Towards a Theory of Visual Learning

Learning can be seen as a mental function that relies on the acquisition of knowledge (of
different types and range) that is grounded in information – whether specific or perceived.
What is learned is used as the basis of further learning, skills, values, belief systems,
ideologies and competences. The visual learning process is one that can be seen to
underpin others (cf. Ostensiveness: Piaget, 1953.) The assumptions that follow are drawn
from current thinking about the relationships between what we see, what we remember
and what we know. They help to explain why visual learning may be important, and how a
range of technologies may contribute to these processes.

What Science suggests

Connections in the brain are constantly changing: they are not hardwired (Greenfield,
2003). The synapses relating to vision peak at around 10 months. The density of these
synapses then declines and stabilises around 10 years of age. It is the pattern, however,
rather than the number of connections that is most important. In terms of cognitive
development there are ‘windows of time’ in the developing brain: critical periods for neural
connections and pathways (Hubel & Weisel, 1981). The concept of plasticity is relevant
here, in terms of the ways in which organisms adapt to environmental stimulus – in
particular the brain, and the ways in which it adapts to stimuli (Maturana & Varela, 1981.)
Plasticity refers to the ways in which brain structures can change to better cope with the
environment: neurons or synapses can change their internal parameters in response to
inputs and stimuli. The theory of neuroplasticity (Shaw & McEachern, 2001) describes the
ways in which thinking, learning, and acting actually change both the brain’s physical
structure and functional organization from top to bottom.

Within the cortex, one region looks different from another, not because the function is
different, but because of what it is connected to. However, all cortical regions perform a
common function or algorithm (Mountcastle, 1978). Vision is no different from hearing,
which is no different from motor output. Cortical connections across the different regions of
the cortex are genetically determined.

What does this mean for Visual Learning?

The stimuli that come from the senses of sight and hearing are not the same, although
there is a similarity in the way in which the cortex processes the signals. Therefore the
cortex is dividing itself into task-specific functional areas long into childhood. The
importance of plasticity is that the wiring of the neurocortex can change and rewire itself.
The brain regions develop specialised functions based on information flowing in during the
process of development.

The sequence can be simplified as:

Visual information à optic nerve fibres à thalamus à primary visual cortex

These inputs from visual information are converted: the inputs become neural signals.
These neural signals act as ‘action potentials’, or spikes, and are partly chemical and
partly electrical.
Each set of patterns is experienced differently, but the input to the brain is no different for
visual, aural, sensual, motor signals or stimuli.

Is Visual Learning more powerful?

Vision relies on both spatial and temporal patterns, which are constantly changing over
time, unless we simply look at unmoving object, with no change in either the lighting or our
own position. The visual input is more likely, therefore, to generate a greater number of
‘action potentials’ than other stimuli.

The processes through which memory leads to recall are based on pattern sequences and
temporal or spatial patterns recreated from partial versions of pattern sequences known as
invariance. These invariant forms are stored in the cortical memory and reconstructed.

Cortical memory
The reconstruction of visual memory within the cortex can be represented as:

Storing sequences à auto-associative recall à predictive ability à Invariant representations

Interactivity
Changes in input → increases in range of predictive ability

(Cf. Visual technologies in classrooms)

Predictive behaviours and abilities are based on prior behaviour and experience – for
example, the progression from Concrete through to Abstract thinking (Piaget). These can
be termed invariant representations.

Imagination
If we consider that way in which imagination works – “… seeing pictures in my head …” as
one child said – then the process that we use for making predictions is reversed to
produce neural inputs.

Predictive output → reversed → = → inputs

In this way the visualisation process is used for performative preparation, for example, by
athletes, technicians, craft workers, artists and so on.

The Mind
And as for the Mind, it’s what the Brain does …

Changing performance: the role of Mirror Neurons

Mirror neurons are a class of nerve cells in areas of the brain. They relay signals for
planning movement and carrying it out. The mirror system is activated when specific
actions are watched, even concentrating on a separate task (Muthukumaraswamy, 2007).
Motor systems in the brain are activated when a person observes an action being
performed: it suggests that we understand and learn to imitate the actions of others
through these brain mechanisms. Mirror neurons therefore reveal how children learn.

Mirror neurons fire in response to chains of actions linked to intentions. They then provide
a template for the individual to replicate, a model for analysis of others and for prediction.

Mirror neurons provide clues to how children learn: they are active from birth (Meltzoff,
2007). This suggests that human children are ‘hard-wired’ to learn through imitation, with
their mirror neurons involved in observing, and then practicing. Earlier studies – the theory
of Observational Learning (Bandura, 1986) suggest that an observer’s behaviour changes
after viewing the behaviour of a model. Findings from research into mirror neurons
provides additional support for the Observational Learning hypothesis, which was often
typified as simply constructed from causal connections. In fact, observation directly
improves muscle performance via mirror neurons. By watching a game, a performer will be
better able to predict what will happen next.

Re-defining interactivity
For the past ten years the term ’interactive whiteboard’ has produced discussion and
dissent, with a significant group of educationalists and researchers expressing concern
that the technology did not, in fact, appear to lead to a shift in pedagogy on the part of
users – and that the technology seemed to reinforce traditional modes of pedagogy, rather
than those considered ‘interactive’ (Moss et al, 2007).

It may be helpful, however, to reconsider the notion of interactivity in the context of

technology use, and see it in terms of the interaction between the visual objects and the
ways in which these are processed. Changes in input, the ways in which mirror neurons
process the inputs and the impact on memory and imagination, may be more significant
than the preferred pedagogical approach of a teacher.

Implications for Education: why Visual Learning is powerful

Vision relies on both spatial and temporal patterns. These patterns are constantly
changing over time. This visual input therefore generates a greater number of ‘action
potentials’ than other stimuli (e.g., aural).

The use of visual display technologies provides an easy focus for learners. By the visual
sequencing a learning process mirror neurons can be fired and the sequence then
replicated, modelled and applied to other contexts – a powerful reinforcement in
mathematics education, for example (Averis et al, 2005).

When we talk about interactivity (as, for example, with interactive whiteboards), the
concept of interactivity should not necessarily be predicated solely in terms of the human
actors. It is much more between the learner and the display – and the ways in which there
are constantly changing visual inputs, and therefore more ‘action potentials’.

These changes in input produce increases in the range of visual memory, predictive ability
and in the visualisation process, with mirror neurons an integral part of the process.
It should be stressed, however, that there are innate differences in perception: whilst a
number of observers witness the same events, neither the ‘action potentials’ or the
outcomes are necessarily identical.

References
Averis, D., Glover, D., Miller, D. (2005) Presentation and Pedagogy: The Effective Use of
Interactive Whiteboards in Mathematics Lessons.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Cuthell, J. P. (2005a) The Impact of Interactive Whiteboards on Teaching, Learning and

Attainment. In Price, J., Willis, D., Davis, N., & Willis, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2005
(pp. 1353 – 1355) Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in
Education

Cuthell, J. P. (2005a) The Impact of Interactive Whiteboards on Teaching, Learning and

Attainment. In Price, J., Willis, D., Davis, N., & Willis, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2005
(pp. 1353 – 1355) Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in
Education

Cuthell, J. P. (2006) Tools for Transformation: The Impact of Interactive Whiteboards in a

range of contexts. In Crawford, C. M., Carlsen, R., McFerrin, K., Price, J. Weber, R., Willis,
D. A. (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2006 (pp. 1491 – 1497) Norfolk, VA: Association for the
Advancement of Computing in Education

Cuthell, J. P (2008) The Use of Visualisers in Schools http://tinyurl.com/8s2p9x Accessed

18.01.09

Greenfield, S. (2003) Tomorrow’s People. London. Allen Lane.

Hubel, D. H., Weisel, T.N. (1981) Nobel Prize in Physiology for their discoveries
concerning information processing in the visual system

Kennewell, S. (2006) Reflections on the interactive whiteboard phenomenon: a synthesis

of research from the UK Swansea School of Education. The Australian Association for
Research in Education

Maturana, H. R., Varela, F. J. (1980) Autopoiesis and Cognition. Dordrecht, Holland: D.

Reidel.

Meltzoff, A. N., & Brooks, R. (2007). Intersubjectivity before language: Three windows on
preverbal sharing. In S. Bråten (Ed.), On being moved: From mirror neurons to empathy
(pp. 149-174). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

Moss, G., Jewitt, C., Levacic, R., Armstrong, V., Cardini, A. & Castle, F. (2007) The
Interactive Whiteboards, Pedagogy and Pupil Performance Evaluation: An Evaluation of
the Schools Whiteboard Expansion (SWE) Project: London Challenge Institute of
Education DfES Research Report No 816
Mountcastle, V. (1978) An Organising Principle for Cerebral Function: The unit module and
the distributed system. In Edelman, G. M., & Mountcastle, V. B. (1979). The Mindful Brain
(pp. 17-49). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Muthukumaraswamy, S.D., Johnson, B.W., Gaetz, W.C., Cheyne, D.O. (2006). Neural
Processing of Observed Oro-Facial Movements Reflects Multiple Action Encoding
Strategies in the Human Brain. Cognitive Brain Research, 1071, 105-112.

Piaget, J. (1953), The Origin of Intelligence in the Child, London, Routledge and Kegan
Paul.

Shaw, C., McEachern, J. (2001) Toward a Theory of Neuroplasticity. Hove, Sussex:

Psychology Press. Taylor & Francis

Smith, F., Hardman, F., Higgins, S. (2007) The impact of interactive whiteboards on
teacher-pupil interaction in the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies 2006. British
Educational Research Journal Volume: 32 Number: 3 pp. 437-451 ISBN/ISSN: 0141-1926