Neuroscience Applied to Education Online Course: A Way to Promote Debate and Interest of School Teachers on Neurobiology of Learning

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2203489/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Neuroscience Applied to Education Online Course: A Way to Promote Debate and Interest of School Teachers on Neurobiology of Learning

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2203489/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Understanding how the brain function to promote learning shouldn't just be interesting to neuroscientists, but especially to teachers. From the moment that teachers understand the processes of learning and memory, this knowledge can help their teaching practice. Here, we report the 10th edition of the course "Neuroscience Applied to Education", offered online in the pandemic period of 2021, in Brazil. The course featured classes on eight neuroscience topics, taught by expert professors. The course had the participation of schoolteachers, most of them teaching children aged between 6-14 years old. Teachers stated that their perception of basic neuroscience knowledge improved after completing the course. They believed that the specific neuroscience topics related to education and teaching practice will have the greatest impact on their professional performance. Teachers evaluated the very well course, and the topics discussed generated debate and interest from the professors.

online learning

remote teaching

brain

neuroeducation

pedagogy

Research investigating how the brain develops and learns can have a profound impact on education. In this sense, there is growing interest in applying neuroscience findings to further educational theory, practice, and policy (Dubinsky et al. 2019). Developing programs that optimize teachers' understanding of the brain mechanisms responsible for learning and memory and the factors that influence them, such as age, environment, emotion, and motivation can transform educational strategies (Blakemore 2012; Shonkoff and Levitt 2010). However, the dissemination of this knowledge to teachers and educators is still limited (Dubinsky et al. 2019).

The goal of bringing the neuroscience concepts' to the teachers provides a new perspective on teaching, in a way that the teachers improve their understanding of "how the brain learns" and can apply this knowledge to help their students to learn (Im et al. 2018). Understanding the anatomy, physiology, and neurobiological mechanisms of the brain, as well as emotional, and social, among other factors, and how they influence it, becomes essential to improve the guiding role of the teacher (Dubinsky et al. 2013). Providing teachers with a neuroscience perspective will equip them to convey these ideas to their students, bringing a multidisciplinary approach to science (Dubinsky et al. 2019). This is a two-way path, as it favors teachers and neuroscientists, who can clarify misunderstandings about the brain and bring society closer to their scientific findings (Howard-Jones 2014).

In this sense, teachers need access to neuroscientific information relevant to education, with a vocabulary that explains the complex knowledge and findings of the neuroscience field (Dubinsky et al. 2019). Despite the variety of information about neuroscience, not all of it is reliable and some causes misunderstanding, which often results in the dissemination of false information or belief in the so-called "neuromyths" (Howard-Jones 2014; Macdonald et al. 2017). Thus, courses in this perspective are important and can help safeguard teachers against neuromyths (Ching et al. 2020). Introducing educational neuroscience in the teacher’s development must be done in an accessible and easy manner (Hachem et al. 2022) to have a higher potential to improve the teachers' practice in their classroom (Hachem et al. 2022).

Our outreach group, aiming at improving the educational scenario, has been developing the course "Neuroscience Applied to Education" for schoolteachers since 2012 (Filipin et al. 2017; Lima, Lopes, et al. 2020). Here, we report the teachers' perceptions about the 10th edition of the course performed in an online format in 2021. In this edition, we invite qualified professors from several fields of neuroscience and education to discuss different topics about these themes and assess the perception of teachers enrolled in the course about it.

Course proposal

Annually, the POPNEURO outreach program, from the Federal University of Pampa (Uruguaiana, RS, Brazil), offers a course to schoolteachers entitled “Neuroscience Applied to Education”. A Ph.D. neuroscientist professor and undergraduate and graduate students linked to POPNEURO organized the 10th edition of the course, performed in 2021.

The course proposal of this edition differed from the previous ones. We invited national and international professor experts in neuroscience and education areas to lecture online classes in the course, and some of them enrolled in the Science of Learning Program from UNESCO and IBRO. The classes aimed to discuss basic and relevant topics of neuroscience related to education.

