Disliking School and Losing Confidence: The Matthew Effect and Your Child

 
January 16, 2013 by Geoff Nixon

Somewhere between second and fourth grade, parents and teachers begin to observe a very noticeable difference among kids when it comes to both their academic performance and their feelings about school. Usually, the two go hand in hand. Youngsters who perform well in school find it enjoyable while those who struggle academically often dislike school. Makes sense, right? The question is, which comes first: a child’s poor academic performance or his disdain for school? Psychologist Keith Stanovich says it’s the latter and pinpoints literacy issues as the main culprit for academic failure in the early primary grades and beyond.

Stanovich was the first to coin the term “the Matthew Effect” as a way of illustrating the negative psychological effects a child experiences as a result of struggling to acquire literacy. The term has its origins in scripture, namely the verse in Matthew that reads, “For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath,” or in layman’s terms, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Although you can probably think of a dozen different ways that this adage can apply to our daily lives, the way it impacts young school children is of particular concern.

What is the Matthew Effect?
At some point during the early elementary years, students have to make the transition between learning to read and reading to learn. Those students who have yet to learn to read fluently begin to lag behind as more and more subject matter content is delivered through textbooks. They suddenly find themselves struggling not just in the area of Language Arts but in Science and Math as well, subjects that they may have otherwise excelled in had they not been required to read a textbook in order to learn the information. Unfortunately, once students begin to fall behind, some of them never catch up. That’s why it’s imperative that parents learn to recognize the signs of the downward side of the Matthew Effect, so that they can intervene to stop the cycle of failure and defeat that many elementary children experience.

What are the Signs of the Matthew Effect?
Although every child is different, there are some general signs of the Matthew Effect that all parents should be aware of. These include:

• Resists new things, no longer a learning risk-taker
• Anxiety over assignments, homework, tests
• Suddenly dislikes school
• A drop in grades or standardized test scores

What Can I Do to Help?
If you notice signs of a negative spiral and are worried that it may be impacting your child’s academic success or emotional wellbeing, rest assured that there are steps you can take to turn the proverbial ship around and get your child back on the path to calmer waters. That doesn’t mean there is a one-size-fits-all solution, however.
While some experts argue that retention is the answer, the data doesn’t clear show that retention makes a difference.  Most parents turn to tutoring to help their children cope, but tutoring does not address the source of declining confidence and skill that is at the heart of a downward trend.  The best answer is grade-level remediation (either at home or school, but ideally both!) that gets at the source of confidence erosion, the reading or learning delays that are undermining performance at school.  Fast ForWord software by Gemm Learning is one such program.
Nearly everyone agrees that something must be done, though. Crossing your fingers and hoping that your child catches up with his peers simply isn’t an option.

Article retrieved from: http://www.gemmlearning.com/blog/uncategorized/the-matthew-effect-your-child/

Image retrieved from: http://thewellorganizedwoman.com/files/2011/12/children-reading.jpg

Read More

Mistaking OCD For ADHD Has Serious Consequences

Article Date: 28 Dec 2012 - 0:00 PST

On the surface, obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) appear very similar, with impaired attention, memory, or behavioral control. But Prof. Reuven Dar of Tel Aviv University's School of Psychological Sciences argues that these two neuropsychological disorders have very different roots - and there are enormous consequences if they are mistaken for each other.

Prof. Dar and fellow researcher Dr. Amitai Abramovitch, who completed his PhD under Prof. Dar's supervision, have determined that despite appearances, OCD and ACHD are far more different than alike. While groups of both OCD and ADHD patients were found to have difficulty controlling their abnormal impulses in a laboratory setting, only the ADHD group had significant problems with these impulses in the real world.

According to Prof. Dar, this shows that while OCD and ADHD may appear similar on a behavioral level, the mechanism behind the two disorders differs greatly. People with ADHD are impulsive risk-takers, rarely reflecting on the consequences of their actions. In contrast, people with OCD are all too concerned with consequences, causing hesitancy, difficulty in decision-making, and the tendency to over-control and over-plan.

