¿Cómo pueden los principios neuro pedagógicos contribuir al rendimie=
nto
académico y al desarrollo más amplio de los estudiantes, especialmente dura=
nte
la adolescencia? Una revisión crítica de los enfoques cognitivos, emocional=
es,
sociales y contextuales
How can neuropedagogical principles cont=
ribute
to students' academic performance and broader development, particularly dur=
ing adolescence?
A critical review of cognitive, emotional, social, and contextual
approaches
|
1 |
Roberto
David Flores Núñez |
|
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-78=
93-0756 |
|
|
|
University
of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canadá |
|
|
Artículo de Investigación Científica y
Tecnológica Enviado: 12/05/2026 Revisado: 15/06/2026 Aceptado: 10/07/2026 Publicado: 31/08/2026 DOI:
https://do=
i.org/10.33262/exploradordigital.v10i3.3758
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
Flores Núñez, R. D. (2026). ¿Cómo pueden los
principios neuro pedagógicos contribuir al rendimiento académico y al
desarrollo más amplio de los estudiantes, especialmente durante la
adolescencia? Una revisión crítica de los enfoques cognitivos, emocionale=
s,
sociales y contextuales. Explorador Digital, 10(3), 254-267. https://do=
i.org/10.33262/exploradordigital.v10i3.3758
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
es una
Revista electrónica, Trimestral, que se publicará en soporte
electrónico tiene como misión contribuir a la formació=
n de
profesionales competentes con visión humanística y crítica que sean capac=
es
de exponer sus resultados investigativos y científicos en la misma medida=
que
se promueva mediante su intervención cambios positivos en la sociedad.&nb=
sp;https://exploradordigital.org |
|
|||||
|
|
|
Esta revista está protegida bajo una licencia
Creative Commons en la 4.0 International. Copia de la licencia: http://creativecommons.o=
rg/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ |
|
|||||
|
Palabras claves: neuropedagogía, neuroeducación, neurodidactica, aprendizaje basado =
en
el cerebro, neuroplasticidad, aprendizaje adolescente, metacognición,
inteligencia emocional, educación STEM, compromiso del estudiante.=
|
Resumen Introducción: la neuropedagogía surgió como un enfoque
interdisciplinar que busca conectar la neurociencia, la psicología cognit=
iva
y la teoría educativa con la práctica en el aula. Objetivos: esta
revisión sintetiza literatura reciente y fundamental que examina cómo las
pedagogías informadas por neurociencia pueden influir en el rendimiento
académico, la metacognición, la motivación, la regulación emocional, la c=
apacidad
de los estudiantes de tomar un rol activo y significativo, la resolución =
de
problemas y el compromiso. Metodología: se revisaron doce fuentes
identificables publicadas entre 2020 y 2026, incluyendo artículos teórico=
s,
marcos conceptuales, estudios cuasi-experimentales,
investigación de métodos mixtos e intervenciones en el aula. En toda la
literatura, se identificaron cinco dimensiones recurrentes de la práctica
neuropedagógica: (a) procesos cognitivos y neuroplasticidad, (b)
metacognición y autonomía del aprendiz, (c) aprendizaje emocional y socia=
l,
(d) aprendizaje activo y contextualizado, y (e) instrucción individualiza=
da y
respaldada por tecnología. Resultados: los estudios empíricos
generalmente informan resultados positivos asociados a enfoques informados
por neurociencia, incluyendo mejoras en el rendimiento académico, compete=
ncia
comunicativa, rendimiento técnico, función ejecutiva, inteligencia emocio=
nal
y el rol activo del estudiante. Evidencia particularmente relevante provi=
ene
de contextos de secundaria, incluyendo un estudio cu=
asi-experimental
de siete meses realizado con estudiantes del bachillerato ecuatoriano que
reportó un gran efecto de la instrucción neurodidácta en la competencia
comunicativa en inglés. Sin embargo, la literatura también presenta
importantes limitaciones metodológicas, incluyendo muestras pequeñas,
intervenciones heterogéneas, dependencia de evidencia cualitativa o
autoinformada, y la persistencia de una brecha de traducción entre los
hallazgos neurocientíficos y la práctica educativa. Conclusiones: =
en
general, la neuropedagogía parece prometedora cuando se entiende no como =
un
conjunto de técnicas "basadas en el cerebro", sino como un enfo=
que
estructurado para diseñar entornos de aprendizaje emocionalmente solidari=
os,
cognitivamente desafiantes, activos, significativos y socialmente conecta=
dos.
