Dyscalculia: From Brain to Education

Butterworth, Brian; Varma, Sashank; Laurillard, Diana

doi:10.1126/science.1201536

Cited by 595 publications

(425 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

376

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, the neuroscience is often taken to support the claim that remediation programs in mathematics should target the number sense. For instance, Butterworth et al (2011) argue that instruction in set enumeration (naming the number of items in a set) and comparison (comparing the number of items in different EDUCATIONAL NEUROSCIENCE 11 sets to decide which set has more) should be emphasized. This is in line with pervious suggestions by Gelman and Gallistel (1978) based on behavioral data, and there is no indication how the neuroscience provides any additional insight into how instruction should be designed.…”

Section: )mentioning

confidence: 99%

The practical and principled problems with educational neuroscience.

Bowers¹

2016

Psychological Review

192

132

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The core claim of educational neuroscience is that neuroscience can improve teaching in the classroom. Many strong claims are made about the successes and the promise of this new discipline. By contrast, I show that there are no current examples of neuroscience motivating new and effective teaching methods, and argue that neuroscience is unlikely to improve teaching in the future. The reasons are twofold. First, in practice, it is easier to characterize the cognitive capacities of children on the basis of behavioral measures than on the basis of brain measures. As a consequence, neuroscience rarely offers insights into instruction above and beyond psychology. Second, in principle, the theoretical motivations underpinning educational neuroscience are misguided, and this makes it difficult to design or assess new teaching methods on the basis of neuroscience. Regarding the design of instruction, it is widely assumed that remedial instruction should target the underlying deficits associated with learning disorders, and neuroscience is used to characterize the deficit. However, the most effective forms of instruction may often rely on developing compensatory (nonimpaired) skills. Neuroscience cannot determine whether instruction should target impaired or nonimpaired skills. More importantly, regarding the assessment of instruction, the only relevant issue is whether the child learns, as reflected in behavior. Evidence that the brain changed in response to instruction is irrelevant. At the same time, an important goal for neuroscience is to characterize how the brain changes in response to learning, and this includes learning in the classroom. Neuroscientists cannot help educators, but educators can help neuroscientists.

show abstract

Section: )mentioning

confidence: 99%

The practical and principled problems with educational neuroscience.

Bowers¹

2016

Psychological Review

192

132

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Butterworth et al (2011) with an approach "that emulates the manipulative tasks used by SEN teachers" and is based on well-known pedagogical principles of requiring an action to achieve a goal, informative feedback, and intrinsic reinforcement, working adaptively within the 'zone of proximal development' (Vygotsky, 1962). Similar approaches, combining targets defined by EN with pedagogic principles have been deployed in helping dyscalculics (Kuhn, Holling, Raddatz, & Dobel, 2014).…”

Section: En Aims To Motivate Educational Thinking and Practice Througmentioning

confidence: 99%

The principles and practices of educational neuroscience: Comment on Bowers (2016).

Howard-Jones

Varma

Ansari

et al. 2016

Psychological Review

Self Cite

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In his recent critique of Educational Neuroscience, Bowers argues that neuroscience has no role to play in informing education, which he equates with classroom teaching. Neuroscience, he suggests, adds nothing to what we can learn from psychology. In this commentary, we argue that Bowers' assertions misrepresent the nature and aims of the work in this new field. We suggest that, by contrast, psychological and neural levels of explanation complement rather than compete with each other. Bowers' analysis also fails to include a role for educational expertise -a guiding principle of our new field. On this basis, we conclude that his critique is potentially misleading.We set out the well-documented goals of research in Educational Neuroscience, and show how, in collaboration with educators, significant progress has already been achieved, with the prospect of even greater progress in the future.

show abstract

“…Neuroimaging studies demonstrate the neural correlates of mathematical difficulties and disabilities (e.g., developmental dyscalculia; Butterworth et al 2011). At the other end of the continuum, research has also demonstrated connections between intelligence and brain activity related to different cognitive tasks.…”

Section: Individual Differences Reflected In Structural and Functionamentioning

confidence: 99%

How Can Cognitive Neuroscience Contribute to Mathematics Education? Bridging the Two Research Areas

Лейкин

2018

Invited Lectures From the 13th International Congress on Mathematical Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper, which describes neurocognitive studies that focus on mathematical processing, demonstrates the value that both mathematics education research and neuroscience research can derive from the integration of these two areas of research. It includes a brief overview of neuroimaging research related to mathematical processing. I base my claim that cognitive neuroscience and mathematics education are still two tangent areas of research on a brief comparison of these two fields, with a particular spotlight on research goals, conceptions, and tools. Through a close look at several studies, I outline possible directions in which mathematics education and educational neuroscience can capitalize on each other. Mathematics education can contribute to the stages of research design, while neuroscience can validate theories in mathematics education and advance the interpretation of the research results. To make such an integration successful, collaboration between mathematics educators and neuroscientists is crucial.

show abstract

Dyscalculia: From Brain to Education

Cited by 595 publications

References 62 publications

The practical and principled problems with educational neuroscience.

The practical and principled problems with educational neuroscience.

The principles and practices of educational neuroscience: Comment on Bowers (2016).

How Can Cognitive Neuroscience Contribute to Mathematics Education? Bridging the Two Research Areas

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About