Philosophical Questions and Opportunities at the Intersection of Neuroscience, Education, and Research

Simple Answers and Quick Fixes: Dyslexia and the Brain on the Internet

“…Educational philosophers have raised concerns about the model of learning often assumed in neuroscience, which, according to Joldersma (2018), “reduces learning to a narrow understanding of knowledge acquisition, including skills such as word decoding or number manipulation” (p. 1268) and frames learning as primarily an activity in the brain (p. 1268). According to Joldersma, although it is tempting to believe that neuroimaging can afford direct access to learning, the brain is far more complex than these models suggest (Elliott & Grigorenko, 2014; Thomas et al, 2018).…”

“…Another objection from educational philosophy concerns the “problematic underlying assumptions of the medical model seemingly inherent in neuroscience” (Joldersma, 2018, p. 1266) and the tendency of neuroscience to “medicalize” (Joldersma, 2018) or “biologize” (Lopes, 2012) learning. Similarly, educational researchers, philosophers, and psychologists have questioned common characterizations of learning difficulties like dyslexia as “caused by something literally having gone wrong in the development of the brain” (Protopapas & Parrila, 2018, p. 2).…”

“…Similarly, decades of scholarship have examined the ways in which students’ identities of “struggle” are constructed, mediated, and deconstructed in varying sociocultural contexts (e.g., Dudley-Marling, 2004; Hikida, 2018; McDermott, 1993). Although these scholars acknowledge the existence of individual variation and struggle, they do not accept the binary of normal and pathological or the idea that intervention can restore a brain to “normalcy” (Joldersma, 2018). Speaking specifically of dyslexia, there is strong research consensus that dyslexia is not an either-or phenomenon (Shaywitz et al, 1992), but that decoding proficiency exists along a continuum, with dyslexia at the lower end of the distribution (Protopapas & Parrila, 2018; Vellutino et al, 2004).…”

“…Although Smeyers (2016) notes that many neuroscience researchers are cautious about making claims for neuroscience to inform educational practice, others overstate the potential implications. According to Joldersma (2018), fMRI and other imaging techniques are useful for studying the brain, but “they have often led to overhasty conclusions and applications, temptations that philosophers caution ought to be resisted” (p. 1265).…”

“…However, the quality and trustworthiness of Internet sources is variable, and the information is often inaccurate and/or incomplete (Pehora et al, 2015; Silence, Briggs, Harris, & Fishwick, 2007). In our preliminary Internet search using “dyslexia” as a search term, we found a host of information about dyslexia and the brain, including many misinterpretations and inaccuracies, “couched in the authority and popularity of neuroscience” (Joldersma, 2018, p. 1266). In the study reported here, we systematically examined information on the Internet focusing on dyslexia and the brain, grounding our analysis in perspectives from scholars that focus on connections between neuroscience and education.…”