<-- click here to return to the graphics version of this page
<-- click here to return to the Model introduction
Pat Wolf and Ron Brandt (1998), in an article about interpreting brain research for the classroom, point out that, "we have learned more about the brain in the past five years than in the past 100 years. Nearly 90 percent of all the neuroscientists who have ever lived are alive today. Nearly every major university now has interdisciplinary brain research teams." They caution teachers about oversimplifying the connections between the science of how the brain learns and the use of this information in the classroom, urging teachers not to use neuroscience findings to promote "pet" programs or to adopt policies. (To read PBS articles about the challenges of applying brain research to education policy, click here. ) Instead, Wolf and Brandt urge educators to "develop a functional understanding of the brain and its processes" so that they won't be vulnerable to "pseudoscientific fads, inappropriate generalizations, and dubious programs." However, they also remind us that educators, with their solid background in teaching and learning based on experience, educational research, and cognitive science, are in a good position to figure out how research "does or does not supplement, explain, or validate current practices."
The constructivist view of learning is supported by what researchers are learning about the physical processes in the brain. Learning is active, not passive. As we suggest with our theoretical model for teaching in the community college, each unique learner, in an environment, constructs individual meaning. Or, as Abbott and Ryan (1999) put it, "Constructivist learning is the dynamic interaction between the environment and the individual brain." Constructivism and "brain-based" learning, however, have their share of naysayers. First, tension exists between advances in brain research and existing paradigms in cognitive psychology and other fields. Ron Brandt, in "Educators Need to Know About the Human Brain" describes one area of tension: the old nature vs. nurture debate. Researchers who don't agree with constructivist ideas have built much of their work on the idea that the brain's capabilities are built in. These researchers believe the brain's adaptations occur through natural selection rather than by rewiring in response to experience.
Other researchers (think of Marian Diamond's work with rats and enriched environments) are intrigued with the "plasticity" of the brain and contend that the environment helps shape the individual brain (Brandt, 1999). Educators can see how these two views are complementary rather than opposing by considering the idea that we have an "evolved, modular" brain. Richard Restak, a neurologist, explains the modular brain like this: lots of modules linked together, with no one module in charge of the others, and with no overall supervisory center to which all areas report (Brandt, 1999). This modular system, evolved over millions of years, is hardwired for certain tasks (and therefore those capabilities are not necessarily acquired through experience). However, experience (environment) fine tunes the living system.
The metaphor for the brain that once seemed so appropriate (the brain as a computer) now seems too simplistic. The brain is more than a processor. It's a flexible, self-adjusting, unique living system (Abbott & Ryan, 1999). Like an ecosystem, the brain is made up of parts functioning as a whole. Also, just like in an ecosystem, one small incident can create changes in the system. For example, an experience that generates strong emotions can effect change in the brain. The resilient brain protects itself and adapts to its environment.
Renate and Geoffrey Caine (1994) in Making Connections, Teaching and the Human Brain, use the metaphor of the brain as a living city:
By the time of birth there is a definite organization to the human brain. We arrive with some of the basic equipment that allows us to interact with the world around us . . . The developed areas of the brain are largely survival oriented. They control basic functions such as eating, eliminating, breathing, the maintenance of body temperature, and sleep. In addition, we appear to have some basic capacities that already allow us to look for patterns.
The Caines contend that "at least as important as genetically programmed brain development is what has been called "brain plasticity . . . the physical structure of the brain changes as the result of experience." So, where does all of this leave us as educators? Ron Brandt (1999) gives us good common sense advice: we can combine what we are learning about brain science with what we can draw from other fields (cognitive psychology, social sciences, anthropology), with education research, and with our own experience in the classroom to "illuminate our understanding."
As Khaki, Annette, and I designed our own theoretical model for the creation of learning experiences in the community college, we found ourselves squarely in the constructivist camp, but we continue to wrestle with the idea of "brain-based" learning, and we acknowledge the gap between current brain research and practical application in the classroom. However, we also believe that as educators, we are in a unique position to help close the gap between education theory and current research in brain science. One approach is to ask scientists to take a look at what we want them to study. For example, as Lisa was reading How the Brain Learns, by David Sousa, she became intrigued with the idea of how nutrition might help us strengthen the myelin sheath. She could read more about this and ask the researchers about how this connects to learning in the college classroom. We should work hand-in-hand with researchers, helping them direct the research. We can help make connections between our classroom experience, science research, and social/psychological research. As Robert Sylwester argues:
We ought to look at brain research as a way to simply explore ideas as they come along and try them out. Teachers have this marvelous brain laboratory in the classroom; they've got 30 brains floating around, four of five feet off the ground, 100 pounds of brain tissue that they can study all day long. They can look at these brains and engage them in activities; they can try to find out how students feel, how long they were able to stay attentive, and what they learned. That's what I think teachers ought to do. (qtd. in D’Arcangelo, 1998)
Furthermore, as Susan Fitspatrick (a neuroscientist at the McDonnell Foundation) points out, what we are learning now is at such a simplistic level, we may find out that we're wrong two years from now (Wolf & Brandt, 1998). Think about, for example, how the various "models" illustrating our understanding of atomic structure changed as advances in technology improved our ability to "see" the structure! Ideally, we'd like to pin down exactly how the brain learns and how we can use that information in our classrooms, but common sense reminds us of the the gap between the research and the classroom. However, it's important to remember that the purpose of neuroscience is not to tell us what to do in the classroom. It's to study how the brain works. We should develop our basic understanding of how the brain learns. Then we can use our own knowledge about teaching and learning to figure out how the science may inform our teaching. In addition, as educators we should think about how we can help researchers shape their inquiries into how the brain works. Again, we can ask the questions that will help direct their research (Wolf & Brandt, 1998).
In addition, understanding the physical world "behind" the abstractions of teaching theory (and our theoretical model) will help us make sense of the abstractions. Think about it this way: it's important for students to understand abstractions such as algebra and writing as representations of the physical world. For example, when we understand the physical movement of an object, and that we might want to predict further movement, we understand the purpose for algebraic functions. Similarly, learning about the living system of the brain, and how the brain learns, will help us understand teaching theory and create meaningful learning experiences for our students.
Good teachers know that people learn the best when they are engaged in experiences that fascinate them. We all know, for example, that people engaged in hobbies they love exhibit a love of learning that we'd love to see grow in our students. Most of us also know young people who love video games and can operate the various hardware systems and software and maneuver complex games with incredible success. Think about what's happening when an adolescent gets a new computer game. She uses prior knowledge, adapts that to the new rules and structure of the new game, and can predict future application of what she has learned. Playing the game involves the whole mind/body including sensory stimulation, appropriate level of challenge, and humor. And, although we've heard much concern about video/computer game playing isolating young people, the fact is the games are often played in groups, and the social interaction surrounding the world of the gamers can be intense. Why are we surprised at how quickly and efficiently these learners figure out game strategies, given the learning experience? We're not suggesting, of course, that video games become part of the curriculum (although asking students to develop a video game that teaches MLA documentation, for example, might be interesting). Rather, we're suggesting that we carefully examine life experiences our students find engaging, and that we examine what brain science tells us about WHY the brain finds these experiences engaging, so that we can use this information in the classroom to design meaningful learning experiences.
Educators at the elementary and secondary levels have made significant strides in applying current understanding of how the brain works in their settings, but we have not found comparable efforts at the community college level. Yet, since we've become involved in this work, we've come to believe that taking what we know about the how the brain works and applying it to community college level is not only beneficial but also essential. Our model consists of three parts: valuing the unique learner, creating learning-centered environments and the constructing individual meaning. It's artificial to break apart any discussion of how the brain works to say that, for example, this process is related to what makes a learner unique, this process is related to creating a learning-centered environment, or that another process is related to the construction of meaning. Instead, think of the three sections of our theoretical model as three lenses through which to study learning, or as a living system for creating meaningful learning experiences. I've used the word "living" here to connote that our theoretical model is like tree we have grown from our interest in learning. The seed is now a tree -- growing, changing, needing pruning from time to time, interacting with its environment, and, occasionally, blossoming!
About
Us
Model
Resources
Classroom Applications
Community
Additional Learning
Opportunities
Site Map
Home