di: DI and Neuroplasticity?

[Beth Lang]

....But- also- we do not know what we do not know- so to predict that doing
a science experiment is a waste of time because you predict it wont have
valued information to me is not a reason to justify it as useless- you do
not know.  We were sure there was no water on mars but they found an
underground lake this year- was it worth it to find it?  maybe not to us
not now- but maybe to someone in the future- if you do not want to find the
lake and you want to focus on the water here and now on earth that is fine-
but I do not think we as scientists should say don't bother looking for the
lake on Mars.

What I hate about listservs- is that people can be really harsh (in the
sense of people implying through unclear tone that someone else is stupid)-
it punishes my posting behavior for sure- so with that in mind I say these
thoughts in the most respectful way and with the intent to further our
mission of staying true to science.  I think it is a good discussion- and
it is nice to read all input.

Hi to Charles- tutored for you in Oregon in the church basement;) and Hi
Jim, I believe we share former Morningside Teacher titles.  Thankful to be
in a caring about kids community!

Cheers to the work-
Beth





On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 12:13 PM ROBERT <bhullinghorst at comcast.net> wrote:

> Dear Jim:
>
> Science is not like that.  It is about trying to find the answers to
> questions.  Some answers will be useful, some not.
>
> Science is not about dictating beliefs.
>
> On the other hand, some of the educational theories dominating our schools
> seem based on wishful thinking, while Zig seems to have developed a
> strongly evidence-based system.  I happen to believe that it is a very
> useful approach to education.  But if there is research in neuroplasticity
> that can provide some insights, would that not be useful?
>
> On the other hand, we are now two thousand years beyond the dictum that
> medicine should "do no harm,' and Doctors are still "practicing."  Perhaps
> we have a long way to go.
>
> Bob Hullinghorst
>
> Sent from XFINITY Connect App
>
>
>
> ------ Original Message ------
>
> From: Jim Cowardin
> To: Kerry Hempenstall
> Cc: DI list, ROBERT
> Sent: September 11, 2018 at 8:49 PM
> Subject: Re: di: DI and Neuroplasticity?
>
> To the conversation:  I sincerely mean this with all due respect, where is
> this going?  Are we going to use brain science to predict handicaps for
> babies in the crib? Are we going to identify geniuses likewise? What is the
> usefulness to a teacher with twenty-five little souls that need to learn to
> translate from print to speech and comprehension and vice versa?
>
> It is a fascinating discussion, but to reiterate a point, how well we ever
> manipulate the brain to allow a student in K to skip to RM4 after the first
> six weeks?  That would be running. But are we even walking yet?  Will this
> ever have an effect on the practitioner?  If you can answer that question
> for me, I might become a believer. If i read all of these beautifully
> summarized neuroscience articles Kerry has sent, will the fog be lifted
> from my eyes?
>
> Jim C
>
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 21:50 Kerry Hempenstall <
> kerry.hempenstall at rmit.edu.au> wrote:
>
>> If we extend the topic to include the role of neuroscience in education,
>> there are some bits and pieces here:
>>
>> “Background: Our ability to look at structure and function of a living
>> brain has increased exponentially since the early 1970s. Many studies of
>> developmental disorders now routinely include a brain imaging or
>> electrophysiological component. Amid current enthusiasm for applications of
>> neuroscience to educational interventions, we need to pause to consider
>> what neuroimaging data can tell us. Images of brain activity are seductive,
>> and have been used to give credibility to commercial interventions, yet we
>> have only a limited idea of what the brain bases of language disorders are,
>> let alone how to alter them. Scope and findings: A review of six studies of
>> neuroimaging correlates of language intervention found recurring
>> methodological problems: lack of an adequate control group, inadequate
>> power, incomplete reporting of data, no correction for multiple
>> comparisons, data dredging and failure to analyse treatment effects
>> appropriately. In addition, there is a tendency to regard neuroimaging data
>> as more meaningful than behavioural data, even though it is behaviour that
>> interventions aim to alter. Conclusion: In our current state of knowledge,
>> it would be better to spend research funds doing well designed trials of
>> behavioural treatment to establish which methods are effective, rather than
>> rushing headlong into functional imaging studies of unproven treatments”
>> (p.247).
>>
>>
>>
>> “The impression is that the field is trying to run before it can walk.
>> Our first priority should be to first develop interventions for children
>> with language impairments and other neurodevelopmental disorders, and to
>> produce good evidence of their efficacy using randomized controlled trials.
>> Second, we also need to do far more methodological work to ensure our
>> neuroimaging tools are as reliable, sensitive and standardized as our
>> behavioural measures (Dichter et al., 2012). Third, we will need to develop
>> multicentre collaborations to do studies with adequate statistical power to
>> detect treatment effects. Only then will we be in a strong position to
>> combine neuroimaging with intervention to answer questions about underlying
>> mechanisms of effective intervention” (p.257).
>>
>>
>>
>> Bishop, D. V. M. (2012). Neuroscientific studies of intervention for
>> language impairment in children: interpretive and methodological problems.
>> Research Review: Emanuel Miller Memorial Lecture 2012. *Journal of Child
>> Psychology and Psychiatry, 54*(3), 247–259.
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> “Neuroplasticity the one thing we know about plasticity, which is the
>> capacity to adjust and adapt, is it's greatest when the brain is immature,
