Unit 1

NEUROEDUCATION:
BRAIN SCIENCE
MEETS EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

1. Introduction
2. Practical Assignment 1
3. Readings
 UNIT 1

NEUROEDUCATION:
BRAIN SCIENCE MEETS EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

INTRODUCTION

It has become customary for interdisciplinary fields of study (i.e., sciences involving
more than one discipline) to be named with compound words. Neuroeducation is a case
in question. Now, there are at least two ways of interpreting this label. On the one hand,
it refers to an approach to educational research and practice that is informed by
neuroscience, that is to say, the science studying brain organization and processes. On
the other hand, it may also be viewed as meaning “education of the brain,” and this
interpretation would not be incorrect at all.

Neuroeducation is, as stated above, an interdisciplinary field. Thus, in order to

understand how the field works, we need to understand how its related disciplines
interact in it. The readings included in this unit will give you an answer to such a query.
Now, what all of its immediately related disciplines share is the belief that learning of
any kind is the result of electrochemical processes taking place at brain level. So, if a
teacher is to foster learning in a given group of individuals, he or she must have some
knowledge of how the brain works, how it processes information, how its ability to
build mental representations of the world around us can be enhanced or hindered by
both internal and external factors.

Professionals involved in neuroeducation, either as teachers or as scientists, hold

the strong conviction that all learning occurs in the brain. Not just words, mathematical
formulas, historical dates and other types of encyclopedic information, but also
emotional, physical, and even aesthetic and moral aspects of the self are learned by and
represented in the brain.

Of course, no two brains are alike. This is, in fact, the main reason why no two
persons are alike. Our brains are shaped and re-shaped by the influence of two main

1
forces: one genetic endowment and our personal experience. One of the goals of
neuroeducation is to determine to what extent these factors can benefit or obstruct the
learning of specific types of information, and, more importantly, whether the limitations
they impose on individuals can be overridden by pedagogical intervention.

The genetic organization of all brain responds to the same general “biological
plan.” That is why all human brains, while unique in themselves, are more similar to
other human brains than to the brains of monkeys, cats, rats, or flies. This is a very
important point. No two human brains are identical, but neither are they entirely
different. The general aspects shared by all normal brain, alongside their disruption in
abnormal brains, enable neuroeducators to derive general conclusions applicable to all
students despite their evident individual differences.

Paradoxically, some of the most important pieces of evidence we have about

how the human brain functions are provided by the study of animal brains. Thanks to
experiments done with rats, for example, we have learned that fear –an aspect of the self
that is typically defined as a purely psychological or spiritual emotion– is the result of
biological processes, some of which are innate. All rats fear cats, even if they never saw
one. A rat does not learn to be afraid of a cat. A rat‟s automatic reaction upon seeing a
cat, that is to say, freezing, is genetically hard-wired. The rat possesses genetic
information making it keep still in the face of danger, because in the course of evolution
keeping still has proven the best thing for a potential prey to do, as movement excites
predators.

However, scientists have discovered that if a specific part of the brain (namely,
the amygdala) is damaged, the automatic reaction of freezing is eliminated. Thus, the
conclusion is that fear depends crucially on a physical, organic structure located within
the brain. One can continue defining fear as a psychological or spiritual phenomenon, as
long as one acknowledges that such psychological or spiritual phenomenon actually has
a genetic, cerebral basis.

Now, while genes shape the broad outline of our minds, experiences can have
profound effects on our beliefs, attitudes, knowledge, and behavior. What an individual
knows, how good he can be at something, how efficient he can become at incorporating

2
new information, these are all aspects of the self that are not entirely determined by
brain genetics. Every experience that we have –and I mean every experience, including
the sight of a flower, the taste of a cookie, the fear we felt as children in a pitch-dark
room, a teacher‟s voice-pitch– triggers an immediate reaction and adaptation in our
brains. This is precisely what learning consists in: the nurturing of nature, the
experience-based modification of hard-wired structures in our brains. One of the crucial
tasks of neuroeducation is to shed light on how this interaction takes place so that both
teaching and learning strategies can be designed in order to favor such natural
processes.

One key finding of neuroscience with major implications for education is that
most of the things we learn operate below the threshold of conscious awareness. In
other words, there are several brain functions that are not available to consciousness.
We believe many things and perform several actions without even knowing that we are
doing so. In fact, most brain functions are unconscious (e.g., regulating heart rate,
breathing rhythm, stomach contractions, and posture, as well as controlling many
aspects of seeing, smelling, behaving, feeling, speaking, thinking, etc.).

In this sense, neuroeducation emphasizes that students can never consciously

know everything that they learn, and that, by the same token, a teacher can never
consciously know everything that he is communicating. The understanding of how the
brain learns and what kind of information it can incorporate consciously is bound to
reveal key aspects about the educational process.

The readings in this unit will give you a clear idea of the origins, the scope, and
limitations of neuroeducation. But in order to fully grasp what innovations brings to the
fields of educational research and educational practice, it may be a good idea to review
the main principles of previous approaches. Since these have been covered in other
courses, I will just present a very succinct summary of their respective key tenets
regarding first language acquisition and foreign language learning:

3
1. PREVIOUS VIEWS ON FIRST LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

(a) The behaviorist position

 Traditional behaviorists believed that language learning is simply a matter of

imitation and habit formation.
 Children imitate the sounds and patterns which they hear around them and
receive positive reinforcement (which could take the form of praise or just
successful communication) for doing so, until they form habits of correct
language use.
 The quality and quantity of the language which the child hears and the
consistency of reinforcement, should have an effect on the child‟s success in
language learning.
 The behaviourists view imitation (word-for-word repetition) and practice
(repetitive manipulation of forms) as primary processes in language
development.
 Once structures have been grounded by repetition, the child stops imitating and
goes on to imitate new forms and structures.
 The choice of what to imitate is based on what he already knows, not simply on
what is available in the environment.

(b) The innatist position

 Chomsky: language develops in a child in the same way as other biological

functions. The child does not have to be taught, just as walking.
 Plato‟s problem.
 We‟re born with a special ability to discover the underlying rules of a language
system (originally termed LAD, then UG).
 LAD: a black box containing all and only the principles which are universal to
all languages. For the LAD to work, the child needs access only to samples of
the natural language.
 Support for Chomsky‟s innatism: 1) virtually all children learn language at a
time when no other process as complex could be expected to be learned – 2)
language they are exposed to does not contain examples of all the information

4
 which they eventually know - 3) they do it without anyone pointing which of the
sentences they hear and produce are correct and which are ungrammatical.
 Examples of reflexive pronouns.
 Critical period hypothesis: the LAD, like other biological functions, works
successfully only when it is stimulated at the right time.
 Strong version: if language is not acquired by puberty, it will never be acquired.
Weak version: acquisition will be more difficult and incomplete.
 Victor (wild child): he remained unreceptive to sounds other than those he heard
in the forest. (Strong version).
 Genie (abused and isolated): abnormal language development, inconsistency in
use of grammatical form and gap between comprehension and production.
(Weak version).

(c) The interactionist position

 Language develops as a result of the complex interplay between the uniquely

human characteristics of the child and the environment in which the child
develops. Unlike the innatists, the interactionists claim that language which is
modified to suit the capability of the learner is a crucial element in the language
acquisition process.
 Motherese or caretaker talk. Often limited to the „here and now‟, slower, etc.
 Evidence suggests that when parents do not consistently provide such modified
interaction they will still learn language, but these children may have access to
the modified speech when they are in the company of older siblings and other
adults.
 Jim (child of deaf parents): he just had contact with oral language via TV, and
the parents did not use sign language with him. He started language lessons with
a teacher. At first his language was inconsistent and abnormal. Then, it grew
solid and systematic.

5
2. PREVIOUS VIEWS ON FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING

(a) The behaviorist position

 All learning, verbal and non-verbal, takes place via habit formation.
 Errors are seen as first language habits interfering with the acquisition of second
language habits.
 Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH) predicts that where there are similarities
between the two languages, the learner will acquire target language structures
with ease. Where there are differences, the learner will have differences. (Le
chien le mange - Le chien mange le).
 Certain features of the first language are more transferable than others. For
example, most learners intuitively know that metaphorical or idiomatic
expressions cannot be translated word for word.

