Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Politics of Plasticity: Implications of the New Science of the “Teen Brain” for Education

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In 2018, Unicef produced a compendium of adolescent neuroscience understood to be relevant to the design of scalable interventions to improve adolescent mental health: https://www.unicef-irc.org/article/1750-the-adolescent-brain-a-second-window-of-opportunity.html. The Ford Foundation is involved in a new initiative mobilizing developmental cognitive neuroscience to public policy, and the Centre for the Developing Adolescent (https://developingadolescent.org/science) aims to synthesize interdisciplinary developmental science of adolescence to influence health and social policy. These recent initiatives are new examples of a recent effort to reframe the “vulnerability and opportunity” associated with adolescence in terms of resilience and potential rather than solely risk.

  2. Academic articles were largely chosen based on frequency of citation as determined by the Google Scholar search engine, in order to provide a cross-section of the most influential work and critique in the field. Search terms included, “neuroeducation,” “neuroscience and education,” “neuroscience and learning,” “brain-based learning,” and “mind, brain, and education,” with additional modifiers such as “policy,” “critique,” and “history.” Neuroeducational curricula, working groups, centres and commercial products were found using Google keywords similar to those above, and additionally “brain games,” “brain and classroom,” “brain-based curricula,” “brain-training,” “neuroscience education products,” and combinations thereof. Initial terms were chosen based on their occurrence in academic articles, and further terms added as they were used on the websites and in the descriptions of such curricula and products.

  3. On February 3, 1997, a special issue featured a report on “How a Child’s Brain Develops”.

  4. Available at: https://www.jsmf.org/santiagodeclaration/. Last consulted on February 20, 2020.

  5. Interestingly, this particular school underwent a degree of media scrutiny for its emphasis on the brain and emotional intelligence at the expense of basic reading and arithmetic https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/nyregion/at-the-blue-school-kindergarten-curriculum-includes-neurology.html; https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2158826/School-founded-Blue-Man-Group-labeled-disaster-children-read.html.

  6. Though brain-training programs have been particularly popular, scientific research about brain-training has shown mixed and rather limited results (Owen et al 2010; Melby-Lervåg and Hulme 2013; Simons et al, 2016).

  7. See for example Dan Siegel’s Hand Model of the Brain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gm9CIJ74Oxw

References

  • Ansari, Daniel, Bert De Smedt, and Roland H. Grabner. 2012. “Neuroeducation–A Critical Overview of an Emerging Field.” Neuroethics 5, no. 2: 105-117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ansari, Daniel, and Donna Coch. 2006. “Bridges over Troubled Waters: Education and Cognitive Neuroscience.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10, no. 4: 146-151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bangerter, Adrian, and Chip Heath. 2004. “The Mozart Effect: Tracking the Evolution of a Scientific Legend.” British Journal of Social Psychology 43, no. 4: 605-623.

