Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence and Cognitive Neuroscience
- Reviews
- The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence and Cognitive Neuroscience
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Part I Fundamental Issues
- Part II Theories, Models, and Hypotheses
- Part III Neuroimaging Methods and Findings
- Part IV Predictive Modeling Approaches
- Part V Translating Research on the Neuroscience of Intelligence into Action
- 18 Enhancing Cognition
- 19 Patient-Based Approaches to Understanding Intelligence and Problem-Solving
- 20 Implications of Biological Research on Intelligence for Education and Public Policy
- 21 Vertical and Horizontal Levels of Analysis in the Study of Human Intelligence
- 22 How Intelligence Research Can Inform Education and Public Policy
- 23 The Neural Representation of Concrete and Abstract Concepts
- Index
- References
20 - Implications of Biological Research on Intelligence for Education and Public Policy
from Part V - Translating Research on the Neuroscience of Intelligence into Action
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 June 2021
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence and Cognitive Neuroscience
- Reviews
- The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence and Cognitive Neuroscience
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Part I Fundamental Issues
- Part II Theories, Models, and Hypotheses
- Part III Neuroimaging Methods and Findings
- Part IV Predictive Modeling Approaches
- Part V Translating Research on the Neuroscience of Intelligence into Action
- 18 Enhancing Cognition
- 19 Patient-Based Approaches to Understanding Intelligence and Problem-Solving
- 20 Implications of Biological Research on Intelligence for Education and Public Policy
- 21 Vertical and Horizontal Levels of Analysis in the Study of Human Intelligence
- 22 How Intelligence Research Can Inform Education and Public Policy
- 23 The Neural Representation of Concrete and Abstract Concepts
- Index
- References
Summary
In his 2011 book, Incognito, Stanford neuroscientist David Eagleman asked us to:
Imagine for a moment that we are nothing but the product of billions of years of molecules coming together and ratcheting up through natural selection, that we are composed only of highways of fluids and chemicals sliding along roadways within billions of dancing cells, that trillions of synaptic conversations hum in parallel, that this vast egglike fabric of micron-thin circuitry runs algorithms undreamt of in modern science, and that these neural programs give rise to our decision making, loves, desires, fears, and aspirations.
(Eagleman, 2011, p. 223)To me, that understanding would be a numinous experience, better than anything ever proposed in anyone’s holy text.
(p. 224)- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Allegrini, A. G., Selzam, S., Rimfeld, K., von Stumm, S., Pingault, J. B., & Plomin, R. (2019). Genomic prediction of cognitive traits in childhood and adolescence. Molecular Psychiatry, 24(6), 819–827.Google Scholar
Ansari, D., Coch, D., & De Smedt, B. (2011). Connecting education and cognitive neuroscience: Where will the journey take us? Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(1), 37–42.Google Scholar
Asbury, K. (2015). Can genetics research benefit educational interventions for all? Hastings Center Report, 45(S1), S39–S42.Google Scholar
Asbury, K., & Plomin, R. (2013). G is for genes: The impact of genetics on education and achievement, Vol. 24. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Blakemore, S. J. (2018). Inventing ourselves: The secret life of the teenage brain. London: Penguin Random House.Google Scholar
Boliver, V., & Swift, A. (2011). Do comprehensive schools reduce social mobility? The British Journal of Sociology, 62(1), 89–110.Google Scholar
Bowers, J. S. (2016a). The practical and principled problems with educational neuroscience. Psychological Review, 123(5), 600–612.Google Scholar