(b) Cognitive theory

 SLA is the process of building up knowledge systems that can eventually be

called on automatically for speaking or understanding. Gradually, through
experience and practice, learners become able to use certain parts of their
knowledge so quickly and automatically that they are not even aware that they
are doing it. This frees them to focus on other aspects which, in turn, gradually
become automatic.
 Restructuring: as new knowledge becomes systematized, the system is
restructured.
 Cognitive theory is not able to predict which FL structures will be transferred
and which will not.

(c) Creative construction theory

 Based on, but not discussed by, Chomsky.

 Learners are thought to construct internal representations of the language being
learned. Mental pictures of the target language which develop in predictable
stages in the direction of the full SL system.

6
  Internal processing strategies operate on language input without any direct
dependence on the learner actually producing the language. That is, the learner
need not actually speak or write in order to acquire language. Acquisition takes
place internally as learners read and hear samples of the SL. Speech and writing
of the learner are an outcome of the learning process rather than a cause or
something necessary for learning to occur.
 Krashen‟s 5 central hypothesis
 The acquisition-learning hypothesis.
 The monitor hypothesis: the acquired system acts to initiate the speaker‟s
utterances and is responsible for fluency and intuitive judgements about
correctness. The learned system acts as an editor or monitor. Three conditions
for monitor use: sufficient time, focus on form, and knowing the rules.
 The natural order hypothesis: we acquire the rules of language in a predictable
sequence (evidence comes from morpheme studies).
 The input hypothesis: we acquire language only by being exposed to
comprehensible input (Input plus 1).
 The affective filter hypothesis: an imaginary barrier which prevents learner from
using input which is available in the environment. Stress, self-consciousness or
lack of motivation will bring the filter up.

(d) The foreign language interactionist view

 They are concerned with how input is made comprehensible. They see
interactional modifications which take place in conversations between native
speakers and non-native speakers as the necessary mechanism for this to take
place.
 Some in this line claim that modified interaction is necessary for language
acquisition. It makes input comprehensible; comprehensible input promotes
acquisition; so interactional modification promotes acquisition.
 In fact, research shows that native speakers consistently modify their speech in
sustained conversation with non-native speakers. Comprehension checks,
clarification requests, self-repetition or paraphrase.

7
Now, the perspective offered by neuroeducation is quite different from all of the above.
Acquiring a given set of competencies (e.g., those involved in a first language) and
developing knowledge of any kind (e.g., the metalinguistic knowledge involved in
foreign language learning) involve the same general process: wiring and rewiring
synapses in the brain. The difference between first language acquisition and foreign
language learning has been shown to lie in the conscious or unconscious nature of the
information that the brain incorporates in each case (see Unit 2).
Ultimately, if we are what we know and what we learn, then who we are is
determined by our intimate brain processes. As LeDoux (2002) argues, the answer to
the question of how our brains make us who we are can be found in synaptic processes
that allow cooperative interactions to take place between the various brain systems that
are involved in particular states and experiences, and for these interactions to be linked
over time.

The following is a summary of the main tenets that neuroeducation researchers

and practitioners adhere to:

 You are your synapses.

 All aspects of self are synaptic (psychological, social, moral, aesthetic, spiritual).
 Each person has different genes and different experience. Both shape synaptic
organization.
 We all have a common genetic heritage, but we all have genetic differences.
 Genes make proteins wiring neurons together.
 Genes shape only broad outline of mind, but experiences can have profound
effects of behavior.
 Nature and nurture do the same thing: Feed synapses.
 Learning is the nurturing of nature.
 Memory is the synaptic result of learning.
 Genes bias our learning-based personality.
 Many processes are automatic, unconscious.
 The unconscious is the sum of the many things that the brain does that are not
available to consciousness.
 Most brain functions are unconscious (they include almost everything the brain
does, from standard body maintenance like regulating heart rate, breathing

8
 rhythm, stomach contractions, and posture, to controlling many aspects of
seeing, smelling, behaving, feeling, speaking, thinking, etc.).
 Neuroscientists accept that the brain creates the mind.
 There are both implicit (unconscious) and explicit (conscious) memory systems
in the brain.
 The brain is not static.
 Not all aspects of an individual‟s knowledge are learned.

As you read the materials assigned for this unit, you will learn the basics of
neuroeducation as a new approach to educational research. You will also learn what it
means to adopt a brain-based conception of learning, knowing, and being. Your goal is
to be able to complete Practical Assignment 1 (see below). Make sure you read the
questions in it before you start reading the materials, so as to know what to focus on.

It is recommended that you read the materials in the following order:

[1] Paterno, Roberto (2008). “Neuroeducation Today”. Online at:

http://www.unimoron.edu.ar/Portals/0/PDF/doc-invest-tesauro-en-8.pdf. Last access:
06/09/2012.
[2] Tokuhama-Espinosa, Tracey (2010). “Why Mind, Brain, and Education Science
is the „New‟ Brain-Based Education”. Online:
http://education.jhu.edu/newhorizons/Journals/Winter2011/Tokuhama1. Last access: 06/09/2012.
[3] Eide, Brock and Fernette Eide (2004). “Brains on Fire: The Multimodality of Gifted Thinkers”.
Online at:
http://education.jhu.edu/newhorizons/Neurosciences/articles/Brains%20on%20Fire/index.html.
Last access: 06/09/2012.
[4] Caine, Renate Nummela (2004). “12 Brain/Mind Learning Principles in Action”. Online at:
http://education.jhu.edu/newhorizons/Neurosciences/articles/caine/index.html. Last access:
06/09/2012.
[5] LeDoux, Joseph (2002a). “The Big One”. Chapter 1 of Synaptic Self: How Our Brains Become Who
We Are, 1-12. New York: Penguin.
[6] LeDoux, Joseph (2002b). “Seeking the Self”. Chapter 2 of Synaptic Self: How Our Brains Become
Who We Are, 13-32. New York: Penguin.

Feel free to work in groups if you find it beneficial. Good luck!

9
 PRACTICAL ASSIGNMENT 1

On the basis of the readings assigned for Unit 1, do the following activities.

PA1: ACTIVITY 1

Place the expressions provided in the box on the lines and in the nodes of the concept web
below:

Teacher, poses problems to, Neuroscience, Pedagogy, may apply

findings in, Neuropsychology, suggests practical applications for,
Psychology, suggests research topics for, classroom.

inf
o rm
s

s
m
r
fo
converge into

in
informs
NEUROEDUCATION

s
or m
inf

10
PA1: ACTIVITY 2

Consider the following statements and decide whether they are TRUE or FALSE.

TRUE FALSE

The terms „neuroeducation‟ and

1. „neurodidactics‟ refer to one and the same
interdisciplinary field of research.

2. Neuroeducation is a very ancient field.

The goal of neuropsychology is to develop

3. didactic tools for teachers of all
disciplines.

Researchers working within neuroscience

and neuroeducation assume that all the
4.
information an individual learns has a
biological basis.
Students can incorporate information only
5. if they focus their attention during
learning.
A gifted brain can incorporate new
6.
information with little exposure to it.
A gifted brain does not get distracted
7.
easily.

Neuroeducation offers a way to theorize

8. about learning processes, but has no
pedagogical applications.

11
PA1: ACTIVITY 3

Read the chapters “The Big One” and “Seeking the Self”, by Joseph LeDoux (2002), and
answer the following questions IN NO MORE THAN ONE SENTENCE:

1. Which aspects of an individual exist independently of the brain?

2. Which are the key factors determining a person‟s brain, consequently, his/her identity?

3. What is the relation between nature, nurture, learning, and memory?

4. Are all brain functions conscious?

5. What is the relationship between mind and brain from a neuroscientific perspective?

6. What are the key components of the mind?

7. Does learning entirely shape what a person is?

12
NEUROEDUCATION TODAY
(PATERNO)
UM-Thesaurus II(8)... 1

“NEUROEDUCATION TODAY”
Neuropsychology, as well as scientific pathological processes take place” or even “an
psychology, has its origin in the medical interdisciplinary science that studies the
works of XIX and XX centuries. The relationships between behavior and the brain
neurological medical specialty is one of the during the developmental period, from birth
disciplines that have mostly contributed to the to the beginning of puberty.”
autonomous development of
neuropsychology, since the observation of the In the field of child neuropsychology, in
different pathologies brain damage can cause the last few years, there has appeared a
has let human behavior be much better subspecialty called learning neuropsychology,
understood. In 1971, in his book Introduction to school neuropsychology, neuropedagogy,
Neuropsychology, Arthur Benton went into neurodidactics or neuroeducation, according
great detail about this concept, by referring to to the theoretical and pragmatic approaches in
Neuropsychology as “behavioral neurology.” different countries.

