Tina Lindhard, Marzanna Farnicka Socio-technological revolution: consequences to education

Artykuł jest dostępny na warunkach międzynarodowej licencji 4.0 (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).

Introduction

The  dynamics  associated  with  rapid  changes  in  the  way  of  using  technology  are  a  challenge  for  researchers  who  study  and  diagnose  psychological  processes  such  as  personal  development  and  therapy  (Paluchowski,  2001;  Maryniak,  Ondruch, Roszkowski, 2010; Kim, Steiner, 2016). Technology and related inventions reflect the need for improving the quality of life and enable the improvement of existing everyday use of appliances and treatment methods. These changes affect the living environment of all generations.

New technologies are undoubtedly changing developmental environments. What does it mean for psychology? Research, diagnosis and educational tools are changing, we have new fields of cognition (cognitive psychology) and several issues related to neuropsychology and neurodidactics. However, this is only the tip of the iceberg. The changing environment affects the context of life as stated in the psychology of human development (Trempała, Cieciuch, 2016).

Focusing on models such as Vygotsky’s theory (1972), we can induce that the experimental environment of children and young people will significantly impact their developmental experiences. Vygotsky identified that development involves the  internalization  of  external  tools  in  the  development  of  all  mental  functions  (1972). This means that the development of thinking, as well as other cognitive functions, are, to a considerable extent, determined by the quality of an individual’s environment and the capability of transferring knowledge, information and skills from outside to inside (1972). According to Vygotsky, the transfer occurs mostly through language (1972). Therefore, one of the most essential functions of education should be to support the development of a comprehensive and effective spoken language of the child that reflects the quality of the surrounding culture and, in addition, provides an opportunity to diagnose and determine both the current and the near future sphere of the child’s development and internalized the behaviour and motivation function. In this article the emphasis is placed on the consequences of  introducing  modern  tools  linked  to  technological  development  into  psychology and education. The reflection focuses on the nature and significance of these new tools for the diagnosis process, the methodology of the social sciences and the everyday practice of psychologists, teachers and researchers concerning the information we obtain but also what remains hidden.

To respond to the above concerns, we have divided the article into two parts. In the first, we discuss issues related to high technology and neurodidactics, sometimes called neuroeducation, and in the second, we focus on the implications and methodological applications of the issues raised above.

The phenomenon

Today,  in  2022,  it  is  a  fact  that  fast  technological  changes  have  transformed  the conditions of human development. After almost two years of online or hybrid teaching experience due to the COVID pandemic, we can speculate about what we have learned about the impact of new technology from this experience.

We have new tools and new possibilities. Since the beginning of 21st  c e n t u r y,   the solution to the problem of innovative development of education is no longer limited to the introduction of only information technologies in the educational process (Pawlak,  2020).  They  become  the  basis  for  the  emergence  of  new  directions,  such  as  robotics,  additive  technologies,  3-D,  and  FDM-printing.  The  use  of  high  technologies requires the formation of a different worldview and technological culture among specialists. The need for highly qualified specialists trained in related specialties is determined by the development of science and technology. Knowledge, technologies, methods and ways of solving production and scientific problems that characterize the current level of development of society, contribute to the formulation of solutions to problems which require interdisciplinary training (Abramova, Kamenev, 2017).

We  know  that  network  participants  can  create  their  own  worlds  to  suit  their  needs. The created world/s may be an alternative to reality, and the network user can switch back and forth between the real and the virtual domain while retaining his or her core identity. However, a person may not feel psychologically attached to the actual physical location where he or she is situated and, although physically close to us in proximity, maybe living in a world that is unattainable and distant, because it is artificially created. Digital usage has not only altered how we communicate, organize information, search for knowledge and accumulate it but has also modified our time-spending habits (Chaney, 2013). As a result, we have witnessed changes not only in the way people think about the world (content) but also in the thinking process, such as education.