>> and it is less as the brain becomes more mature. It's never completely
>> gone. There is plasticity in the brains of adults. So we do know that
>> there are some functions that emerge, in terms of brain development, in
>> critical periods. And the well described ones are in the sensory area,
>> vision and hearing, to some extent. But there has never been
>> demonstrated in humans a critical period for anything related to cognition
>> or emotional development or social development.
>>
>>
>>
>> In a sensitive period, there isn't a time when the window closes and it's
>> too late. But what it means is that when you pass the sensitive period,
>> it's harder for these things to develop in an adaptive way, or they may
>> develop in a way that is not as efficient as it might be, and that you have
>> to try to overcome later. Unlike a critical period where it's too late,
>> missing a sensitive period means that it just gets harder as you get older,
>> it's harder to get it right. So the messages that come out of that basic
>> principle of brain development is that getting things right the first
>> time is better than trying to fix them later, trying to adapt to something
>> that was not developed in the best way at the time that it was supposed to
>> be developed. So the sobering message here is that if children don't have
>> the right experiences during these sensitive periods for the development of
>> a variety of skills, including many cognitive and language capacities,
>> that's a burden that those kids are going to carry; the sensitive period is
>> over, and it's going to be harder for them. Their architecture is not as
>> well developed in their brain as it would have been if they had had the
>> right experiences during the sensitive period. That's the sobering message.
>> But there's also a hopeful message there, which is unlike a critical period
>> where it's too late. The sensitive period says: It's not too late to kind
>> of try to remediate that later. And you can develop good, healthy, normal
>> competencies in many areas, even if your earlier wiring was somewhat
>> faulty. But it's harder. It costs more in energy costs to the brain. The
>> brain has to work at adapting to earlier circuits that were not laid down
>> the way they should have been. And from a society's point of view, it costs
>> more in terms of more expensive programming, more specialized help.
>>
>>
>>
>> Shonkoff, J.P. (2007). *The neuroscience of nurturing neurons.* Children
>> of the Code. Retrieved from
>> http://www.childrenofthecode.org/interviews/shonkoff.htm
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> “Although neurological variables may explain why individuals with
>> dyslexia struggle more than children without dyslexia in learning to read,
>> the dyslexic brain may still show plasticity in response to instructional
>> interventions. Specific language processes may normalize after short-term
>> treatment, suggesting that if appropriate instruction is sustained, this
>> treatment may lead to full compensation (full recovery of normal reading).
>> Evidence for such brain plasticity in individuals with dyslexia, which is
>> associated with differences in occipital–temporal, temporal–parietal,
>> and frontal brain systems (e.g. Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2003), has been
>> reported following treatment. fMRI tasks have shown pre- to post-treatment
>> changes in brain activation levels and patterns in frontal systems (Aylward
>> et al., 2003; Richards et al., 2000, 2002; Temple et al., 2000, 2003;
>> Shaywitz et al., 2004), temporal–parietal regions (Aylward et al., 2003;
>> Eden et al., 2004; Shaywitz et al., 2004; Simos et al., 2002; Temple et
>> al., 2003), and occipital–temporal regions (Aylward et al., 2003;
>> Shaywitz et al., 2004). Plasticity of brain response has been observed across
>> the life span: (a) in younger students in response to explicit
>> phonological awareness and phonics instruction (Shaywitz et al., 2004;
>> Simos et al., 2002), (b) in upper elementary and middle school students
>> in response to instruction designed to increase the precision of
>> phonological and orthographic word representations and the efficiency of
>> the working memory architecture (Aylward et al., 2003; Richards et al.,
>> 2000, 2002), and (c) in adults in response to explicit instruction in
>> sound and articulatory awareness and phonics training (Eden et al., 2004).
>> Brain plasticity has also been demonstrated for normal adolescents learning
>> non-word associations (Molfese et al., 2002) and normal adults learning
>> a miniature visual language (McCandliss, Posner, & Given, 1997). See Richards
>> et al. (in press) and Berninger (in press) for additional details of
>> these studies, which varied in imaging modality, imaging tasks, age of
>> participants, and nature of the treatment”.
>>
>>
>>
>> Richards, T., Aylward, E., Berninger, V., Field, K., Grimme, A.C., Parsons,
>> A., Richards, A.L., Nagy, W. (2006). Individual fMRI activation in
>> orthographic mapping and morpheme mapping after orthographic or
>> morphological spelling treatment in child dyslexics. *Journal of
>> Neurolinguistics,* *19**(1),* 56–86.
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> “Focus, then, must be two-fold. First is the focus on ensuring
>> appropriate environmental and nutritional conditions that stimulate
>> dendritic growth in infancy and early childhood. But second must be
>> emphasis on improving the strength of particular neural circuits, not
>> simply on the overall growth of dendrites. Most interestingly,
>> instructional activities such as memorization, mastery learning, and
>> repetition-based activities appear to best strengthen and solidify the
>> formation and maintenance of these circuits (Garrett, 2009; Freeberg,
>> 2006). Data strongly support the use of precision teaching, mastery
>> learning approaches, and programs such as DISTAR or direct instruction
>> (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006; Mills, Cole, Jenkins, & Dale, 2002;
>> Ryder, Burton, & Silberg, 2006; Swanson & Sachse-Lee, 2000). In addition,
