"Greater understanding of the nature of this interactive process renders moot such questions as how much depends on genes and how much on environment. As various developmental researchers have suggested, this question is much like asking which contributes most to the area of a rectangle, its height or its width (Eisenberg, 1995)?"

I would like to invite you to take a look at this very accessible chapter, which discusses the brain’s plasticity and underscores the theme that genetics and the environment work via an interactive processes:

http://www.nap.edu/html/howpeople1/ch5.html

All the best,
Christina

I would like to introduce the issue of Drug Education in schools, within the context of our discussion.
Whilst we recognize that learning and new experience establishes new physical neural networks in our brains.
I recently listened to a research report that identified what is on reflection rather obvious?
That ‘recreational drugs’ in fact establish new neural networks between brain regions.
Where different ‘types’ of recreational drugs appear to produce their own ‘type’ of new neural network structure.
Which become integrated into the overall neural network.
So that essentially they are causing a change in the physical structure of the brain. Which cause varying changes to each different brain?
My basic point, in relation to our discussion of Education and Neuroscience.
Is that neuroscience provides a different way to approach drug education in schools.
Though I would suggest that this could be a ‘back-door’ way of introducing Neuroscience Education into schools?
Given the spectrum of different recreational drugs commonly available.
Where each type of drug has different neural effects on different brain regions. By the time all types of drugs were covered.
An understanding of all the Brain Regions and Central Nervous System would have been covered.
With the end result, that Student’s would complete schooling with a ‘real’ understanding of recreational drugs. So that as adults, they would have a more informed position to guide their inevitable future use of recreational drugs.
Whilst I am not aware of the curriculum for drug education in schools. I would suggest that the introduction of neuroscience into it. Whilst being beneficial to Students, would also provide Teachers with a different angle to approach the Subject?
As an adjunct to Student’s understanding of neuroscience. It would also provide a platform to introduce the issue of ‘Nutrition’ and the brain?
Which I would suggest is of equal importance.
But perhaps an even greater consequence, is that over time a deeper understanding of the brain would become common knowledge. So that public discussion could occur within an informed public. Which relates to our topic of Neuro-Myths.
Yet, it also has implications for the rapidly emerging international dilemma of the ‘Aging Population’. With people living longer, and the associated costs.
Where brain deterioration presents as a major financial concern internationally.
Though neurosciences revelation of ‘use or lose it’ as a scientific reality. Presents the greatest opportunity to address this impending financial crisis.
Though this is dependent on a General Public that has an informed understanding of Neuro-genesis?
A further case for neuroscience in schooling, is that Students will go on to become Parents, where a notable proportion of their Children will have developmental learning disorders. Where a basic understanding of the Brain will be of significant help.
As an extension of this, it could create a Public that understands the multitude of different ’Disabilities’ at a functional level, instead of simply as Label?

Whilst I seem to have digressed from neuroscience and ‘drug education’?
I am considering the question of how neuroscience could possibly be introduced into the School Curriculum ? Where I can anticipate Student’s response to being advised that they are going to study Neuroscience!
Whereas within the context of Drug Education, this provides a more ‘experiential’ basis to approach the Subject. Given that recreational drugs are a topic that is of more personal relevance to all teenagers. It provides a relevant context to learn about the brain.
So that instead of starting a Lesson by advising a Class that today’s topic is the ‘Cerebellum’, it could be ‘What happens when you get Drunk’? Which I would suggest to be of far more interest and relevance to Students? As well as a basis for the broader discussion of ‘Motor Skills’.

Anyway, this occurred to me as a way of introducing Neuroscience into the Curriculum, addressing various Social Issues, as well as the bottom line of Government Expenditure.
Just a thought?
Geoff.

The University of Bristol in collaboration with the Department for Education and Skills, UK, has compiled a survey in collaboration with OECD to find out teachers views on the role of the brain in education.
If you have a few spare minutes, we would be most grateful if you would complete this survey:
http://www2.oecd.org/survey/Surveys/Take...veyid=1027
Thanks in advance!

Modern scientific research has revealed that babies are not a “tabulae rasae.” They come into the world with a keen ability to discriminate between Swedish and English, a sense of number, and an emotional preference for the human face. Perhaps most remarkably, they come with mechanisms that enable adaptive capabilities. This knowledge has changed our conception of young children and their abilities to learn. We now know that children are biologically-inclined to learn. How will this knowledge affect our approach to teaching?

I have found a number of statements that just leave you hanging....I thought that I would begin a new thread to see what these things mean to others....I found this statement on the internet as part of a talk or something. I retrieved just part of it a few days or so ago. It means something to me, but not sure if there is enough information to really mean what I think it means.

Statement:

In conclusion, necessary and sufficient brain systems can be delineated by functional imaging of brain-damaged patients who are not functionally impaired
Best,
Rob

Causality is sometimes like a court trial where evidence must be entered into and facts must be presented in order to prove a case. Sort of, that is.
Causation edited by Sosa and Tooley addresses "causation in great detail". However, if you stick with it, you eventually might come up with causality.

Let me quote a little to you of chapter 1 Causes and Conditions by John L. Mackie. Quote: "Asked what a cause is, we may be tempted to say that it is an event which precedes the event of which it is the cause, and is both necessary and sufficient for the latter's occurrence; briefly that a cause is a necessary and sufficient preceding condition. There are, however, many difficulties in this account. I shall try to show that what we often speak of as a cause is a condition not of this sort, but the sort related to this. That is to say, this account needs modification, and can be modified, and when it is modified we can explain much more satisfactorily how we can arrive at much of what we ordinarily take to be causal knowledge; the claims implicit within our causal assertions can be related to the forms of the evidence on which we are often relying when we assert a causal connection."

The ISBN for this book is 0-19-875094-3 Copyright [circa 1993]reprinted 2002...Oxford University Press.

We need to cite examples of writings that have clearly met the test of causation or state its equal. Nondeclarative unconscious habituation has legs....and so does nondeclarative unconscious sensitization. What else does? Having legs means neurobiological/scientific underpinnings.

Does it mean that if we don't receive any additional examples of subjects along with causation that we simply cannot go forward. I would be interested in your thoughts?
Best,
Rob

Thanks, Geoff, for recommending a thread on neuromyths. Debunking neuromyths is very important task in this emerging trans-disciplinary field.

Do other forum members have questions/comments concerning this issue?

Thanks very much for your insights,
Christina

Any comments to the the article below from today's BBC News and which was also discussed on the radio (reference http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4205932.stm) :

An education professor has cast doubt on the scientific validity of the term 'dyslexia', saying experts cannot agree on what it is or how to treat it.
Writing in the Times Educational Supplement, Julian Elliott said it was largely an "emotional construct".

The Durham University professor questions the scientific validity of the term 'dyslexia', saying diagnosis does not lead to particular treatment.

The British Dyslexia Association says the claims are inflammatory.

Professor Elliott, a psychologist, said his argument was based on "an exhaustive review of the research literature".

After 30 years in the field, he said, he had little confidence in his ability to diagnose dyslexia.

Professor Elliott told the BBC News website: "There is no consensus as to what it is and how to diagnose it. People describe all sorts of symptoms as dyslexia. And if you do diagnose it, it does not point to any intervention in particular.

"It's one of those terms that is like the Cheshire Cat - if it does exist, we don't know what to do about it."

He said, contrary to talk of 'miracle cures', there was no sound, widely-accepted body of scientific work that had shown that any particular teaching approach was more appropriate for 'dyslexic' children than for other poor readers".

Dyslexia is defined by BBC health expert Dr Rob Hicks as "a congenital and developmental condition that causes neurological anomalies in the brain.