Bowers, J. S. (2016b). Psychology, not educational neuroscience, is the way forward for improving educational outcomes for all children: Reply to Gabrieli (2016) and Howard-Jones et al. (2016). Psychological Review, 123(5), 628–635.Google Scholar
Broer, T., Cunningham-Burley, S., Deary, I., & Pickersgill, M. (2016). Neuroscience, policy and family life. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Bruer, J. T. (1999). The myth of the first three years: A new understanding of early brain development and lifelong learning. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Calvin, C. M., Batty, G. D., Der, G., Brett, C. E., Taylor, A., Pattie, A., … & Deary, I. J. (2017). Childhood intelligence in relation to major causes of death in 68 year follow-up: Prospective population study. British Medical Journal, 357(8112), j2708.Google Scholar
Calvin, C. M., Deary, I. J., Fenton, C., Roberts, B. A., Der, G., Leckenby, N., & Batty, G. D. (2010). Intelligence in youth and all-cause-mortality: Systematic review with meta-analysis. International journal of epidemiology, 40(3), 626–644.Google Scholar
Crosswaite, M., & Asbury, K. (2016). “Mr Cummings clearly does not understand the science of genetics and should maybe go back to school on the subject”: An exploratory content analysis of the online comments beneath a controversial news story. Life Sciences, Society and Policy, 12(1), 11.Google Scholar
Crosswaite, M., & Asbury, K. (2019). Teacher beliefs about the aetiology of individual differences in cognitive ability, and the relevance of behavioural genetics to education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 95–110.Google Scholar
Deary, I. J., Strand, S., Smith, P., & Fernandes, C. (2007). Intelligence and educational achievement. Intelligence, 35(1), 13–21.Google Scholar
Dehaene, S., Piazza, M., Pinel, P., & Cohen, L. (2003). Three parietal circuits for number processing. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20(3–6), 487–506.Google Scholar
Detterman, D. K. (2016). Education and intelligence: Pity the poor teacher because student characteristics are more significant than teachers or schools. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 19(e93), 1–11.Google Scholar
Eagleman, D. (2011). Incognito: The hidden life of the brain. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Erickson, K. I., Voss, M. W., Prakash, R. S., Basak, C., Szabo, A., Chaddock, L., … Wojcicki, T. R. (2011). Exercise training increases size of hippocampus and improves memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(7), 3017–3022.Google Scholar
Francis, B., Connolly, P., Archer, L., Hodgen, J., Mazenod, A., Pepper, D., … Travers, M. C. (2017). Attainment grouping as self-fulfilling prophesy? A mixed methods exploration of self confidence and set level among year 7 students. International Journal of Educational Research, 86, 96–108.Google Scholar
Frey, M. C., & Detterman, D. K. (2004). Scholastic assessment or g? The relationship between the scholastic assessment test and general cognitive ability. Psychological Science, 15(6), 373–378.Google Scholar
Frith, U., Bishop, D., Blakemore, C., Blakemore, S. J., Butterworth, B., & Goswami, U. (2011). Neuroscience: Implications for education and lifelong learning. The Royal Society.Google Scholar
Gabrieli, J. D. (2016). The promise of educational neuroscience: Comment on Bowers (2016). Psychological Review, 123(5), 613–619.Google Scholar
Gale, C. R., Batty, G. D., Tynelius, P., Deary, I. J., & Rasmussen, F. (2010). Intelligence in early adulthood and subsequent hospitalisation and admission rates for the whole range of mental disorders: Longitudinal study of 1,049,663 men. Epidemiology, 21(1), 70–77.Google Scholar
Gorard, S., & Siddiqui, N. (2018). Grammar schools in England: A new analysis of social segregation and academic outcomes. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 39(7), 909–924.Google Scholar
Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). Why g matters: The complexity of everyday life. Intelligence, 24(1), 79–132.Google Scholar
