Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-14T11:48:28.789Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

25 - Linking Cognitive Neuroscientific Research to Educational Practice in the Classroom

from Part III - Education and School-Learning Domains

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2022

By
Nathan T. T. Lau  and
Daniel Ansari
Edited by
Olivier Houdé  and
Grégoire Borst
Olivier Houdé
Affiliation:
Université de Paris V
Grégoire Borst
Affiliation:
Université de Paris V
Get access

Summary

In the past three decades, cognitive neuroscience has made substantial progress toward the understanding of how brain areas are associated with essential classroom skills – such as reading and arithmetic. This growing knowledge has inspired the possibility that these findings can be used to improve educational policy and practices. Indeed, ample enthusiasm can be seen in the field from the surge of reviews and discussion papers highlighting cognitive neuroscientific findings that may be relevant to educational practice (e.g., Blakemore & Frith, 2005; Goswami, 2004), and with the establishment of the peer-reviewed journal, Mind, Brain, and Education, and an international society of the same name to promote research linking cognitive neuroscience with education.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Development , pp. 537 - 553
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agrillo, C., Piffer, L., Bisazza, A., & Butterworth, B. (2012). Evidence for two numerical systems that are similar in humans and guppies. PLoS ONE, 7, e31923.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anagnostou, E., & Taylor, M. J. (2011). Review of neuroimaging in autism spectrum disorders: What have we learned and where we go from here. Molecular Autism, 2, 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antell, S. E., & Keating, D. P. (1983). Perception of numerical invariance in neonates. Child Development, 54, 695–701.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beran, M. J., Decker, S., Schwartz, A., & Schultz, N. (2011a). Monkeys (Macaca mulatta and Cebus apella) and human adults and children (Homo sapiens) compare subsets of moving stimuli based on numerosity. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beran, M. J., Johnson-Pynn, J. S., & Ready, C. (2011b). Comparing children’s Homo sapiens and chimpanzees’ Pan troglodytes quantity judgments of sequentially presented sets of items. Current Zoology, 57, 419–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, S.-J., & Frith, U. (2005). The Learning Brain: Lessons for Education. Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell Publishing.Google ScholarPubMed
Bruer, J. T. (2016). Where is educational neuroscience? Educational Neuroscience, 1, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bugden, S., & Ansari, D. (2016). Probing the nature of deficits in the ‘approximate number system’ in children with persistent developmental dyscalculia. Developmental Science, 19, 817–833.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Butterworth, B. (2003). Dyscalculia Screener. Glasgow: NFER Nelson Publishing Company Ltd.Google Scholar
Butterworth, B. (2008). Developmental dyscalculia. In Reed, J., & Warner-Rogers, J. (eds.), Child Neuropsychology: Concepts, Theory, and Practice (pp. 357–374). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Cantlon, J. F., & Brannon, E. M. (2006). Shared system for ordering small and large numbers in monkeys and humans. Psychological Science, 17, 401–406.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., & Franke, M. L. (1996). Cognitively guided instruction: A knowledge base for reform in primary mathematics instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 97, 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, K. (1990). Teachers’ knowledge and learning to teach. Handbook of Research on Teacher Education, 2, 291–310.Google Scholar
Chen, Q., & Li, J. (2014). Association between individual differences in non-symbolic number acuity and math performance: A meta-analysis. Acta Psychologica, 148, 163–172.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chesney, D. L., & Haladjian, H. H. (2011). Evidence for a shared mechanism used in multiple-object tracking and subitizing. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73, 2457–2480.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Smedt, B., Verschaffel, L., & Ghesquière, P. (2009). The predictive value of numerical magnitude comparison for individual differences in mathematics achievement. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 103, 469–479.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dehaene, S. (2005). Evolution of human cortical circuits for reading and arithmetic: The “neuronal recycling” hypothesis. In Dehaene, S., Duhamel, J. R., Hauser, M., & Rizzolatti, G. (eds.), From Monkey Brain to Human Brain (pp. 133–157). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dehaene, S. (2007). Symbols and quantities in parietal cortex: Elements of a mathematical theory of number representation and manipulation. Sensorimotor Foundations of Higher Cognition, 22, 527–574.Google Scholar
Dehaene, S. (2008). Cerebral constraints in reading and arithmetic: Education as a “neuronal recycling” process. In Battro, A., Fischer, K., & Léna, P. (eds.), The Educated Brain: Essays in Neuroeducation (pp. 232–247). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dehaene, S., Piazza, M., Pinel, P., & Cohen, L. (2003). Three parietal circuits for number processing. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20, 487–506.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 53, 159–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyson, N. I., Jordan, N. C., & Glutting, J. (2013). A number sense intervention for low-income kindergartners at risk for mathematics difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46, 166–181.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eden, G. F., Olulade, O. A., Evans, T. M., Krafnick, A. J., & Alkire, D. R. (2016). Developmental dyslexia. In Hickok, G., & Small, S. L. (eds.), Neurobiology of Language (pp. 815–826). Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eger, E., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Amadon, A., Dehaene, S., & Kleinschmidt, A. (2009). Deciphering cortical number coding from human brain activity patterns. Current Biology, 19, 1608–1615.Google Scholar