    Google Scholar 

  • Begley, Sharon. 1996. “Your Child’s Brain.” Newsweek 127: 54-57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berninger, Virginia W., and David Corina. 1998. “Making Cognitive Neuroscience Educationally Relevant: Creating Bidirectional Collaborations between Educational Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience.” Educational Psychology Review 10, no. 3: 343-354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blair, Clancy, and C. Cybele Raver. 2015. “School Readiness and Self-Regulation: A Developmental Psychobiological Approach.” Annual Review of Psychology 66: 711-731.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blair, Clancy, and Adele Diamond. 2008. “Biological Processes in Prevention and Intervention: The Promotion of Self-Regulation as a Means of Preventing School Failure.” Development and Psychopathology 20, no. 3: 899-911.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blair, Clancy. 2002. “School Readiness: Integrating Cognition and Emotion in a Neurobiological Conceptualization of Children’s Functioning at School Entry.” American psychologist 57, no. 2: 111-127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blair, Clancy. 2003. Self-Regulation and School Readiness. Champaign, IL: ERIC Digest.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blakemore Sarah-Jayne. 2018. Inventing Ourselves: The Secret Life of the Teenage Brain. New York: Public Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blakemore, Sarah-Jayne, and Uta Frith. 2005. The Learning Brain: Lessons for Education. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanchette Sarrasin, Jérémie, Martin Riopel, and Steve Masson. 2019. “Neuromyths and Their Origin Among Teachers in Quebec.” Mind, Brain, and Education 13, no. 2: 100-109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broer, Tineke, and Martyn Pickersgill. 2015. “Targeting Brains, Producing Responsibilities: The Use of Neuroscience within British Social Policy.” Social Science and Medicine 132: 54-61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruer, John T. 1993. Schools for Thought: A Science of Learning in the Classroom. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruer, John T. 1997. “Education and the Brain: A Bridge Too Far.” Educational Researcher 26, no. 8: 4-16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, Judith. 1997. The psychic life of power: Theories in subjection. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrnes, James P., and Nathan A. Fox. 1998. “The Educational Relevance of Research in Cognitive Neuroscience.” Educational Psychology Review 10, no. 3: 297-342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caine, Geoffrey, Renate Nummela Caine, and Sam Crowell. 1994. Mindshifts: A Brain-based Process for Restructuring Schools and Renewing Education. Tucson, AZ: Zephyr Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calvin, William H. 1997. How Brains Think: Evolving Intelligence. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, Don. 1997. The Mozart Effect. New York: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantlon, Jessica F., Elizabeth M. Brannon, Elizabeth J. Carter, and Kevin A. Pelphrey. 2006. “Functional Imaging of Numerical Processing in Adults and 4-y-old Children.” PLoS Biology 4, no. 5: e125. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carey, William. B., Marian Fox, and Sean C. McDevitt. 1977. “Temperament as a Factor in Early School Adjustment.” Pediatrics 60, no. 4: 621-624.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carnegie Corp. of New York. 1994. Starting Points: Meeting the Needs of Our Youngest Children. The Report of the Carnegie Task Force on Meeting the Needs of Young Children. New York.

  • Chess, Stella. 1968. “Temperament and Learning Ability of School Children.” American Journal of Public Health 58, no. 12: 2231–2239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choudhury, Suparna. 2010. “Culturing the Adolescent Brain: What can Neuroscience Learn From anthropology?” Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 5, no. 2-3: 159-167. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsp030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choudhury, Suparna, and Joshua M. Moses. 2016. “Mindful Interventions: Youth, Poverty, and the Developing Brain.” Theory & Psychology 26, no. 5: 591–606.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choudhury, Suparna, and Kelly A. McKinney. 2013. “Digital Media, the Developing Brain and the Interpretive Plasticity of Neuroplasticity.” Transcultural Psychiatry 50, no. 2: 192–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choudhury, Suparna, Kelly A. McKinney, and Moritz Merten. 2013. “Rebelling Against the Brain: Public Engagement with the ‘Neurological Adolescent’.” Social Science & Medicine 74, no. 4: 565–573.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choudhury, Suparna, and Jan Slaby. 2012. Introduction: Critical Neuroscience—Between Lifeworld and Laboratory. In Critical Neuroscience: A Handbook of the Social and Cultural Contexts of Neuroscience, 1–26. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

  • Choudhury, Suparna, Saskia Kathi Nagel, and Jan Slaby. 2009. “Critical Neuroscience: Linking Neuroscience and Society Through Critical Practice.” BioSocieties 4, no. 1: 61-77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, Steven W. 2014. “Human Social Genomics.” PLoS Genetics 10, no. 8: e1004601. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1004601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cruickshank, William M. 1981. “A New Perspective in Teacher Education: The Neuroeducator.” Journal of Learning Disabilities 14, no. 6: 337-341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cytowic, Richard E. 1998. The Man Who Tasted Shapes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Damasio, Antonio R. 1994. Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Rationality and the Human Brain. New York: G. P. Putnam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, Andrew. 2004. “The Credentials of Brain-Based Learning.” Journal of Philosophy of Education 38, no. 1: 21-36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dekker, Sanne, Nikki C. Lee, Paul Howard-Jones, and Jelle Jolles. 2012. “Neuromyths in Education: Prevalence and Predictors of Misconceptions among Teachers.” Frontiers in Psychology 3, no. 18, 429. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Vos, Jan. 2015. “Deneurologizing Education? From Psychologisation to Neurologisation and Back.” Studies in Philosophy and Education 34, no. 3: 279–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doidge, Norman. 2007. The Brain That Changes Itself. New York: Viking Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dumit, Joseph. 2004. Picturing personhood: Brain scans and biomedical identity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ecclestone, Kathryn. 2004. “Learning or Therapy? The Demoralisation of Education.” British Journal of Educational Studies 52, No. 2: 112–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edelman, Gerald M. 1992. Bright Air, Brilliant Fire: On the Matter of the Mind. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrenberg, Alain. 2004. “Le sujet cérébral.” Esprit 309, no. 11: 130-155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg, Nancy, Carlos Valiente, and Natalie D. Eggum. 2010. “Self-Regulation and School Readiness.” Journal of Early Education and Development 21, no. 5: 681-698.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farah, Martha J. 2015. “The Neuroscience of Socioeconomic Status: Correlates, Causes, and Consequences.” Neuron 96, no. 1: 56-71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farah, Martha J. 2009. Mind, Brain, and Education in Socioeconomic Context. In The Developmental Relations between Mind, Brain and Education. Dordrecht: Springer Science + Business.

  • Feiler, Jacob B., and Maureen E. Stabio. 2018. “Three Pillars of Educational Neuroscience from Three Decades of Literature.” Trends in Neuroscience and Education 13 (December): 17-25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, Kurt W., Usha Goswami, and John Geake. 2010. “The Future of Educational Neuroscience.” Mind, Brain, and Education 4, no. 2: 68-80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, Kurt W., David B. Daniel, Mary Helen Immordino‐Yang, Elsbeth Stern, Antonio Battro, and Hideaki Koizumi. 2007. “Why Mind, Brain, and Education? Why now?” Mind, Brain, and Education 1, no. 1: 1-2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, Des, and Felicity Callard. 2015. “Social Science and Neuroscience beyond Interdisciplinarity: Experimental Entanglements.” Theory, Culture & Society 32, no. 1: 3-32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fledges, Tom. 2018. “Motivation and Experience versus Cognitive Psychological Explanation.” Humana.Mente Journal of Philosophical Studies 11, no. 33: 1-18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freire, Paulo. 2013. Education for Critical Consciousness. New York: Bloomsbury. First published 1974.

  • Freire, Paulo. 2018. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Translated by Myra Bergman Ramos. New York: Bloomsbury. First published 1968.

  • Fricke, Lutz, and Suparna Choudhury. 2011. "Neuropolitik und plastische Gehirne. Eine Fallstudie des adoleszenten Gehirns." Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie 59, no 3 : 391-402.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, Jocelyn. K., and James G. Glendening. 1985. “The Neuroeducator: Professional of the Future.” Theory into Practice 24, no. 2: 135-137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galván, Adriana. 2014. “Insights about Adolescent Behavior, Plasticity, and Policy from Neuroscience Research.” Neuron 83, no. 2: 262-265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gazzaniga, Michael S. 1992. Nature’s Mind: The Biological Roots of Thinking, Emotions, Sexuality, Language, and Intelligence. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geake, John. 2009. The Brain at School: Educational Neuroscience in the Classroom. Berkshire: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geake, John, and Paul Cooper. 2003. “Cognitive Neuroscience: Implications for Education?” Westminster Studies in Education 26, no. 1: 7-20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gieryn, Thomas F. 1995. “Boundaries of Science.” In Science and the Quest for Reality, 293–332. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Gieryn, Thomas F. 1983. “Boundary-work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists.” American Sociological Review 48, no. 6: 781-795.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goswami, Usha. 2006. “Neuroscience and Education: From Research to Practice?” Nature Reviews Neuroscience 7, no. 5: 406-413.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenfield, Susan A. 1997. The Human Brain: A Guided Tour. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hailwood, Elena. 2016. Mindfulness in Education: A Qualitative Exploration of Young People’s Understandings. PhD diss., University of Bristol.

  • Hillman, Charles H., Kirk I. Erickson, and Arthur F. Kramer. 2008. “Be Smart, Exercise Your Heart: Exercise Effects on Brain and Cognition.” Nature Reviews Neuroscience 9, no. 1: 58-65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Home Observation for Measurement of Environment, Robert H. Bradley, and Bettye M. Caldwell. 1984. The HOME Inventory and Family Demographics. Developmental Psychology 20(2):315–320.

