Brain And Learning

Vaishali Shah, Research Associate, GCERT, Gujarat

Presented at NIEPA, Delhi in the Qualitative Research Workshop in August 2003

The Definition of the Brain & Learning

Brain-based learning involves using approaches to schooling that rely on recent brain
research to support and develop improved teaching strategies. Researchers theorize
that the human brain is constantly searching for meaning and seeking patterns and
connections. Authentic learning situations increase the brain's ability to make
connections and retain new information.

Teaching strategies that enhance brain-based learning include manipulative, active

learning, field trips, guest speakers, and real-life projects that allow students to use
many learning styles and multiple intelligences. An interdisciplinary curriculum or
integrated learning also reinforces brain-based learning, because the brain can better
make connections when material is presented in an integrated way, rather than as
isolated bits of information.

A relaxed, non threatening environment that removes students' fear of failure is

considered best for brain-based learning. Research also documents brain plasticity,
which is the notion that the brain grows and adapts in response to external stimuli.

12 Design Principles Based on Brain-based Learning Research

By Jeffery A. Lackney, Ph.D.
Based on a workshop facilitated by Randall Fielding, AIA

1. Rich-simulating environments – color, texture, "teaching architecture", displays

created by students (not teacher) so students have connection and ownership of
the product.
2. Places for group learning – breakout spaces, alcoves, table groupings to facilitate
social learning and stimulate the social brain; turning breakout spaces into living
rooms for conversation.
3. Linking indoor and outdoor places – movement, engaging the motor cortex linked
to the cerebral cortex, for oxygenation.
4. Corridors and public places containing symbols of the school community’s larger
purpose to provide coherency and meaning that increases motivation (warning:
go beyond slogans).
5. Safe places – reduce threat, especially in urban settings.
6. Variety of places – provide a variety of places of different shapes, color, light,
nooks & crannies.
7. Changing displays – changing the environment, interacting with the environment
stimulates brain development. Provide display areas that allow for stage set type
constructions to further push the envelope with regard to environmental change.
8. Have all resources available – provide educational, physical and the variety of
settings in close proximity to encourage rapid development of ideas generated in
 a learning episode. This is an argument for wet areas/ science, computer-rich
workspaces all integrated and not segregated. Multiple functions and cross-
fertilization of ideas are primary goal.
9. Flexibility – a common principle in the past continues to be relevant. Many
dimensions of flexibility of place are reflected in other principles.
10. Active/passive places – students need places for reflection and retreat away from
others for intrapersonal intelligence as well as places for active engagement for
interpersonal intelligence.
11. Personalized space – the concept of home base needs to be emphasized more
than the metal locker or the desk; this speaks to the principle of uniqueness; the
need to allow learners to express their self-identity, personalize their special
places, and places to express territorial behaviors.
12. The community-at-large as the optimal learning environment – need to find ways
to fully utilize all urban and natural environments as the primary learning setting,
the school as the fortress of learning needs to be challenged and conceptualized
more as a resource-rich learning center that supplements life-long learning.
Technology, distance learning, community and business partnerships, home-
based learning, all need to be explored as alternative organizational structures
for educational institutions of the present and future.

This list is not intended to be comprehensive in any way. The brain-based learning
workshop track offered participants the ability to explore implications in an open and
reflective way. The intention for these workshops was primarily to start the public
dialogue concerning the implications of research on brain-based learning in the design of
school environments.

A second caveat to presenting these design principles for brain-compatible learning

environments concerns the need to use as many of these principles in combination in
the design of a school building as possible. Many principles reinforce each other in
providing a coherency and wholeness often lacking in buildings designed around a
single concept/fad, like open schools or house concepts. School designs that
incorporate a variety of these principles will by definition have the flexibility to
accommodate a wide array of learning styles.

What do we know from brain research about how we learn?

The brain is a vastly complex and adaptive system with hundreds of billions of neurons
and interneuron’s that can generate an astronomical number of neural nets, or groups of
neurons acting in concert, from which our daily experience is constructed. Many findings
seem obvious and intuitive, as one outsider asked me, "isn’t all learning brain-based?"
For example, we all know intuitively that the best age to learn a new language is during
our early childhood; what neuroscientists call the principle of windows of opportunity. We
can accept that all brains are unique and a product of interactions with different
environments, generating a lifetime of different and varied experiences; what scientists
call plasticity. We can accept the notion that either you use it, or you lose it; new neural
pathways are created every time we use our brains in thinking through problems, but are
lost forever – are pruned – if we do not use them.
Yet, with all we know now scientifically, and claim we have known intuitively, why do so
many people, educators and design professionals make instructional and physical
design decisions that contradict these findings?

