each subscale is over 0.80, and the total reliability
result of 60 items is 0.933, indicating that the analyzed data
have high internal consistency and strong reliability. The mean
value of all subscales ranged from 2.656 to 4.195, where the
ENB, ENT, and ENP only got a score from 2.656 to 3.003,
showing that the teachers still have not enough understandings
of the EN knowledge. Although teachers have limited EN-
related knowledge, they also assigned relatively high scores to
CK, PK, TK, PCK, TCK, TPK, and TPACK, ranging from
3.951 to 4.195. Besides, teachers reported WB and SA scores
over 3.747, indicating that they got relative recognition of this
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 5December 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 792723

fpsyg-12-792723 December 20, 2021 Time: 15:35 # 6
Cui and Zhang EN Training for Teachers’ TPACK
TABLE 1 | Profile of participants.
Variables Category Frequency % Variables Category Frequency %
Age 20–29 67 31.1% Educational background Below bachelor’s 32 14.8%
30–39 103 47.7% Bachelor’s 113 52.3%
40–49 34 15.7% Master’s 65 30.1%
>50 12 5.5% Above master’s 6 2.8%
Working experience 1–5 years 69 31.9% Pre-EN experience (1 = little, 5 = a lot) 1 162 75.0%
5–10 years 89 41.2% 2 46 21.3%
10–15 years 30 13.9% 3 7 3.2%
15–20 years 18 8.3% 4 1 0.5%
over 20 years 10 4.6% 5 0 0%
Gender Female 145 67.1% EN training opportunity (1 = little, 5 = a lot) 1 144 66.6%
2 65 30.1%
Male 71 32.9% 3 5 2.3%
4 0 0%
5 2 1.0%
TABLE 2 | Descriptive statistics and reliability of each subscale.
N statistic Minimum statistic Maximum statistic Mean statistic Std. deviation statistic Variance statistic N of items Cronbach’s α
ENB 216 1 5 3.003 0.897 0.805 3 0.891
ENT 216 1 5 2.960 0.862 0.743 3 0.910
ENP 216 1 5 2.656 0.869 0.755 3 0.867
CK 216 1 5 4.078 0.828 0.685 4 0.901
PK 216 1 5 4.104 0.825 0.681 7 0.917
TK 216 1 5 3.951 0.842 0.709 4 0.898
PCK 216 1 5 4.195 0.774 0.599 6 0.920
TCK 216 1 5 4.142 0.808 0.653 4 0.912
TPK 216 1 5 4.076 0.800 0.641 6 0.921
TPACK 216 1 5 4.087 0.805 0.649 7 0.927
WB 216 1 5 3.868 0.817 0.667 7 0.902
SA 216 1 5 3.747 0.762 0.58 6 0.900
Total 60 0.933
TABLE 3 | Paired samples statistics of pre-EN and the subscales of EN.
Mean Paired differences t df Sig. (two-tailed)
Mean Std. deviation Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence interval of the
difference
Lower Upper
Pair 1 Pre-EN and ENB 1.334 3.003 1.667 1.424 0.097 0.338 0.720 5.463 215 0.000
Pair 2 Pre-EN and ENT 1.334 2.960 1.626 1.456 0.099 0.377 0.768 5.781 215 0.000
Pair 3 Pre-EN and ENP 1.334 2.656 1.322 1.424 0.097 0.685 1.067 9.044 215 0.000
EN training program, and their well-being and satisfaction are
moderately accepted.
Second, the paired-samples test was used to explore the
difference between pre-EN and the subscales of EN (ENB, ENT,
and ENP). The data analysis results are as follows in Table 3, in
which there are significant differences between the pre-EN and
ENB (p= 0.00 <0.05), there are significant differences between
the pre-EN and ENT (p= 0.00 <0.05), and there are significant
differences between the pre-EN and ENT (p= 0.00 <0.05),
with a mean value of pre-EN, ENB, ENT, and ENP are 1.334,
3.003, 2.960, and 2.656, respectively. The results indicated that
the three aspects of EN have increased varying degrees, and this
EN training program can promote teachers’ understanding to
a certain extent.
Third, the Pearson correlation analysis was used to test the
correlations between the subscales of EN, TPACK-21, and mental
engagement. As shown in Table 4, the correlation analysis results
showed that there were high correlations between the subscales
of EN and TPACK, for instance, the correlation between ENB
and PCK was 0.822 (p<0.05). However, the correlation between
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 6December 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 792723

fpsyg-12-792723 December 20, 2021 Time: 15:35 # 7
Cui and Zhang EN Training for Teachers’ TPACK
TABLE 4 | Correlations between EN, TPACK-21, and mental engagement.
