The neuroscience of education: More research is needed before application.

Abstract

In reply to Epstein (1990, this issue), McCall maintains that although the recent quantitative EEG data reviewed by Hudspeth and Pribram (1990, this issue) show growth spurts conforming to Epstein's phrenoblysis theory, more research, especially longitudinal and individual difference studies, is needed before application of the theory to educational practice is warranted. Furthermore, gross indices of brain growth (e.g., head circumference) and general mental performance (e.g., mental age or IQ) do not consistently follow the theory, and research should focus on more specific measures. Finally, few data exist demonstrating that brain growth periodization relates to practical mental and educational skills and performance in the same individual children. Such research is needed before alterations in educational curricula are considered and researched.There is nothing like a good set of data to dissolve academic arguments, and it appears that the data reviewed by Hudspeth and Pribram (1990, this issue, pp. 880-883) showing periodicity in the developmental patterns of quantified electroencephalograms (QEEG) for four areas of the brain validate the phrenoblysis hypothesis of Epstein (Epstein, 1974a(Epstein, , 1974b and thereby render irrelevant the disagreements between Epstein (1990, this issue, pp. 875-879) and me (McCall, 1988a;McCall, Meyers, Hartman, & Roche, 1983). Actually, however, I believe those data make it more, rather than less, necessary to consider some of the issues in this debate before curricula are changed and educational decisions are made for children on the basis of this concept.Briefly, Epstein (1974aEpstein ( , 1974b proposed that the brain grows in spurts (with peaks occurring between 3 and 10 months and between 2 and 4 years, 6 and 8 years, 10 and 12-13 years, and 14 and 16-17 years of age), that mental performance also grows in spurts that peak at the same ages, and that the spurts in brain growth are functionally related to the spurts in mental growth. He proposed that children are more likely to learn new material during the spurts than during the plateaus of growth and that perhaps new educational material and interventions (e.g., Head Start) should be introduced during the high-growth periods.In one of the few direct, comprehensive tests of this theory, McCall et al. (1983) analyzed a longitudinal sample assessed between 2.5 and 17 years of age and found minimum support for the hypothesized peaks in either head circumference or general mental performance growth rates and no evidence for their relationship in the entire sample or within individuals. I (McCall, 1988a) then reviewed and reanalyzed the mental performance growth data from the several studies that Epstein (1974b) had cited in support of his theory and found minimum evidence for the hypothesis, certainly not adequate to encourage application of the concept to educational settings.

Educational psychology: The Journal and the discipline.

“…A change in APA policy opened the door for this move, and the special sections provided a timely opportunity to support the policy. Examples appear in the articles by Zimmerman (1989) and Weiner (1990), as well as in the exchange between McCall (1988, 1990) and Epstein (1990; also Hudspeth & Pribram, 1990).…”