Education Goals In Children And Prefrontal Cortex

The prefrontal cortex (PFC) plays a leading role in the development and learning of children (Brierley, 2003). It is known to be responsible for the functioning of higher cognitions where the behavioral measures for these systems undergoes considerable maturation during childhood (Tsujimoto, 2008). According to Stuss, the two functions controlled by the frontal system and are most essential for high-level cognitive activities are, decision making and self-awareness. The frontal system was endorsed by both Stuss and Thatcher as an “orchestra leader”, whose function was to regulate and lead the activity of several other systems (Case, 1992). The neuron, however; is the key component of the brain and the nervous system were each of the almost ten billion nerve cells is capable of developing its own electrical charge. Electrical charges are fired between neurons in order to communicate and hence, highlights the nerve function in learning (Brierly, 2003). The child’s cognitive experiences develops the brain over time and shapes the way he or she perceives and interact with the world in connotation with their neuropsychological strengths and weaknesses. For many in the field of education, children are born with their biological traits and are independent of experience. While this remains as a preconception, children’s cultural and social experiences including schooling and education, are at the mercy of these biological tendencies. Due to research of cognition, the main goals for learning development in children is constructed through instruction and training. 

Cognitive research embraces numerous areas which includes language acquisition, problem solving, memory, perception, and reading (Aukrust, 2011). The rapid change in our population that has once been homogenous and stable, is now evolving the treatment of disabilities and learning difficulties. The importance of integrated approach is being widely recognized and supported to those with special educational needs (SEN), in many schools (Frederickson & Cline, 2009). The concept of SEN profoundly changed between the years 1978 by the Warnock Report and followed by the Education Act that was implemented in year 1983. It was later known as an inclusive approach based on common education goals for all children regardless what their abilities or disabilities are (Gulliford & Upton, 2002). Thus, for the identification and assessment of pupils with SEN, the assessment process should focus on the child’s learning characteristics, the task, the learning style, and the school’s learning environment (Frederickson & Cline, 2009). Educators should be familiar with the neuroscience basis and brain functioning in order to contribute to the learning development of children and shape challenging questions for neuroscience to pursue (Aukrust, 2011). Building the capacity of teachers and schools that teach those with a diverse range of SEN, was recognized as being the key to raise these pupils to achievement (Davis & Florian, 2004). This report will critically evaluate and provide an overview to the neurobiological basis of learning and development in children along with its implications for the atypically developing children in the classroom.

One of the implications in neurobiological basis of learning that takes place in classrooms occurs when the child is seen as a teaching problem where educators find themselves responsible to teach them rather than acting on their behavioral and learning problems. Upon a study on schools; the most successful ones were those who didn’t transfer their SEN students to specialists and were rather given proper educational needs by their teachers (Galloway, 2018). All schools contains mixed ability intakes such as pupils with low measured intelligence or those who fall behind their chronological age (Galloway, 2018). It is thus, important to consider that educational programming should vary according to children’s disabilities. Although a number of teachers continue to use cubicles to eliminate student’s external distractions, many theorists and practitioners enforce a teacher-directed and structured curriculum with atypical students (Hallahan & Keogh, 2001). Perception and attention act as gatekeepers for stimuli that determine the further cognitive processing. Repeated practice or exposure to a skill plays an important role in determining successful knowledge acquisition in children such as reading skills, spoken language, and problem solving skills (Aukrust, 2011). 

