See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/46149279

Neuroscience: Viable Applications in Education?

Article in The Neuroscientist · August 2010

DOI: 10.1177/1073858410370900 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

85 3,099

2 authors:

Ian Devonshire Eleanor J Dommett

University of Nottingham King's College London
39 PUBLICATIONS 791 CITATIONS 76 PUBLICATIONS 1,227 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ian Devonshire on 28 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Neuroscience and Society
The Neuroscientist

Neuroscience: Viable 16(4) 349­–356

© The Author(s) 2010
Reprints and permission: http://www.
Applications in Education? sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1073858410370900
http://nro.sagepub.com

Ian M. Devonshire1 and Eleanor J. Dommett2

Abstract
As a relatively young science, neuroscience is still finding its feet in potential collaborations with other disciplines.
One such discipline is education, with the field of neuroeducation being on the horizon since the 1960s. However,
although its achievements are now growing, the partnership has not been as successful as first hopes suggested it
should be. Here the authors discuss the theoretical barriers and potential solutions to this, which have been suggested
previously, with particular focus on levels of research in neuroscience and their applicability to education. Moreover,
they propose that these theoretical barriers are driven and maintained by practical barriers surrounding common
language and research literacy. They propose that by overcoming these practical barriers through appropriate training
and shared experience, neuroeducation can reach its full potential.

Keywords
neurosciences, education, research levels, teacher training, neuroeducation

As the field of neuroscience extends to form links with why then has this marriage failed to materialize? One
other disciplines, engaging a broader spectrum of society obvious suggestion is simply that the two partners in the
than ever before, neuroscientists must be encouraged to relationship are unwilling to work closely with each
consider the implications and impact of their work for other. However, there is convincing evidence that this is
these many different areas. One such discipline, which not the case. Indeed, classroom teachers show great enthu-
has received considerable attention over the last 10 years siasm for neuroscience as well as a strong desire to learn
in neuroscience, is education. The idea of neuroscience about the mind and brain (Dommett and others, in press;
and education forming an effective partnership, the disci- Pickering and Howard-Jones 2007). Likewise, opportu-
pline of neuroeducation, is not particularly new. Indeed nities for neuroscientists to engage with educators are on
the idea was met with much excitement in the 1960s the increase and neuroeducation conferences and forums
(Gaddes 1968) when it was posited that neuropsychologi- for both parties are becoming more commonplace. That
cal approaches could be taken to learning disorders. This is not to say that neuroscientists are entering into the part-
was followed by a further pulse of enthusiasm with Fuller nership as enthusiastically as the educators. It is probably
and Glendening (1985) proposing that so-called neuro- fair to say that many are cautious of doing so for fear of
educators should serve both communities to apply knowl- seeing their work lost in translation and being overinter-
edge about the brain to the learning process. Nevertheless, preted and commercialized, in a similar way to that seen
some 25 years later, and despite some very significant when neuroscientists engage in outreach activities
advances in understanding key neurocognitive processes (Cameron and Chudler 2003). Given then that there is
(Goswami 2006), including those that underlie skills such sufficient drive for this partnership, what other reasons
as reading and mathematics abilities, this partnership has
yet to reach its full potential.
1
Is it then that neuroscience has nothing to offer the Department of Pharmacology, Oxford University, Oxford, United
Kingdom
field of education? This seems unlikely and indeed 2
Department of Life Sciences, The Open University, Milton Keynes,
Willingham (2009) has suggested that the potential impact United Kingdom
that neuroscience may have on education is not even
Corresponding Author:
debatable. He cites the example of brain imaging studies Dr. Eleanor Dommett, Department of Pharmacology, Oxford
providing the deciding evidence in the case of dyslexia University, Mansfield Road, Oxford OX1 3QT, UK
being a phonological or visual perception disorder. So Email: e.dommett@open.ac.uk
350 The Neuroscientist 16(4)

are there for the lack of success so far in neuroeducation? conclusions this may allow for education. Beginning then
We will now consider three theoretical barriers to the mar- at the molecular and genetic level, what research is avail-
riage, put forward by Willingham (2009), as well as the able and what impact can it have on education? Perhaps
practical barriers that might explain the current position unsurprisingly, there is less research at this level relating
and suggest how these can be overcome. to educational constructs and what is available focuses on
reading deficits rather than normal development (Dale
and others 1998; Luca and others 2007; Paracchini and
Theoretical Barriers others 2008; Stevenson and others 2005; Wadsworth and
to Neuroeducation others 2010). Beyond specific disorders such as attention-
First, on a theoretical level, education and neuroscience deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and dyslexia,
can be considered fundamentally different in their overall which are only likely to be of great interest to those teach-
objectives and the manner in which the objectives are ing pupils with those disorders, are some general findings
pursued (Willingham 2009). Neuroscience is a natural about reading ability. For example, Dale and others (1998)
science that investigates the workings of the brain, the demonstrate that the amount of variance in reading abil-
functional architecture of the mind, and how the brain ity that is attributable to genetic influence, as opposed to
and mind map together (Cubelli 2009). In contrast, edu- environmental influences, differs according to ability.
cation, as an artificial science, aims to develop a particular That is to say that reading in the poorest readers is more
pedagogy that serves a specified goal. Of course, neuro- genetically determined than reading in the stronger read-
science might be able to contribute some information to ers. In addition, Wadsworth and others (2010) showed that
the development of pedagogy, but it is unlikely to be able when reading difficulties are found in children with high
to assist with all the goals of educational research. Will- IQs, the level of genetic influences are substantially higher.
ingham (2009) suggests that at least some of the goals of What does this information mean for educators? Certainly
education often fall beyond the remit of neuroscience, a the findings from both studies should encourage educa-
problem he refers to as the “goal problem.” tors to recognize that molecular and genetic studies can-
The goal problem can only be overcome by neurosci- not be generalized to a “one size fits all” approach: What
entists and educators working together to find common is true for one child’s reading ability, in terms of herita-
goals upon which they can both agree. Where a common bility, will not necessarily be true for another child. We
goal cannot be found, we suggest that the two groups have found that when teachers are presented with this
should keep a safe distance to protect the integrity of both information they are not surprised that a genetic compo-
fields. Even where such a goal does exist, such is the gap nent exists, but they are often surprised by the fact that
between the two disciplines that it is suggested by a num- the influence of genetics varies with ability. This may be
ber of researchers that the influence of neuroscience on due, in part, to a lack of understanding of the complex
education must be limited to being descriptive rather than role of genes and the environment in behavior, a point
prescriptive (Ansari and Coch 2006; Christodoulou and relating to the scientific literacy of educators, something
Gaab 2009; Mason 2009) and neuroscientists must be we will return to later.
content to remain silent on issues where the differences Above the molecular and genetic level, research may
in levels of analysis prevent any valid contribution also look at the role of particular neurotransmitters and
(Willingham 2009). firing of specific subsets of neurons, which we will refer
Second, the scale of investigation of the two disci- to as the neural activity level. As with research at a
plines also differs significantly (Willingham 2009). Neu- molecular and genetic level, the focus of research here is
roscientists, on the one hand, can conduct investigations on dysfunction rather than function and reading ability is
at several levels, which vary from examining the role of often considered as part of general cognitive function
individual genes and proteins to the study of the whole during the testing of medications for specific disorders,
brain, whereas investigations in education are likely to such as bipolar disorder (Pavuluri and others 2006),
begin at the level of an individual child. Willingham (2009) ADHD (Bonafina and others 2000), and multiple sclerosis
refers to this as the “vertical problem.” This particular (Christodoulou and others 2006), or following substance
problem deserves further attention, because it seems that abuse (Davis and others 1993; Delaney-Black and others
all levels of investigation are being applied to investi- 1998). Moreover, this research does not involve actual
gate constructs relating to education when perhaps only neuronal recordings or measurements of neurotransmitter
those closest to the level of the whole brain and individual release, which is, of course, unsurprising given the inva-
child can have any true relevance in education. sive nature of such experiments. Therefore, to date, this
To illustrate this, let us consider research into reading level has proved somewhat fruitless for applications to
ability that is carried out in neuroscience and what education, beyond suggesting that certain medications
Devonshire and Dommett 351

may or may not improve reading ability in a specific sub- and others 2003). Interestingly, these authors suggest that
set of individuals. the development of this expertise depends not only on
The next level of investigation for consideration is that maturation but also on skill. On the other hand, it is argued
of specific brain regions and circuits, which, due to the that this area is activated by tasks that do not require visual
invention and widespread use of imaging experiments, has representation of the word and that other regions are also
exploded over the last 20 years (Illes and others 2003). activated by visual word representation (Price and Devlin
We will refer to this level as the functional circuitry level. 2003). What then can this research tell educators about
This is perhaps the first level at which there is a predomi- reading ability? Perhaps unsurprisingly, there are no
nance of research from healthy individuals as opposed to significant contributions toward pedagogy for optimizing
those with reading problems or other health problems learning ability. Rather, the research can conclude that
that deem them part of a clinical population, meaning that several areas of the brain are important in learning to read
results may have greater applicability to the general pop- and reading thereafter and that in some cases this activation
ulation for educators. However, the investigation of higher changes as reading develops in a manner that is likely to
cognition in such studies, although increasing, is still be dependent on both maturation and ability.
only the focus of a small proportion of studies (Illes and In brief, we shall now consider the next level in neuro-
others 2003), meaning that there is still a long way to go science research, which we shall refer to as the syndrome
in reaching the potential with this level of research in level. This level incorporates research into dysfunction,
education. From the very early work of Broca and Wer- and for a construct as broad as reading ability this could
nicke, evidence has existed for left hemisphere domi- include all the research into developmental disorders
nance in language and this has often been understood by such as dyslexia and ADHD. Considering dyslexia spe-
educators to mean that the left hemisphere is “for” lan- cifically, there is still a wide range of theories as to how
guage. However, there is now significant research sug- dyslexia arises and therefore how it might be best treated
gesting that language performance also correlates with (Kronbichler and others 2008; Nicolson and others 2001;
right hemisphere activation (van Ettinger-Veenstra and Stein 2001). Within education, the theory most heavily
others 2009). This correlation may depend on the stage of subscribed to is often dependent on the local education
learning with opposing changes to left and right hemi- authority and whose research has been shared with the
sphere activation during learning to read, with the former educators. Indeed, despite the jury being still very much
increasing and the latter decreasing (Turkeltaub and oth- out on how best to treat such children, educators can already
ers 2003). Although this is not necessarily of immediate be found wedded to particular strategies, suggesting the
relevance to educators, it does mean that previous ideas diversity of theories and findings in the area is not reach-
in education that children’s language ability was depen- ing educators.
dent solely on their left hemisphere and, by extension, the The final level of neuroscience research is that of
use of any so-called brain-based interventions, utilizing observing normal/healthy behavior. This level of research
this idea, does perhaps require rethinking. In addition to has yielded no useful insights outside of those seen with
examining the lateralization of language, reading ability imaging studies and behavioral genetics that were dis-
has been correlated with the microstructure of temporo- cussed above. Recall also that this is the level at which
parietal white matter, which indicates that maturation of education research begins with both individual and group
this white matter is associated with the development of behavior.
cognitive functions including reading ability in both Having seen examples of the research for one particu-
healthy adults (Hampson and others 2006) and children lar construct relevant to education, it is clear that research
(Nagy and others 2004) as well as those displaying impair- at some levels is less useful in education and should
ments (Klingberg and others 2000; Niogi and McCandliss therefore avoid entering into a close partnership where
2006). Again, immediate relevance to education is diffi- any relevance to education may result in the findings
cult to see, except to suggest periods of development when becoming too diluted. Many of the situations investigated
reading ability could be optimal. in neuroscience are vastly simpler than those seen in an
As well as considering lateralization and myelination, education environment, where a wide range of social and
there has been considerable focus on the presence or environmental factors, not least the educators themselves,
absence of a visual word area in the left fusiform gyrus, can play a role (Mason 2009). Indeed, we suggest that
which is particularly responsive to visual words. On the research below the level of functional circuitry is of little
one hand it is argued that this word expertise area could immediate and direct relevance in education. Although it
develop through enhanced perception of category mem- may be useful in investigating clinical populations (and
bers in much the same way as can be seen with other treatment) and determining general influences on behav-
areas of expertise (for example birds or cars; McCandliss ior, it is unlikely to directly lead to pedagogical advances
352 The Neuroscientist 16(4)