"It includes a range of types of learning difficulties where a person of normal intelligence has persistent and significant problems with reading, writing, spelling and sometimes mathematics and musical notation."

'Delusional'

Professor Elliott's claims have angered the British Dyslexia Association.

The charity's chief executive Professor Susan Tresman said: "I cannot accept that view, given the number of researchers into dyslexia that we work with. There were 900 delegates from 35 countries at our conference last year.

Professor Elliott told the BBC News website: "There is no consensus as to what it is and how to diagnose it. People describe all sorts of symptoms as dyslexia. And if you do diagnose it, it does not point to any intervention in particular.

"It's one of those terms that is like the Cheshire Cat - if it does exist, we don't know what to do about it."

He said, contrary to talk of 'miracle cures', there was no sound, widely-accepted body of scientific work that had shown that any particular teaching approach was more appropriate for 'dyslexic' children than for other poor readers".

Dyslexia is defined by BBC health expert Dr Rob Hicks as "a congenital and developmental condition that causes neurological anomalies in the brain.

"It includes a range of types of learning difficulties where a person of normal intelligence has persistent and significant problems with reading, writing, spelling and sometimes mathematics and musical notation."

'Delusional'

Professor Elliott's claims have angered the British Dyslexia Association.

The charity's chief executive Professor Susan Tresman said: "I cannot accept that view, given the number of researchers into dyslexia that we work with. There were 900 delegates from 35 countries at our conference last year.

Professor Elliott told the BBC News website: "There is no consensus as to what it is and how to diagnose it. People describe all sorts of symptoms as dyslexia. And if you do diagnose it, it does not point to any intervention in particular.

"It's one of those terms that is like the Cheshire Cat - if it does exist, we don't know what to do about it."

He said, contrary to talk of 'miracle cures', there was no sound, widely-accepted body of scientific work that had shown that any particular teaching approach was more appropriate for 'dyslexic' children than for other poor readers".

Dyslexia is defined by BBC health expert Dr Rob Hicks as "a congenital and developmental condition that causes neurological anomalies in the brain.

"It includes a range of types of learning difficulties where a person of normal intelligence has persistent and significant problems with reading, writing, spelling and sometimes mathematics and musical notation."

'Delusional'

Professor Elliott's claims have angered the British Dyslexia Association.

The charity's chief executive Professor Susan Tresman said: "I cannot accept that view, given the number of researchers into dyslexia that we work with. There were 900 delegates from 35 countries at our conference last year.

"There is as much a consensus view as in any area you would care to investigate.

"In excess of one million people download information from our website every month. Is he suggesting that they are all suffering from some kind of emotional delusion?"

Professor Tresman said people with dyslexia often had different symptoms - not just problems with words - and that Professor Elliott seemed to be viewing dyslexia just in terms of poor reading skills.

She said there were a series of well-recognised and highly sophisticated techniques used by psychologists to assess people for dyslexia.

In response, Professor Elliott said: "If you are going to include numbers and music the term is getting meaningless."

Government figures suggest that one in 10 Britons is dyslexic, with four out of 10 of those being severely so.

Students formally diagnosed as having dyslexia are given up to 25% extra time in GCSEs, A-levels and vocational assessments.

I will be on holiday in Italy and Croatia until August 27th with limited internet access. I will be happy to pick up on the dialogue and answer any lingering questions upon return.

I look forward to catching up on the interesting discussions that take place while I am away.

All the best and à bientôt,
Christina

Metacognition has really been remembered as 'thinking about one's thinking' ... this can help get us started. When you study metacognition in- depth then the learning takes place and you become in control of your own 'constructs' and much more. Where is the brain in this....I thought this was a brain forum...well, it is and that is what you are using right now.
:o
Best,
Rob

URL #1 Retrieved from internet on August 1, 2005
URL:http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework...s/SEC1.HTM

URL #2 Retrieved from internet on August 2, 2005

URL: http://www.hku.hk/cepc/taccasu/ref/metacogn.htm