Brain Blog

Where Neuroscience, Cognitive Psychology, and Education Meet

Brain Blog

Aha! Moments

March 19th, 2011 · No Comments · Memory, Neuroscience Research, Uncategorized

At the end of my first week in the Johns Hopkins “Mind, Brain, and Teaching” program I identified the following question as something I was curious about: How can a better understanding of the brain help us identify and address the wide range of variables that contribute to “magic moments” of teaching and learning? New research published in “Neuron” has taken me a step closer.

Researchers at New York University who are interested in understanding the neural basis of insights — sudden moments of understanding — published the results of a brain imaging study involving recognition of a rebuilt image. Their method involved exposing study subjects to a highly degraded visual image and then revealing it as an image composed of what had appeared to be just a series of dots — they connected the dots so subjects could suddenly see the picture.  They then exposed the same subjects to the same image a week later and compared neural activity during the moment of insight and the moment of memory retrieval.

Researchers observed significant activity within the amygdala during the moment of insight and not in the moment of memory retrieval. The amygdala has been shown to be widely involved in processing and memory related to emotional reactions.  The New York University researchers conclude that its roles can now be expanded to include “promoting of long-term memory of the sudden reorganization of internal representations” (Ludmer, et al., 2011).

I can’t help but make a connection with Mariale Hardiman’s work on the Brain Targeted Teaching Model — brain target 2: the physical environment (2010). She discusses the importance of novelty to stimulate student interest. I wonder if the mechanism for novelty’s importance also involves an emotional component mediated by the amygdala. I can also make a connection to the power and lasting-learning value of students engaged in true inquiry when they suddenly “see” a result and draw a meaningful conclusion.

The new research reported here is interesting in that it suggests a mechanism that may be behind those and other “magic moments” we long to create each day, a mechanism related to emotion.

Hardiman, M.M. (2010, November 26). The Brain Targeted Teaching Model: Teaching for Mastery. Retrieved from http://braintargetedteaching.org/mastery.cfm

Rachel Ludmer, Yadin Dudai, Nava Rubin. Uncovering Camouflage: Amygdala Activation Predicts Long-Term Memory of Induced Perceptual Insight. Neuron, Volume 69, Issue 5, 1002-1014, 10 March 2011 DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2011.02.013

Tags:

Magnitude Representations — What Lingers?

March 6th, 2011 · No Comments · Math

Originally published on my JHU Blog (see link to the left.)

To some extent I see the transition that Siegler & Opfer (2003) suggest — a developmental progression in students’ representations of number and magnitude, moving from an earlier fuzzy representation which has been described as logarithmic – bigger numbers get more closely clumped together – to a more linear model among older students with more equal intervals regardless of magnitude. However, it’s interesting to me that while in many applications my 5th grade (accelerated to 6th grade curriculum) math class students seem to function with an equal interval representation, logarithmic thinking seems to “overstay” it’s typical developmental timeline when it comes to graphing.

In fifth/sixth grade students create a wide variety of graphs in both math and science. The focus is using graph representations to better understand change. A key concept in line graphing, of course, is that students need to represent quantities at equal intervals. Otherwise, they are not able to observe trends in change – linear vs. non-linear, increased change vs. decreased change. In the past, I have viewed this as being an issue more about clustered data…when you have more data, you need more “room” to separate and organize it. However, after reading this week’s work and reflecting on how many of our examples have clustered data of lower magnitudes, I wonder whether this “unequal interval” problem I see a lot is related possibly to a lingering logarithmic representation – the intervals get closer as the numbers get larger – moving out along the x, or more typically the y, axis. For example, if a student were graphing a series of temperature readings of ice melting (let’s say degrees Celsius) of 0, 1, 1, 3, 4, 3, 4, 8, 10….Then the student would put a lot of effort into making room to distinguish between the more highly clustered numbers (0-4 degrees) and then put 8 and 10 shortly after them. That could be considered logarithmic – in a sense – the larger numbers have smaller differences.

There are other situations in which complexities of magnitude concepts – like its application in graphing — may re-trigger or prompt use of less accurate representations – e.g. the logarithmic model. Siegler, in another paper (a very useful paper that I will be sharing with colleagues), makes specific suggestions for mathematics education based on what was at that time current “cognitive science research” (2003) Specifically, he talks about issues of magnitude when it comes to understanding fractions. He wrote, “Much of children’s difficulty in fractional arithmetic arises from their not thinking of the magnitude represented by each fraction” (Siegler, 2003, p. 222). He notes similar issues when it comes to decimal portions. He implies that students work with the numbers, perhaps effectively utilizing procedures, but often don’t recognize that they are representing magnitudes. That leads to errors. This is part of his larger argument in the paper that conceptually-oriented instruction, as opposed to heavily procedural guidance, is important for math understanding and achievement. It is also interesting to me that teachers may be working with fractions in the classroom without clarifying – making explicit – that these different-looking numbers are just different magnitudes.

For me in the classroom, these ideas about magnitude and possible “lingering, less accurate” models of magnitude will lead me to be more explicit about the concept of magnitude with students and discuss with them their individual models of it. As we prepare for state tests in a week, students are reviewing placing numbers – including fractions – on number lines. This gives me a good opportunity to talk about the extended number line – as it continues into space and numbers get larger, how do students think about those numbers? My students are at an age where they are more aware first, of the importance of making representations, and second, that the ability to represent quantities and operations in multiple ways gives them deeper understanding and more power to use and apply those ideas. What do their own models look like? I look forward to being surprised at what this conversation will teach me about their thinking.

Siegler, R. S. (2003). Implications of cognitive science research for mathematics education. In Kilpatrick, J.,Martin, W. B., & Schifter, D. E. (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 219-233).
Siegler, R. S., & Opfer, J. E. (2003). The development of numerical estimation: evidence for multiple representations of numerical quantity. Psychological Science, 14, 237-243.

Tags:

Testing and Learning Styles: Another Look

October 16th, 2010 · No Comments · Math, Memory, Neuro-myths, Neuroscience Research

This week I want to write about two very different things. What holds them together is that they are somewhat controversial. They are things that my experience in the classroom tells me are true, and now research is supporting them, too. I’m feeling somewhat vindicated.

The first ideas is that the process of testing promotes learning. This hasn’t felt very “politically correct.”  What worse comment is there than, “You teach to the test!”  Teachers often complain that with all the testing there is no time to teach.  Tests have a bad rap.

Testing can’t REPLACE teaching, but it is an important part of the instructional arsenal, and not just to see how kids are progressing. At least that’s what some new research from Kent State University seems to suggest. Published and reported in Science, this study shows that taking tests actually improves learning, or at least memory recall.

According to researchers, practice tests lead learners to develop better keywords that help them recall information. When you are taking a test you develop more effective keywords, called mediators,  than when you are simply studying. This makes sense to me. Though there may be a risk is that too much testing is stressful, perhaps there is an opportunity to have students recognize that in some cases, at least, practice tests or tests are about learning and not just showing learning.

This article struck a particular chord with me today because I spent part of the morning yesterday in a meeting with math teachers of grades 6-10. Pretty much the entire conversation focused on the sad state of math facts knowledge. High school teachers and middle school teachers are saying that they can’t do their jobs if elementary teachers don’t do a better job of laying the foundation of math facts automaticity. Timed tests did indeed go out of vogue, and it’s almost embarrassing at times to admit you do them. But this research, in particular, suggests that those tests me be valuable supports to help students cement this recall. I will stand a little taller and speak a little louder when I admit, “Yes, I do timed math facts tests with students because they need it.”

The second idea — in this case probably appropriately going out of favor — is the idea that teachers need to teach to different learning styles. The fact is, although there is a lot of discussion in the literature, there is not good experimental evidence that teaching to visual, auditory, or kinesthetic learners is at all effective. This was reviewed as a “neuro-myth” in my coursework with Johns Hopkins in the Mind, Brain, and Teaching program. What research  has shown, in fact, is that of both self-reported auditory and self-reported visual learners tested (one study here…) — both improved with visual presentation of ideas. It probably does make sense to expose students to information in different ways. Hearing, seeing, and doing are all great ways to experience content. However, giving one student auditory exposure and another visual exposure is probably not serving their needs and may be a disservice — at least there is no evidence, according to this program — that teaching to learning styles is supported by any actual evidence.

This will be hard one for teachers to let go. As I type, I can imagine responses from people who have accepted this as dogma. I’m dismissing an idea that has infused hundreds of hours of the professional development I’ve been exposed to by my school districts.

Expose all learners to information in different ways. Test and practice test to help students cement memory and recall. Controversial ideas, but I’m becoming convinced.

Tags:

Fitness and Learning: A Stronger Link

September 18th, 2010 · No Comments · Exercise

A new study published in the journal Brain Research, reportedly the first to use MRI brain imaging in this way, finds a link between physical fitness level and the size of specific brain structures AND  improved performance on memory tests in children.

Researchers at the University of Illinois tested 49 children ages 9-10 (fifth grade.)  Rather than relying on self-reported or parent-reported levels of activity, they measured efficiency of oxygen use on a treadmill as an indicator of fitness.  The more physically fit children had a larger hippocampus — about 12% larger relative to total brain size,  they say — than the less physically fit children.  They also performed better on memory tests.

This work reportedly is consistent with earlier animal studies, indicating that exercise increases the hippocampus and the formation and survival of new neurons. The hippocampus is widely believed to have a role in various types of memory, and though there is lots of debate about its exact function, it  is generally accepted that it a has a role in the creation of new memories. It is one of the first areas of the brain to suffer damage in Alzheimers Disease.

This is another piece of evidence reinforcing the link between exercise — and physical fitness –  and learning.

Tags:

Need for Sleep: More Evidence

September 4th, 2010 · 1 Comment · Memory, Sleep

There is more data available about the importance of sleep in learning…creating memory.  Research presented at the118th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association shed light on the importance of a specific stage of sleep.

Sarah Mednick, a sleep researcher at UCSD, reported on a study that compared success on a word association “Creativity Task” among participants who had had a quiet rest, those who had napped with non-REM sleep, and those who experienced REM sleep. All participants were tested before their rest. Following their various types of rest, the non-REM and quiet rest groups showed no improvement on the task. Participants who had REM sleep improved by 40 percent.

She and her colleagues suggest that REM sleep leads to “the formation of associative networks from previously unassociated information in the brain, leading to creative problem-solving.” In other words REM sleep is important for pulling information together and converting it to useful memory.

According to a U. Michigan website, 10-year-olds need 10 hours a sleep each night, and many don’t get it.

Another intriguing idea presented at the conference dealt with the relationship of memory to imagining future events. Memory is necessary in order to form ideas about possible future occurrences.

Tags:

Music and Learning

August 21st, 2010 · No Comments · Attention, Music

Many reports, especially in recent years,  have linked the study of music with academic success. A study published this past summer in Nature Reviews Neuroscience — a data-driven review — discusses reasons for the relationship and the author suggests it has significant implications for all kinds of learning.

It all comes down to auditory selectivity, according to a review of the research in Science Daily.   The brain, as we know, is bombarded with sensory information every second. Some students struggle with that overload and have issues in the classroom as a result, shutting down or being unable to focus attention appropriately / effectively. According to Nina Krause of Northwestern, the lead researcher on this new paper, playing an instrument “primes the brain” to choose what is relevant.  A musician needs to hear sounds within a rich network of sounds — melodies and harmonies. Apparently, this skill is transferable, according to Krause, to understanding speech in a noisy background. Music training helps students learn how to discern important speech in a background of noise.

Krause draws an analogy with the impact of physical exercise on body fitness. Music tones the brain for auditory fitness, the researchers conclude in their paper, suggesting we need to re-evaluate the importance of music in individual development..and presumably, by implication, its role and importance in the school curriculum?

Tags:

Advantages of Variable Practice

July 13th, 2010 · 1 Comment · Memory

New research published in Nature Neuroscience is consistent with earlier studies showing that variable, or varied, practice improves retention of memory/skills versus repeated practice of a single task. As I read this report, I couldn’t help but think the math homework of my youth that would involved 20 multi-digit multiplication problems, or 20 division problems — repeated practice to ensure that I “had” it.

According to this research, which involved a complex motor movement — arm movement.  Volunteers in a variable practice group — which interspersed the focus movement with other movements — showed better retention of the skill.

The researchers explain the difference by focusing on the needed concentration in a variable practice setting, where you have to solve a complex problem every time. In a more rote practice setting, they suggest, volunteers are just repeating an activity and don’t have to process as deeply.  From a report in Sciencde Daily: “While it may be harder during practice to switch between tasks … you end up remembering the tasks better later than you do if you engage in this drill-like practice,” Winstein said.

Questions include whether the same thing is found in non-motor learning.  If so, it has implications for structuring student practice activities across the curriculum.

Tags:

Video Games and Attention — ADHD

July 6th, 2010 · No Comments · Attention

The August issue of Pediatrics contains a report adding evidence to a surmised link between time spent playing video games and attention issues. Researchers at Iowa State found that students who exceeded more than two hours of screen time per day have a higher than average chance of developing attention problems.

The average screeen time reported by the researchers was more than 4 hours per day — more than twice the recommended maximum. Their sample included more than 1300 children in 3rd, 4th, and 5th grades over 13 months, based on self reports, parent reports, and teacher reports of attention. They also used self-reported data from 210 college students.

According to one of the researchers, the link makes sense because, “Brain science demonstrates that the brain becomes what the brain does.” What video games, as well as TV, provide are constant stimulation, flickering lights, sounds and opportunities for feedback, say researchers. When these are absent, in a classroom for example, it becomes harder for a child’s brain to sustain attention.

While the researchers did not specifically look at ADHD diagnoses, they did suggest a possible link. “We know that the brain adapts and changes based on the environmental stimuli to which it is exposed repeatedly,”  a researcher was quoted as saying in a news report from Science Daily. “…Therefore, it is not unreasonable to believe that environmental stimuli can increase the risk for a medical condition like ADHD in the same way that environmental stimuli, like cigarettes, can increase the risk for cancer.”

This same group of researchers, according to the Science Daily report, plan to look deeper into what aspects of video games are most relevant to the attention link.

Tags:

Advanced Learners and the Brain

March 27th, 2010 · No Comments · G/T or Advanced Learners

Working toward an added endorsement to my teaching license in Gifted and Talented Education, I’ve been taking courses and reading about advanced learners — how we identify them, understanding their social and emotional needs, differentiating for advanced understanding in the classroom, and planning programs that serve all learners.  So my interest was piqued when I came upon a chapter in Eric Jensen’s book, “Enriching the Brain” devoted to gifted learners. “What makes a brain gifted?” he asks?

My initial gut reaction is to scoff, remembering pseudo-scientific claims about “Einstein’s brain” or worse yet, the work on cranial shape and capacity (summarized so well in Stephen Jay Gould’s “Mismeasure of Man,”) and it’s slippery slope into the eugenics movement.  It’s more subtle than physical “brain anatomy” differences, yes?  But…suspending that gut reaction, and opening my mind, Jensen offers some interesting ideas.

From his book, “The difference most associated with gifted children is the effectiveness with which they learn; as a generalization, they pay closer attention, absort information, stay focused, learn the interrelationships more quickly, and remember longer.”  I believe that’s a fair generalization, though not a hard-and fast rule.  He goes on to argue that there are specific differences in the way “gifted brains” in terms of morphology, operations, real estate (how areas are used) and electro-chemical cellular function.

Morphology: Jensen claims that total brain volume accounts for about 16 percent of vaiance in g (general intelligence) scores.  Since it makes sense that more space equals more computing capacity, there is some reason to believe that larger head size does increase the chance for greater IQ, he says.  More specifically, there is some intriguing data to sugges that more glial cells (which were found in Einstein’s brain, for example) are correlated with improved learning and memory. There is also some evidence that “gifted brains” include more “outlier” sized neurons — very small and very large.  In summary, there may  be some differences in the actual size, shape, and composition of brains of advanced learners.

