Spring 2014, 3 Credits



Download 138.11 Kb.
Date14.05.2016
Size138.11 Kb.
#45768


PhD Program in Educational Neuroscience (PEN)

PEN 704 Foundations of Educational Neuroscience II

Spring 2014, 3 Credits





Professor: TBA


Office Hours: TBA

VP/Phone: TBA

Email: TBA

Office Location: TBA

Class Time: 3 hour meeting time, once per week, 14 weeks

Syllabus prepared by Laura Ann Petittowelcome-00005father-child



welcome-00014

COURSE Overview

New knowledge about how we learn, think, reason, acquire vast knowledge, and how we conceptualize our social, emotional, and moral worlds, has led to revolutionary insights into the developing child and the birth of an exciting multidisciplinary field called Educational Neuroscience. Beginning in the mid 2000s, a unique experiment in the history of science was launched in the nation. The National Science Foundation created six Science of Learning Centers to advance scientific discoveries about learning that have meaningful benefits for society and education. While the discipline of Educational Neuroscience predated the creation of the NSF Centers, it was catapulted forward and afforded stunning momentum and strength from them. The scientific vision, questions, methods, and commitment to two-way translation of research discoveries are virtually identical to the activity that is sometimes called the “Science of Learning” or “the learning sciences” – following from the name of the NSF Centers. They are indeed essentially one and the same the same discipline. One clarification would be that Educational Neuroscience focuses robustly on learning that is specifically at the heart of early schooling: language, reading, math, science, social-emotional. In Part I of this course, we uncover the foundational knowledge of this modern multidisciplinary field, and, in Part II, we consider new discoveries that advance our understanding of human learning from studies of the “Visual Learner,” especially the young deaf visual learner, and we do so from a new perspective: Gallaudet has one of the six coveted sites in the nation to have an NSF Science of Learning Center, called Visual Language and Visual Learning, VL2. Educational Neuroscience at Gallaudet University, therefore, provides a unique strength in, and contribution to, pioneering advances in the education of young deaf children.
COURSE Overview

New knowledge about how we learn, think, reason, acquire vast knowledge, and how we conceptualize our social, emotional, and moral worlds, has led to revolutionary insights into the developing child and the birth of an exciting multidisciplinary field called Educational Neuroscience. Beginning in the mid 2000s, a unique experiment in the history of science was launched in the nation. The National Science Foundation created six Science of Learning Centers to advance scientific discoveries about learning that have meaningful benefits for society and education. While the discipline of Educational Neuroscience predated the creation of the NSF Centers, it was catapulted forward and afforded stunning momentum and strength from them. The scientific vision, questions, methods, and commitment to two-way translation of research discoveries are virtually identical to the activity that is sometimes called the “Science of Learning” or “the learning sciences” – following from the name of the NSF Centers. They are indeed essentially one and the same the same discipline. One clarification would be that Educational Neuroscience focuses robustly on learning that is specifically at the heart of early schooling: language, reading, math, science, social-emotional. In Part I of this course, we uncover the foundational knowledge of this modern multidisciplinary field, and, in Part II, we consider new discoveries that advance our understanding of human learning from studies of the “Visual Learner,” especially the young deaf visual learner, and we do so from a new perspective: Gallaudet has one of the six coveted sites in the nation to have an NSF Science of Learning Center, called Visual Language and Visual Learning, VL2. Educational Neuroscience at Gallaudet University, therefore, provides a unique strength in, and contribution to, pioneering advances in the education of young deaf children.

COURSE Objectives
Educational Neuroscience is bound by two driving overarching objectives: (i) to marry leading scientific discoveries about how children learn knowledge that is at the heart of early schooling (e.g., language, reading, number, science, social-emotional) with core challenges in contemporary education, and to do so in principled ways through “two-way” communication and mutual growth between science and society; (ii) to conduct state-of-the-art behavioral and neuroimaging research that renders new knowledge about learning that is useable and meaningfully translatable for the benefit of society (spanning parents, teachers, clinicians, medical practitioners, and beyond). The main objective of each semester (Part I/Fall and Part II/Spring) will be to understand how this rich multidisciplinary field of Educational Neuroscience can inform science and education (and educational policy) in principled ways. This is a new way of thinking about the marriage between science—especially, the learning sciences—and education, and, therefore, the aim is to think critically and expansively about the two-directional bridges that the discipline seeks to build. The two courses (Parts I & II) are “sister” courses aimed to strengthen analytical and thinking skills that are essential both to conducting and to evaluating critically scientific research. Another major objective for each course (Parts I & II) is to identify how Educational Neuroscience can provide specific advances in the education of all children, especially the young deaf child.Description

The main objective of this two-part course, Foundations of Educational Neuroscience (fall, PEN 703 & spring, PEN 704) is to understand how the rich multidisciplinary field of Educational Neuroscience can inform science and education (and educational policy) in principled ways. In this second course PEN 704, we draw scientific advances from the field and from the National Science Foundation, Science of Learning Center, Visual Language and Visual Learning, “VL2” at Gallaudet University. Topics span the impact of early brain plasticity of the visual systems and visual processing on higher cognition, early social visual engagement and literacy learning, the role of gestures in learning, early sign language exposure and its facilitative impact on language learning, the bilingual brain, the surprising role of “Visual Phonology” in early reading, and innovations in two-way educational translation uniting science and research. One major objective is for students to learn how Educational Neuroscience can provide specific advances in the education of all children, particularly young deaf children. Students in this course will read research articles, participate in discussions, do a small research project, and present a final paper.


COURSE STRUCTURE & REQUIREMENTS

New topics are introduced during the first part of the class in lecture, though interactive format (~1.5 hrs). After a brief break, an in-depth interactive discussion, and/or an in-class Mini Lab experience, occurs during the second part of the class (~1.5hrs), which will consist of very active student engagement with the material (and which will be both guided and promoted by the professor). Students are required to attend classes and complete the thinking guides (see below), do all readings, write 2 short essays and a final paper, and provide an in-class Presentation on time. The course structure is designed using modern understanding of principles of how humans learn most optimally. Thus, if students do the above, they are sure to have the most happy and productive time in the class and to learn and know the material for life.
Grading Scale

A+

97-100

B+

87-89

C+

77-79

A

94-96

B

84-86

C

74-76

A-

90-93

B-

80-83

F

73 and below


GRADING

Class Participation: 15% (Derived from a combination: Participation, Discussions, Thinking Guides;

see also Blackboard & Required Reading below)

2 Short Essays: 30% (15% each; See description below)

Final Paper: 30% (See description below)

Presentation of Final Paper: 25% (See description below)
WRITING & PRESENTATION REQUIREMENTS

What is a Thinking Guide? Prior to each class, a “Thinking Guide,” which is a teaching innovation used to promote active learning, will be handed out. Thinking Guides contain a few of that class’ most crucial concepts and/or key questions. If you fill these in as you attend in class, your participation in the class will be most rewarding; they are provided as one “learning tool” to help you actively synthesize, learn, and remember new material “on-line” (while physically seated in the class). Thinking Guides will be collected after each class in lieu of taking attendance, although they will not be graded, per se, because they are for you. In addition, they are not graded because, as you will see, you may modify and enhance them as a result of what we all discuss as a group. All Thinking Guides will be returned to you to keep for future reference in preparation for your short essays and/or final paper.

Short Essays: Two essays are required that are closely related to the material discussed in class, which must reflect critical analysis and synthesis of the topic at hand. You may write on topics that are either (i) to be discussed in class (i.e., in the syllabus) or (ii) derived from your own interest. If you choose (i), you must show evidence of having read at least two articles above and beyond those already assigned in the syllabus for the topic. If you choose (ii), it is essential/required that you first discuss your chosen topic with the professor at least one week prior to due date. Maximum length for the Short Essay is 5 pages (each), double-spaced, 12-point font. There is no page limit for the References.

Final Paper: A final paper will be due exactly one week prior to the last week of class (Week 13). This paper will also serve as the foundation of your in-class final presentation during the last week of class. The topic must be directly related to the goals and content of this course and must be selected by you in consultation with the professor. The topic of your Final Paper must be submitted by Friday of Week 7 of the course. Maximum length for the Final Paper is 10 pages of actual content/text, double-spaced, 12-point font. There is no page limit for the References.

Short Essays & Final Paper APA Format: The structure of the Short Essays and Final Paper will be in strict APA journal article format and style regarding the overall presentation of the content. That is, there will be (1) an Introduction containing an explicit statement of the theoretical question/issues, as well as a (1a) Rationale/Significance section containing a situation of the question relative the literature and/or educational practice (why is your question significant?; what would we know if we had the answer to this question?; how would an answer advance science and education?), (2) Methods section containing a discussion and/or critique of the methods/means by which the field has addressed the question/issues, (3) Results section containing essential findings relative to the question, and a (4) Discussion section discussion from which you draw conclusions and implications, including your analysis/critique and synthesis of the issues at hand, and ideas for further study on the topic.

Presentation of Final Paper: You are required to give one 10-minute presentation of your Final Paper (accompanied by a 10-minute discussion) during the last class of the term. Practice. Time yourselves. This will be excellent preparation for conference presentations. You are strongly encouraged to discuss your presentations with the professor well in advance. For this presentation, you are expected to use visual aids (e.g., PowerPoint). You are strongly encouraged to prepare handouts for your classmates, summarizing the main points of your presentation. In addition, please prepare 2-3 questions for presentation’s 10-min discussion period, which you must distribute on Blackboard one week prior to the presentation date. In this way, you will help each other to learn the topics. Please note that once you have committed to a Final Paper/Presentation topic, it can only be changed under exceptional circumstances.



BLACKBOARD & Required Readings

The course will be supported by the blackboard website. Please note that the information on Blackboard does not replace attending the classes. All readings for the course are on Blackboard. The specific readings that are required for each individual class/topic are listed in below. You are expected to do all the reading and there will be questions in class that will assess your knowledge of all the texts. In this semester, you are asked to pay special attention to the “Building Connections” comments in the syllabus associated with some of the classes when doing the readings for that week. This is another creative “design feature” built into this course to ensure your learning and life-long ownership of the course material. Here, you are encouraged to link the knowledge that you are learning in this Part II of the course with the knowledge that you learned in Part 1of the course. When “Building Connections” comments appear in this syllabus, students can be certain that they will be asked directly to elaborate on these links and connections. Your answers will be evaluatedassessed as a normal component of your “Class Participation” evaluation/grade (see rubric attached).

