Neural Connections in the Literacy Process: Contributions of Neuroscience in the 1st Year of Elementary School

Clarice Maria de Carvalho; Mariana Domitila

DOI: 10.22167/2675-6528-202602782

Article derived from a Final Course Work (TCC), with content based on the student’s original work and adapted to the editorial format of the E&S Magazine with the support of the ResumeAI tool, an artificial intelligence solution developed by the Pecege Institute for textual synthesis and organization.

Abstract

The literacy process in the 1st year of Elementary School was investigated, seeking to understand the neural connections involved. The study analyzed this process from the dialogue between the Psychogenesis of Written Language and the Neuroscience of Learning. The objective was to understand the child as an active subject in the construction of knowledge and the learning of reading and writing as a result of interdependent cognitive, pedagogical, and neurobiological processes. For this, a qualitative and bibliographic approach was adopted, based on authors such as Ferreiro, Teberosky, Lent, Dehaene, and Wolf. The research articulated this theoretical basis to the analysis of students’ written productions, interpreted as manifestations of hypotheses under construction, rather than as errors. The crucial role of teacher mediation, phonological awareness, neuroplasticity, and multisensory practices in the development of literacy was evidenced. The work sustained that effective literacy requires the integration between the systematic teaching of the alphabetic code and meaningful reading and writing experiences, contributing to the overcoming of reductionist models and to the formation of competent and socially integrated readers.

Keywords: Literacy; Elementary School I; Neuroscience; Pedagogical practices; Psychogenesis of writing.

1. Introduction

Literacy constitutes one of the most important milestones in a child’s cognitive and social development, as it is through reading and writing that they acquire tools to understand the world, communicate more fully, and actively participate in social life. In this process, it becomes fundamental to understand not only the pedagogical aspects but also the cerebral mechanisms that make learning possible.

In this sense, neuroscience applied to education offers valuable subsidies for understanding how the brain learns and how pedagogical practices can enhance the development of reading and writing skills. According to Lent (2010), the human brain possesses extraordinary plasticity, especially in childhood, which allows new neural connections to be established and reinforced from lived experiences. This phenomenon, called neuroplasticity, is essential for learning, as each reading and writing practice contributes to the formation and strengthening of specific neural circuits.

In the educational field, Ferreiro’s (1999) contribution, with the theory of Psychogenesis of Written Language, highlighted literacy as an active process, in which the child formulates hypotheses and gradually understands the functioning of the writing system. In partnership with Ana Teberosky, the authors demonstrated that the child is not a “blank slate”, but an active subject who, even before formal schooling, constructs hypotheses about the nature of the alphabetic system. From this perspective, literacy is understood as a journey made up of different phases (pre-syllabic, syllabic, syllabic-alphabetic, and alphabetic), which reveal the complexity of the development of phonological awareness and the understanding of the written code.

Neuroscience, by engaging with contributions from Ferreiro and Teberosky, does not nullify them but complements them, providing a biological basis for understanding the learning processes already identified by the Psychogenesis of Written Language. By investigating the role of synapses in the literacy process, it is possible to integrate advances in neuroscience with pedagogical practices, fostering a broader understanding of how the brain learns and how teaching methodologies can be improved to promote meaningful literacy. Advances in neuroscience also highlight the importance of phonological awareness, multisensory integration, and working memory as fundamental elements for the acquisition of reading and writing.

Teaching practice, especially in the 1st year of Elementary School, can benefit from this dialogue between science and pedagogy. Based on the experience as a literacy teacher, it is observed that phonological awareness activities reveal cognitive skills directly related to neuroscientific findings. Likewise, multisensory practices such as associating reading, writing, and movement, favor greater engagement and retention of learning, enhancing the neural connections necessary for literacy. Thus, this work seeks to articulate scientific theory and school reality, promoting critical reflection on the literacy process. Given this scenario, the following guiding question emerges: what contributions does neuroscience offer to the understanding of the literacy process and how can these discoveries guide teaching work at the beginning of schooling? The present article aims to analyze the importance of the relationship between neuroscience findings and literacy practices developed in the 1st year of Elementary School, highlighting how this knowledge can assist the teacher in choosing more effective pedagogical methodologies and in observing students’ individual learning processes.

