Brain And Learning

Vaishali Shah, Research Associate, GCERT, Gujarat

Presented at NIEPA, Delhi in the Qualitative Research Workshop in August 2003

The Definition of the Brain & Learning

Brain-based learning involves using approaches to schooling that rely on recent brain research to support and develop improved teaching strategies. Researchers theorize that the human brain is constantly searching for meaning and seeking patterns and connections. Authentic learning situations increase the brain's ability to make connections and retain new information.

Teaching strategies that enhance brain-based learning include manipulative, active learning, field trips, guest speakers, and real-life projects that allow students to use many learning styles and multiple intelligences. An interdisciplinary curriculum or integrated learning also reinforces brain-based learning, because the brain can better make connections when material is presented in an integrated way, rather than as isolated bits of information.

A relaxed, non threatening environment that removes students' fear of failure is considered best for brain-based learning. Research also documents brain plasticity, which is the notion that the brain grows and adapts in response to external stimuli.

12 Design Principles Based on Brain-based Learning ResearchBy Jeffery A. Lackney, Ph.D. Based on a workshop facilitated by Randall Fielding, AIA

1. Rich-simulating environments color, texture, "teaching architecture", displays created by students (not teacher) so students have connection and ownership of the product.

2. Places for group learning breakout spaces, alcoves, table groupings to facilitate social learning and stimulate the social brain; turning breakout spaces into living rooms for conversation.

3. Linking indoor and outdoor places movement, engaging the motor cortex linked to the cerebral cortex, for oxygenation.

4. Corridors and public places containing symbols of the school communitys larger purpose to provide coherency and meaning that increases motivation (warning: go beyond slogans).

5. Safe places reduce threat, especially in urban settings. 6. Variety of places provide a variety of places of different shapes, color, light,

nooks & crannies. 7. Changing displays changing the environment, interacting with the environment

stimulates brain development. Provide display areas that allow for stage set type constructions to further push the envelope with regard to environmental change.

8. Have all resources available provide educational, physical and the variety of settings in close proximity to encourage rapid development of ideas generated in

a learning episode. This is an argument for wet areas/ science, computer-rich workspaces all integrated and not segregated. Multiple functions and cross-fertilization of ideas are primary goal.

9. Flexibility a common principle in the past continues to be relevant. Many dimensions of flexibility of place are reflected in other principles.

10. Active/passive places students need places for reflection and retreat away from others for intrapersonal intelligence as well as places for active engagement for interpersonal intelligence.

11. Personalized space the concept of home base needs to be emphasized more than the metal locker or the desk; this speaks to the principle of uniqueness; the need to allow learners to express their self-identity, personalize their special places, and places to express territorial behaviors.

12. The community-at-large as the optimal learning environment need to find ways to fully utilize all urban and natural environments as the primary learning setting, the school as the fortress of learning needs to be challenged and conceptualized more as a resource-rich learning center that supplements life-long learning. Technology, distance learning, community and business partnerships, home-based learning, all need to be explored as alternative organizational structures for educational institutions of the present and future.

This list is not intended to be comprehensive in any way. The brain-based learning workshop track offered participants the ability to explore implications in an open and reflective way. The intention for these workshops was primarily to start the public dialogue concerning the implications of research on brain-based learning in the design of school environments.

A second caveat to presenting these design principles for brain-compatible learning environments concerns the need to use as many of these principles in combination in the design of a school building as possible. Many principles reinforce each other in providing a coherency and wholeness often lacking in buildings designed around a single concept/fad, like open schools or house concepts. School designs that incorporate a variety of these principles will by definition have the flexibility to accommodate a wide array of learning styles.

What do we know from brain research about how we learn?

The brain is a vastly complex and adaptive system with hundreds of billions of neurons and interneurons that can generate an astronomical number of neural nets, or groups of neurons acting in concert, from which our daily experience is constructed. Many findings seem obvious and intuitive, as one outsider asked me, "isnt all learning brain-based?" For example, we all know intuitively that the best age to learn a new language is during our early childhood; what neuroscientists call the principle of windows of opportunity. We can accept that all brains are unique and a product of interactions with different environments, generating a lifetime of different and varied experiences; what scientists call plasticity. We can accept the notion that either you use it, or you lose it; new neural pathways are created every time we use our brains in thinking through problems, but are lost forever are pruned if we do not use them.

