Brain, Education, and Inquiry - Fall, 2010: Session 4

I think that brain serves as both an empirical inquirer and a story teller that creates many constructions. In studies of child-development and the acquisition of cognitive abilities and creative problem-solving, it is clear that the brain functions both as an empirical scientist and as a constructivist story teller. Our stories undergo changes and develops (broadens to incorporate new information to encompass by the development of new constructions (schema, ways of knowing the world, methods to broader understanding). Children are much like scientists in the sense that they also are able to learn about their surroundings and environment through carrying out experiments (get their information from the environment through their senses and observations of unknowns that their brain processes, stores, puts into memory and can be retrieved at any time with the connections they make (if in LTS). Then analyzing the reactions, responses, behaviors and outcomes of the situation thereby formulating hypotheses that depict their initial observations and inally building on those inputs based on what they learn and start constructing stories. It is these schema and constructions that are constantly evolving which leads to new understandings and ideas.

When thinking about a new born, there mind is almost a blank slate. Sensory info will be organized, accumulated and saved for later use. You have to have information before you make a story. You start to make deductive reasoning from your own experience and exposure before you even know anything about the brain. Certain things are just innate that you learn as you go along and store that information for retrieval later. As you get older (as of a few years old) and you start thinking, you will be able to make associations and deduce things on your own but initially its instinctive, like feeding, survival, bodily functions, evacuating dangerous situations.

Can we train our unconscious outputs so that certain prejudices or stereotypes we have for specific situations that we learn and have made associations with (our preconceived notions whether true or false) don’t occur interfere with our understandings, interactions and contributions in different situations? It makes sense in an evolutionary perspective that unconscious output is more reactive for survival and based on instinct. Can the unconscious be made to parallel deductive reasoning? Under what circumstances would that be advantageous?

We talked about the randomness/unpredictability of the nervous system last time and it made me think about whether or not the same type of system exists in the classroom. In reading through the articles about education reform, it seemed that they talked a lot about the identifying specific problems (inputs) that create unfavorable forms of education (output). Once the problem had been identified, those involved in reform attempted to look for other ways to change the input in order to gain a different output. However, oftentimes the outputs were not the desired output even though other cases had proven that such an output was possible. For example, failing public schools can sometimes be turned into charter schools. At times this change to charter schools creates a success story, but other times it is not the case. Could the problem be that like the nervous system the educational system is not based on input and output alone? If so, I would think that a different approach to reform would be necessary. There would be no room for creating formulas for success and there would have to be a much more individual approach to reform from school to school.

After class, I was a little confused and honestly do not think that I retained all of the information that was presented on the brain. After speaking with a classmate, I think I have a better understanding, but am still trying to form my own views on the subject. However, this is something that I have thought about and come to my own conclusions about:

I don’t think that it is absolutely necessary for [all] teachers to know how the brain works formally because I think that sort of knowledge is best obtained through experience. This is especially true given the level of diversity found within each and every student. Having said that, I think teachers who “get it”, get it from their daily and constant interaction with their students. While they are teaching, they are simultaneously learning and forming their own understanding of the dynamics of the classroom and how their students fit into it.   

.... perhaps don't need to be the scientists, the who, in the educational equation, needs to be? I agree that teacher's are often "made" without this knowledge, rather a basic understanding of diverse learners and thinkers.  

what if, perhaps, the STUDENTS were the scientists? perhaps a greater understanding of how our minds work, how we perceive information, and the diversity of ways that we are capable of learning would inspire kids are a young age to be involved with school, and discourage feeling of inferiority in the classroom. with a greater understanding and internalization of this fact, that we are all constantly students of the world, and that by just observing and participating our brains are literally growing, taking in information and exercising, inclusion in educational settings that often are stress inducing would be more rewarding. 

I am continually struck with the model that we’re building which relates the parts of the brain to various functions that create who we are and how we interact with the world around us.  It’s truly amazing the speed with which neurons communicate to produce reactions, thoughts, words, movements, etc.  As I sit typing, this very process is happening, including a something “seriously loopy” that enables me to act or assess the movement (output) that my fingers are making, as they’re making it, to produce the next word on the page. 

As I continue to read articles about how to change the brain and the unique position that teachers play, I am surprised that more teachers do not have some knowledge of the biological side of the brain and the cyclical process that is constantly taking place in their students’ brains.  After all, this process is directly linked to the children’s outputs and outcomes, right?  I am also wondering how so many teachers, without previous training as a biologist or neuroscientist, just “get it”.  I’ve been lucky enough to have many teachers like this over the years; the ones whose lesson plans and activities are able to stimulate each part of the brain to maximize the output produced (whatever that may be) and generate new inputs continuously.  Here, the brain is never bored (if boredom is anything but a construct of the brain itself).  How do they do that?

I am still wondering where thoughts fit into the nervous system.  I recognize that thoughts are internal and are therefore could be thought of as part of the more internal workings of the nervous system, but several ideas discussed in psychology lead me to think of ideas as an input, or at least as an output that then cycles back and is an input (like how moving your arm may be output, but seeing it and feeling it move is input).  Once we are aware of a thought, isn't it input?

-Thoughts can influence the behavior of an individual - this would make it seem that thoughts are input to the nervous system, since behavior is an output, but since behavior can also be an input maybe thoughts are an output.  Are there any physical or psychological inputs that couldn't also be output?

-I'm having trouble differentiating silent thoughts and spoken thoughts.  According to the model we discussed in class, a silent thought would not be input, but would a thought spoken-aloud be input?  If there is no audience for the spoken-aloud thought, what differentiates it from a silent thought?  This issue reminds me of split-brain patients, who sometimes must vocalize what they see in order to internalize it (for example if an object is in a field of view where only one eye can see it, and the "thought" of the object being there must be vocalized in order for the other half (that doesn't see the object) to understand that the object is there) - just because they have to vocalize their thought doesn't make it any less of a thought, but an observation that is spoken and influences thought definitely seems like input. 

-Basically, I'm unclear on how to distinguish input and output.  The more I think about it, the less I am able to distinguish the two...

- Here's the article I mentioned in class about neurological differences that lead to seeing things in multiple ways..it's a short and easy read (I think this link might actually only be a summary of the original article) - http://gizmodo.com/5629780/why-your-brain-flips-over-visual-illusions

Tonight’s class seems to be a potential turning point in the semester. As a class, we aired frustrations, were introduced to a model of the brain (i.e. the nervous system), and we seemed to not get stuck on points as much as in previous classes. That is all very positive and exciting.

In the spirit of posting early and often, here a couple thoughts that I feel are post-worthy:

 Firstly, learning about a model of how the brain works is great. An important part of education is engaging other people’s ideas and hypotheses, trying to learn and evaluate those ideas, and then try to continue to build and incorporate into other situations. This brain model is certainly exciting to engage and learn about. 

Secondly, I am very interested in the idea of what happens when we are not explicitly learning, studying, and engaging the copious stimuli in our lives. There is an article that Professor Grobstein posted a link for in the session three forum, which I look forward to reading, and I can share my thoughts once I have read it. 

For the moment, how important is it to try to turn off/disengage from our logical, rational mind and just do things that do not require active thoughts? I think it is very important, and I am curious if anyone feels like sharing his or her own thoughts on this. For me, I think it may be most important for the rest and rejuvenation it provides. Anecdotally, I have found that if I do not take this time and space then I eventually just crash.

Anyway, good session tonight!