2. Material and Methods

This research was designed with a qualitative methodological approach, aiming to deepen the understanding of the phenomenon studied. Regarding its objectives, it was characterized as a descriptive research, complemented by an extensive bibliographic review. This methodology was selected to allow the analysis of neuroscience contributions to the literacy process, through the survey and discussion of consolidated scientific productions in the areas of education and cognitive sciences.

The literature search was conducted based on classic and contemporary works that address literacy and neuroscience. In the educational field, the studies by Emília Ferreiro and Ana Teberosky (1979), who developed the Psychogenesis of Written Language, were consulted. For neuroscience, the contributions of Lent (2010) on neuroplasticity, Stanislas Dehaene (2012) on the brain areas involved in reading, and Maryanne Wolf (2008), who discusses reading as a cultural invention supported by neural circuits, were highlighted.

In addition to the theoretical foundation, the study incorporated an empirical component, based on observations of teaching practice in the 1st year of Elementary School. These observations were carried out during phonological awareness activities, multisensory integration, and reading and writing development, within the context of the researcher’s professional practice. The empirical data collection period occurred during the 2025 academic year.

The study participants were 1st-grade elementary school students, whose written productions constituted the empirical material analyzed. To ensure compliance with ethical principles, there was no personal identification of the participants, following the guidelines established by CNS Resolution nº 510/2016. This care ensured the privacy and anonymity of the students involved in the research.

The collection of empirical data consisted of gathering written productions from 1st-grade elementary school students, carried out throughout the 2025 academic year. These productions were generated in pedagogical activities that included reflections on writing, as well as didactic sequences focusing on phonological awareness and multisensory practices, aiming at the development of reading and writing.

The analysis of empirical data was carried out through the interpretation of students’ written productions. This technique sought to identify the writing hypotheses constructed by the children, according to the assumptions of the Psychogenesis of Written Language (Ferreiro and Teberosky, 1979). The productions were understood as manifestations of an active cognitive process, and not as errors, revealing the ways in which children elaborate their understandings of the alphabetic system.

The written productions were examined in light of the theoretical frameworks of the Psychogenesis of Written Language and the Neuroscience of Learning. The objective was to articulate the description of the writings with the understanding of the cognitive and pedagogical processes that sustain them, observing the convergence between these two approaches to deepen the understanding of the literacy process.

The organization of the collected data, both bibliographic and empirical, allowed for an integrated analysis that sought to understand literacy as a multifaceted process. The articulation between theory and teaching practice, through the observation of children’s productions, aimed to provide subsidies for reflection on more effective pedagogical methodologies and the observation of students’ individual development.

3. Results and Discussion

The Results and Discussion section presents the research findings, articulating them with the theoretical frameworks of Psychogenesis of Written Language and Neuroscience of Learning, as outlined in the methodology. The study sought to understand the neural connections involved in the literacy process in the 1st year of Elementary School, highlighting how neuroscience discoveries can guide teaching work. The results reveal a complex and multifaceted process, which transcends simplistic explanations and requires an integrated approach to the formation of competent readers and writers. The analysis of students’ written productions, interpreted as manifestations of hypotheses under construction, offers a concrete panorama of the evolution of the understanding of the alphabetic system and the influence of pedagogical mediation.

Literacy, over time, has ceased to be seen as a merely mechanical process of decoding graphic symbols to be understood from a broader perspective, which integrates cognitive, social, linguistic, and cultural aspects. Araújo (1996), in his historiographical approach, highlights the evolution of literacy methods, from spelling in Antiquity to the development of synthetic and analytical methods. From the 1980s onwards, with the dissemination of the Psychogenesis of Written Language, the understanding of literacy has transformed, recognizing the child as an active subject in the construction of knowledge, who formulates hypotheses and reconstructs their understandings about the functioning of the writing system.

The theory of Psychogenesis of Written Language, proposed by Emília Ferreiro and Ana Teberosky (1979), revolutionized the understanding of reading and writing acquisition by demonstrating that children are not passive recipients of information, but subjects who actively interact with written language. The authors showed that literacy does not follow a linear or mechanical path, but is a dynamic process of cognitive reorganizations. Even before formal schooling, children establish relationships with the literate environment, constructing initial ideas about the function and meaning of writing, which challenges the view of a “blank slate”.

