Here is yet another post from 20 years ago. I originally wrote this an article to go into to newsletter written for middle school educators.
The human brain is the focus of education. If our students are to have the ability to use the lessons we teach as they solve problems in the future then those lessons must be stored in and retrieved from their brains. This is true of declarative and procedural learning as well as affective learning. This is also true of learning that involves any of the multiple intelligences (Gardner, 2006).
In recent decades, cognitive scientists (a strange collection of neurologists, psychologists, educators, and others) have begun to elucidate how the brain stores, retains, and retrieves memories. The discoveries of cognitive scientists have been applied to schools to become brain-friendly (Jensen, 2005; Willis, 2006). For middle school practitioners, however, brain-friendly classrooms are not new. This post will explorer the connections between human learning and middle school practice.
Connections and Plasticity
Connections and plasticity are two characteristics of human brain that account for much of what we recognize as learning, and the brain-friendliness of educational practices including middle school practice depends on connection withing the brain and the plasticity of the brain.
Human brains are composed of many different kinds of cells, but neurons are the cells involved with learning. The number of neurons in the brain, and the complexity that can arise from those neurons is almost unimaginable. Rose (2005) suggested a newborn human has 100 billion neurons and each neuron potentially connects with thousands of other neurons which results in an enormous number of connections. To be correct, it should be noted that neurons do not actually form a physical connection, but neurons are chemically connected by neurotransmitters. An electrical signal is transmitted from the axon of one neuron to the dendrite of the next neuron by the release of a neurotransmitter.
These electrical and chemical connections between neurons are significant, because it is in the connections that memories are stored. In brain-friendly classrooms, activities are designed to build and strengthen these connections.
One of the truths of modern cognitive science is “what fires together wires together.” We can understand this it terms of connections: New learning is typical weak and deliberative, the connections storing that learning are weak. Over time, and with more practice, new learners become more confident and competent as the connections grow stronger. This characteristic of learning is true for the stroke victim learning to walk again and also for the middle school students learning a new math algorithm.
Another characteristic of the human brain essential for learning is plasticity. In addition to the discovery of connections and the principle of “what fires together wires together,” the discovery of plasticity or the ability of the brain to change must be counted among the fundamental discoveries of the most recent generation of cognitive scientists. Although plasticity allows for new learning and for recovery from brain injury, plasticity can interfere with desired brain function. Doidge (2008) summarized the future of human endeavors in light of plasticity in neurons: “ neuroplasticity isn’t all good news; it renders our brain not only more resourceful but also more vulnerable to outside influences. Neuroplasticity has the power to produce more flexible but also more rigid behavior….”
Connections and plasticity seems suggest that educators take steps to build connections, but to ensure those connections are worth keeping. Dweck (2006) suggested that people with a growth mind set are far more effective learners than those with a fixed mindset, but that these mind sets are very difficult to change. Where as new connections can be made, and one can use the plasticity of his or her brain to new new information, procedures, and affects, this is can be a difficult process.
Enriched Environments
One discovery in cognitive science that informs the practice of educators is the idea of the enriched environment. In laboratory experiments with rate it was discovered that young rats raised in an environment in which there was nurturing adults and courses s stimulation such as toys grew brains with more neuronal connections than rate raised in environments with nutritional adults and few chances for engaging play. Although the data are different from human studies, similar results have suggested human brains have more connections when exposed to nurturing adults and stimulating environments.
Middle school practitioners are familiar with the concept of the enriched environment, this idea is expressed in Turning Points design: “Teach a curriculum grounded in standards, relevant to adolescents’ concerns, and based on how students learn best, and use a mix of assessment methods” and also “use instructional methods that prepare all students to achieve high standards” (Jackson & Davis, 2000 p, 25).
A rich literature helps the current generation of middle school practitioners create and enriched environment in any middle school classroom. In addition to the most recent iteration of content standards (for example National Council of Teacher of Mathematics, 2000), middle school teachers can use documents such as the National Educational Technology Standards for Students (International Society for Technology in Education, 2007) and the 21st Century Skills (Partnership for 211st Century Skills, 2004) when planning for the content of an enriched environment. Further, the literature helps the current generation of middle school practitioners design education practices for enriched environments. Practices such as reading and writing workshops (Atwell, 1998) (which can be adapted to a wide range on content areas), using authentic contexts for learning and assessment (Brown & Knowles, 2007; Martin-Kniep, 2000), and using rubrics (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001; Willis, 2006) are practices available for any middle school practitioner who seeks to create an enriched environment in his or her classroom.
Health
The connection between exercise and one’s physical health is well known. Aerobic exercise can strengthen one’s cardiovascular health and strength training increases lean muscle and increases metabolism. Cognitive scientists are only now beginning to understand the connection between physical exercise and one’s brain health, however. Not only can physical exercise minimize the risks of long-term brain health issues such as dementia, but it appears physical exercise minimizes the need to drugs to treat familiar conditions, and it appears physical exercise is correlated with improved performance n the classroom and on academic testing (Ratey with Hageman, 2008)
Middle school practitioners have recognized the importance of attending to the health of students and teachers in their schools. Turning Points 2000 design calls for middle school educators to “involve parents and communities in supporting student learning and healthy development” as well as “provide a safe and healthy school environment.”
Conclusion
The current political environment can pose a challenge to middle school practitioners. It seems counter- intuitive that the dynamic and engaged learning found in fully implemented middle schools can improve student performance and achievement. There is growing evidence, however, that the human brain develops best when provided with the arts, opportunities for reflection, authentic contexts, and authentic assessment, and the opportunities for physical activity that are found in true middle schools.
References
Atwell, N. (1998). In the middle: New understanding about writing, reading, and learning. Boynton/ Cook Publishers.
Brown, D. & Knowles, T. (2007). What every middle school teachers should know (2nd ed.). Heinemann.
Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.
Doidge, N. (2008). The brain that changes itself. Penguin Books.
Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple intelligences: New horizons in theory and practice. Basic Books.
International Society for Technology in Education. (2007). National educational technology standards for students. Retrieved July 2, 2008, from http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/NETS/ForStudents/2007Standards/NETS_for_Students_2007.htm
Jackson, A. & Davis, G. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21stcentury. Teachers College Press.
Jensen, E. (2005). Teaching with the brain in mind (2nd ed.). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Martin-Kniep, G. (2000). Becoming a better teacher: Eight innovations that work. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R., Pickering, D., Pollock, J. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Author.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2004). Framework for 21stcentury learning. Retrieved July 2, 2008, from, http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=254&Itemid=120
Ratey, J. with Hagerman, E. (2008). Spark: The revolutionary new science of exercise and the brain. Little, Brown.
Rose, S. (2005). The future of the brain: The promise and perils of tomorrow’s neuroscience. Oxford University Press.
Willis, J. (2006). Research-based strategies to ignite student learning. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.