 |
Myths about Learning |
|
Myths about Learning |
|
FREE
NEWSLETTER GREAT
GIFT--especially for yourself!
Contents TEACHER
THINKING EDUCATION
MYTHS
Note: Printer-friendly versions of documents on this site require Adobe Acrobat Reader. Get it free by clicking the button.
|
Printer-friendly version (PDF) "Research shows that you begin
learning in the womb and There
are dozens of learning theories, each viewing learning from a particular point of
view—a single perspective. As such, each contains useful insights. It’s
interesting, however, that most of these theories fail to address the process
of learning. How, specifically, does learning occur? “[In]
typical learning research…the continuing process of learning is never directly
assessed. Usually, some hypothetical construct located inside the head, such as a schema
or a trace is said to be built up or
strengthened as a result of the learning process. …Learning, in this somewhat
impotent view, is a covert process forever inaccessible to observation: only the
effects of practice may be seen…. ”(1) Some early theories attributed an individual’s ability to learn to his or her genetic inheritance. Others perceived the brain/mind as a blank slate—John Locke’s tabula rasa—upon which everything required to become a functioning human had to be “written.” Today, despite ample evidence that infants in the womb are already learning and that intelligence is far from fixed, some persist in believing that some students are “born smart” and others are “born dumb.” Rather than a lengthy comparison of learning theories, let's just look at two aspects of learning as it is found in many of today's schools. Education's Blind Spot Learning theories that ignore the substrate in which learning occurs—the brain/mind—run a risk similar to an architect who designs a building that is impossible to construct with available building materials and techniques. Theorizing about learning without considering the 'wetware' that supports it can result in elegant, but completely meaningless theories. “Brain-based learning” has become a familiar battle cry for bringing education in line with current knowledge of the brain. Like “back to basics,” it is a phrase used with little thought as to its actual meaning. All learning of the type addressed in schools is “brain-based” so the term is relatively meaningless. However, making sure that schooling is brain-compatible is certainly a valid concern. What possible excuse can educators make for continuing to teach in ways that are not compatible with the brain’s natural processes? With the information available from the “brain revolution” of the past several decades, continuing to teach in ways that inhibit learning by discouraging, ignoring, or punishing the brain’s natural learning processes is reprehensible. "We
don't have to make human beings smart. They are born smart. Despite the lip service paid to individual differences, traditional education has failed to move away from the group mentality that has driven it for so many years. The very language of education, which separates students into grades, classes, honors, average, remedial, LD, BD, even learning 'styles,' forces the mind into perceiving groups, not individuals. "[In
education]...the individual is just a statistic. Everybody is treated the same.
Any differences due to experience, maturation, ancestry, or what the subject had
for breakfast are canceled out. The organism, to put is bluntly, is treated like a
machine whose task is to associate inputs and outputs. Any autonomously active,
intrinsic organization within the organism or between organisms and their
environment, although present, is swept under the rug." There
is an interesting “blind spot” in traditional education that permits
time-honored group-think to continue. Consider the following four statements: 1.
People look different. In fact, humans are surprised when they see two individuals
who
look alike. The difference in people’s appearance is an accepted fact of life.
Someone who suggested that everyone should be required to look the same would be viewed with suspicion. Would any rational person suggest that all
fourteen-year-old humans should be five-feet six-inches tall, blond- haired,
blue-eyed, and able to bench
press one hundred pounds? 2.
According to the Human Genome Project, there are about three billion base pairs making up the genes and DNA in a human being. Only a
portion of those genes are responsible for a person’s appearance and physical
abilities. These genes can be damaged but remain relatively unchanged in their
operation over the life of the individual. Although it’s possible to change
one’s physical appearance through exercise, surgery, or cosmetic methods,
physical appearance remains relatively constant throughout life. 3.
The human brain is composed of about ten billion neurons, each of which has
perhaps ten thousand connections to other neurons. This results in approximately
one hundred trillion connections in the
brain. Unlike genes, each of these connections, from the moment of formation, is
subject to change by interactions with the environment—through experience. In
other words, the brain is constantly
changing in response to experience. 4.