>> programs that focus on mastery, including applied behavior analysis and
>> evidence-based approaches such as Treatment and Education of Autistic and
>> related Communication Handicapped Children (TEACCH) (Mesibov & Shepler,
>> 2004; Panerai, Ferrante, & Zingale, 2002), have been shown to elicit better
>> educational growth than instructional practices, which focus on open-ended
>> or child-guided instructional practices. Thus, given the data from
>> neuroscience combined with evidence-based practices used in special
>> education, special educators can be assured that they are, indeed, using
>> brain-based educational instruction. Mastery-based programs that focus on
>> fluency and repetition are most likely to increase both better traditional
>> learning outcomes and produce neural circuits critical for both educational
>> activities and transfer to daily living skills” (p. 46).
>>
>>
>>
>> Alferink, L.A., & Farmer-Dougan, V. (2010): Brain-(not) based education:
>> Dangers of misunderstanding and misapplication of neuroscience research, *Exceptionality,
>> 18*(1), 42-52.
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> “The first point to note here is that the term ‘brain-training’ is
>> somewhat of a tautology, since all learning happens in the brain. As one of
>> our colleagues is known to say: “it certainly doesn’t happen in your big
>> toe”. Any intervention that is given to any child, will, in some way,
>> “train their brain”. So the question here is not should we train children’s
>> brains, but how should we train their brains? … neuroplasticity tells us
>> that the brain can adapt, but it does not tell us how the brain should be
>> stimulated (or trained). Thus, neuroplasticity per se also does not inform
>> us about how to treat learning difficulties.” (p.1)
>>
>>
>>
>> Castles, A., & McArthur, G. (2013). ‘Brain-training’… or learning as we
>> like to call it. *Learning Difficulties Australia Bulletin, 45*(1), 1-2.
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> “For example, the research described above on the formation of memory
>> through long-term potentiation strongly suggests that neural connections
>> are strengthened through repetition or practice (Freeberg, 2006; Garrett,
>> 2008; Hardiman, 2003). Note that the importance of practice and rehearsal
>> has been known for more than a century, long before the process of
>> long-term potentiation was identified (Ebbinghaus, 1913; Hebb, 1949;
>> Thorndike, 1913). Likewise, the data suggest that formation of memories
>> through neural consolidation works best if students have a number of short
>> learning sessions separated over time, not single long sessions. Again, the
>> advantages of spaced or distributed practice over massed practice have also
>> been known for many decades (see Olson & Hergenhahn, 2009; Ebbinghaus,
>> 1913). Neuroscience, in this case, reinforced these best practices by
>> providing the data at the neural level that supported these methods” (p.50).
>>
>>
>>
>> Alferink, L.A., & Farmer-Dougan, V. (2010): Brain-(not) based education:
>> Dangers of misunderstanding and misapplication of neuroscience research, *Exceptionality,
>> 18*(1), 42-52.
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> “The idea that neuroscience research might provide guidance for teachers
>> sounds promising. However, as with any new and aspiring research field,
>> educational neuroscience has suffered to some extent from over-optimism and
>> wishful thinking. A huge demand for improving educational practice has been
>> a fertile ground for misconceptions around the question of how neuroscience
>> can be applied to education. Speculative educational applications have
>> emerged in the name of neuroscience (p.136) … In contrast with some of the
>> ideas behind the whole language approach, reading is therefore not innate;
>> brain regions that have evolved for tasks such as object (not letter)
>> recognition, or understanding spoken (not printed) language, need to be
>> combined to form a new skill. Reading is, after all, an acquired human
>> ability that emerged only after the cultural invention of the alphabet”
>> (p.138).
>>
>>
>>
>> Weigmann, K. (2013). Educating the brain. *EMBO Reports, 14*(2), 136-9.
>> Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3566840/
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> “Three complementary sources of evidence suggest that words are the units
>> of reading. First, eye movements during fluent reading are made mostly by
>> making saccades from one word to the next. Second, the reading time of a
>> single word is relatively independent of the number of letters. Third, a
>> single letter may be more easily detected in brief presentations when
>> embedded in a word. A possible inference of these findings is that
>> education should be organized to teach children to read entire words
>> instead of focusing in letter-by-letter identification. This procedure,
>> usually termed holistic reading, led to concrete implementations that
>> turned out to be a major pedagogical fiasco. As it turns out, the
>> neuroscience of visual learning could actually have predicted this failure.
>> The development of literacy is a case of pop-out learning, a process by
>> which, after extensive practice, one can identify a specific set of shapes
>> in cluttered fields very rapidly and with a subjective feeling of
>> automaticity and lack of effort. For non-readers, reading is a slow,
>> effortful and serial process that becomes automatic after many hours of
>> training. What sort of transformation elicits this type of learning in
>> the brain and what material is optimal for this learning process?
>>
>>
>>
>> Constitutive elements of shapes are represented by pools of neurons
>> encoding basic traits (strokes) that recombine to form new elements of
>> intermediate complexity, which are subsequently recombined to encode more
>> complex objects69. This notion was incorporated into a model of neural
>> codes for written words, based on a hierarchy of increasingly complex
>> neuronal detectors, from individual letters to bigrams and morphemes. Only
