Learning and the Brain: What Doesn't Work and Needs to Stop!

“…pre-defined parameters do not work for everyone – there is nothing that works in all settings, all the time, for all the people; (where ) all will have the same opportunities, talents and interests to learn the same at the same pace…”

We also assume things work forever….”  Dr. Yong Zhao

Sometimes a learning theory or strategy bubbles up onto the educational landscape and is highly appealing – often this is because it seems to ‘make sense’ in a logical-thinking sort of way. Or perhaps it fits with the social order and expectations of the era. Sometimes a learning approach grabs hold due to a huge marketing campaign to launch the idea, and significant dollars have been invested in establishing the practice. Occasionally a learning theory or strategy will emerge because initial research appeared to support it’s effectiveness but subsequent, repeat research cannot sustain evidence of the reported initial impact.

Recently, I attended the Learning and the Brain Conference in San Francisco and researcher Daniel Ansari poked some significant holes in learning theories and strategies I have both supported and been intrigued by in the past – maybe they should be on your educational radar as well! A few ‘neuro-myths’ I have supported in the past include:

1)    ‘Humans are either left-brain or right-brain inclined’

This popular theory crept onto my personal horizon somewhere around the turn of the 21^st century as I recall – and it seemed to make sense to this left-handed, ADHD, not very creative educator.  Although I don’t recall planning particular lessons or interventions for students using this theory as the guide, I do recall many conversations about students where someone – often me – would nod knowingly and say something like ‘Oh, must be a right-brain thinker!”  This theory seems to hold water for the very clear fact our brains do have both a right and left side – but there is no evidence to support that one side of the brain is responsible for some things and the other half for others. Brain MRIs clearly show synapses working hard in both sides and all parts of the brain for a multitude of activities and thinking. Humans use all parts of the brain in a complex fashion!

2)   ‘Students have particular learning styles that teachers should match instructional strategies to – this will improve learning’

While students – and all humans – have very different interests and desires, there is no statistically significant relationship between teaching a child based on a ‘learning style’ because there is no statistically significant evidence students have one particular learning style – evidence shows student learning approaches vary depending on the task, interest level, who they are working with, the resources, the nature of the problem, etc. Comprehension does not improve if all lessons are delivered in a particular way (for example, through music, or outdoors or always through hands-on activities). While there are certainly a wide variety of ways to engage students in learning tasks, it is essential all those avenues are offered in our classrooms for all children. Multiple entry points to complex tasks ensure every student will find an appropriate way to engage in that particular task as it makes sense for them to do so. For several years – since learning styles theory began to emerge over two decades ago – programs and resources catering to developing lessons through one particular lens or another have gained in popularity. Research does not support the ‘one learning style’ phenomena at all  - multiple styles appeal to all students in different learning contexts. Boom!

3)   ‘We can train human brains using computerized activities’

While there is evidence we can train human brains to do the same level tasks over and over again with increasing competency, there is no evidence to support carry-over to other similar or more complex tasks and problems. This is the major issue with memorization – students can memorize facts, poetry, spelling words, formulas – but this memorization is only effective in the context in which it was memorized.  Humans learn to generalize tasks in relation to other humans and as needs arise, not as a result of training the brain through repetition. One more neuro-myth busted!

These three ‘neuro-myths’ are the three that have had the most impact on the schools and teaching and learning in my particular experience. It is important to try new ideas with students – but it is also important to follow the research and see if the research supports the continued use of a particular teaching strategy or theory. As Dr. Yong Zhao pointed out ‘ we assume things last forever…’ and they simply do not. Teaching and learning is as nebulous as the students in our classrooms – understanding the research helps us meet our students where they are today – not yesterday, last year, last decade, or tomorrow - but today.  And changes in health care, nutrition, quality of life, genetics research, housing, weather patterns and climate, social safety, community design, and social structure – among other factors - all contribute to constantly changing children in our classrooms.  

So, if the strategies that have differentiated learning in our classrooms for the past couple of decades are not the best available for the students of 2017, what is it that schools do need to know about best possible options for teaching and learning, based on the most current ‘learning and the brain’ research?

That’s the focus of next week’s blog!

Lorraine Kinsman, Principal

Learning and the Brain – So Much New Information!

“We are entering a new era, a knowledge age, in which information is doubling every 2.5 years…We are leaving the information age where getting the fact was what was important...We need to move to an ‘interweaving’ age…” Dr. Michelle Gothnick

A few days ago, I had the amazing opportunity to attend the ‘Learning and the Brain’ Conference in San Francisco, along with both of the Diversity Learning Leaders from our school (Tracy Southworth and Alyson Zwack). There are four LATB Conferences held each year, and the San Francisco Conference covered six categories of the latest brain-related research and findings:

-       The Science of Learning: Improving Memory, Testing & Feedback

-        The Science of Motivation & Mindsets: Empowering Engagement

-        The Science of Hands-On Making: Developing Designers & Thinkers

-        The Science of Active Inquiry: Creating Curious Self-Explorers

-        The Science of Mastery: Teaching for Expertise & Competency

-        The Power of Parents & peers: Promoting Praise & Resiliency

Each of us attended the Conference thinking we were gong to focus on one area and then exchange ideas – the amazing part of our four days in Conference together was how each area easily and intentionally connected to the others – the science of how the brain receives and expands learning is simply not reliant on any one aspect of development but on all of them!

Here is my very limited understanding of why we study the brain and the connections between the brain and learning:

Teachers understand their primary role is to help students develop learning behaviours that will allow them to be thoughtful, thinking and successful humans in the world. Learning behaviours (indeed all behaviours) are deemed to be cognitive in nature – behaviours result from decisions made by the brain.  Cognitive science – the study of behaviours – connects with and is informed by Neuro science – the study of brain processing, memory, making connections, etc.  Cognitive scientists try to understand the behaviour while Neuroscientists attempt to understand the biological reasons for the behaviour. Understanding both the behaviour and the biology behind the behaviour allows for targeted support and intervention when learning becomes interrupted, slows or seems to become more challenging.  Teachers look to both kinds of scientists to inform and shape practice in purposeful, intentional ways that best support student learning.

Neuro-Scientists study the brain using a wide variety of strategies to better understand the brain’s behaviour.  These strategies include MRIs, diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), EEG, and observational behaviour and sensory assessments, as well as other less-familiar techniques. The purpose of studying the brain from an educational perspective is to develop a biological awareness of how behaviour is influenced by brain development in an effort to be more intentional with teaching and learning strategies in particular circumstances or with specific learners.  Cognitive scientists, neuro-scientists and educators all have different interests but our work intersects with a shared interest in influencing behaviours effectively to help students adapt, think and act with increasing levels of consideration, intention and achievement.

Perhaps the most exciting and exhilarating findings in current brain research that we encountered reflects new, compelling evidence that the brain continues to develop all through the adult years – there is no ‘stopping point’ or ceiling to be placed on the capacity of the human brain to learn. Our brains have high capacities for plasticity as well – the brain is extremely adaptive, can learn new and complex things at all ages and when the brain is involved in solving or figuring out complex thinking it begins making many connections that in turn result in further additional growth in brain adaptations and capacity for flexible thought.

Conversely, a human brain routinely engaged in repetitive tasks that is not required to think flexibly or engage in alternative thought patterns does not develop the same levels of neural plasticity for problem solving, thinking critically, asking questions, creativity or innovation.  Perhaps Researcher Daniel Ansari framed the intersection of cognitive neuro-science and education best when he asked:

            “If you were given the choice right now of visiting a doctor who had memorized a list of symptoms and their linked treatments, or a doctor who understood the reasons why diseases happen in the first place and how they are linked to treatments and health…which would you choose?

And, would you prefer to have a teacher who has a memorized list of programs and curriculum or one who understands students and learning as a process?”

In the coming weeks, I will try to make sense of some of the new findings in brain research that impacts learning and how these findings, in turn, might impact teaching and learning for the children of Eric Harvie School.  This will include examining a few ‘neuro-myths’ about the brain and learning that have persisted for a long time in education, as well as exploring some new strategies that might optimize student learning.  There was just so much to learn and discover!!

I am also just returned from the TLP ‘Canada’s Outstanding Principals’ Alumni Conference and Celebration in Toronto where I was privileged to work alongside almost 100 of Canada’s top administrators – both past and current winners - and with several of Canada’s top researchers and practitioners in mental health and aboriginal reconciliation. These topics also overlap in significant ways with the themes of the LATB Conference and I expect to use this blog to actively explore all these new findings and the ways in which they connect to each other.  My goal, as always, is to continue exploring best ways to maximize student growth in learning!

Lorraine Kinsman, Principal