Dr. Burns summarizes some of the new information in Neuroscience as it relates to how children learn.
Showing posts with label neuroscience. Show all posts
Showing posts with label neuroscience. Show all posts
Sunday, February 24, 2013
The New Brain Science of Learning:
Dr. Martha S. Burns at TEDxEnola
Dr. Burns summarizes some of the new information in Neuroscience as it relates to how children learn.
Dr. Burns summarizes some of the new information in Neuroscience as it relates to how children learn.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
What Is Dyspraxia? How is Dyspraxia Treated?
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/151951.php
Written by Christian Nordqvist
Article Date: 29 May 2009 - 8:00 PDT
via Medical News Today
A person with dyspraxia has problems with movement and coordination. It is also known as "motor learning disability". Somebody with dyspraxia finds it hard to carry out smooth and coordinated movements. Dyspraxia often comes with language problems, and sometimes a degree of difficulty with perception and thought. Dyspraxia does not affect a person's intelligence, but it can cause learning difficulties, especially for children.
Dyspraxia is also known as Developmental Co-ordination Disorder (DCD), Perceptuo-Motor Dysfunction, and Motor Learning Difficulties. The terms Clumsy Child Syndrome or Minimal Brain Damage are no longer used.
Developmental dyspraxia is an immaturity of the organization of movement. The brain does not process information in a way that allows for a full transmission of neural messages. A person with dyspraxia finds it hard to plan what to do, and how to do it.
Experts say that about 10% of people have some degree of dyspraxia, while approximately 2% have it severely. Four out of every 5 children with evident dyspraxia are boys. If the average classroom has 30 children, there is probably one child with dyspraxia in almost each classroom.
A study carried out by researchers at Orebro University Hospital, Sweden, indicated that poor physical coordination during childhood is linked to a higher risk of obesity later in life.
The Greek word duspraxia, which means "dyspraxia".
The Greek word duspraxia comes from the Greek word Praxis, meaning "to practice; (concretely) an act; by extension, a function".
The Greek word Praxis comes from an older Greek word Prassein (prattein), meaning ""to pass through, experience, practice".
The child may take longer than other children to:
Early childhood
Later on the following difficulties may become apparent:
The following are also common at pre-school age:
Later on in Childhood
In some cases dyspraxia can be inherited (Ref: Great Ormond Street Hospital, England).
One study carried out at Children's Hospital Boston, USA, found that when there was injury to the cerebrum among premature babies; the cerebellum failed to grow to a normal size. The cerebellum grows rapidly late in gestation - much faster than the cerebral hemispheres - premature birth arrests this surge in development. Premature babies with cerebellum problems are likely to have deficits that extend beyond motor, and may benefit from early intervention.
A study by scientists at the Universite Laval, Canada found that mothers who take omega-3 during the last months of pregnancy will boost their child's motor and cognitive development.
A study carried out at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health found that fetal heart rates give clues to children's later development during toddler years.
If a person develops dyspraxia later in life it is usually due to traumas suffered by the brain after a stroke, accident or illness. If a person is born with dyspraxia, it is also known as Developmental Dyspraxia.
Unfortunately, for many sufferers, there is no obvious cause.
When carrying out an assessment, details will be required regarding the child's developmental history, intellectual ability, and gross and fine motor skills:
If the assessor, or GP, does not have the necessary training, dyspraxia could be missed altogether and the child will not be referred to a specialist. Training on identifying dyspraxia can be patchy, depending on which part of the world you live in, and also which part of specific countries. The same applies to teachers - in some places they are well trained at identifying potential dyspraxia among their pupils, while in others they are not.
A new coordination and handwriting test that identifies Developmental Coordination Disorder may identify teenagers who need extra help at secondary school and college.
A study carried out by Robert Sekuler, a neuroscientist at Brandeis" Volen Center for Complex Systems, and team, indicates that "What makes one person clumsy and the next person a prima ballerina is a combination of talent and practice" (article not about dyspraxia, but it is interesting).
Active play is where a very young child's physical and emotional learning, their development of language, their special awareness, the development of what their senses are, all come together.
The more children are involved in active play, the better they will become at interacting with other children successfully.
Parents, uncles and aunts, and other adults can also become involved with a child's active play - however, sometimes they should take a step back and let the children really explore so they can try out their own understanding of the world. The risk of negative things happening to children if they play outside are far smaller than the risks of negative things happening to them if they don't, such as obesity, poor socialization with other children, and having less fun. It is only by taking risks that children learn the importance of, say, holding on tight, and correcting themselves.
Parents who have a child with dyspraxia need to balance the risks of negative things happening outside, with the enormous benefits that active play has to offer. Deciding what this balance is depends on many factors, such as the severity of the child's dyspraxia, the outside environment, etc.
A study by researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's Frank Porter Graham (FPG) Child Development Institute and UNC's School of Education indicates that if both parents work, the father's influence on a very young child's language development may be greater than previously thought (not specific to dyspraxia, but interesting from a child development point of view)
Sources: National Health Service (NHS), UK, The Mayo Clinic, Wikipedia, HHS (Department of Health and Human Services USA), NIH (National Institutes of Health, USA).