The  following  examples  are  some  studies  that  address  the  problem  of  technology-connected  transformations  in  education.  It  has  been  observed  that  computer games have influenced cognitive processes of their users. Peripheral vision and attention switching functions are improved, multitasking dominates, mental reactions and decision-making processes are sped up (Zajonc, 2000; Nigg, 2017). Another noticeable change is a different mode of cognitive functioning in learning (Olson, Torrance, 1996; Alfred, Neyens, Gramopadhye, 2018; Ballarotto, Volpi, Tambelli, 2021). Reflections for psychological consequences and educational problems relate to the separation of the students from the teachers, from their natural environment and their motivation in the learning process.

The quality of change determines both the level of development of technologies in society and it plays a vital role in building the didactic process involving the level of training of future specialists. The natural occurring criteria are related to the extent a person can be ready (or not ready) to assimilate, create and implement high technologies. Based on the application of the theory of the information society, Gattie and colleagues (2011) attempt to determine the socio-cultural prospects for the development of society under the influence of the development of high technologies. The study of their influence on mentality and technological order made it possible to predict possible changes in a person’s lifestyle. It is pivotal to clarify that  not  all  new  technologies  are  found  to  be  appealing;  they  can  be  rejected  or  supported depending on society’s recognition of the need to develop the proposed innovations (Kamenev et al., 2018). Misunderstanding and non-recognition can be caused by various reasons:

– lack of a vision of the feasibility of using this technology due to an unformed need 

– insufficient level of materiality culture of society for the implementation of the innovation

– insufficient level of technical training of people for its use

– cultural conflicts causing cognitive dissonance, etc.

From the point of view of systems theory, it needs to be underlined that high technologies cause change not only in the field for which they were developed but have a wider impact on the entire socio-cultural system and each individual in particular. We are thinking about both: high technology and neurotechnology (Alfred, Neyens, Gramopadhye, 2018). They give the new developmental experiences and new learning methods. Some research is aimed at identifying the constructive and destructive nature of using high technologies in the education system. The institutional approach is an assumption of study, which makes it possible to consider the impact of high technologies on society as a certain institutional structure, whereas the  socio-cultural  approach  helps  to  identify  the  interconnections  between  technologies,  society  and  human  beings.  The  result  of  studies  led  by  Kamenev  with  his  team  (2018)  showed  that  constructive  changes  in  education  can  be  viewed  as  processes of transformation of teaching didactics. The concept of “high educational (pedagogical) technologies” has appeared. The differences between high technologies and high educational technologies were formulated by Zhukova: “we are talking  about  the  technology  of  creating  a  computer  and  about  technology  using  a computer” (2008, p. 95). The emergence of “high pedagogical (educational) technologies”  directly  depends  on  the  level  of  development  and  implementation  of  “high  technologies”  in  the  educational  process.  This  is  commonly  referred  to  as  technology-enhanced learning (TEL) integration (Bradley et al., 2007; Bagarukayo et al., 2012; Gregory, Lodge, 2015; Law et al., 2016). Researchers have shown that the technological accessibility of TEL improves students’ thinking, provoking them to create different ideas and expand their horizons, as well as qualitatively transforming the learning process (McCraty, Atkinson, Bradley, 2004).

Neurodidactics

Progress in the use of medical methods for diagnostic and educational use has been made possible by the development of techniques for analyzing and visualizing brain activities. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and its derivatives such as diffusion tractography (DT), positron emission tomography (PET), quantitative electroencephalography-electroencephalography (QEEG) and other research methods  allow  us  to  discover  the  mechanisms  of  mental  function.  These  research  methods also reveal what changes occur in the subtle structure of brain connections during the learning processes. This redevelopment involves changes that have been known for centuries (Herzyk, Jodzio, 2008; Żylińska, 2013; Giedd, 2015).

