Question 2: What is the case for pursuing “brain-compatible” teaching for higher order thinking for all students?

            “The time has come for us to apply the results of brain science research to improving education as a social technology,” writes Kobayashi (2004) director of Child Research Net.  We now know that intelligence is correlated with one’s environment--genes are not the end of the story. Uniting the biological being with its social counterpart is imperative for education outcomes. Our social world is vitally important in shaping our minds and brain. The question is how do we, as educators, meld the two together; thereby, creating students who can successfully compete in the 21^st century?

              Instead of working in the factories of the past, students are entering the communication age (Caine and Caine, 1997). Living and working in this world requires definitive skills. Our current education system fosters the attitudes that only experts can produce knowledge for teachers to espouse and students must store and retrieve that knowledge for a grade. However, “trying to control knowledge the way we are used to is beginning to look like holding water in our hands.”  Correspondingly, the above methodology is not how the brain learns best. “The brain processes parts and wholes simultaneously” searching associated memory to make sense of new knowledge, while at the same time finding an emotional connection.  These factors combined with our 21^st century needs require a paradigm shift in education.

            Caine and Caine propose a new model of thinking whereby the teacher facilitates “the making of dynamic knowledge,” developed from deciphering and synthesizing real life experiences and assessed via a real life outcome.  These skills are imperative within the new global economy. The Partnership For 21^st Century Skills, at http://www.21stcenturyskills.org, advocates the following parameters for students to be marketable and responsible, educated citizens.

• Think critically and make adequate judgments from the plethora of knowledge interfaced from all avenues of life.
• Be able to solve complex, multifaceted problems which are common in today’s workplace. More than one answer may be applicable in any given situation. Many variables are present in today’s workforce. Students must be able to navigate their problem solving territory.
• Develop creative solutions and think along the lines of an entrepreneur. This not only applies to the workplace. Many have established at home careers, proving to be lucrative and essential.
• Have the ability to interface, communicate and work jointly with those who speak other languages, live in another country and have different cultural beliefs, etc.
• Knowing how to assimilate and disseminate information while creating new opportunities. Companies are always looking for better ways to compete.
• Be responsible for one’s health, finances and public responsibilities. Today involves skillful maneuvering through diverse and sometimes complicated health plans and money making/saving options. Wrong decisions can result in regrettable outcomes.

In my opinion, these skills can be attained through brain-based learning and teaching. In fact, the brain thrives when creating, assimilating, deciphering and problem solving. Interestingly, there are those who disagree with such a push toward 21^st century skill building. Greg Toppo (2009), in USA Today, claims (1) Teachers “find it difficult to actually teach children to think creatively or collaborate.” And (2) Students “rarely get better at the very skills” advocated by 21^st Century Skills. First, if teachers are feeling inadequate then they must learn. Professional development needs to address these issues. Second, I believe students can achieve much success with collaborative educational formats. In my classes cooperative learning unfolds after students have learned relative content. Sometimes students get to choose the content, which I believe encourages student commitment to the assigned task. A committed, successful student whose self esteem has been nurtured will thrive in the world.

I share one other example. A student, not in one of my classes, has been pursuing an online course in forensic medicine. I am often in need of the same computer work area she now occupies. This young woman is excited and completely engaged in her project. We have wonderful, articulate conversations about what she has learned, which I am sure is more than ever would have occurred in the traditional classroom. Toppo emphasizes the importance of content.  Yet, a highly respected college professor, more than 15 years ago, told me that being able to access, synthesize and analyze knowledge is more important than memorizing?” Those words greatly impacted my pedagogy. I want my students prepared for future college and work experiences. They need to be able to do more than just regurgitate information.

Several organizations have collaborated and compiled a Framework for 21^st Century Learning (http://www.21stcenturyskills.org). These organizations include major corporations including, Dell, Ford Motor Company, Verizon, Hewlett Packard and a host of others, thriving in the world market. They believe the following are vital to student success for future employment.

·      Core subjects need to incorporate themes related to global issues, health and civic literacy and economic/business/financial comprehension.

