Brain-compatible learning: fad or foundation? Neuroscience points to better strategies for educators, but sorting out claims on brain-based programs is essential.

If you've been involved in the field of education for any length of time, you've seen many innovations and programs come and go. Teaching machines, time on task programs and Epstein's plateaus of adolescent cognition are just a few of the initiatives that at one time had many adherents only to fade into near obscurity several years later.

The pendulum swings are so frequent in schools that many educators have adopted a "sit tight, this too will pass" attitude.

The newest "breakthrough" in education is neuroscience or brain research, a field that until recently has been foreign to K-12 educators. While past programs generated a great deal of interest, rarely has one amassed a following so enthusiastic or sustained.

Over the past 10 years numerous national educational conferences have been devoted entirely to the workings of the brain. Mentioning brain research has become de rigueur in grant proposals and staff development plans. Hundreds of books tout everything from brain-compatible mathematics instruction to brain-based classroom environment.

Hemispheric Notions

Our fascination with the brain is not difficult to understand. We seem to always have had an innate curiosity about how our brains function, how we learn and how we remember. It's not surprising to discover that, throughout hundreds of years of history, theories have been generated to explain the elusive qualities of the human brain.

Plato likened the brain to a ball of wax that becomes grooved as we learn and recall information over the same pathways. Aristotle thought that the heart was the source of memory and the brain served to cool the blood. And as late as 1850, Franz Joseph Gall's "reading" of the innate propensities of people by feeling the lumps and bumps on their skulls was all the rage.

We may smile at the naivete of Plato, Aristotle or Gall, but we have our own modern myths. For instance, the terms "right-brained" and "left-brained" are found commonly in conversation and writing. Robert Ornstein in his book, The Right Mind, calls our misunderstanding of the brain's two hemispheres "dichotomania." While each hemisphere does have specialized functions, they work in concert with one another at all times. To explain a person's personality by stating that it is a preference for one hemisphere over the other is inaccurate and misleading.

Another common myth is that we use only 10 percent of our brain. A quick look at a PET or fMRI (fuctional magnetic resonance imaging) image dispels this myth very quickly. Never will you see activity in just 10 percent of the brain.

Educators are perhaps more captivated by brain research than the general public. The reason is easy to understand. The brain is the organ of learning, but we haven't understood how it works.

Our students' brains have been black boxes with their secrets locked inside. The knowledge base from which we've generated our decisions has been limited by what the behavioral sciences could provide, which hasn't always been sufficient.

Of necessity we've operated intuitively. Intuition has worked well in many instances but has left us without the ability to articulate our craft to others. Because of this, we've become, as Bob Sylwester puts it, a folklore profession. This lack of scientific knowledge has put us at the mercy of lay boards and politicians who have sometimes made decisions that are unrelated to what we know is best for students and their learning.

Untested Strategies

So the appeal and interest in the neuroscientific research is understandable. But where are we going with our newfound information? Will this become another fad or are we finally on the edge of acquiring a scientifically based theory of teaching and learning?

I think it has the potential to go either way. Which way depends on how educators interpret and use the research. Unfortunately, some consultants and educators are proposing "brain-based" programs and strategies that have not been tested in classrooms. Running ahead of the research before sound clinical trials and testing of new hypotheses have been completed makes us vulnerable to the criticism of jumping on yet another bandwagon.

Uncritical acceptance of what we read or hear in the media can be problematic. Media reports on science spare the humdrum details and sometimes exaggerate, misconstrue and fabricate results. For example, a report in a Minneapolis newspaper reported that Fran Rauscher and the late Gordon Shaw at the University of California at Irvine found that 17 of 19 school children who received music lessons for eight months "increased their IQs by an average of 46 percent." The actual research done by Rauscher and Shaw found that a specific type of music lesson increased spatial temporal reasoning in the students, not IQ scores.

Another news article reported that Paul Gold, a researcher at the University of Virginia, had found evidence that glucose, a sugar, improves alertness and memory. The actual research on which this report was based was conducted with elderly people who drank lemonade sweetened either with glucose or with saccharin. It is true the subjects whose lemonade was sweetened with glucose recalled almost twice as much from a narrative prose passage as their counterparts who drank the saccharin-sweetened drink.

However, what was not reported was that this did not prove true for college students and that no research has been conducted with K-12 students. Yet on the basis of this newspaper coverage, some teachers give their students peppermint candy because "research proves that candy improves memory." Is it any wonder that some neuroscientists are beginning to accuse educators of engaging in pseudoscience or worse, becoming "snake-oil salesmen" for products and programs that have no real scientific foundation?