Neuropsychology stands at the crossing In 1988 Gerhard Preiss, professor of

point of neurosciences (study of the nervous didactics at the University of Fribourg
system from a multidisciplinary approach) propounded the introduction of an
and psychology; this is a model approach autonomous subject based on brain research
aiming at explaining the material and and pedagogy, which he called
functional grounds on which the “normal” neurodidactics. According to this new
and pathological phenomena of human mind discipline, school pedagogy and general
are found. didactics must attach more importance to the
fact that learning lies in brain processes and
From this point of view, neuropsychology that the cognitive results keep up with the
may be defined -according to INS Dictionary of development of a child’s brain. By taking this
Neuropsychology (1999)- as: “the study of into account, it can be said that neurodidactics
existing relationships between brain functions, studies the conditions under which human
psychic structure and sociocognitive learning can be optimized to its highest
systematization in its normal and pathological degree.
aspects, throughout every developmental
period (integral dynamic neuropsychology).” This discipline, nowadays in progress,
suggests a sort of intersection between
One of the main causes explaining the neurosciences and educational sciences; at
boom of neuropsychological postulates today present this relationship is in its first stage.
is the fact that experimental and clinical Some of the most promising research into
research conducted in natural environments neuroeducation is being conducted in the field
has been the source of a thorough and of specific learning disorders, such as
rigorous knowledge of the neurocognitive, dyscalculia (math difficulty), dyslexia,
neurolinguistic, neurodevelopmental dysgraphia, specific Language Development
processes and the neurobiological basis of disability, and so on; thus the study of a
emotions. child’s damaged brain becomes a central issue
in neuropedagogy.
The so-called child, developmental,
pediatric, or, to a lesser extent, school-age To illustrate the importance of the
neuropsychology arose as a subdiscipline of concepts set out in the preceding paragraph, it
neuropsychology. Child neuropsychology is is worth mentioning that dyslexia, a reading
“a science that studies the changes resulting and writing disability, affects 5 % of the
from the different types of mental activity in children-mainly boys- aged between 7 and 9.
its ontogenetic course whenever the brain On the other hand, the Attention-Deficit
UM-Thesaurus II(8)... 2

Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is the most The flow of information from the sense organs
usually diagnosed childhood behavioral and the constant active interactions with the
disorder. It affects between 3 % and 5 % of all surrounding environment determine later
school age children, and although it is more what to learn and what individual talents are
prevalent in boys, girls are more seriously going to be developed.
affected. Nowadays, many authors are
propounding that these disorders arise from Today, the outcomes of studies in
alterations in certain brain circuits. neuroscience let us know that the brain
integrates thinking, feeling and acting into a
Neuroeducation theoreticians insist on whole. The children attending kindergarten
emphasizing the importance of early detection and primary school are to receive the
and proper treatment of children having these necessary knowledge so that they can fit in
disorders. If these children cannot take good with the way their brains work. But this is
advantage of the stimulation naturally given only possible when both teachers and
every day, they will require an urgent professors “really” know the
examination, diagnosis and treatment, as well neuropsychological development of learning
as a particularly favorable pedagogical processes. The research conducted on the
environment. brain and educational sciences must try to
work closely together.
In conclusion, it could be said that, for a
long time, the results of brain research were Curiosity, interest, joy and motivation are
no concern of pedagogy and didactics. After the basic assumptions to teach and learn
all, learning takes place in the brain; every something. By studying the brain functioning,
learning process is accompanied by a change it is broadly established that every person
in brain circuits. That is the reason why could learn from their birth to the end of their
neuropsychology necessarily involves the life. Consequently, neuroeducation means not
soundest scientific grounds on which the only helping develop new learning
present pedagogical and didactic theories approaches that take into account the
should be built. neuropsychology of the developing brain, but
also showing that the tendency and
Neuroeducation or neurodidactics intends willingness to learn is an essential quality of
to shape learning in the most suitable way to the human being; all in all, neuroeducation
fit brain development; in the light of new will add a new dimension to the educational
knowledge on research and on clinical studies process.
in neuroscience regarding the teaching and
learning process, it is very clear that many Roberto M. Paterno
educational assumptions are completely basic.
(CV) Roberto M. Paterno holds a Doctorate Degree in
Neuroscientists describe the brain as an the area of Child Neuropsychology, is a Bachelor of
Educational Sciences (Area of expertise:
active system that, based on background Psychopedagogy) and the Dean of the Faculty of
knowledge, reaches the world and Philosophy, Educational Sciences and Humanities of the
immediately starts to ask the environment a University of Morón. He is a full professor of
great number of questions. Since their birth, Neuropsychology in the Psychology and Pedagogy
children are devoted to eagerly find out what degree courses and in the Seminar on Special Pedagogy
happens around them. For a long time, it was of the Master’s degree of Educational Research. Director
of the Master´s program in Child Neuropsychology and
taken for granted that “learning potential”
Neuroeducation.
was genetically pre-programmed. But some E-mail: [email protected]
lab experiments with animals have shown that
genetic heredity delivers only the basic
equipment for the neuronal execution plan.
***
WHY MIND, BRAIN, AND EDUCATION
SCIENCE IS THE 'NEW' BRAIN-BASED
EDUCATION
 Why Mind, Brain, and Education Science
is the "New" Brain-Based Education
Dr. Tracey Tokuhama-Espinosa, Ph.D.
Director of IDEA (Instituto de Enseñanza y Aprendizaje or Teaching and
Learning Institute),
Professor of Education and Neuropsychology at the of the University of
San Francisco in Quito, Ecuador
The following is an excerpt from Mind, Brain, and Education Science: A comprehensive guide to the new brain-based
teaching(W.W. Norton) a book based on over 4,500 studies and with contributions from the world‘s leaders in MBE Science.

―All animals learn; very few teach.‖

(Blakemore & Frith, 2007, p. 119)

Teaching was a simpler craft in generations past. Only the wealthy and well-
prepared aspired education past grade school a hundred years ago. Today the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 26) suggests that all people
(rich, poor, intelligent, and challenged) are equally entitled to a place in our
classrooms. Not only do students come with a far greater spectrum of abilities,
but also there are also more children than ever before in our classrooms
begging for the attention and guidance they need to help them reach their own
potential. This wealth of differences provides us with dynamics never before
seen in the history of education and offers the promise of richer learning
experiences, if we know how to take advantage of the situation and not lament
the challenge. The resources and cross-germination of many disciplines, as
found in Mind, Brain, and Education science, can offer such a perspective.

MBE science began as a cross-disciplinary venture between cognitive

neuroscience and developmental psychology, but then it reached further
beyond these parameters to integrate education via educational psychology and
educational neuroscience (Figure 1.1). However, to actually become its own
academic discipline, MBE science went through what Hideaki Koizumi, a
leading MBE proponent in Japan, (1999) calls a transdisciplinary developmental
process, as noted in Figure 1.2.

1
Figure 1.1. MBE Science as a Multidisciplinary Field

Source: Interpretation of Tokuhama-Espinosa‘s transdisciplinary fieldby Nakagawa, (2008), redrawn by Bramwell 2010.

2
Figure 1.2. MBE Science: Transdisciplinarity

Source: Tokuhama-Espinosa, 2010 based on Hideaki Koizumi (1999) and Boba Samuel‘s (2009) concepts of transdisciplinary
studies. Graphic by Bramwell (2009).

Similar to other evolutionary processes, MBE science drew from the dominant
―genes‖ of its parents to produce a better-adapted being. That is, rather than
including anything and everything that falls under the labels of education,
neuroscience, and psychology as a whole, MBE science is a careful selection of
only the best information that can inform the new science of teaching and
learning. The development of MBE science results in a new and innovative way
to consider old problems in education and offers evidence-based solutions for
the classroom. This new vision takes into the account the different histories,
philosophies, and most especially, the different epistemological lenses through
which common problems in neuroscience, psychology, and education are
approached.