ENT ENP ENB CK PK TK PCK TCK TPK TPACK WB SA
ENT Pearson correlation 1 0.929** 0.821** 0.807** 0.750** 0.678** 0.723** 0.712** 0.657** 0.696** −0.012 −0.019
Sig. (two-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.860 0.784
ENP Pearson correlation 0.929** 1 0.911** 0.882** 0.825** 0.753** 0.797** 0.776** 0.730** 0.751** 0.020 0.021
Sig. (two -tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.767 0.761
ENB Pearson correlation 0.821** 0.911** 1 0.877** 0.821** 0.729** 0.822** 0.784** 0.737** 0.747** 0.011 0.026
Sig. (two -tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.877 0.709
CK Pearson correlation 0.807** 0.882** 0.877** 1 0.938** 0.807** 0.888** 0.856** 0.805** 0.827** 0.000 0.025
Sig. (two-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 0.716
PK Pearson correlation 0.750** 0.825** 0.821** 0.938** 1 0.852** 0.885** 0.860** 0.816** 0.840** −0.025 0.012
Sig. (two-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.716 0.860
TK Pearson correlation 0.678** 0.753** 0.729** 0.807** 0.852** 1 0.804** 0.816** 0.854** 0.834** 0.019 0.054
Sig. (two-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.786 0.427
PCK Pearson correlation 0.723** 0.797** 0.822** 0.888** 0.885** 0.804** 1 0.935** 0.890** 0.889** −0.011 0.023
Sig. (two-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.870 0.740
TCK Pearson correlation 0.712** 0.776** 0.784** 0.856** 0.860** 0.816** 0.935** 1 0.899** 0.916** −0.002 0.031
Sig. (two-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.976 0.651
TPK Pearson correlation 0.657** 0.730** 0.737** 0.805** 0.816** 0.854** .890** 0.899** 1 0.940** 0.052 0.062
Sig. (two-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.449 0.365
TPACK Pearson correlation 0.696** 0.751** 0.747** 0.827** 0.840** 0.834** 0.889** 0.916** 0.940** 1 0.038 0.046
Sig. (two-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.582 0.501
WB Pearson correlation −0.012 0.020 0.011 0.000 −0.025 0.019 −0.011 −0.002 0.052 0.038 1 0.872**
Sig. (two-tailed) 0.860 0.767 0.877 1.000 0.716 0.786 0.870 0.976 0.449 0.582 0.000
SA Pearson correlation −0.019 0.021 0.026 0.025 0.012 0.054 0.023 0.031 0.062 0.046 0.872** 1
Sig. (two-tailed) 0.784 0.761 0.709 0.716 0.860 0.427 0.740 0.651 0.365 0.501 0.000
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).
the subscales of EN and mental engagement and the correlation
between the subscales of TPACK-21 and mental engagement were
not supported. Besides, the subscales of mental engagement had
internal consistency, where the correlation between well-being
(WB) and satisfaction (SA) was 0.872 (p<0.05). This shows
that the cognition of EN knowledge will affect the dimensions of
teachers’ TPACK structure, and TPACK also has connections in
its complex framework. Although teacher training is designed for
EN knowledge, the program does not obviously increase teachers’
satisfaction and well-being.
Interview Analysis
Through the above analysis, it is found that although EN
knowledge was significantly correlated with TPACK, it did not
affect the satisfaction and well-being of the training program.
Although teachers’ EN knowledge increased significantly, it did
not reach a very high level when compared with TPACK.
After the program, 10% of teachers (T1–T22) were invited to
summarize the results of this training, and the interviewed
data were further analyzed. First, it was found that teachers
showed great interest in the EN training, and teacher T6
concludes that “learning something about the brain are very
novel comparing with traditional training programs,”, and T10
also stressed that the curriculum and key points are quite
different from “technology, teaching method training projects.”
This knowledge related to teenagers’ brains helps them recognize
the difference between teenagers and adults, which “helps them
reconsider teaching design process” as described by teachers T4,
T6, and T13. Second, it is found that there are still difficulties in
understanding the knowledge of EN although they have received
related training, especially for the knowledge in practice (ENP).
Teacher 3 said, “Some descriptions are too vague for me to
understand.” “Although the teacher explained many theories
about neuroscience, he didn’t tell us how to do the best in
practice,” which was agreed by T3, T7, and T9. A detailed matrix
data analysis chart was formed to better interpret the views of the
teachers, as shown in Table 5.
The findings of Table 5 indicate that EN is a new field for most
of the teachers, and how to explain the views of EN to teachers
may be more important than EN itself. It is not easy to construct
the “bridge” between science research and classrooms. This may
require neuroscientists and educators to establish a common
discourse to promote better training effects. Through further
discussions, we discussed with teachers the possible paths of EN
knowledge dissemination, such as obtaining difficulties, media
reasons, etc. This part will be described in detail in the discussion.
DISCUSSION
In this research, we conducted a training program on EN
knowledge for in-service teachers and verified the relationship
between EN and TPACK, which indicates that promoting
teachers’ understanding of EN may be conducive to teachers’
knowledge construction. However, it is also found that the effect
of the EN training program is limited, and the improvement of
teachers’ EN-related knowledge, such as the knowledge about the
brain (ENB), has not reached a very ideal level, and only moderate
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 7December 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 792723

fpsyg-12-792723 December 20, 2021 Time: 15:35 # 8
Cui and Zhang EN Training for Teachers’ TPACK
TABLE 5 | Views about learning EN in the teacher training program.
Views T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13 T14 T15 T16 T17 T18 T19 T20 T21 T22
Learning about EN is novel
compared with traditional
training programs.
EN is a new field for me. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
EN is a new knowledge for me. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
EN is a new teaching method for
me.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Learning about EN helps
re-consider the teaching
design process.
EN helps understanding student. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
EN helps understanding
resources.
* * * * * *
EN helps understanding teaching. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Learning about EN still meets
difficulties.
EN is too vague for me to
understanding in theory.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
EN is too difficult for me to
understanding in practice.
* * * * * * * * * * *
I rarely have chance to
communicate with EN experts
* * * * * * * * * *
The table was organized according to the interviews, and “*” means teachers agree with this view during the interview.
well-being and satisfaction are stressed. After analysis with SPSS
and interview, this study gets the following conclusions.
First, a necessary training program can promote teachers’
understanding of EN. In this research, teachers’ understandings
of EN knowledge have generally improved, especially for ENB,
ENT, and ENP. Although they did not reach the level of 4/5,
and the highest was only 3.003, it has made a lot of progress
compared with the mean score of 1.334 of the EN before they
get trained (pre-EN). This confirms the views that promoting
teacher training can increase teachers’ cognitions in the field of
neuroscience (Roehrig et al., 2012;Dubinsky et al., 2013). Since
EN is a field related to education, many experts emphasize that
the necessary teacher training is an effective way to connect
neuroscience and education. The professional knowledge of EN
is taught to teachers instead of directly promoting the effect of
education practice, which may promote teachers’ teaching beliefs
and lead to better instruction (Gutshall, 2020). Researchers also
indicated that it is necessary to build a bridge between research
and educational practice by forming a partnership (MacMahon
et al., 2021), and it is also important to reciprocate interactions
for neuroscience and education (Aronsson, 2020).
Second, it was found that EN knowledge is highly related
to TPACK (p<0.05) and can promote the development of
teachers’ TPACK to a certain extent. Previous studies stressed
that EN does a great help in inspiring teachers to develop brain-
based learning and encourages students to learn independently
(Amelia et al., 2021). Similar to these views, some teachers
in this work reported that they can rethink the instructional
design process from the research of neuroscience and the
brain. Educational neuroscience knowledge helps them better
integrate technology (TK), pedagogy (PK), and subject content
knowledge (CK), which means that EN may promote teachers
to form a new TPACK structure, for instance, EN-TPACK
mentioned in Figure 1. Although the general well-being and
satisfaction of teachers in this study are not very high, which
can only reach 3.868 and 3.747, the interview with teachers
indicates that the teachers’ understanding of EN has increased
significantly and can further increase their reflection on teaching,
as described by teacher T4, T6, and T13. This is consistent
with the research of Elouafi et al. (2021) because it can help
teachers better carry out instructional design, question and renew
all practices, for instance, course content, sequences, rhythm,
execution, and evaluation.
Finally, there are still many difficulties in EN knowledge
dissemination, although teachers get specifically trained.
