Macdonald K, Germine L, Anderson A, Christodoulou J, McGrath LM.
Dispelling the Myth: Training in Education or Neuroscience Decreases but Does Not Eliminate Beliefs in Neuromyths. Front Psychol. 2017;8 :1314.
AbstractNeuromyths are misconceptions about brain research and its application to education and learning. Previous research has shown that these myths may be quite pervasive among educators, but less is known about how these rates compare to the general public or to individuals who have more exposure to neuroscience. This study is the first to use a large sample from the United States to compare the prevalence and predictors of neuromyths among educators, the general public, and individuals with high neuroscience exposure. Neuromyth survey responses and demographics were gathered via an online survey hosted at TestMyBrain.org. We compared performance among the three groups of interest: educators (N = 598), high neuroscience exposure (N = 234), and the general public (N = 3,045) and analyzed predictors of individual differences in neuromyths performance. In an exploratory factor analysis, we found that a core group of 7 "classic" neuromyths factored together (items related to learning styles, dyslexia, the Mozart effect, the impact of sugar on attention, right-brain/left-brain learners, and using 10% of the brain). The general public endorsed the greatest number of neuromyths (M = 68%), with significantly fewer endorsed by educators (M = 56%), and still fewer endorsed by the high neuroscience exposure group (M = 46%). The two most commonly endorsed neuromyths across all groups were related to learning styles and dyslexia. More accurate performance on neuromyths was predicted by age (being younger), education (having a graduate degree), exposure to neuroscience courses, and exposure to peer-reviewed science. These findings suggest that training in education and neuroscience can help reduce but does not eliminate belief in neuromyths. We discuss the possible underlying roots of the most prevalent neuromyths and implications for classroom practice. These empirical results can be useful for developing comprehensive training modules for educators that target general misconceptions about the brain and learning.
Christodoulou JA, Cyr A, Murtagh J, Chang P, Lin J, Guarino AJ, Hook P, Gabrieli JDE.
Impact of Intensive Summer Reading Intervention for Children With Reading Disabilities and Difficulties in Early Elementary School. J Learn Disabil. 2017;50 (2) :115-127.
AbstractEfficacy of an intensive reading intervention implemented during the nonacademic summer was evaluated in children with reading disabilities or difficulties (RD). Students (ages 6-9) were randomly assigned to receive Lindamood-Bell's Seeing Stars program ( n = 23) as an intervention or to a waiting-list control group ( n = 24). Analysis of pre- and posttesting revealed significant interactions in favor of the intervention group for untimed word and pseudoword reading, timed pseudoword reading, oral reading fluency, and symbol imagery. The interactions mostly reflected (a) significant declines in the nonintervention group from pre- to posttesting, and (2) no decline in the intervention group. The current study offers direct evidence for widening differences in reading abilities between students with RD who do and do not receive intensive summer reading instruction. Intervention implications for RD children are discussed, especially in relation to the relevance of summer intervention to prevent further decline in struggling early readers.
Christodoulou JA, Murtagh J, Cyr A, Perrachione TK, Chang P, Halverson K, Hook P, Yendiki A, Ghosh S, Gabrieli JDE.
Relation of white-matter microstructure to reading ability and disability in beginning readers. Neuropsychology. 2017;31 (5) :508-515.
AbstractUNLABELLED: [Correction Notice: An Erratum for this article was reported in Vol 31(5) of Neuropsychology (see record 2017-22816-001). Errors in the dataset owing to two incorrect scores have skewed results. In the 2nd paragraph of the Results section, the 2nd sentence should read: "Within the typical reader group, FA in the left AF correlated negatively with pseudoword reading (WRMT-III Word Attack: rs = .37, p = .064), but not real-word reading (WRMT-III Word Identification: rs = .07, p = .75)." The 4th sentence of the 3rd paragraph should read: "The negative correlation between FA and Word Attack in the typical reader group was driven by Daxial (Dradial: rs = .19, p = .373, Daxial: rs = .38, p = .060)." The 2nd sentence of the 4th paragraph should read: "Results of this analysis replicated those of the larger reading disability group, with a statistically greater reduction of FA in this more severely affected group (p = .008) that was associated with a significant increase in Dradial (p = .008) and no difference in Daxial (p = .47)." In Table 1, for the typical reader group, the resulting values should read: age, 94.00 ± 7.66; KBIT-2-Matrices, 118.31 ± 15.24; WRMT-III-Word Identification, 119.00 ± 9.33; WRMT-III-Word Attack, 114.04 ± 9.31; and TOWRE-2-Sight Word Efficiency, 114.48 ± 8.07. For the reading disability group, the resulting values for age and TOWRE-2- Phonemic Decoding Efficiency should be 93.65 ± 7.81 and 81.76 ± 9.33, respectively. The p values for age and KBIT-2-Matrices should be .87 and .172, respectively. In Figure 3, the image for the typical reader group has been replaced. All versions of this article have been corrected.] Objective: We examined the white-matter microstructure of the left arcuate fasciculus, which has been associated with reading ability, in beginning readers with or without reading disability.
METHOD: Groups were typically reading children (n = 26) or children with reading disability (n = 26), Ages 6-9, and equated on nonverbal cognitive abilities. Diffusion-weighted images were collected and TRACULA was used to extract fractional anisotropy measures from the left arcuate fasciculus.
RESULTS: White-matter microstructure was altered in children with reading disability, who exhibited significantly reduced fractional anisotropy in the left arcuate fasciculus. Among typically reading children, lower fractional anisotropy of the left arcuate fasciculus was associated with superior pseudoword reading performance. Both the group differences and variation in reading scores among the children with reading disability were associated with radial diffusivity (but not axial diffusivity), whereas variation in reading scores among typically reading children was associated with axial diffusivity (but not radial diffusivity).
CONCLUSIONS: The paradoxical findings that lower fractional anisotropy was associated both with reading disability and also with better phonological awareness in typical reading development suggest that there are different maturational trajectories of white-matter microstructure in typical readers and children with reading disability, and that this difference is unique to the beginning stages of reading acquisition. The finding that reading disability was associated with radial diffusivity, but that variation in ability among typically developing readers was associated with axial diffusivity, suggests that different neural mechanisms may be associated with reading development in children with or without reading disability. (PsycINFO Database Record