A STUDY ON IMPACT OF BRAIN-BASED LEARNING APPROACH ON

STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT AND RETENTION OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT

“WORK-ENERGY” TOPIC

Dilek ERDURAN AVCI1 Rahmi YAĞBASAN

2

1Faculty of Education, Mehmet Akif Ersoy University, TURKEY

2 Faculty of Education, Gazi University, TURKEY

1. INTRODUCTION

Education has been stepping into quite important and exciting age. This is brain

age. Today we know much more about human brain and biology of learning than later.

Our knowledge has been increasing with the contribution of new investigations [1]. Until

the near past, knowledge about human brain was restricted with surgical methods or

autopsy studies. But in this age displaying and measuring techniques and studies

performing on animals [2] have been proving of brain researches with increasing haste.

Neurological researches about the brain have been continuing for about two

centuries. In addition especially from 1990‟s to today, a lot of researchers have interested

in how the brain learns in teaching process and related this with education [3,4,5,6,7,8-9].

Using the results of researches performed in neurology, physchology and

education, rules of brain-based learning approach are defined [3-10]: 1. Brain is a

parallel processor. 2. Learning engages the whole physiology 3. The search for meaning

is innate. 4. The search for meaning comes through patterning. 5. Emotions are critical to

patterning. 6. The brain processes wholes and parts simultaneously. 7. Learning involves

both focused attention and peripheral perception. 8. Learning always involves conscious

and unconscious processes .9. We have (at least) two types of memory systems: spatial

and rote learning. 10. The brain understands and remembers best when facts and skills are

embedded in natural spatial memory. 11. Learning is enhanced by challenge and inhibited

by threat. 12. Every brain is unique.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of brain-based learning

approach on 7th

grade students‟ achievement and retention of knowledge about “work-

energy” issue.

2. METHOD

2.1. Participants

This study was applied to 7th

grade students in science lessons to 91 students

consisting of 30 experimental group, 30 control group I and 31 control group II. There

were 49 female and 42 male. Students attending the study have been training in

elementary school at three different classes in Ankara of high social–economic district.

2.2. Procedure

Study was made in spring session of 2005-2006 school years with one

experimental group and two control groups. In this study pre-test post-test control

grouped design was used. Research was performed in 24 lessons in a schedule of 3-

lessons-a-week for all groups. Before experimental process “work-energy achievement

test” and “attitude and perception inquiry” were applied to the students for the equality of

experimental and control groups. Additionally, students‟ science lesson performance

scores of the previous term were provided. Students‟ scores which were taken from

applied tests and science lessons were examined by ANOVA. Three classes were chosen

that had no significant difference statistically and determined as experimental and control

groups. Lectures were performed using brain-based learning approach for the

experimental group. Traditional techniques were used for control groups. Students of

experimental group and control group-I were instructed by researcher. Students of control

group-II were instructed by science teacher.

Proving the objectivity of the researcher during the instruction period was aimed

by using two control groups. At the end of the intervention, “work-energy achievement

test” was given as the post test. Same test was given to all participants 6 months after the

end of the experimental process to find out the retention of the knowledge.

Politano and Paquin summarized the brain-based learning approach in 10 main

steps during application process [11]. These are namely; uniqueness, assessment,

emotions, meaning, multiple paths, brain-body embodiment, memory, cycles and

rhythms, nutrition and elimination of threats. In the study, lesson plans have been

composed around these basic points transferring brain based learning to the teaching

process.

2.3. Data Collection Instruments

“Work-energy achievement test” was improved to determine development in

students‟ achievement and validity and reliability studies were done. “Work-energy

achievement tests” consists of 28 multiple choice questions (Cronbach alpha: 0.79, Mean

of difficulty value :0.457 and mean of the biserial correlation value of items: 0.496). This

test was given to students as a pre-test, a post-test and a retention test.

Another measuring tool applied to the students was brain dominance instrument.

Brain functions as a whole but its left and right hemispheres are responsible for different

mental functions. Brain dominance instrument is a tool that is developed using the

different mental capabilities of the brain hemispheres which is used to determine the

dominant hemisphere by Davis et.al [12]. This instrument‟s adaptation to Turkish,

validity and reliability studies were done. Reliability coefficient was calculated as 0.70.

To evaluate this tool, Mariani‟s evaluation critters were taken into consideration [13].

These critters are „left-brain dominant (very strong)‟, „left-brain dominant‟, „moderate

preference for the left‟, „slight preference toward the left‟, „whole-brain dominance

(bilateral)‟, „slight preference toward the right dominance (bilateral)‟, „moderate

preference for the right‟, „right-brain dominant‟ and „right-brain dominant (very strong)‟.

Brain dominance instrument was applied as pre test to determine experimental group

student‟s brain dominance. Gained data were taken into consideration while lesson plans

preparing.

“Attitude and perception inquiry” was performed as pre-test to determine

student‟s attitude toward science and perception of science and way of learning science.

It is a 19-question-inquiry of type likert. Its Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient is 0.76

[14].

3. RESULTS

3.1. The Results of the Brain Dominance Instrument

It is detected that 43.3% of the experimental group students have been using

„slight preference toward the left‟, 26.7 % „slight preference toward the right dominance‟

and 20% „moderate preference for the left‟. There is no student in other brain dominance

levels.

It was seen that approximately 66% of the experimental group members have

using left section and 30% have been using right section dominantly when data was

evaluated gained from brain dominance instrument.