Regardless of the regional development levels and teaching
levels, neuromyth will produce and affect the practical process
of education, and a survey of 583 teachers in Portugal verified
this conclusion, conducted by Rato et al. (2013). In this study,
teachers pointed that they encountered many difficulties, such
as vague knowledge and difficulty in practice, which shows that
the causes of limited EN knowledge are complex. Lasswell’s
5W model (Wenxiu, 2015) inspired us how the dissemination
of EN produces neuromyths and hinders teachers’ knowledge
development, as shown in Figure 3. From the perspective of
communication mechanism, limited EN knowledge of teachers
came initially from different targets and discipline backgrounds.
Neuroscience studies the brain and physiological mechanism,
for instance, the genes, neuronal activities, and their links, and
lots of research cannot be directly applied to change education
(Devonshire and Dommett, 2010). Researches also points
out that neuroscience and education lack common discourse,
especially professional terms, vocabulary, literature, research and
methods, which makes the concept and knowledge too vague to
directly guide practice (Qiang and Meiqi, 2021). What’s more, the
unscientific interpretations (oversimplified or over-interpreted)
by the mass social media often make the conclusions too blurred
to use for improving teaching from a scientific perspective
(Dekker et al., 2012). Most importantly, the focus of EN training
should be to teach teachers how to change the teaching process
in practice, not to introduce relevant knowledge in theory.
This means that in teacher EN training programs, we need to
re-interpret and re-explain the relatively scientific professional
knowledge in a way that teachers can easily understand to guide
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 8December 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 792723

fpsyg-12-792723 December 20, 2021 Time: 15:35 # 9
Cui and Zhang EN Training for Teachers’ TPACK
FIGURE 3 | EN knowledge dissemination based on Lasswell’s 5W model.
learning and instructing. This work requires the joint efforts of
experts, scholars, and teachers to change practice in classrooms.
CONCLUSION
Educational neuroscience is a systematic science to understand
the occurrence law of human brain learning and may help
teachers understand the general laws and characteristics of
teaching, to change teachers’ traditional teaching methods.
Although teachers expect to use the research results of EN
to change the teaching process, it is undeniable that teachers’
practical level and understanding of EN are still limited compared
with the content, psychology, and technical knowledge. In many
cases, the teacher knowledge related to EN is on the edge of
knowledge structure, and most of the teachers are found to
lack an EN background or curriculum experience (Amran and
Bakar, 2020). Therefore, it is necessary to promote specific EN
training programs for teachers. The viewpoints of EN should
be recommended and added to the pre-and in-service teachers’
training courses and programs to promote better teaching.
The original idea of this study is derived from the BrainU
project developed by Dubinsky et al. (2013). The project aims
to promote teachers’ educational practice by teaching teachers
related concepts of neuroscience. Through a period of workshop
projects, a team of expert teachers can be established to integrate
the concepts, activities, demonstrations, and experiments of
neuroscience into the classroom, and increase teachers’ use of
inquiry teaching methods (Roehrig et al., 2012). Our research
further verifies that it is of positive significance to teachers’
training EN-related knowledge, which is also helpful for the
construction of teachers’ TPACK construction. The knowledge
about ENB, ENT, and ENP is examined, and high correlations
with the subscales of TPACK were found. Researchers also
proposed that teachers should get trained according to the
TPACK and EN to promote planning, design, and teaching
practice (Doukakis et al., 2021), and this indicated that
the understanding of EN can help teachers further master
technology, subject content, and pedagogy in practice, so as to
better carry out daily teaching. Thus, a new composite knowledge
framework EN-TPACK is recommended to be established for
both pre and in-service teachers to enhance their teaching
practice. But at the same time, the study failed to reach the most
ideal state. Although teachers’ knowledge of EN has increased,
their sense of well-being and satisfaction cannot report a high
level. In further research, this research would reduce the possible
obstacles to teachers’ knowledge acquisition and dissemination,
so as to promote teachers’ engagement and practice.
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
This research enlightens teachers and increases their EN
knowledge by the training program under EN. It is also
helpful to further review the technology, pedagogy, and content
knowledge, promoting the development of teachers’ TPACK.
Future research needs to expand more samples and adopt a cyclic
and iterative approach to verify the necessity of EN training
for teachers, school managers, and even parents. Empirical
research, for instance, comparative experiments for EN, is
also recommended to evaluate teachers’ learning outcomes in
authentic learning environments. In addition, although the
analysis of the EN dissemination process may be inadequate, it
will help to understand the generation path of teacher knowledge
in practice, thereby promoting this emerging field of EN.
Future research should also focus on reducing the obstacles of
knowledge dissemination to promote teachers’ understanding of
EN, TPACK, and its implementation in practice.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The original contributions presented in the study are included
in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be
directed to the corresponding author/s.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
YC carried out the whole formal analysis, investigation, and
writing—original draft. HZ edited the original manuscript to
ensure that it reaches the standard of publishing, carried out
project administration, and contributed to supervision and
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 9December 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 792723

fpsyg-12-792723 December 20, 2021 Time: 15:35 # 10
Cui and Zhang EN Training for Teachers’ TPACK
resources. Both authors contributed to the article and approved
the submitted version.
FUNDING
This work was supported by the project of Jilin Provincial
Development and Reform Commission “Jilin Engineering
Research Center of Integration and Innovation of Education
and Artificial Intelligence” (Grant No. 2019694), the project
of Jilin Provincial Science and Technology Department “Jilin
Trans-regional Science and Technology Innovation Center of
Educational Artificial Intelligence” (Grant No. 20200602015ZP),
the open project of Intelligent education of the State Key
Laboratory of Cognitive Intelligence “Research on the practice
of smart classroom precision teaching in frontier rural primary
and secondary schools” (Grant No. IED2021-Z001), the project
of Undergraduate Higher Education Teaching Reform in
Jilin Province “Research on the innovative training mode
of excellent journalism and communication talents in the
smart environment” (Grant No. JLJY202118470787), and the
project of “Creative Education” in promoting the teaching
mode reform of normal students’ subject understanding by
Northeast Normal University “Research on the cultivation
and development of normal students driven by big data”
(Grant No. 21CZ0011).
REFERENCES
Abdullaev, Y. (2014). “Brain imaging: localisation of brain functions,” in eLS ed.
D. J. Perkel (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd). doi: 10.1002/9780470015902.
a0000095.pub3
Aimsrikul, M. H., and Thitinaruemit, M. A. (2019). “Satisfaction of faculty
members for computer labs trainings,” in Proceedings of the International
Academic Multidisciplinary Research Conference in London, London, 131–134.
Amelia, R., Sartono, E. K. E., and Pasani, C. F. (2021). Neuroscience study in science
development elementary school. J. Hunan Univ. Nat. Sci. 48, 1–9.
Amiel, J. J., and Tan, Y. S. M. (2019). Using collaborative action research to resolve
practical and philosophical challenges in educational neuroscience. Trends
Neurosci. Educ. 16, 1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.tine.2019.100116
Amran, M. S., and Bakar, A. Y. A. (2020). We feel, therefore we memorize:
understanding emotions in learning mathematics using neuroscience research
perspectives. Univ. J. Educ. Res. 8, 5943–5950. doi: 10.13189/ujer.2020.082229
Amran, M. S., Rahman, S., Surat, S., and Bakar, A. Y. A. (2019). Connecting
neuroscience and education: insight from neuroscience finding for better
instructional learning. J. Educ. Gift. Young Sci. 7, 341–352. doi: 10.17478/jegys.
559933
Aronsson, L. (2020). Reconsidering the concept of difference: a proposal to connect
education and neuroscience in new ways. Policy Futures Educ. 18, 275–293.
doi: 10.1177/1478210319850437
Baars, M., and Wijnia, L. (2018). The relation between task-specific motivational
profiles and training of self-regulated learning skills. Learn. Individ. Differ. 64,
125–137. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2018.05.007
Bruer, J. T. (1977). Education and the brain: a bridge too far. Educ. Res. 26, 4–16.
doi: 10.3102/0013189X026008004
Campbell, S. R. (2020). “Educational neuroscience: past, present, and future
prospects. mathematics education across cultures,” in Proceedings of the 42nd
Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the
Psychology of Mathematics Education, eds A. I. Sacristán, J. C. Cortés-Zavala,
and P. M. Ruiz-Arias (Mexico city: Cinvestav). doi: 10.51272/pmena.42.2020
Cherrier, S., Le Roux, P. Y., Gerard, F. M., Wattelez, G., and Galy, O. (2020). Impact
of a neuroscience intervention (NeuroStratE) on the school performance of
high school students: academic achievement, self-knowledge and autonomy
through a metacognitive approach. Trends Neurosci. Educ. 18, 1–10. doi: 10.
