# data[].attributes.body
Please refer to your blue individualized sheet for your personal schedule.

# data[].attributes.headline
Neuroscience and Education: An Ideal Partnership for Producing Evidence-Based Solutions to Guide 21st Century Learning

# data[].attributes.subject
Neuroscience and Education: An Ideal Partnership for Producing Evidence-Based Solutions to Guide 21st Century Learning

# data[].attributes.body
Thomas J. Carew
and Susan H. Magsamen

# data[].attributes.headline
HISD Global Graduate, Teacher and Leader Competencies

# data[].attributes.subject
HISD Global Graduate, Teacher and Leader Competencies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
027_2018 State Accountability Projection 7-19-18

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Telephone Pictionary | Great Group Games

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn how to play the Telephone Pictionary game now. Great Group Games has FREE fun group game ideas and guides to help you plan your activity.

# data[].attributes.body
Assignments will be entered into OneSource by Friday, August 17

# data[].attributes.headline
Daily Bell, Testing, Appraisal, Universal Screener, Holiday Calendar

# data[].attributes.subject
Daily Bell, Testing, Appraisal, Universal Screener, Holiday Calendar

# data[].attributes.body
One stop sheet with all necessary calendars

# data[].attributes.headline
 Linking Teachers to Neuroscience: A Look at Bridges of Information

# data[].attributes.subject
 Linking Teachers to Neuroscience: A Look at Bridges of Information

# data[].attributes.body
By Lisa Carey

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Lisa Carey, Educational Consultant for the Center for Innovation and Leadership in Special Education at Kennedy Krieger Institute

I am a teacher who works with neuropsychologists and neurologists to translate their clinical expertise and research into information and instructional practices that are useful to my fellow teachers. It's a fairly unique job description that it gets a very different reaction depending on whom I'm speaking to. When I explain my role to those in the cognitive neurosciences, they frequently begin telling me all of the findings they want teachers to know about - "Tell them the brain is plastic!" "Let them know that we see with our brains and not with our eyes!" "Make sure they understand neurodevelopment and stage-environment fit!" If you follow the Linking Research to Classrooms Blog, these topics will sound familiar. We've used this blog to help connect those researchers to the audience they crave to speak with. Many of the researchers I work with are concerned that they are too frequently only talking back to their field rather than those who could do the most with great cognitive neuroscience information - teachers. They also fear that if they aren't talking to teachers about the brain, others, with less valid information, will.

I get a slightly different reaction when speaking with teachers. "I love brain science!" is the very frequent response, but it is typically followed up by a statement of misinformation about the brain that makes the worries of the researchers valid. Someone is talking to teachers about brains - and it isn't necessarily the people you'd want. As Dr. Nancy Grasmick, former State Superintendent of Maryland, has stated, "We [educators] are in the business of cognitive development, why wouldn't we want to learn all that we can about the brain?" Many teachers agree. Many marketers know that. Slapping a brain on something or using the prefix neuro is a great way to tempt teachers into purchasing books, buying classroom materials, and paying for trainings(Sylvan & Christodoulou, 2010). Unfortunately, there is no overarching vetting agency that gives stamps of approval to these products. Teachers are frequently on their own, trying to guess what sounds plausible, and, according to studies repeated around the world, the struggle is real (Dekker, Nikki, Howard-Jones, & Jelles, 2012; Jäncke et al., 2016). Given the difficulty of independently vetting brain information, teacher belief in neuromyths is an international phenomenon.

Part of the reason linking teachers to good cognitive neuroscience information has been so problematic is because the small (but growing!) transdisciplinary field of mind, brain, and education science hasn't determined the best to mechanism for communication. There is no practitioner version of the Mind, Brain, and Education journal. Practitioner journals that attempt to publish work that includes neuroscience aren't necessarily prepared to vet journal articles that include research about the brain - with the result being that my colleagues and I come across some fairly strange articles. In addition to solving the problem of how to share information, one of the biggest problems has been determining what information is most useful for teachers. That question of what is much harder than I would have initially thought., which is why coming across Horvath and Donoghue's (2016) article " A Bridge too Far- Revisited: Reframing Bruer's Neuroeducation Argument for Modern Science of Learning Practitioners " left me shouting - "Yes!"