3.2. The Results of the Achievement Post Test Scores

Table 1 shows the means and standard deviation (S) values about achievement

post test scores. Table 1. The means and standard deviation values of the achievement post test

Group N Means S

Experimental Group 30 21.233 3.430

Control Group I 31 16.967 5.250

Control Group II 30 15.566 4.515

Total 91 17.912 5.036

One way variance analysis (ANOVA) is made to detect whether or not

achievement post test scores differentiated. Scheffe test is applied for multiple

comparisons to detect differentiation between which groups by making one way variance

analysis. Table 2 shows the variance analysis results of achievement post-test scores.

Table 2. The variance analysis results of the achievement post test scores

Source of Variance Sum of Squares df Mean Squares F p

Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

523.596

1759.701

2283.297

2

88

90

261.798

19.997

13.092

0.000

According to table 2 there is a statistically meaningful difference about

achievement last test point; between experiment group-control group I in experimental

group favor and between experimental group-control group II in experimental group

favor (F(2-88) =13.092, p<0.05).

3.3 Results of the Retention Test Scores

Table 3 shows the means and standard deviation (S) values about retention test

scores.

Table 3. The means and standard deviation values of the retention test

Group N Means

S

Experimental Group 30 19.900 3.959

Control Group I 31 15.096 4.541

Control Group II 30 13.733 4.891

Total 91 15.912 5.003

One way variance analysis (ANOVA) is made to detect whether or not retention

test points differentiated. Scheffe test is applied for multiple comparisons to detect

differentiation between which groups by making one way variance analysis.

Table 4 shows the variance analysis results of retention test scores.

Table 4. The variance analysis results of the retention test scores

Source of Variance Sum of Squares df Mean Squares F p

Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

630.878

1767.276

2398.154

2

88

90

315.439

20.083

15.707 .000

Among the retention test scores (table 4), there is a statistically significant difference in

favor of experimental group (F(2-88) =15,707, p<0,05). Additionally, mean of the

retention test scores of control group I (15,096) that researcher taught is higher than

retention test scores mean of control group II (13,733) that science teacher taught. This

situation can be concluded that researcher had not acted prejudicially between groups

while teaching.

4. CONCLUSION

This research proved that the instruction activities which are based on brain based

learning approach applied to the experimental group have a great impact on 7th

grade

students‟ achievement and retention of knowledge about work and energy subject .

The most important aim of teaching is to provide meaningful and permanent

learning. Naturally, students‟ achievement will also increase when meaningful and

permanent learning became fact. The results of this research have shown that brain based

learning have pretty important positive effect on achievement of students and

permanence of knowledge. The other research result about this subject also support this

results [15,16,17,18,19-20]

A very long way is seen to go on brain researches about learning and teaching. It

is clear that rooted changes will happen about learning and teaching when detected

scientifically how knowledge arranged, constructed, protected and utilized in brain [21].

But today comprehensive and deep researches have been continuing about brain and

learning. We have to adapt and use the results that gained from these researches about

brain and learning.

References

[1] Erlauer L 2003 The Brain Compatible Classroom (Virginia: Association for

Supervision and Curriculum Development)

[2] Hall J 2005 Neuroscience and Education SCRE Research Report No: 121

[3] Caine R N and Caine G 1990 Educational Leadership October p 66-70.

[4] Caine R N and Caine G 1997 Unleashing the Power of Perceptual Change (Virginia:

[5] Sylwester R 1995 A Celebration of Neurons: An Educator‟s Guide to the Human

Brain (Alexandra: Association for School Supervision and Curriculum Development)

[6] Diamond M and Hopsan J 1998 Magic Trees of the Mind (New York: Dutton Book

Penguin-Putnam Group)

[7] Jensen E 2000 Educational Leadership November p 34-37

[8] Wolfe P 2001 Brain Matters: Translating Research into Classroom Practice (Virginia:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development)

[9] Sousa D A 2001 How The Brain Learns: A Classroom Teacher‟s Guide (California:

Corwin Pres, Inc)

[10] Caine R N and Caine G 2002 Making Connections: Teaching and the Human Brain.

Translate: Gülten Ülgen (Ed.) (Ankara: Nobel Yayınları)

[11] Politano C and Paquin J 2000 Brain-Based Learning with Class (Canada: Peguis

Publishers)

[12] Davis E C, Nur H and Ruru S A A 1994 English Teaching Forum July-September 32

(3).

[13] Mariani L 1996 A Journal of TESOL-Italy XXI No.2/ XXII No.1 Spring

[14] Kaya O N 2002 Ġlköğretim 7. Sınıf Öğrencilerinin Atom ve Atomik Yapı

Konusundaki Başarılarına, Öğrendikleri Bilgilerin Kalıcılığına, Tutum ve Algılamalarına

Çoklu Zeka Kuramının Etkisi. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Gazi Üniversitesi,

Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü.

[15] Materna L 2000 Impact of Concept-Mapping up on Meaningful Learning and

Metacognition Among Foundation-Level Associate-Degree Nursing Students, Ph.D

Thesis, Capella University.

[16] Caine R N and Caine G 1995 Educational Leaderhip 32 (7) p. 43-48.

[17] Caulfield J, Kidd S, and Kocher T 2000 Educational Leadership November p 62-64

[18] Çengelci T 2005 Sosyal Bilgiler Dersinde Beyin Temelli Öğrenmenin Akademik

Başarıya ve Kalıcılığa Etkisi. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Anadolu Üniversitesi,

Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ġlköğretim Anabilim Dalı.

[19] Özden M 2005 Fen Bilgisi Dersinde Beyin Temelli Öğrenmenin Akademik Başarıya

ve Hatırlama Düzeyine Etkisi. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Anadolu

Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü.

[20] Versteeg D A 2002 Principal Leadership 3 (1) September

[21] Soylu H 2004 Fen Öğretiminde Yeni Yaklaşımlar (Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım)