Neuro Myths: Separating Fact and Fiction in Brain-Based Learning

New research on educational neuroscience tells us how kids learn -- and how you should teach.

By Sara Bernard
Edutopia
December 1, 2010

You've surely heard the slogans: "Our educational games will give your brain a workout!" Or how about, "Give your students the cognitive muscles they need to build brain fitness." And then there's the program that "builds, enhances, and restores natural neural pathways to assist natural learning."

No one doubts that the brain is central to education, so the myriad products out there claiming to be based on research in neuroscience can look tempting.

With the great popularity of so-called brain-based learning, however, comes great risk. "So much of what is published and said is useless," says Kurt Fischer, founding president of the International Mind, Brain, and Education (MBE) Society and director of the MBE graduate program at Harvard University. "Much of it is wrong, a lot is empty or vapid, and some is not based in neuroscience at all."

Still, there are some powerful insights emerging from brain science that speak directly to how we teach in the classroom: learning experiences do help the brain grow, emotional safety does influence learning, and making lessons relevant can help information stick. The trick is separating the meat from the marketing.

So what's an educator to make of all these claims?

Standards of Proof
The use of neuroscience in education, relatively speaking, is young. Neuroimaging technologies have really only developed over the last 20 years, so virtually nothing is "proven" at this point. Neuroscientists can point to some aspects of how different parts of the brain function and connect with one another, but when it comes to education, no one can definitively outline more than a few broad concepts.

"My basic recommendation is that if a product claims to be proven by brain research, forget it," says neurologist and former classroom teacher Judy Willis. "Nothing from the lab can be proven to work in the classroom -- it can only correlate."

This might explain why some academics bemoan the term "brain-based learning," including Robert Sylwester, Emeritus Professor of Education at the University of Oregon. "As if it were kidney-based learning last year, and now it's brain based," he grumbles.

Some software companies will "make fabulous claims and have all these testimonials," adds Patricia Wolfe, veteran teacher and administrator and founder of Mind Matters, a workshop and online resource for translating brain science into classroom practice. But in many cases, she says, "the products haven't been tested by anyone who's not selling them."

Myth Busting
Some of the biggest neuro myths, or misguided beliefs about neuroscience that have invaded the general psyche, include the following:

• The brain is static, unchanging, and set before you start school. The most widely accepted conclusion of current research in neuroscience is that of neuroplasticity: Our brains grow, change, and adapt at all times in our lives. "Virtually everyone who studies the brain is astounded at how plastic it is," Fischer says.
• Some people are left-brained and some are right-brained. "This is total nonsense," says Fischer, "unless you've had half of your brain removed." This may have emerged from a misunderstanding of the split-brain work of Nobel Prize winner Roger Sperry, who noticed differences in the brain when he studied people whose left and right brains had been surgically disconnected.
• We use only 10 percent of our brains. This is also false, according to Wolfe, Fischer, and a slew of scientists across the globe. In fact, brain imaging has yet to produce evidence of any inactive areas in a healthy brain.
• Male and female brains are radically different. Though there may be subtle differences between male and female brains, there is absolutely no significant evidence to suggest that the genders learn or should be taught differently. This myth might stem from a misinterpretation of books such as The Essential Difference: Men, Women, and the Extreme Male Brain, which focused largely on patients with autism.
• The ages 0-3 are more important than any other age for learning. Even though the connections between neurons, called synapses, are greatest in number during this period, many of the published studies that have to do with teaching during these "critical" time periods involved rats and mazes, not human beings.

"Understanding the Brain: The Birth of a Learning Science," a report published by the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), examines these and other unfounded neuroscience claims. Unfortunately, the science behind these ideas is often misunderstood and milked for profit.

Use What Works
Consider the case of Fast ForWord, the much-lauded phonics-based reading software, which is listed on the U.S. Department of Education's What Works Clearinghouse as demonstrating "potentially positive effects on the reading fluency and comprehension domains for adolescent learners." A 2008 study published in the Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, however, reported that the software "was not more effective at improving general language skills or temporal processing skills than a nonspecific comparison treatment."

Some neuroscientists maintain that Fast ForWord is a prime example of what happens in the brain-based education industry: A few limited studies with a neuroscientific basis are used to underscore decades of marketing. Yet many schools and teachers across the nation who've used Fast ForWord have seen astronomical gains in their students' reading capabilities.

In other words, the conclusions here are murky at best. If a strategy or program produces results, use it. Just don't assume that its value is unequivocally proven by brain science.

We don't need to be so wary of discoveries in neuroscience that we write them off, however. They can still contribute enormously to a dynamic classroom, especially if they're seen as a "tool, rather than a philosophy," as one educator, LoriC, put it in an Edutopia.org discussion. (For specific strategies, see the "Fact" links at right.) "Maybe we need to approach this sort of learning like Thomas Edison might have," she wrote. "Try it, see what works, and learn as much from the failures as you do from the successes."

Plus, neuroscientists urge educators to trust themselves on this. If a claim seems off, it probably is, and if it confirms something that already seems to work, it's probably on the right track. "Usually, when scientists discover something true about the brain," notes Sylwester, "it doesn't surprise teachers."

Multiple Intelligences

Taken from the webpage of
Dr. Thomas Armstrong

The theory of multiple intelligences was developed in 1983 by Dr. Howard Gardner, professor of education at Harvard University. It suggests that the traditional notion of intelligence, based on I.Q. testing, is far too limited. Instead, Dr. Gardner proposes eight different intelligences to account for a broader range of human potential in children and adults. These intelligences are:

•Linguistic intelligence ("word smart")
•Logical-mathematical intelligence ("number/reasoning smart")
•Spatial intelligence ("picture smart")
•Bodily-Kinesthetic intelligence ("body smart")
•Musical intelligence ("music smart")
•Interpersonal intelligence ("people smart")
•Intrapersonal intelligence ("self smart")
•Naturalist intelligence ("nature smart")

Dr. Gardner says that our schools and culture focus most of their attention on linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligence. We esteem the highly articulate or logical people of our culture. However, Dr. Gardner says that we should also place equal attention on individuals who show gifts in the other intelligences: the artists, architects, musicians, naturalists, designers, dancers, therapists, entrepreneurs, and others who enrich the world in which we live. Unfortunately, many children who have these gifts don’t receive much reinforcement for them in school. Many of these kids, in fact, end up being labeled "learning disabled," "ADD (attention deficit disorder," or simply underachievers, when their unique ways of thinking and learning aren’t addressed by a heavily linguistic or logical-mathematical classroom. The theory of multiple intelligences proposes a major transformation in the way our schools are run. It suggests that teachers be trained to present their lessons in a wide variety of ways using music, cooperative learning, art activities, role play, multimedia, field trips, inner reflection, and much more (see Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom). The good news is that the theory of multiple intelligences has grabbed the attention of many educators around the country, and hundreds of schools are currently using its philosophy to redesign the way it educates children. The bad news is that there are thousands of schools still out there that teach in the same old dull way, through dry lectures, and boring worksheets and textbooks. The challenge is to get this information out to many more teachers, school administrators, and others who work with children, so that each child has the opportunity to learn in ways harmonious with their unique minds (see In Their Own Way).

The theory of multiple intelligences also has strong implications for adult learning and development. Many adults find themselves in jobs that do not make optimal use of their most highly developed intelligences (for example, the highly bodily-kinesthetic individual who is stuck in a linguistic or logical desk-job when he or she would be much happier in a job where they could move around, such as a recreational leader, a forest ranger, or physical therapist). The theory of multiple intelligences gives adults a whole new way to look at their lives, examining potentials that they left behind in their childhood (such as a love for art or drama) but now have the opportunity to develop through courses, hobbies, or other programs of self-development (see 7 Kinds of Smart).

How to Teach or Learn Anything 8 Different Ways
One of the most remarkable features of the theory of multiple intelligences is how it provides eight different potential pathways to learning. If a teacher is having difficulty reaching a student in the more traditional linguistic or logical ways of instruction, the theory of multiple intelligences suggests several other ways in which the material might be presented to facilitate effective learning. Whether you are a kindergarten teacher, a graduate school instructor, or an adult learner seeking better ways of pursuing self-study on any subject of interest, the same basic guidelines apply. Whatever you are teaching or learning, see how you might connect it with
•words (linguistic intelligence)
•numbers or logic (logical-mathematical intelligence)
•pictures (spatial intelligence)
•music (musical intelligence)
•self-reflection (intrapersonal intelligence)
•a physical experience (bodily-kinesthetic intelligence)
•a social experience (interpersonal intelligence), and/or
•an experience in the natural world. (naturalist intelligence)

For example, if you’re teaching or learning about the law of supply and demand in economics, you might read about it (linguistic), study mathematical formulas that express it (logical-mathematical), examine a graphic chart that illustrates the principle (spatial), observe the law in the natural world (naturalist) or in the human world of commerce (interpersonal); examine the law in terms of your own body [e.g. when you supply your body with lots of food, the hunger demand goes down; when there's very little supply, your stomach's demand for food goes way up and you get hungry] (bodily-kinesthetic and intrapersonal); and/or write a song (or find an existing song) that demonstrates the law (perhaps Dylan's "Too Much of Nothing?").

You don’t have to teach or learn something in all eight ways, just see what the possibilities are, and then decide which particular pathways interest you the most, or seem to be the most effective teaching or learning tools. The theory of multiple intelligences is so intriguing because it expands our horizon of available teaching/learning tools beyond the conventional linguistic and logical methods used in most schools (e.g. lecture, textbooks, writing assignments, formulas, etc.). To get started, put the topic of whatever you’re interested in teaching or learning about in the center of a blank sheet of paper, and draw eight straight lines or "spokes" radiating out from this topic. Label each line with a different intelligence. Then start brainstorming ideas for teaching or learning that topic and write down ideas next to each intelligence (this is a spatial-linguistic approach of brainstorming; you might want to do this in other ways as well, using a tape-recorder, having a group brainstorming session, etc.). Have fun!

Testing Autism Drugs in Human Brain Cells

A Method Involving Pluripotent Stem Cells Could Lead to Personalized Treatment of the Disease

By Jennifer Chu
Technology Review
November 11, 2010

Autism is a highly complex disorder affecting one in every 110 children born in the United States. The disease's genetic profile and behavioral symptoms fluctuate widely from case to case, and this variability has frustrated scientists' efforts to identify effective treatments. A new study suggests that autism could eventually be a target for personalized treatment, targeted to a patient's own neurons.

A team from the University of California, San Diego, and the Salk Institute for Biological Studies devised a way to study brain cells from patients with autism, and found a way reverse cellular abnormalities in neurons that have been associated with autism.

The researchers took skin biopsies from patients with a severe form of autism called Rett syndrome, and genetically reprogrammed those cells into pluripotent stem cells. Pluripotent stem cells have the power to differentiate into any kind of cell in the body, depending on environmental cues during early development. The team differentiated the stem cells into fully functioning neurons, and then studied their functioning. They found that neurons derived from patients with Rett syndrome showed certain abnormalities, including markedly smaller cell bodies, dendrite connections, and decreased cell-to-cell communication.

By treating these patient-derived neurons with an experimental drug, the researchers could reverse the cellular abnormalities. The findings, published today in the journal Cell, could give scientists a powerful tool for pinpointing the causes of autism and other brain disorders, and a way to choose targeted treatments.

"It took us two years to finish this project, and personalized medicine might not be that far off," says Carol Marchetto, first author of the paper and a postdoctoral researcher at the Salk Institute. "In the lifetime of a patient, you could go from his skin sample to a reprogrammed cell, to differentiating into a neuron, and find drugs that could be used on that patient."

Rett syndrome, which mostly affects girls, can cause highly impaired social and communication skills, which become apparent soon after a child learns to walk and talk. Patients with Rett can experience increased difficulty breathing and controlling their movements, and can develop repetitive and compulsive behaviors similar to other forms of autism.

Marchetto sees Rett syndrome as a gateway to the broader study of autism, since many other forms of autism share behavioral and genetic similarities with Rett syndrome.

Most cases of autism seem to stem from a combination of genetic abnormalities, but Rett arises from a single gene mutation, found on the MeCP2 gene on the X chromosome. In girls, one of two X chromosomes carries the mutation, and during fetal brain development, one chromosome is activated within each brain cell, seemingly at random. Rett patients can exhibit varying percentages of brain cells carrying the mutation, which can manifest as varying levels of severity of the disorder.

To understand how this genetic mutation plays out at a cellular level, Marchetto and her colleague Alysson Muotri, an assistant professor in the department of Molecular and Cellular Medicine at the UCSD's School of Medicine, took skin biopsies from four patients with Rett syndrome, reprogrammed them into pluripotent stem cells and experimented with a number of different conditions before they found a combination of growth factors that differentiated the stem cells into functioning human neurons.

They saw that each patient-derived stem-cell line generated a different percentage of neurons carrying the gene mutation. The defective neurons looked and acted differently from their normal counterparts, exhibiting smaller cell bodies, less dendrite connections, and impaired cell-to-cell communication.

The researchers treated neuron cultures with insulin-like growth factor (iGF1), which has been shown to reverse behavioral symptoms of Rett in mice. The drug reversed the biological symptoms of the disorder in the neurons, restoring dendrite connections and cell-to-cell signaling in defective neurons. The researchers plan to use the same process to generate neurons from more patients with both Rett syndrome and other forms of autism.

Jeffrey Neul, assistant professor of molecular and human genetics at Baylor College of Medicine, who studies Rett syndrome in mice, says animal models allow scientists to observe the behavioral effects of the disease, but this is a time- and labor-intensive process.

"The field really has been in desperate need of cellular-based assays that can be used to test therapeutic compounds," says Neul. "And it's really hard to push drug discovery if you don't have something you can do in a more rapid fashion."

The process Marchetto and Muotri have developed takes three months to generate fully functioning human neurons. While this is similar to the time frame of normal brain development, the researchers are looking for ways to speed the process up so they can rapidly generate brain cells and expose them to a variety of molecular factors and drug compounds.

The team also plans to move beyond the Petri dish once they've differentiated neurons from human skin cells, to see how the neurons work in a living brain. "What we can do is transplant human neurons in mouse brains and generate chimeric [hybrid human-animal] models," says Muotri. "We can then expose these animals to different environments, and see how they will affect the human neuron."

James Ellis, professor of molecular genetics at the University of Toronto, is doing similar work in reprogramming patients' skin cells into brain cells. He says that Muotri and Marchetto's findings open up a new testing ground for autism and other neurological disorders. "That's clearly what's going to be required of autism, where different people are going to have different mutations and mechanisms, in how they ended up with that outcome," he says.

Cytomegalovirus Tied to Hearing Loss in Kids

CalorieLab Lab Notes

Cytomegalovirus (CMV), a common virus that usually does not make most people sick, may be associated with hearing loss in kids if mom is infected while pregnant according to a new study. In this study, 354 kids who were 4 years of age and up who had been tested for CMV and had hearing loss were examined. Thirty-four contracted CMV from their mothers and it was observed that kids who were CMV-positive at birth had more severe hearing loss than kids who were not and were more likely to have hearing loss in only one ear. Researchers did not have any clear answers as to why contracting CMV in utero may cause hearing problems. CMV is known to cause serious problems in babies if the mother contracts it during pregnancy. The next step will be to investigate how CMV causes hearing loss.

Younger Brains are Easier to Rewire

Study of blind patients supports the idea that there is a period early in a person’s development when brain regions can switch functions.