No two people—even identical twins—have the same experiences as they grow and
develop. Taken
together, what do these four statements suggest? The number of genes and genetic
variations that produce differences in physical
appearance and ability are minuscule compared to the possible permutations in the
way individual brains process information. Given that no two individuals have
lived through the same experiences—experiences that modify both the neurons and
their connections—the potential cognitive
differences among human individuals is staggering. Yet few people balk when
reformers insist that all students should be responsible for learning the same
things at the same age. The statement flies in the face of reason, science, and
experience. It is infinitely more irrational
than insisting all fourteen-year-olds be five-feet six-inches tall. Although
many traditional educators would accept the four statements as true, they are
somehow able to put that information in a corner and forget it when it comes to
teaching. Perhaps they are hoping that, like so many reform efforts, it will
eventually go away if they ignore it. This is simply not going to happen. The
brains of students are not going to miraculously become alike for the convenience
of education and the efficiency of assembly line transmission of knowledge. Attempts to introduce brain-compatible teaching in schools often result in teachers adding a few activities for different learning “modalities,” or giving students a “choice” of supplemental projects. These are apparently sufficient to salve the conscience and quiet that little voice that reminds us what really needs to happen. These changes make little or no difference in the fundamental metaphor that drives education— filling mental containers with knowledge objects. As long as this remains the primary purpose of education, focusing on individual differences is literally “unthinkable” unless there is a teacher for every student. Schools will continue to operate in ways that are, at best, only marginally compatible with the brain’s natural processes. What the Brain Does Naturally "The
problem is fundamental. Put twenty or more children of Isn’t
it amazing how well suited humans are to the world in which they live? No, not
really! If humans had evolved on a different planet—in a different
environment—they would have taken a much different form. The environment
determines the behaviors necessary for survival and those behaviors influence the
structure of the organism. Although
some people don’t like to be reminded of it, humans are animals. Evolutionary
psychologists Leda Cosmides and John Tooby (3) explain
that the brain consists of a vast and complex collection of circuits.
Each of those circuits evolved in response to some problem within the
environment. It adapted to its environment. Originally, those adaptations had
little to do with intellectual issues and everything to do with survival of both
the individual and the species. Over time, as the environment demanded more
complex functions, these same circuits have combined and been further “tuned”
to do cognitive work. What we do know is these circuits did not evolve to be repositories for isolated facts or “bodies of knowledge” that have been externally assembled and deemed “basic concepts.” They evolved in response to actual situations that arose in the environment of the organism. The organism learned to detect certain patterns and to link those patterns to certain behaviors. It wasn’t necessary for early man (and woman) to be able to name
a saber-toothed tiger and identify its genus and species. It was
necessary for them to recognize a pattern against the background of the jungle,
associate that pattern with large teeth and claws, and engage in the appropriate
behavior to ensure their survival! The “natural” functions of the brain rest
on the ability to detect patterns in a complex environment and to associate
the patterns with appropriate behaviors. After
many years of trying to make computers learn
like humans, researchers in artificial intelligence (AI) realized that learning is
not the result of amassing huge quantities of information and related rules of
processing. The successes that AI researchers have had in reproducing even the
simplest tasks of which the human brain is capable have come when the
“computer” was allowed to interact with the environment and create
its own rules—“tune” its own circuits—in short, learn. (4) Yes,
schools have managed to stuff human brains full of information (input) and get
corresponding output on tests. They’ve done this with sufficient success that
reformers now demand even more information and more tests. What will happen a hundred
years from now? With information proliferating at a geometric rate, will students
be required to attend forty years of schooling to amass the required
"essential knowledge"? The
fact that many students have successfully adapted to this form of schooling is
hardly a defense of the present system. It is, instead, an endorsement of the
tremendous ability of the brain to adapt to unnatural conditions. A human can
survive and function on a marginal diet of foods, but that cannot be used as
evidence the diet is appropriate. What
more might be achieved if students were permitted to interact with various
environments in a “real world” context; to “turn on” and “tune” their
innate abilities; and to learn in ways that the brain does naturally? The
human brain has adapted to:
As
we examine today’s schools, we find:
Reforms appear to address how educators can make the brains of students conform to what education is rather than asking the question that would truly transform schools. How can schools be made more compatible with the way humans learn? The
answers we get are a function of the questions we ask. It’s time to change the
fundamental question of reform. In the words of Albert Einstein, “The significant problems we face
cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them.” For a continuation of this discussion, see Chapter 11 in Teaching in Mind: How Teacher Thinking Shapes Education. References 1 Kelso, J.A. S. (1995). Dynamic Patterns: The Self-Organization of Brain and Behavior. Cambridge and London: A Bradford Book, MIT Press, 161. (Return to article) 2 Ibid. (Return to article) 3 Cosmides, L. & J. Tooby. (1992) From Function to Structure: The Role of Evolutionary Biology and Computational Theories. In M. Gazzaniga (Ed.). Cognitive Neuroscience. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 1199 (Return to article) 4 Rao, V. & R. Hayagriva. (1995). C++ Neural networks and Fuzzy Logic, 2nd ed. New York: MIS Press, 1-20. (Return to article) 5 Edelman, G. (1992). Bright Air, Brilliant Fire. New York: Basic Books, 143 and Damasio, A. (1994) Descartes' Error. New York: Avon Books, 165. (Return to article) |
||
| ©2001-2002 Teacher's Mind Resources |
|||
