How Effective are Diversion Programs on Juvenile Delinquents Assignment | Essay Help Services

The emerging role of educational neuroscience in education reform
Janet N. Zadina∗
Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, U.S.A.
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 19 June 2015
Accepted 28 August 2015
Available online 1 October 2015
Keywords:
Neuroscience
Education
Teaching
Learning
a b s t r a c tIn the early 90s a movement began in education called “brain-based learning” that attempted to linkneuroscience and education. However, many in both science and education felt it was untenable to makethis leap. While early attempts to bridge the fields sparked controversy, it can now be argued that neuro-science does have a role to play in education reform. This paper explores suggestions for the appropriatetraining of the Educational Neuroscientist, broad interventions based on Educational Neuroscience thatcould reform curriculum, and emerging ways the Educational Neuroscientist can inform professionaldevelopment of educators.© 2015 Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. on behalf of Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid. Thisis an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).El papel emergente de la neurociencia educativa en la reforma de la educaciónPalabras clave:NeurocienciaEducaciónEnse˜nanzaAprendizajer e s u m e nA principios de los a˜nos 90 surgió un movimiento en educación llamado “aprendizaje basado en el cerebro”que trataba de unir neurociencia y educación. No obstante, muchas personas tanto en ciencia como eneducación, pensaban que no era viable dar tal salto. Mientras que los primeros intentos por tender puentesentre estos campos suscitó controversia, puede decirse ahora que la neurociencia sí tiene un papel quejugar en la reforma de la educación. Este artículo explora propuestas para el adecuado entrenamiento delneurocientífico educativo, intervenciones amplias sustentadas en la neurociencia educativa que podríanreformar el currículum y de qué nuevas maneras podría contribuir neurocientífico educativo al desarrolloprofesional de los educadores.© 2015 Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. en nombre de Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid.Este es un artículo Open Access bajo la licencia CC BY-NC-ND(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).It has been over 20 years since “brain-based learning” emerged,initiated by teachers to make inferences from findings in neuro-science to classroom practice. Bruer (1997) called this movement a“bridge too far” because the practitioners were lacking in scientificunderstanding and making untenable leaps (Fischer, Goswami, &Geake, 2010; Goswami, 2006; Pickering & Howard-Jones, 2007).Scientists began joining the movement to inform professionaldevelopment, but lacked classroom teaching experience, especiallyK-12. The field was treated both with skepticism and with com-petitiveness, as educational psychologists, cognitive psychologists,∗Corresponding author. Department of Neurology. Tulane University School ofMedicine. New Orleans, L.A., USA.E-mail address: jzadinal@tulane.edueducators, neurologists, and neuroscientists debated who shouldadvise educators. Others felt that a bridge between the fieldsshould not exist at all (James S. McDonnell Foundation, 2007).Debate and discussion ensued (Blakemore, 2005; Byrnes, 2001;Della Sala & Anderson, 2012; Fischer, 2009; Howard-Jones, 2010;Royal Society, 2007; Tokuhama-Espinosa, 2010).As the movement gained popularity, cross-talk began emergingbetween disciplines. Publications and presentations by scientiststo teachers informed educators in more depth, leading to morecredibility, although neuromyths still persisted. Now, almost twodecades after Bruer’s “bridge too far”, a credible bridge is beingmade between neuroscience and education, including Master’sand PhD programs being offered in Educational Neuroscience.However, these programs are inconsistent in recruitment, qua-lifications, and training. School systems and universities are not
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pse.2015.08.005
1135-755X/© 2015 Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. on behalf of Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

72 J.N. Zadina / Psicología Educativa 21 (2015) 71–77
recognizing this new field of expertise and seeking input and,instead, get information from those unqualified in either neuro-science or K-16 education. Neuroscientists lament that we knowcertain things about how to improve learning but the field of edu-cation is not responding. “Brain” presenters are hired for keynotesand professional development with no experience or credentialsin neuroscience. Neuromyths still abound (Howard-Jones, 2014).A clearer conception of the definition and training of an Educa-tional Neuroscientist, awareness of curriculum interventions thatare well-supported by research, and examples of potential edu-cational professional development from neuroscience that couldlead to educational reform can help us strengthen and advance thisbridge between education and neuroscience.As someone with credentials and experience in both fields andwho has presented to teachers at events with other teachersand scientists, I can see across both sides of this bridge. Scientistsbelieve they are the ones qualified to speak to teachers about trans-lating the research while teachers believe that they can better makeimplications for the classroom. Educational psychologists believethey are more qualified. And so the turf battle continues. How-ever, the issue is not just what we know, but what are we goingto