The course was free of charge and its dissemination took place on POPNEURO's social networks and the university website. Registrations took place in an online form on Google docs. When registering, teachers must prove their link as a schoolteacher. We accepted the first 80 teachers who met this criterion.

Course method

The course lasted 6 weeks and took place between October 27th and December 1st, 2021. Synchronous meetings were conducted weekly (on Wednesdays, 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm) on the Zoom platform. The course covered eight topics of neuroscience applied to education (Table 1). Sometimes, two topics were discussed in the same week (about 1h for topic).

Table 1

Course topics, according to the order of presentation, and main points discussed.
Course topics	Main points discussed
1. Neuroscience and education relationship	Concepts of science-based education; Translational neuroscience research applied to education.
2. Neurobiology of critical thinking	Concepts, use, and skills of critical thinking; Relation with cognitive functions.
3. Neuroplasticity in education	Concepts of neuroplasticity; Learning and memory processing; Relation of neuroplasticity and education.
4. Neurobiology of language and reading	Verbal and non-verbal language; Brain areas involved; Neurobiological processes and teaching.
5. Pedagogical innovation and neuroscience	Brain’s modulation by experiences; Role of emotions in learning; Concepts and ideas of pedagogical innovation and neuroscience support.
6. Neuroeducation and art	Neurobiology of creativity, art, and brain; Types of artistic expressions and education.
7. Neuromyths and neurophilia	Concepts of neuromyths and neurophilia; Why do people believe in neuromyths; How to avoid a neuromyth in education.
8. Neuroscience for teaching practice	Reports by teachers that participated in previous editions of the course on how neuroscience influences their teaching practice.

Ph.D. professors with vast experience in neuroscience and education were invited to lecture the classes; except for one of them, that was from Uruguay, they are Brazilian and speak Portuguese, which we consider important to allow the schoolteachers to follow the class. The professors discussed the topics bringing evidence-based discussions, always contextualizing the theme with teaching performance. We encouraged teachers to take part in classes, asking questions and reporting professional experiences for discussion.

In summary, the opening of the course took place in the first week, where topic 1 was introduced and the POPNEURO program was present. We talked about topics 1 and 2 in the second week. In the third week, we discussed topics 3 and 4. In the fourth, topic 5 was addressed. In the fifth week, we covered topics 6 and 7. In the last week, we closed the course with topic 8. We broadcast live the course classes on the YouTube platform for non-registered interested parties, and it is available on the platform (click here to access).

Course evaluation

We include the data of thirty-one teachers that took part in over 55% of the course and answered the pre- and post-course questionnaires in the analysis. In post-classes questionnaires, the number of responses sometimes may be lower, since some teachers were absent. Although we recommend that they watch the class afterward on Youtube, the evaluation questionnaire was online only 30 minutes after the synchronous class.

We verified the teachers' perceptions about the course through online questionnaires on the Google Forms platform at the course's beginning (Appendix Tab. A.1), at the end of each class (Appendix Tab. A.2), and at the end of the course (Appendix Tab. A.3). Teachers who took part in over 55% of the course and answered the initial and final questionnaires had their responses analyzed.

We analyzed the closed or multiple-choice questions using the percentage of responses (%) or mean ± standard deviation (SD). We categorized the open questions according to the answers' relative frequency (%). For comparison between initial, post-class, and final questionnaire responses, we use a one-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey's post-hoc.

3.1 Teacher's profile

Of the thirty-one course teachers that completed the evaluations, 90% were female (n = 28) and 10% male (n = 3), with a mean age of 38 ± 8 years. The course included teachers from 10 states and 24 cities in Brazil. Most of them worked in the Rio Grande do Sul, in South Brazil (n = 16; 52%; Fig. 1).

Teachers work mainly in public schools (n = 24; 77%) and at different stages of basic education. The majority work in the initial (n = 9; 29%) or final grades (n = 13; 42%) of primary education. Other teachers work in early childhood (n = 3; 10%), secondary (n = 4; 13%) or special education (n = 2; 6%). Teaching act time ranged from less than 1 year (n = 4; 13%), 1–5 years (n = 12; 39%), 6–10 years (n = 9; 29%), to over 10 years (n = 6; 19%).

Most teachers are graduated (n = 25; 81%), and some of them had specialization (n = 18; 72%), master (n = 5; 20%) or PhD (n = 8; 8%) levels. However, they declare to have median knowledge about neuroscience (5 ± 2, on a scale of 1 for low to 10 for high neuroscience knowledge). Therefore, only half of the teachers (n = 16; 52%) were assigned to usually read about the topic, while others sometimes (n = 15; 48%).

3.2 Teacher's knowledge perception

In each questionnaire, we asked teachers to declare their knowledge level about the course topics, on a scale from 1 (low level of knowledge) to 10 (high level of knowledge). We collected responses in pre-course, after each class, and post-course questionnaires. The perception level of knowledge declared by the teachers increased after classes and remained increased after the course in all topics discussed (Fig. 2A-H; P < 0.0001 in all analyzes; details in the Appendix’s Tab. A.4). These results indirectly demonstrate that the course improves the teachers’ neuroscience knowledge.

3.3 Teacher’s insights along the course

3.3.1 Teachers believe that neuroscience concepts addressed in the course will improve their teaching

Corroborating with the previous findings, in post-course, most of the teachers (n = 29, 94%; Fig. 3A) related that their understanding of course topics improved. Furthermore, they believe that the topics will qualify their teaching practice (n = 30, 97%; Fig. 3B).

We asked teachers to choose which topic discussed they believe will have the greatest impact on their teaching practice. Topics 3 “Neuroplasticity for education” (n = 26, 84%; Fig. 3C), 8 “Neuroscience for teaching practice” (n = 26, 84%; Fig. 3C), 1 “Neuroscience and education” (n = 22, 70%; Fig. 3C) and 4 “Neurobiology of language and reading” (n = 18, 58%; Fig. 3C) were the most mentioned.

About other neuroscience topics related to education not extensively or directly discussed in the course, teachers mentioned wanting to learn more about the neurobiology of learning, writing, and literacy, and the influence of motivation, emotions, music, and food in the teaching-learning process.

3.3.2 Teachers liked how neuroscience topics were discussed in the course

Most of the teachers agreed (n = 30; 97%) that the contents of the classes were consistent with the course proposal. Although some teachers had not yet taken part in a course with a similar method (n = 11; 35%), most of them liked (n = 30; 97%) or partially liked (n = 1; 3%) the course method. Besides, teachers (n = 27; 87%) related feeling encouraged to take part in the discussions and took part actively (n = 14; 45%) or partially (n = 10; 32%) in the classes, asking questions in the chat or in the microphone.

Teachers considered the duration of the classes (n = 30; 97%) and the course (n = 26; 84%) adequate; to the other teachers, it was partially adequate. Interestingly, if the course had been face-to-face, most would not have had to take part (n = 23; 74%), once the teachers highlighted geographic distance as a preventing factor (see in Fig. 1 the Brazilian states in which the teachers resided).

3.3.3 Teachers pointed out the positive and negative aspects of the course

The most cited positive points are the theme of topics discussed (n = 13; 22%) and the quality of the lecturers (n = 13; 22%; Fig. 4A). Regarding the negative points, most of the teachers mentioned that was none negative aspect in the course (n = 13; 39%; Fig. 4B), while some teachers mentioned points such as short course time duration (n = 6; 18%; Fig. 4B) and limited interaction between participants (n = 4; 12%; Fig. 4B). Other main cited points are shown in Fig. 4.

In general, the course fully (n = 30; 97%) or partially (n = 1; 3%) met teachers' expectations. Considering this experience, all the teachers mentioned that would take part in similar courses in the future (n = 31; 100%) and would recommend our course to other teachers (n = 31; 100%).

Here, we report the perceptions of elementary, middle, and high school education teachers about the 10th edition of the "Neuroscience applied to education" course. This was an online edition in which we invite expert Ph.D. professors the theme to teach classes on neuroscience topics related to education. In general, the course improved schoolteachers' perception of their neuroscience knowledge and was well evaluated by them.

Similar to previous editions (Filipin et al. 2015; Lima, Lopes, et al. 2020), most of the teacher participants were female. Women are largely predominant in school education around the world (Anderson 2019), and their interest in neuroscience has been increasing (Machlovi et al. 2019). Here, the teachers initially declared poor neuroscience knowledge, even reading about it. We believe that it occurs because, despite the abundance of information about neuroscience in the communication media, it is difficult for teachers to make a direct relationship with their professional area. Thus, there is no effective learning with practical applications, since brain-based learning requires giving meaning to content (Tüfekçi and Demirel 2009). The teachers need to relate the neuroscience content with their teaching practice. In this sense, we and others highlight the importance of incorporating neuroscience courses into initial teacher training (Dekker et al. 2012; Im et al. 2018).

Before the course, teachers' self-perception about their knowledge of the neuroscience topics addressed in the course was low, and it increased significantly in the post-classes and at the end of the course. We understand that this is a limited result once we did not directly measure teachers' neuroscience knowledge. On the other hand, women (most of our course participants) tend to underestimate their knowledge, especially in science fields (Beyer and Edward 2015; Ehrlinger and Dunning 2003). Even so, the teachers' perception of neuroscience topics increased after the course, so we believe that this is indicative that there was a knowledge improvement. Despite this limitation, is possible that this self-evaluation promoted a reflexive time for teachers, affecting how their understanding of neuroscience concepts progressed. This is important since brain knowledge applied to practice education can benefit both teachers and students (Dubinsky et al. 2013) and decrease vulnerability to neuromyths (Carboni et al. 2021). Nevertheless, in a future edition, we intend to directly measure this impact.

About the topics that will bring more impact on teaching practice, the most cited by the teachers were "Neuroplasticity in education", "Neuroscience and education relationship", "Neuroscience for teaching practice", and "Pedagogical innovation and neuroscience". Although all topics addressed have applicability to education, the last four addressed more general and basic concepts with a direct relationship between neuroscience and teaching. In accordance, other researchers find that the teachers are most interested in topics that they see as highly relevant to their teaching work (Hardiman et al. 2012). It is undeniable that learning in rapid training courses provides limited knowledge, but this is the beginning of building a bridge between brain scientific knowledge and educational practice (Cui and Zhang 2021). Based on this demand and on the success of previous experiences in our courses in this area, we proposed to our university a specialization course in neuroscience applied to education. This specialization course was offered two times (2016–2019, and 2018–2021), with a workload of 360 hours and a duration of 2 years.

The other topics addressed in the course, although important, were more specific, and this may have affected the choice of teachers. Teachers do not want only to learn basic facts about the brain but want to understand more complex processes that would have an impact on their teaching (Hardiman et al. 2012). However, our course was the first in-depth contact with neuroscience related to education for many teachers. One way to handle it in the next courses is to ask teachers how to apply each topic concept in their classes. This could facilitate reflection on how each content can improve its teaching practice. In addition, this feedback from the teachers may also apply to alternatives and ideas for speakers. We believe that the last meeting/topic addressed this aim, and could help, at least in part, the teachers to exercise the application of the contents in their teaching - this could explain, also, the preference of teachers for this topic.

Teachers mentioned having an interest in learning more about the neurobiology of learning and memory, writing and literacy, and the influence of motivation, emotions, music, and food in the teaching-learning process. The neuroeducation field is extensive and it would be impossible to cover it completely in our course. To diminish this gap, we suggest to the teachers some science journals and books, and reliable websites about the themes. Furthermore, we encourage teachers to follow our Instagram page (@programapopneuro), where we post evidence-based neuroscience content in accessible language (Mello-Carpes et al. 2021).