Their findings, published in the Journal of Neuropsychology, draw a clear distinction between OCD and ADHD and provide more accurate guidelines for correct diagnosis. Confusing the two threatens successful patient care, warns Prof. Dar, noting that treatment plans for the two disorders can differ dramatically. Ritalin, a psychostimulant commonly prescribed to ADHD patients, can actually exacerbate OCD behaviors, for example. Prescribed to an OCD patient, it will only worsen symptoms.

Separating cause from effect

To determine the relationship between OCD and ADHD, the researchers studied three groups of subjects: 30 diagnosed with OCD, 30 diagnosed with ADHD, and 30 with no psychiatric diagnosis. All subjects were male with a mean age of 30. Comprehensive neuropsychological tests and questionnaires were used to study cognitive functions that control memory, attention, and problem-solving, as well as those that inhibit the arbitrary impulses that OCD and ADHD patients seem to have difficulty controlling.

As Prof. Dar and Dr. Abramovitch predicted, both the OCD and ADHD groups performed less than a comparison group in terms of memory, reaction time, attention and other cognitive tests. Both groups were also found to have abnormalities in their ability to inhibit or control impulses, but in very different ways. In real-world situations, the ADHD group had far more difficulty controlling their impulses, while the OCD group was better able to control these impulses than even the control group.

When people with OCD describe themselves as being impulsive, this is a subjective description and can mean that they haven't planned to the usual high degree, explains Prof. Dar.

Offering the right treatment
It's understandable why OCD symptoms can be mistaken for ADHD, Prof. Dar says. For example, a student in a classroom could be inattentive and restless, and assumed to have ADHD. In reality, the student could be distracted by obsessive thoughts or acting out compulsive behaviors that look like fidgeting.

"It's more likely that a young student will be diagnosed with ADHD instead of OCD because teachers see so many people with attention problems and not many with OCD. If you don't look carefully enough, you could make a mistake," cautions Prof. Dar. Currently, 5.2 million children in the US between the ages of 3 and 17 are diagnosed with ADHD, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, making it one of the most commonly diagnosed neuro-developmental disorders in children.

The correct diagnosis is crucial for the well-being and future trajectory of the patient, not just for the choice of medication, but also for psychological and behavioral treatment, and awareness and education for families and teachers.

Article retrieved from:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/254275.php

Image retrieved from:
 http://www.visualphotos.com/photo/2x3915848/students_in_classroom_jape29684nn00.jpg

Read More

What is Number Sense and How Does it Relate to Math Skills?

April 20, 2010 by Bill Jenkins, Ph.D

Let’s talk about the Approximate Number System, or just "the ANS." The ANS is the instinctive ability to nonverbally represent numbers. We constantly use this capability in every day decision making, such as choosing the shorter checkout line at the store or wanting to try a meal at a crowded restaurant. In these situations, our gut decisions are mathematically based. Evidence shows that many different species not only share this capacity, but use it to guide everyday behaviors such as foraging and judging time and distance.

So how does the ANS work in non-humans? Let’s do a little study of my two labs, Bella and Buddy. Both love to chase tennis balls, love to swim, and are highly competitive in the ball-chasing department. Buddy clearly exercises his ANS judgment routinely when I throw the ball into the water. If he and Bella approach the water’s edge at about the same time, they both jump in. On the other hand, if Bella beats him to the water by a significant distance, he recognizes instinctively that he can’t beat her to the ball in the water, so he’ll stop and wait until she brings it nearly to the shore. At that point, he jumps in and goes for the steal.

Why is the ANS important for math skills? It is believed that human mathematical competence comes from two representational systems. One is the "symbolic representations" that must be explicitly taught and are the basis for calculus and geometry. The other–the same one that Buddy uses above–is the older approximate number system. The evidence suggests that very young babies can use this ANS to make approximate number judgments, differentiating one item from two, two items from three and three items from greater than three. Further, a growing body of evidence indicates that individual differences in math achievement are related to variations in the acuity of an evolutionarily ancient, unlearned approximate number sense. Interestingly, evidence also suggests that this ANS may be subject to influence by early learning.