do?We need perspectives from research and practice to reformeducation. Has neuroscience revealed interventions to reduce theachievement gap?Can we credibly conduct professional develop-ment on the brain and learning?As with any new field of endeavor,there is a shake-out period where initial enthusiasm may lead toovergeneralizations, but as we come to recognize this field of Edu-cational Neuroscience as an authentic field, training will improveand information will flow both ways, such that both research andpractice benefit.What will constitute a credible and authentic field?An edito-rial in Nature Neuroscience (The science of education reform, 2006)argues that all translational efforts should be reviewed as rigor-ously as other basic science findings and compares translating intoimplications for educational practice to drug company regulatoryprocesses involving large clinical trials. To what standard shouldEducational Neuroscience be held? Teaching is not as much likemedicine as it is the practice of psychology. For example, if psy-chologists recommend the technique of “reframing” as a viable toolin the psychologists’ toolbox, is this based on large clinical trials?Teaching is an art and a science. We cannot underestimate the abil-ity of good teachers to take this information and use it wisely aspart of their background knowledge and their strategy toolbox forreaching diverse and struggling learners.Defining and Training the Educational NeuroscientistTo support this bridge, we need a specialist with a foot on eachside, a hybrid (Howard-Jones, 2010), with both experience and cre-dentials in both neuroscience and education, as one alone is notsufficient. Scientists have two inherent weaknesses. First, I havebeen told repeatedly by educators that scientists have difficultyspeaking to teachers, although some are outstanding speakers.There is a standard method of presenting scientific information atconferences and many use that presentation style with teachers,failing to understand the teachers’ perspectives and needs or the“cultural conditions and concepts of education” as Paul Howard-Jones calls it (Howard-Jones, 2014). Secondly, they have not taughtunmotivated or struggling learners – earlygrades, high school, orcollege developmental courses. They can’t make a leap into practiceif they have not practiced in this field (Pickering & Howard-Jones,2007). “Translational efforts should be guided by determining whatproblems teachers currently face in the classroom, and should beevaluated based in part on their experience of what works” (Thescience of education reform, 2006).Teachers, on the other hand, can innocently make untenableand unquestioned leaps from research to practice because they areusually not reading the scientific body of literature, but are gettinginformation second and third hand, learning from a presenter whomay have learned from a presenter or read a few books written forlay audiences or basic science articles they can’t understand with-out the broader information. Recently I was asked to co-presentwith another “brain research presenter” at a conference. I askedher what her training in neuroscience was and got this response:I have been a. . . teacher for (redacted) years. I fell into presentingbrain research just two years ago after becoming fascinated by theresearch and adding it to one of my presentations… Apparently, thatpart intrigued many and I have been asked to do presentations onit since.I looked at her information, and it contained incorrect informa-tion with untenable leaps, but the audiences are enthralled withbrain terms and would not know the difference. The scientificallyuntrained often fail to realize what research was done on animalsor what studies are so limited as to be useless in translation. Theycan’t answer questions in a credible way without a broad knowl-edge of the scientific body of literature and without having beenexposed to scientific discourse, ways of thinking and critiquing,and limitations in design and execution of neurobiological research.Otherwise, neuromyths get perpetuated, teachers are taught strate-gies that are not credible, or the new information is not conveyedin a way that informs educators’ understanding and practice. How-ever, with proper education and lab experience, they would be ableto do this.What we need is a blend of all of these currently competingspecialties – a person educated across disciplines (Howard-Jones,2010). The issue is not whether neuroscience information can betranslated, but how we are training people to do this translation.An overarching and consistent view of the requirements and roleof the educational neuroscientist is required in order to move fromresearch to practice in a useful and credible manner. If we are goingto take this new field seriously, then a new training program mustbe developed that is as rigorous as the training for other specialties,and not just providing a few cross-disciplinary courses to someonetrained in either education or science. For example, in some institu-tions the training begins with scientists who then are taught someeducation theory. As explained earlier, this has limitations. Twostrands are necessary, recruiting both scientists and teachers in arigorous program of cross-training.The training of scientists must include a student teachingpracticum, and not in specialized laboratory schools which areoften associated with a university and high socioeconomic statusstudents, but in the trenches of schools with poverty and strugglinglearners, with a teacher in the program as a guide. Alternatively,experienced classroom teachers would be put through a special-ized neuroscience program, conducting