>> specific patterns that conform certain letters from strokes (as opposed to
>> other patterns with similar regularities, but which do not occur in the
>> alphabet) are trained by visual experience64. The hypothesis was that this
>> process relies on the same learning mechanisms that carve a cortical
>> circuitry for grouping contours and segmenting textures, namely the
>> assembling of object statistical regularities in the visual world62. This
>> hypothesis was tested by measuring brain responses to visual strings that
>> progressively disrupt the ‘natural statistics’ of the alphabet at different
>> scales: JZWYZK (infrequent letters), QOADTM (frequent letters), QUMBST
>> (frequent bigrams) and AVONIL (frequent quadrigrams). Results showed a
>> gradient of selectivity spanning the left occipito-temporal cortex, with
>> increasing selectivity for higher level stimuli toward the anterior
>> fusiform region70.
>>
>>
>>
>> The importance of this finding for education is that even after extensive
>> practice with reading, words are still represented by their constitutive
>> components. This process goes all the way to what appears to be the
>> constitutive elements of all alphabets, that is, oriented elements or
>> strokes. For this reason, one aspect that may impair fluent reading is the
>> inability to parse words into letters. In agreement with this prediction,
>> the remarkably simple intervention of increasing letter spacing
>> substantially improves text reading in some kinds of dyslexic children71.
>> An additional piece of evidence required to bring these data together is
>> that visual crowding, the inability to identify objects in clutter, is more
>> severe in dyslexic children, making it hard to parse letters from
>> continuous words” (p.500).
>>
>>
>>
>> Sigman, M., Peña, M., Goldin, A.P., & Ribeiro, S. (2014). Neuroscience
>> and education: Prime time to build the bridge. *Nature Neuroscience, 17*(4),
>> 497-502.
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> “A clinical and educational goal of reading research is to improve the
>> accuracy with which children at risk for dyslexia are identified so that
>> they can receive early, preventive intervention rather than intervention
>> that follows years of reading failure (Strickland, 2002
>> <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3742917/#B56>). Although
>> behavioral measures of phonological awareness, RAN, and letter knowledge in
>> kindergartners predict reading ability years later (Catts et al., 2001
>> <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3742917/#B7>; Schatschneider
>> et al., 2004 <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3742917/#B48>),
>> the sensitivity and specificity of these behavioral measures is modest (Pennington
>> and Lefly, 2001
>> <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3742917/#B39>). There is
>> some evidence that brain measures substantially enhance the accuracy of
>> predicting reading ability across a school year (Hoeft et al., 2007
>> <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3742917/#B24>; Rezaie et
>> al., 2011 <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3742917/#B44>) or
>> across multiple years (Maurer et al., 2009
>> <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3742917/#B31>; Hoeft et
>> al., 2011 <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3742917/#B25>).
>> The present study indicates that DWI measures of white matter organization
>> reveal a specific structural risk factor for reading difficulty that, in
>> combination with behavioral and other brain measures, may improve the
>> identification of prereaders at risk for dyslexia” (p.13256).
>>
>> Saygin, Z.M., Norton, E.S., Osher, D.E., Beach, S.D., Cyr, A.B.,
>> Ozernov-Palchik, O., Yendiki, A., Fischl, B., Gaab, N., & Gabrieli,
>> J.D.E. (2013). Tracking the roots of reading ability: White matter
>> volume and integrity correlate with phonological awareness in prereading
>> and early-reading kindergarten children. *The Journal of Neuroscience 33*(33),
>> 13251-13258. Retrieved from
>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3742917/
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> “These results indicate that the GMV differences in dyslexia reported
>> here and in prior studies are in large part the outcome of experience
>> (e.g., disordered reading experience) compared with controls, with only a
>> fraction of the differences being driven by dyslexia per se.”
>>
>>
>>
>> Krafnik, A. J., Flowers, D. L., Luetje, M. M., Napoliello, E. M., & Eden,
>> G. F. (2014). An investigation into the origin of anatomical differences in
>> dyslexia. *The Journal of Neuroscience, 34*(3), 901-908.
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> “Scholarly treatments have been positive about the prospects, but more
>> sober, and most have taken a position that is broadly consistent with ours.
>> They argue that neuroscience has been and will continue to be helpful to
>> education — indeed, recent reviews show beyond doubt that this is true
>> (e.g., Katzir & Paré-Blagoev, 2006 ) — but they argue that data from
>> neuroscience must be funneled through a behavioral level of analysis (e.g.,
>> Bruer, 1997, 1998; Hirsh-Pasek & Bruer, 2007) or that neuroscience should
>> be part of a broader approach to research in education, not the sole savior
>> (e.g., Ansari & Coch, 2006; Byrnes & Fox, 1998; Fischer et al., 2007; Geake
>> & Cooper, 2003 ) (p. 147).
>>
>>
>>
>> Willingham, D.T., & Lloyd, J.W. (2007). How educational theories can use
>> neuroscientific data. *Mind, Brain, and Education*, *1*(3), 140-149.
>> Retrieved from
>> http://www.danielwillingham.com/uploads/5/0/0/7/5007325/willingham__lloyd_2007.pdf
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> “Likewise, the data suggest that formation of memories through neural
>> consolidation works best if students have a number of short learning
>> sessions separated over time, not single long sessions. Again, the
>> advantages of spaced or distributed practice over massed practice have also
>> been known for many decades (see Olson & Hergenhahn, 2009; Ebbinghaus,