Yet, with all we know now scientifically, and claim we have known intuitively, why do so many people, educators and design professionals make instructional and physical design decisions that contradict these findings?

The findings from neuroscience are now validating scientifically much of the new instructional strategies being advocated in educational reform efforts since the 1960s. Individualized instruction for instance is validated by findings concerning the importance of intrapersonal intelligence. Activity-based learning is now on solid footing with what we know about body-kinesthetic intelligence. Cooperative learning strategies are a logical extension of the growing body of knowledge about the importance of interpersonal/social intelligence and brain development.

Yet, it was the consensus of many participants at the brain-based workshop that brain-based learning and the strategies that are emerging from that research is still at a buzzword stage. Gardners Multiple Intelligences theory that posits a number of dimensions of intelligence (linguistic, logical/mathematical, spatial, musical, body/kinesthetic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal) is just one of a number of equally valid theories about intelligence and brain-based learning. Gardner himself has been frustrated by what he sees as reductionist thinking of many educational practitioners that talk the language, but walk using their old instructional strategies, dividing up learning activities into distinct learning modalities to the exclusion of other dimensions. Brain-based learning requires a more systemic way of conceptualizing how learning takes place and how to facilitate it.

Another concern with knowledge emerging from neuroscience is the need for translation into brain-based learning strategies that can be used by educators. Over ninety percent of all neuroscientists are alive and still practicing today. Interpreting the rapidly growing information on brain research generated by these scientists, especially when some of that information is contradictory, can be a daunting task

The conclusion reached by both facilitators and general participants was that we should use caution when applying the findings of brain-based research, but at the same time move ahead with what we know. We should not wait; we need to act on what is known today knowing that some of this will change in the future. One example that was brought up during the workshop was that scientists used to think that the brain was hardwired at a very early age and set for the rest of life, what is called pruning. This assumption is only partially true today. Pruning does take place at an early age, but research has confirmed that nerves continue to grow throughout ones life. You can teach old dogs a few new tricks after all. This is a huge discovery and has implications for life-long learning. When we learn a skill later in life, such as when we learn stick-shift driving or skiing, we find the learning process to be frustrating and awkward at first, but soon these skills become automatic. This is a clear example growing new neural connections and the principle of plasticity in connection with the development of body/kinesthetic intelligence.

As with any new learning, frustration seems to follow, as in the case of learning to drive stick-shift. There is a period of time when we cant get our body to do what our mind wants it to do. We get emotional. From brain research we know now that when we get emotional about a task we are involved in learning. Brain research has confirmed that emotions are linked to learning by assisting us in recall of memories that are stored in

our central nervous system. Emotions originate in the midbrain or what has been termed the limbic system and the neo-mammalian brain. Sensory information is relayed to the thalamus in the midbrain, which acts as a relay station to the sensory cortex, auditory cortex, etc. When sensory information reaches the amygdale, another structure in the midbrain, that sensory information is evaluated as either a threat or not, creating the familiar fight or flight response the physiological response of stress. This information is only then relayed to the frontal cortex, our higher cognitive functions, where we take the appropriate action. How does information from the midbrain reach the frontal cortex? Chemicals, neurotransmitters, are released into the endocrine system which is connected to synapses, altering, coloring and intensifying our conscious experience of a situation. Emotions aid in memory retention (learning) of this situation as being good or bad. Decreasing threat ("driving our fear", mistrust, anxiety and competition) through cooperation, providing safe places, and providing a motivational climate for positive emotions ensure that learning will be retained.

But, brain research also suggests that the brain learns best when confronted with a balance between stress and comfort: high challenge and low threat. The brain needs some challenge, or environmental press that generates stress as described above to activate emotions and learning. Why? Stress motivates a survival imperative in the brain. Too much and anxiety shuts down opportunities for learning. Too little and the brain becomes too relaxed and comfortable to become actively engaged. The phrase used to describe the brain state for optimal learning is that of relaxed-alertness. Practically speaking, this means as designers and educators need to create places that are not only safe to learn, but also spark some emotional interest through celebrations and rituals.