research in a neurosciencelab with a scientist in the program. Many rigorous educationalprograms require a practicum, and so should this program. The pro-gram should include literature from both domains and discussion ingroups consisting of scientists and educators to share perspectivesand styles of thinking and speaking. I am guessing that both scien-tists and educators may balk at this rigorous program, but betterto have fewer well-trained and credentialed Educational Neuro-scientists than having a valuable new discipline deemed as notcredible or effective. Graduates then have credentials and expe-rience in both education and neuroscience. They can see researchthrough the eyes of a teacher and teaching through the eyes of aresearcher.Dual perspectives and experiences would provide valuableinsight into scientific and educational research design (Fischer,2009; Fischer et al., 2010; Hinton & Fischer, 2008) as well as imple-mentation of new insights to education reform. Research questions

are limited by our perceptions and educators can help formulate thequestions as well as expand the perspectives from which a problemis viewed. For example, when I was in the lab researching develop-mental dyslexia, I pointed out that, as a prior reading teacher, thereare more difficulties with reading than phonological dyslexia andwanted to investigate subtypes, which had not been done at thetime. In a small pilot study, we looked at subtypes and found someinteresting differences in anatomical measurements (Zadina et al.,2006; Zadina, Corey, Cusick, Lemen, & Foundas, 2005). Recently,new research on reading subtypes is emerging and findings couldlead to specific individualized strategies in the classroom. This is theadvantage of having input from both science and education if we areresearching learning. Experience with struggling readers and learn-ers is essential to design meaningful scientific research on learning.A literature review of previous scientific studies is necessary but notsufficient.Informing Curriculum ChoicesCritics argue that it is too early for Educational Neuroscientists toinform curriculum, but who is making curriculum decisions now?Politicians? Money interests? I argue that it should be an Educa-tional Neuroscientist capable of blending education, psychology,and neuroscience. What would be the best alternative? If not now,when? I argue that we have reached the tipping point.A significant body of literature on the neuroscience of learninghas developed in the last decade. Scientists moved beyond studyingonly what had clinical implications and began looking at the effectsof bilingualism, the arts, and physiology on the normal brain andon the underlying components of learning. This research is nowsubstantial enough to warrant curriculum reform in several areas,including the impact of language learning, exercise, the arts, andsleep on learning. This is not the forum for an extensive literaturereview on these topics. A few important examples are offered asevidence that we are ready to cross this bridge.The research on language and on second language learning andthe brain indicates the importance of early language learning forlater language learning, improved reading skill, achievement, gen-eral cognition, and brain health. Yet most students in the UnitedStates are not exposed to a foreign language until high school, for-eign language is not compulsory, and bilingual education is oftenterminated early.Poverty and low socioeconomic status (SES) has been implicatedas an important factor in the achievement gap, a serious educationalissue. Petitto and Dunbar (2008) found, in a study of monolin-gual children, that the lowest SES monolingual children put into abilingual 50/50 program outperformed the high SES who were notplaced into the bilingual program. It ameliorated the typically neg-ative low SES effects on achievement. In a related study, Petitto’s lab(Petitto et al., 2012) showed that dual language exposure in infantsgives them a language processing advantage that may aid languageand reading development in childhood. Kuhl, Williams, Lacerda,Stevens, and Lindblom (1992) reported the importance of childrenhearing sounds of another language before six months of age tofacilitate later learning of that language. Delaying language learninguntil high school may negatively impact grammatical processing inthe new language (Flege & Fletcher, 1992; Neville & Bruer, 2001).Clearly, the imperative is to start second language exposure early.Increasing evidence indicates that being bilingual creates a bet-ter brain overall, including better executive function (Bialystok,2001; Krizman, Marian, Shook, Skoe, & Kraus, 2012). Being raisedbilingual may improve working memory (Blom, Kuntay, Messer,Verhagen, & Lesseman, 2014), a skill critical to achievement inreading, writing, and math. We can no longer ignore some of theimportant findings and the implication that dual language instruc-tion is beneficial and necessary.A common curriculum choice when cutting budgets is to cut artsinstruction. Emerging neuroscience literature is showing the pos-itive effects of art instruction on the brain and learning. An earlyand growing body of research reports the effects of musical train-ing on both cognition and achievement. This is not to be confusedwith the Mozart Effect that involved listening to music, but rathertraining in learning to play a musical instrument. Selective atten-tion, important for learning, has been shown to be enhanced inmusicians (Schellenberg, 2005). Petitto (2008) found that studentswith music expertise learned a second language more proficientlyand speculates that music training may confer