Switching to one of the many operational levels, we propose tracing the concepts of neuropsychology, neuroeducation or neurodidactics. In psychology, neuropsychological diagnosis may be considered as a form of assessment of human functioning separate from the psychological description. The methods of neuropsychological diagnosis are mainly observation, examination of products and multiple experimental tests. These are used to determine the appropriateness of behaviour, communication and/or  emotions  concerning  age,  health  and  the  strength  of  a  situational  stimulus  applied. It aims to enhance therapeutic activities and support the adaptation of interventions to an individual’s abilities (Jodzio, 2011). In neuroeducation, an essential element for cognition and a better understanding of the learning process involves the functioning: of the brain as an organ that enables learning and as having control over  all  aspects  of  our  lives,  the  mind  as  a  system  of  processing  information,  and  education as a process that leads to self-regulation in the area of emotions, cognitive processes and actions. The term “neurodidactics” is believed to have first been used by the German didactician Gerhard Preiβ (after Juszczyk, 2012, p. 46) who wrote, “school pedagogy and general didactics need to pay closer attention to the fact that learning depends on brain processes and the cognitive outcome of learning increases along with brain development of the learning child and the conscious use of its capabilities”. Therefore, in controlling changes at the cerebral level, the process is mainly concerned with improving elementary processes – perception, attention, memory and cognitive control, as well as developing complex processes such as thinking and language (Farnicka, 2017). To demonstrate the scope of the discussed topic, figure 1 shown below, illustrates the different ways of thinking proposed by Chojak (2020). In  her  work,  she  presents  a  brain-based  learning  structure  that  encompasses  and  integrates mind, brain and education science (Tokuhama-Espinoza, 2010).

Example. Skillful  use  of  neurodidactic  theories  may  lead  to  optimization  of  teaching conditions, exploitation of students’ potential (which can increase teaching effectiveness and in a more profound understanding of the taught content), conscious construction of knowledge basics, creativity in solving problems, correct reasoning, perception of facts and relations between them, and the ability to raise questions.  This  model  combines  individualized  teaching  with  traditional  classroom organization and provides students with an opportunity to become real subjects of education. The continuous process of searching for more effective teaching strategies is linked to the assessment of past teaching failures and the identification  of  destructive  factors  in  the  teaching  profession.  Simultaneously,  new  forms  of  working  need  to  consider  the  young  individual’s  characteristics  and  also  the  new IT technologies associated with these forms. These technologies also become tools for research and didactic work. An example is the increasingly common and widely practiced electroencephalographic (EEG) testing. Electroencephalographic findings provide new knowledge about brain functions that are used in preventive health care. They also provide valuable information on how specific areas of the brain react to planned research such as how the brain reacts to sensory input.

Figure 1. Brain and mind research opportunities vs. conventional psychology, education and neuroscience

Source: Chojak (2020).