Se requiere una investigación longitudinal y controlada adicional para
establecer mecanismos causales y determinar qué estrategias neuropedagógi=
cas
son más eficaces para los adolescentes. Área general de estudio: N=
eurociencias.
Área específica de estudio: Neuropedagogía. Tipo de artículo: Articulo de revisión |
|
||||||
|
Keywords:=
neuropedagogy,
neuroeducation, neurodidactics, brain-based
learning, neuroplasticity, adolescent learning, metacognition, emotional
intelligence, STEM education, student engagement |
|
Abstract Introduction: neuropedagogy has emerged as an interdisciplinary approach seeking=
to
connect neuroscience, cognitive psychology, and educational theory with
classroom practice. Objectives: this review synthesizes recent and
foundational literature examining how neuroscience-informed pedagogies may
influence academic performance, metacognition, motivation, emotional
regulation, student agency, problem solving, and engagement. Methodolo=
gy: twelve
identifiable sources published between 2020 and 2026 were reviewed, inclu=
ding
theoretical papers, conceptual frameworks, quasi-experimental studies,
mixed-methods research, and classroom interventions. Across the literatur=
e,
five recurrent dimensions of neuropedagogical practice were identified: (=
a)
cognitive processes and neuroplasticity, (b) metacognition and learner
autonomy, (c) emotional and social learning, (d) active and contextualized
learning, and (e) individualized and technology-supported instruction. |
|
|||||
1. Introduction
Education has traditionally been
conceptualized primarily as the transmission of knowledge from teacher to
student. Contemporary research in neuroscience, however, has increasingly
emphasized that learning is a complex process involving cognitive, emotiona=
l,
social, behavioral, and biological mechanisms. Neuropedagogy has emerged wi=
thin
this context as an attempt to establish a systematic relationship between
knowledge about the brain and educational practice. Rather than treating
neuroscience as a source of isolated facts about learning, neuropedagogy se=
eks
to translate principles concerning neural processing, plasticity, attention,
memory, emotion, and executive functioning into pedagogical decisions (Frie=
dman
et al., 2026).
Goldberg (2022) argues that neuroscience =
can
contribute to education by increasing understanding of neuroplasticity and
brain development and by helping students and educators recognize learning =
as a
dynamic process. From this perspective, educational experiences do not simp=
ly
transmit information; they participate in the development and modification =
of
cognitive capacities. Friedman et al. (2026) develop this argument further =
by
conceptualizing teachers as “neural architects” and proposing the Neuros=
cience-Informed
Educational Strategies (NIES) model. Their framework establishes a
four-stage process: identifying neural principles, identifying relevant
brain-function attributes, establishing pedagogical orientations, and devel=
oping
specific instructional strategies. This approach attempts to reduce the ris=
k of
applying neuroscience superficially or translating laboratory findings dire=
ctly
into classroom prescriptions without pedagogical mediation.
The literature also indicates that learni=
ng
cannot be separated from emotional and social experience. Fanta (2023) thro=
ugh
the Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Intelligent Teaching/Thinking (ESCI=
T)
framework, emphasizes empathy, fairness, belonging, positive classroom
climates, and the integration of cognitive, emotional, and social dimension=
s of
teaching. Similarly, Asadova (2025) reports positive effects of an
emotional-intelligence development program on emotional management, empathy,
self-reflection, and interpersonal interaction in STEM-related educational =
and
professional contexts.
The relationship between
neuroscience-informed teaching and student performance has also received
increasing empirical attention. Cherrier et al. (2020) examined the NeuroStratE intervention among high-school students a=
nd
reported effects related to academic achievement, self-knowledge, and learn=
er
autonomy. More recent studies have examined neuropedagogy in chemistry,
English-language learning, technical education, mathematics, inclusive
education, and general teaching practice (Borboeva et
al., 2025; Loli et al., 2026; Rap et al., 2025; Rusydi=
ana,
2023).
