Interfaces between Neuroscience of Learning and Brazilian Normative Policies for Initial Teacher Training

Júlia Jéssica Moraes; Sheila Cristina da Silva Victório

DOI: 10.22167/2675-6528-202603075

Article derived from a Course Conclusion Work (TCC), with content based on the student’s original work and adapted to the editorial format of the E&S Magazine with the support of the ResumeAI tool, an artificial intelligence solution developed by Instituto Pecege for textual synthesis and organization.

Summary

The initial teacher training in Brazil has received increasing attention due to the complexity of learning processes and the need for scientifically based pedagogical practices. The study analyzed how the fundamentals of learning neuroscience are expressed in the National Curriculum Guidelines for the training of Basic Education teachers. A qualitative, exploratory, and descriptive research was conducted, based on documentary analysis of official regulations, including the LDB, the PNE, Opinion CNE/CP No. 22/2019, and Resolution CNE/CP No. 2/2019. The data were organized into analytical categories based on learning neuroscience: attention, emotion, memory, neuroplasticity, and self-regulation. The results showed the implicit presence of these fundamentals in the documents, especially in the valorization of active learning, the socio-emotional dimension, and lifelong learning. However, the absence of explicit systematization of concepts was observed, indicating limits of the normative discourse in the face of learning complexity. It was concluded that there are convergences between educational policies and neuroscience principles, but it is necessary to deepen this articulation in teacher training.

Keywords: Cognitive development; Basic education; Educational legislation; Pedagogical practice; Learning processes.

1. Introduction

Initial teacher education holds a central position in Brazilian educational policies, especially given the complexity of learning processes and the need for more scientifically grounded pedagogical practices. In an educational scenario marked by the diversity of subjects, contexts, and ways of learning, the teacher’s role goes beyond the simple transmission of content, requiring an understanding of students’ learning and development processes (Tardif, 2014).

Historically, teacher education in Brazil has been strongly anchored in pedagogical and psychological frameworks, notably in the constructivist and historical-cultural contributions to human development (Piaget, 1969; Vygotsky, 1998). However, there has been less engagement with scientific advances related to the functioning of the human brain. This distance has contributed to educational practices that are insensitive to individual differences and the emotional aspects involved in learning.

Research in the fields of cognitive and educational neuroscience has shown that learning is a complex, dynamic, and non-linear process, sustained by brain plasticity and the interaction between cognition, emotion, memory, and attention (Lent, 2010; Costa, 2023). Emotion and cognition are inseparable in learning processes, as emotional states directly influence attention, memory, and the attribution of meaning to knowledge (Costa, 2023). From this perspective, learning involves not only information processing but also the construction of meaning from lived experiences in socially mediated contexts (Immordino-Yang and Faeth, 2010).

In the educational field, these contributions gain relevance by offering subsidies for reflection on teaching practice. Understanding how the brain learns enables teachers to plan pedagogical strategies that favor student engagement, motivation, and attention, respecting learning rhythms and creating emotionally safe environments. The literature highlights that the approximation between neuroscience and education can contribute to more grounded pedagogical practices, provided that such articulation is understood as an interdisciplinary dialogue and carried out critically and multidimensionally (Carew and Mills, 2010; Cosenza and Guerra, 2011).

The brain’s capacity for modification through experiences, known as neuroplasticity, reinforces the role of the educational environment in the learning process and highlights the importance of pedagogical interactions. This direction points to the defense of an emerging educational paradigm that integrates reason, emotion, and context, overcoming fragmented teaching models (Lent, 2010; Moraes, 2014). For students, teaching practice based on these principles contributes to more significant and humanized educational experiences, fostering engagement, autonomy, and the construction of meaning in relation to knowledge (Immordino-Yang and Faeth, 2010).

In the Brazilian normative context, this understanding is supported by educational legislation. The Law of Directives and Bases of National Education (LDB) (Brazil, 1996) establishes that the training of education professionals must articulate theory and practice, ensuring mastery of content and understanding of learning processes. This principle is further elaborated by the National Curricular Guidelines for Initial Training of Basic Education Teachers (DCNs) (Brazil, 2020), which define teacher training as a process that integrates scientific, pedagogical, and human knowledge.

The Opinion of the National Education Council/Plenary Council (CNE/CP) No. 22/2019 (Brazil, 2019) reinforces the importance of training sensitive to the human dimensions of the educational process, by highlighting competencies such as empathy, autonomy, sensitivity, and adaptability in the face of different school realities. In parallel, the National Education Plan (PNE) (Brazil, 2014) reaffirms the centrality of the teacher in promoting meaningful learning.