In this field, assessment of the effectiveness of education may be carried out through statistical analysis such as student’s grades, as well as through observation of changes occurring in the human brain when exposed to external stimuli (EEG test). To illustrate this, we present a study conducted by Prauzner (2016). His research aimed to analyse pilot data as part of an evaluation of the effectiveness of using deterministic  computer  simulations  in  technical  education.  The  study  involved  part-time  students attending electronics and electrical engineering workshops. The use of the EEG method was to assess the level of teaching effectiveness by analyzing the recorded signals from the brain map. A comparison was made between brain activity during sessions based on the teaching method (lecture) and the problem-based method  using  computer  simulation.  Previous  research  conducted  by  the  author  demonstrates that the group of computer simulations, defined as deterministic simulation programs, may be used in technical education to improve the efficiency of the didactic process as per the theory of multilateral education (Prauzner, 2013). During the lecture test (first case), the brain reacted more intensively to Theta waves in the temporal and frontal regions (central part), whereas during the work with the simulation program, the intensity of waves was considerably reduced. In the case of computer simulation, a wider area of activity with comparable potential of the parietal lobe was observed. Regarding Beta 1 waves, it was observed that in the first case there was a greater activity of waves, especially in the left temporal lobe and a generally larger area of the whole brain. Gamma waves were also greater in the first case, especially in the left temporal lobe. Although the analysis of the data provides limited medical or physical findings, it demonstrates significant differences between these two methods. It may be concluded, that in this case the method of using computer simulations in the teaching process did not provide the expected results with students showing more cognitive activity during the lecture. These inconclusive results suggest that simulation programs do not necessarily encourage more  active  work  involvement  than  classical  methods.  According  to  the  authors,  the causes of this phenomenon should be sought primarily in study-related factors. A detailed analysis of the histogram, in particular wave phases, demonstrates limited activity during the computer simulation (comparable to the sleep phase). The question arises as to why the study did not identify the expected (greater) activity during  computer  simulations.  The  answer  was  provided  by  data  obtained  from  a short interview in which respondents shared their opinions on the attractiveness of the sessions. The primary factor affecting brain activity was general physical fatigue and lack of motivation to engage in mental work requiring more effort with the computer program. The computer program required students to be more active which was contrary to individual expectations and abilities and therefore resulted in weariness. The lecture proved to be a less disruptive and more relaxing method for the brains of the participants. The results do not define the teaching method itself  as  bad  or  good,  but  they  suggest  that  external  factors  should  be  considered  before the selection of the teaching method. The results of research conducted by neuroscientists are interesting and inspiring for various researchers. It is important to note that from a neurobiological perspective, learning processes are reflected in changes in the strength of synaptic connections between nerve cells. However, the learning  activity  aimed  at  acquiring  and  accumulating  individual  experience,  is  what leads to changes in human or animal behaviour (Włodarski, 1974). Therefore, the  study  and  management  of  learning  processes  require  knowledge  about  its  mechanisms, strategies, conditions of learning and the meta-cognitive components of this process. In neuroeducation, such knowledge should result in inner-directed skills  that  come  from  the  awareness  of  one’s  learning,  its  condition,  context,  purpose and the ability to model and correct. It is important to remember that essential learning mechanisms involve observation, experience, model examples, deliberate practice,  elaboration,  visualization,  generation,  analogies,  contrasted  cases,  questions, reversal, production and dreaming. Among the meta-cognitive components of learning, Schwartz, Tsang, and Blair (2017) also highlight imaginative play, clarification, self-explanation, self-efficacy and teaching others.

In understanding the potential consequences of the neurotechnology impact, one needs to distinguish the details of the context and the enabling of a new type of meta-analyses and generalizations related to elements inherent in the research itself. According to Vygotsky (1978), this leads to another question about the language of explanation and a question about the theories known to us. Does research in  the  new  reality  complement  the  existing  knowledge  and  help  science  develop  cumulatively or, on the contrary, do we have a problem of a revolutionary nature? Thus, do we need to replicate the existing research? From this perspective, replications are a great opportunity to study universal changes, general laws and cause-and-effect relations, and to understand and interpret phenomena. The new times showed that we as psychologist need to exchange experience, interpret, give meaning  to  action,  and  to  (re)construct  the  meanings  of  actions  undertaken  from  the  perspective  of  the  subject,  the  object,  and  the  observer  and  compare  the  results  of different studies (Farnicka, 2019). In person-environment interaction, we have new questions related to technology, but the technology can be consciousness (eg. phone, internet) or unconsciousness (neurotechnoeducation). Because of that, the study of psychological consequences of innovation is interdisciplinary (is a part of many kinds of innovations). It is worthy to underline that we should also ask about the functions which are omitted or developed because of innovation and the relation of these to the subject being studied (see Table 1).

