The education and parenting world has a new buzz word - Neuroscience. Neuroscience is the science behind understanding how the human brain works. Its concepts and messages have underpinned a whole industry of foods, toys, supplements, exercises, meditations, music etc. These all claim to make people smarter or promote brain development. After listening to Nathan Wallis, I set about learning as much as I could about the latest and most reliable research of how the brain works. Many people often refer to "the research" but are often unable to say where it came. Given the implications of decisions that are being made based on "the research" I wanted to have a firmer foundation of what scientists are confidently saying about how the brain works to inform the work we are doing as a school. The most informative work that I came across was a semester of University Lectures on how the brain worked from a world leader in Neuroscience Professor Indre Viskontas, PhD https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/brain-myths-exploded-lessons-from-neuroscience.html This work was fascinating (from a geeky point of view) and gave me an understanding of the brain that I never knew. It blew apart lots of misconceptions that I had of the brain that I had always assumed to be factual based on "the research" so many people had quoted. In short, what did I learn? The answer is this - scientists do not confidently know how the brain works! There are many working theories about how the brain works. These theories work in some cases, but not in most cases. Dependent on age, gender, left or right-handed, upbringing, career, etc., each brain is unique. Warning - I am about to get a bit geeky; but stay with me, as the key takeaways will be worth the wait. The reason scientists have such difficulty trying to figure out how the brain works is relatively simple - the brain appears to be infinitely complex and unique. There are currently three ways we can understand what the brain might be doing. The first is either through MRI and fMRI scans. These give us some working theories about how the brain works. But until we can make these devices portable to allow us to see what is happening in real life, and in real-time (rather than in a hospital or laboratory) and we can create a full three-dimensional scan of the brain to see what is happening within seconds, we can only make educated guesses. The second way we create theories about how the brain works is by comparing dead brains. The problem with this method is it is like looking at a body at the bottom of a cliff then guessing what might have caused the person to fall. The third way is by putting probes in animals like rats to try and understand what is happening. This method works on the theory that the human brain and the rat brain might work in similar ways. So, what do almost all scientists agree on? Neuroscientists generally all agree on four things that make a significant difference in helping to create sharp, healthy brains.
3. Exercise feeds the brain - Scientists are not entirely sure why exercise benefits the brain, but they all agree that regular exercise year upon year is an advantage. Some speculate that exercise helps the body to create the fuel the brain needs to be most effective. Numerous studies show that those who exercise tend to have an advantage across a range of cognitive and mental tasks compared to those who do not remain physically active. This becomes more pronounced in old age, which leads scientists to speculate that the advantage of exercise is just as pronounced in brain development but is less obvious. 4. Social Interaction - Numerous studies show that social interaction is critical for the human brain. Some scientists speculate that it is one of the things that set us apart from all other forms of life. This is one of the reasons why solitary confinement is considered one of the worst torture techniques. The complexities of interaction seem to have benefits on a wide range of learning and memory tasks. The language that we use when interacting forms our perception of the world. What we see, hear, smell touch is all understood through social interaction that tells us if we are safe or in danger, accepted or rejected. Numerous studies demonstrate that the vocabulary range that parents use in front of their children significantly influence how a child's brain develops. Environments that are loving, accepting, rich in exploration all have high levels of social interaction which tend to create stronger brains. So what does this all mean? Ironically, none of the above is new! Getting enough sleep, a healthy diet, exercise and hanging out with parents and friends are essential to create healthy brains. Unfortunately, this is where the poverty cycle kicks in. We live in a world where it is cheaper to buy sugar drinks than milk. Fatty foods cost less than healthy foods. Processed food often tastes better than natural food. Often families that live in poverty have cold, damp homes which affect sleep. These families often have less education and a smaller vocabulary range. This means the quality of interactions and experiences parents have with their children wires brains differently due to the vocabulary range they expose their children. Violence in the home affects their understanding of social interactions. Exercise, adventures, holidays and interaction are replaced with Netflix and trips to Fast Food venues. Poverty can create a cycle where the things that develop vibrant brains are out of the reach of generations.
