Practical Applications of Brain Research.

One of the hot topics at the beginning of the 21st century appears to be brain research. In the past five years, entire issues of education journals have been devoted to this topic. Researchers report a gap between what we have learned about the brain and educational applications. The articles reviewed here recommend practical applications. I would like to thank Nina King, an instructor of elementary and early childhood education at Jacksonville State University, for contributing all but the first two reviews.--J.A.

SUPPORTING PARENTS WITH TWO ESSENTIAL UNDERSTANDINGS: Attachment and Brain Development. Berger, E. Early Childhood Education Journal, 1999, 26(4), 267-270. What do parents need to know about brain development to maximize their children's potential? Technological developments (such as Magnetic Resonance Imaging [MRI] and Positron Emission Tomography [PET] scans) have helped make possible the new brain research. In this article, the authors focus on the importance of early experiences and early interactions, which directly influence how the brain is wired.

Berger believes that "attachment and brain development go hand in hand". (p. 270). She suggests that parents can enhance both secure attachment and brain development by reading to and listening to music with their children, and by looking at children while talking to them.

EMOTIONS, COGNITION, AND BECOMING A READER: A Message to Teachers of Struggling Learners. Lyons, C. Literacy Teaching and Learning, 1999, 4(1), 67-87. Lyons finds that the relationship between cognitive and emotional development as it relates to brain research is one of several salient issues concerning struggling readers. This article includes explanations of the neuronal development of the electrical brain, and what Lyons calls the chemical brain. The author finds that reading teachers should provide struggling learners with support and encouragement, and that teachers also should remember that "it is the quality of experience and instruction, not the child's cognition, that determines success or failure" (p. 86).

Although the authors of both this article and the previous one have constructed specific ways to support young children's learning, a gap appears to exist between the technical explanations of brain development and how the authors arrived at their practical suggestions.

IN SEARCH OF BRAIN-BASED EDUCATION. Bruer, J. Phi Delta Kappan, 1999, 80(9), 649-657. Fact or speculation? That is what Bruer would like educators to consider before making claims that neuroscience truly supports any particular classroom approach. Bruer maintains that whatever evidence exists for advocating certain education reforms has been grounded in several decades of psychological research, not in brain science. Bruer focuses on two well-known ideas in pedagogical literature--brain laterality and the claim of a sensitive period of learning.

The author decries the traditional school of thought about left brain versus right brain thinking as merely folk theories. Bruer asserts that assigning laterality to such abilities as visual imagery or spatial reasoning is simplistic, at best. For example, conventional doctrine bases visual imagery in the brain's right hemisphere. However, split brain studies clearly implicate the left hemisphere's importance in the ability to produce mental imagery. Furthermore, the typical assumptions that reading skills and number recognition are solely the domain of the left hemisphere are erroneous, as well. These and other tasks are, in fact, too complex to merit such simplistic explanations. Bruer contends that "our folk theories are too crude and imprecise to have any scientific, predictive, or instructional value" (p. 653).

The belief that a critical or sensitive period of learning occurs from about age 2 to 11 also is problematic, says the author. Detailing the work of Harry Chugani at Wayne State University, Bruer reports that it is speculative to assume a connection between rapid brain growth and windows of opportunity for learning. While reporting that Chugani himself believes in a period in which learning is "easy and efficient, and easily retained," the author contends that no scientific evidence exists to support this claim. According to Bruer, "where there is no scientific evidence, there is no scientific fact" (p. 656).

Educators should be careful when interpreting scientific research, especially in terms of how it is applied to classroom practices. A strength of this article is the author's observation of how our profession tends to hold on to folk theories. Truth, not speculation, should be the basis of pedagogical reforms.

TEACH ME, TEACH MY BRAIN: A Call for Differentiated Classrooms. Tomlinson, C., & Kalbfleisch, M. Educational Leadership, 1998, 56(3), 52-55. The authors criticize the one-size-fits-all strategy of teaching that is prevalent in many classrooms as inadequate for most students' development. In fact, this type of instruction can be detrimental. Tomlinson and Kalbfleisch point to three interdependent principles that are derived from brain research: 1) learning environments must be emotionally safe for learning to take place; 2) to learn, students must experience appropriate levels of challenge; and 3) each brain needs to make its own meaning of ideas and skills.

The human brain responds to environmental stimuli by releasing certain chemicals. Feeling intimidated, pressured, or rejected arouses a person's fight or flight response, causing one to focus not on the task at hand, but on self-preservation. For example, when a teacher employs a strict, directive teaching style, those students needing a more open atmosphere will feel unsafe, and may become so uncomfortable that learning cannot occur. Just as true, underchallenged students do not experience the neural release of chemicals necessary for effective engagement in classroom activities, and therefore will be unmotivated or apathetic. Tomlinson and Kalbfleisch further emphasize the importance of teaching that focuses on key concepts and governing principles, rather than on just facts. In this way, they assert, each learner has a greater opportunity to deepen and personalize the knowledge he constructs.

Instead of teaching every child in the same way, the authors suggest, and describe, a differentiated classroom, in which students and teachers are respected, students are provided many interesting learning options and open-ended problems, teachers explore students' abilities and interests, students are provided challenging tasks that match their readiness, and teachers use various methods of grading and assessment.

HOW NEW SCIENCE CURRICULUMS REFLECT BRAIN RESEARCH. Lowery, L. Educational Leadership, 1998, 56(3), 26-30. With recent information available on how the brain works, why are math and science still being taught as show-and-tell activities? Lowery offers an alternative in describing several math and science projects funded by the National Science Foundation that capitalize on the newest discoveries about how we learn.

The author advocates hands-on activities, reading after meaningful experiences in order to enrich and extend learning, and the use of rehearsals to add something new. Finally, one of the most salient points is that proper progression of important concepts from grade level to grade level is crucial for understanding and for connecting new knowledge with prior knowledge.

WHAT DO WE KNOW FROM BRAIN RESEARCH? Wolfe, P., & Brandt, R. Educational Leadership, 1998, 56(3), 8-13. Wolfe and Brandt present an interesting look at the 1990s, which has been termed the Decade of the Brain, and contemplate neuroscience findings' implications for education. The authors explain that more has been learned about the brain during the past 5 years than in the previous 100 years. While recent neural findings may have altered medical practice, however, its application to teaching practice has been slow to arrive.

Practical suggestions provided in this article include establishing an enriched environment for children, providing sensory stimulation, permitting social interactions, and encouraging active participation in learning. Wolfe and Brandt are quick to point out, however, that educators should analyze the facts before applying new discoveries. They suggest that brain research may never reveal specific teaching methodologies.