Table 1. The question “in action” in psychology

Summary and conclusions

Even in times of revolution in psychology, the choice of education interventions is determined by the adopted paradigm and its ontological and epistemological assumptions (Brzeziński, 2015). Despite the solutions suggested in the literature that is to help the educator find a suitable model to understand and interpret phenomena examined  between  the  reality  (assumptions  of  the  teacher,  psychologist),  action  (procedure and its capabilities) and subject of the study (the reality of the student), we face many problems, tensions and conflicts related to their choice that requires reflective consideration. Owing to the discoveries in neuroscience, we can observe these effects in terms of behaviour, attitudes, and changes in the body’s physiological processes. Moreover, current knowledge tells us that the implementation of new devices and methods has short and long-term effects that should be controlled.

The  introduction  of  high  technologies,  integration  processes  in  science,  technology and production have a great impact on the transformation of the goal and content of education which must ensure not only the formation of knowledge, skills and abilities but also the development of vital interests, moral values, capabilities and abilities of a person. It becomes necessary to train a master as an innovator who is ready to master new technologies, develop original solutions and promote them to the market (Dare, Ellis, Roehrig, 2018).

The requirements for variability and flexibility of the educational process imply a completely different methodology and technology of research focused on the creative search and the development of a holistic concept from the point of view of the methodology for the implementation of human activities.

Thus, it becomes necessary to change the structural component of the organization of the study process to innovations involving technology and content. This lens creates the possibility of obtaining effects based on the conditions of the modern technological order. Underlining challenging thoughts about research in the 21st  century,  we  must  consider  that  researchers,  methodologists,  or  practitioners  also change, from the role of a theoretician and observer to the role of a designer of the human developmental environment.

And as a final thought, we would also like to stress that for a truly interdisciplinary holistic understanding of the impact of new technologies on individuals and society, we need to include cardiac variables such as the measurement of heart rate variability in educational research. It has been found that the heart sends more signals to the brain than vice versa (McCraty, 2009) and various techniques and meditation methods have a positive effect on the heart-brain relationship and foment coherence between cardiovascular phase synchronicity and the interconnection of various bodily subsystems (McCraty, Zayas, 2014; Lindhard, Hermann, Edwards, 2021). It also seems that the heart might be involved in intuitive or Gnostic knowing (Louchakova, 2005, 2007) and the processing and decoding of intuitive information (McCraty, Atkinson, Bradley, 2004). Although cognitive psychologists have centred on conscious intellectual activity mainly associated with the brain, the term cognition is derived from the Latin word cognoscere, meaning ‘to know’ or ‘to come to know’ and is a compound of co- (“together”) and gnōscere, an early form of nōscere(“to know”) (Partridge in Chaney, 2013, 2.2. para. 2). For these reasons, these authors feel  that  in  times  of  revolutionary  technological  changes  it  is  important  that  psychologists also embrace technologies related to developmental environment and its supplies and the way of implementation all the possibilities to our human cognitive, personal and psychological needs, potential and possibilities (Wygotski, 1978; Farnicka, Liberska, 2014).

References

Abramova, M.A., & Kamenev, R.V. (2017). High technology in the innovative development of higher education. Filosofiia obrazovaniia, 4(73), 153–163, doi: 10.15372/PHE20170415, http://www.phil-ed.ru/images/pdf/2017_4_73.pdf (In Russ.).

Abramova, M.A., & Krasheninnikov, V.V. (2018). High technologies as a sociocultural determinant of transformation of society. Sibirskii filosofskii zhurnal, 16(1),   91–101,  doi:  10.25205/2541-7517-2018-16-1-91-101,  https://elibrary.ru/download/elibrary_35134808_ 99569833.pdf (In Russ.).

Alfred, M., Neyens, D., & Gramopadhye, A. (2018). Comparing learning outcomes in physical and simulated learning environments. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 68, 110–117, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2018.07.002

Allen, P.M., & Varga, L. (2007). Complexity: The Co-evolution of Epistemology. Axiology and Ontology. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 11(1), 19–50.

APA Presidential Task Force on Evidence Based-Practice (2006). Evidence-Based Practice in Psychology. American Psychologist, 61(4), 271–285.

