Genetics and reading, computer-access study and schooling in Ireland

Researchers have found no link between having home computer access and educational achievement. Photograph: Alamy

Researchers think a child's genetic make-up has only a very small role to play in determining how good they are at reading. The researchers, from the Institute of Education, University of London looked at the relationship between children's reading scores and their social background using data from the Avon Longitudinal Study.

The study focused on three genetic risk factors, which the Avon Longitudinal Study found could have affect reading test scores. The first two genetic risk factors are associated with general reading ability and the third has been linked to reading disorders such as dyslexia.

The results of reading tests, taken at seven, nine and 11 were then divided into five socio-economic groups and the study found that children with professional parents scored on average 60 out of 100; whereas children with unskilled parents scored an average of 42. This left a gap of 18 points but the impact of the three genes which influence reading ability accounted for just 2% of that achievement gap.

The link between having access to a computer at home and the educational achievement of a child has been investigated by researchers from the US National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).

Researchers conducted a randomised controlled trial with 1,123 pupils aged 11 to 16 who didn't have access to computers at home across California. Half of the pupils were randomly selected to receive free computers while the other half served as a control group. No training was given to the pupils with the free computers and by the end of the school year data from the schools was used to measure the impact of the computers on a number of educational outcomes.

Findings showed that, although computer ownership and use increased substantially, there were no effects on grades, test scores, credits earned, attendance, or disciplinary actions in the experimental group.

A study in Ireland comparing Irish pupils to their international counterparts has concluded that they are less happy in school and more likely to feel like they don't belong than children in other countries.

The Educational Research Centre study compared 10 year-old children with their peers internationally and found boys are more likely to be unhappy in school than girls and that a high proportion of teachers in Ireland felt pupils were not getting enough sleep and this had an affect on their schoolwork.

However, the report, called National Schools, International Contexts, found that bullying is less of an issue for pupils in Ireland compared to other countries.

The report also found that Irish teachers lacked confidence in teaching science and that only 12 to 40 hours of a three-year teacher training course was spent on science. In school 10 year olds only spend 7% of their time studying science compared to an international average of 10%.

View the original article here

Schooling in war zones, mobile phone engagement study and irregular bedtimes

Education research: irregular bedtimes on school nights can have an impact on reading and maths tests as well as spatial ability, say scientists at University College London. Photograph: Alamy

Researchers at Harvard have been looking at the effect of giving pupils mobile phones and then texting them messages to encourage them to participate in school.

More than 2,000 pupils aged 11 to 13 in Oklahoma took part in the study. The pupils were randomly allocated to four different groups; two groups were sent daily text messages, one group received credits for reading books while the last group acted as a control group.

The text messages were designed to highlight the value and importance of education to the pupils and included messages such as: "Each year high school students make $21,023. College graduates make $58,613. Do the math."

The report shows the students did change their views about education and they reported that they put in extra effort at school. However, the authors found the experiment made no impact on the students' attendance, behaviour in school or achievement and they felt that this was because the benefits of education were seen as too far in the future and wasn't worth them making an effort now.

A new paper has been released calling for urgent action to bring education to the 28.5 million primary age children who live in war zones.

The paper, called Children battling to go to school has been produced by Unesco in partnership with Save the Children to mark the 16th birthday today of Malala Yousafzai, the Pakistani schoolgirl who was shot by the Taliban on her way home from school in October. Globally, the number of children out of school has fallen from 60 million in 2008 to 57 million in 2011. However, the benefits of this slow progress have not reached children in conflict-affected countries; they now make up 50% of children who are denied an education, up from 42% in 2008.

The paper shows that 44% of the 28.5 million children affected live in sub-Saharan Africa, 19% in south and west Asia and 14% in the Arab States. The vast majority, some 95% live in low and lower-middle income countries. Girls, who make up 55% of the total, are the worst affected, as they are often victims of rape and other sexual violence.

In addition to the boys and girls out of school, almost a third of the world's out-of-school adolescents (20 million) live in conflict-affected countries. Some 54% of these are women. Despite this, the research shows that humanitarian aid for education has declined from 2% in 2009 to just 1.4% in 2011.