chemical, spatial, and temporal information, but how is

this actually applied to education? Willingham and Lloyd
(2007) suggest that such data may be useful in assessing
educational theories through 1) direct observation of hypo-
thetical constructs in the brain, 2) validation of hypo-
thetical construct with brain imaging, 3) using neural
architecture to infer behavioral architecture, and 4) using
well-developed knowledge of brain function to select
between competing behavioral theories. The key then is
that the neuroscience can be used to test or support edu-
cational theories rather than derive them.

Practical Barriers
to Neuroeducation
Figure 1. The main levels of research in neuroscience Having considered the three theoretical barriers to a
and their direct applicability to education. Below the level neuroscience-education partnership, it is clear that these
of functional circuitry we suggest that there is little direct barriers are, in part, maintained by two practical problems,
relevance to education. By contrast, research at or above this which, if resolved, could allow the field to flourish. First,
level may be relevant, but research questions should and no doubt as a consequence of their differing goals and
be co-constructed by educators and neuroscientists to ensure
scales of study, the two parties use a different working
maximum applicability.
language, which makes any direct communication between
the two difficult. Indeed, being bilingual was thought to
be one of the key characteristics of the original neuroedu-
for use with mainstream healthy children. In contrast, work cator, to be able to converse equally easily with the edu-
at the circuitry level can be used to develop or test the cators and neuroscientists (Fuller and Glendening 1985).
effects of specific interventions (Simos and others 2007). Such is the scale of the problem that communication
However, even at this level it is important that neurosci- between the two groups can struggle in both key concepts
ence strives to make experiments as close to the real and experimental design. Concepts such as learning can
experience as possible, an issue we will return to later. mean completely different things to educators and neuro-
The gold standard, of course, is to be able to draw conclu- scientists, increasing the risk of misunderstanding and
sions from neuroscientific research with healthy human overinterpretation of information in translation.
participants of the appropriate age in a suitable environ- Indeed, a recent study (as yet unpublished) led by Paul
ment. Presently, such research is rare, perhaps because of Howard-Jones at Bristol University revealed that teach-
an emphasis of funding on dysfunction rather than func- ers know very little about the brain, and in some instances,
tion and the ethical concerns of working with children. their knowledge was not only poor, but actually incorrect.
However, if neuroscientists can work with educators to For example, 20% of new teachers believe that the brain
devise suitable common goals for research, it is possible will shrink if five to six glasses of water are not drunk each
that the gold standard will become more achievable and day. In addition, neuromyths are infiltrating the class-
therefore the applicability to education will increase. room at an astonishing rate: for example, the notion that
Figure 1 summarizes the levels of research in neurosci- children can be labeled as left- or right-brained, with the
ence and their immediate and direct relevance for educa- suggestion that classroom practice be left- or right-brain
tion. By showing the levels as increasing steps toward the balanced for each pupil (Goswami 2006). The topic of
gold standard, both neuroscientists and educators should neuromyths is reviewed extensively elsewhere and
be aware of making too big a leap in interpretation, where therefore will not be covered any further here (e.g.,
the science may become more speculative than evidence Howard-Jones 2010); rather it is enough for our purposes
based. to acknowledge the role of different working languages
Having carefully considered Willingham’s goal and in the spread of, or failure to dispel, these myths.
vertical problems, we will now return to his third theoreti- Perhaps more significant than this, as one can always
cal problem in combining neuroscience and education— explain key concepts and dispel neuromyths, is the lan-
the horizontal problem. Willingham describes this as the guage of experimental design. Concepts such as controls,
problem of translating the content of one field to another. double blind, and objectivity are commonplace within
The data of neuroscience are often in the form of electrical, science research but much less so in education. This means,
Devonshire and Dommett 353