long-term cognitiveadvantage. A study from Vanderbilt indicated that music train-ing may enhance creative thinking, a skill that we can all agreeis necessary for the 21st century (Gibson, Folley, & Park, 2009).The researchers also found that musicians had higher IQ scoresthan non-musicians, supporting other earlier studies that indicatethat intensive musical training is positively associated with ver-bal intelligence, language, and executive function (Moreno, Friesen,& Bialystok, 2011), overall memory skills (Franklin, Moore, Yip,Jonides, & Rattray, 2008), superior skills in reading (Piro & Ortiz,2009), and math (Wandell, Dougherty, Ben-Shachar, Deutsch, &Tsang, 2008). Increasing evidence that the ability to clearly hearsounds is linked to reading ability as shown in Nina Kraus’ lab indi-cates that music may help the developing auditory system, thusaffecting reading ability (Carr, White-Schwoch, Tierney, Strait, &Kraus, 2014). Being informed by neuroscience research would haveallowed education administrators to make better choices.Another area in which budget cuts have led to some unfortunatecurriculum decisions is the area of recess and physical education.Some schools are cutting recess even at the pre-kindergarten level.Schools cut physical education time and yet there is no evidencethat taking time for this negatively impacts academic performance(Trudeau & Shephard, 2008). There is evidence that exercise helpscognition, however. A study showed that 3 minutes of aerobicexercise improved both short and long term memory (Winteret al., 2007). Sibley and Etnier (2003) and Hillman, Erickson, andFramer (2008) saw a positive relationship between physical activityand school achievement, including standardized test scores. Ratey(2008), Coe, Pivarnik, Womack, Reeves, and Malina (2006), andHillman et al. (2008) found that the better grade school childrenperformed on physical tests, the better they scored on achievementtests, regardless of SES. This research suggests ways in which we canimprove the life and learning ability of our students far more thana focus simply on academic content. As Helen Neville (2012) sug-gests, interventions that enhance plasticity should be determined.Exercise appears to do that.As early as 2001, I spoke with a principal in Louisiana whochanged school start times based on research that showed thatadolescent sleep patterns were different and that they needed latemorning sleep for better learning (Carskadon, 1981, 1990; Dewald,2010; Hagenauer, 2009; Hansen, 2005; Mitru, 2002). This is anexcellent example of basic research informing educational reform.Unfortunately, we have not seen much reform in this direction.These findings from neuroscience could lead to top-down cur-riculum reform if administrators are made aware of the researchand make changes. School officials need credible sources that cansynthesize the research and argue for important changes.Informing Professional Development and ClassroomStrategiesThe question remains unresolved as to whether Educational

74 J.N. Zadina / Psicología Educativa 21 (2015) 71–77
there is no direct relationship (Szucs, 2007) or that applicationsof research have not been rigorously reviewed (The science ofeducation reform, 2006). I agree that we may not quite be at thepoint of direct implications in all cases, but that does not rule outthe value that insights from neuroscience can bring. I agree thatwe should require rigorous studies on interventions that may bepromoted by for-profit companies or required for all students. If acompany is going to sell educational programs to schools then anyclaims made must be backed up by rigorous testing. But what aboutour overall understanding of best practices? What have we basedour classroom practices on in the past? We have been trained touse education and psychology theory and research and our expe-rience with learners. I argue that having an understanding of basicneuroscience research on learning and underlying components oflearning is as essential as the study of child development or edu-cational psychology or any other aspect of teacher training. Just asdoctors and psychologists attend professional development work-shops to stay up to date, so must educators stay up to date on whatwe are learning about the brain, emotions, motivation, and physiol-ogy from scientific research. This information can inform our actualpractices in the classroom in the form of our understanding of stu-dents and our ability to design and execute lessons that are moreeffective.However, I am still seeing neuromyths and false informationpresented to teachers because those who hire the “brain researchpresenter” are not checking credentials. Because those hiring pre-senters for conferences or professional development often do soon the basis of presentation skills and audience response, ratherthan an examination of credentials, this field continues to get abad name and perpetuate misinformation. The person hiring andthe audience are misled by the use of brain terminology and pre-sentation skills and do not have enough knowledge of the body ofscientific literature to recognize incorrect information. To stop thispractice and make this a legitimate field, we need credentialingprograms and those in the field of education need to know that thebrain is complex and that “reading the research” is not sufficientbackground.When presented by properly trained presenters, we can makethis leap from research to professional development and severaltrends emerge. Some of the practices elucidated and supportedby neuroscience have been proposed by educational theorists andby good teachers long before neuroscience validated, explained,or