Teach the Brain Forums

People Learn New Information More Effectively When Brain Activity Is Consistent, Research Shows
ScienceDaily (Sep. 12, 2010) —

[SIZE="3"] People are more likely to remember specific information such as faces or words if the pattern of activity in their brain is similar each time they study that information, according to new research from a University of Texas at Austin psychologist and his colleagues.[/SIZE]

[SIZE="5"]The findings by Russell Poldrack, published online September 10 in the journal Science, challenge psychologists' long-held belief that people retain information more effectively when they study it several times under different contexts and, thus, give their brains multiple cues to remember it.
[SIZE="6"][FONT="Book Antiqua"]"This helps us begin to understand what makes for effective studying," says Poldrack, director of the Imaging Research Center (IRC) at The University of Texas at Austin. "Sometimes we study and remember things, sometimes we don't and this helps explain why."[/SIZE]Until now, scientists have used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) technology to examine activity in large regions of the brain when studying memory. The research represents the first time scientists have analyzed human memory by examining the pattern of activity across many different parts of the image called voxels. The new technique allows them to probe more deeply into the relationship between the mind and the brain.
Poldrack is a professor in the Section of Neurobiology and Department of Psychology. His co-authors include Jeanette Mumford, a statistician at The University of Texas at Austin; Gui Xue of the University of Southern California and Beijing Normal University; Qi Dong of Beijing Normal Uniersity; Zhong-Lin Lu of the University of Southern California (USC); and Chuansheng Chen of the University of California, Irvine.
[SIZE="5"]
"The question is how practice makes perfect. If you precisely reactivate the same pattern each time, then you are going to remember better," says Xue, a research assistant professor of psychology at USC.[/SIZE]

The researchers conducted three studies at Beijing Normal University in which subjects were shown different sets of photographs or words multiple times in different orders. The scientists recorded subjects' brain activity while they studied the material. They were asked to recall or recognize those items between 30 minutes and six hours later, in order to test the decades-old "encoding variability theory."
That theory suggests people will remember something more effectively -- the name of the third President of the United States, for example -- if they study it at different times in different contexts -- a dorm room, the library, a coffee shop -- than if they review it several times in one sitting. The different sensory experiences will give the brain various reminders of that information and multiple routes to access Thomas Jefferson's identity.
Based on that theory, Poldrack and his colleagues predicted subjects would retain memories of the photos or words more effectively if their brains were activated in different ways while studying that information multiple times.

Instead, [SIZE="5"][COLOR="darkred"]the scientists found the subjects' memories were better when their pattern of brain activity was more similar across the different study episodes.
Xue cautioned that the study does not disprove the effect of variable contexts during learning in enhancing memory.[/[/COLOR]SIZE]It's unclear what prompts the brain to exhibit these different patterns of activity when studying the same information minutes apart. That activity could be triggered by anything from the previous image the person saw, to sounds or smells around him or even simple daydreaming, Poldrack says.
"These results are very important in providing a challenge to this well established theory," Poldrack says. "There's something that's clearly still right about the theory, but this challenges psychologists to reconsider what we know about children. [/SIZE][/FONT]

[SIZE="6"]How much psychology should teachers learn in training? Paul Howard- Jones looks at why it should be at its core

It was back in 1910 that Edward Thorndike penned his classic article claiming the huge potential for education and psychology (then a relatively new discipline) to enrich each other. “To an understanding of the material of education,” observed Thorndike, “psychology is the chief contributor.”[/SIZE]



[SIZE="7"]

Now, almost 100 years later, his hopes are resurfacing as scientists and educators look at how our new understanding of cognitive neuroscience could revolutionise the theory and practice of teaching.

[/SIZE]

[SIZE="5"]However, current UK standards in teacher training make little reference to psychology and, at the launch of the most recent commentary on neuroscience and education last year, one representative of the Training and Development Agency for Schools said: “I do not think we see ourselves as including brain science in any format within the standards.”

Perhaps, if teachers have survived decades without scientific knowledge of this type, some might argue they can do without it. However, just because it’s not in the standards, let’s not fool ourselves that teachers don’t already have their own ideas about brain function. In fact, “self- education” in cognitive neuroscience starts early. Even before the age of four, we start thinking of the brain as an internal body part involved with a range of distinctly mental acts, though often seeing mind and brain as the same thing. During school years, we begin differentiating between these concepts and, rather than using brain and mind interchangeably as the same type of container, machine or muscle, we’re beginning using these two words more selectively. Soon, the brain even starts getting blamed for causing states experienced by the mind (so we might say, “I’m brain-dead” for our mental state, but rarely do we say “I’m mind-dead”).

And despite lack of formal training, ideas about brain and mind continue to develop in adulthood. Research reveals we are particularly attracted to brain-based explanations, a tendency also reflected in the high profile of neuroscience on TV, radio and popular press. In addition to this flow of information from the media, educators have regular contact with a range of education-specific brain concepts that are often unscientific but increasingly popular in schools and colleges.

All of this makes it difficult to guess what teachers might think about their pupils’ brains and minds, so researchers from the Neuro-Educational Research Network (NEnet) at the University of Bristol decided to ask them. We surveyed 158 trainees about to embark on their teaching careers. Disturbingly, we found evidence of unscientific ideas likely to influence both their attitudes and teaching in the classroom. In their school placements, 83 per cent had already encountered ideas about learning styles, which are often promoted as having a brain basis.







This might explain why 81 per cent of trainees considered individuals learnt more effectively when they received information in their preferred learning style, even though educational evidence does not support this notion, and psychological research rejects it.