By Anne Trafton
MIT News Office

About a decade ago, scientists studying the brains of blind people made a surprising discovery: A brain region normally devoted to processing images had been rewired to interpret tactile information, such as input from the fingertips as they trace Braille letters. Subsequent experiments revealed a similar phenomenon in other brain regions. However, these studies didn’t answer the question of whether the brain can rewire itself at any time, or only very early in life.

A new paper from MIT neuroscientists, in collaboration with Alvaro Pascual-Leone at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, offers evidence that it is easier to rewire the brain early in life. The researchers found that a small part of the brain’s visual cortex that processes motion became reorganized only in the brains of subjects who had been born blind, not those who became blind later in life.

The new findings, described in the Oct. 14 issue of the journal Current Biology, shed light on how the brain wires itself during the first few years of life, and could help scientists understand how to optimize the brain’s ability to be rewired later in life. That could become increasingly important as medical advances make it possible for congenitally blind people to have their sight restored, said MIT postdoctoral associate Marina Bedny, lead author of the paper.


Brain rewiring

In the 1950s and ’60s, scientists began to think that certain brain functions develop normally only if an individual is exposed to relevant information, such as language or visual information, within a specific time period early in life. After that, they theorized, the brain loses the ability to change in response to new input.

Animal studies supported this theory. For example, cats blindfolded during the first months of life are unable to see normally after the blindfolds are removed. Similar periods of blindfolding in adulthood have no effect on vision.

However, there have been indications in recent years that there is more wiggle room than previously thought, said Bedny, who works in the laboratory of MIT assistant professor Rebecca Saxe, also an author of the Current Biology paper. Many neuroscientists now support the idea of a period early in life after which it is difficult, but not impossible, to rewire the brain.

Bedny, Saxe and their colleagues wanted to determine if a part of the brain known as the middle temporal complex (MT/MST) can be rewired at any time or only early in life. They chose to study MT/MST in part because it is one of the most studied visual areas. In sighted people, the MT region is specialized for motion vision.

In the few rare cases where patients have lost MT function in both hemispheres of the brain, they were unable to sense motion in a visual scene. For example, if someone poured water into a glass, they would see only a standing, frozen stream of water.

Previous studies have shown that in blind people, MT is taken over by sound processing, but those studies didn’t distinguish between people who became blind early and late in life.


Early versus late

In the new MIT study, the researchers studied three groups of subjects — sighted, congenitally blind, and those who became blind later in life (age nine or older). Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), they tested whether MT in these subjects responded to moving sounds — for example, approaching footsteps.

The results were clear, said Bedny. MT reacted to moving sounds in congenitally blind people, but not in sighted people or people who became blind at a later age.

This suggests that in late-blind individuals, the visual input they received in early years allowed the MT complex to develop its typical visual function, and it couldn’t be remade to process sound after the person lost sight. Congenitally blind people never received any visual input, so the region was taken over by auditory input after birth.

“We need to think of early life as a window of opportunity to shape how the brain works,” said Bedny. “That’s not to say that later experience can’t alter things, but it’s easier to get organized early on.”

Another important aspect of the work is the finding that in the congenitally blind, there is enhanced communication between the MT complex and the brain’s prefrontal cortex, said Ione Fine, associate professor of psychology at the University of Washington. That enhanced connection could help explain how the brain remodels the MT region to process auditory information. Previous studies have looked for enlarged nerve bundles, with no success. “People have been looking for bigger roads, but what she’s seeing is more traffic on the same-size road,” said Fine, who was not involved in the study.

Although this work supports the idea that brain regions can switch functions early in a person’s development, Bedny believes that by better understanding how the brain is wired during this period, scientists may be able to learn how to rewire it later in life. There are now very few cases of sight restoration, but if it becomes more common, scientists will need to figure out how to retrain the patient’s brain so it can process the new visual input.

“The unresolved question is whether the brain can relearn, and how that learning differs in an adult brain versus a child’s brain,” said Bedny.

Bedny hopes to study the behavioral consequences of the MT switch in future studies. Those would include whether blind people have an advantage over sighted people in auditory motion processing, and if they have a disadvantage if sight is restored.