Communication in Mind,Brain, and Education: Making Disciplinary Differences Explicit

Difficulties in communication within Mind, Brain, and Education (MBE) can arise from several sources. One source is differences in orientation among the areas of research, policy, and practice. Another source is lack of understanding of the entrenched and unspoken differences across research disciplines in MBE—that is, recognition that research in MBE comes from many diverse disciplines, rather than some monolithic entity. A third challenge to communication in MBE arises from the nature of studying the mind and brain; we address the different levels of analysis in mind–brain research. Throughout our article, we emphasize that recognizing these differences—across areas (research, practice, and policy), disciplines, and levels of analysis—and making them explicit can facilitate effective communication in MBE. We illustrate these concepts with examples from the study of reading disorders across several disciplines.     

Preservice Teachers' Use of the Technology Integration Planning Cycle to Integrate iPads Into Literacy Instruction

The purpose of this case study was to examine preservice teachers' use of the Technology Integration Planning Cycle (TIPC; Hutchison & Woodward, 2014 Hutchison, A., & Woodward, L. (2014). A planning cycle for integrating technology into literacy instruction. Reading Teacher, 67(6), 455–464. doi:10.1002/trtr.1225.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] [Google Scholar]) to integrate iPads into literacy instruction. Analysis revealed two findings related to using the TIPC to plan instruction: (a) Though the TIPC provides a structured approach to planning that guides teachers in using their Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge (TPACK), the preservice teachers still used a technocentric approach to planning instruction and did not fully engage in all elements of the planning cycle; (2) even with the structured planning approach, preservice teachers had difficulty aligning their lesson content with the instructional goals of the lesson; and (3) preservice teachers rely on recommendations from their university classes when selecting apps to use in instruction, rather than independently seeking out resources. The implications of this research suggest the need to support preservice teachers in developing a professional learning network; the importance of a structured approach to planning technology integration to support preservice teachers; and considerations for helping preservice teachers develop their TPACK. (Keywords: Common Core State Standards, digital technology, instructional planning, TPACK, technology integration)     

The spectrum of school–university partnerships: A typology of organizational learning systems

School–university partnerships are not uni-dimensional projects. Success in these partnerships can be found in loosely-coupled systems such as client–server partnerships and in more tightly-coupled systems such as collaborative development centers. Using a comparative case study approach, we explore two school–university partnership case studies and propose a framework for identifying and evaluating partnerships as learning systems. The structure of the partnership has implications for the focus of organizational learning initiatives that can form the foundation of sustained, systemic internal evaluation.     

A Family Focused Intervention Influences Hippocampal-Prefrontal Connectivity Through Gains in Self-Regulation

The stressors associated with poverty increase the risks for externalizing psychopathology; however, specific patterns of neurobiology and higher self-regulation may buffer against these effects. This study leveraged a randomized control trial, aimed at increasing self-regulation at ~11 years of age. As adults, these same individuals completed functional MRI scanning (M_age = 24.88 years; intervention n = 44; control n = 49). Functional connectivity between the hippocampus and ventromedial prefrontal cortex was examined in relation to the intervention, gains in self-regulation, and present-day externalizing symptoms. Increased connectivity between these brain areas was noted in the intervention group compared to controls. Furthermore, individual gains in self-regulation, instilled by the intervention, statistically explained this brain difference. These results begin to connect neurobiological and psychosocial markers of risk and resiliency.     

An evaluation of the SOAR-High Project: a Web-based science program for deaf students

The investigators evaluated the SOAR-High (Science, Observing, and Reporting-High School) Project, a web-based earth systems science course involving collaborating teachers and deaf students at high schools in California, Washington, DC, and Indiana. In SOAR-High, students use Internet- and computer-based technologies to gather and report information. The investigators and stakeholders identified 4 key questions: (a) Are the SOAR-High students becoming proficient in using the science process skills? (b) Do the SOAR-High curriculum materials explicitly stress the use of science process skills? (c) Do the SOAR-High students develop skills to work independently? (d) Does the SOAR-High Project aid in student motivation? Quantitative and qualitative evaluative tools to address each question included student and teacher interviews, classroom observations, performance-based tasks, and reviews of student website work. Findings showed convincing evidence for affirmative answers to all 4 questions. However, some students described difficulties with the reading levels of the SOAR-High materials; some teachers expressed concern about SOAR-High's effectiveness because of its use with students at different grade levels.