showed the importance of them. Teachers can feel validatedand supported in continuing these practices. In other cases, welook at our practices in a new light and make appropriate modi-fications based on a new understanding. Educational Neurosciencecan provide us with new strategies as well as indicate that per-haps some of our current strategies need to be eliminated in lightof better information.An educational neuroscientist with actual teaching backgroundmay see classroom strategies suggested by even basic research. Forexample, neuroscience research seems to indicate that using one’sfingers to learn to count may be an important developmental step(Goswami, 2006). The brain may be mentally using finger represen-tation in the brain as a child does when learning math. Noel (2005)found that being able to tell which fingers were being touched(finger gnosis) was a strong predictor of mathematical ability inchildren and adults. Kaufmann et al. (2008) suggested not discour-aging use of fingers when learning or struggling with math anddeveloped an intervention for children and adults with mathemat-ical difficulty based on this knowledge. Does this intervention needrigorous testing or is it another tool in our toolbox? If we say that allstudents must be taught in this manner, then we must defend that.But if neuroscience indicates potential alternatives for addressingstruggling learners, then we have one more option. Something likethis also prevents us from telling a child that he or she is too old touse their fingers because we realize they may be working through adevelopmental stage in which they are behind. This simple exampleis offered to illustrate that this type of information can add to ourunderstanding of students and to our toolbox of strategies, even ifit is not an “intervention” or a widespread policy derived from neu-roscience. When teachers understand more about developmentalstages and learning differences illuminated through neuroimag-ing studies, this can affect their attitudes and their practices andpotentially lead to better outcomes for students (Hornstra, 2010;Howard-Jones, 2014).Deeper and broader implications can be derived from sub-stantial bodies of literature on processes underlying thinking andlearning that are invisible to classroom teachers. Understandingthese processes can help educators explore alternative or targetedinterventions. Previously, for example, if a student couldn’t doarithmetic, teachers might just “drill and kill,” hoping that enoughrepetition and practice would break through the barrier and thechild would finally “get it.” Teachers lament the student who canpronounce every word, but fails to comprehend a paragraph. Recentbrain imaging studies have shown that several mental processesunderlie these tasks.For example, some issues that appear to be math or readingcomprehension problems are actually working memory problems.Mazzocco, Feigenson, and Halberda (2011) investigated the roleof working memory in mathematical performance and discoveredthat some students quickly forget verbal information or can’t holdinformation long enough in working memory to complete a mathproblem. The same holds true for long sentences or passages inreading. Rather than teachers simply drilling on the skill itself withstudents who do not make progress, they can also address a poten-tial underlying source – poor working memory capacity. Trainingthat improves working memory capacity would be more effectivethan having students only practicing the mathematical problemsthat they could not execute due to a deficit not directly relatedto math concepts per se. Jaeggi’s lab (Jaeggi, Buschkuehl, Jonides,& Perrig, 2008) found that “fluid intelligence can be improved byrehearsing a working memory task.”Research using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)shows more demand on working memory when students are ini-tially learning, when the cognitive load is higher, than later in thelearning process (Chein & Schneider, 2005). Teachers understand-ing cognitive load theory can teach differently, allocating more timeearly in the process than later and designing lessons in ways thataddress the effects of cognitive load and working memory limita-tions.Working memory is closely related to a second underlying pro-cess, that of attention. Giuliano and Neville (2011) reported thatworking memory capacity was predicted by the ability to con-trol attention, suggesting the importance of attention trainingto improve memory functions related to achievement. Evidencesuggests the value of classroom strategies aimed at improvingattention. Helen Neville’s lab (Stevens et al., 2011) gave preschoolchildren attention training daily and IQ measures went up andmeasures of attention improved significantly. Education researchhas long shown a positive correlation between socioeconomic sta-tus (SES) and achievement (Sirin, 2005). Neville (2012) found thatafter attention training, low SES students looked like high SES stu-dents in achievement. She draws the implication for education thatinvesting in preschool attention training gives a better return oninvestment dollars than remediation later in the education pro-cess. Posner’s lab (Rueda, Rothbart, McCandliss, Saccomanno, &Posner, 2005) also found that attention training generalized toimprovement on intelligence tests. Attention training may leadto improvement in classroom behavior by enabling children toimprove in conflict resolution (Rothbart & Posner, 2005; Tang et al.,2007). Mindfulness meditation (Jha, Krompinger, & Baime, 2007;

