Neurodidactics and neurocognitive learning: differentiation of concepts and levels of their realization in the educational process

The article is devoted to the theoretical and methodological differentiation of two related but not identical concepts of modern pedagogy based on neuroscience data: neurodidactics and neurocognitive learning. The article analyzes the history of the term “neurodidactics”, the key role in the formation of which belongs to Friedrich Matthei, who first systematically substantiated it in 1988, and Gerhard Preis, who developed its applied aspects in the 1990s. It is shown that neurodidactics is a macro-level didactic concept that answers the question “how to teach?” through the creation of an educational environment consistent with the patterns of brain function. In turn, neurocognitive learning, which was formed at the turn of the XX–XXI centuries, is focused on the microlevel — the purposeful development of basic cognitive functions (working memory, attention, executive functions) through specialized simulators and exercises. The analysis of scientific foreign and domestic literature, as well as our own research, allowed us to determine the essence, functions and role of the concepts of “neurodidactics” and “neurocognitive learning” in the educational process, as well as to differentiate them. It has been established that neurodidactics, as a theoretical framework, functions at the macro level in the development of educational models and strategies, while neurocognitive learning is implemented at the micro level in specific pedagogical practices focused on the cognitive processes of students. The paper offers a comparative table that identifies differences in six ways: essence, main issue, focus, level of application, goals and methods. Their complementarity is emphasized: neurodidactics creates optimal conditions for learning, and neurocognitive training forms the neuropsychological basis for the assimilation of knowledge. It is concluded that the combined application of both approaches makes it possible to build an integrated educational system based not on pedagogical intuition, but on objective data on how the brain learns, as well as on the need for a critical attitude towards common neuromyphs.