This review therefore synthesizes the
available literature around a central question: “How can neuropedagogical
principles contribute to students' academic performance and broader
development, particularly during adolescence?” Attention is given to the
mechanisms through which neuropedagogy may influence learning, the pedagogi=
cal
strategies supported by literature, empirical evidence of effectiveness, and
the limitations that must be considered when interpreting current findings.=
2.&n=
bsp;
Method
This review employed a narrative
literature-review approach. The collection consisted of scholarly articles,
theoretical papers, conference material, and empirical studies supplied by =
the
researcher through direct links. The literature was examined for relevance =
to
neuropedagogy, neuroeducation, neurodidactics, brain-based learning, adoles=
cent
education, cognitive development, emotional learning, STEM education, and
classroom performance.
The identified literature included
publications from 2020 to 2026 and represented diverse methodological
approaches. These included theoretical and hypothesis papers, conceptual
frameworks, quasi-experimental studies, mixed-methods research, qualitative
evaluations, and intervention studies. The sources were subsequently organi=
zed
thematically according to the principal mechanisms and educational outcomes
discussed.
The synthesis focused on five analytical
categories: (1) cognitive development and neuroplasticity; (2) metacognitio=
n,
self-regulation, and autonomy; (3) emotional and social processes; (4) acti=
ve,
contextualized, and experiential learning; and (5) technology, differentiat=
ion,
and inclusive education. The purpose was not to calculate a pooled effect s=
ize
but to identify convergent findings, contradictions, methodological
limitations, and implications for educational practice.
3.&n=
bsp;
Result=
s
After reviewing the available literature,=
it
appears that students may be able to improve their learning by having a more
active role in class, a positive class environment and connecting complex
concepts to daily-life issues. Some of the major findings are discussed in =
more
detail below:
3.1. Neuropedagogy as an interdisciplinary framework
A consistent finding across the conceptual
literature is that neuropedagogy is inherently interdisciplinary. Friedman =
et
al. (2026) explicitly position neuropedagogy at the intersection of
neuroscience, cognitive psychology, and educational theory. Their NIES model
attempts to establish a transparent pathway between neural principles and
classroom practice rather than treating neuroscience as a direct instructio=
nal
manual.
Goldberg (2022) similarly presents
neuroscience as an educational resource capable of informing understanding =
of
neuroplasticity, brain development, attention, motivation, and learning. The
implication is that education should recognize students as developing
biological and cognitive systems rather than treating learning as an exclus=
ive
behavioral phenomenon.
Denervaud & Slováček=
(2025) extend this perspective by contrasting conventional information deli=
very
with brain-based learning. Their discussion of Montessori education emphasi=
zes
self-directed activity, calibrated feedback, purposeful movement, peer
interaction, sensory engagement, and opportunities for exploration. These
practices are presented as compatible with contemporary understanding of
attention, memory, self-regulation, creativity, social cognition, and
neuroplasticity.
Together, these studies suggest that neur=
opedagogy
is better understood as a design philosophy for learning environments than =
as a
single teaching method.
3.2. Cognitive development, metacognition, and learner autonomy
One of the clearest mechanisms connecting
neuroscience and educational performance is metacognition. Cherrier et al.
(2020) investigated the NeuroStratE intervention
among high-school students, explicitly combining neuroscience knowledge wit=
h a
metacognitive approach. Their findings suggest that neuroscience-informed
instruction can contribute to academic performance while simultaneously
supporting students' self-knowledge and autonomy.
This finding is important because it chan=
ges
the role of the student. Instead of depending exclusively on teachers to
regulate learning, students can develop greater awareness of how attention,
memory, strategies, and cognitive effort influence their performance.
Neuroeducation therefore has the potential to transform students from passi=
ve
recipients into more autonomous learners.
Friedman et al. (2026) similarly emphasiz=
es
the importance of understanding learning as a process involving neural
reorganization. Their NIES model includes repetition, emotional engagement,=
and
appropriate time for neural integration as principles that can inform
instructional design.
The evidence from technical education fur=
ther
supports this cognitive dimension. Loli et al. (2026) found that students
exposed to the Brain Matters approach demonstrated stronger performance in
cognitive-technical knowledge, procedural execution, and problem solving.
Although this population consisted of students in technical higher education
rather than adolescents, the study indicates that neuroscience-informed
teaching may support the integration of conceptual and procedural knowledge=
.