Arnett, J.J. (2011). Emerging adulthood(s): The cultural psychology of a new life stage. In L.A. Jensen (Ed.), Bridging cultural and developmental approaches to psychology: New syntheses in theory, research, and policy (pp. 255–275). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bagarukayo, E., van der Weide, Th.P., Mbarika, V.W., & Kim, M.S. (2012). The impact of learning driven constructs on the perceived higher order cognitive skills improvement: Multimedia vs. text. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology, 8(2), 120–130, http://ijedict.dec.uwi.edu//viewarticle.php?id=1433

Ballarotto, G., Volpi, B., & Tambelli, R. (2021). Adolescent Attachment to Parents and Peers and the Use of Instagram: The Mediation Role of Psychopathological Risk. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,18(8), 3965.

Bernstein, R.J. (1971). Research methods in education, Praxis and Action.  Philadelphia:  University of Pennsylvania Press.

Bradley, R.V., Mbarika, V., Sankar, C.S., Clayton, H.R., & Raju, P.K. (2007). A study on the impact of GPA on perceived improvement of higherorder cognitive skills.  Decision  Sciences.  Journal of Innovative Education, 5(1), 151–168, doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4609.2007.00131.x, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1540-4609.2007.00131.x

Brain-Based Learning: The Neurological Findings About the Human Brain that Every Teacher Should Know to be Effective [on line], http://globadvantage.ipleiria.pt/files/2011/06/ working_paper-77_globadvantage.pdf

Brzeziński, J. (2015). Badania eksperymentalne w psychologii i pedagogice.  Warszawa:  Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar.

Carter, S.M., & Little, M. (2007). Justifying Knowledge, Justifying Method, Taking Action: Epistemologies, Methodologies, and Methods in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Health Research, 17(10), 1316–1328.

Chamberlain, K., Creamer, G., & Finch, H.W. (2020). Methods in psychology: Opening a dialogue. Methods in Psychology, 2, 2590–2601, doi: 10.1016/j.metip.2020.1000

Chaney, D.W. (2013). An overview of the first use of the terms cognition and behavior. Behavioral Sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 3(1), 143–153, doi: 10.3390/bs3010143

Chojak, M. (2019). Neuropedagogika, neuroedukacja i neurodydaktyka. Mity i fakty.Warszawa: Difin.

Chojak,  M.  (2020).  Neuropedagogika wśród dyscyplin naukowych – próba doprecyzowania nazewnictwa [Neuropedagogy Among Scientific Disciplines – an Attempt to Clarify Terminology]. Studia Edukacyjne, 56, 369–384, doi: 10.14746/se.2020.56.20

Coolican, H. (2014). Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology. 6th ed. Hove: Psychology Press.

Czerniawska, M. (2010). Kolektywizm versus indywidualizm – zmiany wartości i postaw młodzieży w okresie przeobrażeń ustrojowych. Studium interdyscyplinarne. Białystok: Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Białostockiej.

Dare, E.A., Ellis, J.A., & Roehrig, G.H. (2018). Understanding science teachers’ implementations of integrated STEM curricular units through a phenomenological  multiple  case  study.  International Journal of STEM Education,5(1),  4,  doi:  10.1186/s40594-018-0101-z

Denis, D., & Young, B. (2019). Methodology in Psychology. In R. Sternberg, & W. Pickren  (Eds.),  The Cambridge Handbook of the Intellectual History of Psychology (pp. 29–62). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Elizalde, E. (2017). On How the Cyberspace Arose to Fulfill Theoretical Physicists’ Needs and Eventually Changed the World: Personal Recallings and a Practitioner’s Perspective. In Cyberspace, 3–21. Cham: Springer International Publishing, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-54975-0_1

Farnicka, M. (2017). The impact of cyber-activity on human development. Humanities and Social Sciences Letters,5(2), 43–53.