Leeuwen, Singer, & Melloni, 2012) has been effective in improvingattention mechanisms and may be a beneficial classroom strategy.An understanding of the biology of threat, of how anxietyand stress impact learning, and the nature of our traumatizedstudents can help educators understand why a method thatappears to work can actually inhibit learning and they can learnstrategies that create the right amount of positive stress whileeliminating the negative stress that can impact cognitive func-tion (Goswami, 2004; McEwen & Sapolsky, 1995). Because studentsoften have serious anxiety or stress-related issues, it behooveseducators to be aware of the impact of this on learning. Whilemuch of the research has focused on Post Traumatic Stress Dis-order (PTSD) in soldiers, more current research has looked atPTSD in populations suffering from natural disaster (Karakaya,2004), violence (Fitzpatrick, 1993), poverty (Nikulina, 2011), migra-tion/immigration (Silove, Sinnerbrink, Field, Manicavasagar, &Steel, 1997), and sexual (McLeer, 1988), domestic (Twamley, 2009),or child abuse (Pederson et al., 2004), and we have these popu-lations in our classrooms. It is important for school populationssuffering from trauma such as school violence or disasters to under-stand the impact and adjust school curriculum in the presence oraftermath of this trauma (Zadina, 2012). In addition, educators con-front math and reading anxiety in the classroom. LeDoux (1996)suggests that this anxiety may impair students’ ability to pay atten-tion by disrupting attentional mechanisms. Posner’s lab (Tang et al.,2007) found a positive correlation between the trait of mindful-ness and anxiety and aggression, which suggests mindfulness asa possible intervention for both anxiety and behavior problems.Mindfulness has also been shown to be effective with PTSD (Langet al., 2012) and could be a valuable non-pharmacological interven-tion with students experiencing trauma.Sometimes neuroscience reveals theory or practices that need tobe eliminated from education conversations and practices. Learn-ing styles theory and testing students for learning style is anexample of an educational theory and practice that has takenclass time, may have misdirected students’ efforts, and is notsupported by neuroscience research (Coffield, 2004). Neuroimag-ing studies have revealed the complexity of the interactions ofbrain regions and revealed multiple pathways involved in learn-ing (Majjar, 1998; Zadina, 2014). An Educational Neuroscientistcan advise educators against amateur diagnosis and guide themtoward designing lessons with multiple pathways for understand-ing and practice that offer options for diverse and strugglinglearners.While learning styles theory drew a distinction between learn-ing visually, auditorially, or kinesthetically, neuroscience researchrevealed the importance of vision in learning (Nelson, Reed, &Walling, 1976). Thus, we can guide educators to make lessons morevisual while reminding them that all components of a lesson usebrain resources and increase cognitive load, so the images must bemeaningful and make a contribution. This is the kind of synthe-sis of the scientific literature created by an understanding of boththe body of literature and the types of learning opportunities thateducators create that can enhance lesson design.ConclusionWhile brain research may not yet tell us how to teach per se, itdoes inform teaching, learning, and school reform. We are at thebeginning of a new vision in which scientists, educators, and thehybrid Educational Neuroscientist can all work together towardschool reform. As with many initially disparate fields, where sharedefforts seem to be a “bridge too far”, nurturing the cross-fertilizationof ideas and paradigms and refining our vision of the EducationalNeuroscientist can lead to change in both fields and the emergenceof ideas that can revolutionize education. It’s not a bridge too far ifit is built by properly trained “engineers.”Resumen ampliadoA principios de los 90 surgió en el mundo de la educaciónun movimiento llamado “aprendizaje basado en el cerebro”, cuyapretensión era unir la neurociencia y la educación. Sin embargo,tanto desde la neurociencia como desde la educación, surgieronmuchas voces advirtiendo de la imposibilidad de llevar a cabo esesalto. No obstante, y aunque los primeros intentos de unir amboscampos fueron objeto de enconadas controversias, actualmentesí se puede decir que la neurociencia tiene un papel verdader-amente importante que jugar en las reformas educativas. Esteartículo explora diferentes posibilidades al respecto. Por un lado,se harán sugerencias sobre cuál sería la formación apropiada parael neurocientífico educativo. Por otro, se enumerarán una serie deintervenciones generales que se podrían hacer para reformar elcurrículum basándose en la Neurociencia Educativa. Por último,también se proporcionarán sugerencias respecto a de qué nuevasmaneras podría contribuir el neurocientífico educativo al desarrolloprofesional de los educadores.Mi planteamiento inicial es que ya ha llegado el momento enel que la Neurociencia Educativa puede reformar el currículumeducativo y proporcionar a los educadores una serie de estrate-gias basadas en la neurociencia si la persona que realiza el traspasode conocimiento ha sido convenientemente formada tanto en cien-cia como en educación –una situación que por lo que sé se da enmuy pocos casos. Para poder tender puentes entre la neurocien-cia y la educación necesitamos profesionales con un pie en cadalado, con una formación híbrida y experiencia tanto en educacióncomo en neurociencia, pues uno sólo de estos aspectos resultainsuficiente. Los científicos tienen dos puntos débiles inherentes.Por un lado, se me ha dicho repetidamente desde la educaciónque los científicos