The findings from neuroscience are now validating scientifically much of the new
instructional strategies being advocated in educational reform efforts since the 1960s.
Individualized instruction for instance is validated by findings concerning the importance
of intrapersonal intelligence. Activity-based learning is now on solid footing with what we
know about body-kinesthetic intelligence. Cooperative learning strategies are a logical
extension of the growing body of knowledge about the importance of interpersonal/social
intelligence and brain development.

Yet, it was the consensus of many participants at the brain-based workshop that brain-
based learning and the strategies that are emerging from that research is still at a
buzzword stage. Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences theory that posits a number of
dimensions of intelligence (linguistic, logical/mathematical, spatial, musical,
body/kinesthetic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal) is just one of a number of equally
valid theories about intelligence and brain-based learning. Gardner himself has been
frustrated by what he sees as reductionist thinking of many educational practitioners that
talk the language, but walk using their old instructional strategies, dividing up learning
activities into distinct learning modalities to the exclusion of other dimensions. Brain-
based learning requires a more systemic way of conceptualizing how learning takes
place and how to facilitate it.

Another concern with knowledge emerging from neuroscience is the need for translation
into brain-based learning strategies that can be used by educators. Over ninety percent
of all neuroscientists are alive and still practicing today. Interpreting the rapidly growing
information on brain research generated by these scientists, especially when some of
that information is contradictory, can be a daunting task

The conclusion reached by both facilitators and general participants was that we should
use caution when applying the findings of brain-based research, but at the same time
move ahead with what we know. We should not wait; we need to act on what is known
today knowing that some of this will change in the future. One example that was brought
up during the workshop was that scientists used to think that the brain was hardwired at
a very early age and set for the rest of life, what is called pruning. This assumption is
only partially true today. Pruning does take place at an early age, but research has
confirmed that nerves continue to grow throughout one’s life. You can teach old dogs a
few new tricks after all. This is a huge discovery and has implications for life-long
learning. When we learn a skill later in life, such as when we learn stick-shift driving or
skiing, we find the learning process to be frustrating and awkward at first, but soon these
skills become automatic. This is a clear example growing new neural connections and
the principle of plasticity in connection with the development of body/kinesthetic
intelligence.

As with any new learning, frustration seems to follow, as in the case of learning to drive
stick-shift. There is a period of time when we can’t get our body to do what our mind
wants it to do. We get emotional. From brain research we know now that when we get
emotional about a task we are involved in learning. Brain research has confirmed that
emotions are linked to learning by assisting us in recall of memories that are stored in
our central nervous system. Emotions originate in the midbrain or what has been termed
the limbic system and the neo-mammalian brain. Sensory information is relayed to the
thalamus in the midbrain, which acts as a relay station to the sensory cortex, auditory
cortex, etc. When sensory information reaches the amygdale, another structure in the
midbrain, that sensory information is evaluated as either a threat or not, creating the
familiar fight or flight response – the physiological response of stress. This information is
only then relayed to the frontal cortex, our higher cognitive functions, where we take the
appropriate action. How does information from the midbrain reach the frontal cortex?
Chemicals, neurotransmitters, are released into the endocrine system which is
connected to synapses, altering, coloring and intensifying our conscious experience of a
situation. Emotions aid in memory retention (learning) of this situation as being good or
bad. Decreasing threat ("driving our fear", mistrust, anxiety and competition) through
cooperation, providing safe places, and providing a motivational climate for positive
emotions ensure that learning will be retained.

But, brain research also suggests that the brain learns best when confronted with a
balance between stress and comfort: high challenge and low threat. The brain needs
some challenge, or environmental press that generates stress as described above to
activate emotions and learning. Why? Stress motivates a survival imperative in the brain.
Too much and anxiety shuts down opportunities for learning. Too little and the brain
becomes too relaxed and comfortable to become actively engaged. The phrase used to
describe the brain state for optimal learning is that of relaxed-alertness. Practically
speaking, this means as designers and educators need to create places that are not only
safe to learn, but also spark some emotional interest through celebrations and rituals.