Classroom Data

What we must do at this point is carefully and analytically sort through the data to determine which studies actually have classroom applications and which do not. While many studies on memory and learning are general in nature, there are some that have been conducted with student learning in mind and have strong implications for educators.

One of the most direct applications of research to the classroom can be found in the work of Paula Tallal, founder and co-director of the Center for Molecular and Behavioral Neuroscience at Rutgers University, and Michael Merzenich, Francis A. Sooy chair of otolaryngology in the Keck Center for Integrative Neurosciences at the University of California at San Francisco.

They discovered that difficulty in learning to read in some cases stems from an auditory processing delay in the student's brain. Armed with this information, they developed a computer program to correct this delay, to actually speed up the processing of the sounds that make up the written word, resulting in definite improvement in reading skills. This program, Fast For-Word, is one of the first brain studies with specific applications to the classroom.

Other research has been conducted with the goal of improving students' ability to read. At the New Haven, Conn.-based Haskins Laboratories, researchers Sally Shaywitz, Bennett Shaywitz and Kenneth Pugh have found that the brain of someone with dyslexia functions differently from a typical brain when processing phonemes. They are working on combining brain imaging with sophisticated cognitive-behavioral work and have made substantial progress in better understanding how reading failure occurs and in developing better techniques to correct it.

Shaw, a retired physicist, became interested in the connections between music and mathematics. His research, conducted over the past several years before his death, resulted in a program that uses piano keyboarding lessons and a computer program called STAR (Spatial Temporal Animation Reasoning) with elementary school-age children.

The students in the study have made exceptional gains in proportional math and fractions, math skills that require good temporal spatial reasoning.

Accepted Ideas

While these specific studies have potentially important implications for educators, so do many of the more general studies that have been conducted on memory and learning over the past decade. What follows is a generally accepted list of what we have learned about the brain and what I think are the potential applications of these findings for educational practice.

* Experience shapes the brain.

The brain is the only organ in the body that sculpts itself from its interactions with its environment. In a sense our experience becomes biology. We used to think the brain you were born with was the brain you were stuck with, but we now know that learning experiences change and reorganize the brain's structure and physiology.

Several studies have shown actual structural changes in various parts of the brain depending on the way in which these structures were used. The changes can be observed in behavior as well as structure. It should be fairly obvious that this finding has strong implications for education. We now know learning is a matter of making connections between brain cells and that the experiences our students have shape their brains. Obviously we do learn from reading and hearing, but the strongest connections often are made through concrete experience.

* Memory is not stored in a single location in the brain.

When an experience enters the brain, it is deconstructed and distributed all over the cortex. The affect (or the emotional content) is stored in the amygdala, visual images in the occipital lobes, source memory in the frontal lobes and where you were during the experience is stored in the parietal lobes. When you recall information, you have to reconstruct it.

Because memories are reconstructed, the more ways students have the information represented in the brain (through seeing, hearing, being involved, etc.), the more pathways they have for reconstructing and the richer the memory. Multi-modal instruction makes a lot of sense.

* Memory is not static.

It would be nice if memory were a matter of experiencing something once and then retrieving it at a later date in exactly the same form as it was originally stored. But memory doesn't work that way. It is dynamic. It decays naturally over time as new experiences infiltrate older ones.

Fortunately, this natural decay can be minimized by using elaborate rehearsal strategies. Visualizing, writing, symbolizing, singing, semantic mapping, simulating and devising mnemonics are strategies that can be used to reinforce and increase the likelihood of recall. They often have the added benefit of enhancing students' understanding of concepts as well as retention.

* Memory is not unitary.

There are two distinct types of memory, each of which involves different brain structures.

Declarative memory is our everyday memory, the conscious ability to recall what we ate for breakfast yesterday, the names of our favorite musicians and the formula for finding the area of a rectangle. It is information that you can declare.

Procedural memory refers to skills and habits that you engage in without conscious recall such as driving a car, decoding words, touch typing and playing the piano. Procedural learning requires many repetitions over a period of time. In fact, there is no other way to learn them. Repetition, however, generally is not the most efficient way to learn or retain declarative information.

Understanding the differences between these two types of memory is essential in designing classroom instruction and practice. Rote rehearsal is essential for procedural memory while elaborative rehearsal strategies are much more effective for declarative.

In discussing declarative memory, Harvard psychologist Daniel Schacter writes, "For better or for worse, our recollections are largely at the mercy of our elaborations; only those aspects of experience that are targets of elaborative encoding processes have a high likelihood of being remembered subsequently."

* Emotion is a primary catalyst in the learning process.

