The amount of data available on the Internet is mind-boggling. When tasked with learning something new, I find myself drawn to Google as a stepping off point. I can literally get lost in searches as one reveals an interesting link to another. In researching learning and information processing during my Learning Theories class discussion forum, I came across an new site called The Dana Foundation, an organization dedicated to brain research and education. The amount of information on this site is astonishing, from publications to webcasts and blogs. Where did I begin? I chose the neuroeducation link to start my exploration.As I scanned the titles in the neuroeducation section, I honed right in on the "Neuromyths in Education: Prevalence and predictors of misconceptions of teachers" article published in Frontiers for Educational Psychology (Dekker, Lee, Howard-Jones & Jelles, 2012). This caught my eye because of the quiz on neuromyths that Dr. Weaver posted in our class discussion forum. It used the same quiz and analyzed the results from teachers in the UK and the Netherlands. I expect that the results would be similar if given to educators in the U.S. as well. One of the statements that was most frequently missed by teachers, including myself, was the idea that we have different learning styles and learn when the delivery method matches our natural learning style. I was shocked to see my answer was wrong, the Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences (Lane, n.d.) was at the foundation of my teacher training only 13 years ago. If you are having a hard time believing it as well, I re-posted the link that Dr. Weaver shared discussing the current research by Willingham (2009) below. My take away was that it is more about the style of the content rather than the learner that matters. For example, if the content is kinesthetic in nature, such as learning to knit, then the best teaching method should involve kinesthetic instruction. I also think that regardless of the style of the learner, educators should focus on multiple delivery methods to allow for better connections to be made by the students. Dr. Ormrod discusses the idea of encoding information as it is learned and if we can encode in multiple ways, i.e. visually and auditorily, then we are more likely to retain and retrieve that information (Laureate Education, Inc., 2009).
-->
So back to this myth, is this myth so prevalent because of the lack of up-to-date research in teacher training programs? "Incorporating neuroscience courses into initial teacher training could enhance neuroscience literacy among teachers" (Dekker, et. al., 2012). While I agree this definitely might be a factor, I would have to argue that this myth also prevails because few educators continue to explore current research in their practice. The article also states: "for future research, it is important to examine where teachers’ incorrect ideas originate (e.g., books, colleagues, commercial companies) and to perform intervention studies directed at increasing teacher competence in understanding the functioning of the brain" (Dekker, et. al., 2012). The question is where is there room for this in our current professional development model? I would love to hear some of your thoughts.
Another article I came across separately truly pairs well with my discussion above. It was written by a neurologist turned educator and offers great reflection on the need for neuroeducation for teachers. Willis (2012) states:
Beyond understanding the brain's neuroplastic response to stimulation -- how activation and use of memory networks makes them stronger -- future teachers need to recognize how stress inhibits neuroplasticity. It is only when information is processed in the brain's reflective, cognitive prefrontal cortex that new learning can be incorporated into networks of long-term, conceptual memory. When teachers know about the brain's reactions to the stressors that promote the low brain control state of involuntary, reactive behavior, they become more aware of how much they can influence students' successful brain processing.
Dr. Willis' statements made me think of the concept of activation discussed by Ormrod, Schunk, and Gredler (2008). They mention that "the active state for memory is maintained as long as it is attended to and without attention the activation level will decay" (Ormrod, Schunk, & Gredler, 2008, p. 54). I think that multiple stressors can be present in our students at all ages and this can directly impact their attention and thus their learning. We need to constantly be aware of how these outside forces are playing on the process of learning in our classroom and not just simply require that our students pay better attention to the lesson. How many of us can say that this kind of learning was part of our teacher preparation program? In fact, I recall after taking my introductory educational psychology class during my teacher licensure program, that the school decided to cut this class as part of the mandatory training!
Branching away from neuroeducation for teachers, I stumbled across an interesting article on new methods of teaching. The article highlights research done using a method of teaching called "deliberate practice" in which students actively participated in the discovery of the content through collaborative discussion and problem-solving. The method seemed similar to Problem-Based-Learning techniques that I have experienced in the past and seems to lend particularly well to the understanding of the sciences.
 |
| From: agilitrix.com |
The study on "deliberate practice" seemed to validate that there are "benefits to increasing student engagement in their own learning,” and that "it is not just gathering data that matters but also using it to generate relevant discussion of key questions and issues" (Mervis, 2011). The research is interesting because it seems to support the idea of cognitive constructivist theory and that teaching and learning needs to be an active and authentic process (Chen, I., n.d.). I look forward to exploring constructivist theory further as we delve deeper into learning theories and their connection to instructional design.
References:
Chen, I. (n.d.). Overview of cognitive constructivism. An electronic textbook on instructional technology. Retrieved from: http://viking.coe.uh.edu/~ichen/ebook/et-it/cognitiv.htm#overview January 20, 2013.
Dekker, S., Lee, N.C., Howard-Jones, P., and Jolles, J. (2012) Neuromyths in
education: Prevalence and predictors of misconceptions among teachers. Frontiers of Educational Psychology 3:429. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00429
-->
Laureate
Education, Inc. (Producer). (2009). Information processing and the brian.
[DVD]. Baltimore, MD: Dr. Ormrod.
Mervis, J. (2012, May 12). A better way to teach? Science. Retrieved from: http://news.sciencemag.org
Ormrod, J., Schunk, D., & Gredler, M. (2009). Learning
theories and instruction (Laureate custom edition). New York: Pearson.
Willis, J. (2012, July 27). A neurologist makes the case for teaching teachers about the brain. [blog message]. Retrieved from the Edutopia blog: http://www.edutopia.org/blog/neuroscience-higher-ed-judy-willis