Horvath and Donoghue (2016) propose that there are four distinct types of cognitive neuroscience information shared with educators: prescriptive, conceptual, functional, and diagnostic. Prescriptive information about the brain aims to tell teachers what to do within their classrooms. Prescriptive information about the brain tends to be the most dangerous in terms of spreading misinformation. According to multiple studies, the majority of the neuromyths believed by teachers would fall into the category of prescriptive information (Dekker et al., 2012; Jäncke et al., 2016). For example, having students coordinate specific movements to help with reading skills by building the brain is suggested by a program called "Brain Gym," which has been largely discredited (Dekker et al., 2012; Jäncke et al., 2016). Prescriptive information is not always bad, but it can lead to oversimplifications and generalizations. Furthermore, prescriptive information is not necessarily helpful for teachers working with a large and diverse group of students, as they do not take variability into account.

Conceptual information encourages educators to understand the educational context through "theories generated at the neuropsychological level (Horvath & Donoghue, 2016)." Horvath and Donoghue (2016) make the clear distinction that conceptual information is not prescriptive - educators are encouraged to understand the relationship between what is known about the developing brain, but never given explicit instructions in how to teach. For example, Universal Design for Learning (UDL) asks teachers to consider the importance of emotional engagement to attention and memory, but does not tell them how to engage students emotionally. While some teachers find this a frustrating aspect of UDL, it protects teachers from using neuropsychological information as a checklist and encourages teachers to consider student variability, another aspect of neuropsychological research UDL embeds within its framework.

Functional cognitive neuroscience information is used to help teachers narrow their instructional choices to better fit the needs of students. For example, neurologist Dr. Martha Denckla has pointed out that given variability among the neurodevelopment of young children, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that some students in kindergarten will not be developmentally prepared to grasp a pencil. Rather than prescribing certain activities to practice this skill, she recommends that teachers be creative finding other means of demonstrating knowledge of letters and numbers and creating artwork.

Hovarth and Donoghue (2016) describe diagnostic information as a means for using neuropsychological information to determine "how a student is learning (or failing to learn)." The types of testing conducted at the Kennedy Krieger Institute Neuropsychology Department are diagnostic in nature. Clinicians use valid and reliable measures to determine strengths and needs in a child's ability to use and control cognitive their abilities. This information is then shared with teachers through reports that explain considerations for the classroom. For example, a student with difficulty in the area of working memory may benefit from task lists and copies of notes. These suggestions do not tell teachers exactly how to support the student's working memory, but they do indicate that this is an area in need of attention and consideration when planning.

We will dive deeper into these categories within later blog posts this month. There are benefits and concerns regarding how each of these avenues of information connects with educators. Regardless of the types of neuroscience information teachers encounter, it is important to recognize that not all brain science is high quality, science reporting often includes over generalizations and misinformation about quality studies, and marketers are using teacher interest in the brain to specifically target educators. Teachers have wonderful critical thinking skills - just be sure to not lose your head when someone says the word "brain."
References:

Dekker, S., Nikki, C. L., Howard-Jones, P., & Jelles, J. (2012). Neuromyths in education: Prevelence and predictors of misconceptions among teachers. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1-8.

Horvath, J. C., & Donoghue, G. M. (2016). A Bridge Too Far - Revisited: Reframing Bruer's Neuroeducation Argument for Modern Science of Learning Practitioners, 7. http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00377

Jäncke, L., Rossi, S., Kalbfleisch, L., Ferrero, M., Vadillo, M. A., & Garaizar, P. (2016). Neuromyths in Education: Prevalence among Spanish Teachers and an Exploration of Cross-Cultural Variation. http://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00496

Sylvan, L. J., & Christodoulou, J. A. (2010). Understanding the role of neuroscience in brain based products: A guide for educators and consumers. Mind, Brain, and Education. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-228X.2009.01077.x

Dekker, S., Nikki, C. L., Howard-Jones, P., & Jelles, J. (2012). Neuromyths in education: Prevelence and predictors of misconceptions among teachers. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1-8.