Scientists at University College London have discovered a link between bedtimes and scores in reading and maths.

The research suggests that children who go to bed at different times on school nights when they are aged three, five and seven do worse in tests of reading, maths and spatial ability.

An irregular bedtime, the researchers said, meant children were suffering more sleep deprivation than children who go to bed at a regular time and it had more of an adverse affect on girls than boys. They believe the lack of routine might impair early development by disrupting the body clock and through sleep deprivation which affects the brain's ability to learn new things and also remember.

The research also found the most significant impact of irregular bedtimes on three year-old children.

The study analysed data on bedtimes and test scores from 11,178 seven year-old children born from September 2000 to January 2002 who participated in the Millennium Cohort Study.

View the original article here

Case study: young apprentice

Greg Thompson, young apprentice. Photograph: Career Academies

For Greg Thompson university was unappealing. The idea of big debts and a hard time getting a job to pay them off made little sense to him. But when it came to finding an alternative to higher education, his school had little advice to offer, he says.

"I don't anywhere see there being alternative routes to success. We had a job fair at college once and all the stands were universities," he recalls.

What his school did have, however, was a partnership with the charity Career Academies UK. Thompson signed up for the course it offered on top of his A-level studies. It gave him a chance to do a paid internship, learn public speaking skills and find out about using social networks to job hunt. That took him on to an apprenticeship at the Financial Skills Partnership and he recently secured a permanent job there.

The 19-year-old wants to see a bigger push to promote apprenticeships to school pupils. "I feel in every school and college, university is pushed and that is the only thing that is pushed and I feel they are kind of letting students down."

"You should always have other opportunities. You should never just say you are going to university because that is what some of your friends are doing."

View the original article here

Mexican students eye up UK universities as study destination

Kidnap, murder, extortion – despite recent reports of improvements, Mexico remains gripped by a crisis which, at its peak, saw the army deployed in some areas in an attempt to wrest back control of the streets from violent drug cartels. Between 2007 and 2012 intentional homicides per capita increased by over 65% in Mexico, while kidnappings increased 250% and extortions 94%. Other countries in the region are also facing social and political challenges for everyday security – the situation in Venezuela, for example, is not much better than Mexico, with a leading criminologist tallying 155,788 murders in the country since 1999.

It comes as no surprise then that the attraction of the UK as a safe country to live in has gone from being the 17th most important factor for Mexican students in 2007 to the fifth in 2012, according to British Council research.

But if international higher education is increasingly seen as an escape route for some of Latin America's young people, it is only because of some far more positive social changes in the region. In the past decade, more than 50 million people have worked their way up the social ladder and into the middle classes – an increase of more than 50% that means now almost a third of Latin Americans are classifiable as middle class. This generation has high aspirations for their children and wants to see them secure the best education possible.

At the same time, most governments in the region have started addressing low rates of higher education participation – more scholarships, increased sponsorship and greater social mobility has resulted in half a million more people enrolling in higher education in 2010-11 than in 2006-07 in Mexico alone. This has also helped increase the appetite for international study.

Underpinning all this is Latin Americans' famously strong sense of family. Historically, it has been the main reason that those who could study abroad have preferred to stay home instead, but aspirations for the next generation, coupled with safety concerns, mean this instinct has opened people's minds to the idea of international study.

It is against this backdrop that the region is becoming increasingly important to European universities. As with students from most regions around the world, the UK has to settle for second place behind the US in the eyes of Latin Americans, but the high quality of education available, the international recognition of UK qualifications, and the subsequent career prospects are cited as defining factors when Latin American students were asked to reflect on the UK as a higher education destination.

The UK shares many of these qualities with the US, but there are discernible differences in the way each is viewed from Latin America. The UK is more often chosen because it is seen as a desirable country to study in, while the US is chosen on the strength of individual institutions. This means that Latin America is a recruitment ground that's open to all UK universities and not just a few big names.