Another general finding from brain research is that the brain is a pattern maker. Pattern
making is pleasing (emotional content) for the brain. The brain takes great pleasure in
taking random and chaotic information and ordering it. The implications for learning and
instruction is that presenting a learner with random and unordered information provides
the maximum opportunity for the brain to order this information and form meaningful
patterns that will be remembered, that will be learned. Setting up a learning environment
in this way mirrors real life that is often random and chaotic.

The brain, when allowed to express its pattern-making behavior, creates coherency and
meaning. Learning is best accomplished when the learning activity is connected directly
to physical experience. We remember best when facts and skills are embedded in
natural, spatial memory, in real-life activity, in experiential learning. We learn by doing.
The implications of applying the findings of neuroscience related to coherency and
meaning suggest that learning be facilitated in an environment of total immersion in a
multitude of complex interactive experiences which could include traditional instructional
methods of lecture and analysis as part of this larger experience.

Interaction of the brain with its environment suggests that the more enriched
environment, the more enriched brain. As one observer suggests, we need to enrich like
crazy. According to Ronald Kotulak in his 1996 book "Inside the Brain", an enriched
environment can contribute up to a 25% increase in the number of brain connections
both early and later in life. Our environments need to allow for active manipulation.

To summarize, there are at least twelve principles of brain-compatible learning that have
emerged from brain research.
 1. Uniqueness – every single brain is totally unique.
2. Impact of threat or high stress can alter and impair learning and even kill brain
cells
3. Emotions are critical to learning – they drive our attention, health, learning,
meaning and memory.
4. Information is stored and retrieved through multiple memory and neural pathways
5. All learning is mind-body – movement, foods, attentional cycles, drugs and
chemicals all have powerful modulating effects on learning.
6. The brain is a complex and adaptive system – effective change involves the
entire complex system
7. Patterns and programs drive our understanding – intelligence is the ability to elicit
and to construct useful patterns.
8. The brain is meaning-driven – meaning is more important to the brain than
information.
9. Learning is often rich and non-conscious – we process both parts and wholes
simultaneously and are affected a great deal by peripheral influences.
10. The brain develops better in concert with other brains – intelligence is valued in
the context of the society in which we live.
11. The brain develops with various stages of readiness.
12. Enrichment – the brain can grow new connections at any age. Complex,
challenging experiences with feedback are best. Cognitive skills develop better
with music and motor skills.

What might be some school design principles that support brain-based learning?

Burton Cohen and Peter Hilts took the material we discussed in the previous two
workshops and challenged the group to think about how as planners and designers we
might begin to create places for learning that support what they referred to as optimal
learning experiences. What would a brain-forming environment look like?

The first caveat we recognized as a group was that attempting to link research literature
on brain research in neuroscience, first, to interpretations about this research forming
principles of brain-based learning, and second, to facility implications is a very tentative
exercise at best. With this in mind, we attempted to outline what we felt were a dozen
sound principles for design. Interestingly, many of these principles seemed intuitively
right – principles any good designer would use. If this is so, then why we asked do most
schools appear to work against brain-forming? What makes these principles new is the
way in which they have been framed: as brain-forming principles based directly on what
we know about the neurophysiology of the brain and optimal learning environments.

Embracing the concept of "place" and place making – an opposed to space design -- is
critical to understanding the way in which design principles for optimal learning
environments are intended to be approached. When designing for optimal learning
environments, design must be approached in a holistic, systemic way, comprising not
only the physical setting, but also the social, organizational, pedagogical, and emotional
environments that are integral to the experience of place. Reducing these design
principles to "physical" design solutions negates the potential for creating authentically
brain-compatible learning environments. This point can not be stressed strongly enough.
Designing successful brain-compatible learning environments will require us as
educators and design professionals to transform our traditional disciplinary thinking and
challenge us to think in much more interdisciplinary ways – just as cognitive scientists
have had to do to address the complexity of brain research.

"The 'hidden nine-tenths' of your mental strength lies buried... discover, release and use
it to gain new success, personal happiness—a fuller, richer life."

- Advertisement for The Magic Power of Your Mind, W.B. Germain, 1956
They say “you only use 10% of it."

- Advertisement for database software, 1999

They say "You only use 11% of its potential."

- Advertisement for digital TV, 1999

They say "It's been said that we use a mere 10% of our brain capacity."

Advertisers believe it. The popular media promote it. Do we use only a small portion of
our brains? If the answer to this question is Yes, then knowing how to access the
"unused" part of our brain should unleash untapped mental powers and allow us perform
at top efficiency. But is it true that we only use 10% of our brains? Let's examine the
issue of brain use and attempt to get at the truth behind the myth.

Where Did the 10% Statement Begin?

The origin of the belief that we use only a small part of our brain is unclear. Perhaps the
belief is derived from debates during the early 1800s between those who believed that
brain function could be localized to particular regions of the brain and those who
believed that the brain acted as a whole. These debates centered around Franz Joseph
Gall (1757-1828) and Johann Spurzheim (1776-1832) who developed the field of
phrenology: the idea that specific human behaviors and characteristics could be
deduced by the pattern and size of bumps on the skull. Not everyone agreed with Gall
and Spurzheim. Marie-Jean-Pierre Flourens (1794-1867), an outspoken critic of
phrenology, believed that although the cerebral cortex, cerebellum and brainstem had
separate functions, each of these areas functioned globally as a whole ("equipotential").
Flourens supported his theories with experiments in which he removed areas of the
brain (mostly in pigeons) and showed that behavioral deficits increased with size of the
ablation. Although the work of Gustav Fritsch (1838-1927), Eduard Hitzig (1838-1907),
Paul Broca (1824-1888) and Karl Wernicke (1848-1904) in the late 1800s provided
strong data to counter the theory of equipotentiality, some scientists in the early 1900s
appeared to once again favor the notion that the brain acted as a whole.

One prominent researcher who promoted the theories of equipotentiality and "mass
action" was Karl Spencer Lashley (1890-1958). Lashley believed that memory was not
dependent on any specific portion of the cerebral cortex and that the loss of memory
was proportional to the amount of cerebral cortex that was removed. His experiments
showed that the ability of rats to solve simple tasks, such as mazes and visual
discrimination tests, were unaffected by large cerebral cortical lesions. As long as a
certain amount of cortex remained, the rats appeared normal on the tests he
administered. For example, in 1939 Lashley reported that rats could perform visual
discriminations with only 2% of the visual thalamocortical pathway intact. He even
estimated that this behavior required only 700 neurons. In another experiment in 1935,
Lashley found that removal of up to 58% of the cerebral cortex did not affect certain
types of learning. It is possible that over interpretation and exaggeration of these data
led to the belief that only a small portion of the brain is used. For example, although
Lashley's rats may have been able to perform the simple tasks, they were not tested on
other more complicated paradigms. In other words, the brain tissue that was removed
may have been used for tasks that Lashley did not test. Moreover, Lashley was
interested primarily in the cerebral cortex, not in other areas of the brain. Therefore,
these data should not be extrapolated to other parts of the brain.

Several public figures have made reference to the 10% brain use statement. American
psychologist William James wrote in 1908: "We are making use of only a small part of
our possible mental and physical resources". Some famous people without training in
neuroscience, such as physicist Albert Einstein and anthropologist Margaret Mead are
also attributed with statements regarding human use of only a small portion of the brain.

Regardless of its origin, the statement that we use only 10% of our brains has been
promoted by the popular media for many years. Indeed, many advertisers have jumped
on the statement to sell their products. According to these advertisements, if we buy their
products, devices, or programs, we will be able to tap into the brain's unused powers
and enrich our lives.

What does it mean to "use only 10% of your brain?" Does this statement imply that only
10% of the brain's neurons is active at any one time? If so, how could this be measured?
Does the statement assume that only 10% of the brain is firing action potentials at one
time? Even if this was true, the discharge of action potentials is not the only function of
neurons. Neurons receive a constant barrage of signals from other neurons that result in
postsynaptic potentials. Postsynaptic potentials do not always result in the generation of
action potentials. Nevertheless, these neurons, even in the absence of generating action
potentials, are active.

Keeping the Brain Quiet

If all neurons of the brain were generating action potentials at the same time, it is highly
likely to result in dysfunction. In fact, some neurotransmitters, such as GABA, act to
inhibit the activity of neurons and reduce the probability that an action potential will be
produced. Massive excitation of neurons in the cerebral cortex may result in seizures
such as those that occur during epilepsy. Inhibition of neuronal activity is a normal and
important function of the brain. In other words, some areas of the brain keep other areas
quiet.