If you’d like to dig deeper into understanding the science of the ANS, I recommend reading Halberda and Feigernson’s 2008 study, "Developmental Change in the Acuity of the ’Number Sense’: The Approximate Number System in 3-, 4-, 5-, and 6-Year-Olds and Adults." For an overview, The New York Times published a write up on the article and even included a link to an interactive, online activity that demonstrates the ANS in action.

 

Article retrieved from: http://www.scilearn.com/blog/number-sense-math-skills.php

 Image retrieved from:  http://www.georgeeliotdaycare.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/kids_counting_numbers.jpg

Read More

Ultrasound and Autism

 Written by: Dr. Michael Merzenich
    
A former UCSF medical student, Carolyn Rees, now a doc in rural Idaho, wrote me a very informative letter — and raised several interesting questions — that are definitely worth a little discussion here.
Dr. Rees asked: Is there any evidence that ultrasound examination can affect brain development?

In fact, that evidence is mixed. Over the past 10-15 years, a number of smaller studies conducted principally in North America recorded cognitive and language impairments in children that were attributable to ultrasound examination — while results in several other subsequent large studies conducted principally in the public health systems in Europe were negative.

On the other hand:
1) Elegant studies conducted in monkeys by an eminent brain scientist at Yale (Dr. Pasko Rakic) have shown that ultrasound exams result in an alteration of the normal, detailed organization of the cerebral cortex that specifically applies for neurons that are migrating into the cortex at the time of the exposure. In other words, across roughly the 2nd trimester of pregnancy when cortical layers are being formed, you can actually determine the time of administration of the ultrasound exam post hoc, by looking at the location of abnormally oriented neurons in the layers of the cerebral cortex.
Does this have a functional consequence for the brain?! No one really knows.

2) Seven or eight years ago, Sandy Blakeslee, a science reporter for the New York Times (and a long-time friend), sent me the reference to a study from a Mayo research team in Phoenix in which scientists had measured the levels of audible sound stimulation that bombards the fetus during an ultrasound exam. It turns out that in one part of an ultrasound examination the very high (“ultra”) frequency sound is “modulated” at low frequencies to generate the sharpest images. That modulation creates an audible sound that is very intense (greater than 100 decibels). It is not surprising that the third-trimester fetus — whose hearing is intact across this period — writhes in the womb when the beam moves onto the head! For the ultrasound machines investigated by the Mayo scientists, the highest sound energies transmitted to the fetus were centered in the range of frequencies that are most crucial for resolving the sounds of aural speech. You might note that any untoward consequence of an audible sound-induced exam would be limited to the third trimester, because the baby has no effective hearing until roughly the beginning of the 7th month of gestation.

I talked a doctoral student on a rotation project in my laboratory into studying the neurological impacts of simulating 1) a single exam in the third trimester; or 2) five exams — in both cases using the rat infant as our model. Simulation was relatively simple in the rat because, relative to the human baby, rats are born at a young age; their hearing is not intact until they are 11-12 days old. Sound stimuli designed to mimic sounds received by human fetuses in ultrasound exams were created with the help and advice of the Mayo Research Institute scientists. We played them to our rat babies shortly after they acquired hearing, exposing them for the measured times that would apply in a real exam(s).

Even these brief exposures to these loud sounds degraded the representation of sound frequencies in both rat groups. That degradation was especially striking in the multiply-exposed rats. Strong negative consequences of this exposure endured into adulthood. We were surprised by the magnitudes of these recorded effects. A single exposure was limited to 2 minutes (simulating the time the beam might be directed toward the human fetus’ head); multiple exposures involved only 10 minutes of total, intense-sound exposure, delivered in 5 time-separated epochs.

Five points to emphasize:
1) Given this outcome, ultrasound exposure may plausibly add to the risk of onset of a more devastating condition (e.g., autism) in an already-genetically-vulnerable fetus. It should be put on that short list of possible (unfortunately, STILL UNPROVEN) contributors to the increased rates of incidence of autism. As with the exposure to chemical poisons (non-coplanar PCBs; PBDEs), the use of ultrasound has increased dramatically over the past two decades, and third-trimester exams have become routine.