Academic responsibility

It is the student’s responsibility to familiarize themselves and comply with the Gallaudet University Graduate Academic Integrity Policy, which can be found in the Gallaudet University Undergraduate/Graduate Catalog or on the Gallaudet University website at:

http://catalog.gallaudet.edu/Catalog/Registration_and_Policies/Graduate_Policies/Academic_Integrity.html

oswd academic accommodation policy

Students have the responsibility of formally requesting accommodation through the Office for Students With Disabilities (OSWD) at the beginning of the semester. See,

http://oswd.gallaudet.edu/Student_Affairs/Student_Support_Services/Office_for_Students_with_Disabilities/General_Information/Academic_Accommodations_Policy.html



For information on your rights under the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act please see the OSWD site.

changes to the syllabus

Should items on this syllabus change; all students will be informed in writing.

EVALUATION CRITERIA (See also GRADING Rubric BELOW)




PEN 704: Foundations of Educational Neuroscience II

PLO

Course student Learning Outcomes

Student Learning Opportunities

(Write major learning opportunities)

Assessment Method

(Indicate at least 2 multiple & varied assessment methods)

1

2

3

4

5

6

1. Students will learn the core questions, principles, goals, knowledge domains, and methods of the new multidisciplinary field Educational Neuroscience.

Class participation/discussion informed from assigned readings

Participation in class discussion will be evaluatedassessed using a rubric provided in the syllabus; paper and presentation will be evaluatedassessed using the rubrics for written assignments and presentations

x

x

x

x

x




2. Students will know and explain the principled and meaningful links between science and education through problems explored in and out of the class.

Class participation/discussion informed from assigned readings, Short Essays, Final Paper, and Presentation of Final Paper

Participation in class discussion will be evaluatedassessed using a rubric provided in the syllabus; paper and presentation will be evaluatedassessed using the rubrics for written assignments and presentations

x

x

x

x

x




3. Students will demonstrate the critical thinking, analysis skills, and knowledge necessary to conduct research in Educational Neuroscience.

Class participation/discussion informed from assigned readings, Short Essays, Final Paper, and Presentation of Final Paper

Participation in class discussion will be evaluatedassessed using a rubric provided in the syllabus; paper and presentation will be evaluatedassessed using the rubrics for written assignments and presentations

x

x

x

x

x





COURSE SCHEDULE

Week 1. Introduction to EDUCATIONAL neuroscience, Part ii
Beginning in the mid 2000s a unique experiment in the history of science was launched in the nation. The National Science Foundation created six Science of Learning Centers to advance scientific discoveries about learning that have meaningful benefits for society and education. While the discipline of Educational Neuroscience predated the creation of the NSF Centers, it was catapulted forward and afforded stunning momentum and strength from them. The scientific vision, questions, methods, and commitment to two-way translation of research discoveries are virtually identical to the activity that is sometimes called the “Science of Learning” or “the learning sciences” (following from the name of the NSF Centers). They are indeed essentially one and the same the same discipline. One clarification would be that Educational Neuroscience focuses robustly on learning that is specifically at the heart of early schooling: language, reading, math, science, social-emotional. In this introductory class, we will discuss core strengths unique to Educational Neuroscience at Gallaudet University. Gallaudet has one of the six coveted sites in the nation to have an NSF Science of Learning Center, called Visual Language and Visual Learning, VL2. VL2’s research and translational activities in Educational Neuroscience will be discussed, especially regarding pioneering advances in the understanding of the “Visual Learner.” Definitions of core terms will be provided (e.g., who is a visual learner?) Innovations in the understanding of human learning through the new lens of the visual learner will also be laid bare through discussion of the course content. We will also discuss the assessments, papers, and presentation that are required for this course.
Week 2. educational neuroscience and the visual learner - new view of brain plasticity and Human learning
Part 1. Much scientific focus has examined the role of the ears and auditory processes in building knowledge, especially involving language, reading, and literacy. What happens when the lion’s share of knowledge is derived from vision (visual attention/processing, visual language, and visually-based, social-emotional interactions)? Here we analyze new discoveries about the neural plasticity of particular brain structures and related brain functions made possible only through understanding the young deaf visual learner. Core contemporary scientific concepts include the impact of brain plasticity (neural plasticity) in higher cognitive functions, cross-modal plasticity, the significance of maturational milestones in biological development, and the critical or “Sensitive Period Hypothesis.”
Part 2. A revolutionary new view has advanced from VL2 findings: Differences in early sensory experience can change the brain and its functions in ways that can afford higher cognitive processing advantages to the young deaf visual learner. It is imperative that you challenge yourself to understand deeply this revolution in contemporary thought. Based on your readings, you will discuss and critically analyze the broad ramifications that this new understanding could have on educational and medical practices and policy with young visual learners, especially the young deaf visual learner.
Cohen, Lehericy, Chochon, Lemer, Rivaud, & Dehaene, S., 2002
Lomber, Meredith, & Kral, 2010