first, that primary neuroscience research is likely to be, at Skills Teachers (UK teachers with an excellent teaching
least in some cases, impossible to understand by educators record and additional training) (Dommett and others, in
and, second, that the two groups are likely to find conflict press) on several neuroscience topics. In this case, the
when designing experiments together. Indeed, although teachers chose the topics that were most relevant to their
action research is now strongly recommended within UK practice and then had a seminar on the topic from neuro-
education, much of this research, conducted by class- scientists. However, this project required input from
room teachers, lacks the stringent controls necessary to around 10 neuroscientists and directly benefited just 30
make any firm conclusions and relies almost entirely on teachers, a ratio that makes the project uneconomical on
qualitative research methods. This kind of research, of a larger scale.
course, has an important role to play, but because it often By training teachers in research methods and basic
contrasts with the methods used in laboratory-based res­ neuroscience they will also be better placed to evaluate
earch, it can be another point of conflict. We have just so-called brain-based learning products such as Brain
finished a large-scale project with classroom teachers and Gym, which are often thrust upon them by enthusiastic
we found them to be highly resistant to the experimental head teachers or local authorities and for the most part,
design and control measures that were required. They not supported by neuroscientists (Goswami 2006). A
reported that this was largely because they did not recog- recent article by Sylvan and Christodoulou (2010) pro-
nize the need for these measures and therefore merely vides step-by-step guidance on how a teacher might do
saw them as constraints. this and differentiates between brain-supported, brain-
One way in which this problem can be resolved is to derived, brain-driven, and brain-inspired interventions.
give both parties suitable training in the relevant areas. This process does require the teacher to be able to evalu-
Neuroscientists must be made to be aware of the connota- ate the evidence and methods and therefore relies on
tions of the language they use and given training in sci- background knowledge that can be gained only through
ence communication, something that will stand them in training similar to that described above.
good stead beyond the field of neuroeducation. In addi- Such courses avoid the incorrect beliefs and problems
tion to the peer-reviewed publications found in neurosci- of interpreting neuroscience findings; however, they are
ence journals, neuroscientists should consider producing offered to existing teachers and, by virtue of funding and
a report in a simpler form containing all key information motivation, only a subset of these. Coch and Ansari
that is accessible to educators. Such reports can also be (Ansari and Coch 2006; Coch and Ansari 2009) suggest
beneficial for the neuroscientists, given the extent to that teachers should be provided with neuroscience train-
which public engagement is now rated by major funding ing before they are fully qualified. They postulate that
bodies. Indeed, inclusion of these reports or similar infor- although teachers should not receive the exact same train-
mation in the form of a blog can be cited in grant appli- ing as neuroscientists, they should be given sufficient train-
cations as evidence of public engagement and therefore ing in basic neuroscience concepts and common research
directly contribute to the continued funding of the research. techniques for them to critique findings for themselves.
Likewise, educators should be given some basic training Currently in the United Kingdom, much of this initial
in neuroscience and research methods, especially if they teacher training is in the form of a one-year postgraduate
are to conduct action research. This represents a signifi- certification in education, which, having effectively replaced
cant challenge, given the time constraints of the average the three-year education bachelor’s degree, is an extremely
classroom teacher, levels of funding for such training, and dense qualification. It would therefore be unreasonable to
the sheer volume of information that might be deemed assume that basic neuroscience and research methods
basic level. training could be incorporated into the existing qualifi-
One successful attempt at such training is currently cation; however, the inclusion of one or two lectures
offered by Flinders University (Australia) in the form of a emphasizing both the need for caution and the potential
graduate certificate in neuroscience for teachers to equip of neuroscience in education could be considered for
them with a basic knowledge of modern neuroscience deli­ inclusion. This could then be followed up through con-
vered in a context relevant to their professional practice. tinuing professional development (CPD), perhaps even
Specifically, it aims to provide teachers with an understand- incorporating distance learning programs, thus avoiding
ing of the principles of modern neuroscience, an ability to high levels of cost and designated study times, to improve
critically appraise the neuroscientific literature as it applies basic neuroscience knowledge and research literacy.
to learning, and an ability to apply the principles of neuro- A note of caution should be added here. If, through train-
science to understanding classroom practice and behavior. ing and guidance, neuroscientists effectively discredit
In addition to this formal training, we have already suc­ brain-based learning techniques, the effect on teachers
cessfully instigated an effective dialogue with Advanced could be extremely negative and set back any long-term
354 The Neuroscientist 16(4)