The other elephant in the room when raising children is technology and screen time. Technology is changing the way that our children interact with the world around them, which tends to lead to the question about screen time. However, the question we should be asking about screen time might be taking us down the wrong path. Perhaps a better question would be to ask if children are getting enough exercise, sleep, social interaction and healthy food. The neuroscience is really clear that it is a healthy dose of these four things, rather than too much of other things that inhibit the development of strong, healthy brains. I recently attended a workshop with 50 other primary (and one secondary) educators from across Cambridge to learn more about the positive impact and critical role that “play” has on not just children, but people of all ages. As a school, we have made an educated choice to introduce play into parts of our day for our junior classes (and extending into some other classes also) - and I am not talking about break times. As a society, “play” conjures up a very different picture than how educators now understand "play." When most people say to children “go and play” we are often saying “go and burn time before dinner” or “go and do something to give me a break,” or “go and have a rest from the hard task you have been doing” etc. None of these things are bad - it just does not accurately describe the value of play for children. When children play, there is sophisticated high-level neurological learning taking place. Children are learning to create, to problem solve, to negotiate, to compromise, to apply past learning to new situations, to craft words for purpose to suit the audience, to adapt, control impulses, initiate solutions to problems they have identified, to imagine, to learn new skills relevant to the task they are trying to solve. It encourages curiosity, discovery, inquiry, uniqueness. It helps children to learn what they are passionate about, about the sort of person they are and how to interact with others in situations where there are no set parameters. Who knew that "play" was so powerful! One of the problems with the word "play" is that despite it being used so frequently, coming up with a nice succinct one-line definition is difficult because of the individualness of how each person plays. This also makes measuring the impact of play so difficult in a society and education system that is infatuated with “Taylorism” and that for anything to have value it has to be able to be measured. Measuring the cognitive and creative benefits play is having on children is nigh on impossible to measure. Despite this complexity, play does have some common characteristics. Among the most essential characteristics of play is that the activity they become involved with may not have established rules - the people involved in the play set the rules and they change them as they go and as the play evolves (which often drives adults mad because we like to have set rules which everyone follows!). This is what separates play from any involvement in adult organised sport, or a traditional game outside. Another characteristic of play is that it is self-chosen, self-directed and allows children to quit at any time. The freedom to quit the play or change it is critical in the development of impulse control, to be able to concede if the task gets too tricky, or if someone tries to change the rules. All too often as adults we interfere in the play and try to organise the rules or manage disputes rather than allow children to do their play work and solve these things themselves. Of course, there are times when adults need to become involved, but sometimes children use adults as their tool to resolve a dispute or problem, rather than have to develop other skill sets to solve it themselves! Play is process focused rather than product driven. Children do not have to have something to show for how they have spent their time, nor is what they have done or how they have spent their time going to be measured or assessed. As soon as there is measurement or judgement, the creative tangents that allow players to go in wonderful new directions are extinguished because failure becomes an option. Think about the frustrations that children encounter when they are following a set lego model as opposed to trying to find a solution to a Lego car they are building from their imagination. To be clear, I am not suggesting that there is no place for having a finished product that is assessed against some set criteria. If our society worked that way, nothing would get done! Who would hire a contractor who did not complete the task that needed to be done to an agreed on standard!? The important thing to keep front of mind is that in play the process, working through challenges, resolving frustrations, the personal wins, the skills learnt is what is of value. To learn more about the characteristics of play, this is an interesting blog post from one of the most respected experts in the child development space - www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/freedom-learn/201610/the-culture-childhood-we-ve-almost-destroyed-it
So what does all this mean? In addition to continuing to have targeted and specialised reading, writing, math groups etc. that focus on targeting the next step learning needs of each learner, we need to build in and value more the educational advantages that come from opportunities that allow children to “play”. These opportunities should be available not just during break times, during the weekend and after school once the “real work” is done - but as part of a well rounded, balanced education system that allows children to find and develop their hidden potential as we partner with them to co-author their future. (I also wonder about the busy lives our children have outside of school and how there is less opportunity to play with friends or explore the paths of their imagination. Imagine setting homework where children are asked just to play! - But those are wonderings for another day!) As I write this, I am at school on a Sunday morning looking out the window and watching different groups of children who have come down to school to play. Some have formed games with new friends - they have set up some rules and are having a great time, some are on the swings and talking away about who knows what, some have found some sticks and are doing something with them as they run around, and others are challenging themselves to do new things on the playground. Knowing the value of what they are doing, the benefits it is bringing them socially, emotionally, developmentally, and cognitively, it is time to stop writing, and go home and play with my kids! Many great adventures start with the vacuum of time!