Teachers liked the course method, and most of them actively took part in the classes. The themes and the quality of lectures were the main positive points mentioned by them. Although the online offer is cited as an advantage, because of the flexibility of geographic location, it also has disadvantages, as cited previously (Mukhtar et al. 2020). We believe that the low interaction, mentioned with a negative point by some teachers, is related to this. In the face-to-face editions of the course, we prioritized hands-on sessions such as laboratory practice and others (Filipin et al. 2017; Lima, Lopes, et al. 2020) and perceived that this type of methodology improves interactions. In contrast, in online classes stimulating the interaction of the course participants is more difficult, in this sense some alternatives can be helpful, such as flipped classroom learning modalities and online tools (Lima, das Neves, et al. 2020; Mukhtar et al. 2020).

In this study, we report the perception of schoolteachers about their neuroscience knowledge before, during, and after attending the online course entitled "Neuroscience Applied to Education". Teachers mentioned that their understanding of the neuroscience contents addressed in the course improved after classes. The teachers highlighted the relevance of the topics and the quality of the invited speakers and well-evaluated the course as a whole. We hope that this knowledge may not only impact teachers but also their students, improving their teaching-learning process.

Financial Disclosure

We confirm that we have no relevant financial interests related to the material in the manuscript.

Anderson, W. (2019). Comparison of Female Teachers in Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Education: China and the World. ECNU Review of Education, 2(2), 246–250. https://doi.org/10.1177/2096531119853664.
Beyer, S., & Edward, B. (2015). Gender Differences in Self-Perceptions: Convergent Evidence From Three Measures of Accuracy and Bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(2), 157–172.
Blakemore, S. J. (2012). Development of the social brain in adolescence. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 105(3), 111–116.
Carboni, A., Maiche, A., & Valle-Lisboa, J. C. (2021). Teaching the Science in Neuroscience to Protect From Neuromyths: From Courses to Fieldwork. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 15(718399), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2021.718399.
Ching, F. N. Y., So, W. W. M., Lo, S. K., & Wong, S. W. H. (2020). Preservice teachers’ neuroscience literacy and perceptions of neuroscience in education: Implications for teacher education. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 21(August), 100144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2020.100144.
Cui, Y., & Zhang, H. (2021). Educational Neuroscience Training for Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Construction. Frontiers in Psychology, 12(792723), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.792723.
Dekker, S., Lee, N. C., Howard-jones, P., Jolles, J., Kalbfleisch, L., & Mason, G. (2012). Neuromyths in education: Prevalence and predictors of misconceptions among teachers. Frontiers in Psychology, 3(429), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00429.
Dubinsky, J. M., Guzey, S. S., Schwartz, M. S., Roehrig, G., MacNabb, C., Schmied, A., et al. (2019). Contributions of Neuroscience Knowledge to Teachers and Their Practice. The Neuroscientist : A Review Journal Bringing Neurobiology, Neurology And Psychiatry, 25(5), 394–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073858419835447.
Dubinsky, J. M., Roehrig, G., & Varma, S. (2013). Infusing Neuroscience into Teacher Professional Development. Educ Res, 42(6), 317–329. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X13499403.Infusing.
Ehrlinger, J., & Dunning, D. (2003). How Chronic Self-Views Influence (and Potentially Mislead) Estimates of Performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.5.
Filipin, G., Casarotto, F. D., Maroneze, B. M., & Mello-Carpes, P. B. (2015). Popneuro: Relato De Um Programa De Extensão Que Busca Divulgar E Popularizar a Neurociência Junto a Escolares. Revista Brasileira De Extensão Universitária, 6(2), 87–95. https://doi.org/10.36661/2358-0399.2015v6i2.3066.
Filipin, G. E., Casarotto, F., de Vargas, L. D. S., & Mello-Carpes, P. B. (2017). Formação continuada em Neuroeducação: percepção de professores sobre a neurociência e sua importância para a educação. Experiência Revista Científica de Extensão, 3(1), 40–57. https://doi.org/10.5902/2447115124760.