3.3. Emotion, motivation, and social learning
A second major theme is the integration of
emotion and cognition. Neuropedagogical perspectives challenge the assumpti=
on
that learning is primarily intellectual and independent of emotional states=
.
Fanta's (2023) ESCIT framework places emo=
tional,
social, and cognitive processes at the center of effective teaching. The
framework emphasizes empathy, fairness, belonging, positive classroom clima=
tes,
and a relaxed atmosphere. In this model, the teacher's interpersonal behavi=
or
is not peripheral to instruction; it forms part of the conditions that
facilitate learning.
Friedman et al. (2026) similarly identify=
the
integration of emotion and cognition as one of the central principles of
neuropedagogy. Their formulation emphasizes that learning is influenced by
emotional as well as cognitive processes.
Empirical evidence is also provided by As=
adova
(2025) whose study of an emotional-intelligence development program involvi=
ng
200 participants reported improvements in emotional management, empathy,
self-reflection, and interpersonal interaction. Although the study encompas=
ses
students and professional participants rather than a strictly adolescent
sample, it reinforces the argument that emotional competence can be
intentionally developed through educational experiences.
Rusydiana (2023) provides another example by combi=
ning
Quantum Teaching with neuropedagogy. The study emphasizes social, emotional,
and cognitive elements and reports improvements in learning outcomes. Thus,
across different educational contexts, literature converges on the principle
that motivation, emotion, social interaction, and cognition should be treat=
ed
as interconnected rather than independent components of learning.
3.4.<=
![endif]> Active and contextualized learning
Literature also consistently
supports a movement away from passive information delivery toward active and
meaningful learning.
Rap et al. (2025) provides a
particularly relevant example in chemistry education. Their intervention
contextualized nano chemistry within public health and the COVID-19 pandemi=
c.
Students in Grades 10–12 were interviewed 8–12 m=
onths
after the intervention. Students demonstrated retention of chemical concepts
and were able to explain mechanisms associated with viral infection and mask
functionality. Some students also shifted from viewing masks primarily as
compliance toward understanding its scientific rationale and sharing this
knowledge with others. These findings suggest that contextualization can
connect conceptual learning with personal meaning and student agency.
This is particularly importa=
nt for
STEM education. Abstract scientific concepts may become more meaningful when
connected to authentic problems, social issues, or situations students
recognize from everyday life. In this sense, neuropedagogy can support not =
only
the acquisition of knowledge but also the transfer of knowledge to real-wor=
ld
decision making.
Denerva=
ud & =
Slováček
(2025) similarly emphasize exploration, movement, multisensory engagement,
feedback, and meaningful experiences. Their argument suggests that students
learn more effectively when they interact with information rather than simp=
ly
receiving it.
3.5.<=
![endif]> Neurodidactics and adolescent academic performance=
Among the studies reviewed, =
the
research by Hernández et al. (2026) provides especially relevant evidence
because it was conducted with fi=
rst-year
Baccalaureate students in Ecuador. The researchers
implemented six neurodidactic strategies over seven months with an experime=
ntal
group of 44 students and compared their performance with a control group of=
44
students receiving conventional instruction.
The experimental group demon=
strated
a mean improvement of 5.35 points compared with 1.22 points in the control
group. The difference was statistically significant, t (86) =3D 6.=
19, p
< .001, with a large effect size (d =3D 1.32) and a η² val=
ue of
.318. Improvements occurred across all five assessed dimensions of English
communicative competence (Hernández et al., 2026).
This study is particularly
significant for the present review because it provides evidence from the
Ecuadorian secondary-school context. It also demonstrates that neurodidactic
teaching can be operationalized through specific classroom strategies rather
than remaining at the theoretical level.
3.6.<=
![endif]> Technology, visualization, and active cognitive process=
ing
Borboev=
a et al. (2025) examined inte=
ractive
learning technologies and spatial thinking in mathematics. Their study invo=
lved
132 mathematics students and integrated interactive tools such as 3D modeli=
ng
and simulations with conventional geometry activities. The findings indicat=
ed improvements
in visualization, spatial reasoning, and problem-solving abilities.
Although this study does not
constitute a neuropedagogical intervention in the strict sense, it provides
supporting evidence for pedagogical mechanisms emphasized by neuropedagogy.