Kolb & Whishaw, 1998

Thomas, 2012

Jiaxiang & Kourtzi, 2010

Week 3. Educational Neuroscience and The visual learner – Visual processing

Part 1. We explore the anatomical and functional changes of parietal lobe (dorsal) visual attention systems and auditory and visual temporal (ventral) systems, as a result of different early sensory experience. During specific visual attention tasks, VL2 researchers and others have shown functional reorganization in the brain’s dorsal visual stream in deaf adults. For these tasks, it is suggested that sensory experience, rather than visual sign language experience, brings about these visual attention/processing differences. Yet, in other studies, visual linguistic experience (and not just sensory experience) impacts the functional organization of visual processing. We will delve into both types of findings and their powerful scientific implications.
Part 2. Two groups will be formed. Based on the readings, the first group will identify brain changes that impact visual processing—brain changes that appear to result from different early life sensory experiences (deaf, hearing). The second group will identify brain changes that impact visual processing that appear to result from early exposure to a visual signed language. Together, the two groups will then discuss the significance of such remarkable changes to brain structures and functions in the lifetime of an individual (ontogeny), and then identify the translational significance of these findings for society, education, and educational policy.
Building Connections with Part I of the Course: Link the present brain changes to the Educational Neuroscience studies of controlled and automatic learning processes studied in Week 5, Part I of this course.

Bavelier, Dye, & Hauser, 2006

Bosworth & Dobkins, 2002a,b

Hauser et al., 2007

Dye Hauser & Bavelier, 2009

Dye & Bavelier, 2010



Week 4. Educational Neuroscience and The visual learner - visual attention and higher cognition & Literacy

Note: Short Essay #1 due today in class
Part 1. We explore how differences in early visual sensory experience can impact visual attention, and, in turn, human learning. This is a new advance in the brain sciences, as some fundamental neural systems were thought to be especially resilient in the face of experiential change. VL2 researchers and others have found that early exposure to a visual signed language in young deaf visual learners changes their visual attention processing, which, in turn, has an upstream positive impact on higher cognition. Infants exposed to a visual signed language in early life attend less to the hands and more to the direction and trajectory of the adult’s eye gaze, thereby facilitating language development. The capacity to track adult eye gaze aids the infant in making connections between a given sign and its intended meaning. VL2 studies of older deaf toddlers during book reading with their signing parents have found that the toddlers’ eye gaze tracking ability is indeed vital to early vocabulary, language, and literacy mastery, both in American Sign Language as well as in English.
Part 2. Following from the readings and class content, you will identify common beliefs about the early exposure of signed languages to young children and its relation to the acquisition of reading. Critically analyze the validity of such common beliefs in light of the experimental evidence thus far.
Building Connections with Part I of the Course: Link the present brain changes to early visual attention (as a result of early visual language experience) to Educational Neuroscience studies of Reading in Week 10, Part I of this course.

Brooks & Meltzoff, 2008

Lieberman, 2012

Week 5. Educational neuroscience and the visual learner - social visual engagement and higher cognition & Literacy

Part 1. We explore how changes in early visual sensory experience can impact social visual engagement, social self-regulation, and learning. VL2 researchers and others have found that early exposure to a signed language in young deaf visual learners changes their social visual engagement (and eye-gaze tracking) skills and social-emotional self-regulation that is vital to learning and remembering what we learn, positively impacting language, reading, and literacy.
Part 2. MiniLab Experience: Through Fuze meeting technology, we will visit with the lead scientist who conducts this research. New research on Gaze following/tracking behavior in deaf infants exposed to signed language, as compared to deaf infants who are not, will be discussed and observed. Paying special attention to the experimental paradigm, identify the behaviors that can be measured and the translational significance that findings from these studies could potentially possess for future translational work, and, ultimately for the young deaf visual learner.
Building Connections with Part I of the Course: Link the present brain changes to early visual attention (as a result of early visual language experience) to Educational Neuroscience studies of Reading in Week 10, Social Cognition in Week 11, and Culture in Week 13, in Part I of this course.

Swisher, 2000

Posner & Rothbart, 2000

Mohay, 2000


Week 6. Educational neuroscience and the visual learner - role of gestures & MATH LEARNING

Part 1. Studies of hearing children’s use of gestures have shown that there can be highly revealing “mismatches” between their gestures and language productions at developmental junctures when they are on the cusp of conceptual insight and change, for example, going from not understanding a math concept to understanding it. In turn, these children’s knowledge acquisition can be facilitated if they receive training/instruction within the developmental time period when the mismatches occur. VL2 researchers have found that gesture is indeed a robust representational form during signed language development in the young deaf child despite the fact that gesture and sign reside in the same modality. Moreover, deaf children demonstrate gesture-signed language “mismatches” at similar times and at similar conceptual thresholds as hearing children in math learning.
Part 2. While above you identified widely held common beliefs about early signed language exposure, here you will identify common beliefs about the potentially interfering role of early gestures—for example, whereupon gestures in young deaf children exposed to speech are often discouraged (e.g., deaf children with Cochlear implants). Based on the assigned readings, identify the important role of children's gestures in determining where they are in their mathematical development. Critically analyze how the findings may serve as an aid in instructional practice used in the education of all young visual learners, especially the young deaf visual learner, and especially as they relate to the training of science and scientific concepts.
Building Connections with Part I of the Course: Link the present findings about gestures, to Educational Neuroscience studies of Math and Numeracy in Week 6, in Part I of this course.