>> 1913). Neuroscience, in this case, reinforced these best practices by
>> providing the data at the neural level that supported these methods” (p.50).
>>
>>
>>
>> Alferink, L.A., & Farmer-Dougan, V. (2010): Brain-(not) based education:
>> Dangers of misunderstanding and misapplication of neuroscience research, *Exceptionality,
>> 18*(1), 42-52.
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> “Students with higher and lower math scores use different parts of the
>> brain when doing simple calculations, according to a new study
>> <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001eZ1skbl-Ve3mXl31WhwvNXVgnNVsi-A0R3ur_wQvrcJpa0vqcopIizATKTf7eXlwL5oMGBrALFEQbzBFGrdjvq4tAHuhwTRqU83VN_LI89lGjVBe0FCIly0OPOqOpEtHRSGwullVvA7pJbb0ijiyNgWjEH0kQxSR>
>> in *The Journal of Neuroscience*. High achievers use an area of the
>> brain associated with arithmetic fact retrieval, whereas students with
>> lower scores use an area associated with quantity-processing mechanisms.
>> The suggestion is that the ability to recall math facts (rather than do the
>> sum from scratch) helps the students to go onto more complex mathematics.
>>
>> The researchers used an fMRI scanner to examine the brains of 33 students
>> (aged 17-18) as they performed simple, single-digit arithmetic. There was a
>> clear association between particular areas of the brain and the students'
>> scores in the PSAT math test (taken at age 15-16). The results suggest a
>> correlation between arithmetic fact retrieval and higher scores, but more
>> research is needed to see whether there is also a causational link - for
>> example, whether interventions where lower-scoring students learn math
>> facts lead to changes in brain activity and/or higher math scores.”
>>
>>
>>
>> Price, G.R., Mazzocco, M.M.M., & Ansari, D. (2013). Why mental arithmetic
>> counts: Brain activation during single digit arithmetic predicts high
>> school math scores. *The Journal of Neuroscience, 33*(1), 156-163.
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> "So I remain skeptical about the implications of neuroscience for
>> education currently and into the near future. Maybe I should say the
>> *direct* implications of neuroscience for education. I do believe that
>> eventually we will be able to bridge neuroscience at its various levels of
>> analysis with education, but I am convinced that all of these bridges will
>> have a least one pier on the island of psychology.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bruer, J.T. (2006). Points of view: On the implications of neuroscience
>> research for science teaching and learning: Are there any? *CBE Life
>> Science Education, 5*(2), 111-7. Retrieved from
>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1618519/
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> “As yet it is not possible to predict or assess an individual’s specific
>> learning disability from a brain scan (73). This is because even within
>> a diagnostic category, such as developmental dyslexia, there is substantial
>> anatomical variation from one individual to another.” … while there is
>> strong evidence that genetic factors are implicated in specific learning
>> disabilities,(74) one can seldom identify a single gene as responsible,
>> because multiple genes are involved and their impact depends on the
>> environment.(75) Furthermore, even when a genetic risk or neurological
>> basis for a learning disability can be identified, this does not mean the
>> individual is unteachable; rather, it means that it is necessary to
>> identify the specific barriers to learning for that person, and find
>> alternative ways.” (p. 12)
>>
>>
>>
>> The Royal Society. (2011). Brain waves module 2: Neuroscience:
>> Implications for education and lifelong learning. Retrieved from
>> https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2011/4294975733.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>> (73) Giedd, J.N., & Rapoport, J.L. (2010). Structural MRI of pediatric
>> brain development: What have we learned and where are we going? *Neuron
>> 67*(5), 728–734.
>>
>> (74) Willcutt, E.G., Pennington, B.F., Duncan, .L, Smith, S.D., Keenan,
>> J.M., & Wadsworth, S., et al. (2010). Understanding the complex etiologies
>> of developmental disorders: Behavioral and molecular genetic approaches. *Journal
>> of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, **31*(7), 533–544.
>>
>> (75) For a discussion see
>> www.deevybee.blogspot.com/2010/09/genes-for-optimism-dyslexia-andobesity.html
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> “Working-memory training as currently implemented does not work. One
>> hundred years of research on basic memory phenomena has discovered many
>> procedures that do!” (p.190)
>>
>> McCabe1, J.A., Thomas S. Redick, T.S., & Engle, R.W. (2016).
>> Brain-training pessimism, but applied-memory optimism. *Psychological
>> Science in the Public Interest, 17*(3) 187–191. Retrieved from
>>
>> http://psi.sagepub.com/content/17/3/187.full.pdf+html
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> “Practicing a cognitive task consistently improves performance on that
>> task and closely related tasks, but the available evidence that such
>> training generalizes to other tasks or to real-world performance is not
>> compelling.” (p.173).
>>
>> Simons, D. J., Boot, W. R., Charness, N., Gathercole, S. E., Chabris, C.
>> F., Hambrick, D. Z., & Stine-Morrow, E. A. L. (2016). Do “brain training”
>> programs work? *Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 18*,
>> xxx–xxx. Retrieved from http://psi.sagepub.com/content/17/3/187
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> “It is important to keep in mind that reading is a uniquely human skill
>> that is explicitly taught over several years of formal schooling. During
>> this time, significant functional changes occur as a direct consequence of
>> learning to read, as has been shown with fMRI (Gaillard et al., 2003;
>> Schlaggar et al., 2002; Turkeltaub et al., 2003). However, reading does not
>> have a sufficiently long evolutionary history that would reserve dedicated