Feigenson, L., Carey, S., & Hauser, M. (2002). The representations underlying infants’ choice of more: Object files versus analog magnitudes. Psychological Science, 13, 150–156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feigenson, L., Dehaene, S., & Spelke, E. (2004). Core systems of number. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 307–314.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geddis, A. N. (1993). Transforming subject‐matter knowledge: The role of pedagogical content knowledge in learning to reflect on teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 15, 673–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Pedagogical content knowledge: An introduction and orientation. In Gess-Newsome, J., & Lederman, N. G. (eds.), Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge (pp. 3–17). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Gilmore, C. K., Attridge, N., Clayton, S., Cragg, L., Johnson, S., Marlow, N., Simms, V., & Inglis, M. (2013). Individual differences in inhibitory control, not non-verbal number acuity, correlate with mathematics achievement. PLoS ONE, 8, e67374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilmore, C. K., McCarthy, S. E., & Spelke, E. S. (2010). Non-symbolic arithmetic abilities and mathematics achievement in the first year of formal schooling. Cognition, 115, 394–406.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goswami, U. (2004). Neuroscience and education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grossman, P. L. (1990). The Making of a Teacher: Teacher Knowledge and Teacher Education. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Gruber, O., Indefrey, P., Steinmetz, H., & Kleinschmidt, A. (2001). Dissociating neural correlates of cognitive components in mental calculation. Cerebral Cortex, 11, 350–359.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halberda, J., & Feigenson, L. (2008). Developmental change in the acuity of the ‘number sense’: The approximate number system in 3-, 4-, 5-, 6-year-olds and adults. Developmental Psychology, 44, 1457–1465.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halberda, J., Ly, R., Wilmer, J. B., Naiman, D. Q., & Germine, L. (2012). Number sense across the lifespan as revealed by a massive Internet-based sample. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), 109, 11116–11120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halberda, J., Mazzocco, M. M., & Feigenson, L. (2008). Individual differences in non-verbal number acuity correlate with maths achievement. Nature, 455, 665.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hashweh, M. Z. (2005). Teacher pedagogical constructions: A reconfiguration of pedagogical content knowledge. Teachers and Teaching, 11, 273–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawes, Z., Moss, J., Caswell, B., & Poliszczuk, D. (2015). Effects of mental rotation training on children’s spatial and mathematics performance: A randomized controlled study. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 4, 60–68.Google Scholar
Holloway, I. D., & Ansari, D. (2008). Domain‐specific and domain‐general changes in children’s development of number comparison. Developmental Science, 11, 644–649.Google Scholar
Holloway, I. D., Battista, C., Vogel, S. E., & Ansari, D. (2013). Semantic and perceptual processing of number symbols: Evidence from a cross-linguistic fMRI adaptation study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25, 388–400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Houde, O., Pineau, A., Leroux, G., Poirel, N., Perchey, G., Lanoë, C., Lubin, A., Turbelin, M. R., Rossi, S., Simon, G., Delcroix, N., Lamberton, F., Vigneau, M., Wisniewski, G., Vicet, J. R., & Mazoyer, B. (2012). Functional MRI study of Piaget’s conservation-of-number task in preschool and school-age children: A neo-Piagetian approach. International Journal of Psychology, 47, 332–346.Google Scholar
Hoyle, E., & John, P. D. (1995). Professional Knowledge and Professional Practice. London: Burns & Oates.Google Scholar
Inglis, M., Attridge, N., Batchelor, S., & Gilmore, C. K. (2011). Non-verbal number acuity correlates with symbolic mathematics achievement: But only in children. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 1222–1229.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jang, S., & Cho, S. (2016). The acuity for numerosity (but not continuous magnitude) discrimination correlates with quantitative problem solving but not routinized arithmetic. Current Psychology, 35, 44–56.Google Scholar
Kucian, K., Grond, U., Rotzer, S., Henzi, B., Schönmann, C., Plangger, F., Gälli, M., Martin, E., & von Aster, M. (2011). Mental number line training in children with developmental dyscalculia. Neuroimage, 57, 782–795.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Landerl, K., Fussenegger, B., Moll, K., & Willburger, E. (2009). Dyslexia and dyscalculia: Two learning disorders with different cognitive profiles. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 103, 309–324.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Libertus, M. E., Feigenson, L., & Halberda, J. (2011). Preschool acuity of the approximate number system correlates with school math ability. Developmental Science, 14, 1292–1300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lyons, I. M., & Beilock, S. L. (2011). Numerical ordering ability mediates the relation between number-sense and arithmetic competence. Cognition, 121, 256–261.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In Gess-Newsome, J., & Lederman, N. G. (eds.), Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge (pp. 95–132). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Mason, C. (1999). The TRIAD approach: A consensus for science teaching and learning. In In Gess-Newsome, J., & Lederman, N. G. (eds.), Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge (pp. 277–292). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Mazzocco, M. M., Feigenson, L., & Halberda, J. (2011). Preschoolers’ precision of the approximate number system predicts later school mathematics performance. PLoS ONE, 6, e23749.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mussolin, C., Nys, J., Content, A., & Leybaert, J. (2014). Symbolic number abilities predict later approximate number system acuity in preschool children. PLoS ONE, 9, e91839.Google Scholar
Nieder, A., & Dehaene, S. (2009). Representation of number in the brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 32, 185–208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nosworthy, N., Bugden, S., Archibald, L., Evans, B., & Ansari, D. (2013). A two-minute paper-and-pencil test of symbolic and nonsymbolic numerical magnitude processing explains variability in primary school children’s arithmetic competence. PLoS ONE, 8, e67918.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nys, J., Ventura, P., Fernandes, T., Querido, L., Leybaert, J., & Content, A. (2013). Does math education modify the approximate number system? A comparison of schooled and unschooled adults. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 2, 13–22.Google Scholar
Park, J., & Brannon, E. M. (2014). Improving arithmetic performance with number sense training: An investigation of underlying mechanism. Cognition, 133, 188–200.Google Scholar
Peng, P., Yang, X., & Meng, X. (2017). The relation between approximate number system and early arithmetic: The mediation role of numerical knowledge. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 157, 111–124.Google Scholar
Petersen, S. E., Fox, P. T., Posner, M. I., Mintun, M., & Raichle, M. E. (1988). Positron emission tomographic studies of the cortical anatomy of single-word processing. Nature, 331, 585.Google Scholar
Piazza, M., Pinel, P., Le Bihan, D., & Dehaene, S. (2007). A magnitude code common to numerosities and number symbols in human intraparietal cortex. Neuron, 53, 293–305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pickering, S. J., & Howard‐Jones, P. (2007). Educators’ views on the role of neuroscience in education: Findings from a study of UK and international perspectives. Mind, Brain, and Education, 1, 109–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, G. R., & Fuchs, L. S. (2016). The mediating relation between symbolic and nonsymbolic foundations of math competence. PLoS ONE, 11, e0148981.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rugani, R., Fontanari, L., Simoni, E., Regolin, L., & Vallortigara, G. (2009). Arithmetic in newborn chicks. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 276, 2451–2460.Google Scholar
Sasanguie, D., De Smedt, B., Defever, E., & Reynvoet, B. (2012). Association between basic numerical abilities and mathematics achievement. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 30, 344–357.Google Scholar
Sasanguie, D., Göbel, S., Moll, K., Smets, K., & Reynvoet, B. (2013). Acuity of the approximate number sense, symbolic number comparison or mapping numbers onto space: What underlies mathematics achievement? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 114, 418–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sasanguie, D., Lyons, I. M., De Smedt, B., & Reynvoet, B. (2017). Unpacking symbolic number comparison and its relation with arithmetic in adults. Cognition, 165, 26–38.Google Scholar
Schwab, J. J. (1982). Science, Curriculum, and Liberal Education: Selected Essays. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sella, F., Tressoldi, P., Lucangeli, D., & Zorzi, M. (2016). Training numerical skills with the adaptive videogame “The Number Race”: A randomized controlled trial on preschoolers. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 5, 20–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shalev, R. S., Manor, O., & Gross-Tsur, V. (2005). Developmental dyscalculia: A prospective six-year follow-up. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 47, 121–125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.Google Scholar
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegler, R. S., Fazio, L. K., Bailey, D. H., & Zhou, X. (2013). Fractions: The new frontier for theories of numerical development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17, 13–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soltanlou, M., Artemenko, C., Dresler, T., Haeussinger, F. B., Fallgatter, A. J., Ehlis, A.-C., & Nuerk, H.-C. (2017). Increased arithmetic complexity is associated with domain-general but not domain-specific magnitude processing in children: A simultaneous fNIRS-EEG study. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 17, 724–736.Google Scholar
Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W., & Henningsen, M. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 455–488.Google Scholar
Supekar, K., Swigart, A. G., Tenison, C., Jolles, D. D., Rosenberg-Lee, M., Fuchs, L., & Menon, V. (2013). Neural predictors of individual differences in response to math tutoring in primary-grade school children. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), 110, 8230–8235.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Träff, U. (2013). The contribution of general cognitive abilities and number abilities to different aspects of mathematics in children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116, 139–156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Marle, K., Chu, F. W., Li, Y., & Geary, D. C. (2014). Acuity of the approximate number system and preschoolers’ quantitative development. Developmental Science, 17, 492–505.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vanbinst, K., Ansari, D., Ghesquière, P., & De Smedt, B. (2016). Symbolic numerical magnitude processing is as important to arithmetic as phonological awareness is to reading. PLoS ONE, 11, e0151045.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xenidou-Dervou, I., Molenaar, D., Ansari, D., van der Schoot, M., & van Lieshout, E. C. (2017). Nonsymbolic and symbolic magnitude comparison skills as longitudinal predictors of mathematical achievement. Learning and Instruction, 50, 1–13.Google Scholar
Xu, F., & Spelke, E. S. (2000). Large number discrimination in 6-month-old infants. Cognition, 74, B1–B11.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×