Farnicka, M. (2019). Action Research as an Element of Integrative Research Model in Social Sciences/ Badania w działaniu jako element integracyjnego modelu badań w naukach społecznych. Przegląd Badań Edukacyjnych (Educational Studies Review), 1(28), 219–233.

Farnicka, M., & Liberska, H. (2014). Tworzenie środowiska sprzyjającego uczeniu się – analiza wybranych czynników. Teraźniejszość. Człowiek. Edukacja,3(67), 57–71.

Gattie, D.K., Kellam, N.N., Schramski, J.R., & Walther, J. (2011). Engineering education as a complex system. European Journal of Engineering Education, 36(6), 521–535, doi: 10.1080/03043797.2011.622038, https://asu.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/engineering-education-as-a-complex-system

Giddens, A. (2020). Nowoczesność i tożsamość. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.

Giedd, J.N. (2015). Zadziwiający mózg nastolatka. Świat Nauki, 7, 25–29.

Gregory, M., & Lodge, J. (2015). Academic workload: The silent barrier to the implementation of technology-enhanced learning strategies in higher education. Distance Education, 36(2), 210–230, doi: 10.1080/01587919.2015.1055056, https://www.tandfonline.com

Habermas, J. (1992). Postmetaphysical Thinking: Philosophical Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Herzyk, A., & Jodzio, K. (2008). Charakterystyka i perspektywy rozwoju neuropsychologii. In K. Jodzio, & W. Nyka (Eds.), Neuropsychologia medyczna – wybrane zagadnienia (pp. 14–66). Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Arche.

Isaacson, W. (2011). The Genius of Jobs. The New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/opinion/sunday/steve-jobss-genius.html

Jodzio, K. (2011). Diagnostyka neuropsychologiczna w praktyce klinicznej.  Warszawa:  Difin.

Juszczyk, S. (2012). Neuronauki w edukacji. Nowe możliwości w procesie nauczania–uczenia się. Chowanna,2, 39–57.

Kamenev, R.V., Krasheninnikov, V.V., Farnicka, M., & Abramova, M.A. (2018). High technology  and  transformation  of  the  education  system:  Constructive  and  destructive. Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin, 8(6), 104–119, doi: 10.15293/2226-3365.1806.07

Kemmis,  S.  (2005),  Exploring  the  relevance  of  critical  theory  for  action  research:  Emancipatory action research in the footsteps of Jurgen Habermas. In P. Reason, & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice (pp. 91–102). London: Sage.

Kim, Y., & Steiner, P. (2016). Quasi-experimental designs for causal inference. Educational Psychologist,51(3-4), 395–405.

Law, N., Niederhauser, D.S., Christensen, R., & Shear, L. (2016). Multilevel system of  quality  technology-enhanced  learning  and  teaching  indicators.  Journal of Educational  Technology  &  Society,  19(3),  72–83,  https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0165/0268c7cce552e1c49629466377d9c0c92e47.pdf

Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues,2(4), 34–46.

Lewin, K. (1951). Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers. New York: Harper & Row.

Lindhard, T., Hermann, C., & Edwards, S. (2021). HeartMath Coherence Model Throws New Light on Arka Dhyana Intuitive Meditation. Healthcare,9,  1162,  doi: 10.3390/healthcare90911622021

Lofland, K.B. (2016). The Use of Technology in the Treatment of Autism. In T.A. Cardon (Ed.), Technology and the Treatment of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Autism and Child Psychopathology Series (pp. 27–35). Cham: Springer, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-20872-5_3

Louchakova, O. (2005). On Advantages of the Clear Mind: Spiritual Practices in the Training of a Phenomenological Researcher. The Humanistic Psychologist, 33(2), 87–112, doi: 10.1207/s15473333thp3302_2

Louchakova, O. (2007). Spiritual Heart and Direct Knowing in the Prayer of the Heart. Existential Analysis, 18, 81–102.