  • Howard-Jones, Paul A. 2014. “Neuroscience and Education: Myths and Messages.” Nature Reviews Neuroscience 15, no. 12: 817-824.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, Terry. 2009. “Mindfulness and the Therapeutic Function of Education.” Journal of Philosophy of Education 43, No. 1: 119-131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, Eric, ed. 1998. Teaching with the Brain in Mind. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, Frances E. and Amy Ellis Nutt. 2015. The Teenage Brain: A Neuroscientist’s Survival Guide to Raising Adolescents and Young Adults. New York: Harper Paperbacks.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelleher, Ian, and Glenn Whitman. 2018. “A Bridge No Longer Too Far: A Case Study of One School’s Exploration of the Promise and Possibilities of Mind, Brain, and Education Science for the Future of Education.” Mind, Brain, and Education 12, no. 4: 224-230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knoll, Lisa J., Delia Fuhrmann, Ashok L. Sakhardande, Fabian Stamp, Maarten Speekenbrink, and Sarah-Jayne Blakemore. 2016. “A Window of Opportunity for Cognitive Training in Adolescence.” Psychological Science 27, no. 12: 1620-1631.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederbogen, Florian, Peter Kirsch, Leila Haddad, Fabian Streit, Heike Tost Philipp Schuch, Stefan Wüst, Jens C. Pruessner, Marcella Rietschel, Michael Deuschle, and Andreas Meyer-Lindenberg. 2011. “City Living and Urban Upbringing Affect Neural Social Stress Processing in Humans.” Nature 474: 498-501.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lende, Daniel H. 2012. “Poverty poisons the brain”. Annals of Anthropological Practice, 36, no. 1: 183-201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindell, Annukka K., and Evan Kidd. 2011. “Why Right-Brain Teaching is Half-Witted: A Critique of the Misapplication of Neuroscience to Education.” Mind, Brain, and Education 5, no. 3: 121-127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malabou, Catherine. 2008. What Should We Do with Our Brain? New York: Fordham University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, Roy P., K. Diane Drew, Lena R. Gaddis, and Marion Moseley. 1988. “Prediction of Elementary School Achievement from Preschool Temperament: Three Studies.” School Psychology Review 17, no. 1: 125-137.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCabe, David P., and Alan D. Castel. 2008. “Seeing is Believing: The Effect of Brain Images on Judgments of Scientific Reasoning.” Cognition 107, no. 1: 343-352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meaney, Michael J., and Moshe Szyf. 2005. “Environmental Programming of Stress Responses through DNA Methylation: Life at the Interface between a Dynamic Environment and a Fixed Genome.” Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience 7, no. 2: 103-123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melby-Lervag, Monica, and Charles Hulme. 2013. “Is Working Memory Training Effective? A Meta-Analytic Review.” Developmental Psychology 49, no. 2: 270-291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meloni, Maurizio, John Crombly, and Stephanie Lloyd. 2018. The Palgrave Handbook of Biology and Society. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meloni, Maurizio, Simon Williams, and Paul Martin. 2016. “The Biosocial: Sociological Themes and Issues.” The Sociological Review 64, no. 1: 7-25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mischel, Walter, Yuichi Shoda, and Monica L. Rodriguez. 1989. “Delay of Gratification in Children.” Science 244, no. 4907: 933-938.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nadesan, Majia H. 2002. “Engineering the Entrepreneurial Infant: Brain Science, Infant Development Toys, and Governmentality.” Cultural Studies 16, no. 3: 401-432.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nash, J. Madeleine. 1997. “Fertile Minds.” TIME (February 3).