1016/j.tine.2020.100125
Ching, F. N., So, W. W., Lo, S. K., and Wong, S. W. (2020). Preservice
teachers’ neuroscience literacy and perceptions of neuroscience in education:
implications for teacher education. Trends Neurosci. Educ. 100144, 1–9. doi:
10.1016/j.tine.2020.100144
Chong, M. (2021). How does technology integration theory guide teaching
innovation? A reflection on the hpc theory’s support of “high possibility”
teaching. J. Nanjing Normal Univ. Soc. Sci. Ed. 01, 120–129.
Churches, R., Dommett, E., and Devonshire, I. (2017). Neuroscience for Teachers:
Applying Research Evidence From Brain Science. New York, NY: Crown House
Publishing Ltd., 175–185.
Coch, D. (2018). Reflections on neuroscience in teacher education. Peabody J. Educ.
93, 309–319. doi: 10.1080/0161956X.2018.1449925
Coleman, J. (2021). The Teacher and the Teenage Brain. New York, NY: Routledge.
Cui, Y., Zhang, H., and Liu, S. (2019). “Research on teacher teaching competence
(TTC) model under smart education,” in Proceedings of the 2019 International
Joint Conference on Information, Media and Engineering (IJCIME), Osaka,
38–41. doi: 10.1109/IJCIME49369.2019.00017
Dekker, S., Lee, N. C., Howard-Jones, P., and Jolles, J. (2012). Neuromyths in
education: prevalence and predictors of misconceptions among teachers. Front.
Psychol. 3:429.
Devonshire, I. M., and Dommett, E. J. (2010). Neuroscience: viable applications in
education? Neuroscientist 16, 349–356. doi: 10.1177/1073858410370900
Doukakis, S., and Alexopoulos, E. C. (2020). “Knowledge transformation
and distance learning for secondary education students. The role of
educational neuroscience,” in Proceedings of the 2020 5th South-East Europe
Design Automation, Computer Engineering, Computer Networks and Social
Media Conference (SEEDA-CECNSM), Corfu, 1–5. doi: 10.1109/SEEDA-
CECNSM49515.2020.9221821
Doukakis, S., Sfyris, P., Niari, M., and Alexopoulos, E. (2021). “Exploring
educational practices in emergency remote teaching. The role of educational
neuroscience,” in Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE Global Engineering Education
Conference (EDUCON), Vienna, 1026–1034. doi: 10.1109/EDUCON46332.
2021.9454143
Dubinsky, J. M., Guzey, S. S., Schwartz, M. S., Roehrig, G., MacNabb, C., Schmied,
A., et al. (2019). Contributions of neuroscience knowledge to teachers and their
practice. Neuroscientist 25, 394–407. doi: 10.1177/1073858419835447
Dubinsky, J. M., Roehrig, G., and Varma, S. (2013). Infusing neuroscience
into teacher professional development. Educ. Res. 42, 317–329. doi: 10.3102/
0013189X13499403
Elouafi, L., Said, L., and Talbi, M. (2021). Progress report in neuroscience and
education: experiment of four neuropedagogical methods. Educ. Sci. 11:373.
doi: 10.3390/educsci11080373
Fernández, G., and Morris, R. G. (2018). Memory, novelty, and prior knowledge.
Trends Neurosci. 41, 654–659. doi: 10.1016/j.tins.2018.08.006
Gang, L. (2020). Review of educational neuroscience on teachers’ teaching reform
in foreign countries: from idea to technology. Teach. Educ. Res. 32, 114–120.
doi: 10.13445/j.cnki.t.e.r.2020.06.017
Geake, J. (2011). Position statement on motivations, methodologies, and practical
implications of educational neuroscience research: fMRI studies of the neural
correlates of creative intelligence. Educ. Philos. Theory 43, 43–47. doi: 10.1111/
j.1469-5812.2010.00706.x
Gutshall, C. A. (2020). When teachers become students: impacts of neuroscience
learning on elementary teachers’ mindset beliefs, approach to learning, teaching
efficacy, and grit. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. Res. 3, 39–48. doi: 10.12973/ejper.
3.1.39
Hai, Z., Yulu, C., Luyao, Y., Mengxu, J., and Yining, W. (2020). Research hotspots
and educational application trends of deep learning from the perspective of
artificial intelligence ——based on the knowledge mapping analysis of 20708
papers on 2006-2019 wos database. Mod. Educ. Technol. 30, 32–38.
Howard-Jones, P. (2014). Neuroscience and Education: A Review of Educational
Interventions and Approaches Informed by Neuroscience. Millbank: Education
Endowment Foundation.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 10 December 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 792723

fpsyg-12-792723 December 20, 2021 Time: 15:35 # 11
Cui and Zhang EN Training for Teachers’ TPACK
Howard-Jones, P. A. (2011). A multiperspective approach to neuroeducational
research. Educ. Philos. Theory 43, 24–30. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00
703.x
Jamaludin, A., Henik, A., and Hale, J. B. (2019). Educational neuroscience: bridging
theory and practice. Learn. Res. Pract. 5, 93–98. doi: 10.1080/23735082.2019.
1685027
Joseph, G. V., and Thomas, K. A. (2021). “Integration of technology initiatives with
educational neuroscience and its impact on technology readiness to technology
adoption by HSS Teachers, Kerala,” in Neuro-Systemic Applications in Learning,
eds K. A. Thomas, J. V. Kureethara, and S. Bhattacharyya (Cham: Springer),
423–444. doi: 10.1007/978-3- 030-72400-9_21
Koehler, M., and Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content
knowledge (TPACK)? Contemp. Issues Technol. Teach. Educ. 9, 60–70.
Liu, D., and Zhang, H. (2021). Developing a new model for understanding
teacher satisfaction with online learning. SAGE Open 11, 1–16. doi: 10.1177/
21582440211036440
MacMahon, S., Leggett, J., and Carroll, A. (2021). Building a Bridge
Between Research and Educational Practice. Available online at:
https://www.teachermagazine.com/au_en/articles/building-a-bridge-between-
research-and-educational-practice (accessed November 15, 2021).
Mandinach, E. B., and Schildkamp, K. (2021). Misconceptions about data-based
decision making in education: an exploration of the literature. Stud. Educ. Eval.
69:100842. doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100842
Mishra, P., and Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content
knowledge: a framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge.
Teach. Coll. Rec. 108, 1017–1054.
Mo, W., Minjuan, W., Yulu, C., and Hai, Z. (2021). Art teachers’ attitudes toward
online learning: an empirical study using self determination theory. Front.
Psychol. 12:627095. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.627095
Moser, J. S., Schroder, H. S., Heeter, C., Moran, T. P., and Lee, Y. H. (2011).
Mind your errors: evidence for a neural mechanism linking growth mind-set
to adaptive posterror adjustments. Psychol. Sci. 22, 1484–1489. doi: 10.1177/
0956797611419520
Nouri, A. (2016). The basic principles of research in neuroeducation studies. Int. J.
Cogn. Res. Sci. Eng. Educ. 4:59. doi: 10.5937/IJCRSEE1601059N
Qiang, X., and Meiqi, Z. (2021). Research topics, difficulties, and solutions of
educational neuroscience. J. Guangzhou Univ. Soc. Sci. Ed. 20, 94–99.
Rato, J. R., Abreu, A. M., and Castro-Caldas, A. (2013). Neuromyths in education:
what is fact and what is fiction for Portuguese teachers? Educ. Res. 55, 441–453.
doi: 10.1080/00131881.2013.844947
Roehrig, G. H., Michlin, M., Schmitt, L., MacNabb, C., and Dubinsky, J. M.
(2012). Teaching neuroscience to science teachers: facilitating the translation
of inquiry-based teaching instruction to the classroom. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 11,
413–424. doi: 10.1187/cbe.12-04- 0045
Schwartz, M. S., Hinesley, V., Chang, Z., and Dubinsky, J. M. (2019). Neuroscience
knowledge enriches pedagogical choices. Teach. Teach. Educ. 83, 87–98. doi:
10.1016/j.tate.2019.04.002
Sigman, M., Peña, M., Goldin, A. P., and Ribeiro, S. (2014). Neuroscience and
education: Prime time to build the bridge. Nat. Neurosci. 17, 497–502. doi:
10.1038/nn.3672
Simmonds, A. (2014). How Neuroscience is Affecting Education: Report of Teacher
and Parent Surveys. London: Wellcome Trust.
Suresh, S., Kureethara, J. V., and Vijaya, R. (2021). “Starting from the roots of
teacher education: inclusion of educational neuroscience in teacher training
in India,” in Neuro-Systemic Applications in Learning, eds K. A. Thomas, J. V.
Kureethara, and S. Bhattacharyya (Cham: Springer). doi: 10.1007/978-3- 030-
72400-9_8
Thomas, M. S. C. (2013). Educational neuroscience in the near and far future:
predictions from the analogy with the history of medicine. Trends Neurosci.
