MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321786157 · doi:10.5430/jct.v12n1p261

Neuroeducation, Classroom Interventions and Reading Comprehension: A Systematic Review of the 2010-2022 Literature

2023· review· en· W4321786157 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Belén Valdés-Villalobos, Mariana Lazzaro-Salazar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Curriculum and Teaching · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience, Education and Cognitive Function
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading comprehensionPsychological interventionComprehensionPsychologyReading (process)CognitionCornerstoneContext (archaeology)Embodied cognitionCognitive psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reading comprehension is the cornerstone of human development, and consequently a fundamental and indispensable tool for communication and social interaction. In recent years, the field of reading comprehension research has been tightly connected with educational neuroscience, which has produced a growing number of interventions aimed at turning theoretical ideas of neuroeducation into practical efforts applicable to the classroom. The aim of the present systematic review was to analyze the state of neuroeducational research, to identify the main characteristics of the interventions developed, and to propose suggestions on the main findings that contribute to neuroeducation research on reading comprehension. Based on the guidelines of the PRISMA method, an exhaustive search was carried out in high impact databases. The selection process yielded 13 eligible studies and they were analyzed in terms of, for instance, theoretical focus, context and participants, and main findings. Results show that these studies most frequently addressed the emotional principle of self-regulation, the importance of the social principle of neuroeducation and its impact on the development of reading comprehension skills through activity breaks, holistic environment and physical exercise, and sensory cognitive development of attention and memory skills. Despite the homogeneity of the interventions presented in these studies, they showed significant effects on reading development, displaying higher research development concerning emotional and social aspects. The present study discusses the contributions of neuroeducational classroom interventions towards the development of reading comprehension skills, offering practical recommendations for teachers.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.658

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Curriculum and TeachingSame topicNeuroscience, Education and Cognitive FunctionFrench-language works237,207