2) Ultrasound examinations have been shown to have little or no medical value in the third trimester. I was surprised to learn from the medical literature that they do not make any key contribution to medical decisions or significantly change medical outcomes over this period. It can be argued that they have considerable sociological value strengthening doctor-patient and parent-fetus relationships — which are undeniably important. But beyond that, excepting a tiny percentages of cases, they are an unnecessary aspect of prenatal care — unless you want a picture of fetal-Sissie or fetal-Junior hanging above the mantlepiece!

3) Boutique photography shops with ultrasound machines that can provide you with a crystal-clear picture of little Sally-fetus or Jerry, Jr-fetus would seem to this scientist to be more than a little bit over the top.

4) Guess who is in line for MULTIPLE ultrasonic exams? Those kids already at greatest risk for cognitive problems are high on this list. Alas.

5) Different ultrasound manufacturers use different strategies for modulating the ultrasound stimulation to generate the most-resolved images, and some generate more intensely audible sounds than others. I’ve had trouble running down these specs before writing this entry. I’ll contact the scientists in Phoenix and provide a table in a future entry.

Article retrieved from: http://merzenich.positscience.com/?p=52#more-52

Image retrieved from: http://cdn.sheknows.com/articles/2012/08/sarah_parenting/ultrasound.jpg

Read More

Nature AND Nurture

Read More

Childhood stimulation key to brain development, study finds

Alok Jha, science correspondent
The Guardian, Sunday 14 October 2012

Twenty-year research project shows that most critical aspect of cortex development in late teens was stimulation aged four

An early childhood surrounded by books and educational toys will leave positive fingerprints on a person's brain well into their late teens, a two-decade-long research study has shown.

Scientists found that the more mental stimulation a child gets around the age of four, the more developed the parts of their brains dedicated to language and cognition will be in the decades ahead.

It is known that childhood experience influences brain development but the only evidence scientists have had for this has usually come from extreme cases such as children who had been abused or suffered trauma. Martha Farah, director of the centre for neuroscience and society at the University of Pennsylvania, who led the latest study, wanted to find out how a normal range of experiences in childhood might influence the development of the brain.

Farah took data from surveys of home life and brain scans of 64 participants carried out over the course of 20 years. Her results, presented on Sunday at the annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience in New Orleans, showed that cognitive stimulation from parents at the age of four was the key factor in predicting the development of several parts of the cortex – the layer of grey matter on the outside of the brain – 15 years later.

The participants had been tracked since they were four years old. Researchers had visited their homes and recorded a series of details about their lives to measure cognitive stimulation, details such as the number of children's books they had, whether they had toys that taught them about colours, numbers or letters, or whether they played with real or toy musical instruments.

The researchers also scored the participants on "parental nurturance" – how much warmth, support or care the child got from the parent. The researchers carried out the same surveys when the children were eight years old. When the participants were between 17 and 19, they had their brains scanned.

Farah's results showed that the development of the cortex in late teens was closely correlated with a child's cognitive stimulation at the age of four. All other factors including parental nurturance at all ages and cognitive stimulation at age eight – had no effect. Farah said her results were evidence for the existence of a sensitive period, early in a person's life, that determined the optimal development of the cortex. "It really does support the idea that those early years are especially influential."

As the brain matures during childhood and adolescence, brain cells in the cortex are pruned back and, as unnecessary cells are eliminated, the cortex gets thinner. Farah found that the more cognitive stimulation a participant had had at the age of four, the thinner, and therefore more developed, their cortex. "It almost looks like whatever the normal developmental process is, has either accelerated or gone further in the kids with the better cognitive stimulation," she said.

The most strongly affected region was the lateral left temporal cortex, which is on the surface of the brain, behind the ear. This region is involved in semantic memory, processing word meanings and general knowledge about the world.

Around the time the participants had their brains scanned in their late teens, they were also given language tests and, Farah said, the thinner their cortex, the better their language comprehension.

Andrea Danese, a clinical lecturer in child and adolescent psychiatry at the Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, said the study suggested that the experience of a nurturing home environment could have an effect on brain development regardless of familial, perhaps genetic, predispositions to better brains. Danese added that this kind of research highlighted the "tremendous role" that parents and carers had to play in enabling children to develop their cognitive, social, and emotional skills by providing safe, predictable, stimulating, and responsive personal interactions with children.

"Parents may not be around when their teenage children are faced with important choices about choosing peers, experimenting with drugs, engaging in sexual relationships, or staying in education," said Danese. "Yet, parents can lay the foundations for their teenage children to take good decisions, for example by promoting their ability to retain and elaborate information, or to balance the desire for immediate reward with the one for greater, long-term goals since a young age."

Bruce Hood, an experimental psychologist who specialises in developmental cognitive neuroscience at the University of Bristol, said his advice to parents was just to "be kind to your children. Unless you raise them in a cardboard box without any stimulation or interaction, then they will probably be just fine."

Article retrieved from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/oct/14/childhood-stimulation-key-brain-development?CMP=twt_fdCognitive

Image retrieved from: http://childology.in/images/3%20-%205/cognitive%20skills.png

Read More

Autism Risk Linked To Space Between First And Second Pregnancy

Written by Christian Nordqvist

A second child is three times more likely to be diagnosed with autism if they are born within twelve months of their siblings, compared to those born three or more years apart, researchers from the Lazarsfeld Center for the Social Sciences at Columbia University, New York revealed in the journal Pediatrics. The investigators gathered information on 660,000 second children born in California between 1992 to 2002.

Sociologist Peter Bearman, and team set out to find out whether there might be a link between the length of time between the birth of one child and his/her brother or sister and autism risk. They found that in cases where pregnancies were less than 12 months apart, the risk of autism in the second-born child was three times as high, compared to pregnancies spaced at least three years apart.

They also found that pregnancy spaced between 1 to 2 years apart had double the risk of autism in the second child compared to those at least 3 years apart.

The researchers examined data from the California Department of Developmental Services to determine how many children had been diagnosed with autism.

Even when other factors that might influence autism risk were taken into account, such as the age of the mother or father, low birth weight, or being born preterm, "we see this really profound association". The authors added that they could not clearly determine what the causes might be.

Peter Bearman said:

"When you see something so robust and so stable, it provides an important clue as to what we should be looking at next."


They suggest that possibly a mother who soon becomes pregnant again may not have fully replenished crucial nutrients. Perhaps parents are better at identifying autism-like traits, such as delayed milestones, after their second child is born.

The authors explained that their study did not include autism in first-born children.

Previous studies had found a link between higher autism risk in a second child if the first child had an autism spectrum disorder, including Asperger's syndrome.

The authors concluded in the journal's abstract:

"These results suggest that children born after shorter intervals between pregnancies are at increased risk of developing autism; the highest risk was associated with pregnancies spaced <1 apart.="apart." br="br" year="year">

According to data from the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), the incidence of autism in the USA has risen tenfold during the last four decades, to approximately 1 in every 110 children in 2006.

Although increased awareness and better diagnosing techniques account for some of the increase, Bearman believes that other factors have also had an impact.

A comprehensive study published in the BMJ (British Medical Journal) last week clearly showed that a 1998 report by Dr. Andrew Wakefield linking childhood vaccines to autism risk was "an elaborate fraud". BMJ editor in Chief, Dr. Fiona Godlee said "The MMR scare was based not on bad science but on a deliberate fraud.. (such) clear evidence of falsification of data should now close the door on this damaging vaccine scare." Link to article about the report

"Closely Spaced Pregnancies Are Associated With Increased Odds of Autism in California Sibling Births"
Keely Cheslack-Postava, PhD, MSPH, Kayuet Liu, DPhil, Peter S. Bearman, PhD
PEDIATRICS January 10, 2012 (doi:10.1542/peds.2010-2371)

Retrieved from: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/213245.php

Read More