Another general finding from brain research is that the brain is a pattern maker. Pattern making is pleasing (emotional content) for the brain. The brain takes great pleasure in taking random and chaotic information and ordering it. The implications for learning and instruction is that presenting a learner with random and unordered information provides the maximum opportunity for the brain to order this information and form meaningful patterns that will be remembered, that will be learned. Setting up a learning environment in this way mirrors real life that is often random and chaotic.

The brain, when allowed to express its pattern-making behavior, creates coherency and meaning. Learning is best accomplished when the learning activity is connected directly to physical experience. We remember best when facts and skills are embedded in natural, spatial memory, in real-life activity, in experiential learning. We learn by doing. The implications of applying the findings of neuroscience related to coherency and meaning suggest that learning be facilitated in an environment of total immersion in a multitude of complex interactive experiences which could include traditional instructional methods of lecture and analysis as part of this larger experience.

Interaction of the brain with its environment suggests that the more enriched environment, the more enriched brain. As one observer suggests, we need to enrich like crazy. According to Ronald Kotulak in his 1996 book "Inside the Brain", an enriched environment can contribute up to a 25% increase in the number of brain connections both early and later in life. Our environments need to allow for active manipulation.

To summarize, there are at least twelve principles of brain-compatible learning that have emerged from brain research.

1. Uniqueness every single brain is totally unique. 2. Impact of threat or high stress can alter and impair learning and even kill brain

cells 3. Emotions are critical to learning they drive our attention, health, learning,

meaning and memory. 4. Information is stored and retrieved through multiple memory and neural pathways 5. All learning is mind-body movement, foods, attentional cycles, drugs and

chemicals all have powerful modulating effects on learning. 6. The brain is a complex and adaptive system effective change involves the

entire complex system 7. Patterns and programs drive our understanding intelligence is the ability to elicit

and to construct useful patterns. 8. The brain is meaning-driven meaning is more important to the brain than

information. 9. Learning is often rich and non-conscious we process both parts and wholes

simultaneously and are affected a great deal by peripheral influences. 10. The brain develops better in concert with other brains intelligence is valued in

the context of the society in which we live. 11. The brain develops with various stages of readiness. 12. Enrichment the brain can grow new connections at any age. Complex,

challenging experiences with feedback are best. Cognitive skills develop better with music and motor skills.

What might be some school design principles that support brain-based learning?

Burton Cohen and Peter Hilts took the material we discussed in the previous two workshops and challenged the group to think about how as planners and designers we might begin to create places for learning that support what they referred to as optimal learning experiences. What would a brain-forming environment look like?

The first caveat we recognized as a group was that attempting to link research literature on brain research in neuroscience, first, to interpretations about this research forming principles of brain-based learning, and second, to facility implications is a very tentative exercise at best. With this in mind, we attempted to outline what we felt were a dozen sound principles for design. Interestingly, many of these principles seemed intuitively right principles any good designer would use. If this is so, then why we asked do most schools appear to work against brain-forming? What makes these principles new is the way in which they have been framed: as brain-forming principles based directly on what we know about the neurophysiology of the brain and optimal learning environments.

Embracing the concept of "place" and place making an opposed to space design -- is critical to understanding the way in which design principles for optimal learning environments are intended to be approached. When designing for optimal learning environments, design must be approached in a holistic, systemic way, comprising not only the physical setting, but also the social, organizational, pedagogical, and emotional environments that are integral to the experience of place. Reducing these design principles to "physical" design solutions negates the potential for creating authentically brain-compatible learning environments. This point can not be stressed strongly enough. Designing successful brain-compatible learning environments will require us as educators and design professionals to transform our traditional disciplinary thinking and

challenge us to think in much more interdisciplinary ways just as cognitive scientists have had to do to address the complexity of brain research.

"The 'hidden nine-tenths' of your mental strength lies buried... discover, release and use it to gain new success, personal happinessa fuller, richer life." - Advertisement for The Magic Power of Your Mind, W.B. Germain, 1956 They say you only use 10% of it." - Advertisement for database software, 1999 They say "You only use 11% of its potential." - Advertisement for digital TV, 1999 They say "It's been said that we use a mere 10% of our brain capacity."

Advertisers believe it. The popular media promote it. Do we use only a small portion of our brains? If the answer to this question is Yes, then knowing how to access the "unused" part of our brain should unleash untapped mental powers and allow us perform at top efficiency. But is it true that we only use 10% of our brains? Let's examine the issue of brain use and attempt to get at the truth behind the myth.

Where Did the 10% Statement Begin?

The origin of the belief that we use only a small part of our brain is unclear. Perhaps the belief is derived from debates during the early 1800s between those who believed that brain function could be localized to particular regions of the brain and those who believed that the brain acted as a whole. These debates centered around Franz Joseph Gall (1757-1828) and Johann Spurzheim (1776-1832) who developed the field of phrenology: the idea that specific human behaviors and characteristics could be deduced by the pattern and size of bumps on the skull. Not everyone agreed with Gall and Spurzheim. Marie-Jean-Pierre Flourens (1794-1867), an outspoken critic of phrenology, believed that although the cerebral cortex, cerebellum and brainstem had separate functions, each of these areas functioned globally as a whole ("equipotential"). Flourens supported his theories with experiments in which he removed areas of the brain (mostly in pigeons) and showed that behavioral deficits increased with size of the ablation. Although the work of Gustav Fritsch (1838-1927), Eduard Hitzig (1838-1907), Paul Broca (1824-1888) and Karl Wernicke (1848-1904) in the late 1800s provided strong data to counter the theory of equipotentiality, some scientists in the early 1900s appeared to once again favor the notion that the brain acted as a whole.

One prominent researcher who promoted the theories of equipotentiality and "mass action" was Karl Spencer Lashley (1890-1958). Lashley believed that memory was not dependent on any specific portion of the cerebral cortex and that the loss of memory was proportional to the amount of cerebral cortex that was removed. His experiments showed that the ability of rats to solve simple tasks, such as mazes and visual discrimination tests, were unaffected by large cerebral cortical lesions. As long as a certain amount of cortex remained, the rats appeared normal on the tests he administered. For example, in 1939 Lashley reported that rats could perform visual discriminations with only 2% of the visual thalamocortical pathway intact. He even

estimated that this behavior required only 700 neurons. In another experiment in 1935, Lashley found that removal of up to 58% of the cerebral cortex did not affect certain types of learning. It is possible that over interpretation and exaggeration of these data led to the belief that only a small portion of the brain is used. For example, although Lashley's rats may have been able to perform the simple tasks, they were not tested on other more complicated paradigms. In other words, the brain tissue that was removed may have been used for tasks that Lashley did not test. Moreover, Lashley was interested primarily in the cerebral cortex, not in other areas of the brain. Therefore, these data should not be extrapolated to other parts of the brain.

Several public figures have made reference to the 10% brain use statement. American psychologist William James wrote in 1908: "We are making use of only a small part of our possible mental and physical resources". Some famous people without training in neuroscience, such as physicist Albert Einstein and anthropologist Margaret Mead are also attributed with statements regarding human use of only a small portion of the brain.

Regardless of its origin, the statement that we use only 10% of our brains has been promoted by the popular media for many years. Indeed, many advertisers have jumped on the statement to sell their products. According to these advertisements, if we buy their products, devices, or programs, we will be able to tap into the brain's unused powers and enrich our lives.

What does it mean to "use only 10% of your brain?" Does this statement imply that only 10% of the brain's neurons is active at any one time? If so, how could this be measured? Does the statement assume that only 10% of the brain is firing action potentials at one time? Even if this was true, the discharge of action potentials is not the only function of neurons. Neurons receive a constant barrage of signals from other neurons that result in postsynaptic potentials. Postsynaptic potentials do not always result in the generation of action potentials. Nevertheless, these neurons, even in the absence of generating action potentials, are active.

Keeping the Brain Quiet

If all neurons of the brain were generating action potentials at the same time, it is highly likely to result in dysfunction. In fact, some neurotransmitters, such as GABA, act to inhibit the activity of neurons and reduce the probability that an action potential will be produced. Massive excitation of neurons in the cerebral cortex may result in seizures such as those that occur during epilepsy. Inhibition of neuronal activity is a normal and important function of the brain. In other words, some areas of the brain keep other areas quiet.

It is also important to keep in mind that neurons are not the only type of brain cell. Although there are an estimated 100 billion neurons in the human brain, there are another ten to fifty times that number of glial cells in the brain. Glial cells do not generate action potentials. Glial cells function to:

support the brain structurally insulate axons clean up cellular debris around neurons regulate the chemical composition of the extra cellular space

Would we behave normally without 90 billion neurons and billions of glial cells? Would we be just fine if 90% of our brains was removed? If the average human brain weighs 1,400 grams (about 3 lb) and 90% of it was removed, that would leave 140 grams (about 0.3 lb) of brain tissue. That's about the size of a sheep's brain. Clinical evidence indicates that damage to even a small area of the brain, such as that caused by a stroke, may have devastating effects. Some neurological disorders (e.g., Parkinson's disease) also affect only specific areas of the brain. Disabilities may arise after damage to far less 90% of any particular brain area. Because removal of small essential brain areas may have severe functional consequences, neurosurgeons must map the brain carefully before removing brain tissue during operations for epilepsy or brain tumors.

Imaging the Active Brain

In addition to clinical evidence, brain imaging methods appear to refute the 10% brain use statement. For example, positron emission tomography (PET) scans show that much of the brain is active during many different tasks. Often when brain scans are published, they have been manipulated to show relative amounts of brain activity rather than absolute activity. This graphical presentation of the data shows differences in brain activity. Therefore, it may appear that some areas of the brain are inactive when, in fact, they were active, but at a lower level compared to other sites. Brain scans only show activity for the carefully designed isolated tasks being tested, such as memory or visual processing. They do not show activity related to other untested abilities. Imagine the brain is a restaurant kitchen. If you looked in on the kitchen at one time, you may see the chef preparing salad. However, you may not know that the main course is cooking in the oven. Similarly, if you image the brain during a visual task, you will not see the other patterns of activity associated with performing different (simultaneous) tasks.

Evolution and Development Weigh In

From an evolutionary perspective, it is unlikely that a brain that is 90% useless would develop. The brain is an expensive organ to maintain and utilizes a large supply of the body's energy resources. Certainly there are redundant pathways that serve similar functions. This redundancy may be a type of "safety mechanism" should one pathway for a specific function fail. Still, functional brain imaging studies show that all parts of the brain function. Even during sleep, the brain is active. The brain is still being "used"; it is just in a different active state.

From a developmental perspective, the 10% of the brain statement also fails. The adage "use it or lose it" seems to apply to the developing nervous system. During development, many new synapses in the brain are formed. After birth, many synapses are eliminated later on in development. This period of synaptic development and elimination goes on to "fine tune" the wiring of the nervous system. It appears that correct input is required to maintain a synapse. If input to a particular neural system is eliminated, then neurons in this system may not function properly. Nobel Prize winners David H. Hubel and Torsten N. Wiesel demonstrated this in the visual system. They showed that complete loss of vision would occur when visual information was eliminated during early development. It seems reasonable to suggest that if 90% of the brain was not used, then many neural pathways would likely degenerate.

Brains are quite adaptable and do have the ability to recover after damage. When a brain is damaged, remaining neural tissue can sometimes take over and compensate for the loss. The ability of the brain to recover lost functions does not indicate that the damaged tissue had no function. Rather, this ability illustrates the brain's capacity to reorganize and rewire itself.

It appears that there is no hidden storehouse of untapped brain power. We use all of our brain.

Twelve Brain/Mind Learning Principles

Among the many supporters of Harts approach to educating with the brains functions and design in mind are Renate Nummela Caine and Geoffrey Caine, authors of Making Connections: Teaching and the Human Brain (1991), Unleashing the Power of Perceptual Change: The Potential of Brain-Based Teaching (1997), and Education on the Edge of Possibility (1997). They build on the idea of brain-compatible learning with a list of twelve "brain/mind learning principles." These principles, according to Caine and Caine, synthesize research related to the brain and learning from many disciplines and present it in a form that is useful to educators. The twelve principles, they continue, can function as a theoretical foundation for brain-based learning, and offer guidelines and a framework for teaching and learning.

