Neuroscience and Education.

This paper was prepared for my Ed.D. seminar at SEBTS on Integrative Learning. 

__________________________________________________________________________

What is neuroscience and how does it impact our approach to education? Can neuroscience even have an impact on how education is done? If either of these are even possible should something stand in the gap as a kind of middle-man between neuroscience and education, or is there a readily available bridge already build for educators and neuroscientists to meet on? These questions have been being tossed around in the scientific and educational communities for quite some time on how these two fields might, could and should impact the development of students across the world.

            There are few things that need to be cleared up before a right understanding of the way in which these two fields interact. Therefore, the first portion of this paper will serve as both an introduction to the paper as well as an introduction to neuroscience so that a working understanding of the terminology and jargon might be formed. From there, and second, the discussions of how, if at all, neuroscience can be utilized for the benefit of education will be reviewed and analyzed. Third, followed by some concluding remarks on the reviewed and analyzed material. Fourth, and revealing a small bit of the writer’s bias, points of application will be written on in order to provide examples of how, where and why neuroscience should indeed be applied to the field of education. Fifth, and lastly, some concise concluding remarks on the nature of the study of neuroscience and the implications it has on the classroom of the future.

            At its base neuroscience is the study of the nervous system, how it develops, how it is structured and what it does. Neuroscientists focus on the brain and its impact on behavior and cognitive abilities. Still more neuroscientists focus on behavioral or development disorders not merely the normal functioning of the brain and nervous system.

            Traditionally this branch of study is situated under the discipline of biology, but it is becoming an interdisciplinary subject with many crosses with studies in mathematics, linguistics, philosophy, computer science, engineering, psychology and medicine. It is, however, important to not confuse neuroscience with neurobiology, the former is mainly concerned with anything to do with the nervous system while the later is concerned with the biology of the nervous system (Georgetown).

            “The human brain — a spongy, three-pound mass of tissue — is the most complex living structure in the known universe” (SFN, 2016). In the study of the brain it has come to the neuroscientist’s attention, and therefore ours, that it can store more information than modern supercomputers and make connections that far pass social media. In fact, all that it can do has still not been uncovered. It is the organ that controls all of the body as well as shapes emotion, belief and hopes. Neuroscience is an important study and can help nearly the one billion people worldwide who suffer from some type of neurological disorder of which there are over one-thousand.

            But how does neuroscience impact the educational sphere? Is it even possible to take the study of the nervous system and brain and make inferences about how one should approach the classroom from a teaching and/or learning standpoint? While large strides have been made in the development of neuroscience and great research has been accomplished to show the usefulness of neuroscience in the classroom; it remains a hotly contested topic among those on both sides and those caught in the middle.

            Professor Dorothy Bishop of St. John’s College at the University of Oxford said in an interview with Eruonews, “John Bruer said in a paper … that rather than jumping straight from neuroscience to education we need something in the middle, we need cognitive psychology.” This paper she is referencing is called “Education and the Brain: A Bridge Too Far” by John T. Bruer is the first piece in this paper’s puzzle of attempting to learn more about neuroscience and its impact on education.

            “The neuroscience and education argument relies on and embellishes three important and well-established findings in developmental neurobiology” (Bruer, 4). The three reasonably well-established findings are: 1) that starting in childhood and continuing on to later childhood there is a considerable upsurge of synapses that connect neurons to the brain; 2) that for the sensory motor system there are critical developmental periods which are experience dependent; and 3) that for rats, complex environments cause new synapses to form.

            After further developing these three main arguments often used by those in favor of having neuroscience directly impact teaching. But Bruer says, “What we know about synaptogenesis, critical periods, and complex environments cannot provide much guidance for educational policy, classroom practice, or early childhood education” (10). And due to this conclusion he follows it up with the semi-famous statement, “We simply do not know enough about how the brain works to draw educational implications from changes in synaptic morphology” (10). Bruer’s point is that we do not know enough about the brain in order to make the large leap from neuroscience to educational application. He did not deny the truth of the established arguments for it’s legitimacy but he simply did not see how those things could impact or or provide outlines to be followed within the classroom.

            He continues on to offer a stop-gap to stand in the middle between neuroscience and education, that stop-gap is cognitive-psychology. He reasons that,

If we cannot build the neuroscience and education bridge, but are interested in how brain structure supports cognitive function, we can pursue a more promising strategy that involves traversing two existing spans. The first connects educational practice with cognitive psychology, and the second connects cognitive psychology with brain science” (10).