Written by Christian Nordqvist
Copyright: Medical News Today
Written by Christian Nordqvist
Article Date: 29 May 2009 - 8:00 PDT
via Medical News Today
A person with dyspraxia has problems with movement and coordination. It is also known as "motor learning disability". Somebody with dyspraxia finds it hard to carry out smooth and coordinated movements. Dyspraxia often comes with language problems, and sometimes a degree of difficulty with perception and thought. Dyspraxia does not affect a person's intelligence, but it can cause learning difficulties, especially for children.
Dyspraxia is also known as Developmental Co-ordination Disorder (DCD), Perceptuo-Motor Dysfunction, and Motor Learning Difficulties. The terms Clumsy Child Syndrome or Minimal Brain Damage are no longer used.
Developmental dyspraxia is an immaturity of the organization of movement. The brain does not process information in a way that allows for a full transmission of neural messages. A person with dyspraxia finds it hard to plan what to do, and how to do it.
Experts say that about 10% of people have some degree of dyspraxia, while approximately 2% have it severely. Four out of every 5 children with evident dyspraxia are boys. If the average classroom has 30 children, there is probably one child with dyspraxia in almost each classroom.
A study carried out by researchers at Orebro University Hospital, Sweden, indicated that poor physical coordination during childhood is linked to a higher risk of obesity later in life.
The English medical word dyspraxia comes from:
What are the signs and symptoms of dyspraxia?
Very early childhoodThe child may take longer than other children to:
- Sit
- Crawl (some never go through crawling stage)
- Walk
- Speak
- Stand
- Become potty trained (get out of diapers/nappies)
- Build up vocabulary
- Speak in a clear and articulate way. Many parents of very young children with dyspraxia say they cannot understand what they are trying to say a lot of the time
Early childhood
Later on the following difficulties may become apparent:
- Problems performing subtle movements, such as tying shoelaces, doing up buttons and zips, using cutlery, handwriting.
- Many will have difficulties getting dressed.
- Problems carrying out playground movements, such as jumping, playing hopscotch, catching a ball, kicking a ball, hopping, and skipping.
- Problems with classroom movements, such as using scissors, coloring, drawing, playing jig-saw games.
- Problems processing thoughts.
- Difficulties with concentration. Children with dyspraxia commonly find it hard to focus on one thing for long.
- The child finds it harder than other kids to join in playground games.
- The child will fidget more than other children.
- Some find it hard to go up and down stairs.
- A higher tendency to bump into things, to fall over, and to drop things.
- Difficulty in learning new skills - while other children may do this automatically, a child with dyspraxia takes longer. Encouragement and practice help enormously.
- Writing stories can be much more challenging for a child with dyspraxia, as can copying from a blackboard.
The following are also common at pre-school age:
- Finds it hard to keep friends
- Behavior when in the company of others may seem unusual
- Hesitates in most actions, seems slow
- Does not hold a pencil with a good grip
- Such concepts as in, out, in front of are hard to handle automatically
Later on in Childhood
- Many of the challenges listed above do not improve, or do so very slightly
- Tries to avoid sports and PE
- Learns well on a one-on-one basis, but nowhere near as well in class with other kids around
- Reacts to all stimuli equally (not filtering out irrelevant stimuli automatically)
- Mathematics and writing are difficult
- Spends a long time getting writing done
- Does not follow instructions
- Does not remember instructions
- Is badly organized
What causes dyspraxia?
Scientists do not know what causes it. Experts believe the person's nerve cells that control muscles (motor neurons) are not developing correctly. If motor neurons cannot form proper connections, for whatever reasons, the brain will take much longer to process data.In some cases dyspraxia can be inherited (Ref: Great Ormond Street Hospital, England).
One study carried out at Children's Hospital Boston, USA, found that when there was injury to the cerebrum among premature babies; the cerebellum failed to grow to a normal size. The cerebellum grows rapidly late in gestation - much faster than the cerebral hemispheres - premature birth arrests this surge in development. Premature babies with cerebellum problems are likely to have deficits that extend beyond motor, and may benefit from early intervention.
A study by scientists at the Universite Laval, Canada found that mothers who take omega-3 during the last months of pregnancy will boost their child's motor and cognitive development.
A study carried out at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health found that fetal heart rates give clues to children's later development during toddler years.
If a person develops dyspraxia later in life it is usually due to traumas suffered by the brain after a stroke, accident or illness. If a person is born with dyspraxia, it is also known as Developmental Dyspraxia.
Unfortunately, for many sufferers, there is no obvious cause.
How is dyspraxia diagnosed?
A diagnosis of dyspraxia can be made by a clinical psychologist, an educational psychologist, a pediatrician, or an occupational therapist. Any parent who suspects their child may have dyspraxia should see their GP (general practitioner, primary care physician), or a special needs coordinator first.When carrying out an assessment, details will be required regarding the child's developmental history, intellectual ability, and gross and fine motor skills:
- Gross motor skills - this refers to how well the child uses his/her large muscles that coordinate body movement. This includes jumping, throwing, walking, running, and maintaining balance.
- Fine motor skills - this refers to how well the child can use his/her smaller muscles. Activities which require fine motor skills include tying shoelaces, doing up buttons, cutting out shapes with a pair of scissors, and writing.
If the assessor, or GP, does not have the necessary training, dyspraxia could be missed altogether and the child will not be referred to a specialist. Training on identifying dyspraxia can be patchy, depending on which part of the world you live in, and also which part of specific countries. The same applies to teachers - in some places they are well trained at identifying potential dyspraxia among their pupils, while in others they are not.
