Metaphors of Developmental Process for Brain-Savvy Teachers

  • George G. HrubyEmail author
Part of the Educating the Young Child book series (EDYC, volume 7)


Early childhood care providers are inadequately prepared to make sense of findings from the neurosciences and are too easily misled by glib assertions from marketers about the brain and what neuroscience reveals about learning. To counter this confusion, teachers need more than simplified details about brain structure and mental process. They require a better understanding of foundational, if nonintuitive, constructs in current developmental science, including developmental biology and psychology, to better understand how brains change over time. To facilitate the introduction of this, an easily grasped metaphor might be employed that could encompass both neural and developmental processes and relate them coherently to what educators already know about learning and effective teaching. However, successful implementation of this operative metaphor in educators’ professional preparation and development will be arduous.


Teacher Educator Early Childhood Educator Dynamical System Theory Effective Practice Statistical Abstraction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1990). Science for all Americans: Online. Downloaded May 2, 2012, from
  2. Arden, J. B. (2010). Rewire your brain: Think your way to a better life. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  3. Aristotle. (2011). Poetics. English. New York: Tradition.Google Scholar
  4. Bennet, M. R., Dennett, D., Hacker, P., & Searle, J. (2007). Neuroscience & philosophy: Mind, brain and language. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brooks, R. (2012). Avoid the cerebral blind alley. Nature, 482, 462–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Churchland, P. S. (2002). Brain-wise: Studies in neurophilosophy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Clancey, W. J. (1997). Situated cognition: On human knowledge and computer representations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cooper, B. (2012). Turing centenary: The incomputable reality. Nature, 482, 465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dennett, D. C. (1996). Darwin’s dangerous idea: Evolution and the meanings of life. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  10. Dewey, J. (1896). The reflex arc concept in psychology. Psychological Review, 3, 356–370.Google Scholar
  11. Dyson, G. (2012). Turing’s cathedral: The origins of the digital universe. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  12. Fodor, J. (2000). The mind doesn’t work that way: The scope and the limits of computational psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Frederickson, N., Laurillard, D., & Tolmie, A. (in press). Educational neuroscience (Monograph series II: Psychological aspects of education – Current trends). British Journal of Educational Psychology.Google Scholar
  14. Gauch, H. G. (2003). The scientific method in practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Gernsbacher, M. A., & Kaschak, M. P. (2003). Neuroimaging studies of language production and comprehension. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 91–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gottlieb, G. (2003). On making behavioral genetics truly developmental. Human Development, 46, 337–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gottlieb, G., Wahlsten, D., & Likliter, R. (2006). The significance of biology for human development: A developmental psychobiological systems view. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (6th ed., pp. 210–257). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  18. Green, C. D. (2009). Darwinian theory, functionalism, and the first American psychological revolution. American Psychologist, 64, 75–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harris, S. (2010). The moral landscape: How science can determine human values. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  20. Helmuth, L. (2011). Top ten myths about the brain. Downloaded December 10, 2011, from
  21. Hirsh-Pasek, et al. (2007, March). The Santiago Declaration. Retrieved from
  22. Hruby, G. G. (2009). Grounding reading comprehension theory in the neuroscience literatures. In S. Israel & G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 189–223). New York: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.Google Scholar
  23. Hruby, G. G. (2011). Minding the brain. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 54, 316–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hruby, G. G. (2012). Three requirements for justifying an educational neuroscience. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hruby, G. G., & Goswami, U. (2011). Neuroscience on reading: A review for reading education researchers. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(2), 156–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hruby, G. G., & Matthews, M. W. (2007). Developing aspects of reading and literacy: Envisioning literacy as a developmental science. Yearbook of the American Reading Forum, 27. Downloaded May 1, 2011, from
  27. Jensen, E. (2008). Brain-based learning: The new paradigm of teaching. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  28. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  29. Lehrer, J. (2012). How creativity works. New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  30. Lickliter, R., & Honeycutt, H. (2003). Developmental dynamics: Toward a biologically plausible evolutionary psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 819–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lickliter, R., & Honeycutt, H. (2010). Rethinking epigenesis and evolution in light of developmental science. In M. Blumberg, J. Freeman, & S. Robinson (Eds.), Oxford handbook of developmental behavioral neuroscience (pp. 30–47). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Marshall, P. (2009). Relating psychology and neuroscience: Taking up the challenges. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 113–125. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01111.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2004). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. New York: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  34. National Science Teachers Association [NSTA]. (2000). The nature of science. Downloaded March 2, 2011, from
  35. Patten, K. E., & Campbell, S. R. (2011). Special issue: Educational neuroscience. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43, 1–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pepper, S. (1942). World hypotheses: A study in evidence. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  37. Piaget, J. (1937/1957). Construction of reality in the child [La Construction du Réel Chez l'Enfant]. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  38. Pinker, S. (1997). How the mind works. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  39. Poole, S. (2012, September 6). Your brain on pseudoscience: The rise of popular neurobollocks [New Statesman]. Retrieved from
  40. Popper, K. (1935/1959). The logic of scientific discovery [Logik der Forschung]. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  41. Ramsden, S., Richardson, F. M., Josse, G., Thomas, M. S. C., Ellis, C., Shakeshaft, C., et al. (2011). Verbal and non-verbal intelligence changes in the teenage brain. Nature, 479, 113–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sprenger, M. (2010). Brain-based teaching in the digital age. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.Google Scholar
  43. Thelen, E., & Smith, L. B. (2006). Dynamic systems theory. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (6th ed., pp. 258–312). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  44. Thompson, E. (2007). Mind in life: Biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Harvard.Google Scholar
  45. Tung, J., Barreiro, L. B., Johnson, Z. P., Hansen, K. D., Michopoulos, V., Toufexis, D., et al. (2012). Social environment is associated with gene regulatory variation in the rhesus macaque immune system. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United State of America. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1202734109.Google Scholar
  46. Willingham, D. T. (2012). When can you trust the experts? How to tell good science from bad in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of EducationUniversity of KentuckyLexingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations