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