·      Students must be able to create, problem solve, communicate effectively and work cooperatively with others.

·      Effective and competent technology skills are a must, including media and information literacy.

·      Work environments today need employees who are flexible, can adapt, are self-directed, productive, accountable, possess leadership skills, and can effectively engage cultural and social differences.

We, as teachers, have an obligation to prepare capable and qualified students. Present brain research gives us the knowledge and tools required to prepare those students. Dr. James Zull, favors a whole brain approach to education (2003).  Collecting and decoding information, building new thought forms then acting upon newly synthesized knowledge impacts all aspects of the brain. How to go about this process is an “art”, according to Zull, involving teacher understanding and implementation of varied techniques. “The art is the skill of finding the parts of existing networks that are ‘right’ and helping the student attach new things to them which generate more complete understanding.” These networks (neural connections) will change and grow according to stimulus. Unless interest and emotional attachment is given by the student these networks simply do not respond due to habituation. Dispenza (2007) explains that once a neural network is hardwired into the brain it becomes an unconscious process that is “tuned out”. Students stop responding to learning in the same old environment. Conversely, providing a stimulating climate involving modifying and growing neural pathways via experience will cultivate brain development (Zull, http://www.sharpbrains.org, 24 May 2009).

Brain research from a multitude of sources indicates the importance brain-compatible teaching and learning. New findings coupled with those of the past indicate a strong correlation between active learning and brain development. Marion Diamond, Ph.D. (1999) is a proponent for “enriching the brain”. Her research has shown that nerve cells, contrary to popular belief, do divide and new cells grow depending upon environmental stimulus. These nerve cells, called glial cells, produce growth factors “playing a key role in regeneration and plasticity.” They also form myelin, a sheath of tissue surrounding nerve cells, which conducts electrical impulses between neurons. These impulses are the key to transfer of information within the brains circuitry.

Other interesting data related to auditory processing was gathered by Engineer, Peraccio and Kilgard in 2004. They found the plasticity of the brain is strongly influenced by enriched environments. Along with multiple activities available, rats were subjected to pleasant sounds and music, usually in response to their movements. The result was a dramatic increase “in the strength of auditory cortex responses,” which occurred in only a few days. Both young and older animals benefited. There are those who wish to discount research based on rat studies. It is with an open mind that we have discovered all we know today. It is with an open mind we should remain.

My experience with auditory stimulus, in the form of faced paced music, for certain activities in the classroom support Peraccio and Kilgard’s work. I presently have a group of students so full of lethargy that I have actually come into class asking, “Are you alive today?” No response. So…one day I started playing upbeat music while students reviewed concepts and related terms with each other from the days lesson. They would listen to me for a few minutes then I would listen to them. Students were instructed that I needed to hear their voices above the music. After the third round some gave up their ‘cool’ personas and were rhythmically moving their bodies. They were alive! More importantly test scores increased.

Jenson (2006) defends the importance of brain enrichment, with a quote from Eric Kandel, who was given the Nobel Prize for physiology in 2000. “The subjective experiences of human consciousness, our perception of free will, behavior, and social dynamics can modulate gene expression, and vice versa…These social influences will be biologically incorporated…in the brain.” The brain is malleable toward greater intelligence given the right environment.

 Daniel G. Amen, M.D., in his book, Magnificent Mind At Any Age, literally shows us how the brain can physically change in response to outside stimuli (2008). Through years of research and studying thousands of SPECT (single photon emission computed tomography) brain scans, Amen gives us a new perspective on the brain’s power to change. He has worked extensively with ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder) children and adults. Simply by providing supplements, exercises and sometimes medication his patients live happier and more productive lives. It is important to note, according to Amen’s work, treatment is brain specific. One person with ADD may have pronounced activity in one area of the brain, while another may have little. Treatment will be different for each of these individuals. I wonder how many of our students just need a supplement or two and a specified exercise routine for their brain’s to function better.

Amen’s profound work illustrates how one’s physical, mental and emotional environment actually shapes the brain. For an interesting journey into the many anomalies of brain structures, http://www.amenclinics.com offers thousands of brain images. These images are a testament to our brain’s ability to transform. With concentrated efforts this transformation can be dramatic. An experiment in the 1970’s with stroke victims, even those paralyzed for 20 years, culminated in 75% of subjects being able to regain some movement, according to Dispenza (2007). Concentrated effort through visualization and re-mapping the brain were keys to their success. Dispenza, himself, after being hit by a car, while riding a bicycle, healed multiple factures associated with his spine. He was advised to have rods surgically implanted. When he refused he was told that the slightest movement could cause permanent paralysis. He chose to use his brain to heal his body and 10 weeks later went back to work. The brain can, obviously, do phenomenal things. Once, we as educators, understand its complexities and the best modalities for learning we will facilitate students ability to tap into themselves to generate greatness.

As an aside, I think, we as educators need to consider James Hillman’s work (1996), The Souls Code: In Search of Character and Calling. Within each individual lies uncovered potential and greatness. Hillman refers to this as our “acorn” which is waiting to be planted and grow. He cites several examples of those individuals, who upon the intervention of some wonderful teacher, developed into an extraordinary being. Truman Capote’s 11^th grade English teacher recognized her student’s intelligence. She looked beyond his reputed difficult behavior and began unearthing this famous writer.  John Henslow, a schoolmaster in 1831, recognized the hidden talents of Charles Darwin and persuaded him to accompany him on a science expedition. The rest, of course, is history.

Hillman also contributes several examples where schools/teachers were the nemesis of certain individuals. Thomas Edison--“I was always at the foot of the class.”…Ellen Glassgow—“School was ‘intolerable’.”…Albert Einstein—“I preferred to endure all sorts of punishment rather than to learn gabble by rote.” There is often a huge divide between how a child is perceived in school and their true capabilities. I wonder what would have unfolded, for the above individuals, if their “acorn” had been nurtured. If educators were to embrace brain-based learning and teaching, certainly we would be uncovering the “acorn” within more of our children.

How the brain learns and ways to reveal a student’s “acorn” are explicitly outlined by David Sousa (2006). The brain seeks novelty, meaning, connection and positive “self-concept.” These elements can be integrated in a variety of ways within the classroom.  A lesson that employs all parts of the brain will grab a student’s attention resulting in assimilating knowledge and experience to become a permanent part of the student’s “brain” capacity.

Given the many and varied functions of the brain, one can clearly see brain-based learning and teaching as an integral approach to education.  Students need to be moving, seeking, patterning and experiencing to optimize retention of material. “Movement is the only thing that unites all brain levels and integrates the right and left hemispheres of young learners,” writes Maria Barron (2009).  She adds brain hemispheres are not fully communicating until around 9-10 for girls and puberty for boys. This is not the end of the story in my opinion; even teens need to be moving. Sousa agrees, when the cerebellum is stimulated it affects all parts of the brain. Any modest activity can increase blood flow bringing oxygen and nutrients which will increase function. Movement involving muscle also stimulates axon growth.  Howard (2000) cites a study from The Pasteur Institute in Paris, revealing larger numbers of axons are “directly related to intelligence.” 

A discussion of memory and emotion is required at this point; they are absolutely linked to each other.  How we teach our students must naturally involve a way to create emotional attachment. We used to believe that emotion was processed in one part of the brain, the limbic system consisting of the thalamus, hypothalamus, hippocampus and amygdale. Candice Pert (1997) tells us, in her ground breaking research, receptor sites for molecules related to emotion are present everywhere in the body, not just the brain. Furthermore, memories are stored throughout the body, “…the fact that memory is encoded…means that memory processes are emotion-driven.”  

The impact of emotions on learning is clarified by Sousa (2006) in How The Brain Learns. Classroom climate and learning content illicit two forms of memory associated with emotions. Implicit memories are imparted in a positive environment, stimulate the frontal lobes and lead to feelings of elation. A negative climate, on the other hand, incites anxiety and provokes a fight or flight response. Explicit memories are those instructional activities emotionally connecting students to content. Outcome of student learning and retention of material is directly related to emotional connections made within the classroom.

Further support for emotional alliance comes from Dispenza, citing a particular experiment involving two groups of people watching movies. One group, the control group, viewed movies without any constraints. The other group was advised to stay emotionally detached from what they were watching. Members of the control group who had emotional experiences were able to recall far more details of each movie. The above evidence gives much credence for developing emotional ties to learning modules to enhance knowledge and sustain retention. 

A discussion concerning special education is relevant at this point. How does brain-based learning and teaching effect those diagnosed with learning difficulties? Brain-based learning and teaching will, certainly, lead to more success for such a student. It is not only the “normal brain” that benefits from such teaching methods. Of course, as with any program implementation, allocated monies are directly correlated to their success. Weac.org points out in Special Education Inclusion, “…best results occur in schools with the highest level of funding.” Beyond this issue much can still be done via brain-based learning that can augment the lives all students. Recommendations for the inclusion of special education students, at Weac.org, clearly promote brain-based ideologies: higher order thinking skills, interdisciplinary modules and multicultural and life-centered curriculum. They also advocate some marvelous concepts for student/teacher success such as team-teaching, peer partnering and study team planning. (Oh…what we could do with adequate funding.)

As an added contemplation I must include some discourse on Thomas Armstrong’s (2005) intriguing article titled Special Education and The Concept of Neurodiversity. His perspective is not only inclusive of all students but reminds us of the intrinsic value of all learning capabilities. Just because a particular student cannot perform in a specified manner as adjudicated by the present system does not mean a lack of intelligence resides.  In Armstrong’s model of education “there is no norm…the neurodiversity-based educator will have a deep respect for each child’s differences and seek ways to bring together optimal joining of nature and nurture.” Jensen (2006) agrees informing us that there is a plethora of working environments available in the 21^st century. Not all students were made to fit just a few specific niches. I am fortunate to offer a personal experience. One of my last semester’s Health classes consisted of all college bound students, save one. Heterogeneous grouping somehow evaded this group. My one special education student had various learning difficulties, but he was brilliant in one area all the others lacked, computer savvy. Students were instructed to develop a commercial (DVD/video) and imbed its contents into a power point presentation. Their topic: “Real Messages From Advertising”. Students did a fantastic job creating commercials, but when it came time to interface with the computer many problems ensued. It was my “special education student” who came to the rescue in every case. His computer literacy skills far surpassed the ‘college bound’ group. Surely, this young man’s talents should be nurtured into a prosperous future instead of labeled and his opportunities restricted.

Another example from Forbes, Buckland, Cunningham, et. Al (2001) illustrates how ‘learning disabled’ students are just as capable as ‘normal’ students. A study skills course engaged several learning parameters. Students focused on how the brain works. They made models, navigated web quests and played creative games on a weekly basis. Their final project consisted of a power point presentation on the brain and learning. Each student was given the responsibility of evaluating other student work. Before open house all projects were put onto the computer for parent viewing. Such an enriched environment produced many positive outcomes. The most important in my mind is the pride of students and parents alike, not to mention the teacher. It has been my experience that student success leads to more student success.

I will close this section with an actual case study, The Effects of Brain-Based Learning on Academic Achievement Retention of Knowledge in Science Course completed by Muhammet Ozden and Mehmet Gltekin (2009). Two groups of 5^th graders, from Abdurrahman Pasa primary School, were chosen to participate in the study. Groups were pre-tested and matched according to skill and background. The control group was given traditional instruction; the experimental group immersed in brain-based learning methods, six class hours per week, for three weeks. Both groups were given pre-tests to ascertain knowledge on the physics topics of Movement and Power. Students were tested at the end of three weeks. There was an 8.07 difference in the mean scores favoring brain based learning students. This was not the most significant finding, however. Students were tested again three weeks later to determine retention. This time a 14.55 difference was found for the brain-based group.

It is evident from this study that brain-based teaching and learning techniques facilitated student learning to a higher degree. The fact that a higher percentage of students were able to retain information three weeks later is of great importance, since it will nurture understanding and integration of material to come, along with supporting associative memory patterns.