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. "Would you be happy if you were in a court of law, and the evidence that is used against you was of the quality that the author used to justify their opinion in this article?""The US Department of Health has revealed that 48 per cent of children who use electronic devices, like smart-phones, for five or more hours a day have suicide-related thoughts. The rise in teenage depression in the USA between 2010-16 was 60 per cent."
This opinion piece (disguised as an informative research article) is a template of the poor quality of information most people receive about the impact of technology on children and teenagers and the conclusions that are subsequently drawn. Which parent with a child who uses an electronic device would not be concerned about these statistics? However, the way the article is written leads the reader to come to certain polarising conclusions based on information it does not include, and it accuses those who are not concerned about the statistic to be disregarding the mental health of children. Rather than enter into the debate again about the proposed harms of technology on people, I wanted to ask the question "Would you be happy if you were in a court of law, and the evidence that is used against you was of the quality that the author used to justify their opinion in this article?" What information is lacking to allow the reader to come to an informed and objective conclusion? I would want my lawyer to ask specific questions... "What percentage of children who do not use electronic devices have suicidal thoughts?" (We are led to assume it considerably less based on how the article is written. We know this is not the case!) "Specifically, what electronic devices were being used?" (The last significant study by the US Dept of Health was based on TV viewing usage from which most of the conclusions about the impact of interactive electronic devices has been drawn.) "How were the devices being used?" (Were the children passively watching TV, were the children playing age-inappropriate games, doing homework on their computer etc.?) "Is it normal for people to have suicidal thoughts (what is the definition) and how is this different from having suicidal tendencies?" "Five hours a day, every day, is a significant amount of time. What percentage of people surveyed had five hours or more a day of continuous use and how did this reflect the home life and the choices the parent condoned?" So what is my point? When we read articles like this, we need to be careful to avoid jumping to conclusions based on crucial information that is omitted either through lazy research or deliberately avoiding contrasting information to substantiate personal opinions. https://nz.educationhq.com/news/49645/its-time-schools-look-at-how-smartphones-are-impacting-our-children What is learning through play?
We are excited to be exploring this learning path for our students and will certainly keep you informed of how this progresses. Links to research and articles around Learning through play Play-based learning can set children up for success at school and beyond. Article from NZ Herald - Setting Up children is Child's play In recent times there has been a lot said, and a lot claimed about the impact of mobile devices and the impact of screen time on children. And rightly so, screens and their impact on our society are still in their infancy. However, the discussion about the negative impact of new technology on children is not new. The previous generation of parents had the same concerns about TV, the generation before Rock and Roll. In fact, the discussions we are having today has a literature base indicating that similar discussions were taking place with the advent of the street lamp and also all children required to attend school in the 1800's.
It might surprise some people that when it comes to the impact of technology on children and their development, there is very little agreement among experts about if technology has a positive, neutral or negative impact. There are many pieces of research that point to correlational links between the use of technology and the positive, negative and neutral impact findings that follow. Unfortunately, in most instances, only the negative correlational links of the impact of technology are reported and capture our attention. However, there is a body of research literature that most experts agree on regarding the negative impacts of screens on young people. This literature base does not relate to the use of mobile devices directly, rather to the impact of TV. It is surprising that since studies conducted in the 80's about the impact of TV on young people, the vast body of research, including the more recent studies that include brain scans still study "passive screen time" impacts. It is widely agreed by experts in their field that passive screen time probably needs to be considered differently to interactive screen time. Passive Screen time is when children view a screen, like the TV, that requires no input from the viewer. Interactive Screen time requires the user to make decisions and cognitively respond to the stimulus on the screen. So what do most researchers agree on? If screen time causes reduced sleep, then that will have a negative impact. If not managed correctly, screens can affect sleeping patterns and the amount of sleep one has. There is a body of literature that shows a correlation between children having a TV in their room and reduced sleep, and a reduction in the amount of deep sleep. There is over 50 years of literature that documents the effects of sleep deprivation, including the negative impact on children. A major study in the 1980's indicated a strong correlation of screens in bedrooms or sitting close to a TV screen and reduced sleep. It is believed that when our eyes are close to screens, the light they emit and the amount of light our eyes then collect affects our internal body rhythm which causes us to think we should stay awake. Also, when what we are viewing on screens contains a lot of stimuli before sleeping, it also affects the amount of dopamine and cortisol in our system which again does not help sleep. Most experts agree that minimising the impact of screens before sleep will reduce any possible negative impact. This is not limited to screen use however, it includes anything that causes an increase in dopamine and cortisol. However, the dose is the poison. One-off events are not going to cause harm, rather ongoing occurrences do. Anything that causes a cumulative sleep reduction is a bad thing. Obesity When children are involved in prolonged sedentary activities two things happen. The first is children do not move as much which affects muscle and bone development as well as the number of calories burnt. The second is they tend to eat more than they normally would. This applies to any sedentary activity that is prolonged over a cumulative period. Change to reaction when exposed aggression - coming in my next post! 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
|