tienen dificultades a la hora de hablar con losdocentes. Por otro, no han ense˜nado jamás a alumnos desmotiva-dos y con problemas –edades tempranas, alumnos de instituto, etc.No pueden poner en práctica un salto cualitativo en la ense˜nanzasi nunca han practicado en este campo. Los docentes, por otraparte, pueden inocentemente poner en práctica algunos avancescientíficos de manera inviable y sin haber escuchado posibles críti-cas, pues quizá normalmente no lean la literatura científica alrespecto, habiendo obtenido su información de segunda o terceramano. Este tipo de circunstancias perpetúa numerosos neuromi-tos, a los docentes se les ense˜na estrategias que no son creíbles, olos nuevos avances no son convenientemente canalizados comopara ser informativos para la práctica y la comprensión de loseducadores.En definitiva, la cuestión no es si la información neurocien-tífica puede ser trasladada a la educación, sino cómo estamosformando a los futuros profesionales para realizar conveniente-mente dicho traspaso. Si queremos tomarnos este campo en serio,debemos desarrollar nuevas aproximaciones en la formación delos profesionales. La formación de los científicos debe incluir unasprácticas de ense˜nanza, pero no en los laboratorios especializadosde escuelas universitarias normalmente asociados a estudiantesuniversitarios y de alto nivel socioeconómico, sino en verdaderasescuelas con alumnos en situaciones de pobreza o problemáticas,con un docente en el programa que sirva de guía. De esta man-era conseguirían ver la investigación desde el punto de vista de undocente y la docencia desde el punto de vista de un investigador.Las hipótesis y objetivos de una investigación están limitados pornuestras percepciones y los educadores pueden ayudar a formu-lar preguntas así como a ampliar las perspectivas desde las que seaborda

J.N. Zadina / Psicología Educativa 21 (2015) 71–77
Por otra parte, hay muchos críticos que argumentan que estodavía muy pronto para que los neurocientíficos educativospuedan hacer aportaciones válidas a la hora de dise˜nar un cur-rículum. Pero ¿quién toma las decisiones en este momento?, ¿lospolíticos?, ¿los intereses financieros? Yo propongo que tiene queser un neurocientífico educativo capaz de entremezclar educación,psicología y neurociencia. ¿Cuál sería la mejor alternativa? Si nose hace ahora, ¿cuándo? Creo que ya hemos llegado al puntocrítico.Durante la última década se ha desarrollado un cuerpo deconocimientos muy significativo desde la neurociencia del apren-dizaje. Los científicos han explorado otros muchos campos másallá de los relativos al ámbito clínico y han comenzado a explo-rar los efectos del bilingüismo, el arte y la fisiología en el cerebronormal y en los mecanismos subyacentes al aprendizaje. Estasaportaciones científicas son ahora lo suficientemente sustancialescomo para poder garantizar una reforma del currículum en diver-sas áreas, incluyendo el impacto que el aprendizaje de lenguas,el ejercicio, la expresión artística o el sue˜no ejercen sobre elaprendizaje. Por ejemplo, las investigaciones sobre el lenguaje ysobre el aprendizaje de una segunda lengua han puesto de man-ifiesto no sólo la importancia del aprendizaje temprano de unalengua para su aprendizaje posterior, sino sus beneficios sobrela capacidad lectora, los logros académicos, la cognición en gen-eral y la salud cerebral. Exponerse tempranamente a un segundoidioma puede incluso ayudar a que ni˜nos de bajo nivel socioe-conómico obtengan puntuaciones académicas similares a las delos de estatus superiores. Cada vez hay más evidencias de que serbilingüe conlleva en general tener un mejor cerebro, incluyendounas mejores funciones ejecutivas. Crecer como bilingüe puedeincrementar la capacidad de memoria operativa o de trabajo y unahabilidad crítica para la adquisición de la lectura, la escritura y lasmatemáticas.Otro ejemplo lo encontramos en la ense˜nanza artística. A la horade reducir presupuestos, una decisión bastante común es la de pre-scindir de la formación artística. Sin embargo hay muchas pruebasque contradicen esta actitud. Así, se ha visto que la atención selec-tiva, un factor relevante en el aprendizaje, mejora notablementeen músicos. Otros estudios han encontrado que los estudiantes conexperiencia musical son capaces de aprender una segunda lenguacon mayor eficiencia y se especula con la posibilidad de que la for-mación musical pueda conferir ventajas cognitivas a largo plazo. Laformación musical también puede potenciar el pensamiento cre-ativo, una habilidad en la que todos estaremos de acuerdo que esmuy necesaria en el siglo XXI. Otra área que es víctima frecuentede los recortes presupuestarios vinculados a las decisiones sobre elcurrículum es la educación física y el tiempo libre o la actividad enlos recreos. Sin embargo, hay abundante evidencia de que el ejerci-cio favorece a la cognición. En un estudio se comprobó, por ejemplo,que 3 minutos de ejercicio aeróbico potenciaban tanto la memoriaa corto plazo como la a largo plazo. Se ha comprobado igualmenteque existe una estrecha relación entre la actividad física y el logroescolar, incluso en pruebas estandarizadas.En conclusión, las investigaciones neurocientíficas proporcio-nan ideas y estrategias que nos permiten mejorar la vida y lashabilidades de aprendizaje de nuestros estudiantes, mucho másque centrándonos exclusivamente en el contenido académico.Aunque las investigaciones sobre el cerebro no puedan aún decirnoscómo ense˜nar en sí, sí son bastante informativas para la docen-cia, el aprendizaje y, por tanto, para la elaboración de reformaseducativas.Conflict of InterestThe author of this article declares no conflict of