I last visited California in 2013 to explore their educational setting to get a compass as to what technological trends were emerging and how these trends might impact what was happening in NZ. The visit in 2013 was hugely beneficial for our school. Our Leamington Learner concept significantly developed, and the 6 C’s of our technologically capable learner evolved as a direct result of what we learnt. In fact, a large number of infrastructure decisions and concepts about the use of technology came from the 2013 experience.
My latest trip to California I have no doubt will be as beneficial and influential on helping to shape and provide clarity about critical paths we are walking as a school. It was an incredible privilege to spend two weeks talking with very switched on school leaders and teachers, unpack their thinking and understand the influences that have shaped the decisions they have made about their school direction. To see first hand what errors they have made, the successes they have won, and speak with students about the impact these decisions have had on their learning has been invaluable. It has allowed me to separate educational window dressing from some compelling educational possibilities which has left me in a fog that has taken some time to clear and gain further clarity. These lessons will save us months of discussions, errors, deadends and has provided a spotlight on concepts we are starting to talk about as a country that will no doubt be sticky concepts (ideas that will stand the test of time and become more and more significant over time.) But why go to California?
So what has changed? The most significant thing I noticed as having gone through rapid change is America is quickly becoming a cashless society. I recall from several years ago everything being cash. Now, every vending machine has apple pay, google pay, Garmin pay, paywave etc. Many eating establishments now have tablets on the tables where you order what you want, when you want it, you then swipe your “pay” system and the food or beverage just arrives - there is no need to ever go to the counter. Taxis are non-existent with Uber and Lyft cars everywhere and ordered from an app that tells you how much your fair will cost before you confirm your journey. It even shows you in real time the car coming to your location. Electric cars are noticeably present with charging stations for cars occupied more times than not. So what has changed educationally? The overarching takeaway theme from 2013 was California was exploring ways to use technology to transfer a “paper-based textbook centred” education system to a digital textbook format. Of the schools we visited, a significantly new direction has emerged. The discussions from each of the schools we spent time in centred around the urgency to have an education system that;
The children still needed to know "stuff" to get a space in college, but the way of teaching children has started to change significantly. Two quotes from teachers stood out for me “I used to be the smartest person in the room. Now, with the technology the children have at home, they are the smartest person in the room. They can now learn most of the things I used to teach them without me. My role now is to help them ask really good questions and connect with smart people outside of our classroom.” “Don't try and predict what opportunities the children may be missing out on today, rather help them to learn the skills that means they don't have to worry about what tomorrow brings.” For some of the schools we visited, these conversations are still in the early phases, while others are well down this track and are receiving a lot of attention and visitors from all over America - some even globally. A big takeaway is that the juggernaut of American educational culture is being reexamined and reimagined. Many of the educational improvements we are exploring as a country and school - they are now actively developing and are bringing considerable financial resources and personnel to bear to bring about shifts with urgency. Based on their district schooling model, when a district starts exploring an issue they often represent 30 000 students across 20 - 30 schools from Primary to Secondary (the number of districts we visited alone would have represented over 100 000 American students.) Flexible seating, teachers working together to exploit their strengths, learning through play, maker spaces, not teaching children based on one grade level, children having choice about their learning and being able to talk about their learning, being skills based rather than content driven, communicating across a range of mediums, using technology as an enabler rather than thinking of it as a magical tool that will cause children to learn better and make good choices etc. are just some of the big concepts that were not there five years ago and will likely be significantly more developed in another 5 years. So what does this mean for our School? None of these concepts are new to our school. We have been exploring these pedagogies for different periods of time. However, now we have more clarity about what is likely to be sticky, what deadends we can avoid, what errors we can leapfrog, what opportunities we need to amplify etc. Many conversations with a wide number of people need to take place to unpack many of these ideas and breath life into them within Leamington so we do not "splatter" new ideas recklessly. Exciting and challenging times ahead - it's going to be an every interesting next few years! This documentary movie was made about one of the schools we visited. It has been shared with me to be viewed by members of our school community exclusively. Be cautious of any statement that includes "the research says..."
For those of us in the education profession we continually look to educational, phycological, medical and neuroscience research to guide and inform what we do within our school. With the availability of research allowing people to "self diagnose" through a google search there is no shortage of "the research says" claims! Pshycology tells us that only research that paints a negative picture, captures the most shares on Facebook, populates the first pages of a google search or causes people to talk with others, gains attention. Unfortunately any literature that gets the most "likes" quickly carries influence, no matter how accurate it may be. If others think something is a risk, then it must be a risk - right? Just like the 6 o clock news, the positive or inconclusive stories never make headlines because they do not capture or easily hold attention. This is a biological necessity that has helps us survive the dangers around us. As a species, those who did not pay enough attention to dangers around them did not survive. (You can only afford to make a mistake spotting the sabre tooth tiger once!) Coupled with this, if others tend to think something, we tend to also, as again, we relied on those around us to inform us of any dangers we might have missed. This predetermination to pay attention to dangers or sudden movements or unexpected sounds is essential even today and can be seen in babies from the earliest days. Driving a car for instance relies on the driver continually scanning for dangers, quickly moving over and disregarding the vast majority of things that pose no risk. Shopping at the supermarket relies on us searching for and focusing on those things we are after and disregarding the thousands of other products on the shelves. As a person who looks to research almost daily to inform our practice, it is important to be able to navigate "research claims" and "research evangelists" and ask certain questions before paying too much attention to any claims. What makes the whole "the research says" debate more difficult is that the vast majority of research that is considered valid, rather than popular or feed our predetermination to seek things that cause harm, will not appear on a google search. These research findings sit behind paid subscriptions to onlline journals, University libraries, paid online papers etc and are invisible to normal search engines. The most important words to look for in any research literature is "cause" vs "correlation" vs "indicates" vs "suggests." Researchers use the word "cause" differently to the rest of us. From a research lens, a causal effect means that A causes B without any shadow of doubt. Researchers use the word "cause" very carefully. Anything with a causal effect means that all the experts agree that A causes B. Its a claim of absolute certainty. Correlation by contrast means that there might be a link, in some cases, in some conditions, but there are many variables that are as yet unknown and their influence is unclear. Most of the research that we come across reveals correlational links that then relies on the researcher to infer what variables has caused the correlation. For instance, there is a correlational link between the amount of ice cream sold and crime rates. Does eating ice cream cause more crime? Or is it that during the summer months people tend to eat more ice cream, be outside more, be away from home and leave windows open? We like to say cause as it helps to simplify complex and hard to understand concepts that makes it easier for us to understand! The questions I find most helpful in helping to consider any research claims or findings are below. Hopefully these might help the next time anyone says "the research says" to help us be more equipped to make up our own mind about its validity.
|
AuthorMike Malcolm - Principal of Leamington School Archives
August 2019
Categories
All
|