joining of neuroscience and education. At present, teach- Table 1. A Summary of the Theoretical and Practical Barriers
ers are encouraged to use such products and many are to Neuroeducation and the Proposed Solutions
enthusiastic about them and anecdotally find positive Theoretical Barriers Possible Solutions
effects on their pupils. If such products are taken away
from teachers, they may feel as though they have been Goal Problem Neuroscience and education must
agree common goals and remain
stripped of the tools of their trade without any replace- separate where this cannot be
ments or better options being provided. It is therefore done.
critical that this training does not throw the baby out with Vertical Problem Consideration must be given to
the bath water. Teachers must be assured that it is accept- the research level and how
able to use a so-called brain-based technique in the class- close this is to the desired
room if they find it works for them, even if the scientific gold standard such that leaps
evidence for the technique being brain based does not between multiple levels are not
made.
stand up to scrutiny.
To increase research at the
The second practical problem is simply finding the most relevant levels and avoid
time and suitable environment in which these two differ- research focus on dysfunction,
ent professions can work together. Educators, particularly neuroscientists and educators
those in the classroom, are notoriously busy, often finding should co-construct research
themselves overwhelmed with new educational products projects.
and performance targets, reducing the amount of time Horizontal Problem Neuroscience should be used,
where possible to distinguish
available to work with neuroscientists, and therefore every
between educational theories
effort should be made for such meetings to be within their rather than drive them.
normal working hours. This is likely to involve signifi-
cant negotiations with the school ahead of meetings, and Practical Barriers
both parties should be prepared for such delays in getting Language and Scientific Neuroscientists should be trained
started. For their part, neuroscientists may be equally Literacy in science communication and
busy and feel quite uncomfortable at having to work in encouraged to produce basic
such uncontrolled conditions, in contrast to those in stan- reports on peer-reviewed
research.
dard laboratory research. However, it is important that
Educators should receive basic
neuroscientists not only meet with educators but also see neuroscience training and
them in their natural environment of the classroom. Like- training in research methods
wise, inviting educators into the laboratory to see the if they are to engage in action
research, of all levels, may serve well to break down research.
walls between the two disciplines. Only by shared experi- Space and Time Every effort should be made to
ences can the two groups work successfully together. work within normal working
hours for educators and
therefore planning ahead to
Conclusions negotiate with the schools is
critical.
We have discussed the theoretical limitations to the mar- Both groups should meet
riage between neuroscience and education that were put with one another in their
forward by Willingham (2009) and how solutions to these own territory to share the
challenges might be found. In particular, we agree that experience of the work.
neuroeducation projects work only on goals and at levels
that can have direct relevance to education and that use
the neuroscience to support or falsify educational theo- overcome. Moreover, a commitment to such training and
ries rather than derive them. However, we believe this collaboration will allow the field to flourish, such that in
will require a slight change in research mindset from the another 25 years the neuroeducator role originally put
current focus on dysfunction to function but one that neu- forward by Fuller and Glendening will have reached its
roscientists and educators can dictate together. We sug- potential.
gest that underlying these theoretical problems is the
practical problem of finding the space and time for com- Acknowledgments
munication in a shared language (see Table 1 for a sum- Dr. Dommett is a lecturer at the Open University and Dr. Dev-
mary of the barriers and solutions). We propose that with onshire is a postdoctoral research fellow at the Institute for the
suitable training on both sides, these problems can be Future of the Mind.
Devonshire and Dommett 355

Declaration of Conflicting Interests Illes J, Kirschen MP, Gabrieli JD. 2003. From neuroimaging to
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with neuroethics. Nat Neurosci 6:205.
respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article. Klingberg T, Hedehus M, Temple E, Salz T, Gabrieli JD,
Moseley ME, and others. 2000. Microstructure of temporo-
Funding parietal white matter as a basis for reading ability: evidence
The author(s) received no financial support for the research from diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging. Neuron
and/or authorship of this article. 25:493–500.
Kronbichler M, Wimmer H, Staffen W, Hutzler F, Mair A,
References Ladurner G. 2008. Developmental dyslexia: gray matter
Ansari D, Coch D. 2006. Bridges over troubled waters: education abnormalities in the occipitotemporal cortex. Hum Brain
and cognitive neuroscience. Trends Cogn Sci 10: 146–51. Mapp 29:613–25.
Bonafina MA, Newcorn JH, McKay KE, Koda VH, Luca P, Laurin N, Misener VL, Wigg KG, Anderson B, Cate-
Halperin JM. 2000. ADHD and reading disabilities: a Carter T, and others. 2007. Association of the dopamine
cluster analytic approach for distinguishing subgroups. receptor D1 gene, DRD1, with inattention symptoms in
J Learn Disabil 33:297–307. families selected for reading problems. Mol Psychiatry
Cameron W, Chudler E. 2003. A role for neuroscientists in 12:776–85.
engaging young minds. Nat Rev Neurosci 4:763–8. Mason L. 2009. Bridging neuroscience and education: a two-
Christodoulou C, Melville P, Scherl WF, Macallister WS, way path is possible. Cortex 45:548–9.
Elkins LE, Krupp LB. 2006. Effects of donepezil on memory McCandliss BD, Cohen L, Dehaene S. 2003. The visual word
and cognition in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Sci 245:127–36. form area: expertise for reading in the fusiform gyrus. Trends
Christodoulou JA, Gaab N. 2009. Using and misusing neurosci- Cogn Sci 7:293–299.
ence in education-related research. Cortex 45:555–7. Nagy Z, Westerberg H, Klingberg T. 2004. Maturation of white
Coch D, Ansari D. 2009. Thinking about mechanisms is crucial matter is associated with the development of cognitive func-
to connecting neuroscience and education. Cortex 45:546–7. tions during childhood. J Cogn Neurosci 16:1227–33.
Cubelli R. 2009. Theories on mind, not on brain, are relevant Nicolson R, Fawcett AJ, Dean P. 2001. Dyslexia, development
for education. Cortex 45:562–4. and the cerebellum. Trends Neurosci 24:515–6.
Dale PS, Simonoff E, Bishop DV, Eley TC, Oliver B, Price TS, Niogi SN, McCandliss BD. 2006. Left lateralized white matter
and others. 1998. Genetic influence on language delay in microstructure accounts for individual differences in read-
two-year-old children. Nat Neurosci 1:324–8. ing ability and disability. Neuropsychologia 44: 2178–88.
Davis TC, Jackson RH, George RB, Long SW, Talley D, Paracchini S, Steer CD, Buckingham L-L, Morris AP,
Murphy PW, and others. 1993. Reading ability in patients in Ring S, Scerri T, and others. 2008. Association of the
substance misuse treatment centers. Int J Addict 28:571–82. KIAA0319 dyslexia susceptibility gene with reading