Perhaps the most surprising response of our trainee teachers was that 43 per cent did not consider it necessary to pay attention to something in order to learn about it. This may reflect recent interest among educators in the concept of “unconscious learning”. This phenomenon has been studied by psychologists chiefly in the context of artificial language, where learners can pick up grammatical rules without being able to consciously express them. While such findings are interesting, they do not mean that pupils can learn without paying due attention, yet our results indicate this idea is emerging as a new and potentially damaging myth.

Among the other popular, but incorrect, beliefs espoused by our trainees were the need to drink six to eight glasses of water to prevent brain shrinkage (no recorded instances in relation to voluntary dehydration), [SIZE="7"]the negative role of emotion in cognition (in fact, emotion is often necessary for cognition), our tendency to use only 10 per cent of our brains (we are always using all of it),[/SIZE] and that special exercises can balance hemispheric activity and thereby improve literacy (no valid evidence that co-ordination exercises “repattern” the brain or raise educational achievement).

In more general terms, however, perhaps our most worrying finding was that most trainees agreed, or were undecided, as to whether learning problems associated with developmental differences in brain function were amenable to educational remediation. This suggests that knowing a pupil has ADHD, dyscalculia or dyslexia, without appropriate scientific understanding of what that means, can diminish a teacher’s belief in their potential to bring about positive change, as if the label indicates some biological barrier. In contrast, modern scientific perspectives avoid biological determination, emphasise the important role of environmental influences such as education, and highlight the enduring possibility of mitigation too.However, although our survey revealed some new concerns about teachers’ lack of training in these areas, perhaps the question of whether some psychology and neuroscience should be included in initial teacher training is simply a “no-brainer”. After all, is there anyone, other than a teacher, who is more professionally responsible for the daily development of mind and brain?

Paul Howard-Jones is a senior lecturer in education and co-ordinator of the Centre for Psychology and Learning in Context (CPLiC) at the Graduate School of Education, University of Bristol[/SIZE]

[SIZE="7"] more on the mind[/SIZE]






--- http://www.futuremind.ox.ac.uk/impact/pa...ntary.html.





----:tourist: --------------------------:tourist: :tourist:
.

[SIZE="6"][COLOR="DarkRed"]I AM ONLY PUTTING THIS HERE AS ONE UNTRIED POTENTIAL IN CURES AND REASONS FOR AUTISM
MY PERSONAL BELIEF IS THAT INTENSIVE ONE 2 ONE TEACHING STANDS MOST CHANCE OF REDUCING THE SYMPTOMS’ OF ANY CHILD SUFFERING FROM ANY BRAIN RELATED PROBLEM[/COLOR][/SIZE]


:tourist: TO SOLVE ickly: JUST READ AND THINK




[SIZE="5"]Subscriber Discount - New "All-in-one" test for Autism
Thursday, 13 January, 2011 9:43
From:
"NewAutismCure" <info@newautismcure.com>
Add sender to Contacts
To:
"John Nicholson" <johnnicholson06@btinternet.com>
Dear John,

Please read on about my special subscriber discount offer...

You'll probably have seen from the NewAutismCure website and from other sources, that there is a new "all-in-one" Autism test which is now available. I wanted you to be the first to know that we are able to offer this test to you right now!

Known as "The Organic Acid Test", this test works by analyzing the waste that the body discharges in urine. We have the newest form of this revolutionary test, which can detect up to 70 compounds. Many of the harmful materials found by this test are not found by other tests.

"I love this test because it is able to detect the existence of internal yeast and bacterial growth. Both of these factors are common in those with Autism. The Organic Acid Test is amazing because as well as many toxic chemicals, yeast and bacterial growth, it also detects Clostridia, a commonly overlooked yeast which can be a factor in Autism."

It's incredibly exciting that the Organic Acid Test will detect HPHPA. In the recent journal Nutritional Science June 2010, a study clearly shows that an increase in this organic acid is very commonly found in those with the Autism condition.

Other factors related to Autism, which are detected by the Organic Acid Test, include Inorganic Phosphates, Quinolinic Acid and N-acetylcysteine (NAC).

Knowing that these factors can now be detected in a simple test is very important, but knowing what to do with the results is even more important.

Test results are not enough ...

That is why I have put together a combined package:

The Organic Acid Test
PLUS
a report on the findings
PLUS
a follow-up consultation with our Autism Consultant

With the combination of the test results and our analysis of what actions you should take, you'll be on your way to really making a difference.

The final price of this test, report and consultation is likely to be over $2000 USD in my clinic, but because you are a subscriber to my email list, I wanted to offer the discounted price of $578 USD to you right now...

Simply go to http://www.newautismcure.com/products/or...acid-test/ and fill in your information on this page specifically for subscribers.

I don't know how long I can keep this test at that price, and that is why I wanted you to be the first to know about the test.

What can you expect?

Once you have paid this one-off fee we will:
• Send you full and straightforward instructions on how to carry out this test
• Have you send back a urine sample for us to test
• Send you the full test results within 3 weeks of receiving your sample, outlining any toxic materials found in the test
• Outline any dietary changes which would help your situation
• Arrange a consultation with our Autism Consultant to discuss any further factors which will help.
And remember that if, for any reason, we are not able to complete the test for you, we will give you a full refund.

To take advantage of this email subscriber offer, simply click to fill in your information here: http://www.newautismcure.com/products/or...acid-test/

Finally, with this one simple test, you will know which factors are contributing to Autism in your own specific case. Knowing this information gives you a powerful weapon in the battle against Autism.

I hope that you are able to take advantage of this special launch offer, and, as always, I wish you every possible success in helping to defeat autism.

Respectfully yours,



Dr. Chun Wong[/SIZE]