Horvath, J. C., & Donoghue, G. M. (2016). A Bridge Too Far - Revisited: Reframing Bruer's Neuroeducation Argument for Modern Science of Learning Practitioners, 7. http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00377

Jäncke, L., Rossi, S., Kalbfleisch, L., Ferrero, M., Vadillo, M. A., & Garaizar, P. (2016). Neuromyths in Education: Prevalence among Spanish Teachers and an Exploration of Cross-Cultural Variation. http://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00496

Sylvan, L. J., & Christodoulou, J. A. (2010). Understanding the role of neuroscience in brain based products: A guide for educators and consumers. Mind, Brain, and Education. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-228X.2009.01077.x

Have a topic or question you would like to see addressed in a future Linking Research to Classrooms blog?

Enter your topic /question in our contact form.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Linking Teachers to Neuroscience: A Look at Bridges of Information

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Lisa Carey, Educational Consultant for the Center for Innovation and Leadership in Special Education at Kennedy Krieger Institute I am a teacher who works with neuropsychologists and neurologists to translate their clinical expertise and research into information and instructional practices that are useful to my fellow teachers.

# data[].attributes.headline
 Why a Prescriptive Approach to Neuroscience in the Classroom Might be a Poor Fit

# data[].attributes.subject
 Why a Prescriptive Approach to Neuroscience in the Classroom Might be a Poor Fit

# data[].attributes.body
By Lisa Carey

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Lisa Carey, Education Consultant, Center for Innovation and Leadership in Special Education at Kennedy Krieger Institute

Current bodies of cognitive neuroscience offer a plethora of information that can teach us how humans learn. However, if you're looking for a checklist of things to do in order to be a "brain -based teacher," you may want to rethink your approach. In our last blog post, we explored Horvath and Donoghue's (2016) proposal that there are four types of "bridges" that link cognitive neuroscience to education: a prescriptive bridge, a conceptual bridge, a functional bridge, and a diagnostic bridge. These "bridges" break down types of neuroscience information and how they might be shared, but the article discusses education as a singular concept. It is important to point out that diagnostic information may be helpful to a special educator considering the needs of a singular student, but not necessarily applicable for a teacher attempting to apply neuroscience information to an entire classroom. Most of the literature about "neuromyths" and use of neuroscience within education focus on implications for the classroom level of instructional and environmental design (Alferink & Farmer-Dougan, 2010; Dekker, Nikki, Howard-Jones, & Jelles, 2012; Ferrero, Garaizar, & Vadillo, 2016). Therefore, we will assume this perspective as we examine some potential pitfalls of seeking and using prescriptive neuroscience information.

Prior to recent advances in imaging technologies such as MRI and fMRI, access to brains in living humans was pretty limited and most research came from instances of brain injury. Given new advances in imaging, researchers can now examine brains and related behaviors of large numbers of humans. What have they found? The brain is highly variable. To quote Dr. Martha Denckla, "the human brain is as variable as the human face." While we tend to all have the same features in similar locations, there is variability in the size and shape of features, the exact location of features, and the function of features. For example, I am wearing reading glasses while writing this post because my eyes do not see well when items are up-close, but others may have perfect vision, may need assistance seeing far away rather than up-close, or may have low vision or blindness. Given that variability is the norm, it becomes difficult to offer prescriptive guidance to teachers who are responsible for the cognitive development of multiple and variable students. It may be possible to take a prescriptive approach with a singular student who has had an individualized evaluation. However, to offer prescriptive checklists to teachers would only result in sweeping generalizations and an over simplification of science.