A new coordination and handwriting test that identifies Developmental Coordination Disorder may identify teenagers who need extra help at secondary school and college.
What is the treatment for dyspraxia?
Although dyspraxia is not curable, with time the child can improve. However, the earlier a child is diagnosed, the better and faster his/her improvement will be. The following specialists most commonly help people with dyspraxia:- Occupational therapy
An occupational therapist will first observe how the child manages with everyday functions both at home and at school. He/she will then help the child develop skills specific to activities which may be troublesome.
- Speech and language therapy
The speech and language therapist will first carry out an assessment of the child's speech, and then help him/her communicate more effectively.
- Perceptual motor training
This involves improving the child's language, visual, movement, and auditory skills. A series of tasks, which gradually becoming more advanced, are set - the aim is to challenge the child so that he/she improves, but not so much that it becomes frustrating or stressful.
A study carried out by Robert Sekuler, a neuroscientist at Brandeis" Volen Center for Complex Systems, and team, indicates that "What makes one person clumsy and the next person a prima ballerina is a combination of talent and practice" (article not about dyspraxia, but it is interesting).
Active Play
Experts say that active play - any play that involves physical activity - which can be outdoors or inside the home, gets the motor activity going in children. Play is a way children learn about the environment and about themselves, and particularly for children aged 3 to 5; it is a crucial part of their learning.Active play is where a very young child's physical and emotional learning, their development of language, their special awareness, the development of what their senses are, all come together.
The more children are involved in active play, the better they will become at interacting with other children successfully.
Parents, uncles and aunts, and other adults can also become involved with a child's active play - however, sometimes they should take a step back and let the children really explore so they can try out their own understanding of the world. The risk of negative things happening to children if they play outside are far smaller than the risks of negative things happening to them if they don't, such as obesity, poor socialization with other children, and having less fun. It is only by taking risks that children learn the importance of, say, holding on tight, and correcting themselves.
Parents who have a child with dyspraxia need to balance the risks of negative things happening outside, with the enormous benefits that active play has to offer. Deciding what this balance is depends on many factors, such as the severity of the child's dyspraxia, the outside environment, etc.
A study by researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's Frank Porter Graham (FPG) Child Development Institute and UNC's School of Education indicates that if both parents work, the father's influence on a very young child's language development may be greater than previously thought (not specific to dyspraxia, but interesting from a child development point of view)
Sources: National Health Service (NHS), UK, The Mayo Clinic, Wikipedia, HHS (Department of Health and Human Services USA), NIH (National Institutes of Health, USA).
Written by Christian Nordqvist
Copyright: Medical News Today
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
What Neuroscience Tells Us About Deepening Learning
http://www.edweek.org/tm/articles/2012/03/27/tln_pillars_neuroscience.html?tkn=PTCFbfrS2p2ooBrOde%2FkUToFiZ%2BjAEheukQe&cmp=clp-sb-ascd
By Wendi Pillars
Teachers are brain-changers. As I've described in a previous article, our daily work physically alters students' neural networks. The more frequently a student's brain retrieves and connects information, the better the chance that the student will recall it quickly and accurately.
The strongest—and most easily accessible—memories are created through dense, interwoven neural networks. Information has a much better chance at being recalled more quickly when it has been retrieved repeatedly and connected to as many other pieces of information as possible.
However (and this has been a significant reflection point for me as an armchair neuroscientist) even a densely connected, sensory-rich memory is essentially reconstructed when it is recalled. The recalled information can be shaped by context, influenced by the student's emotional state, attention level, and receptivity.
As teachers, how can we help students forge long-term memories that will boost their future learning?
Here are some of my take-aways:
Return to information over time.
Strengthening long-term memory is not merely a matter of squirreling information away—but of returning to it and building upon it. It's a continual process rather than a linear one-stop experience.
This realization has led me to plan for pointed repetition and the accurate, explicit spiraling of information over time, particularly for my younger students and language learners. I plan weeks in advance to be more strategic about review and transitions. I also ask fewer "on-the-fly" questions, opting instead for higher-level questioning and opportunities to make connections from the start.
Graphic organizers are more tangible tools I use to encourage the repetitive synthesis of information that the relationship-seeking brain craves.
Slow down.
When I ask a question, I now give students more "wait time" (well beyond the typical one to two seconds) so they have the opportunity for efficient, thorough memory reconstruction. This is especially critical for language learners who must translate their reconstructions to English.
And slowing down is especially important when I am trying to initiate topics by eliciting more than a cursory statement or two. At the start of a recent unit, I posed a challenging question, then gave students time to think, share, and make connections with each other. Within ten minutes, I realized that students could already use about half of the "new" vocabulary I had chosen, and had answered nearly half of the anticipation guide questions. Thanks to those precious 10 minutes, I realized I needed to tweak the unit to improve its rigor and the interlinking of knowledge.
Time it right.
Students tend to be best at recalling the first and last chunks of new information we share with them. Neuroscientists refer to this as the primacy-recency effect. New information presented first has the best chance of being recalled (due to primacy), while the last information presented has the next best chance of recall (due to recency). Those who study learning cycles also suggest that some sort of consolidation needs to occur about every 20 minutes or so.
What does this mean for us in the classroom?
Here's what I don't do during the first peak learning time: homework discussion, in-depth review, announcements, and attendance. (I save these for later in the class period.)
I try to ensure the first 10 minutes of class are extremely pointed, explicitly linked to the new lesson. Then students work on tasks that require application and exploration of this knowledge.
About 20 minutes into class, we take time for consolidation, to improve the chances that knowledge is as connected as possible. (This can be as simple as having students turn to a partner and repeat facts they have just learned.)
The last five or 10 minutes of class constitute the recency period, ripe for another dose of important information. I use that time for closure, asking students to synthesize information from the lesson.
Develop strong relationships with students.
As mentioned above, memories are retrieved and reconstructed within one's current context. Research suggests that a student's recall of knowledge is determined in part by his or her current emotional state, learning level, attention, receptivity, and other factors.
Attending to the emotional states of our students can no longer be dismissed as too touchy-feely to consider—even by those of us who are self-professed tough-love advocates. The better we know our students, the more we can gauge behavior, beliefs, and feelings that can affect their ability to learn.
For example, short-term stress hormones such as adrenaline have shown positive effects on long-term semantic memory. But a student who is experiencing prolonged stress may have higher levels of cortisol, a hormone that can suppress long-term memory.
When I know my students well, I can recognize when they are under stress and provide appropriate scaffolding so they can experience some level of success even when challenged. For example, I might make sure the lesson includes novelty or prompts laughter to suppress the cortisol. I can also model a mindset that helps students control their own stress, prizing the development of ability rather than perfection of results.
Establish relevance.
And of course, the better our relationships with students, the more effectively we can gauge their prior knowledge and what they truly understand. Then we can better help students relate to new information. We can discover their powerfully established neuronal networks, then "hitchhike" on these networks as we navigate the curriculum.
James Zull states it succinctly in The Art of Changing the Brain: "Prior knowledge is the beginning of new knowledge. It is always where learners start."
In other words, teachers may be brain-changers, but we must also give credence to the physical connections our students have already established! Too often, in the interest of expediency, I have assumed what students knew, then proceeded with "my" planning, "my" instruction, "my" connections, on "my" clock—when it should be about students' learning. In the past, I have struggled with frustration at what my students "don't get" or "don't know", when I should be celebrating what they do know and building upon that.
Slowing down (see tip #2!) helps with this. Rather than dismissing or glossing over seemingly random comments or "incorrect" responses, I give students time to explain. This has frequently showcased roundabout connections to students' previous learning and highlighted exactly where missed connections are. This means I can better influence how learning is bridged—and increase the chances it will be forged in long-term memory.
In the words of Steven Levy, teachers "need to look for the best, expect the best, find something in each child that we can truly treasure." Relationships—and the strategic investment of time—are critical aspects of mindful teaching.
The tips I've outlined here may seem obvious—indeed, effective teachers already practice them on a daily basis. The neuroscientific perspective can help us understand exactly why they are worthy of consistent implementation: to improve not only the recall of information but students' deeper understanding of our world.
By Wendi Pillars
Published Online: March 27, 2012
The strongest—and most easily accessible—memories are created through dense, interwoven neural networks. Information has a much better chance at being recalled more quickly when it has been retrieved repeatedly and connected to as many other pieces of information as possible.
However (and this has been a significant reflection point for me as an armchair neuroscientist) even a densely connected, sensory-rich memory is essentially reconstructed when it is recalled. The recalled information can be shaped by context, influenced by the student's emotional state, attention level, and receptivity.
As teachers, how can we help students forge long-term memories that will boost their future learning?
Here are some of my take-aways:
Return to information over time.
Strengthening long-term memory is not merely a matter of squirreling information away—but of returning to it and building upon it. It's a continual process rather than a linear one-stop experience.
This realization has led me to plan for pointed repetition and the accurate, explicit spiraling of information over time, particularly for my younger students and language learners. I plan weeks in advance to be more strategic about review and transitions. I also ask fewer "on-the-fly" questions, opting instead for higher-level questioning and opportunities to make connections from the start.
Graphic organizers are more tangible tools I use to encourage the repetitive synthesis of information that the relationship-seeking brain craves.
Slow down.
When I ask a question, I now give students more "wait time" (well beyond the typical one to two seconds) so they have the opportunity for efficient, thorough memory reconstruction. This is especially critical for language learners who must translate their reconstructions to English.
And slowing down is especially important when I am trying to initiate topics by eliciting more than a cursory statement or two. At the start of a recent unit, I posed a challenging question, then gave students time to think, share, and make connections with each other. Within ten minutes, I realized that students could already use about half of the "new" vocabulary I had chosen, and had answered nearly half of the anticipation guide questions. Thanks to those precious 10 minutes, I realized I needed to tweak the unit to improve its rigor and the interlinking of knowledge.
Time it right.
Students tend to be best at recalling the first and last chunks of new information we share with them. Neuroscientists refer to this as the primacy-recency effect. New information presented first has the best chance of being recalled (due to primacy), while the last information presented has the next best chance of recall (due to recency). Those who study learning cycles also suggest that some sort of consolidation needs to occur about every 20 minutes or so.
What does this mean for us in the classroom?
Here's what I don't do during the first peak learning time: homework discussion, in-depth review, announcements, and attendance. (I save these for later in the class period.)
I try to ensure the first 10 minutes of class are extremely pointed, explicitly linked to the new lesson. Then students work on tasks that require application and exploration of this knowledge.
About 20 minutes into class, we take time for consolidation, to improve the chances that knowledge is as connected as possible. (This can be as simple as having students turn to a partner and repeat facts they have just learned.)
The last five or 10 minutes of class constitute the recency period, ripe for another dose of important information. I use that time for closure, asking students to synthesize information from the lesson.
Develop strong relationships with students.
As mentioned above, memories are retrieved and reconstructed within one's current context. Research suggests that a student's recall of knowledge is determined in part by his or her current emotional state, learning level, attention, receptivity, and other factors.
Attending to the emotional states of our students can no longer be dismissed as too touchy-feely to consider—even by those of us who are self-professed tough-love advocates. The better we know our students, the more we can gauge behavior, beliefs, and feelings that can affect their ability to learn.
For example, short-term stress hormones such as adrenaline have shown positive effects on long-term semantic memory. But a student who is experiencing prolonged stress may have higher levels of cortisol, a hormone that can suppress long-term memory.
When I know my students well, I can recognize when they are under stress and provide appropriate scaffolding so they can experience some level of success even when challenged. For example, I might make sure the lesson includes novelty or prompts laughter to suppress the cortisol. I can also model a mindset that helps students control their own stress, prizing the development of ability rather than perfection of results.
Establish relevance.
And of course, the better our relationships with students, the more effectively we can gauge their prior knowledge and what they truly understand. Then we can better help students relate to new information. We can discover their powerfully established neuronal networks, then "hitchhike" on these networks as we navigate the curriculum.
James Zull states it succinctly in The Art of Changing the Brain: "Prior knowledge is the beginning of new knowledge. It is always where learners start."
In other words, teachers may be brain-changers, but we must also give credence to the physical connections our students have already established! Too often, in the interest of expediency, I have assumed what students knew, then proceeded with "my" planning, "my" instruction, "my" connections, on "my" clock—when it should be about students' learning. In the past, I have struggled with frustration at what my students "don't get" or "don't know", when I should be celebrating what they do know and building upon that.
Slowing down (see tip #2!) helps with this. Rather than dismissing or glossing over seemingly random comments or "incorrect" responses, I give students time to explain. This has frequently showcased roundabout connections to students' previous learning and highlighted exactly where missed connections are. This means I can better influence how learning is bridged—and increase the chances it will be forged in long-term memory.
In the words of Steven Levy, teachers "need to look for the best, expect the best, find something in each child that we can truly treasure." Relationships—and the strategic investment of time—are critical aspects of mindful teaching.
The tips I've outlined here may seem obvious—indeed, effective teachers already practice them on a daily basis. The neuroscientific perspective can help us understand exactly why they are worthy of consistent implementation: to improve not only the recall of information but students' deeper understanding of our world.
Friday, February 17, 2012
Understanding Brain-Based Learning
What is Brain-Based Teaching?
All teachers use strategies; the difference here is that you’re using strategies based on real science, not because someone said that they work.
An example of a principle would be…”Brains change based on experience.” The science tells us HOW they change in response to experience. The strategies are based on what we’ve learned from studies on how brains change.
Questions are often raised about the reliability of brain research for training or classroom applications. Cautious, conservative skeptics will, by nature, be hesitant to embrace new things. Overzealous or impulsive risk-takers will, by nature, try almost anything, founded or not.
One must be cautious and prudent in how research is interpreted and ultimately used. Our policy is to look for both the basic neuroscience research and match it with data from applied psychology or cognitive science. When there are multiple studies, with good samples and clear evidence, you’ll hear about it.
We will never say, “Brain research proves….” because it does not prove anything. It may however suggest the value of a particular pathway. We have heard five basic criticisms about brain-based education. Here’s what they are and our answers to them.
To be accepted as professionals, educators must know their stuff.
We assert that brain research proves nothing. There is no body of brain-based research that justifies every strategy of so-called “good teaching.” In fact, most of what passes for good teaching is a collection of folk wisdom, basic psychology and common sense refined by trial and error. However, new findings can steer all of us in more productive directions.
What educators should say is the following…”These studies suggest that XYZ may be true about the brain. Given that insight, it probably makes sense for us, under these conditions, to use the following strategies in schools.”
This approach, which is cautionary and not causal, sticks with the truth. First, that there are valuable, new studies and second, that given the insight of those studies, certain actions seem to make good sense. We do not claim that “brain-based” is or should be the only criteria for deciding what to do. It’s a bad idea to base a school on biology alone. However, if schools ignore it, they are being equally reckless.
Keep in mind that if you don’t know why you do what you do, it’s less purposeful and less professional. It’s probably your collected, refined wisdom. Nothing wrong with that, but some of the “collected, refined wisdom” has led to some bad teaching, too.
But to be purposeful about your work; ah… that is another matter.
Are there recent discoveries from the world of brain-mind science that can be applied to the classroom? You bet!
Here’s a list highlighting a few specific areas of research that have important implications for learning, memory, schools and trainings.
Cognitive science, psychology, neurobiology, and neuroscience are all studying the same thing!
They are interested in the brain/mind and how it works. The brain is what you have, the mind is using it. Different fields do research at different levels. Basic neuroscience research is usually done at the molecular, genetic or cellular level. At this level, we hear of neurogenesis and the growth of stem cells. That’s contrasted with applied cognitive sciences, which may feature animal studies, or clinical studies that show the real world behaviors we are equally interested in.
The point is, we now know enough about the brain to justify specific strategies that only a few years ago were just good ideas without scientific basis. Here’s an example. We have irrefutable evidence that embedding intense emotions (like a celebration or drama) into an activity may stimulate the release of adrenaline, which may encode the memory of the learning much stronger.
Here is a summary of some of the myths and realities.
I’ll cite just one example to show you why I disagree.
The reading improvement product FastForword, was developed by two neuroscientists, Stanford’s Dr. Michael Merzenich and Dr. Paula Tallal from Rutgers. That product is already in use today in thousands of classrooms around the country. Many students have been helped by it. It specifically uses discoveries in neural plasticity to change the brain’s ability to read the printed word. The fact is, the benefits are already reaching the classroom. And they’re not just through thousands of books and in-services.
Schools should not be run based solely on the biology of the brain. However, to ignore what we do know about the brain would be equally irresponsible. Brain-based education offers some direction for educators who want more purposeful, informed teaching. It offers the possibility of less hit or miss in the classroom. We have learned about how environments impact our learning, the role of trauma and the effects of distress and threat. With additional clarity in research, brain-based approaches may soon suggest far better options for those struggling with learning.
Yes, we are in the infancy of brain research–there’s so much more to learn that we don’t know.
But dismissing it as fad-like, premature or opportunistic is not only shortsighted, but also probably dangerous to our learners. Of course brain research seems conflicting, hazy, confusing, and contradictory. It’s new! That should be expected! But to criticize it? At this early stage, that would be like calling the first dim lightbulb by Thomas Edison a failure because it only was a 10 watt bulb and produced minimal brightness.
The future belongs to those with vision who can grasp not just trends, but the importance of them. Nothing is more relevant to you than your brain or the brain of your spouse, parents, or children. We might as well get used to it. Integrating brain research with our every day lives is here to stay.
written by Eric Jensen
photo credit: TangYauHoong
I get asked this question a lot… so I am going to provide an explanation of what Brain-Based teaching is, as well as clear up any myths or misconceptions about it.
Brain-Based education is the active engagement of practical strategies based on learning and behavioral principles derived from neuroscience.All teachers use strategies; the difference here is that you’re using strategies based on real science, not because someone said that they work.
An example of a principle would be…”Brains change based on experience.” The science tells us HOW they change in response to experience. The strategies are based on what we’ve learned from studies on how brains change.
Questions are often raised about the reliability of brain research for training or classroom applications. Cautious, conservative skeptics will, by nature, be hesitant to embrace new things. Overzealous or impulsive risk-takers will, by nature, try almost anything, founded or not.
Our position is let the science do the talking
A better-informed educator usually makes better decisions. We collect the research, form conclusions and make suggestions. Every effort is made to select from reliable sources with supporting data. If the studies are conflicting, we’ll either say so or not present it to you. You’ll need to be the ultimate judge as to whether and how the research fits in your particular learning climate.One must be cautious and prudent in how research is interpreted and ultimately used. Our policy is to look for both the basic neuroscience research and match it with data from applied psychology or cognitive science. When there are multiple studies, with good samples and clear evidence, you’ll hear about it.
We will never say, “Brain research proves….” because it does not prove anything. It may however suggest the value of a particular pathway. We have heard five basic criticisms about brain-based education. Here’s what they are and our answers to them.
1. “The findings are often exaggerated, misinterpreted and taken way too far.”
RESPONSE: This criticism is genuine. Many well-meaning educators have gone way beyond the research and said that it “proves” that a “certain” classroom strategy is justified. We often hear educators making claims that have no basis in research. Educators who are going to use or quote research ought to know what makes a good study, who is funding it, the reputation of the researcher, the design of the study, what are the implications and constraints on the findings. A little information can be dangerous.To be accepted as professionals, educators must know their stuff.
We assert that brain research proves nothing. There is no body of brain-based research that justifies every strategy of so-called “good teaching.” In fact, most of what passes for good teaching is a collection of folk wisdom, basic psychology and common sense refined by trial and error. However, new findings can steer all of us in more productive directions.
What educators should say is the following…”These studies suggest that XYZ may be true about the brain. Given that insight, it probably makes sense for us, under these conditions, to use the following strategies in schools.”
This approach, which is cautionary and not causal, sticks with the truth. First, that there are valuable, new studies and second, that given the insight of those studies, certain actions seem to make good sense. We do not claim that “brain-based” is or should be the only criteria for deciding what to do. It’s a bad idea to base a school on biology alone. However, if schools ignore it, they are being equally reckless.
2. “There is nothing new in this approach.”
RESPONSE: When people say “good teachers have been doing this for years,” two things are true. First, you may be very young or have a short memory. Only 40 years ago, good teaching was defined by all-lecture, content-laden classes, clean desks, quiet students (in their seats), with little movement. Yes, it’s true that some teachers have been using brain-compatible strategies for centuries, but most have been moving towards a more brain-friendly approach.Keep in mind that if you don’t know why you do what you do, it’s less purposeful and less professional. It’s probably your collected, refined wisdom. Nothing wrong with that, but some of the “collected, refined wisdom” has led to some bad teaching, too.
But to be purposeful about your work; ah… that is another matter.
Are there recent discoveries from the world of brain-mind science that can be applied to the classroom? You bet!
Here’s a list highlighting a few specific areas of research that have important implications for learning, memory, schools and trainings.