Goldin-Meadow, Shield, Lenzen, Herzig, Padden, 2012



Week 7. Educational neuroscience and the visual learner – new insights into language universals, language advantages, & the bilingual brain

Note: Topic for Final Paper due by Friday @ 5:00pm of this week
Part 1. The brain and behavioral studies of language development and bilingualism at VL2 finds that early exposure to a signed language proceeds on the identical language maturational timetable as spoken language. Early bilingual exposure to a signed language and a spoken language (bimodal bilinguals) affords higher cognitive advantages. New discoveries in VL2’s affiliated laboratory, the Brain and Language Laboratory, BL2, show that all bilingual children (sign+sign, sign+speech, and speech+speech) deomonstrate remarkable language and reading advantages over age-matched monolingual children. Moreover, early sign-exposed deaf children learning English primarily through reading (sign-print bilinguals) possess linguistic processing strengths across both languages. Indeed early access to a signed language improves these sign-print deaf bilingual children’s performance in reading English rather than the reverse. Ingenious studies of these deaf children reading English print reveal that they simultaneously access ASL during English reading, showing the same classic dual language activation strengths observed in all bilinguals. This work challenges science and society’s concept of “Bilingualism” to include children who are indeed bilingual, but who have exclusive access to their other language through the printed word.

Part 2. MiniLab Experience: Through Fuze meeting technology, you will visit the lab where some of the above discoveries have been made, and observe the experimental paradigms and stimuli used to make the discoveries. Critically analyze the structure of each experiment, identify the dependent and independent measures, and make a “Thinking Guide” flow chart of the specific logic/reasoning underlying each experiment.
Building Connections with Part I of the Course: Link the present findings about monolingual and bilingual language acquisition to Educational Neuroscience studies of language learning, Weeks 6 & 7, in Part I of this course.
Emmorey, Borinstein, Thompson & Gollan, 2008

Freel, Clark, Anderson, Gilbert, Musyoka, & Hauser, 2011

Hauser, Lukomski & Hillman, 2008

Petitto & Holowka, 2002

(Optional: Petitto & Marentette, 1991)



WEEK 8. Educational neuroscience and a revolutionary view of reading – visual phonology, children and adults

Note: Short Essay #2 due today in class
Part 1. There is now growing evidence that deaf visual learners also have – and use – a “visual phonology” when accessing meaning from English printed words, which is built up from a complex combination of early visual experience with the sign phonetic-syllabic rhythmic temporal properties key to sign phonological organization, phonetic rhythmic temporal combinatorial parameters of fluid fingerspelling, and sensitivity to visual orthographic patterning. Early visual language experience also impacts the visual learner’s use of a larger "text processing" window when reading printed text (studied with eye-tracking and neuroimaging technologies). As in the acquisition of reading in spoken languages (e.g., English), visual phonology in the deaf visual learner appears to be especially crucial in early reading acquisition. While somewhat later readers (specifically, the fluent ASL and English bilingual deaf child) also show the shift to more sign semantic processing during reading.

Part 2. Two groups will be formed. The first group will critically assemble and evaluate the evidence for the existence of a visual phonology drawing from the readings. The second group will identify the important implications of the finding for education, teaching, and policy regarding the young visual learner to read. Each will then inform and debate with the other. Crucially, both will then discuss why the discovery of a “visual phonology” has been articulated by leading world scientists to be one of the most revolutionary findings about the nature of human language in the history of language studies.
Building Connections with Part I of the Course: Link the present behavioral and brain discoveries of visual phonology and reading in visual learners to Educational Neuroscience studies of Reading in Week 10, in Part I of this course.

Emmorey, Xu & Braun, A, 2012

Baker, Golinkoff, & Petitto, 2006

McQuarrie & Parrila, 2009


Morford, Wilkinson, Villwock, Pinar, & Kroll, 2011

Petitto, Zatorre, et al., 2000

Pinar, Dussias, & Morford, 2011



WEEK 9. Educational Neuroscience and translational research

Part 1. Through synergistic VL2 Center collaborations, VL2 researchers have built upon VL2 findings showing the advantageous impact of early visual language exposure and visual social engagement on later language, reading, and literacy. In turn, they have designed and conducted translational research whereupon they ask whether parental training in ASL can facilitate communication in the home so that language and pre-literacy skills are in place for young deaf children prior to school entry. Here, they specifically train parents of young deaf visual learners in the visual language of ASL as a direct tool to enhance their children’s social visual engagement, vocabulary acquisition, and overall language, reading, and literacy success.

Part 2: MiniLab Experience: First, from your readings, discuss and identify what is translation research? What are the steps from translational research, to educational practice, and to educational policy change? Direct? Second, through Fuze meeting technology, you will visit with this lab, view demonstrations of the teacher/parent training procedures, and discuss with the researchers, first-hand, results thus far. Critically evaluate the experimental paradigm used and the theoretical premises upon which the studies are based. Discuss with the researchers their “next step” scientific questions, as well as their translational research plans to be pursued.
Building Connections with Part I of the Course: Link the translational research described here to Educational Neuroscience studies in this Part II of the course, especially Weeks 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8. In addition, link the present translational research described here to Educational Neuroscience studies of Bilinguals in Week 7, Reading in Week 10, Social Cognition in Week 11, and Culture in Week 13, in Part I of this course.