Given that the new science of teaching and learning was born of these three
parent disciplines, it bears the ―cultural baggage‖ of its parents. This means that
the history as well as the philosophy—and subsequently the epistemologies—of
these three disciplines influence the existence of MBE science. As Samuels

3
(2009) put it in a recent Mind, Brain, and Education journal article, ―Historically,
science and education have demonstrated separate, but interwoven, influences
on society; philosophically, the values by which they operate are often in
opposition; and epistemologically, the disciplines have relied on different
conceptualizations of knowledge‖ (p. 45). This means that MBE faces three
important challenges, which are mentioned below after a brief explanation of the
discipline‘s ―birth.‖

What MBE Science Is and Is Not

Although it is not hard to agree that MBE science exists, it is harder to agree
what it actually is. One way to consider this new discipline is to think of MBE as
a ―baby‖ born to adolescent parents. Many teen parents need to work hard to try
to define their own place in the world while at the same time help nurture a new
offspring and guide his or her growth: This basically results in children raising
children. One of the parent disciplines, cognitive neuroscience, was ―born‖ itself
about 25 years ago.[1] Education for the masses is also a relative latecomer to
the global stage, only becoming truly universalized in the late
1890s.[2] Psychology is a contemporary of the goal of universal education,
being just slightly older in foundation.[3] In 2010, this makes education and
psychology about 125 years old each. Though 125 might seem old in human
terms, these disciplines are mere adolescents in light of other academic
disciplines, such as biology or philosophy, which are over a thousand years old.
Now, while a three-way ―marriage‖ between a 25-year-old, and two 125-year-
olds might sound odd, it is a good metaphor for understanding, more or less,
what happened with MBE science: Three ―young‖ disciplines intersected and
their product was Mind, Brain, and Education science.

This union gets even more complicated. Aside from being a teen marriage, this
is a mixed teen marriage. Mixed marriages between two disciplines
(called hybrid disciplines) have become more common in recent years, but this
is not to say that unions of this type are without their criticisms. Mixed marriages
can be rejected and even accused of ―diluting‖ once-pure entities. Mixed
marriages require compromises from both sides as well as a new type of
communication, sometimes at the sacrifice of elements of one or all involved. In
the best cases these mixes are fruitful unions, but they demand continual
maintenance, more so that homogeneous coalitions. Why? Because each of the
parents comes with the weight of its history, philosophies, epistemologies and
ways of viewing the world—which can coincide but may often collide.[4]

As well as being a transdisciplinary discipline, MBE science is a cross-cultural

entity.[5] The discipline was conceptualized literally around the world at almost
the same time in numerous countries.[6] Between 2002 and 2009, countries as
varied as Japan, the United States, Canada, Australia, Germany, Holland, the
United Kingdom, Italy, and France launched initiatives to promote the discipline.
The international collaboration implies that the developing standards for the
discipline are based on cross-cultural acceptance of certain norms and shared
values.

4
MBE‘s strength is also its greatest weakness. Viewpoints, knowledge schemas,
and values that are usually complementary, but which can also sometimes be
contradictory, contribute to this discipline. The contradictory aspect offers an
explanation of (but not an excuse for) some problems MBE faced in the early
years. Samuels (2009) recently wrote about the MBE challenge, saying,
―Transdisciplinarity is a perspective on knowledge creation that integrates
disciplines at the level of a particular issues. It is an approach ideally suited for
finding complex solutions to complex problems‖ (p. 46). This book begins with
the premise that solutions to problems in education today require the more
sophisticated and complex approach offered by MBE science.

Challenges in Teaching and in Becoming a Mind, Brain, and Education

Scientist

First, the greatest challenge to new professionals in MBE science is to accept

the different historical roots of the three disciplines. This means that those
working as teachers need to appreciate that some information from psychology
and from neuroscience will have different foci, goals, methods, and procedures
than those found in education, but they are equally useful to learning how to
teach better. Similarly, psychologists practicing in the new discipline need to
recognize that information from neuroscience and education is valuable, despite
differences in histories. And neuroscientists, used to a different type of
experimental rigor in their research, will have to learn to appreciate the
importance of qualitative studies and the impact that studies from education and
psychology can have on the new discipline.

Second, we have to recognize and accept that the multiple foundations have
impacted the philosophies through which professionals in each of the three
disciplines views the world. MBE scientists have a somewhat broader view,
therefore, because they can apply multiple lenses through which to view the
same problem. Classroom discipline, learning problems, instructional practices,
and evaluation methods (among other teaching–learning issues) can now be
approached in an innovative way using the multiple viewpoints provided by the
new science of teaching and learning.

Finally and most importantly, we must understand that the respective histories
and philosophies of the three parent disciplines explain why each embraces
different epistemologies. These epistemologies focus the lens through which
problems are viewed. "A mode of knowing arises from the way we answer two
questions at the heart of the educational mission: How do we know what we
know? And by what warrant can we call our knowledge true? Our answers may
be largely tacit, even unconscious, but they are continually communicated in the
way we teach and learn‖ (Palmer, 1997, pp. 50–51).

The academic lens through which we see the world influences what is viewed
as knowledge, how it is acquired, who among us knows, and why we know what
we do.[7] MBE scientists, by their very nature, have a broader worldview than
those rooted in just one discipline. Whether you are a teacher, neuroscientist, or

5
psychologist—or someone working in a related field—you are invited to join this
paradigm shift in thinking about the way we educate. Stephen Jay Gould once
said, ―Nothing is more dangerous than a dogmatic worldview—nothing more
constraining, more blinding to innovation, more destructive of openness to
novelty‖ (1995, p. 96). A new take on old problems needs open minds.

Who Are MBE Scientists?

In some instances this label will mean teachers who are integrating cognitive
neuroscience and psychological foundations into their practice. In other cases it
will mean psychologists who seek to bridge the hard and soft sciences. In yet
others it will mean neuroscientists who dare to bring laboratory findings into the
classroom. While many educators, psychologists, and neuroscientists remain
pure practitioners within their single discipline, a growing number of others
straddle the three academic fields of education, psychology, and cognitive
neuroscience that wear the new MBE hat. This article does not claim that work
as a ―purist‖ is any less valuable than work in the transdisciplinary discipline of
MBE science; it does, however, acknowledge the need for new professionals
who speak the language, walk the talk, and can work seamlessly as MBE
specialists as well.

To be an MBE scientist involves a particular set of professional responsibilities

that differs from those of the ―pure‖ fields of education, psychology, and the
neurosciences. Aside from adhering to the combined standards of education,
psychology, and cognitive neuroscience, MBE professionals adopt certain
unique attitudes. Some of these attitudes were described in a review of the
monumental work conducted by the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation
and Development (2002, 2007) to define the new learning science. Bruno della
Chiesa, Vanessa Christoph, and Christina Hinton (2009) delineate certain
characteristics of the experts in the new discipline who were helpful in their
research. I propose that these same characteristics are useful, at the least, and
absolutely required, at an extreme, of all new MBE scientists. Three of the most
important characteristics are described below.

First, MBE professionals are ―willing to share knowledge with those outside their
discipline rather than just their peers‖ in their original disciplines of
formation.[8] This means (1) neuroscientists who are willing to share their
findings with educators, for example, (2) psychologists who stimulate research
questions in the neurosciences, and (3) educators who suggest research
questions in psychology.

Second, MBE scientists recognize the need to ―adapt their ‗language‘ and
context to the audience to make their knowledge comprehensible‖ to those
outside of their original discipline of formation.[9] That is, MBE professionals
understand the need to develop a common vocabulary to enhance
interdisciplinary communication[10]—which can be seen in the teacher who
writes for a psychology audience (or vice versa), or a neuroscientist who can
explain his or her findings to educators (or vice versa). One of the greatest

6
challenges in stimulating collaboration between professionals in neuroscience,
education, and psychology is the absence of a shared language (see more on
this point in Appendix A).

Third, MBE scientists generally accept, and perhaps are most compelled by, the
belief that ―connecting information across fields is advantageous for both others
and themselves,‖ and they accept the importance of nurturing their own practice
with information from other fields.[11] For example, this belief can be seen in
the neuroscientists who understand that the value of their lab work increases
when it can actually be applied in the classroom, or the teachers who pose
testable questions to cognitive scientists.

This last point also tacitly implies another key aspect of MBE science. All three
fields (neuroscience, psychology, and education) are on equal footing and
contribute in identical parts to the new discipline‘s research, practice, and
policies. For this reason all three fields inform as well as learn from one another.
This perspective differs from that of other disciplines, which are often
unilaterally independent. For example, in educational neuroscience,
neuroscience informs education (not usually vice versa). In educational
psychology, psychology informs education (not usually the other way around).
The flow of information in MBE science is, by definition, three-way (see Figure
1.3):

Figure 1.3 The Flow of Information in MBE Science

Source: Tokuhama-Espinosa, 2010

7
This three-way flow means that for a concept to be accepted in the new
discipline, educators, psychologists, and neuroscientists must confirm their
hypotheses not only in their own disciplines, but also within the other two. MBE
science is the formal bridge linking the fields of neuroscience, psychology, and
education that has been missing for decades.[12] We need teachers who know
about the brain and how it learns best, and we need neuroscientists and
psychologists who can envision the application of their work in school settings.
Why? Because education is full of complex problems that have not been
addressed successfully enough through pedagogical approaches alone.

Gardner writes about the need for the mind of the future to be able to
synthesize and judge the quality of information that currently exists in the
world.[13] There is so much information that bombards individuals on a daily
basis (in MBE science and otherwise), that teacher training now needs to
include explicitly taught skills on how to sort the wheat from the chaff; that is,
determine what is ―good‖ information and what is ―bad.‖[14] This sorting can be
achieved, in part, through a clear synthesis of the information.

Synthesizing information is a complex process that requires the ability to take in

a variety of information sources, understand the main concepts within each, and
then judge their applicability to the topic at hand. Teachers must be armed with
excellent critical thinking skills in order to be able to pass such abilities onto
their students. The process of synthesis plays an important role in MBE
science, which is related to the ability to assess and judge information. This
means that MBE science is vulnerable if teachers aren‘t able to think critically.
The ability to transcend disciplines and synthesize data is crucial for
professionals in the discipline.

Because of its complexity, MBE science is difficult to define and is multifaceted

in execution. It is no wonder that several years have passed since the first call
to put parameters around the discipline. The problems and challenges found in
the parent disciplines of neuroscience, psychology, and education add to the
complexity within MBE science itself. There are many sub-disciplines within the
parent fields, and each places different emphasis on aspects of teaching and
learning, compiling the elements for consideration. Nevertheless, the complexity
of MBE science is also part of its attractiveness as an academic discipline. MBE
science is alluring in part because, after all, as Derrida (1998) claims, ―if things
were simple, word would have gotten around.‖ (p.118). Once complexity is
accepted as part and parcel of the new discipline, then its importance is
confirmed. A hundred years ago, one of the greatest writers of our time,
Thorndike (1874–1949), said: ―the intellectual evolution of the race consists in
an increase in the number, delicacy, complexity, permanence and speed of
formation of such associations,‖ (cited in Bruce, 2000, p.294) affirming that the
continually more complex problems in education today require solutions that are
not simplistic. This fact calls attention to the idea that if a solution to educational
woes seems too simple to be true, it probably is. The caution for ―Buyer
beware‖[15] should guide teacher consumption of brain-based fixes.

8
MBE Science Is State of the Art, Yet Nothing New

Contemporary theories of learning can also benefit from review by MBE

science. The importance of findings in all areas will multiply if they can
somehow be confirmed via an interdisciplinary effort. This is a paradigm shift in
thinking about teaching and learning. A decade ago it was thought that cognitive
neuroscience should inform educational psychology, and vice versa.[16] This
has now expanded to a ménage a trois, in which education plays an equal role
and all three fields must share responsibility for the advancement of teaching.

MBE scientists can either be trained in academic programs aimed at this

balanced view, or they can come from any one of the three parent disciplines
and learn the knowledge and skills, as well as adopt the attitudes of MBE
science. Research practitioners in MBE science understand how and why
interdisciplinary sharing is vital to the growth of the discipline and to reaching its
goals, as mentioned in the introduction. The general research practice of an
MBE professional is to identify problems common to neuroscience, psychology,
and education, integrate findings, and propose new solutions. Perhaps the most
difficult, yet also the most vital, quality of MBE scientists is the ability to not only
understand how the epistemologies of neuroscience, psychology, and
education differ, but also how a new understanding of knowing emerges
through the application of MBE principles.

Are you an MBE scientist?

Education has never had so many tools at its disposal to improve the teaching
and learning processes. These are exciting times for everyone in the discipline.
Neuroscience and psychology nurture our understanding of how the brain
learns and help us identify the best teaching practices possible. Although the
tools of the trade are important, the greatest single change occurring, thanks to
MBE science, is the transformation of the teacher role into a catalyst for societal
change.

It is curious to note that in the history of epistemology we have come full circle
from Grecian times. The Greeks greatly valued the global thinker, who is once
again lauded in 21st-century education. Interdisciplinary thought was valued by
the Greeks through the 16th century, in which the balance of science and art
could make one a ―Renaissance man,‖ however, the importance of
specialization increased and was prized over generalists starting in the 17th
century and continuing until just recently. The ―specialist‖ in a certain field was
seen as more important than the ―general practitioner,‖ who is supposed to
have sufficient knowledge about quite a lot of areas in his or her discipline. This
view changed with the establishment of the cognitive sciences in the 1980s.
The ability to think across academic disciplinary lines and to merge
understandings from different fields is not only valued once again, but it is seen
as the only true way of understanding the increasingly complex nature of human
ideas. Teachers who can use information from neuroscience and psychology
will be the real game changers in the decades to come.

9
References

Blakemore, S., & Frith, U. (2007). The learning brain: Lessons for
education. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Bruer, J. (1997). Education and the brain: A bridge too far. Educational
Researcher, 26(8), 4–16.

Butler-Bowdon, T. (2007). 50 psychology classics. London: Nicholas Brealey.

Byrnes, J., & Fox, N. A. (1998a). The educational relevance of research in

cognitive neuroscience.Educational Psychology Review, 10, 297–342.

Byrnes, J., & Fox, N. A. (1998b). Minds, brains, and education: Part II.
Responding to the commentaries.Educational Psychology Review, 10, 431–
439.

Caramazza, A., & Coltheart, M. (2006). Cognitive neuropsychology twenty

years on. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 23(1), 3–12.

Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2006). Complexity and education: Inquiries into
learning, teaching, and research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

della Chiesa, B., Christoph, V., & Hinton, C. (2009). How many brains does it
take to build a new light: Knowledge management challenges of a
transdisciplinary project. Mind, Brain, and Education, 3(1), 17–26.

Fischer, K.W. (2009). Mind, brain, and education: Building a scientific

groundwork for learning and teaching. Mind, Brain, and Education, 3(1), 3–16.

Fischer, K.W., Daniel, D.B., Immordino-Yang, M.H., Stern, E., Battro, A., &
Koizumi, H. (Eds.). (2007). Why mind, brain, and education? Why now? Mind,
Brain, and Education, 1(1), 1–2.

Gardner, H. (2007). Five minds for the future. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.

Gould, Stephen J., (1995). Dinosaur in a haystack: Reflections in natural

history. New York: Harmony Books.

Hay, C. (2008). The theory of knowledge: A coursebook. Cambridge, UK:

Lutterworth Press.

Heinze, T. (2003). Kommunikationsmanagement [Communication

management]. Hagen, Germany: Fern Universität Hagen.

Madigan, K. (2001). Buyer beware: Too early to use brain-based strategies.

CBE Education online Edition. Retrieved September 10, 2007,
from http://www.c-b-e.org/be/iss0104/a2madigan.htm.

10
McDonnell (James S.) Foundation. (2005a). John T. Bruer, president’s
biography. Retrieved January 21, 2008, from http://www.jsmf.org/about/jbio.htm.

Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development.

(2002). Understanding the brain: Towards a new learning science. Paris:
OECD. Available online at www.oecd.org.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2007). The brain

and learning. Retrieved March 10, 2007, from http://www.oecd.org/ department
/0,2688,en_2649_14935397_1_1_1_1_ 1,00.html.

Palmer, P. (1997). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a

teacher’s life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Samuels, B. M. (2009). Can differences between education and neuroscience

be overcome by Mind, Brain, and Education? Mind, Brain, and Education, 3(1),
45–-53.

Thorndike, E.L., & Bruce, D. (2000). Animal intelligence: Experimental studies.

Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Tokuhama-Espinosa, T. (2010). The new science of teaching and learning:

Using the best of mind, brain, and education science in the classroom. New
York: Columbia University Teachers College Press.

Tokuhama-Espinosa, T. (2008b). Summary of the international Delphi expert

survey on the emerging field of neuroeducation (Mind, rain, and
Education/educational neuroscience). Unpublished manuscript.

Tokuhama-Espinosa, T., & Schwartz, M. (2008c). Defining academic

disciplines. Unpublished manuscript.

11
Books on this topic by Tracey Tokuhama-Espinosa:

Tokuhama-Espinosa, T. (2010). The new science of teaching and learning:

Using the best of mind, brain, and education science in the classroom. New
York: Columbia University Teachers College Press.

Tokuhama-Espinosa, T. (2010). Mind, Brain, and Education Science: The new

brain-based learning. New York, NY: W.W: Norton.

[1] Carramaza & Colthart (2006); Gardner (1987); Posner (1989).

[2] See Samuels (2009) for an excellent review.

[3] See Wundt (1879) and James (1890) in Butler & Bowdon (2007).

[4] It also bears remembering that mixed marriages have been limited to two
partners; Mind, Brain, and Education science is an even more complex
amalgamation because three ―parents‖ are involved.

[5] Samuels (2009).

[6] Fischer (2009).

[7] Hay (2008).

[8] della Chiesa, Christoph, & Hinton (2009, p. 20).

[9] della Chiesa, Christoph, & Hinton (2009, p. 20).

[10] Heinze (2003).

[11] della Chiesa, Christoph, & Hinton (2009, p. 20).

[12] For examples of this petition, see Fischer, Daniel, Immordino-Yang, Stern,
Battro, et al. (2002); Goswami (2006); Hall (2005); Schall (2004).

[13] Five Minds For the Future (2007)

[14] James S. McDonnell Foundation (2005).

[15] An intriguing article by K. Madigan in 2001 made the call for Buyer beware:
Too early to use brain-based strategies, and called for caution in adapting quick
fixes in education.

[16] See Byrnes & Fox (1998a) and Byrnes & Fox (1998b) for this classic
seminal work.

12
 BRAINS ON FIRE.
THE MULTIMODALITY
OF GIFTED THINKERS
 Brains on Fire:
The Multimodality of Gifted Thinkers

by Brock Eide and Fernette Eide

Functional brain magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) brings exciting new

insights into our understanding of how gifted thinkers think. The first thing you
notice when you look at the fMRIs of gifted groups is that it looks like a 'brain on
fire.' Bright red blazes of high metabolic activity burst out all over the scan. Each
red patch represents millions of microcombustion events in which glucose is
metabolized to provide fuel for the working brain. Gifted brains are remarkably
intense and diffuse metabolizers. But the amazing insights do not stop there.
The orchestration of activity is planned and complex, and it seems to require the
coordination of diverse visual, spatial, verbal, and sensory areas of brain. Gifted
thinkers are rarely one-mode thinkers. Rather, they are great organizers of
diverse and multimodal information. For teachers and parents of young gifted
thinkers, we begin to understand why certain young gifted thinker go awry, and
why organization should be an essential aspect of gifted education.

There is the abundant available evidence that gifted children show enhanced
sensory activation and awareness. Gifted brains are essentially "hyper-
sensitive," and can be rendered even more so through training. Not only are the
initial impressions especially strong, but also the later recollections are often
unusually intense or vivid. Because vivid initial impressions correlate with better
recollection, gifted brains are also characterized by increased memory
efficiency and capacity. These memories are not only especially intense and
enduring memories, but they are also frequently characterized by multimodality,
involving memory areas that store many different types of memories, such as
personal associations, different sensory modalities like color, sound, smell, or
visual images, or verbal or factual impressions. This multimodality means that
gifted thinkers often make connections in ways other people don't. They
frequently have special abilities in associational thinking (including analogy and
metaphor) and in analytical or organizational skills (through which diverse
associations are understood and systematized).

As a result of these special brain characteristics, gifted thinkers typically enjoy

benefits including more vivid sensing, prodigious memory, greater fund of
knowledge, more frequent and varied associations, and greater analytic ability.
However, these same neurological characteristics carry a number of potential
drawbacks, including sensory, emotional, and memory overload, sensory
hypersensitivities, personal disorganization, sensory distractibility, delayed
processing due to "analysis paralysis" (or getting "lost in thought" due to an
excess of options), and mental fatigue.

One of the keys to maintaining this appropriate balance lies within the front of
the brain of gifted thinkers. This balance can be achieved through a coordinated

1
interaction of the right and left lobes in what we've termed "Creative Corporate
Thinking." Creative Corporate Thinking consists of a partnership between the
Chief Executive Officer (CEO) on the left, and the Creativity Director on the
right. The interaction between these two entities is that "corporate balancing
act" between the "Suit" or CEO on the left that focuses and prioritizes goals,
works out details, and implements strategies, and the "Talent" or Creativity
Director on the right that dreams, combines ideas, sensations, and images,
generates alternative approaches, and is oriented toward the "Big Picture."
Each of these functions has its distinct "corporate culture" with its unique style
and language, and each is essential for good corporate function. The key to
optimal thinking is to maintain productive communication and cooperation
between the two sides. This cooperation is essential regardless of the task.
Even seemingly "analytical" skills like math involve tremendous amounts of
imaginative, dreamy, associational thinking; and even seemingly "abstract and
creative" skills like painting or sculpting involve tremendous amounts of detailed
planning.

There are a number of implications of these findings about gifted brains for
teaching gifted children. First, because of their enhanced sensitivity, gifted
children tend to learn with fewer repetitions, and to need less extensive
explanations in class, although it is important to remember that their sensitivity
may be modality specific (that is, hearing, seeing, kinesthetic) rather than
across the board. Enhanced sensitivity also frequently results in enhanced
distractibility, and gifted children may at times be suspected because of this to
have ADHD. However, it is important to remember that in gifted children,
distractibility is frequently accompanied by considerable persistence, and even
though their attention seems often to wander, so long as it keeps returning to
the task at hand and the work gets done, it should not be considered an
impediment. In fact, there is considerable evidence that such "distractibility" is
one of the roots of creativity. Enhanced sensitivity that results in impaired
learning, however, whether because of distractibility to visual, auditory, tactile,
or other sensory cues, is a real problem that requires evaluation and treatment.

Second, because of their enhanced memory, gifted children require less review
and come to class with more outside knowledge than other children. Frequently
they acquire knowledge through "incidental learning"--that is, snatches of
overheard, glimpsed, or observed information that are taken in outside of their
formal education. Because of their combination of enhanced sensitivity and
memory, these kids are like "cognitive flypaper" in that they grab and hold onto
ideas and information much more avidly than their peers. Too often this facility
for acquiring information has been interpreted as a sign that gifted education
should consist of "filling up their brains" with vast quantities of information.
However, the exact opposite is true. Because gifted students are able with
significantly less effort to acquire the standard knowledge base, information
acquisition should actually be given less space in the curriculum rather than
more. Rather than simply acquiring more facts, these students should use their
extra time learning how to think like experts. They are already information
wealthy--they do not need a greater largesse of facts. What they need is to
learn what to do with what they already have.

2
Finally, we believe that a greater proportion of gifted education be allocated
toward learning how to organize and process information. Gifted children have a
critical need to: understand the nature of their thinking, understand the quality of
their information, and understand the uses of information.

By "understanding the nature of thinking" we mean the sort of metacognitive

training (or "thinking about thinking") that would allow gifted thinkers more
effectively to direct and manage their own thinking. This training would equip
them to understand the nature of memory, sensory processing, mental
organization and learning styles, and would arm them with knowledge of
mnemonic, organizational, interpersonal, and other problem solving strategies.
This training would enable them to approach specific problems and learning in
general with the greatest possible chance of success. Gifted students need
more time for rumination and reflection, moving back toward a classical model
of education in which a few resources were studied in depth and reflected on at
length, rather immersed in barrage of information whose depths they are never
allowed to explore.

By "understanding the nature of information" we mean equipping students with

the ability to evaluate the quality or status of a piece of information as
knowledge. With the increasing availability of information in overwhelming
amounts from the Internet, it is especially important that students have the
ability to independently evaluate the quality and reliability of information. They
must be able to ask the right questions of information and be able to evaluate
the answers they receive. They must be able to recognize when something is
proved or not, what kinds of information count as knowledge and what only as
opinions, which sorts of questions can receive final answers, and which only
provisional ones. They must be shown how knowledge is acquired and
validated in the real world; what the nature of expertise really is in different
fields; and how they can play a role in the advance of knowledge. In this way,
they will come to realize that knowledge is a dynamic process rather than a
static repository of information.

Students need to seek for instrumental or practical uses of information as well

as their rational value. In contrast to the abstract, ahistorical way in which
subjects like math and science are often taught, children need to learn that
society has been advanced by attempts to answer questions that were of
practical value to a community, rather than the pursuit of knowledge "for its own
sake."

Finally, we recommend training gifted students in a discipline we called "neuro-

rhetoric"-- that is, teaching them how to understand the structure and power of
arguments, and how it affects what we know. Increasing students' self-
awareness about their own thinking and reasoning processes-- and about the
nature of information itself-- will ideally equip them both to live as productive
leaders in our current information age, but will also allow them to take their
places as participants rather than mere observers in the ages old process of
seeking and advancing knowledge.

3
About the Authors

Brock and Fernette Eide are physicians and consultants to a wide range of
parent, teacher, and clinical groups seeking more information about learning
and brain-based solutions. Together they have authored more than 50 articles
and they speak internationally for keynote lectures, seminars, and small groups.
The Eides have a free Neurolearning Newsletter and can be contacted through
their website at:www.neurolearning.com or by email
at: [email protected] or [email protected].

©December 2004

4
 12 BRAIN-MIND
LEARNING PRINCIPLES IN ACTION
 12 Brain/Mind Learning Principles in Action

by Renate Nummela Caine

Where do powerful questions come from? Those deep questions that drive
some of us and determine a life's path? I didn't have the questions yet, not until
much later, but even as a child I was observing or participating fully in learning.

My belief in myself and my ability to learn began with an exceptional teacher.

She had a great deal of freedom because I grew up in Germany, which was just
putting its educational system together after the war. She taught history by way
of stories that intrigued us. She combined information and romance in order to
capture our attention and young minds. She took us to the local museum where
we could see a real Viking ship and look at the Viking mummy, which had been
retrieved from the moors. Vikings often punished criminals by throwing them
into the moors and watching them disappear. This was a horrible death, but to
eight year-olds also terribly real and interesting. She took us on long hikes
through meadows and woods and taught us about trees and where springs
came from.

No memory of that long ago is ever totally accurate. Today we know that the
brain takes the reality of the past and weaves a tapestry that joins feelings,
information and later adult experiences to create a memory that combines
actual facts with what one might hope or wish to be true. What is clear however
is that I learned something lasting. I learned that I was a good student and that
learning is both exciting and something I love to do. And along with academics,
I learned to sing, draw, hike and love nature. By going to the theater at a very
early age (encouraged and often sponsored by the school) and performing in
plays, I also learned to love theater and performance. In Marion Diamond's
terms, I grew up in an enriched environment (Magic Trees of the Mind, 1998).

It is important not to generalize from my early experiences in Germany. I grew

up at an unusual time, grew up in the country as opposed to a city, and had a
truly exceptional teacher. Teachers like this are rare, but I believe that they exist
everywhere.

Once we arrived in the United States, my education in San Francisco was

totally different. Each course had a textbook, and except for Chemistry,
everything to be learned came out of that textbook. Each teacher stuck to one
text, and only the questions at the back mattered. I can remember thinking how
silly it was to answer questions when all I had to do is find the place where the
sentence was written in the book. No one seemed to care what students
thought or felt personally. To this day, I can understand students who are bored
and disinterested in school. I spent my time in Junior High School reading great
books by outstanding science fiction writers like Isaac Asimov and Robert
Heinlein, while doing the minimum in order to get by in school.

1
I tell this story not to chastise or criticize, but to demonstrate that I experienced
two very different approaches to learning and that these differences have
shaped my questions and my life.

This time also held a personal experience that has shaped much of my beliefs
and understandings to this day. Coming from another culture, particularly so
close to adolescence was not only difficult, in many ways it was devastating. I
can remember feeling awkward and angry and not knowing how to act. I did not
like myself as I continually tried to fit in. To this day, I feel a special kinship with
students whose parents emigrated from one country and culture to another.

One day I came across a book in our home library – it said that human beings
can change. I can still remember the joy I experienced as hope became real. I
experienced a sense of freedom and choice as I went about examining my
beliefs and behavior to see how I might like to change myself and why. Again, I
did not know it at the time, but this experience turned out to be a great predictor
of the spirit that would permeate my view of learning and my future work. In the
book, 12 Brain/Mind Learning Principles in Action, the underlying theme, that
we can always become more, become more expert, and learn all our lives is
spelled out in a very practical way. All four authors are committed to this belief.
In terms of brain research, this view of what it means to learn finds support in
the research on plasticity (the fact that neurons sprout dendritic connections or
reorganize themselves on the basis of new learning).

Once reaching college my mind began to fly again, particularly if a professor

asked me what I thought or would decide to do, given certain facts or
conditions. In particular, learning was more exciting when my ideas and
answers were met with a respectful discussion or argument.

Due to a number of circumstances, I became a teacher of German and History

(I even taught English which finally taught me to spell and master grammar in
both English and German) in Reno, Nevada (Jr. High) and New Orleans,
Louisiana (High School). Being a German teacher helped me to understand the
importance of knowing one's subject. I had a great advantage as a native
speaker. But I also learned that how a teacher teaches their subject is critical.
My students learned German in a hundred different ways, from singing German
songs to writing and acting out fairy tales and stories. My students ranged from
football players to future teachers, yet I expected everyone to participate and
everyone did. They memorized using fun drills and games, and spoke and
wrote as often as possible. The results were pretty spectacular, and when my
students won 1st, 2nd, 4th and 6th in the statewide language contest, my
classes became an overnight sensation.

But there were those pesky questions again. How do people learn? How did life
outside of my classroom impact my students? At this time I began to be very
curious about the role of emotions in learning. What was happening in these
student's lives that was so distracting? Why did my top student end up using
drugs? Why did the counselor tell one of my most gifted learners that he must
be cheating because his I.Q. did not allow him to compete in a class with
national scholarship winners? Why were my students so dedicated to German,

2
to me, and each other? How did having fun together seem to help everyone
learn better? Most powerful of all, I began to look at how most of my colleagues
taught and I felt out of place. Ultimately I had to understand more. To do so I
enrolled in the College of Education at the University of Florida.

Once again, fate put me in the very place I needed to be. It was the mid 70's
and I became a doctoral student during the last two years of a program headed
by Dr. Arthur Combs, someone who has left a lasting and powerful impression
on me, and thousands of educators. One could easily call Art Combs the father
of Humanistic Education, but more importantly he introduced his students to
something called phenomenology. Phenomenology introduced us to the great
Gestalt theorists who had been trying to figure out how perception works. My
studies fascinated me because they were beginning to address some of my
questions about my former students and about learning. It was at this time that I
became convinced that only a holistic perspective of students and teaching
could truly address the many questions teachers and educators face every day.
The need to return to the classroom on a regular basis was born here and I
personally remain skeptical of research, no matter how exciting, that is not also
applied and demonstrated to matter in that chaotic, real life world.

Gestalt psychology suggests that everything comes together in the moment of

action, and if we want to know why and how students are learning then we have
to know how they are making sense of a situation – how they are relating to
what is being learned. This was the very opposite of behaviorism, a theory that
was also very popular at the time. Behaviorism taught that students would learn
best if we rewarded them for it (I can still remember a woman in my class who
was outraged because her little girl loved to learn but was suddenly given "m &
m's " by her teacher for her right answers). Perceptual Psychology, as this field
also became to be known, believed that people could change themselves
through their own understanding and chosen actions, something that echoed
the beliefs I had developed as an adolescent.

My dissertation demonstrated that when teachers were trained using Dr.

Thomas Gordon's Teacher Effectiveness Training (using "I" messages and
active listening) and actually used it in the classroom, their students had a
higher self-concept and better attitude towards school and teachers six months
after the teacher changed his or her way of communicating with students. This
proved something to me that I believe to this day and that permeates our new
book, namely, that when teachers change what they actually do in the
classroom, change in students follows.

As a brand new professor at California State University, San Bernardino, I

taught courses in Educational Psychology. I loved my subject and tried to make
my lectures interesting. I had so much to tell! But unlike teaching German by
creating learning experiences or taking students to places where the subject
could be observed first hand, discussed or debated, I lectured. There was
always so much to cover!

After a few years I began to ask former students who were by then teachers, if
they had translated any of the work by theorists we studied (Kohlberg, Erikson,

3
Piaget) into classroom practices. They looked at me blankly. They hardly
remembered the names of the theorists; let alone what they had said. My
course and hard work had made no impact on their teaching. I simply had to
understand why.

It was at this time that a colleague and friend, Tennes Rosengren and I became
interested in a book entitled The Hippocampus as a Cognitive Map by John
O'Keefe and Lynn Nadel (1978). The book was utterly and completely
fascinating to us and we met at least once a week in order to "translate" its
content. At this time also we became very interested in something called
Optimal Learning and we joined a month long program headed by Ivan
Barzakov and Pamela Rand in San Francisco. This turned out to be one of the
most amazing teaching and learning experiences of my life. It required us to be
very creative and we began to write poetry, do "concert readings" and write
creative stories. We also performed new teaching feats and received educative
feedback that was loving and very insightful and helpful. It was fueled by the
work of Lozanov (1978), Ivan's incredible knowledge of the arts and literature,
and Pamela's work as an actress.

This program was way ahead of its time and in all honesty, although it was
extremely brain compatible, I cannot imagine how it might fit into a world
governed by our current interpretation of what it means to learn.

Tennes and I began to see many connections to our own teaching and
education in general and our readings in the neurosciences took on a life of its
own. This was also the time when the neurosciences began to provide research
in ways we had never experienced before. New research was surfacing on the
role of emotions in memory, stress and motivation; the relationship between
fear, helplessness and learning; how meaning supported learning; how the
social environment shaped the brain; how memory worked; the role of creativity
in learning and much more. With our mutual backgrounds in psychology, we
could not stop making connections.

I became a trainer in Optimal Learning and it is here that I met my husband,

Geoffrey Caine in 1986, who had been sent to the program by his Australian
software company. Our backgrounds were so similar and included a fascination
with learning. He had been exploring similar issues, and was particularly
interested in how to help adults work together to process experience. We were
married in 1986. As we worked together, it became clear that all this information
on learning, both past and present, had to be organized in some fashion so that
educators and others could grasp it. This is when we first spelled out the 12
Brain/Mind Learning Principles (1990). The principles are general rules of
learning that are substantiated, and continue to be substantiated, by research.
They are based on a systems (holistic and integrated) view, which says that all
learning is interconnected, something that is also true of the brain. Geoffrey and
I used my sabbatical to travel around the U.S., visiting neuroscientists and
educators in order to check out our emerging theory and the principles as much
as possible

4
On the surface, the principles sound very simple, but once the research behind
them is added, they provide a powerful view of learning. This gives each
principle an enormous depth. Many educators began to generate their own
principles or use some of ours that they liked and disregard the ones they didn't
like. They did this without spelling out the supporting research so that eventually
we needed to clarify the basic characteristics of a principle.

What qualifies as a systems principle?

We suggest that principles based on a systems view of the learner should meet
at least four basic criteria:

1. The phenomena described by the principle should be universal.

It must therefore refer to phenomena true for all human beings despite
individual genetic variations, unique expressions, and developmental
differences.

2. Research documenting any one specific principle should span more than one
field or discipline.

Since the principle describes a systems' property, one would expect a valid
principle to be confirmed by research that crosses multiple fields and
disciplines.

3. A principle should anticipate future research.

It should be expected and anticipated that research will continue to emerge that
refines and confirms a principle. In addition, a principle is a continuous work in
progress, as long as human beings delve into the rules by which life exists. A
principle is never complete in the sense that new perspectives and ongoing
research will continually refine and prove the principle.

4. The principle should provide implications for practice.

By their nature, principles are so general that they cannot be expected to tell
educators precisely what to do. However, effective learning principles ought, as
a minimum, to provide the basis for an effective general framework that can
guide decisions about teaching and help in the identification and selection of
appropriate methods and strategies.

The principles have gone through minor rewording as our understanding has
grown but have generally survived the test of time:

BRAIN-MIND LEARNING PRINCIPLES

1. All learning is physiological.

2. The Brain-Mind is social.

3. The search for meaning is innate.

5
4. The search for meaning occurs through patterning.

5. Emotions are critical to patterning.

6. The Brain-Mind processes parts and wholes simultaneously.

7. Learning involves both focused attention and peripheral perception.

8. Learning always involves conscious and unconscious processes.

9. There are at least two approaches to memory: archiving individual facts or

skills or making sense of experience.

10. Learning is developmental.

11. Complex learning is enhanced by challenge and inhibited by threat

associated with helplessness.

12. Each brain is uniquely organized

The Principles were first published by ASCD (1990), and were followed by our
first book, Making Connections, Teaching and the Human Brain, also published
by ASCD (1991). Geoffrey and I are currently revising and updating this book. It
is scheduled for release by Corwin Press in 2005.

Making Connections caused a flurry of activity and a call for consulting. While
we were much on the road and I was still teaching at the university (California
State University) we began an ambitious project with a small elementary school
in Sacramento. We committed to working together for five years, something that
turned out to be a fabulous adventure for all of us. Towards the middle of this
project I also began to work with a middle school in Yucaipa, California.
Working with schools turned out to be really difficult. Translating from the
principles and theory required a whole new way of communicating and thinking.
We definitely learned along with the teachers. In terms of today's primary
measure of success, however, all the schools we ultimately worked with raised
their test scores.

Most recently, I was asked to assist a low performing school in Southern

California. Once again, test scores soared at the end of one year. We have
never taught to the test, however. Our methods empower teachers to become
the best professionals possible. They include giving teachers the principles,
having them study them in Process Learning Circles and together develop
appropriate teaching strategies based on what the principles and theory tell
them about learning. Our work together is always based on implementing the
highest standards.

In our new book, 12 Bain/Mind Learning Principles in Action, Geoffrey and I

worked with two colleagues who are gifted Educators, Carol McClintic (a former
teacher) and Karl Klimek (a former principal and assistant superintendent).
Together we translated the Principles into useful language and practices that

6
can be used by all teachers in all schools. As the senior author, this book
provided me with the opportunity to put everything together that I have known to
be true. It was not easy writing and I can talk easily now of a writer's "dark night
of the soul", but the results are solid and provide a pathway that is true to a
belief in a holistic view of the brain and human being. And it is a view that is full
of hope and faith in the learner and teacher who decide to follow what it says
and ultimately develop their own practices based on research, solid academic
standards, knowledge of subject matter and teaching.

The work continues to be a passion. We still travel throughout the United States
and overseas, and we continue to spell out ways of assessing what we put in
motion and to link with schools, districts, departments of education in other
countries and universities. At a time when education and educators are under
so much pressure, it is a privilege and a joy to have a path to offer that can
make a difference.

7
References

Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1990). Understanding a brain based approach to

learning and teaching." Educational Leadership, 48(2), 66-70.

Caine, R., & Caine, G. (1994). Making Connections: Teaching and the Human
Brain. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.

Diamond, M. & Hobson, J. (1998). Magic Trees of the Mind. New York: Penguin
Putnam.

Lozanov, G. (1978). Suggestology and Outlines of Suggestopedy. New York:

Gordon and Breach.

O'Keefe, J. &. N. (1978). The Hippocampus as a Cognitive Map. Oxford:

Clarendon Press.

About the Author

Dr. Caine consults throughout the world on the brain/mind and learning. A
Professor Emeritus of Education at California State University in San
Bernardino (CSUSB), Dr. Caine was also Executive Director of the University's
Center for Research in Integrative Learning and Teaching. Her Ph. D. is from
the University of Florida in Educational Psychology and she has either
researched or taught every level from kindergarten to university. Her work with
schools has been featured on "Teacher TV" on the Discovery Channel,
"Wizards of Wisdom" shown on PBS, and elsewhere. She is co-author of
Making Connections: Teaching and the Human Brain, and six other books, and
regularly conducts leading-edge teacher training programs for educational
organizations. She and her husband, Geoffrey Caine, founded The Caine
Learning Institute, located in Idyllwild, California. The Institute is dedicated to
"expanding the family of those working with the brain/mind learning principles."
Recently Dr Caine worked with a low income, underachieving k-5 elementary
school in California to help teachers design more innovative teaching strategies
using the Brain/Mind Learning Principles and district standards in order to raise
test scores. She is the senior author (along with Geoffrey Caine, Carol McClintic
and Karl Klimek) of a new book entitled: , 12 Brain/Mind Learning Principles
in Action, The Fieldbook to Making Connections, Teaching and the Human
Brain. You can reach her at [email protected].

December 2004

8
THE BIG ONE
(LEDOUX)
SEEKING THE SELF
(LEDOUX)