There are still many obstacles that UK universities can only overcome with representatives on the ground, which is where good education agents and specialist providers with local knowledge and contacts play a part. What Latin Americans really want to know is that their children will be employable once they complete their studies. And, while tuition fees between domestic and UK universities are comparable in general, the UK's high living costs are a concern, so parents need to be further convinced of UK higher education's value as an investment.

Domestic competition is also increasing all the time as private Latin American universities respond to foreigners' recruitment drives by undercutting international offers, creating more scholarship and discount schemes; these universities have locality on their side. On an international level, the UK needs to brace itself for increasing competition from emerging higher education destinations – Germany and Canada are already not far behind in their recruitment of Latin American students.

However, as long as its carefully crafted reputation remains intact, and the quality of degree level study is maintained, I confidently predict that UK higher education can face down all of these challenges as an appealing destination for increasingly mobile Latin American students, whatever their motivation for leaving home and however the political or social situation develops.

Laura Aguirre is Latin American recruitment manager for Study Group – follow it on Twitter @Study_Group

This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To get more articles like this direct to your inbox, become a member of the Higher Education Network.

View the original article here

New Study: Many Teens Addicted And Tired Of Their Digital Lives

Many teens are getting quite tired and downright addicted to their digital lives. But they want something that is surprising to me: more face-to-face interaction and communication. A new study by Common Sense Media asked 13-17 year-olds an array of thought-provoking questions that you should consider asking yourself and your students. It’d be interesting to see the results! The questions and description of the study are below.

This research study provides a snapshot of how U.S. teens experience the role of social media in their social and emotional lives. Using survey data from a nationally representative, probability-based sample of 13- to 17-year-olds, we address these questions:

How often are teens texting and using Facebook and Twitter?What are teenagers’ favorite ways to communicate with their friends and family?How do teens think these new communications tools are affecting their friendships and family relations, if at all?How does social networking make most teens feel about themselves and their relationships with their peers? Does it make them feel more connected or more isolated? Better about themselves, or more depressed and lonely?How do the heaviest social media users compare to other teens in terms of their social and emotional well-being?

 

View the original article here

Tighter rules for student visas could cost UK £2.4bn in a decade – study

A woman demonstrates against the British government's 2012 decision to strip the London Metropolitan University of its right to sponsor visas for overseas students. Photograph: Carl Court/AFP/Getty Images

The government's hardening of international student visa rules could cause long-term damage to Britain's universities and cost ￡2.4bn over the next decade, a study claims.

Research by Universities UK, which lobbies on behalf of British higher education, warns that the visa restrictions may mean many more overseas students choose to study in the US and Canada rather than the UK, taking ￡350m a year in lost revenue with them.

"Such a change would not be easily reversed and, as seen in other higher education systems, the effects can endure across several academic years," the group says in its annual report, published on Wednesday.

The research cites the recent experience of Australia tightening its student visa rules, with the value of Australia's higher education earnings falling 5% between 2010 and 2011.

"This could put the UK's strong position within the global education market at risk and lead to a reduction in exports to the value of ￡2.4bn across the entire [UK] education sector between 2012-13 and 2024-25," the report concludes.

The government introduced a series of curbs on student visa applications, which started from 2011 and were aimed at making visas harder to obtain for foreign students on multiyear courses.

The additional checks brought in included harder English language requirements and the imposition of "credibility check" interviews from 2013. About 100,000 interviews are expected to be carried out this year.

Last year, the Home Office reported that student applications for visas to study at institutions outside of higher education – such as further education colleges – had fallen considerably. That suggests the total loss to the UK economy in foregone fees and lost spending could be even worse than predicted.

Immigration minister Mark Harper disputed the report's conclusions, pointing out that the latest figures show the number of international students applying for visas to attend UK universities has increased.

"Last week's Ucas statistics show applications from international students are up 5.5% compared to this time last year, and latest figures from the Higher Education Statistics Agency show the total number of non-EU students at our universities continues to rise," Harper said.

"However, Universities UK continue to criticise the government policies it initially supported. The UK remains open for business to the brightest and best international students: there is no limit on the number of international students who can come here and graduates can stay and work in the UK if they get a graduate level job."