Cognitive psychology is the study of the mind and mental function wherein the cognitive psychologist attempts to understand the underlying processes of an observed behavior. What Bruer is attempting is to bring the findings of neuroscience to bear on education after they have been properly filtered by the field of cognitive psychology.

            By way of example Bruer shows that it would be nearly impossible to take the findings of a cognitive neuroscience studies findings of how neural circuitry is involved in making comparisons during elementary mathematics. Still more, it would be just as difficult to design or develop a curricula based on such findings alone, one would need cognitive psychology in order to properly apply neuroscience’s findings to the realm of the classroom.

So, ultimately in Bruer’s world of understanding of how neuroscience should impact education is that the bridge between the two continents could not span the vast expanse. However, if the island of cognitive psychology were to be discovered in the middle of the continents, bridges could be built to that island and then the transfer of knowledge from one continent to the other would be possible.

            Bruer’s article was published in 1997, so what has changed in the nearly thirty years since? If at that time, “We simply [did] not know enough about how the brain works to draw educational implications from changes in synaptic morphology” (10). What, if anything has changed?

            In 2014 a group of neuroscientists and cognitive neuroscientists developed a paper in response to Bruer’s 1997 bridge too far argument. This paper titled “Neuroscience and Education: Prime Time to Build the Bridge” discusses how Bruer’s argument is no longer necessary.

            “The bridge too far argument assumes a linear flow from neuroscience to cognitive psychology and education. We argue instead that neuroscience and cognitive psychology should work in synergy, providing complementary tools to understand the mind and act in concert to improve education” (Sigman, Peña, Goldin, Ribeiro, 497). They continue to give four examples that meet in the Pasteur Quadrant (where basic research and applied research meet): physiology, education outside of school, bilingualism and perceptual learning.

            In the realm of physiology, it is important that a student have a good morning beginning with good nutrition. The brain, neuroscience is showing is the largest consumer of glucose in the human body. However, “Caloric intake is not the only dietary requirement for learning; a high-fat diet leads to the desensitization of NMDA receptors that are critical for learning” (Sigman, Peña, Goldin, Ribeiro, 497). What this translates to is not just that a student is receiving enough food, but the right kinds of food in order to fuel their brains capacity for learning.

            What happens outside of school is much more important than what is happening inside the classroom as a student will spend as much as 85% of their waking time outside of the classroom in total. Because of the synergistic approach to neuroscience, cogitative psychology and education it is clear that, “the amount and quality of play, and emotional and regulatory mechanisms that influence temperament and school readiness” (Sigman, Peña, Goldin, Ribeiro, 498). In addition to this, it is apparent that the need to know where a student is located, that is to mean, what stage of learning they are inhabiting in order to effectively teach that student. Thus, classroom differentiation is necessary. As no parent would expect their three-month old child to be running, or speaking in full sentences, and would be absurd for being angered that they are not; so too it is necessary for educational professionals to learn where their students are in their learning and meet them there.

            In their last example Sigman, Peña, Goldin and Ribeiro discuss the phenomenon of reading stating,

“Literacy is perhaps the most remarkable perceptual-learning experience in modern societies. It is a radical transformation, after which a set of visual symbols becomes automatically mapped to auditory phonemes. This, in turn, has a cascading effect on cognition because review literacy scaffolds a myriad of other aspects of human culture. It seems quite reasonable then that the neuroscience of perceptual learning, a flourishing literature in the brain sciences, should be connected to the reading literature” (Sigman, Peña, Goldin, Ribeiro, 499-500).

This fascinating paragraph takes into account the way in which the brain is molded to be able to preform tasks that are not innate. Reading, literacy, is revealing the changes that occur in the mind of an individual as they learn. This one area of study effects all other areas of study as it reframes how the mind approaches learning. Where an auditory society is effected by their lack of literacy, a literate society is colored by their literacy. What this means for education is that children should be taught to read entire words rather than to focus on letter-by-letter reading.

            “Now is the time to be both practical and brave, identifying the most promising findings provided by neuroscience, and using them to design and implement transformative educational experiments” (Sigman, Peña, Goldin, Ribeiro, 501). The more we learn more in education research and cognitive sciences such as neuroscience the more we will be able to implement those findings into the classroom.

            The fixed idea of the brain being rigidly structured has been being dispelled over the last three decades. Now it is understood as being much more malleable, like plastic or even silly-putty. It is always changing its wiring throughout life. In 2004 the first human experiment of the plasticity of the brain was developed (Draganski). Up to this date all research was based on laboratory animals, as was seen in John Bruer’s “Bridge too Far” article above. What Draganski and his fellow researchers found was that in a small part of the brain associated with vision increased in density as a group of subjects was taught a new skill (juggling). However, once the subjects had stopped practicing this skill that portion of the brain would return to their original state (Draganski, Gaser, Busch, Schuierer, Bogdahn & May, 311-312).

            But what causes lasting change to take place in the brain? In an article titled “The Art of Changing the Brain” James E. Zull sets out to discuss this very thing. His findings are that two primary things impact the brain and cause it to change with lasting effects, practice and emotion.

            Through practice the brain begins to grow neurons, as those neurons fire frequently they grow and extend toward other neurons. Zull uses the metaphor of a bush growing toward another bush, as the branches grow they reach out towards each other, however the difference in the brain is that when those branches reach they don’t just touch, they connect (69). But practice alone does not cause lasting change.

            Emotion is the second characteristic that causes lasting change in the brain. Through the production of emotion chemicals such as adrenalin, dopamine, or serotonin, “The synapse strength is modified and the responsiveness of neuron networks can be dramatically changed (Brembs, Lorenzetti, Reys, Baxter, Byrne, 2002). This emotional connection has direct implications for students and their motivation. “Learning should feel good, and the student should become aware of those feelings” (Zull, 70).

            As teachers it is important to engage with the whole brain. What neuroscience is discovering is that the brain is not simply one big organ, but one organ with many regions that control different parts of our learning and life (see figure 1).

Figure 1: different regions of the brain and what they control.

As each region is included in the teaching process through practice and emotion the development and number of connections will become stronger and higher. Another way to view the brain, though extremely simplified is to divide the brain into four major regions with their differing functions. If a teacher tries to include all four sections of the brain through experience and engagement the student will experience deeper learning (see figure 2).

Figure 2: Four regions of the brain (simplified).

Abstract ideas, testing, informative experience, and reflection when all engaged through the teacher result in deep learning of the material.

            How then do these developments in neuroscience impact the classroom? The implications are becoming clear. The once rigid understanding of the brain has been dispelled through the study of the brain. Now a teacher does not merely have a fixed beginning place, and students are not ever carrying the short end of the stick. But rather the teacher can be successful in every case, and the students have the odds stacked in their favor as their genetics do not determine how smart they will become. Therefore, the differentiated classroom is a direct answer to the breakthroughs in neuroscience.

            Richard Knox’s National Public Radio article “The Teen Brain: It’s Just Not Grown Up Yet” gives further examples to the practical nature of how neuroscience and education are working hand-in-hand to develop smart learners. As Knox interviews Frances Jensen about the teenage mind, a topic Jensen became interested as her two sons grew into their teenage years, it is clear that the question is not what teenage students are thinking, it is how.

            In the teenage brain the frontal lobe, the part that is in charge of executive action, that asks the question, “Is this a good idea?” is not yet fully connected to the rest of the brain. The white matter, or myelin, which covers the nerve cells connecting the frontal lobe is not yet fully formed. This creates a slow or sluggish connection (Knox, 3). So, in the case of teenagers, it is literally that their brain is working differently than the brain of an adult. In addition, it has become clear that students who spend an entire night studying for an exam the next day will not do as well as they would have if they had, had a full night of rest before. A student who reads over the information and then sleeps will have the information moved from short-term memory to long-term memory while they sleep and thus do better on the exam.

            Neuroscience is having great impacts on education. What once was true that we did not know enough about the brain to build teaching methods off of the study, is no longer true. The bridge not only should be built, but it is being built. The examples are becoming myriad, and the benefits are numerous. Students can be taught, no matter their background because our minds are not ridged, they are moldable.

            Wisdom dictates that we use the progresses of science, in this case neuroscience to learn more about the brain that God has created and aim to steward the one that he has given as well and to help develop the ones under our care. God has created mankind to be learners, we are, as C.S. Lewis said, going, “Further up and further in[to]” the knowledge of God. He did not make us to be apathetic, but to discover. What greater joy to discover the beauties of the universe that He created in order to discover something of the majesty of God who intimately wants to know us?