5 Things Every Educator Should Know About Cognitive Capacity

This might be the most valuable article I have written in months (or maybe years) on the brain and learning. Soak it up, you hungry learner!

Now, it seems like everybody wants to boost their student’s cognitive skills these days, so let’s explore what every educator should know about the topic.

By the way, I show you HOW to build cognitive capacity in every workshop of mine you attend this year. Your choice for learning could not get much better than with me. I have Teaching & Engaging Students with Poverty in Mind (for teachers)

SECRET #1:

Neuroplasticity (change) is an Intrinsic Property of the Brain

Is it true that ALL students can learn and get better? Isn’t that a massive, sweeping generalization?

Yes, it is a generalization, and yes, it is true. The human brain is genetically designed to respond to environmental input. That’s how you survive every day. And, that capacity is called neuroplasticity.

So, if it is an intrinsic property, why do some students get left behind?

Teachers (or counselors, support staff, instructional coaches, paras, etc.) may have a fixed (vs. growth) mindset and they may not be highly skilled in instruction. In other cases, they may have heard false information in the past about learning or a certain student, or they may have had many negative, devastating, failures trying to reach students. Any educator, anywhere who believes a student CAN’T learn is usually reflecting their own sense of limitations, not those of the student.

Let’s summarize. The human brain is dynamic, not fixed. The brain is making new connections, adding new neurons, pruning away cells, changing its chemistry and even re-organizing itself every single day! That capacity is hard-wired. ALL students can learn.

SECRET #2:

Your Brain Follows Internal Rules for What and How to Learn

In one sense, your brain is ALWAYS learning things. NEUROPLASTICITY can be either bad (addictions, trauma, etc.) or good (new language, new habits, new attitudes, etc.). For example, students at a school are always learning who is an ally and who is an adversary. Those types of learning never quit because our brain learns at least a dozen different ways (through mirroring, simple associations, hands-on, trial and error, strong emotions, etc.).

But when we talk about learning, let’s focus on typical classroom-based learning that we hope will show up in life or even on the next test. That type of learning is often called explicit or declarative (meaning it was through direct instruction). Teachers do that a good portion of the day, so why aren’t all kids much sharper?

The answer is simple.

The brain does not get smarter through ALL types of input. Our brain gets exposed to millions of bits of sensory data every day. The sounds, images, touch and smell add up to a LOT of data.

Since there likely is some sort of limitation on storage, our brain cannot, biologically, afford to store everything. You would run out of space on your brain’s “hard drive.” So, to solve that problem, your brain has an internal “set of rules” that guide what is important, worth learning and saving.

Here are the brain’s FIVE rules for what gets saved.

1) Input which is behaviorally relevant (BR), it is more likely to be learned or retained. Most teachers don’t know the role of BR in the learning process and rarely get “buy-in to with their students.

2) Input which has the “quirky” factor. High novelty is far more likely to be learned or retained than the same old boring input. A guest speaker, a powerful download video or student skit can work the magic. For these, most teachers don’t know the research value nor do they do the planning to make the “quirky learning” happen very often.

3) Input which also provides a reward (smile, good feeling, affirmation, positive cue such as applause, favorite music, etc.) for making progress, it is far more likely to be learned or retained.

4) Input which is intense (with a strong sensory input such as emotions, smell, tactile or noise), it is far more likely to be learned or retained. You can do this with suspense, experiments, role play, noisemakers, drama, movement based learning or certain foods. Remember the effects of Cinnabon® on your brain as you walk through an airport!

5) Input which is repeated often (that which is reviewed and recalled often). This is also more likely to be learned or retained. Most teachers don’t build enough retrieval (not studying) into the daily learning.

SECRET #3:

The School Brain Needs Deliberate Practice

The other kind learning that consistently boosts test scores (and is priceless later in life) is called mastery learning. To be a strong learner in school, you need to know more than the alphabet; you must know how to MASTER the alphabet by learning to make words, sentences, persuasive arguments and stories. You learn the definitions, learn to read and even to debate a new topic.

The skill is called deliberate practice. Deliberate practice is purposeful and focused with a clear goal.

Let’s say your goal is to improve your student’s reading scores. That’s a poor goal unless you become more specific.

Why?

It is an outcome goal. All you have when you fail is…nothing. You may have opinions about why the student is struggling in reading, but you know you need more info. Otherwise you work hard and get nothing. So, you do a “deep dive” assessment of the reader and the testing helps you come up specific sub-skills that need improving.