>> neural populations specifically to this skill. Therefore, reading makes use
>> of brain areas that were most likely dedicated to other functions, an idea
>> that has been captured in the ‘‘neuronal recycling hypothesis’’ (Dehaene et
>> al., 2010). As such, the process of learning to read most likely results in
>> diminishing of some skills, while at the same time promoting others. The
>> consequential outcomes of reading acquisition have been elegantly revealed
>> in studies contrasting literates with illiterates, demonstrating that the
>> profound anatomical and physiological effects that learning to read has on
>> the brain exist within and well beyond brain regions directly associated
>> with reading (Carreiras et al., 2009)”. (p.185)
>>
>>
>>
>> Olulade, O. A., Napoliello, E. M., & Eden, G. F. (2013). Abnormal visual
>> motion processing is not a cause of dyslexia. *Neuron, 79*(1), 180-190.
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> “One could conclude from this that … above average reading skills draw
>> more heavily and more consistently on left hemisphere mechanisms.… Average
>> and below-average readers, in contrast, draw more heavily on
>> right-hemisphere skills…. Above-average readers exhibit more hemisphere
>> differences than average readers, who, in turn, generate more hemisphere
>> differences than below-average readers”.
>>
>>
>>
>> Molfese, D. L., Key, A.F., Kelly, S., Cunningham, N., Terrell, S.,
>> Ferguson, M., Molfese, V.J., & Bonebright, T. (2006). Below-average,
>> average, and above-average readers engage different and similar brain
>> regions while reading. *Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39*(4),
>> 352-363.
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> “The large majority of neuroimaging studies investigating the
>> neurobiological correlates of poor reading have concentrated on lower-level
>> reading tasks involving letters and words. One of the most consistent
>> results in these studies is a finding of reduced or absent activation among
>> poor readers in the left parieto-temporal and/or occipito-temporal cortices
>> (e.g. Aylward et al., 2003
>> <http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T0D-4S4JYYC-1&_user=426478&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2008&_alid=754125903&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=4860&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=29&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cbc5da623a76662cd21cd4ebc84f5a70#bib1%23bib1>;
>> Brunswick, McCroy, Price, Frith, & Frith, 1999
>> <http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T0D-4S4JYYC-1&_user=426478&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2008&_alid=754125903&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=4860&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=29&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cbc5da623a76662cd21cd4ebc84f5a70#bib5%23bib5>;
>> [Corina et al., 2001]
>> <http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T0D-4S4JYYC-1&_user=426478&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2008&_alid=754125903&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=4860&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=29&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cbc5da623a76662cd21cd4ebc84f5a70#bib13%23bib13>,
>> [Eden et al., 2004]
>> <http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T0D-4S4JYYC-1&_user=426478&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2008&_alid=754125903&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=4860&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=29&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cbc5da623a76662cd21cd4ebc84f5a70#bib18%23bib18>,
>> [Georgiewa et al., 1999]
>> <http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T0D-4S4JYYC-1&_user=426478&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2008&_alid=754125903&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=4860&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=29&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cbc5da623a76662cd21cd4ebc84f5a70#bib21%23bib21>,
>> [Hoeft et al., 2006]
>> <http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T0D-4S4JYYC-1&_user=426478&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2008&_alid=754125903&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=4860&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=29&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cbc5da623a76662cd21cd4ebc84f5a70#bib23%23bib23>,
>> [Hoeft et al., 2007]
>> <http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T0D-4S4JYYC-1&_user=426478&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2008&_alid=754125903&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=4860&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=29&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cbc5da623a76662cd21cd4ebc84f5a70#bib24%23bib24>,
>> [Paulesu et al., 1996]
>> <http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T0D-4S4JYYC-1&_user=426478&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2008&_alid=754125903&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=4860&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=29&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cbc5da623a76662cd21cd4ebc84f5a70#bib36%23bib36>,
>> [Rumsey et al., 1992]
>> <http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T0D-4S4JYYC-1&_user=426478&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2008&_alid=754125903&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=4860&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=29&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cbc5da623a76662cd21cd4ebc84f5a70#bib39%23bib39>,
>> [Rumsey et al., 1997]
>> <http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T0D-4S4JYYC-1&_user=426478&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2008&_alid=754125903&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=4860&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=29&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cbc5da623a76662cd21cd4ebc84f5a70#bib40%23bib40>,