The Universities UK report, The Funding Environment for Universities, surveyed individual universities and found that, while the total number of overseas students from outside the EU enrolled rose by 1.5% in 2013, first-year numbers had fallen.

The biggest falls in overseas recruitment involved students from India, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

Saudi student enrolment numbers fell by 31% in 2011-12. Yet at the same time Saudi enrolment at US universities grew by 50% annually.

The report also surveyed universities to gauge the impact of higher fees for UK?students.

It found that the number of young applicants to full-time undergraduate courses fell by 5.7%, with mature applicants experiencing a larger fall of 9%.

"This is bad news for fair access – you're more likely to be studying part-time or be a mature student of over 21 if you're from a disadvantaged background," said Les Ebdon, the director of Fair Access to Higher Education.

View the original article here

Trust in science would be improved by study pre-registration

The quest: a better understanding of nature. Photograph: Sebastian Kaulitzki/Alamy

In an ideal world, scientific discoveries would be independent of what scientists wanted to discover. A good researcher would begin with an idea, devise a method to test the idea, run the study as planned, and then decide based on the evidence whether the idea had been supported. Following this approach would lead us step-by-step toward a better understanding of nature.

Unfortunately, the life sciences are becoming increasingly estranged from this way of thinking. Early in their training, students learn that the quest for truth needs to be balanced against the more immediate pressure to "publish or perish". For a junior scientist to compete at securing a permanent academic position, her top priority must be to publish in journals with the greatest prestige and impact. If she survives to become a senior scientist, she's likely to then pass this lesson on to her own PhD students.

This publishing culture is toxic to science. Recent studies have shown how intense career pressures encourage life scientists to engage in a range of questionable practices to generate publications – behaviours such as cherry-picking data or analyses that allow clear narratives to be presented, reinventing the aims of a study after it has finished to "predict" unexpected findings, and failing to ensure adequate statistical power. These are not the actions of a small minority; they are common, and result from the environment and incentive structures that most scientists work within.

At the same time, journals incentivise bad practice by favouring the publication of results that are considered to be positive, novel, neat and eye-catching. In many life sciences, negative results, complicated results, or attempts to replicate previous studies never make it into the scientific record. Instead they occupy a vast unpublished file drawer.

The scientific community is well aware of these problems – in fact, we've known about them for decades. The problem is that any one scientist opting to work beyond the system immediately disadvantages herself relative to her peers. The only solution is structural reform, and to this end some of us have recently taken steps to drive change.

Since May this year, the journal Cortex, a peer-reviewed outlet for science on the nervous system and behaviour, has offered authors the opportunity to publish a type of article called a registered report. Unlike traditional scientific publishing, in which manuscripts are peer reviewed only after studies have been completed, registered reports are reviewed before scientists collect data. If the scientific question and methods are deemed sound, the authors are then offered "in-principle acceptance" of their article, which virtually guarantees publication regardless of how the results turn out.

The journals Attention, Perception & Psychophysics and Perspectives on Psychological Science have launched similar projects. Both initiatives borrow from the now-established requirement that clinical trials pre-register their study protocols. But these new initiatives go even further by offering publication of the eventual results in the same journal, regardless of what is found.

By basing editorial decisions on the question and method, rather than the results, pre-registration overcomes the publication bias that blocks negative findings from the literature. And by conducting peer review both before and after a study is completed, questionable practices to increase "publishability" are greatly reduced. The aim here isn't to punish the academic community for playing the game that we created; rather, we seek to change the rules of the game itself.

Critics have argued that pre-registration is overzealous and will hinder exploration, meaning serendipitous findings would remain hidden to us. We agree that exploration is vital, but while this concern is understandable, it is also easy to guard against. For instance, the registered reports initiative allows authors to report on any aspect of their data – even when such analyses are not registered at the outset. However, these outcomes are clearly labelled as exploratory to make them distinct from the pre-planned analyses. Registered reports also require authors to publicly release their raw data so that other scientists can explore the results in unanticipated ways, now and in the future.

Our publishing culture is conservative and slow to evolve. Following the Cortex initiative, some of us have witnessed quiet resistance to pre-registration from other journals. These outlets fear that agreeing to publish papers before seeing the data could lock them into publishing negative results or other findings conventionally regarded as "boring". This is despite the fact that clear-cut negative outcomes can be tremendously informative, telling us which potential interventions don't work or which suspected phenomena don't actually exist.

The deeper concern of journals is that pre-registration threatens existing "prestige" hierarchies and could reduce a journal's impact factor – a metric that is arguably meaningless as an indicator of scientific quality and, in fact, predicts the rate of article retractions due to fraud.

Nobody can expect scientists to sacrifice their livelihoods or those of their proteges for the good of the cause. So, as a group of scientists with positions on more than 100 journal editorial boards, we are calling for all empirical journals in the life sciences – including those journals that we serve – to offer pre-registered articles at the earliest opportunity. The guidelines for the initiatives at Cortex and Perspectives are straightforward, and while specific kinds of studies will require specific solutions, the general principle is widely applicable. For pre-registration to benefit science it must be embraced by a broad spectrum of journals.

Study pre-registration doesn't fit all forms of science, and it isn't a cure-all for scientific publishing. But it is a crucial part of urgent wider reform. Our publishing culture is no longer fit for purpose and the time has come to offer scientists a genuine alternative to "publish or perish". If the life sciences are to preserve a legacy of truth, journals must welcome pre-registration with open arms.

Jump to comments

Prof Paul Aveyard, University of Oxford, UK (on editorial board of Addiction)

Prof Mark Bellgrove, Monash University, Australia (editorial board: Journal of Attention Disorders)

Dr Marco Bertamini, University of Liverpool, UK (editorial board: Acta Psychologica, Arts & Perception)

Dr Sven Bestmann, University College London, UK (on editorial board of Frontiers in Human Neuroscience)

Prof Dorothy Bishop, University of Oxford, UK (editorial boards: Autism, Laterality and former editor of Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry)

Prof Bjoern Brembs, University of Regensburg, Germany (editorial boards: of Frontiers in Decision Neuroscience, PLOS ONE)

Prof John Britton, University of Nottingham, UK (former editor-in-chief of Thorax)

Prof Anne Castles, Macquarie University, Australia (editorial boards: Cognitive Neuropsychology, Cortex, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, and Scientific Studies of Reading)

Dr Chris Chambers, Cardiff University, UK (editorial boards: Cortex and PLOS ONE)

Prof Axel Cleeremans, Universite Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium (editorial board: Consciousness and Cognition, field editor-in-chief of Frontiers in Psychology and former editor of Psychologica Belgica)

Dr Molly Crockett, University College London, UK (on editorial board of Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience)

Dr Sean David, Stanford University, US (editorial board: Nicotine & Tobacco Research)

Prof Bill Deakin, University of Manchester, UK (editorial boards: Schizophrenia Research, Journal of Psychopharmacology

Prof Sergio Della Sala, University of Edinburgh, UK (editor-in-chief, Cortex)

Prof Zoltan Dienes, University of Sussex, UK (editorial boards: Cortex, Frontiers in Consciousness Researchm, Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice)

Dr Simon Dymond, Swansea University, UK (editorial boards: Analysis of Gambling Behavior, Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, The Behavior Analyst, European Journal of Behavior Analysis)

Prof Klaus Ebmeier, University of Oxford, UK (editorial boards: Biological Psychiatry, Journal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience, International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology, American Journal of Neurodegenerative Disease, Depression Research and Treatment)

Prof Gary Egan, Monash University, Australia (editorial boards: Human Brain Mapping, Journal of Neuroinformatics, International Journal of Imaging Systems and Technology, Frontiers in Neuroinformatics)

Dr Pete Etchells, Bath Spa University, UK (editorial board: BMC Psychology)

Prof Matt Field, University of Liverpool, UK (editorial boards: Addiction, Drug and Alcohol Dependence, Psychopharmacology)

Prof Gabriele Fischer, Medical University of Vienna, Austria (editorial board: Addiction)

Prof Jonathan Flint, University of Oxford, UK (editorial board: PLOS Genetics)

Prof Ingmar Franken, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Netherlands (editorial boards: Drug and Alcohol Dependence, Frontiers in Psychopathology, Journal of Addiction)

Dr Joy Geng, University of California Davis, US (editorial board: PLOS ONE, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience)

Prof Morton Ann Gernsbacher, University of Wisconsin-Madison, US (editorial board: Cognitive Psychology, Discourse Processes, former chief editor, Memory and Cognition)

Prof Bradley Gibson, Notre Dame University, US (editorial boards: Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Visual Cognition)

Dr Sam Gilbert, University College London, UK (editorial board: PLOS ONE)

Dr Stephen Gilman, Harvard University, USA (editorial board: Nicotine & Tobacco Research)

Prof Justin Harris, University of Sydney, Australia (editorial boards: PLOS ONE, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes)

Prof Matt Hickman, University of Bristol, UK (senior editor and deputy regional editor, Addiction)

Dr Lee Hogarth, University of New South Wales, Australia (editorial boards: Frontiers in Cognition, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology)

Dr Alex Holcombe, University of Sydney, Australia (editorial board: Perspectives on Psychological Science)

Dr Hans IJzerman, Tilburg University, The Netherlands (special issue editor, Frontiers in Cognition)

Prof John Ioannidis, Stanford University, US (editorial boards: Lancet, PLOS Medicine, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Science Translational Medicine, Molecular and Cellular Proteomics, International Journal of Epidemiology, Cancer Treatment Reviews, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, PLOS ONE, Journal of Translational Medicine, BMC Medical Research Methodology, Clinical Trials, Journal of Empirical Research in Human Research Ethics, Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, Open Medicine, Biomarker Research, Human Genomics and Proteomics, Research Synthesis Methods, editor-in-chief, European Journal of Clinical Investigation)

Prof Rich Ivry, University of California, Berkeley, US (editorial boards: Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, Cerebellum)

Prof Jaakko Kaprio, University of Helsinki, Finland (editorial boards: Addiction, Nicotine & Tobacco Research, Twin Research and Human Genetics)

Prof Keith Laws, University of Hertfordshire, UK (editorial boards: BMC Psychology, PLOS ONE)

Dr Bernard Le Foll, University of Toronto, Canada (editorial boards: Neuropsychopharmacology, PLOS ONE, Nicotine and Tobacco Research, Frontiers in Behavioral and Psychiatric Genetics, Scientific World Journal, Open Addiction Research, Journal of Addiction Research and Therapy, International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, American Journal of Translational Research)

Prof Steven Luck, University of California, Davis, US (editorial boards: Psychological Science, Attention, Perception & Psychophysics)

Prof Michael Lynskey, Kings College London, UK (editorial board: Addiction)

Dr James MacKillop, University of Georgia, US (editorial boards: Addiction, Nicotine & Tobacco Research)

Prof John McLeod, University of Bristol, UK (editorial board: Addiction)

Dr Tom Manly, MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, UK (editorial boards: Neuropsychology, Neuropsychological Rehabilitation)

Prof Antony Manstead, Cardiff University, UK (editorial board: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, former chief editor, British Journal of Social Psychology)

Prof Jason Mattingley, University of Queensland, Australia (editorial boards: Brain & Cognition, Cortex, Cognitive Neuroscience, Neurocase, Neuropsychologia)

Prof Matt McGue, University of Minnesota, US (editorial Boards: Addiction, Behavior Genetics)

Dr Hayden McRobbie, Queen Mary University of London, UK (editorial boards: Addiction, Journal of Smoking Cessation, Nicotine & Tobacco Research)

Prof Marcus Munafo, University of Bristol, UK (editorial boards: Addiction, Drug and Alcohol Dependence, Nicotine & Tobacco Research, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Addiction Reviews, International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology, International Journal of Molecular Epidemiology and Genetics, Journal of Psychopharmacology)