Grantham-McGregor, S. (2005). Can the provision of breakfast benefit school performance? Food and Nutrition Bulletin, 26(2 suppl 2), S144–S158.Google Scholar
Hagenauer, M. H., Perryman, J. I., Lee, T. M., & Carskadon, M. A. (2009). Adolescent changes in the homeostatic and circadian regulation of sleep. Developmental Neuroscience, 31(4), 276–284.Google Scholar
Haworth, C. M., Wright, M. J., Luciano, M., Martin, N. G., de Geus, E. J., van Beijsterveldt, C. E., … Kovas, Y. (2010). The heritability of general cognitive ability increases linearly from childhood to young adulthood. Molecular Psychiatry, 15(11), 1112–1120.Google Scholar
Holmes, J., Bryant, A., Gathercole, S. E., & CALM Team. (2019). Protocol for a transdiagnostic study of children with problems of attention, learning and memory (CALM). BMC Pediatrics, 19(1), 10.Google Scholar
Howard-Jones, P. A., Varma, S., Ansari, D., Butterworth, B., De Smedt, B., Goswami, U., … & Thomas, M. S. (2016). The principles and practices of educational neuroscience: Comment on Bowers (2016), Psychological Review, 123(5), 620–627.Google Scholar
Johnson, W., Brett, C. E., & Deary, I. J. (2010). The pivotal role of education in the association between ability and social class attainment: A look across three generations. Intelligence, 38(1), 55–65.Google Scholar
Krapohl, E., Rimfeld, K., Shakeshaft, N. G., Trzaskowski, M., McMillan, A., Pingault, J. B., … & Plomin, R. (2014). The high heritability of educational achievement reflects many genetically influenced traits, not just intelligence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(42), 15273–15278.Google Scholar
Lee, J. J., Wedow, R., Okbay, A., Kong, E., Maghzian, O., Zacher, M., … & Fontana, M. A. (2018). Gene discovery and polygenic prediction from a genome-wide association study of educational attainment in 1.1 million individuals. Nature Genetics, 50(8), 1112–1121.Google Scholar
Ludwig, J., & Phillips, D. A. (2007). The benefits and costs of Head Start (No. w12973). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
Mackintosh, N., & Mackintosh, N. J. (2011). IQ and human intelligence. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Malanchini, M., Engelhardt, L. E., Grotzinger, A. D., Harden, K. P., & Tucker-Drob, E. M. (2019). “Same but different”: Associations between multiple aspects of self-regulation, cognition, and academic abilities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(6), 1164–1188.Google Scholar
Nicholas, S., Andrieu, B., Croizet, J. C., Sanitioso, R. B., & Burman, J. T. (2013). Sick? Or slow? On the origins of intelligence as a psychological object. Intelligence, 41(5), 699–711.Google Scholar
Owens, J. A., Belon, K., & Moss, P. (2010). Impact of delaying school start time on adolescent sleep, mood, and behavior. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 164(7), 608–614.Google Scholar
Parker, P. D., Jerrim, J., Schoon, I., & Marsh, H. W. (2016). A multination study of socioeconomic inequality in expectations for progression to higher education: The role of between-school tracking and ability stratification. American Educational Research Journal, 53(1), 6–32.Google Scholar
Pearson, K. (1914). On the handicapping of the first-born, Vol. 10. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Penke, L., Maniega, S. M., Bastin, M. E., Hernández, M. V., Murray, C., Royle, N. A., … Deary, I. J. (2012). Brain white matter tract integrity as a neural foundation for general intelligence. Molecular Psychiatry, 17(10), 1026–1030.Google Scholar
Plomin, R., & Deary, I. J. (2015). Genetics and intelligence differences: Five special findings. Molecular Psychiatry, 20(1), 98–108.Google Scholar
Pugh, K. R., Shaywitz, B. A., Shaywitz, S. E., Constable, R. T., Skudlarski, P., Fulbright, R. K., … Gore, J. C. (1996). Cerebral organization of component processes in reading. Brain, 119(4), 1221–1238.Google Scholar
Puma, M., Bell, S., Cook, R., Heid, C., Broene, P., Jenkins, F., … Downer, J. (2012). Third grade follow-up to the Head Start impact study: Final report. OPRE Report 2012-45b. Administration for Children & Families (pp. 1–346) Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Puma, M., Bell, S., Cook, R., Heid, C., Shapiro, G., Broene, P., … Ciarico, J. (2010). Head Start impact study. Final report. Administration for Children & Families (611 pp).Google Scholar