  • Neniskyte, Urte, and Cornelius T. Gross. 2017. “Errant Gardeners: Glial-Cell-Dependent Synaptic Pruning and Neurodevelopmental Disorders.” Nature Reviews Neuroscience 18: 658-670.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nigg, Joel T. 2017. “Annual Research Review: On the Relations among Self‐regulation, Self‐control, Executive Functioning, Effortful Control, Cognitive Control, Impulsivity, Risk‐taking, and Inhibition for Developmental Psychopathology.” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 58, no. 4: 361-383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noble, Kimberly G., Suzanne M. Houston, Eric Kan, and Elizabeth R. Sowell. 2012. “Neural Correlates of Socioeconomic Status in the Developing Human Brain.” Developmental Science 15, no. 4: 516-527.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noble, Kimberly G., Suzanne M Houston, Natalie H Brito, Kauke Bartsch, Eric Kan, Joshua M. Kuperman, Natacha Akshoomoff, et al. 2015. “Family Income, Parental Education and Brain Structure in Children and Adolescents.” Nature Neuroscience 18: 773-778.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, Cliodhna, and Helene Joffe. 2013. “How has Neuroscience Affected Lay Understandings of Personhood? A Review of the Evidence.” Public Understanding of Science 22, no. 3: 254-268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Odendaal, Albi, Sari Levänen, and Heidi Westerlund. 2018. “Lost in Translation? Neuroscientific Research, Advocacy, and the Claimed Transfer Benefits of Musical Practice.” Music Education Research 21, no. 1: 4-19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen Adrian M., Adam Hampshire, Jessica A. Grahn, Robert Stenton, Said Dajani, Alistair S. Burns, Robert J. Howard, and Clive G. Ballard. 2010. “Putting Brain Training to the Test.” Nature 465: 775-778.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palisin, Helen. 1986. “Preschool Temperament and Performance on Achievement Tests.” Developmental Psychology 22, no. 6: 766-770.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickersgill, Martyn. 2013. “The Social Life of the Brain: Neuroscience in Society. Current Sociology 61, no. 3: 322-340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickersgill, Martyn, Paul Martin, and Sarah Cunningham-Burley. 2015. “The Changing Brain: Neuroscience and the Enduring Import of Everyday Experience.” Public Understanding of Science 24, no. 7: 878-892.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitts-Taylor, Victoria. 2010. “The Plastic Brain: Neoliberalism and the Neuronal Self.” Health 14, no. 6: 635-52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitts-Taylor, Victoria. 2019. “Neurobiologically Poor? Brain Phenotypes, Inequality, and Biosocial Determinism.” Science, Technology & Human Values 44, no. 4: 660-685.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pykett, Jessica, and Tom Disney 2016 Brain-Targeted Teaching and the Biopolitical Child. In Politics, Citizenship and Rights, 133–152. Singapore: Springer.

  • Racine, Eric. 2011. “Neuroscience and the Media: Ethical Challenges and Opportunities.” In Oxford Handbook of Neuroethics, edited by Judy Illes and Barbara J. Sahakian, 783-802. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapp, Rayna. 2011. A Child Surrounds this Brain: The Future of Neurological Difference According to Scientists, Parents and Diagnosed Young Adults. In Sociological Reflections on the Neurosciences (Advances in Medical Sociology, Vol. 13), Martyn Pickersgill and Ira Van Keulen, eds., 3–26. Bingley, UK: Emerald.

  • Rauscher, Frances. H., Gordon. L. Shaw, and Catherine N. Ky. 1993. “Music and Spatial Task Performance.” Nature 365, no. 6447: 611. https://doi.org/10.1038/365611a0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raz, Amir. 2012. “Translational Attention: From Experiments in the Lab to Helping the Symptoms of Individuals with Tourette’s Syndrome.” Consciousness and Cognition 21, no. 3: 1591-1594.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rees, Tobias. 2016. Plastic Reason: An Anthropology of Brain Science in Embryogenetic Terms. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, Nikolas. 2007. “Molecular Biopolitics, Somatic Ethics and the Spirit of Biocapital.” Social Theory & Health 5, no. 1: 3-29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, Nikolas, and Joelle M. Abi-Rached. 2013. Neuro: The New Brain Sciences and the Management of the Mind. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, Steven. 1992. The Making of Memory. New York: Bantam Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, Alex. 1994. Listening to Prozac… Er, Mozart. New York Times (August 28). https://www.nytimes.com/1994/08/28/arts/classical-view-listening-to-prozac-er-mozart.html.

  • Ruhaak, Amy E., and Bryan G. Cook. 2018. “The Prevalence of Educational Neuromyths Among Pre‐Service Special Education Teachers.” Mind, Brain, and Education 12, no. 3: 155-161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez-Allred, Alberto and Suparna Choudhury. 2016. “The Imperative to Shape Young Brains: Mindfulness as a Neuroeducational Intervention.” Psychological Governance and Public Policy, edited by Jessica Pykett, Rhys Jones, and Mark Whitehead, 116-135. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santiago Declaration. The Santiago Declaration. https://www.jsmf.org/santiagodeclaration/. Accessed Feb. 20, 2020.