Heck, you might even find out that the student needs glasses!

Now let’s focus on a specific skill. If your reading assessment says that your student has phonological processing difficulties, now you know where to start. Your new clear goal is that the student has perfectly correct responses to all 44 phonemes. Now that’s a specific behavior that you can pursue and observe if it works or not.

Remember, narrow the work to just one specific skill. Then get to work on that skill which requires just 3-5 practices just to gain initial stability. It may require 5-15 practices until it is memorized and familiar and maybe 25X-50X to automate it.

Here are the steps to get deliberate practice right:

Define measurable, specific goals for the change to be made: “I want to see this student get 100% perfect responses on all 44 phonemes tested.”
Intensify the focus on just that one task and do it until there is clear progress towards mastery.
Teacher and student respond to feedback without shame, guilt or judgment; it is simply information for growth.
Overlearning means to go beyond comfort to mastery; practicing the change is key to “lock” it in.
Change your mental model; the teacher can now describe the altered way of thinking with that student.

Post up the five steps above for all teachers. Now, let’s review the principles that are essential to deliberate practice and your brain.

Buy-in is essential. Remember, if the brain’s not buying, the brain’s not changing. Do this every time, but mix up the types and content of buy-in and relevance.

Input, where the learning is later, is retrieved (not just studied or looked at) over time, it is more likely to be learned or retained. Most teachers use study or review which has weak research support. Deliberate practice does this by learning over time.

Input which is mediated (either by the student or in-tune teacher) it is more likely to be learned or retained because the student will either get bored (too little) or overwhelmed (too much). Deliberate practice does this by incremental adjustments in the input.

Input which also provides for error-correction (here’s what happened and here’s what to do differently next time) is far more likely to be learned or retained. Deliberate practice does this by constant error-correction with far more positives than negatives.

Input which uses learner successes and errors to adapt and offer more challenging and difficult learning towards mastery, through continuous improvement and overlearning. Deliberate practice does this with instructors or technology that notices the level each student is at, then making the adjustments in the degree of difficulty.

Troubleshooting the instruction: If your staff gets stuck or are not gaining stability and seeing the automatic skill level increase, check the possibilities. They are: 1) taking on a too-complex, multi-part skill that should be broken into smaller chunks, 2) not getting and responding to quality feedback to improve, 3) practicing too short (and not getting the brain to buy into it) or training too long (and getting tired and ineffective). Refocus on your goals; this is something you and your staff can do. Both you and your students will love it because it leads to mastery.

Finally, as an aside, circumstances which provide an ally, a peer or adult with a trusting relationship, means it is far more likely to be learned or retained. People matter, even when using technology.

SECRET #4:

Most Teachers Don’t Do Deliberate Practice

“Tell me it isn’t so.”

Listen, I would love to say the statement in blue above is false. But it is not.

In short, the practice of building content into their teaching and using a deliberate practice “protocol” is unlikely.

How do I know this?

I do my homework. In one survey of over 10,000 teachers, the evidence showed that only about 20% made continuous growth, year after year. The other 80% were NOT progressing at all (Wu, M., et al. 2012). The lack of growth in students typically comes from doing the same thing, year after year (vs. growth mindset and deliberate practice).

Teachers are busy; teachers rarely know what deliberate practice is (or is not). Staff rarely prioritize and collaborate to make the deliberate practice written into lesson plans. They rarely share their plans with others, meaning most must design them on their own. Those challenges all makes their job harder.

Many (not all) teachers have weekly team meetings, but other priorities fill the agenda. Many (not all) schools are dealing with constant emergencies instead of the of long-term proactive instructional priorities.

Now, if you were to use deliberate practice, what would you use it on to boost student learning? Deliberate practice does not focus on the broad sweeping cognitive skills such as math, writing or reading. Those are far too complex. You get results in those only by only by focusing on the prioritized sub-skills.

As an example, a reading teacher might focus on processing skills (and at another time, focus on working memory, attention, text comprehension or fluency). But you do these within the context of the broad sweeping skill-building of daily reading. For example, many who struggle with reading lack the phonological processing skills. Their brain cannot distinguish among, “ba” and “da” and “ta” as well as many other similar sounding parts of a word. This skill is critical, to say the least. Building this skill requires a very good reading teacher.

When students can focus on just that one skill, within the story they are reading, their brain gets the relevance to the sub-skill. When all the sub-skills are eventually blended within the reading, students learn quicker and enjoy it more.

My question is, “How many teachers on your staff consistently use deliberate practice?” In short, if your staff is not using what works precisely for complex, in-depth learning, the only choice you have (aside from giving up on your students) is to automate the process.

The high level of deliberate practice comes only with skilled training, professional development and high levels of expertise that only a few teachers have. For many schools, that’s the choice: automate deliberate practice, or our students will underperform.

SECRET #5:

For Many, the Best Choice is Technology

Some educators get a bit suspicious when we talk about automation. They may worry about job protection or think that automation is never going to happen in education.

Just for a moment, step back and ask yourself, “What’s different in education from 25 years ago?”

The crazy thing is that technology is one of the single biggest changes.

But if that sounds “ho-hum” to you, okay how about this?

In the year 2000, the number of public high school students nationwide, that could (and did) take high school courses ONLINE was zero. Today, the number is almost 8 million (and growing every year).

In case you are thinking, “Yeah but….” Surprisingly, there are now fewer jobs in education today than there were ten years ago. We are losing educators to technology. The trend is not a slow one; it is more like a tsunami.

Let’s go to the classroom and look at examples of successful implementation of technology. Many teachers are using feedback technology with their students. Some apps help students learn math or vocabulary better. Some apps teach emotional – social skills by doing it through games. Teachers are using apps to help keep track of students for assessments as well as making lesson plans. Some teach problem-solving through games.

But whatever the technology you use, the app must follow certain “brain rules” or you will not get amazing progress. So, before you use any technology, review the brain’s learning rules earlier in this article. Then you can decide if the technology has merit.

But what if you wanted a program that was research-based, relevant and had a high probability of succeeding with your students in reading?

One reading program that I have shared with my live audiences and in my books for over 15 years is FastForward®.

Why is that?

First, it has science you can believe. There are over 59 studies featuring FastForward® in peer-reviewed scientific journals (see citations at the end). It follows all the rules in this article. All you must do is use it correctly.

Second, it has real world results in classrooms around the country. “There are many positive things in St. Mary Parish schools,” School Superintendent Leonard Armato said. “Fast ForWord® is one of them. It has helped make St. Mary Parish the highest-rated ‘B’ district in the state — 8/10ths of a point from an ‘A’ — and I believe we will be an ‘A’ next year.”

By the way, there’s a Free Trial Offer available for a limited time. CLICK HERE.

Now you know why I support it. It works, there’s evidence, and you can check it out for free.

So, when it comes to building cognitive skills, remember the five most important points. First, your brain can change and it designed to change from an environmental input. Second, your brain follows internal rules for learning, and there are three key ones to keep in mind. Third, the school brain needs deliberate practice for complex cognitive capacity growth. Fourth, most teachers don’t do deliberate practice. Fifth and finally, the best choice for many schools is technology.

AUTHOR: Eric Jensen is a former teacher who grew up in San Diego, California. Jensen’s MA is in Organizational Development, and his Ph.D. is in Human Development. For over two decades he has synthesized brain research and developed practical applications for educators. Jensen has authored over 30 books including Teaching with Poverty in Mind, Tools for Engagement, Turnaround Tools for the Teenage Brain, Poor Students Rich Teaching and Different Brains, Different Learners. Jensen is a member of the invitation-only Society for Neuroscience, the President’s Club at Salk Institute for Biological Studies, and the New York Academy of Sciences.

CITATIONS:

Adams, M. J. (2006). The promise of automatic speech recognition for fostering literacy growth in children and adults. In M.C. McKenna, L.D. Labbo, R. D. Kieffer, & D. Reinking (Eds.), International Handbook of Literacy and Technology, Volume 2. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (Summary of Impact Study) (Summary of Sensitivity Study)

Bedi, G.C., Tallal, P., Miller, S. L., Byma, G., Merzenich, M. M., & Jenkins, W. M. (1995). Efficacy of temporal-based training for receptive language and auditory discrimination deficits in language-learning impaired children: A follow-up study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience Supplement, April, p.55.

Corbitt, C., Hutchinson, B., Hutchinson, C., Parsons, L., & Pickford, T. (2015). Improved language and literacy skills in state primary schools in Western Australia. Open Science Journal of Education, 3(5), 32-37.

Deutsch, G. K., Miller, S. L., Merzenich, M. M., & Tallal, P. (1999). Improvements in auditory working memory after training of children with language impairments. Paper presented at the Cognitive Neuroscience Society.

Dronkers, N. F, Husted, D.A., Deutsch, G., Tayler, M.K., Saunders, G., & Merzenich, M.M. (1999). Lesion site as a predictor of improvement after “Fast ForWord” treatment in adult aphasic patients. Brain & Language, 69, 450-452.

Forrest, M., Spitko, T. (2004, April). Implementation of the Fast ForWord family of programs in Pottstown School District. Paper presented to the Pottstown School District Board, Pottstown, PA.

Friel-Patti, S., DesBarres, K., & Thibodeau, L. (2001). Case studies of children using Fast ForWord. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 10(3), 203-215.

Friel-Patti, S., Loeb, D. F., & Gillam, R. B. (2001). Looking ahead: An introduction to five exploratory studies of Fast ForWord. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 10(3), 195-202.

Gaab, N., Gabrieli, J.D.E., Deutsch, G.K., Tallal, P., & Temple, E. (2007). Neural correlates of rapid auditory processing are disrupted in children with developmental dyslexia and ameliorated with training: An fMRI study. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience, 25, 295-310.

Gillam, R. B., Crofford, J. A., Gale, M. A., & Hoffman, L. M. (2001). Language change following computer-assisted language instruction with Fast ForWord or Laureate Learning Systems software. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 10(3), 231-247

Gillam, R. B., Loeb, D. F., & Friel-Patti, S. (2001). Looking back: A summary of five exploratory studies on Fast ForWord. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 10(3), 269-273.

Gillam, R.B., Frome Loeb, D., Hoffman, L.M., Bohman, T., Champlin, C.A., & Thibodeau, L. (2008) The Efficacy of Fast ForWord Language Intervention in School-Age Children With Language Impairment: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 51, 97-119.

Heim, S., Keil, A., Choudhury, N., Thomas Friedman, J. & Benasich, A. (2013). Early gamma oscillations during rapid auditory processing in children with a language-learning impairment: Changes in neural mass activity after training. Neuropsychologia, 51, 990-1001.

Hook, P. E., Macaruso, P., & Jones, S. (2001). Efficacy of Fast ForWord training on facilitating acquisition of reading skills by children with reading difficulties–a longitudinal study. Annals of Dyslexia, 51, 75-96.

Jenkins, W. M. (1998). A computer based training procedure for improvement of auditory perceptual skills and language function. Paper presented at the 2emes Journees Scientifiques de l’Ecole d’Orthophonie de Lyon.

Jenkins, W. M., Merzenich, M. M., Jacobson, T., Miller, S. L., Schreiner, C., & Tallal, P. (1995). training exercises improve temporal processing abilities in language-based learning disabled children (LLDs): Use-dependent reorganization. Paper presented at the 1995 Annual Meeting of Society for Neuroscience, San Diego, CA.

Johnstone, P., Harmon, L., Buehler, V., Plyler, E., Pritt, E., & Alworth, L. (2008, October). The effect of computer-based auditory training on APD test scores. Paper presented at the APD Conference: 30 Years of Progress in Cincinnati, OH.

Kitzes, A. J., Miller, S. L., & Deutsch, G. K. (1999). The relationship between attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and language learning impairment (LLI). Paper presented at the Eleventh Annual Conference on Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Washington DC.

Krishnamurti, S., Forrester, J., Rutledge, C., & Holmes, G.W. (2013). A case study of the changes in the speech-evoked auditory brainstem response associated with auditory training in children with auditory processing disorders. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinoloaryngology, 77, 594-604.

Loeb, D. F., Stoke, C., & Fey, M. E. (2001). Language changes associated with Fast ForWord-language: Evidence from case studies. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 10(3), 216-230.

Marler, J. A., Champlin, C. A., & Gillam, R. B. (2001). Backward and simultaneous masking measured in children with language-learning impairments who received intervention with Fast ForWord or Laureate Learning Systems software. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 10(3), 258-268.

Merzenich, M. M., Jenkins, W. M., Johnston, P., Schreiner, C., Miller, S. L., & Tallal, P. (1996). Temporal processing deficits of language-learning impaired children ameliorated by training. Science, 271(5245), 77-81.

Merzenich, M. M., Miller, S., Jenkins, W. M., Saunders, G., Protopapas, A., Peterson, B., & Tallal, P. (1998). Amelioration of the acoustic and speech reception deficits underlying language-based learning impairments. In C. von Euler, I. Lundberg, & R. Llinas (Eds.), Basic mechanisms in cognition and language (pp. 143-172). New York: Elsevier.

Merzenich, M. M., Saunders, G., Jenkins, W. M., Miller, S., Peterson, B., & Tallal, P. (1999). Pervasive developmental disorders: Listening training and language abilities. In S. H. Broman & J. M. Fletcher (Eds.), The changing nervous system: Neurobehavioral consequences of early brain disorders (pp. 365-385). New York: Oxford University Press.

Miller, S. L., Jenkins, W. M., Merzenich, M. M., & Tallal, P. (1995). Modification of auditory temporal processing thresholds in language-based learning disabled children. Paper presented at the 1995 Annual Meeting of Society for Neuroscience, San Diego, CA.

Miller, S. L., Linn, N., Tallal, P., Merzenich, M. M., & Jenkins, W. M. (1999). Acoustically modified speech and language training: A relationship between auditory word discrimination training and measures of language outcomes. Reeducation Orthophonique, 197, 159-182.

Miller, S. L., Merzenich, M. M., Tallal, P., DeVivo, K., Linn, N., Pycha, A., Peterson, B. E., & Jenkins, W. M. (1999). Fast ForWord training in children with low reading performance. Nederlandse Vereniging voor Logopedie en Foniatrie: 1999 Jaarcongres Auditieve Vaardigheden en Spraak-taal. (Proceedings of the 1999 Netherlands Speech-Language Association Annual Meeting).

Miller, S., DeVivo, K., LaRossa, K., Pycha, A., Peterson, B. E., Tallal, P., Merzenich, M. M., & Jenkins, W. M. (1998). Acoustically modified speech and language training reduces risk for academic difficulties. Paper presented at the Society For Neuroscience, Los Angeles, CA.

Miller, S., Merzenich, M. M., Saunders, G., Jenkins, W. M., & Tallal, P. (1997, October 26). Improvements in language abilities with a training of children with both attentional and language impairments. Paper presented at the 1997 Annual Meeting of Society for Neuroscience, New Orleans, LA.

Miller, S., Merzenich, M.M., Saunders, G. H., Jenkins, W. M., Tallal, P. (1997). Improvements in language abilities with a training of children with both attentional and language impairments. Soc Neurosci Abstr, 23, 490.

Miller, S., & Tallal, P. (1996). Acoustically modified speech training studies: Implications for dyslexia? Perspectives: Proceeding of the Orton Dyslexia Society, 22, 8-9.

Morlet, T., Norman, M., Ray, B., Berlin, C.I. (2003). Fast ForWord: Its scientific basis and treatment effects on the human efferent auditory system. In C. I. Berlin & T. G. Weyland (Eds.), The brain and sensory plasticity: Language acquisition and hearing (pp. 129-148). Clifton Park, NY: Delmar Learning.

Nagarajan, S. S., Wang, X., Merzenich, M. M., Schreiner, C. E., Jenkins, W. M., Johnston, P. A.,

Miller, S. L., Byma, G., & Tallal, P. (1995). Modified speech for training language-based learning disabled children (LLDs). Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of Society for Neuroscience, San Diego, CA.

Rogowsky, B. (2010). The Impact of Fast ForWord® on Sixth Grade Students’ Use of Standard Edited American English. Doctor of Education dissertation, Wilkes University.

Rogowsky, B.A., Papamichalis, P. Villa, L., Heim, S., & Tallal, P. (2013). Neuroplasticity-based cognitive and linguistic skills training improves reading and writing skills in college students. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(137)1 – 11.

Roy, D. Dutta (2008). A Study Conducted in India to Assess Validity of Fast ForWord Language Gateway Edition. MAPS for Learning: Research Reports, 12(1): 1-63.

Russo, N.M., Hornickel, H., Nicol, T., Zecker, S., Kraus, N. (2010) Biological changes in auditory function following training in children with autism spectrum disorders. Behavioral and Brain Functions 6(60), 1-8.

Schopmeyer, B., Mellon, N., Dobaj, H., Grant, G., & Niparko, J. K. (2000). Use of Fast ForWord to enhance language development in children with cochlear implants. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl, 185, 95-8.

Stevens, C., Fanning, J., Coch, D., Sanders, L., & H Neville (2008). Neural mechanisms of selective auditory attention are enhanced by computerized training: Electrophysiological evidence from language-impaired and typically developing children. Brain Research, 1205, 55-69.

Tallal, P., Merzenich, M. M., Miller, S., & Jenkins, W. (1998). Language learning impairments: Integrating basic science, technology, and remediation. Experimental Brain Research, 123(1-2), 210-219.

Tallal, P., Merzenich, M., Jenkins, W. M., Miller, S., & Peterson, B. (1997, November 21). Fast ForWord language training program for children with language & learning problems: Results from a national field study by 35 independent facilities. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Boston, MA.

Tallal, P., Miller, S. L., Bedi, G., Byma, G., Wang, X., Nagarajan, S. S., Schreiner, C., Jenkins, W. M., & Merzenich, M. M. (1998). Language comprehension in language-learning impaired children improved with acoustically modified speech. In M. E. Hertzig & E. A. Farber (Eds.), Annual progress in child psychiatry and child development: 1997 (pp. 193-200). NY: Brunner-Routledge.

Tallal, P., Miller, S. L., Bedi, G., Byma, G., Wang, X., Nagarajan, S.S., Schreiner, C., Jenkins, W. M., & Merzenich, M. M. (1996). Language comprehension in language-learning impaired children improved with acoustically modified speech. Science, 271, 81-84.

Tallal, P., Miller, S., Bedi, G., Byma, G., Jenkins, W. M., Wang, X., Nagarajan, S. S., & Merzenich, M. M. (1995). Training with temporally modified speech results in dramatic improvements in speech perception and language comprehension. Paper presented at the 1995 Annual Meeting of Society for Neuroscience, San Diego, CA.

Tallal, P., Saunders, G. H., Miller, S., Jenkins, W. M., Protopapas, A., & Merzenich, M. M. (1997). Rapid training-driven improvement in language ability in autistic and PDD-NOS children. Soc Neurosci Abstr, 23, 490.

Tallal, P., Saunders, G., Miller, S., Jenkins, W. M., Protopapas, A., & Merzenich, M. M. (1997, October 26). Rapid training-driven improvement in language ability in autistic and other PDD children. Paper presented at the 1997 Annual Meeting of Society for Neuroscience, New Orleans, LA.

Temple, E., Deutsch, G. K., Poldrack, R. A., Miller, S.L., Tallal, P., Merzenich, M. M., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2003). Neural deficits in children with dyslexia ameliorated by behavioral remediation: Evidence from functional MRI. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(5), 2860-2865.

Temple, E., Poldrack, R. A., Protopapas, A., Nagarajan, S., Salz, T., Tallal, P., Merzenich., M. M., &

Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2000). Disruption of the neural response to rapid acoustic stimuli in dyslexia: Evidence from functional MRI. PNAS, 97(35), 13907-13912.

Thibodeau, L. M., Friel-Patti, S., & Britt, L. (2001). Psychoacoustic performance in children completing Fast ForWord training. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 10(3), 248-257.

Turner, S., & Pearson, D. W. (1999). Fast ForWord language intervention programs: Four case studies. Tejas — Texas Journal of Audiology and Speech Pathology, 13(Spring/Summer).

Wilson, P., Wiedemeier, S., & Burns, M. (2004, May). Use of Fast ForWord in Learning Centers. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Society, Chicago, IL.

Woodrum, J, Ed.D. (2012). Improved Academic Achievement: Fast ForWord and the Bulloch County Schools Pilot, an Independent Study. Bulloch County Schools, Statesboro, Georgia.

Wu, M., Morgan, K., Hur, J., Schifrin, K., Gordon, L., Russell, G. & Carroll, K. (2012). The Irreplaceables: Understanding the real retention crisis in America’s urban schools. The New Teacher Project. Accessed 3/5/13 from: www.tntp.org/assets/documents/TNTP_Irreplaceables_2012.pdf

Ylinen, S. & Kujala, T. (2015). Neuroscience illuminating the influence of auditory or phonological intervention on language-related deficits. Frontiers in Psychology, 6.

Zou, P., Conklin, H.M., Scoggins, M.A., Li, Y., Li, X., Jones, M.M., Palmer, S.L., Gajjar, A., & Ogg, R.J. (2015). Functional MRI in medulloblastoma survivors supports prophylactic reading intervention during tumor treatment. Brain Imaging and Behavior, 1-14.

Email:	info@jensenlearning.com
Mail:	Jensen Learning PO Box 349 Maunaloa, HI 96770
Phone:	808-552-0110 (9am-5pm PST)
Fax:	808-552-0220 (9-5 pm PST)