Sharp Brains: Brain Fitness and Cognitive Health News

Neuroplasticity, Brain Fitness and Cognitive Health News

Icon

Educational applications: cognitive training and academic performance

afOne of the first com­put­er-based cog­ni­tive train­ing pro­grams ever com­mer­cial­ized was cre­at­ed for the K12 edu­ca­tion seg­ment. The prod­uct, called Fast For­word, was launched by Sci­en­tif­ic Learn­ing Cor­po­ra­tion (SCIL) in 1997. It focused on help­ing stu­dents with dyslex­ia and was dis­trib­uted through clin­i­cal chan­nels.

Giv­en the pres­sures on aca­d­e­m­ic results inten­si­fied by the Bush administration’s No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, school dis­tricts have invest­ed heav­i­ly in pro­grams that direct­ly address aca­d­e­m­ic dis­ci­plines such as math and read­ing. Cog­ni­tive train­ing, in com­par­i­son, suf­fers giv­en its “indi­rect” rela­tion­ship to those aca­d­e­m­ic dis­ci­plines. Although it may be log­i­cal to assume that if a pro­gram helps a child improve under­ly­ing read­ing-relat­ed cog­ni­tive abil­i­ties that the pro­gram will ulti­mate­ly help the child be a bet­ter read­er, clin­i­cal research has not yet been con­duct­ed to solid­i­fy this crit­i­cal link beyond the small per­cent­age of kids with severe dyslex­ia prob­lems.

In 2002, the U.S. Depart­ment of Education’s Insti­tute of Edu­ca­tion Sci­ences estab­lished the What Works Clear­ing­house (WWC) to pro­vide the edu­ca­tion com­mu­ni­ty and the pub­lic with a cen­tral­ized and trust­ed source of sci­en­tif­ic evi­dence of what works in edu­ca­tion. So far, two com­put­er­ized cog­ni­tive train­ing pro­grams have mer­it­ed inclu­sion in the What Works Clear­ing­house: Sci­en­tif­ic Learning’s Fast For­word and Houghton Mifflin’s Earo­bics.

In order to include a pro­gram in the Clear­ing­house, review teams comb through the sci­en­tif­ic lit­er­a­ture and ana­lyze the appro­pri­ate research evi­dence sup­port­ing spe­cif­ic edu­ca­tion­al inter­ven­tions. The pri­ma­ry goal is to clar­i­fy the evi­dence of causal valid­i­ty in exist­ing stud­ies, cat­e­go­riz­ing them in one of three ways:

  • Meets Evi­dence Stan­dards” for ran­dom­ized con­trolled tri­als and regres­sion dis­con­ti­nu­ity stud­ies that pro­vide the strongest evi­dence of causal valid­i­ty,
  • Meets Evi­dence Stan­dards with Reser­va­tions” for qua­si-exper­i­men­tal stud­ies; ran­dom­ized con­trolled tri­als that have prob­lems with ran­dom­iza­tion, attri­tion, or dis­rup­tion; and regres­sion dis­con­ti­nu­ity designs that have prob­lems with attri­tion or dis­rup­tion, or
  • Does Not Meet Evi­dence Screens” for stud­ies that do not pro­vide strong evi­dence of causal valid­i­ty.

Based on the stud­ies that pass this screen­ing and are cat­e­go­rized as either “meets evi­dence stan­dards” or “meets evi­dence stan­dards with reser­va­tions,” the What Works Clearn­ing­house issues a report that sum­ma­rizes the inter­ven­tion and its evi­dence-based results. This report can be found on the What Works Clear­ing­house web­site.

Keep learn­ing by read­ing more arti­cles in the Resources sec­tion, and also please con­sid­er join­ing our free month­ly Brain Fit­ness eNewslet­ter

This new online resource is based on the con­tent from the book The Sharp­Brains Guide to Brain Fit­ness (May 2009, $19.95), by Alvaro Fer­nan­dez and Dr. Elkhonon Gold­berg.

All Slidedecks & Recordings Available — click image below

Search for anything brain-related in our article archives

About SharpBrains

As seen in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, BBC News, CNN, Reuters, and more, SharpBrains is an independent market research firm and think tank tracking health and performance applications of brain science.