Rimfeld, K., Kovas, Y., Dale, P. S., & Plomin, R. (2016). True grit and genetics: Predicting academic achievement from personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(5), 780–789.Google Scholar
Ritchie, S. J., & Tucker-Drob, E. M. (2018). How much does education improve intelligence? A meta-analysis. Psychological Science, 29(8), 1358–1369.Google Scholar
Rose, N. (2010). “Screen and intervene”: Governing risky brains. History of the Human Sciences, 23(1), 79–105.Google Scholar
Roth, B., Becker, N., Romeyke, S., Schäfer, S., Domnick, F., & Spinath, F. M. (2015). Intelligence and school grades: A meta-analysis. Intelligence, 53, 118–137.Google Scholar
Schneider, W. J., & Kaufman, A. S. (2017). Let’s not do away with comprehensive cognitive assessments just yet. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 32(1), 8–20.Google Scholar
Schofield, J. W. (2010). International evidence on ability grouping with curriculum differentiation and the achievement gap in secondary schools. Teachers College Record, 112(5), 1492–1528.Google Scholar
Shager, H. M., Schindler, H. S., Magnuson, K. A., Duncan, G. J., Yoshikawa, H., & Hart, C. M. (2013). Can research design explain variation in Head Start research results? A meta-analysis of cognitive and achievement outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35(1), 76–95.Google Scholar
Sigman, M., Peña, M., Goldin, A. P., & Ribeiro, S. (2014). Neuroscience and education: Prime time to build the bridge. Nature Neuroscience, 17(4), 497–502.Google Scholar
Smith-Woolley, E., Ayorech, Z., Dale, P. S., von Stumm, S., & Plomin, R. (2018). The genetics of university success. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 14579.Google Scholar
Smith-Woolley, E., Pingault, J. B., Selzam, S., Rimfeld, K., Krapohl, E., von Stumm, S., … Kovas, Y. (2018). Differences in exam performance between pupils attending selective and non-selective schools mirror the genetic differences between them. NPJ Science of Learning, 3(1), 3.Google Scholar
Sokolowski, H. M., & Ansari, D. (2018). Understanding the effects of education through the lens of biology. NPJ Science of Learning, 3(1), 17.Google Scholar
Steenbergen-Hu, S., Makel, M. C., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2016). What one hundred years of research says about the effects of ability grouping and acceleration on K–12 students’ academic achievement: Findings of two second-order meta-analyses. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 849–899.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, 110(20), 8230–8235.Google Scholar
Taylor, B., Francis, B., Archer, L., Hodgen, J., Pepper, D., Tereshchenko, A., & Travers, M. C. (2017). Factors deterring schools from mixed attainment teaching practice. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 25(3), 327–345.Google Scholar
Tucker-Drob, E. M., & Harden, K. P. (2017). A behavioral genetic perspective on noncognitive factors and academic achievement. Genetics, Ethics and Education, 134–158.Google Scholar
von Stumm, S., Smith-Woolley, E., Ayorech, Z., McMillan, A., Rimfeld, K., Dale, P., & Plomin, R. (2020). Predicting educational achievement from genomic measures and socioeconomic status. Developmental Science, 23(3), e12925.Google Scholar
Wai, J., Brown, M., & Chabris, C. (2018). Using standardized test scores to include general cognitive ability in education research and policy. Journal of Intelligence, 6(3), 37.Google Scholar
Walker, S. O., & Plomin, R. (2005). The nature–nurture question: Teachers’ perceptions of how genes and the environment influence educationally relevant behaviour. Educational Psychology, 25(5), 509–516.Google Scholar
Wastell, D., & White, S. (2012). Blinded by neuroscience: Social policy, the family and the infant brain. Families, Relationships and Societies, 1(3), 397–414.Google Scholar