  • Schleim, Stephan. 2014. “Critical Neuroscience—or Critical Science? A Perspective on the Perceived Normative Significance of Neuroscience.” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 8: 336. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schunk, Dale H. and Barry J. Zimmerman. 1994. Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance: Issues and Educational Applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sehgal Cuthbert, Alka. 2015. “Neuroscience and Education - an Incompatible Relationship.” Sociology Compass 9, no. 1: 49-61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaywitz, Bennett A., Sally E Shaywitz, Benita A. Blachman, Kenneth R. Pugh, Robert K. Fulbright, Pawel Skudlarski, W. Einar Mencl, et al. 2004. “Development of Left Occipitotemporal Systems for Skilled Reading in Children after a Phonologically-Based Intervention.” Biological psychiatry 55, no. 9: 926-933.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simons, Daniel J., Walter R. Boot, Neil Charness, Susan E. Gathercole, Christopher F. Chabris, David Z. Hambrick, and Elizabether A. L. Stine-Morrow. 2016. “Do ‘Brain-Training’ Programs Work?” Psychological Science in the Public Interest 17, no. 3: 103-186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simos, Panagiotis G., J. M. Fletcher, E. Bergman, J. I. Breier, B. R. Foorman, E. M. Castillo, R. N. Davis, M. Fitzgerald, and A. C. Papanicolaou. 2002. “Dyslexia-Specific Brain Activation Profile becomes Normal following Successful Remedial Training.” Neurology 58, no. 8: 1203-1213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Ashley R., Jason Chein, and Laurence Steinberg. 2013. “Impact of Socio-Emotional Context, Brain Development, and Pubertal Maturation on Adolescent Risk-Taking.” Hormones and Behavior 64, no. 2: 323-332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinberg, Laurence. 2014. Age of Opportunity: Lessons from the New Science of Adolescence. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sylvan, Lesley J., and Joanna A. Christodoulou. 2010. “Understanding the Role of Neuroscience in Brain Based Products: A Guide for Educators and Consumers.” Mind, Brain, and Education 4, no. 1: 1-7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uttal, William R. 2001. The New Phrenology. Cambridge,MA : MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uy, Jessica P., Diane Goldenberg, Sarah M. Tashjian, Kathy T. Do, and Adriana Galván. 2019. “Physical Home Environment is Associated with Prefrontal Cortical Thickness in Adolescents.” Developmental Science 22, no. 6: e12834. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vassallo, Stephen. 2013. “Critical Pedagogy and Neoliberalism: Concerns with Teaching Self-Regulated Learning.” Studies in Philosophy and Education 32, no. 6: 563-580.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vidal, Fernando. 2005. “Le sujet cérébral: une esquisse historique et conceptuelle.” Psychiatrie Sciences Humaines Neurosciences 3, no. 1: 37-48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vidal, Fernando. 2009. “Brainhood, Anthropological Figure of Modernity.” History of the Human Sciences 22, no. 1: 5-36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vidal, Fernando, and Francisco Ortega. 2017. Being Brains: Making the Cerebral Subject. New York: Fordham University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vrecko, Scott. 2010. “Neuroscience, Power and Culture: An Introduction.” History of the Human Sciences 23, no. 1: 1-10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wannyn, William. 2017. “Le marketing du Neuromarketing: Enjeux académiques d’un domaine de recherche controversé.” Social Science Information 56, no. 4: 619-639.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisberg, Deena S., Frank C. Keil, Joshua Goodstein, Elizabeth Rawson, and Jeremy R. Gray. 2008. “The Seductive Allure of Neuroscience Explanations.” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 20, no. 3: 470-477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, Ben, Jessica Pykett, and Selena Nemorin. 2018. Biosocial Spaces and Neurocomputational Governance: Brain-Based and Brain-Targeted Technologies in Education. Discourse 39, no. 2: 258-275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, Anna J., Stanislas Dehaene, Ophélie Dubois, and Michel Fayol. 2009. “Effects of an Adaptive Game Intervention on Accessing Number Sense in Low‐Socioeconomic‐Status Kindergarten Children.” Mind, Brain, and Education 3, no. 4: 224-234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zelazo, Philip D. and Kristen E. Lyons. 2012. “The Potential Benefits of Mindfulness Training in Early Childhood: A Developmental Social Cognitive Neuroscience Perspective.” Child Development Perspectives 6, no. 2: 154-160.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was funded by the Fonds de Recherche du Québec-Société et Culture (no grant number)

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to William Wannyn.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Suparna Choudhury declares that she has no conflict of interest. William Wannyn declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Choudhury, S., Wannyn, W. Politics of Plasticity: Implications of the New Science of the “Teen Brain” for Education. Cult Med Psychiatry 46, 31–58 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11013-021-09731-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11013-021-09731-8

Keywords

Navigation