In this path, the writing hypotheses – pre-syllabic, syllabic, syllabic-alphabetic, and alphabetic – are manifestations of children’s thinking when faced with the challenge of understanding how writing represents speech. Ferreiro and Teberosky (1979) emphasize that these hypotheses are not rigid stages, but reveal the child’s internal logic and cognitive strategies for solving problems related to writing. For example, in the pre-syllabic hypothesis, the child already understands that writing is a form of representation, although they do not yet establish a relationship between letters and sounds, using quantitative criteria for word length.

Despite the undeniable contributions of Psychogenesis, some literature, such as Soares and Batista (2003), points to the risk of reductionist readings that excessively favor the social and constructive dimension, to the detriment of the systematic teaching of specific linguistic knowledge, such as phonological awareness and the relationship between phonemes and graphemes. This artificial opposition between constructivist approaches and systematized practices can generate pedagogical misunderstandings, resulting in literacy processes that do not guarantee consistent mastery of the alphabetic system, which reinforces the need for a balanced integration.

Faced with this scenario, teaching practice based on the Psychogenesis of Written Language demands an investigative stance from the teacher, who interprets each child’s production not as an error, but as an expression of their level of understanding of the alphabetic system. The teacher, in this sense, assumes a central role as a knowledge mediator, organizing didactic situations that challenge children’s hypotheses and promote reflections on the functioning of writing. Proposals involving reading different textual genres, text production, and word analysis favor the advancement of hypotheses and contribute to more meaningful literacy.

Neuroscience of learning, in turn, does not seek to replace consolidated pedagogical theories, but to complement them, providing a biological basis for understanding the neural mechanisms that make learning possible. Lent (2019) highlights neuroscience as an area with great potential for impact on education, both conceptually and practically. By engaging in dialogue with Psychogenesis, neuroscience deepens the understanding of the cognitive processes described by Ferreiro and Teberosky, explaining how reading and writing experiences translate into structural and functional modifications in the child’s brain.

A central concept in this dialogue is neuroplasticity, as addressed by Lent (2019) and Salomão (2021). It refers to the nervous system’s capacity to reorganize and transform itself in response to environmental experiences, learning processes, and memory. Learning, therefore, implies forming memories and altering synaptic connections between neurons. Each activity of reading, writing, or reflecting on language activates and strengthens specific neural circuits, and the significant repetition of these experiences consolidates these networks, favoring lasting learning.

Literacy, as an externally constructed collective system, requires the brain to reorganize circuits originally intended for other functions, such as visual object recognition or oral language. This process of “neuronal recycling”, as described by Stanislas Dehaene (2012), involves the progressive specialization of brain areas for the recognition of written words, especially the visual word form area in the left hemisphere. Dehaene (2025) explains that the brain adapts to new cultural functions by reusing old predispositions, which highlights the importance of explicit teaching of phoneme-grapheme relationships to strengthen the neural circuits for fluent reading.

Maryanne Wolf (2008, 2022) complements this view by describing the reading brain as a cultural construct that integrates multiple neural systems responsible for vision, language, memory, and emotion. The author emphasizes that competent reading involves both efficient decoding and the ability to attribute meaning to the text, make inferences, and mobilize prior knowledge. Thus, the formation of the reader presupposes the automation of word recognition and rich, meaningful reading experiences, which converges with the need for balanced, planned, and child development-sensitive pedagogical practices.

The Brazilian educational reality, while showing a constant drop in illiteracy rates, which reached the lowest historical rate of 5.3% of the population over fifteen years old in 2024, contrasts with an alarming number of functional illiterates, around 29% of Brazilians in the same age group (Da Silva et al., 2025). This aporia is explained by the gap between mechanical literacy, focused on decoding, and literacy, which involves the social and critical use of reading and writing skills. Literacy models that only favor the transmission of the code, without meaningful practices, form readers who, although they master the code, are functionally illiterate.

In this sense, the Psychogenesis of Written Language, by demonstrating that the child actively constructs hypotheses about writing from social interactions, breaks with a technicist conception, opening space for an understanding that articulates cognitive and sociocultural dimensions. The contributions of neuroscience of learning reinforce that the systematic teaching of the alphabetic code is indispensable for the consolidation of neural networks responsible for fluent reading and textual comprehension. The convergence between these approaches indicates that the development of reading and writing occurs in the interaction between the subject, the object of knowledge, and pedagogical mediation, conferring on the teacher a structuring role in the literacy process.

The professor, from the perspective of Psychogenesis, observes, interprets, and intervenes based on student productions, understanding each writing as an expression of a way of thinking about the alphabetic system. Children’s hypotheses are not deviations to be corrected, but temporary constructions that reveal criteria and attempts at understanding. Neuroscience of learning, in turn, shows that knowledge about neuroplasticity can broaden teaching possibilities, allowing the teacher to combine knowledge, skills, and attitudes to continuously improve results (Souza & Alves, 2017). This synthesis between the two approaches allows for an understanding of literacy as a relational process, where children’s hypotheses, teacher interventions, and neurocognitive conditions intertwine.

Analysis of written productions

The analysis of the written productions of 1st-year elementary school students, collected in February, May, August, and November 2025, offers an empirical overview of the evolution of writing hypotheses and the articulation between the Psychogenesis of Written Language and the Neuroscience of Learning. These productions are interpreted as manifestations of an active cognitive process, not as errors, revealing the ways in which children elaborate their hypotheses about the functioning of the alphabetic system, in line with Ferreiro and Teberosky (1999).

Production Analysis 1 – Toy List

In the first production, from February 2025, the child was asked to record a list of toys. The records, such as “IMSLEDA” for “Bicycle”, “UOSTNO” for “Teddy bear”, “LAINS” for “Roller skates”, “ELE” for “Train”, and “VO KA IMIELTA” for the phrase “I bought a bicycle to ride in the park”, are formed exclusively by letters organized in varied sequences. No stable correspondence is observed between the sound segments of the words and the spellings used, nor a consistent relationship between syllables and letters, although there is clarity regarding the use of letters as constituent elements of writing.

From a psychogenetic point of view, this production places the child predominantly in the pre-syllabic hypothesis, with initial transition indications. The child demonstrates having built the notion that writing is a specific system, distinct from drawing, and understands its representative function, meaning it serves to name objects. However, the absence of conventional sound value attributed to letters indicates that the relationship between speech and writing has not yet been systematized. The variation in the number of letters used to represent different words suggests that the child operates with quantitative criteria, assigning more letters to words perceived as larger or more complex, a strategy described by Ferreiro and Teberosky (1999) as a recurring characteristic of initial hypotheses.

From the perspective of Learning Neuroscience, this production can be understood as the result of a moment when the neural networks responsible for the association between sound and spelling are still in the process of organization. Visual recognition of symbols predominates, without consolidated integration with phonological circuits, which is expected at this stage of development. Pedagogically, the analysis indicates the importance of interventions that favor the approximation between oral and written language, through activities that promote attentive listening, oral segmentation of words, sound games, and frequent collective mediated reading and writing practices, creating productive cognitive conflicts for overcoming the pre-syllabic hypothesis.

Production Analysis 2 – Body Parts

In the second production, from May 2025, the child was invited to write a list of human body parts. In the first word, the use of unconventional graphics is observed, with curves that approximate the letters “S” and “C”. In the other responses, spellings such as “BARIHA” for “Barriga” (Belly), “QETU” for “Queixo” (Chin), “MOÔ for “Mão” (Hand) appear, and the phrase “TOTUA MÃO PATESEO ETFERA EPITA” for “I use my hand to write, draw, and paint”, which shows an evident relationship with the model phrase presented.

Compared to previous production, a greater approximation to conventional writing is noted, especially in words recurrent in school life. The child demonstrates an understanding of the need to use multiple letters to represent more complex syllables, although phonetic simplifications and spelling deviations persist. This production predominantly characterizes the syllabic-alphabetic hypothesis, with occasional advances towards the alphabetic hypothesis. The attempt to write a complete sentence indicates a significant advance in the conception of writing, now understood as a system capable of expressing longer and more organized ideas, going beyond the recording of isolated words, which reveals syntactic and semantic development.

From the perspective of Neuroscience of Learning, the production suggests greater integration between the visual, phonological, and semantic systems, indicating strengthening of the neural networks involved in reading and writing. The recurrence of contextualized writing practices contributes to the progressive automation of these processes. The analysis points out that the child benefits from proposals that involve sentence production, collective text revision, and comparison between different spellings produced by the group, favoring metalinguistic reflection and the gradual consolidation of the alphabetic principle.