interest.ReferencesBialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in Development: Language, Literacy, and Cognition.New York: Cambridge University Press.Blakemore, S. J. (2005). The Learning Brain. Blackwell.Blom, E., Kuntay, A. C., Messer, M., Verhagen, J., & Lesseman, P. (2014). The benefits ofbeing bilingual: Working memory in bilingual Turkish-Dutch children. Journalof Experimental Child Psychology, 128, 105–119.Bruer, J. (1997). Education and the brain: A bridge too far. Educational Researcher,26, 4–16.Byrnes, J. P. (2001). Minds, Brains, and Learning. New York: The Guildford Press.Carr, K. W., White-Schwoch, T., Tierney, A. T., Strait, D. L., & Kraus, N. (2014).Beat synchronization predicts neural speech encoding and reading readiness inpreschoolers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 14559–14564.Carskadon, M. A. (1981). Sleep loss in young adolescents. Sleep, 4, 299–312.Carskadon, M. A. (1990). Patterns of sleep and sleepiness in adolescents. Pediatrician,17, 5–12.Chein, J., & Schneider, W. (2005). Neuroimaging studies of practice-related change:fMRI and meta-analytic evidence of a domain- general control network for learn-ing. Cognitive Brain Research, 25, 607–623.Coe, D. P., Pivarnik, J. M., Womack, C. J., Reeves, M. J., & Malina, R. M. (2006). Effectof physical education and activity levels on academic achievement in children.Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 38, 1515–1519.Coffield, F. M. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: a systematicand critical review. Learning and Skills Research Centre.Dewald, J. F. (2010). The influence of sleep quality, sleep duration and sleepiness onschool performance in children and adolescents: A meta-analytic revue. SleepMedicine Reviews, 14, 179–189.Della Sala, S., & Anderson, M. (2012). Neuroscience in Education: the good, the bad andthe ugly. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Fischer, K. W. (2009). Building a scientific groundwork for learning and teaching.Mind, Brain, and Education, 3, 2–15.Fischer, K. W., Goswami, U., & Geake, J. (2010). Task Force on the Future of Edu-cational Neuroscience The future of educational neuroscience. Mind, Brain andEducation, 4, 68–80.Fitzpatrick, K. M. (1993). The prevalence and consequences of exposure to vio-lence among African-American youth. Journal of the American Academy of Child& Adolescent Psychiatry, 32, 424–430.Flege, J. E., & Fletcher, K. L. (1992). Talker and listener effects on degree of perceivedforeign accent. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 91, 370–389.Franklin, M. S., Moore, K. S., Yip, C.-Y., Jonides, J., & Rattray, K. (2008). The effects ofmusical training on verbal memory. Psychology of Music, 36, 353–365.Gibson, C., Folley, B. S., & Park, S. (2009). Enhanced divergent thinking and creativ-ity in musicians: A behavioral and near-infrared spectroscopy study. Brain andCognition, 69, 162–169.Giuliano, R. J., & Neville, H. J. (2011). Novel evidence for a domain-general atten-tional control mechanism predicting individual differences in working memorycapacity. Presentation at the Society for Neuroscience. Washington, D.C.Goswami, U. (2004). Neuroscience and education. British Journal of Educational Psy-chology, 74, 1–14.Goswami, U. (2006). Neuroscience and education: From research to practice. NatureReviews Neuroscience, 7, 2–7.Hagenauer, M. H. (2009). Adolescent changes in the homeostatic and circadian reg-ulation of sleep. Developmental Neuroscience, 31, 276–284.Hansen, M. J. (2005). The impact of school daily schedule on adolescent sleep. Pedi-atrics, 115, 1555–1561.Hillman, C. H., Erickson, K. I., & Framer, A. F. (2008). Be smart, exercise your heart:Exercise effects on brain and cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9, 58–65.Hinton, C., & Fischer, K. W. (2008). Research schools: Grounding research in educa-tional practice. Mind, Brain, and Education, 2, 157–160.Howard-Jones, P. A. (2010). Introducing Neuroeducational Research: Neuroscience,education and the brain from contexts to practice. New York: Routledge.Howard-Jones, P. A. (2014). Neuroscience and education: myths and messages.Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 15, 817–824.Hornstra, L. D. (2010). Teacher attitudes toward dyslexia: effects on teacher expec-tations and the academic achievement of students with dyslexia. Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 43, 515–529.Jaeggi, S. M., Buschkuehl, M., Jonides, J., & Perrig, W. J. (2008). Improving fluid intel-ligence with training on working memory. Proceedings of the National Academyof Sciences, 105, 6829–6833.James S. McDonnell Foundation (2007). The Santiago Declaration.https.//www.jsmf.org/santiagodeclaration/.Jha, A. P., Krompinger, J., & Baime, M. J. (2007). Mindfulness training modifies sub-systems of attention. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 7, 109–119.Karakaya, L. A. (2004). Three and a half years after the Marmara earthquake in adoles-cents with PTSD, depression and anxiety symptoms. Turkish Journal of Psychiatry,15, 257–263.Kaufmann, L. V. S. E., Wood, G., Kremser, C., Schocke, M., Zimmerhackl, L. B., & Koten,J. W. (2008). A developmental fMRI study of nonsymbolic numerical and spatialprocessing. Cortex, 44, 376–385.Krizman, J. M., Marian, V., Shook, A., Skoe, E., & Kraus, N. (2012). Subcortical encodingof sound is enhanced in bilinguals and relates to executive function advantages.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, 7877–7881.Kuhl, P. K., Williams, K. A., Lacerda, F., Stevens, K. N., & Lindblom, B. (1992). Linguisticexperience alters phonetic perception in infants by 6 months of age. Science, 255,606