Educ. 2, 23–26. doi: 10.1016/j.tine.2012.12.001
Tomlinson, C. A., and Sousa, D. A. (2020). The science of teaching. Educ. Leadersh.
77, 14–20.
Tondeur, J., Aesaert, K., Pynoo, B., van Braak, J., Fraeyman, N., and Erstad, O.
(2017). Developing a validated instrument to measure preservice teachers’ ICT
competencies: meeting the demands of the 21st century. Br. J. Educ. Technol.
48, 462–472. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12380
Tondeur, J., Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., and Baran, E. (2020). Enhancing pre-service
teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): a mixed-
method study. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 68, 319–343. doi: 10.1007/s11423-019-
09692-1
Valtonen, T., Sointu, E., Kukkonen, J., Kontkanen, S., Lambert, M. C., and
Mäkitalo-Siegl, K. (2017). TPACK updated to measure pre-service teachers’
twenty-first-century skills. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 33, 15–31. doi: 10.14742/
ajet.3518
Wenxiu, P. (2015). Analysis of new media communication based on Lasswell’s
“5W” model. J. Educ. Soc. Res. 5, 245–245. doi: 10.36941/jesr
Wilcox, G., Morett, L. M., Hawes, Z., and Dommett, E. J. (2020). Why educational
neuroscience needs educational and school psychology to effectively translate
neuroscience to educational practice. Front. Psychol. 11:618449. doi: 10.3389/
fpsyg.2020.618449
Yanyun, S., and Wenchao, D. (2011). Progress on the research of educational
neuroscience. Open Educ. Res. 17, 12–22. doi: 10.13966/j.cnki.kfjyyj.2011.04.008
Zhang, H., Yu, L., Cui, Y., Ji, M., and Wang, Y. (2020b). Mining classroom
observation data for understanding teacher’s teaching modes. Interact. Learn.
Environ. 1–17. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2020.1734029
Zhang, H., Yu, L., Ji, M., Cui, Y., Liu, D., Li, Y., et al. (2020c). Investigating high
school students’ perceptions and presences under VR learning environment.
Interact. Learn. Environ. 28, 635–655. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2019.170
9211
Zhang, H., Cui, Y., Shan, H., Qu, Z., Zhang, W., Tu, L., et al. (2020a). “Hotspots
and trends of virtual reality, augmented reality and mixed reality in education
field,” in Proceedings of the 2020 6th International Conference of the Immersive
Learning Research Network (iLRN), San Luis Obispo, CA, 215–219. doi: 10.
23919/iLRN47897.2020.9155170
Zhifeng, W. (2021). Myth and deconstruction of neuroscience knowledge in
education. J. Suzhou Univ. Educ. Sci. Ed. 9, 73–82. doi: 10.19563/j.cnki.sdjk.
2021.03.006
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a
potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s Note: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors
and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of
the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in
this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or
endorsed by the publisher.
Copyright © 2021 Cui and Zhang. This is an open-access article distributed under the
terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution
or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and
the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal
is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or
reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 11 December 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 792723

fpsyg-12-792723 December 20, 2021 Time: 15:35 # 12
Cui and Zhang EN Training for Teachers’ TPACK
APPENDIX A
The Content of the Educational Neuroscience Training Program for Teachers
Stage 1. Begin
XElaborate the background of the educational neuroscience training program.
XNeuromyths we often encountered.
XChanging teachers’ views of the teenage brain.
XStress the importance of educational neuroscience knowledge.
Stage 1. Key Points
XThe key changes of the brain and teenagers’ transformation (development of various parts of the brain and the importance of
pruning and hormone variation).
XLearning, classroom performance, and executive function (types of learning, changes in the brain as a result of learning, the
meaning of executive function, and how this links with classroom performance).
XHormones and reward processing of teenagers (how hormone levels vary and why rewards are especially
important for teenagers).
XThe social brain of teenagers (why the peer group matters).
XSleep and healthy (why teenagers need sufficient sleep, and how sleep affects healthy).
Stage 3. Solutions
XFor teachers (what teachers need to do under educational neuroscience).
XFor parents (what parents need to do under educational neuroscience).
XFor school managers (what school managers need to do under educational neuroscience).
Stage 4. Discussion
XWhat do you think the role of educational neuroscience?
XCan educational neuroscience help you in practice or knowledge development?
XWhether there are remaining issues or difficulties affecting your understandings and practice in class with educational
neuroscience?
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 12 December 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 792723