Despite the relevance of these legal milestones and the growing appreciation for the complexity of learning, the absence of an explicit systematization of the foundations of learning neuroscience in Brazilian normative documents is observed. This theoretical and practical gap limits the potential for teacher training that more consciously and deeply incorporates knowledge about how the brain learns, directly impacting the qualification of pedagogical practices. Understanding how these foundations are implicitly or explicitly present in the guidelines is crucial for strengthening initial teacher training, making it more aligned with scientific evidence on human development and learning.

Given this context, this work has the general objective of analyzing how the fundamentals of neuroscience of learning are expressed in the DCNs for Teacher Training in Basic Education. Specifically, it seeks to identify principles related to learning, development, and teaching practice; interpret these principles in light of neuroscientific foundations; discuss their implications for initial teacher training; and reflect on the role of neuroscience in strengthening pedagogical practice.

2. Material and Methods

The research was characterized as qualitative, of an exploratory and descriptive nature, and was based on documentary analysis, according to the guidelines of Cellard (2008) and Sá-Silva et al. (2009). The qualitative approach allowed for the interpretation of the meanings present in the documents in light of the theoretical foundations of the neuroscience of learning. The exploratory nature broadened the understanding of the investigated topic, while the descriptive nature enabled the presentation of the characteristics identified in the analyzed sources.

For the study’s realization, official public domain documents guiding teacher training in Brazil were analyzed. These included Resolution CNE/CP No. 2/2019, Opinion CNE/CP No. 22/2019, the Law of Directives and Bases of National Education (LDB), focusing on articles 61 to 67, and the National Education Plan (PNE), with emphasis on goals 15 and 16 (Brazil, 1996; 2014; 2019; 2020).

The data analysis was conducted in four sequential steps. Initially, a floating reading of the selected documents was performed. The objective of this step was to promote a general approximation with the material and identify the thematic axes related to teacher training and learning processes, establishing an initial overview of the content.

Next, specific excerpts in the documents that directly or indirectly addressed aspects related to learning, human development, emotion, cognition, and pedagogical practice were identified. This stage aimed to align the information collection with the specific research objectives.

In the third stage, the identified contents were organized into five predefined analytical categories: attention, emotion, memory, neuroplasticity, and self-regulation. These categories were based on references from the neuroscience of learning (Damásio, 2018; Dehaene, 2020; Guerra, 2011; Izquierdo, 2018; Hohl, 2020).

To ensure analytical consistency, each category was previously defined based on theoretical references from the neuroscience of learning. Subsequently, it was operationalized through explicit analytical criteria, which guided the identification of evidence in the normative texts. These criteria included the conceptual definition of each category, the delimitation of its indicators, and the correspondence with terms and expressions present in the analyzed documents.

The consistency of the categorization was ensured by the systematic application of these criteria throughout the documentary corpus, guaranteeing uniformity in the identification and interpretation of the data. This process resulted in the construction of an analytical matrix, which articulated the references of learning neuroscience with the descriptors identified in the normative documents, serving as a tool for analysis.

It should be noted that the analytical categories adopted were not explicitly present in the normative documents, but constituted a theoretical-analytical construction of this study. The articulation between the normative terms and the foundations of learning neuroscience configured an interpretive bridge, used as an analytical lens for the identification and understanding of the elements present in the documents.

Finally, in the fourth stage, the interpretation of the findings was carried out. We sought to establish relationships between the identified categories and the political-educational discourse, in light of the neuroscience of learning. The analysis was conducted from a critical and non-prescriptive reading of the normative documents, considering relevant conceptual convergences and absences.

The analysis was conducted with the care to avoid simplified or inadequate interpretations of neuroscience, according to the guidelines of Carvalho (2010). It was ensured that the articulation between scientific knowledge and educational policy occurred in a responsible and well-founded manner, guided by the ethical care to avoid “neuro-reductionism”, guaranteeing a critical, contextualized, and epistemologically situated approach.

3. Results and Discussion

The documentary analysis of Brazilian normative frameworks, including the Law of Directives and Bases of National Education (LDB), the National Education Plan (PNE), Opinion CNE/CP No. 22/2019, and Resolution CNE/CP No. 2/2019, revealed the implicit presence of the foundations of learning neuroscience in the initial training of Basic Education teachers. Although these concepts are not explicitly systematized, significant convergences were identified between the political-educational discourse and neuroscientific principles, especially regarding the valorization of active learning, the socioemotional dimension, and continuing education. The analytical categories of attention, emotion, self-regulation, neuroplasticity, and memory, constructed for this study, served as interpretative lenses to unveil these articulations.

Resolution CNE/CP No. 2/2019, in particular, establishes a conception of teacher education centered on student learning. The provisions that guide pedagogical practice and the organization of teaching assign the teacher the responsibility for conducting intentional and contextualized practices, according to their formative principles (Brazil, 2019). This perspective aligns with the understanding that the brain learns more effectively when the subject actively mobilizes their cognitive resources, as pointed out by Dehaene (2020) and Lent (2010), substantiating the thesis that knowledge construction is an active process of the learner.

This centrality in learning implies a reorganization of the educational process around the student’s protagonism, who builds significant knowledge from their experiences (Bacich and Moran, 2018). The teacher, in this scenario, acts as a mediator, mentor, and curator, promoting autonomy and engagement in challenging and welcoming learning environments, in line with an educational paradigm that integrates cognitive, emotional, and contextual dimensions (Moraes, 2014). This approach highlights the importance of interdisciplinary dialogue between neuroscience and education, capable of explaining how pedagogical mediations influence brain development (Guerra, 2011; Carew and Mills, 2010).

The dimension of attention, as an analytical category, emerged from the normative emphasis on student engagement and active participation, recognizing them as subjects of the learning process (Brasil, 2020). Neuroscientific literature describes attention as a dynamic process, influenced by pedagogical mediation and the learning context (Fonseca, 2014; Muniz et al., 2014), acting in an integrated way with memory and motivation (Posner and Rothbart, 2007). However, normative documents prioritize the pedagogical outcomes of attention, without explicitly stating the underlying neurobiological mechanisms for its maintenance, which indicates a gap in explicit articulation.

The PNE’s Strategy 15.6, by determining the pedagogical renewal of undergraduate courses to “ensure focus on the student’s learning” (Brasil, 2014), exemplifies this prioritization of results. Although the provision explicitly states the centrality of student learning, it does not describe the neurobiological mechanisms involved in sustained attention, which are crucial for a deep understanding of the process. This observation reinforces the need for teacher training that goes beyond the mere description of results, incorporating the scientific foundations that support them.

The emotion category was identified by the recurrence of expressions related to socioemotional skills, present in the excerpts that address the integral development of students and pedagogical relationships (Brasil, 2019; Brasil, 2020). Resolution CNE/CP No. 2/2019, for example, establishes the need for the teacher to “know themselves, appreciate themselves, and take care of their physical and emotional health, understanding themselves in human diversity, recognizing their emotions and those of others” (Brasil, 2019). This competence extends to the ability to “exercise empathy, dialogue, conflict resolution, and cooperation,” promoting a collaborative learning environment.

This normative approach finds strong support in neuroscience, which demonstrates the influence of emotions on fundamental cognitive processes such as attention, decision-making, and memory consolidation (Damásio, 2018; Brantes and Gondim, 2025). Wallon’s (1941) psychogenetic perspective also converges, advocating for the inseparability of affectivity, motor skills, and cognition in the learning process. Secure relational environments and favorable emotional states are crucial for engagement and meaning-making, promoting significant learning (Immordino-Yang and Faeth, 2010; Costa, 2023).

Self-regulation of learning emerged from the appreciation of autonomy and protagonism, expressed in the guidelines that direct training for active learning and for the development of the capacity to learn how to learn, present in the LDB and DCNs (Brazil, 1996; 2020). On the neuropsychological level, the development of teacher and student autonomy (Freire, 1996) is articulated with the maturation of executive functions and metacognitive control (Boruchovitch, 2014; Zimmerman, 2002). Resolution CNE/CP n° 2/2019 explicitly states autonomy and decision-making as elements of teaching practice, by requiring that the teacher “act and encourage, personally and collectively, with autonomy, responsibility, flexibility, resilience” (Brazil, 2019).

Academic literature reinforces that self-regulated learning, by involving metacognitive strategies and cognitive control, is associated with better academic outcomes (Zimmerman, 2002). From the perspective of developmental neuroscience, these processes are directly related to executive functions, the effectiveness of which depends on conditions of brain maturation. Although normative documents value autonomy and protagonism, the explicit mention of the neurobiological conditions that support self-regulation is still limited, suggesting an area for further development in teacher training.

Neuroplasticity was inferred from the normative emphasis on continuing education, present in the legal instruments that deal with training throughout the teaching career and permanent professional development, as provided for in the LDB and PNE (Brazil, 1996; 2014). These elements indirectly recognize the brain’s capacity for reorganization in response to experiences (Guerra, 2011; Hohl, 2020), offering conceptual support to the valorization of continuing teacher education, a central principle of neuroeducation (Tokuhama-Espinosa, 2011). The LDB, in Article 62, § 1º, and Article 67, item II, and Goal 16 of the PNE, reinforce this need for continuous professional improvement.

