Applying mind-brain knowledge to the design of effective learning environments.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posting that will be used to complete the project designed to explore the features of an ideal learning environment

 

Collaborative project plans (outline and preliminary report)-simulation

Prepared by Eric M. Schultz with an short introduction by LAK

(LAK). Below you will find a preliminary draft (outline) prepared by Eric M. Schultz (EMS) who has guided our efforts to translate and apply mind-brain science knowledge in product development. We look forward to working with EMS once we have a completed report in hand. We appreciate Eric’s candor and his bottom line practical thinking in reviewing current learning science.  We are prepared to examine what appear to be Eric’s misgivings about the state of maturity, the depth of what is known about how we learn. He also has shared his preliminary pessimism whether there is much learning science that can be applied now. Eric has the job of being realistic of leaving romanticism behind as he examines our scientific understanding of the processes involved in learning. In a personal communication he is particularly annoyed and dismissive of hype and promissory notes that substitute for useful knowledge.

I appreciate my responsibility in the role I have agreed to take as part of our New Bretten mind-brain science consortium. I am supposed to be the realist. Long ago I made sure that I was not the only one to review how much meat was on the hamburger roll that constitutes real (and potentially applicable) scientific progress. So here we are trying to establish collaborations with scientists studying learning, (and related functions such as memory, thinking, problem solving) and those eager to make use of that knowledge in the design of effective learning environments.

Let me be clear at the outset and you can shout and argue with me later. There is little in the mind-brain science cupboard that is new and exciting and promising as game changers in the world of education which is where learning science often comes to rest.  The hype that comes from all kinds of directions does not come even close to backing up the predictions that the ‘new’ partnership between neuroscience and education will revolutionize how we learn. I am not buying it nor are any of my venture capitalist friends. Here are a few of my thoughts that support my conclusions and the key published references I used to get there. I have been reading what is considered the leading books and articles on learning science. Here is a list of what I have read most recently and the basic conclusions reached by the scientists generating the cited research.

1. The field of the neuroscience of learning is ripe for translation and application.
2. Useable knowledge can bridge the gap between research and practice.
3. There are cognitive benefits to listening to music especially in blocking background noise.
4. Sleep has a role in learning that can be manipulated.
5. Exercise helps learners learn.
6. Stress undermines learning
7. Take active notes, paraphrase, Active engagement is important for learning so it helps to take notes and translate what you are learning in your own words (i.e., paraphrasing)
8. Study groups aid learning.
9. Teaching the material to be learned is an effective learning tool
10. St attainable goals.
11. Real life situations enhances to-be learned material
12. Students must learn to think on their own.
13. Learning style can impact learning.
14. In learning content students should also be taught to learn how to learn.
15. Retrieval, testing what is being learned should be an integral part of the learning process. Retrieval, testing, is as powerful as an opportunity for further study in enhancing learning

I have looked over this list and will treat some of these items in detail in my later report (particularly #15). Nevertheless I would point out that I see little brain science in this list of suggestions for enhancing learning. Furthermore I don’t see much science in this list of items. What is evident is that common sense, knowledge that is as old as ancient Athens (Aristotle), is being paraded out as mind-brain science applied to learning.Perhaps some science gems are hiding behind some laboratory door. Actually I was surprised at what did not show up in the current articles applying mind-brain science to the business of learning. For example why didn’t the last president of the Neuroscience Society (Carew, see reference below) not mention the important training opportunity focused on executive functions (abilities to plan, evaluate one’s own performance, inhibit impulses, etc.) as a byproduct of what we have learned about prefrontal lobe functions? Why didn’t the authors cited mention the potential for applying knowledge relevant to development of expertise, automatic in contrast to controlled cognitive operations? No mention was made of the potential yield from methods that can allow us to do an analysis of component operations that make up complex cognitive functions? None of the authors mentions the value of applying what we know about the neurobiology of emotions and cognition. What about what we have learned about decision making, especially when it comes how we value and predict consequences. A whole field has been created sometimes called neuro or behavioral economics which has explored how we discount the future value of our actions and over value the most immediate past events. I will explore some of these themes in my full report later.I don’t get it. The science that is being pedaled as ripe for translation is weak at best while useful knowledge is ignored. Has applying science to practical problems fallen into the hands of advertising agencies and sales reps? I have one other issue (question) for those who think that mind-brain science tools are especially powerful for overhauling learning environments. The biggest size of effect in improving learning in the classroom is terrific teachers (school leadership). A study published in Science (and summarized on this website) demonstrated that very effective teachers make a huge difference in what happens in the classroom and are worth the equivalent of 15 K of family income. The size of effect of teachers is far greater than class size and the bells and whistles that are attractive additions to the classrooms (i.e., special equipment). Not a surprise given the fact that hundreds of articles have been written about the role of leadership and its powerful effective on group performance whether that is a school or a business.
I am reminded of an initiative carried out in a failing school in Bronx New York (graduation rate of 39% and standard test scores somewhere beneath the floor boards). A school called the Bronx Lab School was started within the same failing high school. A young principle (marc Sternberg) was chosen jumping over the seniority list of candidates and that principle picked teachers rather than having them automatically assigned to his school. Four years later the graduation rate of these 500 students was 92% and 85 % went on to college. I can’t imagine an effective size larger than that by simply employing mind-brain science methods.

Yours respectfully

EMS

What clothes would the naked emperor have worn had he known he was naked? A response

Are you being too harsh in dismissing what brain science has to offer?

 

in response to EMS report above

Beyond the hype some mind-brain science can be applied right now in the design of effective learning environments

I read with great interest the Collaborative project plan (outline and preliminary report) prepared by Eric M. Schultz entitled ‘Applying mind-brain knowledge to the design of effective learning environments’. While I agree with much of what he had to say my advice to him is to lighten up and not get his ire in the way of appreciating how much of the martini is left in the glass.

EMS’s major point is that mind-brain science knowledge has not been developed well enough to apply it to the design of effective learning environments. He also points out that despite our lack of detailed knowledge about complex mind-brain functions what we do know a little about is oversold both to the public and to educators in particular. He does point out a few areas of knowledge that are exceptions to the notion that there is little in the applications cupboard worth our immediate attention.

Well at least he does acknowledge that some areas of mind-brain science are ripe for translation and I want to emphasize that point. We often don’t take advantage full of how ripe some areas of basic science are for translation and application. Incidentally the same problem exists in medicine where translation of basic findings takes forever to reach the clinic.

Here are three mind-brain science areas of new knowledge that can be translated immediately into how we design learning environments (and of course that includes how we teach).  They are:

1)      The impact of retrieval (testing) as we learn.

2)     Teaching executive functions starting in preschoolers and then continuing through adolescents.

3)     Mapping what the learner knows in some detail before trying to teach new knowledge.

Retrieval testing as an integral part of each learning module (session): Let us say you have one hour which can be used any way you want in teaching students almost anything, from vocabulary word, math, science, history, or how to tie their shoes. How would you use that hour? We all have ideas that we think are worthy of being tested and compared to the teaching ideas of others. What is clear is that spending some time testing as learning proceeds is far more effective than substituting additional study time in place of testing time. In studies by cognitive scientists such as Mary Pyc (Science , October 15, 2010) and the research program of Henry Roediger at Washington University in St. Louis (Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests imp0rovesw long-term memory; Psychological Science, 2006; 249-255). Other studies confirm the effectiveness of retrieval testing throughout learning. It is time particularly well spent.

Teaching executive functions can and should be taught starting in the very young. I know the use of the term executive functions has been butchered so that it can mean almost anything under the sun of complex cognitive functions. What is clear in that mist of terminology is that we are talking about functions of the frontal and prefrontal lobes areas of the brain that we know about in detail. We know about the development, neurochemistry, neural networks and connections of these regions with other areas of the brain. We also have a wealth of knowledge about what happens as consequence of damage in this area of the brain. The functions of this area of the brain are incredibly important in governing adaptive and effective behavior. These functions include abilities and skills that allow us to plan, evaluate what we are doing, and inhibit impulses.

Attempts at retraining executive functions in brain damaged patients have been a clinical practice for many decades. It is beginning to be clear that training these functions in very young children is not only possible but highly effective using very simple tools and games. Adele Diamond and colleagues used ‘Tools of the Mind’ to train executive functions to kids in school. The effect size was huge as reported in their study in Science, November 2007. The most important take away message is that these functions are highly trainable and the methods that can have that happen can be incorporated in all kinds of content-driven learning situations.

Mapping what the learner knows: Strong false beliefs are very hard to change. Studies have shown that in the face of evidence that would refute false beliefs those beliefs don’t change easily if at all. In fact sometimes false beliefs are strengthened by counter evidence. Much of effective learning frequently involves unlearning, i.e., heavy objects fall faster than lighter ones. Learning about what students know about a subject is crucial if effective learning is take place.  Learning does not take place as if the mind were a blank slate. Many methods are available and should be used in mapping out the knowledge structures of the learner.