Their explicitly cautious approach to bridging neuroscience and teaching practices reveals a fundamental and important dilemma: how to achieve a balance between taking advantage of new research findings that have important implications for education, and avoiding grand (and potentially irresponsible) conclusions with tenuous scientific basis. In Making Connections, where Caine and Caines approach to brain-based education is formalized, they state the need to refrain from prematurely over-concluding, given the dynamic nature of current brain research: "Both in the neurosciences and in education, we will no doubt learn more in the years to come. Though we make strong recommendations and suggestions, the book has an open-ended quality."

Like Hart, Caine and Caine choose to interpret brain research holistically. And the "12 Brain/Mind Learning Principles," though the name may lead you to believe otherwise, are not based solely on the findings of neuroscience. Instead, these principles and the ideas generated from them come from a wide range of additional disciplines, including cognitive psychology, sociology, philosophy, education, technology, sports psychology, creativity research, and physics. As Caine and Caine explain, all of the principles are "the result of a cross-disciplinary search."

These principles are not, the authors are the first to admit, definitive or closed to revision; as more is discovered about the brain, and how we learn and remember, educators will need to update their knowledge:

These principles are not meant to represent the final word on learning. Collectively, they do, however, result in a fundamentally new, integrated view of the learning process and the learner. They move us away from seeing the learner as a blank slate and toward an appreciation of the fact that body, brain, and mind are a dynamic unity.

Where Did the "12 Brain/Mind Learning Principles" Come From?

Principle 11--"Complex learning is enhanced by challenge and inhibited by threat"illustrates how each principle is derived from a mixture of disciplines. In Education on the Edge of Possibility, Caine and Caine illustrate the origins of Principle 11, a principle that many brain-based learning advocates discuss, but the cross-disciplinary origins of which few actually reveal. The effects of perceived threat, or distress, on cognitive functioning led Caine and Caine to identify the optimal state of mind for learning, "relaxed alertness," one of three central elements accompanying complex learning. To translate into practical terms, no one who has experienced the "fight or flight" fear response would identify this state as optimal for learning. "Brain-based learning" theory is a combination of common sense and brain sciencein this case, the brains physiological reaction to stressmaking neuroscience a useful partner for improving education.

The research areas that contributed to principle 11 include: "Stress Theory; Anxiety Research; Self-Efficacy; Neurosciences; Sports Psychology; and Creativity."

Practical Use of Brain/Mind Principles

Caine and Caine do not use the principles to prescribe any single teaching method. Instead, the principles are intended to provide a framework for "selecting the methodologies that will maximize learning and make teaching more effective and fulfilling." They may open doors for educators, increase teaching options, or serve as a guidepost to educators already working to implement brain-compatible teaching practices. Following is the complete list of the twelve brain/mind learning principles, as defined by Caine and Caine:

1. The brain is a complex adaptive system. 2. The brain is a social brain. 3. The search for meaning is innate. 4. The search for meaning occurs through patterning. 5. Emotions are critical to patterning. 6. Every brain simultaneously perceives and creates parts and wholes. 7. Learning involves both focused attention and peripheral attention. 8. Learning always involves conscious and unconscious processes. 9. We have at least two ways of organizing memory. 10. Learning is developmental. 11. Complex learning is enhanced by challenge and inhibited by threat. 12. Every brain is uniquely organized. (Caine and Caine 1997)

Three Conditions for Learning

Caine and Caine conclude that "Optimizing the use of the human brain means using the brains infinite capacity to make connectionsand understanding what conditions maximize this process." They identify three interactive and mutually supportive elements that should be present in order for complex learning to occur: "relaxed alertness," "orchestrated immersion," and "active processing."

1. An optimal state of mind that we call relaxed alertness, consisting of low threat and high challenge.

2. The orchestrated immersion of the learner in multiple, complex, authentic experience.

3. The regular, active processing of experience as the basis for making meaning.

Real-life Examples

Rather than offering a list of "how tos," Caine and Caine provide many illustrations of how these three elements may manifest themselves in real-life learning situations. They analyze, for instance, the success of famous math teacher Jaime Escalante, whose students from the Los Angeles barrio passed the calculus advanced placement exam in astounding numbers. They claim that Escalante, whose teaching career was portrayed in the movie "Stand and Deliver," was using brain-based practices: "Although we question his textbook approach to the content of the subject, he understands his students and the world students live in. In his classes, calculus becomes a way of life, is a source of pride, and is linked to deeper understanding of how mathematics opens doors to further study and the individual students future."