- The growing brain: the human brain can and does grow new cells
- The social brain: how interactions and social status impacts stress levels
- The hormonal brain: hormones can and do impact cognition
- The moving brain: how movement influences learning
- The plastic brain: changing; how to better enrich the brain to rewire changes
- The spatial brain: how space and relational learning & recall works
- The attentional brain: prefrontal cortex; what really drives attention and ADD
- The emotional brain: impact of threats on hormones, memory, cells and genes
- The adaptive brain: the impact of distress, cortisol & allostatic states
- The patient brain: the role of time in the learning process
- The computational brain: the role of feedback in forming neural networks
- The artful brain: the role of arts and music
- The connected brain: how our brain is body and body is brain
- The developing brain: what to do and when to do it; value of the first 3 years
- The hungry brain: what to eat; the role of nutrition in learning and memory
- The memorable brain: how our memories are encoded and retrieved
- The chemical brain: which chemicals do what & how to activate the right ones
Cognitive science, psychology, neurobiology, and neuroscience are all studying the same thing!
They are interested in the brain/mind and how it works. The brain is what you have, the mind is using it. Different fields do research at different levels. Basic neuroscience research is usually done at the molecular, genetic or cellular level. At this level, we hear of neurogenesis and the growth of stem cells. That’s contrasted with applied cognitive sciences, which may feature animal studies, or clinical studies that show the real world behaviors we are equally interested in.
The point is, we now know enough about the brain to justify specific strategies that only a few years ago were just good ideas without scientific basis. Here’s an example. We have irrefutable evidence that embedding intense emotions (like a celebration or drama) into an activity may stimulate the release of adrenaline, which may encode the memory of the learning much stronger.
3. “Brain-based education is confusing. One person says one thing, another says the opposite.”
RESPONSE: I agree. There needs to be better sharing and networking so that all of us are on “the same page.” Many ill-informed educators are still confused about some learning basics.Here is a summary of some of the myths and realities.
MYTH: Early childhood experiences cause our synaptic count to multiply rapidly.
REALITY: If anything, we lose synapses through a “pruning” process in the first five years.
MYTH: Low stress learning is best.
REALITY: In general, moderate levels optimize learning. Under some conditions, low stress is better, and in others, higher stress is better.
MYTH: Research proves the critical need to capitalize on the early windows of opportunity.
REALITY: Normal childhood experiences usually produce normal kids. The most critical windows are those for our senses, the parent-infant emotional attunement, language learning and a non-distressed sense of safety. Those are irretrievable time slots in our lives–once they pass, it’s too late. Other opportunities, like social skills, reading, music and language have a much longer window of opportunity.
MYTH: Rote memorization is brain-antagonistic.
REALITY: The brain strengthens learning through repetition. It’s not repetition that’s bad; it’s when it becomes too boring. There are many creative and fun ways to review.
MYTH: Environments primarily determine learner success.
REALITY: Many factors influence learner success including parents, peers, genes, trauma, nutrition and environment. There is no way to quantify them and say one of them is more important than another.
MYTH: Most learners use only 5-10% of the brain.
REALITY: There is no objective evidence that this is true. On a daily basis we probably use most areas of our brain. Increases in creativity or productivity can come from doing the right thing, or doing it more often, rather than simply doing more.
MYTH: Emotions and intelligence are separate.
REALITY: While they may originate in separate places in the brain, their paths usually cross in the orbitofrontal cortex. So, in a sense, they are inseparable.
MYTH: Mozart is the best music for enhancing learning.
REALITY: Recent studies show many kinds of music can work as well as, or better, than Mozart. One of Mozart’s compositions (K.448) has shown a modest enhancement in spatial-temporal learning.
MYTH: Learning Styles and Multiple intelligences are brain-based.
REALITY: These make good sense based on what we know about the brain. They address the uniqueness of the human brain. But both were developed before our current understanding of the brain and have stronger roots in psychology and social science than neurology.
MYTH: The adult brain cannot grow new cells.
REALITY: Studies have demonstrated that the human brain can and does grow new cells in the hippocampus. Just as importantly, the cells do take on functional roles and interact with existing cells.
MYTH: Getting the right answer quickly is best.
REALITY: Given the value of trial and error learning, probably those who are not the quickest (and not the slowest) are more likely to be better, more reflective thinkers.
MYTH: An enriched environment is one with posters, mobiles, manipulatives & music.
REALITY: Enrichment occurs more because of the process that the learners are undergoing. You need a prevailing contrast from the “baseline” environment. If a kids watches TV all day, going out to play is enrichment. Challenge, feedback, novelty, coherence and time are crucial ingredients for re-wiring the brain. Enrichment means heavier cells, greater dendritic branching, more glial cells, multiple synaptic junctions and, in some cases, new cell growth (in the hippocampus).
MYTH: More focused classroom attention by students on the teacher improves learning.
REALITY: Students need time to digest, think, reflect and act on their learning for connections to strengthen.
MYTH: More content per hour is better.
REALITY: Each subject and each learner probably have an ideal amount of ”ideas per hour” that can be learned based on learner background, motivation, learning skills and subject complexity and novelty. Only language acquisition occurs better with more content per hour.
MYTH: The left brain is logical.
REALITY: The left hemisphere is better with sequencing, language, parts and creating internal dialogues (interpreting events). Any logic produced is not a structure=function relationship result.
MYTH: We now know how to best assess learning.
REALITY: Much of what we learn we still don’t know how to assess. Examples include volition, subject affinity and the development of mental models.
MYTH: More synapses formed means greater intelligence.
REALITY: There is no evidence that this is true.
MYTH: All can learn and meet high standards.
REALITY: This is true only for those who have healthy brains. Add up all the students with some kind of brain dysfunction problems (depression, brain insults, ADD, drug usage, dyslexia, OCD, distress, alcohol, trauma, etc.) and you’ll have from 40-60% of your school population, depending on the school. Healthy brains make for good learners who can reach high standards. Students with unhealthy brains commonly have learning problems. Can they be reached? Most of them, yes, if there are sufficient resources. Others may never reach their potential.
MYTH: The right brain is creative.
REALITY: The right brain processes spatial information, works randomly and with wholes (the gestalt). None of these attributes guarantee creativity. There are very clear, anatomical and functional differences between the left brain and right brain. But how much value there is in applying that knowledge is questionable.
Summary
Brain-based education is not a panacea nor magic bullet to solve all of education’s problems. Anyone who represents that to others is misleading them. It is not yet a program, a model or package for schools to follow. One critic of brain-based education said, “It will at least be 25 years before the benefits of brain research reach the classroom.”I’ll cite just one example to show you why I disagree.
The reading improvement product FastForword, was developed by two neuroscientists, Stanford’s Dr. Michael Merzenich and Dr. Paula Tallal from Rutgers. That product is already in use today in thousands of classrooms around the country. Many students have been helped by it. It specifically uses discoveries in neural plasticity to change the brain’s ability to read the printed word. The fact is, the benefits are already reaching the classroom. And they’re not just through thousands of books and in-services.
Schools should not be run based solely on the biology of the brain. However, to ignore what we do know about the brain would be equally irresponsible. Brain-based education offers some direction for educators who want more purposeful, informed teaching. It offers the possibility of less hit or miss in the classroom. We have learned about how environments impact our learning, the role of trauma and the effects of distress and threat. With additional clarity in research, brain-based approaches may soon suggest far better options for those struggling with learning.
Yes, we are in the infancy of brain research–there’s so much more to learn that we don’t know.
But dismissing it as fad-like, premature or opportunistic is not only shortsighted, but also probably dangerous to our learners. Of course brain research seems conflicting, hazy, confusing, and contradictory. It’s new! That should be expected! But to criticize it? At this early stage, that would be like calling the first dim lightbulb by Thomas Edison a failure because it only was a 10 watt bulb and produced minimal brightness.
The future belongs to those with vision who can grasp not just trends, but the importance of them. Nothing is more relevant to you than your brain or the brain of your spouse, parents, or children. We might as well get used to it. Integrating brain research with our every day lives is here to stay.
written by Eric Jensen
photo credit: TangYauHoong
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Childhood Abuse Disrupts Brain Formation,
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Feb. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Childhood abuse leads to permanent changes in a seahorse-shaped area of the brain that can cause adult depression and drug abuse, Harvard researchers said in a study that raises the possibility of new treatment.
--Editors: Bruce Rule, Reg Gale.
Brain scans of adults who averaged 22 years old showed differences in a part of the brain where new neurons are generated, according to the study today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. People exposed to childhood abuse were found in the study to have a less-dense hippocampus.
About 3.7 million U.S. children are assessed yearly for abuse, and the number may be higher because some cases don't come to light, studies show. Today's findings may provide hope for treatment because the brain is still growing throughout early adulthood, said Martin Teicher, a psychiatrist at Harvard Medical School in Boston. Mental illnesses caused by childhood mistreatment may take years to develop.
"If you know there's exposure, maybe there's time to intervene," Teicher, a study author, said by telephone.
The hippocampus is known to be less active in people who are depressed or schizophrenic.
Drugs such as antidepressants and anticonvulsants, and lifestyle changes including vigorous exercise, prompt the formation of new neurons, Teicher said. The new neurons may blunt the effects of abuse and decrease the risk of adult illnesses including depression and anxiety.
Child Abuse Cost
Such treatment would also save society money, Teicher said. The cost associated with one year of child abuse is about $124 billion, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Disease Control and Prevention. Childhood abuse costs each person about $210,000 extra over a lifetime, including about $32,600 in childhood health-care costs and $10,500 in adult expenses.
In today's study, 193 un-medicated people underwent MRI brain scans. They were also asked questions about childhood. About a third of the respondents experienced physical abuse, while another third witnessed domestic violence.
The research showed that those who experienced or witnessed the abuse had an average of 5.8 percent to 6.5 percent reductions in the volume of the hippocampus, which is involved in processing emotion and memory. Studies have indicated that this brain region is very vulnerable to stress, Teicher said.
"What's really going on is these changes are a consequence of childhood abuse," said Teicher, who is also affiliated with McLean Hospital. It is part of an accumulating body of evidence that shows there are physical effects from being raised in an abusive household.
A 2009 study in Nature Neuroscience found that people who were abused or neglected as children were more biologically sensitive to stress. Other research has shown that abuse may shorten life expectancy by as much as 20 years, and 2009 study in Biological Psychiatry showed a link between abuse and early cellular aging.
--Editors: Bruce Rule, Reg Gale.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/02/13/bloomberg_articlesLZCANO1A74E901-LZCJQ.DTL#ixzz1mQ5Ecy30
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)