It is also important to keep in mind that neurons are not the only type of brain cell.
Although there are an estimated 100 billion neurons in the human brain, there are
another ten to fifty times that number of glial cells in the brain. Glial cells do not generate
action potentials. Glial cells function to:

• support the brain structurally

• insulate axons
• clean up cellular debris around neurons
• regulate the chemical composition of the extra cellular space
Would we behave normally without 90 billion neurons and billions of glial cells? Would
we be just fine if 90% of our brains was removed? If the average human brain weighs
1,400 grams (about 3 lb) and 90% of it was removed, that would leave 140 grams (about
0.3 lb) of brain tissue. That's about the size of a sheep's brain. Clinical evidence
indicates that damage to even a small area of the brain, such as that caused by a stroke,
may have devastating effects. Some neurological disorders (e.g., Parkinson's disease)
also affect only specific areas of the brain. Disabilities may arise after damage to far less
90% of any particular brain area. Because removal of small essential brain areas may
have severe functional consequences, neurosurgeons must map the brain carefully
before removing brain tissue during operations for epilepsy or brain tumors.

Imaging the Active Brain

In addition to clinical evidence, brain imaging methods appear to refute the 10% brain
use statement. For example, positron emission tomography (PET) scans show that
much of the brain is active during many different tasks. Often when brain scans are
published, they have been manipulated to show relative amounts of brain activity rather
than absolute activity. This graphical presentation of the data shows differences in brain
activity. Therefore, it may appear that some areas of the brain are inactive when, in fact,
they were active, but at a lower level compared to other sites. Brain scans only show
activity for the carefully designed isolated tasks being tested, such as memory or visual
processing. They do not show activity related to other untested abilities. Imagine the
brain is a restaurant kitchen. If you looked in on the kitchen at one time, you may see the
chef preparing salad. However, you may not know that the main course is cooking in the
oven. Similarly, if you image the brain during a visual task, you will not see the other
patterns of activity associated with performing different (simultaneous) tasks.

Evolution and Development Weigh In

From an evolutionary perspective, it is unlikely that a brain that is 90% useless would
develop. The brain is an expensive organ to maintain and utilizes a large supply of the
body's energy resources. Certainly there are redundant pathways that serve similar
functions. This redundancy may be a type of "safety mechanism" should one pathway
for a specific function fail. Still, functional brain imaging studies show that all parts of the
brain function. Even during sleep, the brain is active. The brain is still being "used"; it is
just in a different active state.

From a developmental perspective, the 10% of the brain statement also fails. The adage
"use it or lose it" seems to apply to the developing nervous system. During development,
many new synapses in the brain are formed. After birth, many synapses are eliminated
later on in development. This period of synaptic development and elimination goes on to
"fine tune" the wiring of the nervous system. It appears that correct input is required to
maintain a synapse. If input to a particular neural system is eliminated, then neurons in
this system may not function properly. Nobel Prize winners David H. Hubel and Torsten
N. Wiesel demonstrated this in the visual system. They showed that complete loss of
vision would occur when visual information was eliminated during early development. It
seems reasonable to suggest that if 90% of the brain was not used, then many neural
pathways would likely degenerate.
Brains are quite adaptable and do have the ability to recover after damage. When a
brain is damaged, remaining neural tissue can sometimes take over and compensate for
the loss. The ability of the brain to recover lost functions does not indicate that the
damaged tissue had no function. Rather, this ability illustrates the brain's capacity to
reorganize and rewire itself.

It appears that there is no hidden storehouse of untapped brain power. We use all of our
brain.

Twelve Brain/Mind Learning Principles

Among the many supporters of Hart’s approach to educating with the brain’s functions
and design in mind are Renate Nummela Caine and Geoffrey Caine, authors of Making
Connections: Teaching and the Human Brain (1991), Unleashing the Power of
Perceptual Change: The Potential of Brain-Based Teaching (1997), and Education on
the Edge of Possibility (1997). They build on the idea of brain-compatible learning with a
list of twelve "brain/mind learning principles." These principles, according to Caine and
Caine, synthesize research related to the brain and learning from many disciplines and
present it in a form that is useful to educators. The twelve principles, they continue, can
function as a theoretical foundation for brain-based learning, and offer guidelines and a
framework for teaching and learning.

Their explicitly cautious approach to bridging neuroscience and teaching practices

reveals a fundamental and important dilemma: how to achieve a balance between taking
advantage of new research findings that have important implications for education, and
avoiding grand (and potentially irresponsible) conclusions with tenuous scientific basis.
In Making Connections, where Caine and Caine’s approach to brain-based education is
formalized, they state the need to refrain from prematurely over-concluding, given the
dynamic nature of current brain research: "Both in the neurosciences and in education,
we will no doubt learn more in the years to come. Though we make strong
recommendations and suggestions, the book has an open-ended quality."

Like Hart, Caine and Caine choose to interpret brain research holistically. And the "12
Brain/Mind Learning Principles," though the name may lead you to believe otherwise,
are not based solely on the findings of neuroscience. Instead, these principles and the
ideas generated from them come from a wide range of additional disciplines, including
cognitive psychology, sociology, philosophy, education, technology, sports psychology,
creativity research, and physics. As Caine and Caine explain, all of the principles are
"the result of a cross-disciplinary search."

These principles are not, the authors are the first to admit, definitive or closed to
revision; as more is discovered about the brain, and how we learn and remember,
educators will need to update their knowledge:

These principles are not meant to represent the final word on learning. Collectively, they
do, however, result in a fundamentally new, integrated view of the learning process and
the learner. They move us away from seeing the learner as a blank slate and toward an
appreciation of the fact that body, brain, and mind are a dynamic unity.
Where Did the "12 Brain/Mind Learning Principles" Come From?

Principle 11--"Complex learning is enhanced by challenge and inhibited by threat"–

illustrates how each principle is derived from a mixture of disciplines. In Education on the
Edge of Possibility, Caine and Caine illustrate the origins of Principle 11, a principle that
many brain-based learning advocates discuss, but the cross-disciplinary origins of which
few actually reveal. The effects of perceived threat, or distress, on cognitive functioning
led Caine and Caine to identify the optimal state of mind for learning, "relaxed alertness,"
one of three central elements accompanying complex learning. To translate into practical
terms, no one who has experienced the "fight or flight" fear response would identify this
state as optimal for learning. "Brain-based learning" theory is a combination of common
sense and brain science–in this case, the brain’s physiological reaction to stress–making
neuroscience a useful partner for improving education.

The research areas that contributed to principle 11 include: "Stress Theory; Anxiety
Research; Self-Efficacy; Neurosciences; Sports Psychology; and Creativity."

Practical Use of Brain/Mind Principles

Caine and Caine do not use the principles to prescribe any single teaching method.
Instead, the principles are intended to provide a framework for "selecting the
methodologies that will maximize learning and make teaching more effective and
fulfilling." They may open doors for educators, increase teaching options, or serve as a
guidepost to educators already working to implement brain-compatible teaching
practices. Following is the complete list of the twelve brain/mind learning principles, as
defined by Caine and Caine:

1. The brain is a complex adaptive system.

2. The brain is a social brain.
3. The search for meaning is innate.
4. The search for meaning occurs through patterning.
5. Emotions are critical to patterning.
6. Every brain simultaneously perceives and creates parts and wholes.
7. Learning involves both focused attention and peripheral attention.
8. Learning always involves conscious and unconscious processes.
9. We have at least two ways of organizing memory.
10. Learning is developmental.
11. Complex learning is enhanced by challenge and inhibited by threat.
12. Every brain is uniquely organized. (Caine and Caine 1997)

Three Conditions for Learning

Caine and Caine conclude that "Optimizing the use of the human brain means using the
brain’s infinite capacity to make connections–and understanding what conditions
maximize this process." They identify three interactive and mutually supportive elements
that should be present in order for complex learning to occur: "relaxed alertness,"
"orchestrated immersion," and "active processing."

1. An optimal state of mind that we call relaxed alertness, consisting of low

threat and high challenge.
 2. The orchestrated immersion of the learner in multiple, complex,
authentic experience.
3. The regular, active processing of experience as the basis for making
meaning.

Real-life Examples

Rather than offering a list of "how to’s," Caine and Caine provide many illustrations of
how these three elements may manifest themselves in real-life learning situations. They
analyze, for instance, the success of famous math teacher Jaime Escalante, whose
students from the Los Angeles barrio passed the calculus advanced placement exam in
astounding numbers. They claim that Escalante, whose teaching career was portrayed
in the movie "Stand and Deliver," was using brain-based practices: "Although we
question his textbook approach to the content of the subject, he understands his
students and the world students live in. In his classes, calculus becomes a way of life, is
a source of pride, and is linked to deeper understanding of how mathematics opens
doors to further study and the individual student’s future."

As the term "orchestrated immersion" implies, the teacher becomes the orchestrator, or
the architect, designing experiences that will lead students to make meaningful
connections. A second grade teacher’s successful efforts to teach punctuation,
specifically commas, periods, and exclamation points, serves as a good example of how
a teacher may use what students already know to teach what is abstract and unfamiliar.
After giving her students verbal explanations of what each of these punctuation marks
means (the comma, "slow down"; the period, "stop"; and the exclamation mark,
"emphasis"), the teacher had her students read out loud. But the verbal explanations she
had given them did not affect the way they read.

Finally, exasperated, she had them put on their coats and follows her outside. She told
them, "I am going to read to you and I want you to walk around in a circle. When I say
‘comma’ I want you to slooow down, whenever I say ‘period’ I want you to stop dead in
your tracks, and when I say ‘exclamation mark’ I want you to jump up and down…." She
tried this for five minutes with perfect success. When they went back inside and read, all
of them slowed down at the commas, paused at periods, and used emphasis at
exclamations points.

Teaching and the Organ of Learning

Making Connections: Teaching and the Human Brain includes many wonderful real-life
examples of how the three elements of relaxed alertness, orchestrated immersion, and
active processing occur in successful teaching situations at all levels, from elementary
school to college and beyond, and with a variety of methods. Current neuroscience
research does not yet fully and accurately explain why such real-life examples are
effective. Nevertheless, teaching, and a need for understanding how "the organ of
learning" works, are now linked as never before.

Neuroscience is currently so dynamic that this connection, although secure, will

inevitably grow and change and strengthen. The educator’s role will increasingly take on
an added and "brain-based" dimension -- that of remaining open to and curious about a
growing field of information. Interpreting information in a way that leads to appropriate
and responsible classroom practices is a crucial, and often overlooked, link in building
this bridge between education and research on, in Hart’s words, "the most complex
apparatus we know of in the universe," the human brain.

What is "Brain-Based Learning"?

The Organ of Learning

To many, the term "brain-based learning" sounds redundant. Isn’t all learning and
teaching brain-based? Advocates of brain-based teaching insist that there is a difference
between "brain-compatible" education, and "brain-antagonistic" teaching practices and
methods which can actually prevent learning.

In his book, Human Brain and Human Learning (1983), Leslie Hart argues that teaching
without an awareness of how the brain learns is like designing a glove with no sense of
what a hand looks like–its shape, how it moves. Hart pushes this analogy even further in
order to drive home his primary point: if classrooms are to be places of learning, then
"the organ of learning," the brain, must be understood and accommodated:

All around us are hand-compatible tools and machines and keyboards, designed to fit
the hand. We are not apt to think of them in that light, because it does not occur to us
that anyone would bring out some device to be used by human hands without being sure
that the nature of hands was considered. A keyboard machine or musical instrument that
called for eight fingers on each hand would draw instant ridicule. Yet we force millions of
children into schools that have never seriously studied the nature and shape of the
human brain, and which not surprisingly prove actively brain-antagonistic. (Hart 1983)

Granted, the brain is infinitely more complex than the hand. Although Hart does not deny
the brain’s vast intricacy, and he admits to his own deliberate simplifications regarding
the brain’s design, he argues that some knowledge, even if it is partial and simplified,
can still be applied to “design brain-fitting, brain-compatible instructional settings and
procedures." Such settings and procedures would emphasize "real-world" exposure. The
school, in Hart’s words, would become an "exciting center where there is constant
encounter with the richness and variety of the real world" as opposed to a "dreary egg
crate of classrooms…almost empty of anything real one might learn from."
References:

Education on the Edge of Possibility, Caine and Caine

Human Brain and Human Learning (1983), Leslie Hart

"Inside the Brain (1996), Ronald Kotulak

Making Connections: Teaching and the Human Brain

Making Connections: Teaching and the Human Brain (1991), Nummela Caine and
Geoffrey Caine,

The Language of Learning: A Guide to Education Terms, by J. L. McBrien & R. S.

Brandt, 1997, Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Unleashing the Power of Perceptual Change: The Potential of Brain-Based Teaching

(1997), Caine and Caine

12 Design Principles Based on Brain-based Learning Research

By Jeffery A. Lackney, Ph.D.