Interactive environments can require students to manipulate information,
visualize relationships, evaluate hypotheses, and receive feedback.
Consequently, technology may become neuropedagogically relevant when it is =
used
to stimulate active cognitive processing rather than simply to digitize
traditional instruction.
3.7.<=
![endif]> Individual differences and inclusive education
Neuropedagogy also has impli=
cations
for differentiated and inclusive education. Erviana
et al. (2026) integrated cognitive behavioral therapy and neuropedagogical
strategies to support elementary students with ADHD. Although the participa=
nts
were younger than adolescents, the study provides evidence concerning atten=
tion
regulation, executive functioning, task persistence, impulse control, and c=
lassroom
participation.
The intervention involved 18
students, with 10 receiving the intervention and 8 serving as a comparison
group. Across 12 sessions, the intervention group demonstrated larger
improvements in attention and executive functioning than the comparison gro=
up.
These findings suggest that neuroscience-informed approaches may be
particularly useful when instructional environments are adapted to students'
cognitive and behavioral needs.
This supports a broader prin=
ciple:
neuropedagogy should not imply that every learner receives identical
instruction. Instead, knowledge about cognition and self-regulation can help
teachers design flexible environments that provide appropriate scaffolding
while maintaining common academic goals.
4. Discussion
The synthesis reveals substa=
ntial
convergence across literature. Despite differences in terminology neuropeda=
gogy,
neuro-education, neurodidactics, brain-based learning, and
neuroscience-informed education, the reviewed studies reject a purely
transmissive model of teaching.
The first major conclusion i=
s that neuropedagogy is multidimensional.
Cognitive processes such as attention, memory, metacognition, executive
functioning, and problem solving interact with emotional processes such as
motivation and emotional regulation and social processes such as empathy,
collaboration, and belonging. Fanta (2023), Goldberg (2022), Friedman et al.
(2026), and Asadova (2025) all contribute to this broader conceptualization=
.
Second, the evidence suggest=
s that active learning is a central mechanism through=
which
neuropedagogical principles may influence performance.
The most promising interventions do not simply provide students with
information about the brain. Instead, they change what students do: they
retrieve information, manipulate representations, solve authentic problems,
collaborate, reflect, practice, receive feedback, and connect new knowledge=
to
meaningful experiences (Borboeva et al., 2025; =
Denervaud & Slováček,
2025; Rap et al., 2025).
Third, metacognition and learner autonomy appear to be
particularly important mechanisms. Cherrier et al.
(2020) demonstrate the relevance of combining neuroscience with metacogniti=
ve
instruction, while Rap et al. (2025) demonstrate how contextualized science=
education
can support student agency. These findings suggest that the long-term value=
of
neuroeducation may extend beyond immediate test performance. Students may
become more capable of understanding, monitoring, and regulating their own
learning.
Fourth, the literature indic=
ates
that context matters.
The strongest classroom examples are not necessarily those using the mo=
st
sophisticated neuroscience or technology. Rather, successful interventions =
connect
learning to meaningful contexts. Rap et al. (2025) for example, used
nanochemistry and public health; Hernández et al. (2026) integrated
neurodidactic strategies into foreign-language learning; and Borboeva et al. (2025) used interactive representatio=
ns to
address spatial reasoning.
Fifth, the evidence has impo=
rtant
implications for adolescent educ=
ation.
Adolescence represents a developmental period characterized by continuing
changes in executive functioning, self-regulation, social cognition, and
identity formation. Consequently, educational environments that combine
cognitive challenge with emotional safety, autonomy, meaningful interaction,
and opportunities for reflection may be particularly valuable. The evidence
from Cherrier et al. (2020), Rap et al. (2025), and Hernández et al. (2026)
provides direct support for this proposition.
Nevertheless, several limita=
tions
must be emphasized. First, the studies differ considerably in methodology. =
Some
are theoretical or conceptual (Denervaud & =
Slováček, 2025; Friedman et al., 2026), whereas =
others
are quasi-experimental or intervention based. Therefore, it would be
inappropriate to treat all evidence as equivalent.
Second, some empirical studi=
es rely
on small samples=
. Rap
et al. (2025) for example, evaluated the long-term outcomes of their chemis=
try
intervention through interviews with six students. Erv=
iana
et al. (2026) included 18 students. Such studies provide valuable qualitati=
ve
and exploratory evidence but cannot independently establish generalizable
causal effects.
Third, the field continues t=
o face a
translation problem between
neuroscience and education. Friedman et al. (2026) explicit=
ly
acknowledge that direct movement from neural mechanisms to classroom prescr=
iptions
can be problematic. Brain research operates at a different level of analysis
from classroom behavior, and educational outcomes are influenced by numerous
variables beyond neural mechanisms. Consequently, neuroscience should not
replace psychological, pedagogical, and educational research.
Fourth, the term “neuroeduca=
tion”
can encompass interventions of quite different scientific quality. Some
approaches may be strongly grounded in established research, whereas others=
may
use neuroscience terminology without adequate empirical support. The NIES m=
odel
proposed by Friedman et al. (2026) is valuable precisely because it attempt=
s to
make the reasoning from scientific principle to pedagogical practice explic=
it.
Finally, more research is ne=
eded specifically
with secondary-school adolescent=
s.
Although the literature contains promising studies with high-school student=
s,
university students, elementary students, and professional populations,
comparatively fewer rigorous longitudinal studies examine adolescent learne=
rs
across different academic subjects. The Ecuadorian study by Hernández et al.
(2026) is therefore particularly important and represents a useful model for
future research in the region.
5. Conclusion
· =
The reviewed literature sugg=
ests
that neuropedagogy has considerable potential as an educational framework w=
hen
it is understood as the systemat=
ic
integration of neuroscience, cognitive psychology, emotional development,
social learning, and evidence-based pedagogy. The
evidence does not support the simplistic idea that neuroscience alone can
provide direct solutions to classroom problems. Rather, it indicates that
knowledge about learning and brain development can inform the design of more
effective learning environments.
· =
Across the reviewed studies,=
several
principles emerge consistently. Effective neuropedagogical environments sho=
uld
promote active engagement, meani=
ngful
contextualization, metacognition, repetition and retrieval, emotional safet=
y,
social interaction, autonomy, feedback, problem solving, and appropriate
cognitive challenge. These principles can be impleme=
nted
through strategies such as collaborative learning, contextualized STEM
problems, gamification, multisensory instruction, simulations, interactive
technologies, reflective activities, retrieval practice, and structured
scaffolding.
· =
The literature also suggests=
that
the potential value of neuropedagogy extends beyond academic achievement.
Neuro-informed learning environments may support student agency, emotional regulation, learner
autonomy, critical thinking, problem solving, social competence, and lifelo=
ng
learning. This broader perspective is especially
relevant to adolescent education, where cognitive and socio-emotional
development occur simultaneously.
· =
However, neuropedagogy remai=
ns an
emerging field and requires stronger empirical foundations. Future research
should employ larger samples, longitudinal designs, randomized or
well-controlled quasi-experimental studies, validated measures, and
cross-cultural comparisons. Research should also distinguish clearly between
interventions supported by robust neuroscience and practices that merely use
neuroscientific terminology.
· =
Overall, the literature supp=
orts a
cautious but optimistic conclusion: neuropedagogy
is most promising not when it attempts to turn neuroscience into a collecti=
on
of classroom “tricks,” but when it uses scientif=
ically
informed principles to help teachers create learning environments in which
students actively think, feel, interact, reflect, practice, and construct
meaningful knowledge. For adolescent education, particularly
STEM and language learning, this approach provides a potentially powerful
framework for connecting academic performance with the broader cognitive,
emotional, and social development of the learner.
6. Conflict of interest
The authors declare that there is no confl=
ict
of interest in relation to the article presented.
7. Copyright
The
authors are the owners of the copyright (patrimonial and/or exploitation) of
the contents of the journal (copyright).
8. Authors' Contribution Statement=
The
authors declare that they have participated equally and substantially in the
conduct of this research, under the responsibilities under the CRedi=
T
TaxonomyDisclosure of delegation to generative AI
The
authors declare that they used ChatGPT (OpenAI, GPT-5.5) as a support tool =
to
reorganize and editorially reformulate the original manuscript, correct the
style, translate the abstract into English, and check formal compliance with
the journal's format. The experimental data, design, statistical results, a=
nd scientific
decisions come from the authors' research and were not generated or modifie=
d by
the tool. The authors reviewed, contrasted, and approved each section and a=
ssumed
full responsibility for the final content. The tool is not listed as an aut=
hor
and assumes no responsibility for the results.
Statement submitted by: Roberto David Flores Núñez
9. Financing costs
This research was funded entirely with the
authors' own funds.
10. References
Asadova= , N. (2025). Organisation of emotional intelligence development programme in= the educational process and professional activities in STEM fields. Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Terapan Universitas Jambi, 9(2), 676–694. https://doi.org/10.22437/jiituj.v9i2.40350
Borboeva, G., Sooronbaeva= , K., Kalbekova, M., Seiitkazyeva, G., & Sarygulova, N. (2025). Evaluating the effectiveness of interacti= ve learning technologies in enhancing spatial thinking among mathematics stude= nts. Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Terapan Universitas Jambi, 9(3), 981–994. https://doi.org/10.22437/jiituj.v9i3.42557
Cherrier, S., Le Roux, P.-Y., Gerard, F.-=
M.,
Wattelez, G., & 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 in Neuroscience and Education, 18,
100125. https://doi=
.org/10.1016/j.tine.2020.100125
Denervaud, S., & Slováček, M. (2=
025).
From information delivery to brain-based learning.
Erviana, N., Haenila= h, E. Y., Abdurrahman, A., & Maulina, D. (2026= ). Integrating cognitive behavioral therapy and neuropedagogy to support ADHD = in inclusive elementary education. Tadris= : Jurnal Keguruan dan= Ilmu Tarbiyah, 11(2), 694–704. https://doi.org/10.24042/tadris.v11i2.30201. https://ejournal.radenintan.ac.id/index.php/tadr= is/article/view/30201
Fanta, H. (2023, February 8). The 7
principles of emotional/social & cognitive intelligent teaching/thinkin=
g =3D
ESCIT–neuro-pedagogy: Preamble taking the current time into account
Friedman, I. A., Gro=
bgeld,
E., & Teichman-Weinberg, A. (2026). Neuropedagogy: from neurons to teac=
hing
and learning. Frontiers in Education, 11, 1774900. https://doi.org/10.3389/=
feduc.2026.1774900
Goldberg, H. (2022). Growing brains, nurt= uring minds—Neuroscience as an educational tool to support students' development = as life-long learners. Brain <= span class=3DSpellE>Sciences, 12(12), 1622. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci12121622
Hernández Cuev= a, E. J., Espín Lumbano, J. E., Rojas Pérez, C. E., Gutiérrez Sánchez, M. G., Idrobo Gutiérrez, M. A., Hernández Cueva, A. A., & Ortega Villamagua, V= . N. (2026). Neurodidactic strategies for English as a foreign language learning in first-year baccalaureate students: a quasi-experimental study. Riceso - Revista Interdisciplinaria de Ciencias de la Educación, Salud y Sociología, 1(2), 213–231. https://doi.org/10.66136/va881h39
Loli Quincho, =
M.
J., Borja Peinado, B., Yauri Janto, E., & Poves Sihuay, J. J. (2026). Neuroeducational influence of Brain Matters on the technical
intelligence of university students at a Peruvian public institute. Int=
ernational
Journal of Special Education, 41(8s), 739–756. https://int=
ernationalsped.com/index.php/ijse/article/download/3450/727
Rap, S., Blonder, R., Bodas, M., & Ma=
rchak,
D. (2025). Can chemistry knowledge influence student behavior? A
neuropedagogy-based intervention as good practice to address cognitive and
affective learning factors. Chemistry Teacher International, 7(4),
633–646. https://doi=
.org/10.1515/cti-2025-0014
Rusydiana, I. (2023). Enhancing learning outcomes through neuropedagogy-based Quantum Teaching. Journal of Education and Religious Studies, 3(3). https://doi.org/10.57060= /jers.v3i03.120. https://journal.academiapublication.com/index.ph= p/jers/article/download/120/88
Revista Explorador Digital.
El artículo queda en
propiedad de la revista y, por tanto, su publicación parcial y/o total en o=
tro
medio tiene que ser autorizado por el director de la Revista Explorador Digital