Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34216345›Full record

ArticleCulture, medicine and psychiatry2022

Politics of Plasticity: Implications of the New Science of the "Teen Brain" for Education.

Suparna Choudhury, William Wannyn

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Culture, medicine and psychiatry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Suparna ChoudhuryDivision of Social & Transcultural Psychiatry, Institute for Health & Social Policy, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
William WannynDepartment of Sociology, Université de Montréal and Centre Interuniversitaire de Recherche sur la Science et la Technologie, Montreal, Canada. william.wannyn@umontreal.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4072-8448

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, claims that developmental brain science should inform pedagogical approaches have begun to influence educational policies. This article investigates the promise, pitfalls, processes, and implications of these claims. We explore how research on neuroplasticity has led to enormous interest in harnessing mechanistic models of development for applications in the classroom. Synthesizing analysis from the scientific literature on "neuroeducation" and interviews with key actors in the field, we analyze how neural and cognitive processes are mapped onto pedagogical constructs, and how psychological and social-structural factors are (or are not) integrated into explanations. First, we describe the historical trajectory of educational neuroscience and identify how tensions between antagonist groups struggling for authority over brain-based educational claims shaped the field. Second, we focus on the pervasive use of the concept of "neuroplasticity" in the literature. We argue that it is used as a rhetorical device to create hope and empower children, teachers, and parents through educational exercises that promote neurobiological reflexivity. Third, we turn to the notion of "self-regulation" in the neuroeducational programs. We argue that the rationale of these programs emphasizes the young person's responsibility in navigating their social worlds through the imperative to enhance their executive functions while failing to adequately account for the role of the social environment in the development of self-regulation.

Indexed as

BrainNeurosciencesAdolescentChildHumansPoliticsSocial BehaviorAdolescent brain developmentCritical neuroscienceEducational neuroscienceNeuroplasticitySelf-regulation

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.