Dr Rachael Murray, University of Nottingham, UK (editorial board: Addiction)

Dr Ray Niaura, Schroeder Institute for Tobacco Research and Policy Studies, US (editorial boards: Nicotine & Tobacco Research, BMC Public Health, Journal of Addiction, American Journal of Health Behavior)

Dr Brian Nosek, University of Virginia, US (guest editor for the Registered Replications project, Social Psychology)

Prof Brad Postle, University of Wisconsin-Madison, US (editorial board: Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, former handling editor, Neuroimage)

Prof Wim Riedel, Maastricht University, Netherlands (editorial boards: Journal of Psychopharmacology, International Journal of Tryptophan Research)

Prof John Rothwell, University College London, UK (editorial boards: Brain Stimulation, Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, editor-in-chief, Experimental Brain Research, former deputy editor, Brain)

Dr Pia Rotshtein, University of Birmingham, UK (editorial board: Cortex)

Dr Ayse Saygin, University of California San Diego, US (editorial boards: PLOS ONE, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience)

Dr Peter Selby, University of Toronto, Canada (editorial board: Addiction)

Dr Lion Shahab, University College London, UK (editorial board: Addiction)

Dr Jon Simons, University of Cambridge, UK (editorial board: Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology)

Prof Barbara Spellman, University of Virginia, US (editor, Perspectives on Psychological Science)

Dr Petroc Sumner, Cardiff University, UK (editorial board: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance)

Dr Peter Talbot, University of Manchester, UK (editorial Board: Journal of Psychopharmacology)

Dr Nicholas Timpson, University of Bristol, UK (editorial board: PLOS ONE)

Dr Michael Ussher, St George's, University of London, UK (editorial board: Addiction)

Prof Wim van den Brink, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands (editorial boards: Sucht, Suchttherapie, editor, European Addiction Research)

Prof Frederick Verbruggen, University of Exeter, UK (editorial boards: Experimental Psychology, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology)

Dr Antonio Verdejo-Garcia, Monash University, Australia (editorial boards: Addiction, PLOS ONE)

Dr Ed Vul, University of California, San Diego, USA (editorial board: PLOS ONE)

Prof Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands (editorial boards: Cognitive Psychology, Journal of Mathematical Psychology, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review)

Prof Andrew Whitehouse, University of Western Australia (editorial Boards: Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, PLOS ONE)

Dr Jelte Wicherts, Tilburg University, Netherlands (editorial boards: Intelligence, Psychological Methods)

Prof Reinout Wiers, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands (editorial boards: Addiction, Frontiers in Psychopathology, Addiction Biology)

Prof Jeremy Wolfe, Harvard University, US (editor-in-chief, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics)

The opinions expressed above are those of the signatories and need not represent the official views of the named journals.

View the original article here

Algebra I and geometry programs: mathematical Curriculum 2005 high school transcript study results

The study of Mathematics Curriculum explores the relationship between student coursetaking and achievement by examining the content and challenge of two course mathematics taught in the public schools algebra nation s I and geometry. Conducted in conjunction with the 2005 national assessment of educational progress (NAEP) high school transcript study (TGV), the study used textbooks as an indirect measure of what was taught in the classroom, but not how it was taught (i.e., education class). The study uses the themes of the curriculum to describe mathematics course content and course levels to describe the content and the complexity of the course. The results are based on the analysis of the subjects on the curriculum and courses developed from the manual information, coursetaking the NAEP 2005 HST data and data performance of the NAEP mathematics assessment grade 2005.

Highlights of the results of the study show that about 65% of the materials covered in graduate high school algebra I was devoted to the topics of algebra, then approximately 66% of the materials treated in graduates of geometry courses on subjects of geometry. Titles of courses often overvalued school challenge and content of the course. Approximately 73% of graduates in honors algebra I classes received a program classified as an algebra intermediate I course, while 62% of graduates who took a labeled geometry courses their school honors received a program classified as intermediate geometry. Graduates who took the rigorous Algebra I and geometry course scored higher NAEP than graduates who took beginners or intermediate courses.

View the original article here