Meta 16 of the PNE, by determining the guarantee of “continuing education in one’s area of expertise, considering the needs, demands, and contextualizations of the education systems” (Brazil, 2014), evidences the understanding of learning as a permanent process. Strategy 16.1 of the PNE, which foresees the strategic planning of the demand for continuing education, also dialogues with neuroplasticity, by recognizing the capacity for functional and structural modification of the brain through experience. Pedagogical practice, in this context, constitutes one of the drivers of neuroplasticity necessary for learning (Hohl, 2020).

Finally, memory emerged from the emphasis placed on meaningful learning, present in the curricular guidelines that highlight the contextualization of knowledge and the articulation between theory and practice (Brazil, 2020; 2019). These processes are understood as elements that favor the consolidation of knowledge through relevant experiences (Lourenço and Paiva, 2010; Izquierdo, 2018). The LDB, by establishing the “association between theories and practices” and the “utilization of previous training and experiences” (Brazil, 1996), offers documentary support for this interpretation.

Meta 16’s Strategy 16.3 of the PNE, which foresees the availability of works, materials, and cultural goods to teachers to “favor the construction of knowledge and the valorization of research culture” (Brasil, 2014), also aligns with the understanding of memory. Research indicates that memory consolidation depends on the integration between experience, emotion, and meaning, being favored by contextualized pedagogical practices (Bransford, Brown, and Cocking, 2000). However, the normative documents do not explicitly state the physiological factors that influence these processes, evidencing the limits of the normative discourse in the face of the complexity of learning.

The articulation between neuroscience and education, as discussed by Carvalho (2010), should occur critically and contextually, avoiding reductionisms. The results indicate that, although the foundations of the neuroscience of learning are implicitly present in the analyzed documents, they are not systematized in the regulations, which highlights the need to deepen this articulation in the field of teacher training. The analytical categories constructed in this study can be operationalized as a tool to identify training gaps and support the proposition of pedagogical interventions aligned with learning processes.

In summary, the research demonstrated that the normative documents analyzed incorporate, albeit in a non-systematized and not explicitly theorized manner, principles compatible with the neuroscience of learning (Silva et al., 2026). This finding meets the general objective of the study to analyze how the foundations of the neuroscience of learning are expressed in the DCNs for Teacher Training in Basic Education, revealing convergences and gaps that point to the need for greater integration between scientific knowledge and educational policies for the strengthening of pedagogical practice.

4. Conclusion

This study aimed to analyze how the foundations of learning neuroscience are expressed in the National Curricular Guidelines for Teacher Training in Basic Education. It was found that, although such foundations are not explicitly systematized in the analyzed normative documents, they are implicitly present. The valorization of active learning, the socio-emotional dimension, and lifelong learning was identified, elements that converge with the principles of attention, emotion, self-regulation, neuroplasticity, and memory. However, a gap was observed in the explicitation of the cognitive and biological mechanisms underlying these processes, which highlights the limits of the normative discourse in the face of the complexity of learning.

The research demonstrated the existence of approximations between political-educational discourse and the principles of learning neuroscience, reinforcing the importance of a critical and contextualized dialogue between these fields. As a contribution, the study offers analytical categories that can support the analysis of teacher training curricula and the planning of pedagogical interventions aligned with real learning processes. The interpretive nature of the analysis is recognized, which does not allow for generalizations but provides theoretical support for reflection on teacher training. It is suggested to deepen the articulation between neuroscience and education in the initial and continuing training of teachers, using the proposed categories to identify training gaps and promote practices more consistent with scientific evidence on human development and learning.

Bibliographic References

Carew, T.J.; Mills, M. 2010. Neuroscience and education: an ideal partnership for producing evidence-based solutions to guide 21st century learning. Neuron 67(5): 685–688.

Cosenza, R.M.; Guerra, L.B. 2011. Neurociência e Educação: como o cérebro

Costa, R.L.S. 2023. Neurociência e aprendizagem. Revista Brasileira de Educação 28(1): e280010.

Immordino-Yang, M.H.; Faeth, M. 2010. The role of emotion and skilled intuition in learning. Mind, Brain, and Education 4(1): 1–7.

Lent, R. 2010. Cem bilhões de neurônios? Conceitos fundamentais de neurociência. 2. ed. Atheneu, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.

Piaget, J. 1964. Seis Estudos de Psicologia. Forense, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.

Tardif, M. 2014. Saberes docentes e formação profissional. Vozes, Petrópolis, RJ, Brasil.

Vygotsky, L.S. 1998. A Formação Social da Mente: O desenvolvimento dos processos psicológicos superiores. 6ed. Martins Fontes, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.

Article originating from a Final Course Work on Inclusive Education and Diversity

To learn more about the course, click here and access the MBX Academy platform