Maryniak, A., Ondruch A., & Roszkowski, M. (2010). Neuroobrazowanie funkcjonalne u dzieci w praktyce klinicznej. In K. Jodzio, & E.M. Szepietowska (Eds.), Neuronalne ścieżki poznania i zachowania. Rozważania interdyscyplinarne (pp. 203–216). Lublin: Wydawnictwo UMCS.

McCraty, R. (2009). The coherent heart–brain interactions, psychophysiological coherence, and the emergence of system-wide order. A Transdisciplinary Transcultural Journal,5(2), 11–114.

McCraty, R., Atkinson, M., & Bradley, R.T. (2004). Electrophysiological evidence of intuition:  Part  1.  The  surprising  role  of  the  heart.  The Journal of Alternative & Complementary Medicine, 10(1), 133–143.

McCraty, R., & Zayas, M.A. (2014). Cardiac coherence, self-regulation, autonomic  stability,  and  psychosocial  well-being.  Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1090, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01090.  Retrieved  from  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4179616/

Nigg, J.T. (2017). Annual Research Review: On the relations among self-regulation, self-control, executive functioning, effortful control, cognitive control, impulsivity, risk-taking, and inhibition for developmental psychopathology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 58, 361–383, doi: 10.1111/ jcpp.12675

Olson, D.R., & Torrance, N. (Eds.), (1996). Modes of Thought: Explorations in Culture and Cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Paluchowski, W.J. (2001). Diagnoza psychologiczna. Podejście ilościowe i jakościowe. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar.

Pawlak, B. (2020). Brain, mind and education – we have found the way, whether we are wandering along the wilderness?, Man, Disability, Society,48(2), 59–68, doi: 10.5604/01.3001.0014.1672

Piaget, J. (1971). Biology and knowledge. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.

Piaget, J. (1976). To understand is to invent: The future of education. New York: Macmillan.

Prauzner, T. (2013). Information Technology in Contemporary Education– Individuals’ Researche. American Journal of Educational Research, 1(10), http://www.scie-pub.com/journal/ education/CurrentIssue (access date: March 27, 2016).

Prauzner, T. (2016). Interactive Computer Simulation as a Response to Contemporary Problems of Technical Education. Society. Integration. Education. Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference, doi: 10.15584/eti.2016.2.25

Schwartz, D.L., Tsang, J.M., & Blair, K.P. (2017). Jak się uczymy. 26 naukowo potwierdzonych mechanizmów. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.

Susman, G.I, & Evered, R.D. (1978). An Assessment of the Scientific Merits of Action Research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 582–603.

Todd, Z., Nerlich, B., McKeown, S., & Clarke, D.D. (2004). Mixing methods in Psychology: The integration of qualitative and quantitative methods in theory and practice. London: Psychology Press.

Tokuhama-Espinosa, T. (2010). Mind, Brain, and Education Science: The new brain-based learning. New York: Columbia University Teachers College Press.

Trempała, J., & Cieciuch, J. (2016). The analysis of change in behavior and development: On some errors and possibilities to correct them. Current Issues in Personality Psychology, 4(2), 65–74, doi: 10.5114/cipp.2016.60168

Włodarski, Z. (1974). Psychologiczne prawidłowości uczenia się i nauczania.  Wyd.  3.  Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Szkolne i Pedagogiczne.

Wygotski, L.S. (1978). Narzędzie i znak w rozwoju dziecka. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.

Zajonc, R.B. (2000). Feeling and thinking: Closing the debate over the independence of affect. In J.P. Forgas (Ed.), Feeling and thinking: The role of affect in social cognition (pp. 31–58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Zhukova, E.A. (2008). Challenge of high technologies to the content of education. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii, 9, 94–98, http://www.ipr-tomsk.narod.ru/zhukova_N9-08_c_94-98.pdf (In Russ.).

Żylińska, M. (2013). Neurodydaktyka. Nauczanie i uczenie się przyjazne mózgowi. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika w Toruniu.