>> [Shaywitz et al., 1998]
>> <http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T0D-4S4JYYC-1&_user=426478&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2008&_alid=754125903&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=4860&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=29&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cbc5da623a76662cd21cd4ebc84f5a70#bib52%23bib52>,
>> [Shaywitz et al., 2002]
>> <http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T0D-4S4JYYC-1&_user=426478&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2008&_alid=754125903&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=4860&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=29&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cbc5da623a76662cd21cd4ebc84f5a70#bib47%23bib47>,
>> [Shaywitz et al., 2003]
>> <http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T0D-4S4JYYC-1&_user=426478&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2008&_alid=754125903&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=4860&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=29&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cbc5da623a76662cd21cd4ebc84f5a70#bib51%23bib51>
>> and [Shaywitz et al., 2004]
>> <http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T0D-4S4JYYC-1&_user=426478&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2008&_alid=754125903&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=4860&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=29&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cbc5da623a76662cd21cd4ebc84f5a70#bib46%23bib46>;
>> Simos, Breier, Fletcher, Bergman, & Papanicolaou, 2000
>> <http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T0D-4S4JYYC-1&_user=426478&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2008&_alid=754125903&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=4860&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=29&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cbc5da623a76662cd21cd4ebc84f5a70#bib55%23bib55>;
>> [Simos et al., 2002]
>> <http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T0D-4S4JYYC-1&_user=426478&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2008&_alid=754125903&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=4860&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=29&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cbc5da623a76662cd21cd4ebc84f5a70#bib56%23bib56>
>> and [Temple et al., 2003]
>> <http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T0D-4S4JYYC-1&_user=426478&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2008&_alid=754125903&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=4860&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=29&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cbc5da623a76662cd21cd4ebc84f5a70#bib58%23bib58>).
>> While only a few studies have examined cortical function among poor readers
>> in higher-level reading tasks, evidence is beginning to emerge indicating
>> that underactivation in the parieto-temporal and occipito-temporal regions
>> may likewise characterize poor readers when they are reading sentences for
>> comprehension (e.g. [Kronbichler et al., 2006]
>> <http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T0D-4S4JYYC-1&_user=426478&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2008&_alid=754125903&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=4860&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=29&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cbc5da623a76662cd21cd4ebc84f5a70#bib29%23bib29>,
>> [Meyler et al., 2007]
>> <http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T0D-4S4JYYC-1&_user=426478&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2008&_alid=754125903&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=4860&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=29&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cbc5da623a76662cd21cd4ebc84f5a70#bib32%23bib32>
>> and [Seki et al., 2001]
>> <http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T0D-4S4JYYC-1&_user=426478&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2008&_alid=754125903&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=4860&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=29&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cbc5da623a76662cd21cd4ebc84f5a70#bib44%23bib44>).
>> Together, the findings from word-level and sentence-level studies support
>> the view that underfunctioning of these regions represents a neural
>> signature of poor reading ability (e.g. Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2005
>> <http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T0D-4S4JYYC-1&_user=426478&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2008&_alid=754125903&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=4860&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=29&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cbc5da623a76662cd21cd4ebc84f5a70#bib49%23bib49>
>> ).
>>
>>
>>
>> Meyler, A., Keller, T.A., Cherkassky, V.L., Gabrieli, J.D., & Just, M.A.
>> (2008) Modifying the brain activation of poor readers during sentence
>> comprehension with extended remedial instruction: A longitudinal study of
>> neuroplasticity. *Neuropsychologia, 46*(10), 2580-92.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11 September 2018 at 13:19, Jim Cowardin <jimco66 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Bob, I think I responded to you directly instead of to “the List” as
>>> well. I forgot to check to see if the DI List was an addressee. I have
>>> added it this time.
>>>
>>> I am certainly not an expert on brain science. I am not an expert on
>>> much of anything. But I think it boils down to the brain scientists’ (BSs
>>> for Short, no pun intended) endeavor to show a causal relationship between
>>> learning activities and brain change-the brain gets larger in “the area
>>> that is receiving instruction.” I realize that this is your “in a nutshell”
>>> description of the phenomenon. But I can’t help but wonder how the BSs know