There is a limited amount of information about the brain that can be generally applied to all children, and most of that information is related to general health. For example, I can say without hesitation that children should attempt to avoid brain injuries. I can also tell you that exercise, which is good for the whole body, is also good for the brain. Sleep is good for brain function, as is solid nutrition and hydration. However, I cannot tell you the magic number of minutes or seconds of wait time that will allow all students in your room to adequately process information. I cannot tell you the prefect length of direct instruction for all students. Even with all we now know about reading and the brain, I cannot tell you about a reading intervention or practice that will bring about reading success for all students. What I can tell you about learning and the brain is that students are highly variable. We can predict the areas in which that variability will occur, and if we take into account the trajectories of neurodevelopment, we can even predict what ranges of options might be the best fit for students of different ages.

While a prescriptive approach for classrooms might not be a great option for bridging cognitive neuroscience to education, the idea of a conceptual bridge might be a much better fit. Horvath and Donoghue (2016) describe a conceptual bridge as an avenue of information that "allows for individuals to understand or conceive of phenomena at the educational level through theories generated at the neurophysiologic level." They explain that this approach allows educators to consider why certain evidence-based practices in education work and build theories based on this expanded information (Horvath & Donoghue, 2016)This approach, they emphasize, does not tell educators exactly what to do.

This conceptual approach is similar to one found in the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework, which asks educators to consider aspects of cognitive neuroscience such as neuro-variability, the link between emotions and learning, and the need for supporting executive functions. Similarly, the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) Standards for Students includes considerations of the "learning sciences" (which is one of the many transdisciplinary terms being used to describe the connection between cognitive neuroscience and education.) Note that neither of these frameworks tell teachers specifically what to do in their classrooms, rather they take an approach that asks teachers to conceptualize new information about the developing brain and use it to pick instructional approaches that work for students.

In looking at the prevalent neuromyths examined by Ferrero, Garaizar, and Vadillo (2016), it appears that many of these misconceptions could be avoided if we, as educators, stopped searching for a checklist of brain-based practices. For example, many teachers who participated in multiple neuromyth studies were under the impression that certain physical exercises for co-ordination and motor-perception could improve reading skills. This myth persists because of prescriptive curricula being sold to schools and teachers filled with lists of activities for building a better brain. If rather than looking for how-to guides for neuroscience application to education we instead focus on blending conceptual knowledge about the brain with educational research and practice, we can better avoid false claims.

The remaining challenge is finding mechanisms for blending neuroscience conceptual knowledge with educational research and practice. This link between research and practice continues to be the driving force behind our blog. We will continue to interview cognitive neuroscience researchers about application of their work to education. We hope to continue to vet books, videos, webcasts, and other sources that will help educators better understand the brain in ways that is useful to student learning.
References
Alferink, L. A., & Farmer-Dougan, V. (2010). Brain-(not) Based Education: Dangers of Misunderstanding and Misapplication of Neuroscience Research. Exceptionality, 18(1), 42-52. http://doi.org/10.1080/09362830903462573

Ansari et al 2012 Neuroed~Critical review of an emerging field. (2012). Neuroethics, 5, 105-117. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-011-9119-3

Dekker, S., Nikki, C. L., Howard-Jones, P., & Jelles, J. (2012). Neuromyths in education: Prevelence and predictors of misconceptions among teachers. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1-8.

Ferrero, M., Garaizar, P., & Vadillo, M. A. (2016). Neuromyths in Education: Prevalence among Spanish Teachers and an Exploration of Cross-Cultural Variation. http://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00496

Horvath, J. C., & Donoghue, G. M. (2016). A Bridge Too Far - Revisited: Reframing Bruer's Neuroeducation Argument for Modern Science of Learning Practitioners, 7. http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00377

Have a topic or question you would like to see addressed in a future Linking Research to Classrooms blog?

Enter your topic /question in our contact form.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why a Prescriptive Approach to Neuroscience in the Classroom Might be a Poor Fit

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Lisa Carey, Education Consultant, Center for Innovation and Leadership in Special Education at Kennedy Krieger Institute Current bodies of cognitive neuroscience offer a plethora of information that can teach us how humans learn. However, if you're looking for a checklist of things to do in order to be a "brain -based teacher," you may want to rethink your approach.

# data[].attributes.headline
HISD Global Graduate, Teacher, and Leader Competencies

# data[].attributes.subject
HISD Global Graduate, Teacher, and Leader Competencies