One of the greatest obstacles in those with SEN, is reading development and difficulties. Studies have shown that children who experience reading problems benefit from early intervention programs that mainly focus on letter identification and phonological awareness training. However, not all atypical students benefit from such programs and the reason goes back to working memory deficits. The working memory (WM) acts as a visuo-spatial ‘sketchpad’ where it stores the spatial and visual information and also acts as a phonological loop that stores verbal information; a deficit that dyslexic children suffer from the most. Kane, Hamrick, and Conway found that reasoning ability and WM are related. It thus can be hypothesized that for verbal information retention during reading to occur, WM is needed. A relation between WM and comprehension was demonstrated by several studies as well. As suggested by Pickering and Gathercole, children with learning problems usually perform poorly in WM that has a direct effect on their reading development. Training in working memory have shown significant improvement in reading comprehension and may have constructive effect on student’s growth in problem solving and mathematics. Recent studies showed that the behavior and school results of children with ADHD have improved from the WM training (Dahlin, 2010). From a neurobiological perspective, the observable prefrontal cortex functions increases brain activity following WM trainings (as cited by Olesen, Westerberg, & Klingberg, 2004). The majority of children with speech and language needs are introduced to mainstream classrooms and it’s vital that their difficulties be identified by teachers who play a significant role in determining the needed support for their students (Dockrell & Hurry, 2018). The constructivists and behaviorists, both agree to the teacher’s role in stimulating their student’s experiences based on their various concept levels (Sutherland, 1992). It is important to consider whether certain teaching approaches are applicable for children with specific impairments and to what extent are they being helpful. Approaches and teaching strategies should primarily focus on placement, intervention, and individualized instruction under specific programs. Types of intervention varies according to individual needs and difficulties.

Behaviorists approach to learning is highly dependent on facilitating learning through emphasizing the sequence of instructional performance from early steps to more complex levels. The use of immediate reinforcement such as tangible rewards and informative feedback, is essential to the learning process. It is again the job of the teacher to structure the presentation in order to accomplish the target stimulus by the learner (Ertmer & Newby, 2008). However, constructivists sees children as active participants that learns through problem solving and making sense of their experiences. Children with Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) for example might benefit from two main approaches that were subject to research and showed promising outcomes; treatment and education of autistic and communication handicapped children (TEACCH) and applied behavior analysis (ABA). Another factor that aids in the participation and achievement of children with learning difficulties is through enhancing their communication. Regardless of the effectiveness of the behaviorist approach with SEN, approaches have moved away from task-centered towards problem solving and cognition. The use of procedural facilitators such as teacher modelling of cognitive strategies, story mapping, and planning sheets that can be elaborated with higher order questioning techniques, are considered to be effective teaching strategies (Davis, Florian, & Ainscow, 2004). There is however, a vast controversy particularly in the field of special education over using the constructivist and behaviorist principles for teaching pupils of learning disabilities. Incorporating ideas from different theoretical perspectives and integrating their components could help teachers work more effectively to help children with disabilities. That explains the need for making curricular and instructional decisions based on the individual child’s needs (Steele, 2005). With a numerous number of research done for the purpose of providing the best educational need for atypical students with an emphasis on the whole learning environment; how SEN children are viewed and offered education continues to undergo many implications. There was large degree of acceptance to the Warnock’s Committee’s inclusive approach that is based on common educational goals for all children regardless what their abilities or disabilities are (Gulliford & Upton, 2002). The concept did have comprehensive and widespread implications on regular schools where teachers are seen responsible for the educational provision of SEN students (Beveridge, 2012). 

As a result, children falling behind the chronological age are regarded as SEN and are judged as having some sort of educational need. Teachers express concern about the minority of their students who seems to be the lowest achievers. Another implication would be disregarding the fact that the child’s slow progress could be a result of problems at home (Galloway, 2018). Early intervention programs with children of SEN have shown encouraging results, however; not all were reported to be effective. There are insufficient research evidences regarding the effects of particular strategies at different phases and years of education. Many of the approaches designed are focused on changing the child deficiencies and none consult the child’s view on possible intervention strategies. Research lacks long-term follow up on the effect of the different approaches under examination. The behavioral and cognitive-behavioral models mainly take over the research while, there is a need for evaluation of other approaches of other theoretical perspectives (Davis & Florian, 2004).

With a number of research done on the neurobiological basis of learning and development in atypical children and its implications for the classroom, there continues to be a need for further research that incorporates different theoretical approaches and their effectiveness. Inclusion, as effective as it may seem, teachers should be well-informed about the neuroscience basis and brain functions in order to raise their pupil’s achievement and act on their behavioral and learning problems, rather than identifying them as a problem.