>>> what part of the brain is “learning.”  It gets larger, so does the new
>>> knowledge act like food to build new brain cells? Maybe I need to read the
>>> original research to find out what I am missing.
>>>
>>> One of the things you can try with explanations by cognitivists and BSs,
>>> who are both basing their science on hypothetical constructs is to leave
>>> their explanations out of their descriptions and see if what is left makes
>>> sense or even better sense. So let me rewrite your second paragraph:
>>> ...Mezernich has demonstrated in animal research that clear, consistent
>>> repetition without distraction leads to more specialization, speed and
>>> accuracy.  Da, da.
>>>
>>> What does it add to the situation that the brain enlarges somewhere?  We
>>> certainly cannot reverse the process and enlarge the brain (What material
>>> would we use?) and experience “more specialization, speed and accuracy” in
>>> some academic response. If you let us enlarge your brain, you will be much
>>> smarter. We could sell that and make Apple and Microsoft afterthoughts in
>>> the race for net worth.
>>>
>>> If your going to enlarge brains through teaching, you need to teach
>>> well, and it all comes down to the principles of DI.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 22:37 ROBERT <bhullinghorst at comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Jim:
>>>>
>>>> Basically, as I understand it as a layman, neuroplasticity is new
>>>> research demonstrating that the brain continuously manufactures new
>>>> neurons, and these plus existing neurons can modify their synapses in
>>>> response to training and other factors (like physical activity and
>>>> nutrition).  This contrasts with the general medical position that the
>>>> brain has fixed segments that cannot be changed.
>>>>
>>>> Most of the research focuses on treatment of brain disease.  However, a
>>>> California researcher, Merzenich, has demonstrated in animal research that
>>>> clear, consistent repetition without distraction enlarges that portion of
>>>> the brain receiving instruction.   This eventually is translated into more
>>>> specialization, more speed, and more accuracy.  Such brain changes have
>>>> also been identified in humans.
>>>>
>>>> While I have read little, yet, to connect Neuroplasticity to education
>>>> directly, there is a recent report in England that supports "rote
>>>> memorization" and memory development as superior to the model that has
>>>> plagued our education system for decades, overwhelming the research that
>>>> supports Zig's Direct Instruction mode.
>>>>
>>>> While I have read other authors, Norman Doige's books on
>>>> neuroplasticity  have been the core of my reading..
>>>>
>>>> I am responding to you directly.  I do not yet know how to participate
>>>> in the forum.
>>>>
>>>> Bob Hullinghorst
>>>> Boulder, CO
>>>> 9/10/18
>>>>
>>>> Sent from XFINITY Connect App
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------ Original Message ------
>>>>
>>>> From: Jim Cowardin
>>>> To: ROBERT
>>>> Sent: September 10, 2018 at 2:06 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: di: DI and Neuroplasticity?
>>>>
>>>> Bob, Please, define Neuroplasticity for me. I could take a guess
>>>> (Roughly, generalization), but I would like hear then ‘scientific’
>>>> description of the concept.
>>>>
>>>> Jim Cowardin
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 12:13 ROBERT <bhullinghorst at comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> For several months, I have been reading serious books and articles
>>>>> about Neuroplasticity.  While some of the information is too technical for
>>>>> me, and some is hokum, there seems to be much promise in the direction of
>>>>> this research.
>>>>>
>>>>> As a former public official, I have been similarly interested in
>>>>> Direct Instruction for more than a decade, because DI is the most promising
>>>>> route for making public education more successful for all students.  While
>>>>> I am not a teacher, I have attended DI classes and observed outstanding
>>>>> successes.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to begin my participation in the DI forum by positing a
>>>>> simple question--has there been research about how DI may relate to
>>>>> Neuroplasticity?
>>>>>
>>>>> The simple answer is probably NO.  Even though the unique, structured
>>>>> educational approach of DI may significantly support, or benefit from, the
>>>>> phenomena being uncovered by research on Neuroplastinity.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the answer is, in fact, NO, I would like to elaborate on my
>>>>> suspicions about the relationships between DI and neuroplasticity, and
>>>>> possible areas of research.  Unless too many members of the forum tell me I
>>>>> am crazy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob Hullinghorst
>>>>> Boulder, CO
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from XFINITY Connect App
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> di mailing list
>>>>> di at lists.uoregon.edu
>>>>> https://lists-prod.uoregon.edu/mailman/listinfo/di
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> di mailing list
>>> di at lists.uoregon.edu
>>>
>>
>>> https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/Ap4lCvl0NDhXnp1PTQx-vF?domain=lists-prod.uoregon.edu
>>> <https://lists-prod.uoregon.edu/mailman/listinfo/di>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>>
>> Kerry
>>
>> Dr Kerry Hempenstall
>> Senior Industry Fellow,
>> School of Education,
>> RMIT University,
>> Melbourne Australia
>>
> _______________________________________________
> di mailing list
> di at lists.uoregon.edu
> https://lists-prod.uoregon.edu/mailman/listinfo/di
>


-- 

Beth Lang

*Director/Founder*

Smart Sp*J*t Educational Services LLC

*484-935-1111*

www.smartspotlearning.com



*202 S. Third St. (Rt. 309)*

*Suite 2*

*Coopersburg, PA 18036*

*email: elizabethlang.bcba at gmail.com <elizabethlang.bcba at gmail.com>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists-prod.uoregon.edu/pipermail/di/attachments/20180913/16f062de/attachment-0001.html>