Delaney-Black V, Covington C, Templin T, Ager J, Martier S, skills in the general population. Am J Psychiatry 165:
Compton S, and others. 1998. Prenatal coke: what’s behind 1576–84.
the smoke? Prenatal cocaine/alcohol exposure and school- Pavuluri MN, Schenkel LS, Aryal S, Harral EM, Hill SK,
age outcomes: the SCHOO-BE experience. Ann N Y Acad Herbener ES, and others. 2006. Neurocognitive function in
Sci 846:277–88. unmedicated manic and medicated euthymic pediatric bipo-
Dommett EJ, Devonshire IM, Plateau CR, Westwell MS, lar patients. Am J Psychiatry 163:286–93.
Greenfield SA. From scientific theory to classroom practice. Pickering S, Howard-Jones P. 2007. Educators’ views of
The Neuroscientist [Internet]. Available from: http://nro the role of neuroscience, in education: a study of UK and
.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/1073858409356111v1 international perspectives. Mind, Brain and Education 1:
Fuller J, Glendening J. 1985. The neuroeducator: professional 109–13.
of the future. Theory into Practice 24:135–7. Price CJ, Devlin JT. 2003. The myth of the visual word form
Gaddes W. 1968. A neuropsychological approach to learning area. Neuroimage 19(3):473-81.
disorders. J Learn Disabil 1:523–34. Simos PG, Fletcher JM, Sarkari S, Billingsley RL, Denton C,
Goswami U. 2006. Neuroscience and education: from research Papanicolaou AC. 2007. Altering the brain circuits for read-
to practice? Nat Rev Neurosci 7:406–11. ing through intervention: a magnetic source imaging study.
Hampson M, Tokoglu F, Sun Z, Schafer RJ, Skudlarski P, Gore JC, Neuropsychology 21:485–96.
and others. 2006. Connectivity-behavior analysis reveals that Stein J. 2001. The magnocellular theory of developmental dys-
functional connectivity between left BA39 and Broca’s area lexia. Dyslexia 7:12–36.
varies with reading ability. Neuroimage 31:513–9. Stevenson J, Langley K, Pay H, Payton A, Worthington J,
Howard-Jones P. 2010. Introducing neuroeducational research. Ollier W, and others. 2005. Attention deficit hyperactivity
Abingdon, Oxford, UK: Routledge. disorder with reading disabilities: preliminary genetic
356 The Neuroscientist 16(4)

findings on the involvement of the ADRA2A gene. J Child Right-hemispheric brain activation correlates to language
Psychol Psychiatry 46:1081–8. performance. Neuroimage 49:3481–8.
Sylvan LJ, Christodoulou JA. 2010. Understanding the role of Wadsworth SJ, Olson RK, Defries JC. 2010. Differential
neuroscience in brain based products: a guide of educators genetic etiology of reading difficulties as a function of IQ:
and consumers. Mind, Brain and Education 4:1–7. an update. Behav Genet Mar 24. [Epub ahead of print]
Turkeltaub PE, Gareau L, Flowers DL, Zeffiro TA, Eden GF. Willingham DT. 2009. Three problems in the marriage of neu-
2003. Development of neural mechanisms for reading. Nat roscience and education. Cortex 45:544–5.
Neurosci 6:767–73. Willingham DT, Lloyd JW. 2007. How educational theories
van Ettinger-Veenstra HM, Ragnehed M, Hällgren M, can use neuroscientific data. Mind, Brain and Education
Karlsson T, Landtblom AM, Lundberg P, and others. 2009. 1: 140–9.

View publication stats