Hachem, M., Daignault, K., & Wilcox, G. (2022). Impact of Educational Neuroscience Teacher Professional Development: Perceptions of School Personnel. Frontiers in Education, 7(912827), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.912827.
Hardiman, M., Rinne, L., Gregory, E., & Yarmolinskaya, J. (2012). Neuroethics, neuroeducation, and classroom teaching: Where the brain sciences meet pedagogy. Neuroethics, 5(2), 135–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-011-9116-6.
Howard-Jones, P. A. (2014). Neuroscience and education: Myths and messages. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 15(12), 817–824. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3817.
Im, S., hyun, Cho, J. Y., Dubinsky, J. M., & Varma, S. (2018). Taking an educational psychology course improves neuroscience literacy but does not reduce belief in neuromyths. Plos One, 13(2), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192163.
Lima, K. R., Neves, Ramires, B. H. S., Dos Santos Soares, C. C., Martini, M., Lopes, V., L. F., & Mello-Carpes, P. B. (2020). Student assessment of online tools to foster engagement during the COVID-19 quarantine. Advances in physiology education, 44(4), 679–683. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00131.2020.
Lima, K. R., Lopes, L. F., Marks, N., Franco, R. M., Mello, E. M. B., & Mello-Carpes, P. B. (2020). Formação continuada em neurociência: percepções de professores da educação básica. Revista Brasileira de Extensão Universitária, 11(3), 361–376. https://doi.org/10.36661/2358-0399.2020v11i3.11512.
Macdonald, K., Germine, L., Anderson, A., Christodoulou, J., & McGrath, L. M. (2017). Dispelling the myth: Training in education or neuroscience decreases but does not eliminate beliefs in neuromyths. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(1314), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01314.
Machlovi, S., Pero, A., Ng, S., Zhong, M., & Cai, D. (2019). Women in neuroscience: Where are we in 2019? Journal of Neuroscience Research, 99(9), 9–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/jnr.24570.
Mello-Carpes, P. B., Lima, K. R., Martini, V., Ribeiro, P. L. E., Anjos, D., E. C., & Sosa, P. M. (2021). Experiências Vivenciadas Na Manutenção Do Programa De Extensão Popneuro Durante O Período De Distanciamento Social Imposto Pela Pandemia Da Covid-19. Expressa Extensão, 26(1), 350–361. https://doi.org/10.15210/ee.v26i1.19597.
Mukhtar, K., Javed, K., Arooj, M., & Sethi, A. (2020). Advantages, limitations and recommendations for online learning during covid-19 pandemic era. Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences, 36(4), COVID19–S. 27–31. https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.36.COVID19-S4.2785.
Shonkoff, J. P., & Levitt, P. (2010). Neuroscience and the Future of Early Childhood Policy: Moving from Why to What and How. Neuron, 67(5), 689–691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2010.08.032.
Tüfekçi, S., & Demirel, M. (2009). The effect of brain based learning on achievement, retention, attitude and learning process. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 1782–1791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.316.

[i] The Science of Learning Initiative recognizes neuroscience research as crucial to increasing our understanding of how the human brain learns. To launch the initiative, IBRO and IBE-UNESCO, established a program that selected Fellows pursue research projects that help to translate key neuroscience research on learning and the brain to educators, policymakers and governments in order to address the global learning crisis. https://solportal.ibe-unesco.org/about/
[ii] Basic education is the first level of education in Brazil. It comprises three stages: early childhood education (up to 5-year-old children), primary education (from 6 to 14-year-old students) and secondary education (from 15 to 17-year-old students). Special education consists in the teaching for children with special educational needs.

No competing interests reported.

Sup.docx

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Neuroscience Applied to Education Online Course: A Way to Promote Debate and Interest of School Teachers on Neurobiology of Learning

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1 Introduction

2 Material And Methods

3 Results

3.1 Teacher's profile

3.2 Teacher's knowledge perception

3.3 Teacher’s insights along the course

3.3.1 Teachers believe that neuroscience concepts addressed in the course will improve their teaching

3.3.2 Teachers liked how neuroscience topics were discussed in the course

3.3.3 Teachers pointed out the positive and negative aspects of the course

4 Discussion

5 Conclusion

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1