Haptonstall-Nykaza & Schick, 2007

Padden, 2006

WEEK 10. Educational Neuroscience innovations in translation – evaluation & risk assessment, ethical considerations of research in special populations

Part 1. VL2 is committed to the integration of research and education through the development of tools and products that employ scientific principles of Center work, to disseminate information to teachers, parents, and the community at large, as well as to train a future generation of students in interdisciplinary scientific methods. Each will be identified, analyzed, and discussed in turn.

Part 2. Despite good intentions, formal mechanisms of evaluation and risk assessment must be put in place regarding all translational “products.” Discuss and critically analyze why? Drawing from your readings, identify and discus ethical considerations involved in all such research and product/information dissemination. In addition, identify, discuss, and critically evaluate the crucial ethical considerations of all such research, especially research involving special populations.

Borner et al., 2010

Urban & Trochim, 2009

Tochim, Kane, Grahman, Pincus, 2011



Week 11. Educational Neuroscience innovations in translation – normative data, Volunteer participant pools, first-time shared data banks

Part 1. VL2 research has given rise to activities and products that have value for the practitioners, for example, the “VL2 Assessment Toolkit” (Adult and Child versions) to promote common measures and definitions in the field. This facilitates cross-project comparisons, the collection of vital norms for the development of sign language important for teachers, health care practitioners, and parents, and indeed makes possible a greater potential for accumulating data needed for evidence-based practice and educational reform. VL2 has also created a Shared Research Participant Pool (inclusive of infants, children and adults) and a mechanism for sharing data amongst VL2 affiliated researchers (VL2 Data Sharing Bank). Here, VL2 is developing the cyber-infrastructure, IRB protocols, and recruitment strategies for a national participant pool of Deaf individuals who would like to be contacted for potential participation in future VL2-affiliated research. This will be of great assistance for researchers needing to recruit participants from this low-incidence population. There is also great interest in making available de-identified data sets (such as EELS data) in a VL2 Shared Data Bank for VL2-affiliated researchers seeking to conduct secondary data analyses and testing new research hypotheses.
Part 2. Two groups will be formed. Each will separately evaluate the pros and cons of these activities for all stakeholders, especially members of the deaf community, by considering the multitude of complex factors at hand. Arbitrarily, one group will be assigned as pro, one con. An open debate will ensue.
Building Connections with Part I of the Course: Link the present normative data/ASL Assessment Toolkit to Educational Neuroscience studies in this Part II of the course, especially Weeks 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8. In addition, link the present normative data/ASL Assessment Toolkit to Educational Neuroscience studies of Bilinguals in Week 7 and Reading in Week 10 in Part I of this course. Note this work is a result of “two-way,” bidirectional (especially, from the community to the lab) collaboration. Identify how/why?

Allen et al., 2009

Morere & Allen, In Press, Chapter 2

Enns & Herman, 2011



Week 12. Educational Neuroscience innovations in translation – bilingual reading apps, dissemination, Classroom & Community impact

NOTE: Final paper due today (no exceptions)

Blackboard: Upload your 2-3 Discussion questions for your next week’s presentation today.
Part 1. VL2 develops a wide range of educational and informational translational products in a variety of media to facilitate the rapid and widespread distribution of Center findings, and the learning of deaf children in their homes and in school. An important goal is to move from translational research to translational impact by communicating the findings and Center activities broadly and effectively using multiple methods appropriate for a wide variety of stakeholders.
Part 2. MiniLab Experience: You will participate in demonstrations of VL2’s groundbreaking ASL-English Bilingual Reading Apps, Parent-Teacher Packages, web-based dissemination venues, products, tools, and more. However, you will view the ASL-English Bilingual Reading Apps and specifically identify the chain of reasoning/planning underlying its design, moving from the laboratory findings upon which it was based, to the translational research that preceded its development, and then to the parameters along which it is presently designed and tested.
Building Connections with Part I of the Course: The ASL-Bilingual Reading Apps have important and meaningful links to discoveries from Educational Neuroscience discussed in Part I of this course, as well as those specific discoveries discussed in this Part II of the course. As we approach Week 13 of this 2-Part course, now it is your turn: Identify the specific research connections and foundations (spanning Part I and Part II of this course) from which the ASL-Bilingual Reading Apps derived?

DeLana, Gentry, Andrews, 2007

Andrews & Rusher, 2010

Week 13. Educational Neuroscience innovations in translation – training the next generation

Part 1. VL2 trains scientists at the undergraduate, graduate, and post-doctoral levels in the multidisciplinary study of visual language and visual learning. VL2 has also created a Science Mentorship Program to further support the training of young students and to address the crucial issue of the retention of young students in science, spanning undergraduates to young faculty (and includes one-on-one training and mentorship of former VL2 students/faculty, as well as new students/faculty who wish to participate in the Center)—activities also vital to Center sustainability.
Part 2. MiniLab Experience: Two groups will be formed arbitrarily. Based on the readings, and class knowledge, you will discuss with the VL2 student representative who will visit this class the structure of the VL2 Student Leadership Team, as well as the other student organs, and then prepare an organizational flow chart, which you will then critically evaluate for strengths and perceived areas to strengthen. Further, at the larger level involving contributions to society, you will offer a critical analysis of the motivation behind the design of such student training activities. Stepping back, identify the fuller societal outcomes that could potentially follow from such activities.
Week 14. Educational Neuroscience and integration of science & translation – building partnerships