Production Analysis 3 – Memory text (rhyme)

The third production, from August 2025, refers to the writing of a nursery rhyme previously worked on in the classroom. Records such as “ACASINHA DA VOVO” for “A casinha da vovó”, “AMARRADA NO CIPÓ”, “O CAFÉ ETA DEMORDO” for “Se o café está demorando” and “FATA PO” for “Com certeza falta pó” are observed, which maintain a clear relationship with the rhythmic and lexical structure of the original text. In this production, the child demonstrates greater stability in representing syllables, frequently using more than one letter to represent more complex sound units.

Although simplifications and spelling deviations still occur, the writing presents typical characteristics of the alphabetic hypothesis, marked by the coexistence of syllabic and phonemic strategies. The choice of spellings close to the conventional form indicates that the child is beginning to recognize regularities of the writing system and to perceive that a single letter is not always sufficient to represent a syllable. The presence of almost conventional words evidences an important advance in the phonological analysis of the language. From a cognitive point of view, the fact that it is a memorized text reduces the burden of lexical and syntactic creation, allowing the child to concentrate their efforts on the notational aspects of writing.

This type of activity favors the consolidation of the relationship between sound and grapheme, which is fundamental for progress in the literacy process. From a pedagogical point of view, this production reinforces the relevance of working with texts from oral tradition, such as rhymes, songs, and poems, which act as powerful mediators between orality, memory, and writing, offering children a meaningful context to experiment with and reflect on the alphabetic system. Memorization and contextualized repetition, as Vygotsky (1995) suggests for the development of higher psychic functions, contribute to the strengthening of neural networks and the automation of pattern recognition.

Analysis of Production 4 – Rewriting of the text “The Case of the Little Cake”

In the last production analyzed, from November 2025, the child was asked to rewrite a passage from the narrative text “The Case of the Little Cake”. Records such as “I AM THE ROUND LITTLE CAKE” for “I am a round little cake”, “FLUFFY” for “and fluffy”, “CREAM FILLED” for “filled with cream” and “IN BUTTER I WAS BAKED” for “baked in butter”, are observed, which maintain a strong approximation to the base text presented orally or through mediated reading. Unlike previous productions, a more consistent correspondence between speech and writing is noted here, although not entirely conventional.

The omissions and substitutions of letters indicate that the child already assigns sound value to spellings, although they do not yet fully master phonemic segmentation. The presence of recognizable words reveals a significant advance in the literacy process. Writing ceases to be a random sequence of letters and begins to reflect, albeit in a simplified way, the sound structure of spoken language. As Ferreiro and Teberosky (1999) highlight, this stage represents a crucial moment of cognitive reorganization, in which the child understands that writing represents speech, but does not yet fully perceive the need for multiple letters for some sounds.

From the perspective of Learning Neuroscience, this production suggests greater activation of circuits related to phonological processing and verbal working memory. The attempt to maintain the narrative sequence of the text indicates the simultaneous mobilization of linguistic processes, increasing the complexity of the task. From a pedagogical point of view, this analysis points to the importance of proposals that deepen phonemic awareness, such as activities comparing similar words, identifying initial and final sounds, and shared writing practices, favoring the transition from the syllabic-alphabetic hypothesis to the alphabetic one, consolidating the neural networks for reading and writing.

In summary, the research results demonstrate that literacy in the 1st year of Elementary School is a dynamic and complex process, which benefits from the articulation between the Psychogenesis of Written Language and the Neuroscience of Learning. The child’s understanding as an active subject in knowledge construction, who formulates hypotheses about the writing system, is complemented by the neuroscientific view of neuroplasticity and neural recycling, which explain how the brain reorganizes itself to learn to read and write. The analysis of students’ written productions evidenced the progression of writing hypotheses, from pre-syllabic to alphabetic, and the importance of teacher mediation, phonological awareness, and multisensory practices for strengthening neural connections and developing competent readers. This theoretical and practical integration offers valuable subsidies for teachers to plan more effective methodologies and observe students’ individual learning processes, overcoming reductionist models and promoting meaningful and inclusive literacy.

4. Conclusion

This study sought to analyze the importance of the relationship between neuroscience findings and literacy practices developed in the 1st year of Elementary School, showing how this knowledge can assist the teacher. It was verified that literacy constitutes a complex and multifaceted process, which demands an integrated approach. The analysis of students’ written productions revealed the progression of writing hypotheses, from pre-syllabic to alphabetic, interpreted as manifestations of active thought in construction. It was observed that the child is a subject who formulates hypotheses about the writing system, and that these cognitive movements are supported by processes of reorganization and specialization of neural networks, according to neuroplasticity and neuronal recycling. The crucial role of teacher mediation, phonological awareness, and multisensory practices for strengthening neural connections and developing competent readers was identified.