As the term "orchestrated immersion" implies, the teacher becomes the orchestrator, or the architect, designing experiences that will lead students to make meaningful connections. A second grade teachers successful efforts to teach punctuation, specifically commas, periods, and exclamation points, serves as a good example of how a teacher may use what students already know to teach what is abstract and unfamiliar. After giving her students verbal explanations of what each of these punctuation marks means (the comma, "slow down"; the period, "stop"; and the exclamation mark, "emphasis"), the teacher had her students read out loud. But the verbal explanations she had given them did not affect the way they read.

Finally, exasperated, she had them put on their coats and follows her outside. She told them, "I am going to read to you and I want you to walk around in a circle. When I say comma I want you to slooow down, whenever I say period I want you to stop dead in your tracks, and when I say exclamation mark I want you to jump up and down." She tried this for five minutes with perfect success. When they went back inside and read, all of them slowed down at the commas, paused at periods, and used emphasis at exclamations points.

Teaching and the Organ of Learning

Making Connections: Teaching and the Human Brain includes many wonderful real-life examples of how the three elements of relaxed alertness, orchestrated immersion, and active processing occur in successful teaching situations at all levels, from elementary school to college and beyond, and with a variety of methods. Current neuroscience research does not yet fully and accurately explain why such real-life examples are effective. Nevertheless, teaching, and a need for understanding how "the organ of learning" works, are now linked as never before.

Neuroscience is currently so dynamic that this connection, although secure, will inevitably grow and change and strengthen. The educators role will increasingly take on

an added and "brain-based" dimension -- that of remaining open to and curious about a growing field of information. Interpreting information in a way that leads to appropriate and responsible classroom practices is a crucial, and often overlooked, link in building this bridge between education and research on, in Harts words, "the most complex apparatus we know of in the universe," the human brain.

What is "Brain-Based Learning"?

The Organ of Learning

To many, the term "brain-based learning" sounds redundant. Isnt all learning and teaching brain-based? Advocates of brain-based teaching insist that there is a difference between "brain-compatible" education, and "brain-antagonistic" teaching practices and methods which can actually prevent learning.

In his book, Human Brain and Human Learning (1983), Leslie Hart argues that teaching without an awareness of how the brain learns is like designing a glove with no sense of what a hand looks likeits shape, how it moves. Hart pushes this analogy even further in order to drive home his primary point: if classrooms are to be places of learning, then "the organ of learning," the brain, must be understood and accommodated:

All around us are hand-compatible tools and machines and keyboards, designed to fit the hand. We are not apt to think of them in that light, because it does not occur to us that anyone would bring out some device to be used by human hands without being sure that the nature of hands was considered. A keyboard machine or musical instrument that called for eight fingers on each hand would draw instant ridicule. Yet we force millions of children into schools that have never seriously studied the nature and shape of the human brain, and which not surprisingly prove actively brain-antagonistic. (Hart 1983)

Granted, the brain is infinitely more complex than the hand. Although Hart does not deny the brains vast intricacy, and he admits to his own deliberate simplifications regarding the brains design, he argues that some knowledge, even if it is partial and simplified, can still be applied to design brain-fitting, brain-compatible instructional settings and procedures." Such settings and procedures would emphasize "real-world" exposure. The school, in Harts words, would become an "exciting center where there is constant encounter with the richness and variety of the real world" as opposed to a "dreary egg crate of classroomsalmost empty of anything real one might learn from."

References:

Education on the Edge of Possibility, Caine and Caine

Human Brain and Human Learning (1983), Leslie Hart

"Inside the Brain (1996), Ronald Kotulak

Making Connections: Teaching and the Human Brain

Making Connections: Teaching and the Human Brain (1991), Nummela Caine and Geoffrey Caine,

The Language of Learning: A Guide to Education Terms, by J. L. McBrien & R. S. Brandt, 1997, Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Unleashing the Power of Perceptual Change: The Potential of Brain-Based Teaching (1997), Caine and Caine

12 Design Principles Based on Brain-based Learning ResearchBy Jeffery A. Lackney, Ph.D.