Some of the most important findings from neuroscience have been in the area of the role of emotion in learning and memory. Two small but powerful structures deep within each hemisphere called the amygdala regulate our emotional responses. These emotional responses have the ability to either impede or enhance learning.

On the one hand, for survival purposes, our brains are hard-wired to pay attention to and remember those experiences with an emotional component, whether it is the Challenger explosion or a particularly vivid simulation in which you took part in the 8th grade. However, emotional responses can have the opposite effect if situations contain elements that a person perceives to be threatening. In these situations, the amygdala starts a chain of physiological responses (commonly called the fight or flight response) to ready the body for action. Under these conditions, emotion is dominant over cognition and the rational/thinking part of the brain is less efficient. The environment must be physically and psychologically safe for learning to occur.

Intuitive Knowledge

It is important to note much in the research confirms what experienced educators have long known and used in their classrooms, albeit intuitively. What the research adds for these practices is an understanding of why certain procedures or strategies work so that we no longer have to operate in the dark but can articulate and explain the rationale for what we do.

It is obvious that brain research is not the elusive silver bullet that will answer all our education problems. However, the new research offers educators an unparalleled opportunity for building a scientific foundation for educational practice that will allow us to make more informed decisions. To make certain the brain research becomes a foundation rather than a fad, educators need to take a proactive stance.

* Become literate in the general structure and function of the brain.

We don't need to become scientists, but we do need to learn the terminology they use. If you don't know what the cortex of the brain is, you won't be terribly impressed to learn that it changes as the result of experience. If you are not familiar with the basic structure and function of the brain, you cannot read the literature analytically.

* Learn how to determine whether a study is valid or not.

Not all studies are equal. It is critical to be cautious when using the phrase, "Brain research proves...." To determine whether the study is valid, the following questions need to be answered: How many subjects were in the study? What were the ages and characteristics of the subjects? Was there a control group of subjects who were matched with the subjects in the experimental group? What was the methodology used for this study? Has the study been replicated by other scientists using the same methodology? Are there similar studies that have contradictory findings?

No one will consider educators true professionals unless we act like professionals in analyzing and applying the research. Eric Chudler, director of education and outreach associate professor of bioengineering, University of Washington, points to the wide divide between bench science and the classroom. Many are working toward closing the gap, but it takes time and money. Much is being sold to teachers about the benefits of water, color, odors, etc., in the classroom that has never been put to the test in actual classrooms.

Chudler suggests we question the findings of the research by asking: Will it work in actual classrooms? What specific benefit will be realized--higher math scores, reading scores, quieter classrooms? What are the side effects or problems? For example, if water increases brain functioning, for whom and how much water produces these effects?

* Marry the findings from neuroscience with other fields.

As important as the brain research is, we want to be certain we don't ignore the research from other fields such as behavioral and cognitive psychology and educational research. For example, a recent large study completed in the Chicago schools found that elementary students scored higher on math and reading skills when teachers used more interactive instruction than when they employed the more traditional didactic methods. This certainly seems to fit with what we know about how the brain learns best, but the study was conducted by educational researchers, not neuroscientists.

* Intensify our collaboration with the researchers.

Too often at professional conferences scientists speak and educators take notes. Ken Kosik, a physician and professor of neuroscience at Harvard, suggests we look at the option of establishing research schools where teachers and neuroscientists work together. Stephen Hyman, director of the National Institute of Mental Health, says we need a stepped-up collaboration between neuroscientists, cognitive scientists, physicists, computer scientists, physicians and teachers.

* Begin to incorporate in our classrooms and schools what we have learned about the brain.

The goal of brain-compatible instruction is more than high test scores. Our students need to develop an in-depth understanding of concepts to the point where they are able to use what they've learned in school in the world outside of school. Granted, much more remains to be learned from neuroscience that will assist us in making our classrooms more compatible with how the brain functions, but it would be foolish to wait until all the research is completed to begin to incorporate the knowledge we now have.

Many teachers are intuitively already using many brain-compatible strategies in their classrooms, such as making the environment conducive to learning, providing opportunities for interaction, engaging students in projects and problem solving, giving students hands-on concrete experiences, using music, rhyme and mnemonics, teaching students to construct graphics and opportunities to simulate events and concepts. However, these strategies need to be brought from the intuitive to the conscious level so that educators can articulate their knowledge.

Fad or foundation, which will it be?

Resources

Pat Wolfe suggests these reading materials relating to her subject:

* The Art of Changing the Brain, by James Zull, Stylus Press. Sterling, Va.

* The Brain's Behind It, by Alistair Smith, Crown House Publishing, Bethel, Conn.

* A General Theory of Love, by Thomas Lewis, Fari Amini & Richard A. Lannon, Spring Harbor Press, Vintage, N.Y.

* The Human Brain: A Guided Tour, by Susan Greenfield, Basic Books, New York, N.Y.

* Mapping the Mind, by Rita Carter, University of California Press, Los Angeles, Calif.

* The Mind and the Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force by Jeffrey Schwartz and Susan Begley, Harper Collins Publishers Inc., New York, N.Y.

* A User's Guide to the Brain: Perception, Attention and the Four Theaters of the Brain, by John Ratey, Pantheon, New York, N.Y.

* What's Going On In There?: How the Brain and the Mind Develop in the First Five Years, by Use Eliot, Bantam Books, New York, N.Y.

RELATED ARTICLE: Not all academic: brain development in the early years.

I've been reading a lot of articles lately about the growing number of parents who are concerned about getting their children into the best "academic" preschools to ensure they do well when they begin their formal schooling. Some are even signing their babies up before they are born!

Given the research on early brain development, trying to create a "super baby" or "super child" doesn't make sense. In fact, it runs counter to what we know about how a child's brain develops.

Let's take a look at the origins of this surge of interest in the early years.

Revised Beliefs

In the past decade, we've seen an explosion of information in the field of brain research (neuroscience). No longer the mysterious "black box" as once was thought, researchers can actually see what is going on inside our skulls while we interact with our environment. This is especially fascinating when it comes to brain development in young children.

Contrary to an earlier belief that a baby's brain was a blank slate, scientists have discovered that learning begins before birth (babies are born recognizing their mother's voice and music they heard while in the womb). We also now know that young children learn faster than was ever thought possible. In fact, in the first three to four years the young child's brain develops connections (synapses) between cells at an amazing rate, one that will never be duplicated again during the child's life.

Unfortunately, this information has been misinterpreted by some to mean babies and young children need extra stimulation during this critical period. This is not only an oversimplification of the research. It is not true.

The fiction: Synapses represent learning, and the more synapses a child has the smarter he'll be.

The fact: In truth, the brain overproduces connections in the first two years, and an important part of learning and development is to prune away the unnecessary ones.

For example, babies are born with millions of cells that potentially allow them to pronounce the sounds of every language spoken in the world. However, only the connections for sounds of the language they hear everyday are strengthened. The ones not used are simply pruned away, which allows children to understand, and eventually speak, the language spoken at home.

The fiction: Enriched environments are essential during the early years to develop a child's brain to its fullest potential.

The fact: Excessive use of flash cards, workbooks, language tapes and "educational" computer games is not only inappropriate, it also deprives children of the natural interaction with their world so important to development.

As Stephen Meltzoff states in his book, The Scientist in the Crib, perhaps the question parents need to ask is not: What is the effect of the environment on the brain? But rather: What is the effect of a deprived environment versus a normal or an enriched environment?

Rich Surroundings

First, let's consider the deprived environment. We know the ability to speak a language is lost by about age 10 if children, because of deafness or lack of exposure to language, do not master this skill in their early years. Being raised in a severely impoverished environment can cause a child's emotional growth to be stunted, as reported in the studies of Romanian orphans. But fortunately, most children are not raised under severely deprived conditions.

But does an enriched environment somehow change a child's development? Is it really better? Can we produce "super babies?" Or are high-priced toys marketed to frantic parents a waste of time and money?

The bottom line is that there is no proof extra stimulation is necessary for cognitive or social growth. Rather, too much activity may result in overstimulation and damage to a young child.

A better solution is for parents to take the simple approach and read nursery rhymes and books by Dr. Seuss to the child. They are ideal because they introduce children to sounds that are alike, which is a natural introduction to beginning phonics.

Educators need to explain to parents that the human brain is innately curious and designed to learn. Young children are driven to master their world. Hands-on play is best because it gives children a chance to explore their own interests with the support of involved adults.

No, TV is not evil. Baby Einstein is not bad. But raising a happy, healthy child is a matter of finding balance. Mostly, children need models of appropriate social interactions and a physically and psychologically safe haven in which to grow up. Given a rich, varied, natural environment, this will happen without a lot of intervention. I believe parents know instinctively what they need to do to raise their kids well. They simply need to relax and trust their intuition.

--Patricia Wolfe

Pat Wolfe is president of Mind Matters, 555 Randolph St, Napa, CA 94559. E-mail: [e-mail]. She is the author of Brain Matters: Translating Research Into Classroom Practice (ASCD).