The articulation between the Psychogenesis of Written Language and the Neuroscience of Learning has proven to be fundamental for overcoming reductionist literacy models, which sometimes favor mechanical decoding and other times neglect the systematic teaching of the code. This theoretical and practical integration offers valuable subsidies for teachers to plan more effective methodologies and observe students’ individual learning processes, contributing to the formation of competent and socially integrated readers. The understanding that reading and writing are cultural constructions that require the reorganization of brain circuits, combined with the recognition of the child as the protagonist of their learning, reinforces the need for balanced and intentional pedagogical practices. It is suggested that the continuing education of literacy teachers incorporate neuroscience knowledge in order to improve the understanding of the brain mechanisms involved in written language acquisition and, thus, enhance pedagogical interventions.

Bibliographic References

ARAÚJO, Maria do Rosário Longo Mortatti. Alfabetização no Brasil: uma história de sua história. São Paulo: Cultura Acadêmica, 1996.

DA SILVA, André Costa et al. Analfabetismo funcional no Brasil: uma análise multidimensional e estratégias para superação. Aracê, [S. I.], v. 7, n. 9, p. e7825, 2025. DOI: 10.56238/arev7n9-059. Disponível em: https://periodicos.newsciencepubl.com/arace/article/view/7825. Acesso em: 18 dez. 2025.

DEHAENE, Stanislas. Aprender a ler: uma revolução no cérebro. Revista Mundo Escolar, 2025. Disponível em: https://revistamundoescolar.com.br/stanilas-dehaene-aprender-a-ler-uma-revolucao-no-cerebro/. Acesso em: 16 dez. 2025.

DEHAENE, Stanislas. Os neurônios da leitura: como a ciência explica a nossa capacidade de ler. Tradução de Leonor Scliar-Cabral. Porto Alegre: Penso, 2012.

FERREIRO, Emilia. Reflexões sobre alfabetização. 24. ed. São Paulo: Cortez, 1999.

FERREIRO, Emilia; TEBEROSKY, Ana. Psicogênese da língua escrita. Tradução de Diana Myriam Lichtenstein et al. Porto Alegre: Artes Médicas, 1979.

LENT, Roberto. Cem bilhões de neurônios: conceitos fundamentais de neurociência. 2. ed. São Paulo: Atheneu, 2010.

LENT, Roberto. O cérebro aprendiz: neuroplasticidade e educação. São Paulo: Atheneu, 2019.

SALOMÃO, Laís Monteiro. Neuroplasticidade: uma abordagem neurocientífica do cérebro em transformação. 2021. 30 f. Trabalho de Conclusão de Curso (Graduação em Farmácia-Bioquímica) – Faculdade de Ciências Farmacêuticas, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, 2021.

SOARES, Magda Becker; BATISTA, Antônio Augusto Gomes. Alfabetização e letramento. São Paulo: Contexto, 2003.

SOUSA, Anne Madeliny Oliveira Pereira de; ALVES, Ricardo Rilton Nogueira. A neurociência na formação dos educadores e sua contribuição no processo de aprendizagem. Revista Psicopedagogia, V. 34, n. 105, p. 320-331, 2017. Disponível em: https://pepsic.bvsalud.org/pdf/psicoped/v34n105/09.pdf. Acesso em: 18 dez. 2025.

VYGOTSKI, Lev Semenovich. Obras escolhidas. Tomo III. Madri: Visor, 1995.

WOLF, Maryanne. A leitura, a compreensão do mundo e a democracia. Entrevista concedida ao Itaú Social. São Paulo: Itaú Social, 2 maio 2022. Disponível em: https://www.itausocial.org.br/noticias/a-leitura-a-compreensao-do-mundo-e-a-democracia/. Acesso em: 16 dez. 2025.

WOLF, Maryanne. Proust e o lula: a história e a ciência do cérebro leitor. Tradução de Cláudia Belhassof. Rio de Janeiro: Rocco, 2008.

Article originating from a Final Course Work on Neuroscience and Learning in Education

To learn more about the course, click here and access the MBX Academy platform