Note: In-class Presentation of your Final Paper today
Part 1. We will identify VL2’s strong two-way partnerships with The Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center as well as VL2’s School Partner Program (which contains over 90 schools). We will identify and discuss the fuller societal outcomes that could potentially follow from such partnerships. We will track the two-way, bi-directional mutual discovery that moves from the Schools/community to the laboratory. We will also identify the steps from the laboratory, to translational research, and, ultimately, to educational practice and policy innovations. Both directions are vital for discovery and change. You will identify and know how this is so, and, crucially, you will know the steps that lead to revolutionary educational innovation and society change for all children, especially the young visual learner!
Part II. In-class Presentations.
REFERENCES

Allen, T.E., Clark, D.M., del Giudice, A., Koo, D., Lieberman, A., Mayberry, R. I., & Miller, P. (2009). Phonology and reading: A response to Wang, Trezek, Luckner, and Paul. American Annals of the Deaf, 154, 338-345.

Andrews, J. F., & Melissa Rusher (2010). Codeswitching Techniques: Evidence-Based Instructional Practices for the ASL/English Bilingual Classroom. American Annals of the Deaf. 155(4), 407-424.

Baker, S.A., Golinkoff, R. M., & Petitto, L.A. (2006). New insights into old puzzles from infants’ categorical discrimination of soundless phonetic units. Language Learning and Development, 2(3), 147-162.

Bavelier, D., Dye, M.W.G. & Hauser, P.C. (2006). Do deaf individuals see better? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10 (11), 512-518.



Börner, K., Contractor, N., Falk-Krzesinski, H.J., Fiore, S.M., Hall, K.L., Keyton, J., Spring, B., Stokols, D., Trochim, W., and Uzzi, B. (2010). A Multi-Level Systems Perspective for the Science of Team Science. Science Translational Medicine 2, cm24.

Bosworth, R.G., & Dobkins,K. R. (2002a). The effects of spatial attention on motion processing in deaf singers, hearing signers, and hearing nonsigners. Brain & Cognition, 49, 152-169.

Bosworth, R. G., & Dobkins, K. R. (2002b). Visual field asymmetries for motion processing in deaf and hearing signers. Brain and Cognition, 49, 170–181.

Brooks, R. & Meltzoff, A. (2008). Infant gaze following and pointing predict accelerated vocabulary growth through two years of age: a longitudinal, growth curve modeling study. Journal of Child Language, 35 (1), 207-220.

Cohen, L., Lehericy, S., Chochon, F., Lemer, C., Rivaud, S., & Dehaene, S. (2002). Language-specific tuning of visual cortex? Functional properties of the visual word form area. Brain: A Journal of Neurology, 125(5), 1054-1069.

Crume, P. & Singleton, J.L. (2008). Teacher practices for promoting visual engagement of deaf children in a bilingual preschool. Paper presented at the Association of College Educators of the Deaf/Hard of Hearing. Monterey, CA.

Dehaene, S., Molko, N., Cohen, L., & Wilson, A. J. (2004). Arithmetic and the brain. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 14, 218-224.

DeLana, M., Gentry, M. A., Andrews, J.F. (2007). The efficacy of ASL/English Bilingual Education: Considering Public Schools. American Annals of the Deaf. 152(1).

Dye, M.W.G. & Bavelier, D. (2010). Attentional enhancements and deficits in deaf populations: An integrative review. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience. Special Issue on Development and Plasticity of Multisensory Functions, 28 (2), 181-192.

Dye, M., Hauser, P., Bavelier, D. (2009). Is visual selective attention in deaf individuals enhanced or deficient? PLoS ONE, 4(5), e5640.

Emmorey, K., Borinstein, H. B., Thompson, R. L., & Gollan, T. H. (2008). Bimodal bilingualism.

Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11(1), 43-61.


Emmorey, K., Xu, J., & Braun, A. (2012). Neural responses to meaningless pseudosigns: Evidence for sign-based phonetic processing in superior temporal cortex. Brain and Language. 117(1). 34-38.


Enns, C.J. & Herman, R.C. (2011). Adapting the Assessing British Sign Language Development: Receptive Skills Test Into American Sign Language. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. 16(3), 362-374.

Freel, B. L., Clark, M. D., Anderson, M. L., Gilbert, G. L., Musyoka, M. M., & Hauser, P. C. (2011). Deaf individuals’ bilingual abilities: American Sign Language proficiency, reading skills, and family characteristics. American Annals of the Deaf, 2(1) 18-23.

Goldin-Meadow, S., Shield, A., Lenzen, D., Herzig, H., Padden, C. (2012). The gestures of ASL signers use tell us when they are ready to learn math. Cognition, (02)006.

Gratton, G., & Fabiani, M. (2003). The event related optical signal (EROS) in visual cortex: Replicability, consistency, localization and resolution. Psychophysiology, 40(4), 561-571.

Haptonstall-Nykaza, T. S., & Schick, B. (2007). The transition from fingerspelling to English print: Facilitating English decoding. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 12 (2), 172-183.

Hauser, P., Lukomski, J. & Hillman, T. (2008). Development of deaf and hard-of-hearing students’ executive function In M. Marschark & P.C. Hauser (Eds.) Deaf cognition: Foundations and outcomes. (pp. 250-263). NY: Oxford University Press.

Hauser, C.P., Dye, D. W.G., Boutla, M, Green, C.S., & Bavelier, D. (2007). Deafness and visual enumeration: not all aspects of attention are modified by deafness. Brain Research, 1153, 178-187.

Jiaxiang, Z. & Kourtzi, Z. (2010). Learning-dependent plasticity with and without training in the human brain. PNAS, 107(30),13503-13508.

Kolb, B., & Whishaw, I.Q. (1998). Brain plasticity and behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 43-64.

Kovelman, I., Baker, S.A., & Petitto, L. A. (2008). Age of first bilingual language exposure as a new window into bilingual reading development. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11(2), 203-223.

Lieberman, A. (2012). Eye Gaze and Joint Attention: Fundamental skills for successful interactions in Home and School Environments. Visual Language & Visual Learning Research Brief. Learning From Research #5. Washington, D.C.

Lomber, S.G., Meredith, M.A., and Kral, A. (2010) Crossmodal plasticity in specific auditory cortices underlies visual compensations in the deaf.  Nature Neuroscience 13, 1421-1427.

McQuarrie, L. & Parrila, R. (2009). Phonological Representations in Deaf Children: Rethinking the “Functional Equivalence” Hypothesis. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. 14(2), 137-154.

Mohay, H. (2000). Language in sight: Mothers’ strategies for making language visually accessible to deaf children. In P.E. Spencer, C.J. Erting, & M. Marschark (Eds.), The deaf child in the family and at school (pp. 151-166). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Morford, J., Wilkinson, E., Villwock, A., Pinar, P., & Kroll, J. (2011). When deaf signers read English, do written words activate their sign translations? Cognition, 18 (2), 286-292.

Morere, D. and Allen, T. (In Press). Assessing Literacy in Deaf Individuals: Neurocognitive Measurement and Predictors. New York: Springer.

Padden, C. (2006). Learning fingerspelling twice: Young signing children’s acquisition of fingerspelling. In M. Marschark, B. Schick & P. Spencer (Eds.) Advances in Sign Language Development by Deaf Children. New York: Oxford University Press.

Petitto, L.A., Holowka, S., Sergio, L., Levy, B., & Ostry, D. (2004). Baby hands that move to the rhythm of language: Hearing babies acquiring sign languages babble silently on the hands. Cognition, 9, 43-73.

Petitto, L.A., & Holowka, S. (2002). Evaluating attributions of delay and confusion in young bilinguals: Special insights from infants acquiring a signed and a spoken language. Sign Language Studies, 3(1), 4-33.

Petitto, L.A., & Marentette, P. (1991). Babbling in the manual mode: evidence for the ontogeny of language. Science, 251, 1493–1496.

Petitto, L.A., Zatorre, R., Gauna, K., Nikelski, E.J., Dostie, D., & Evans, A. (2000). Speech-like cerebral activity in profoundly deaf people processing signed languages: Implications for the neural basis of human language. (PET brain imaging study.) Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97(25), 13961-13966.

Pinar, P., Dussias, P.E., Morford, J.P. (2011). Deaf Readers as Bilinguals: An Examination of Deaf Readers’ Print Comprehension in Light of Current Advances in Bilingualism and Second Language Processing. Language and Linguistics Compass, 5(10), 691-704/

Posner, M.I., & Rothbart, M.K. (2000). Developing mechanisms of self-regulation. Development and psychopathology, 12(3), 427-41.

Swisher, M. (2000). Learning to converse: How deaf mothers support the development of attention and conversational skills in their young deaf children. In P.E. Spencer, C.J. Erting, & M. Marschark (Eds.), The deaf child in the family and at school (pp.21-39). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 316-339.

Thomas, M.C. (2012). Brain plasticity and education.  BJEP Monograph Series II, Number 8 - Educational Neuroscience, Volume 1,  143-156(14)Tochim, W, Kane, C, Grahman, M, Pincus, H. (2011). Evaluating Translational Research: A process Marker Model. Clinical and Translational Science. 4(30), 153-162.

Trochim, W., Kane, C., Graham, M., and Pincus, H. (2011). Evaluating Translational Research: A Process Marker Model. Clinical and Translational Sciences 4, 153-162.

Urban, J. B., & Trochim, W. (2009). The Role of Evaluation in Research-Practice Integration: Working Toward the "Golden Spike". American Journal of Evaluation, 30(4), 538-553

Zhanga, J.,  and Kourtzia, Z  (2010). Learning-dependent plasticity with and without training in the human brain. PNAS,  107, 30, 13503–13508.




Gallaudet University Ph.D. Program in Educational Neuroscience

Rubric for Grading for Reading Discussions and Presentations

Adapted from Department of Interpretation




Gallaudet University Ph.D. Program in Educational Neuroscience

A Scored Rubric for Evaluating a Research Paper


Adapted from Department of Interpretation

Quoted from Linda Suskie’s (2004:146-147) Assessing Student Learning: A Common Sense Guide.

This quoted rubric was adapted with permission from a rubric developed by Sharon Glennen and Celia Bassich-Zeren in the Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders at Towson University




Foundations of Educational Neuroscience, Part II, page



Download 138.11 Kb.

Share with your friends:




The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2022
send message

    Main page