Operations: Jensen claims that gifted people are typically better with working memory and attention span. There is some speculation, but little hard data, he says, that the “gifted brain” has more connections and works faster. However, it’s curious that children with Fragile X Syndrome, defined by an extreme overabundance in connections, suffer with “severe” mental retardation. Jensen proposes that gifted brains may be defined by “the right combination of connections in the right places and high processing speed,” which he compares to high speed Internet access vs. dial-up. Jensen also reviews data suggesting that mathmatical giftedness may also be associated with more connections…traffic…between the two hemispheres of the brain.

Real-estate: Jensen reviews data suggesting that the “gifted brain” has a slew of efficiencies that help it use its areas of strength with a minimal amount of real-estate.  In other words, the better we are at something, the less effort (brain activation)  is required to  perform the task. Specifically, he says those who are gifted use frontal lobes more effectively to manage sensory inputs and also that gifted people tend to have “balanced” brains, coordinating left and right hemisphere processing.

Electro-chemical Cellular Functioning: One reason for more efficient processing speeds may be differences in electro-chemical capacities of brains, Jensen writes, which lead to increased speeds because of ability to filter out and focus.  There may also be hormone differences and differences in levels of neurotransmitters. Too much or tool little dopamine, for example, is correlated with less optimal frontal lobe function.  Having “just the right amount” of serotonin, another neurotransmitter, has been correlated with cognitive flexibility.

So…getting past my initial scoff, Jensen presents a lot of interesting information about correlations between physical aspects of a brain and it’s “giftedness” or ability to perform at higher levels. I still need answers to a number of questions: Do these correlations suggest the features “cause” giftedness” or does use of the brain help create these features? What is the direction of cause and effect? And if they do “cause”  or lead to increased performance, is it possible to help all learners develop their thinking skills to help create more successful brains?  Or will better “developed” brains” simply exhibit these features? Our newer model of brain plasticity implies we  have significant control…so are “gifted students” simply those who for whatever reason have already been exposed to the conditions that create more effective brains?

I think one of Jensen’s underlying messages in the book is that enrichment can definitely shape the brains and advance achievement for all learners. With that model, are there really “gifted”  people” Or will we come to a view of giftedness as a more plastic concept, something that we all aspire to and can all achieve (short of specific disabililities)  if we can only get in shape…to bring a work-out metaphor into it.

Personal Note: I still believe that students who demonstrate advanced abilities deserve and require differentiation in the classroom that supports their advanced abilities…which is why adding a G/T endorsement to my teaching license is important to  me.

Tags:

Spontaneous and Deliberate Memories

March 14th, 2010 · 1 Comment · Memory, Reading and Dyslexia

A student’s dissertation recently published in Sweden dangles some tantalizing ideas about differences between memories we work hard to deliberately retrieve and those that spontaneously emerge when prompted by sights, sounds, smells, pictures, or words.

According to this research entirely different signal paths in the brain are involved when you try to remember something versus when an experience spontaneously reminds you of something. For active retrieval, sifting through ideas to locate a specific memory, you are using pathways in  your upper part of the frontal lobe. This isn’t too surprising since this is the general area which is activated for all types of mental efforts and intentions, according to this report.

The more spontaneous memories,  however,  show activity in brain regions associated with the sensory/perceived stimuli — words, pictures, scents.  According to this researcher, these findings support the idea that there is not just one single neurological signaling path for reliving old memories but rather several paths that are anatomically separate.  Reports note that this work will be important in shedding light on why people struggle to remember certain things, or alternatively, what’s happening when people are plagued by persistent, most troubling persistent and bad, memories.

As a classroom teacher, my ideas lead me in a slightly different direction. I can’t help but think about struggling readers who don’t routinely connect text to new ideas. They don’t have or aren’t spontaneously connecting with relevant background knowledge to help them make sense of what they are reading. This research makes me wonder if there are differences in the activation or retrieval of spontaneous memories (connections) in some people…is this a skill that is built or an anatomically “determined” ability? If a student is not routinely activating spontaneous memories (ideas) when reading, can we teach him or her to use the alternative pathway to deliberately sift through memories to activate what is needed to make meaning?  Or is it possible to build their ability to activate spontaneous memories with practice?  Or are the memories (ideas) simply….really….not there to activate in the first place?

Many ramblings…but this paper has dangled a new way to think about background knowledge. It’s not just about building it, but activating it in a useful, timely way.

Tags: