We have discussed implications of brain research for teaching literacy skills and mathematics in great detail on this forum, but have engaged in considerably less dialogue considering implications for science education. Do we have some thoughts on this?
Best,
Christina
More Thinking Christina
Et harum scientiarum porta et clavis est Mathematica.
Mathematics is the door and key to the sciences
Opus Majus
more Bacon
Having laid down the main points of the wisdom of the Latins as regards language, mathematics and optics, I wish now to review the principles of wisdom from the point of view of experimental science, because without experiment it is impossible to know anything thoroughly.
There are two ways of acquiring knowledge, one through reason, the other by experiment. Argument reaches a conclusion and compels us to admit it, but it neither makes us certain nor so annihilates doubt that the mind rests calm in the intuition of truth, unless it finds this certitude by way of experience. Thus many have arguments toward attainable facts, but because they have not experienced them, they overlook them and neither avoid a harmful nor follow a beneficial course. Even if a man that has never seen fire, proves by good reasoning that fire burns, and devours and destroys things, nevertheless the mind of one hearing his arguments would never be convinced, nor would he avoid fire until he puts his hand or some combustible thing into it in order to prove by experiment what the argument taught. But after the fact of combustion is experienced, the mind is satisfied and lies calm in the certainty of truth. Hence argument is not enough, but experience is.
however much we learn of the brain it is unlikely that the great steps will come from experimentation all we are left with is reason. jn
"There are two ways of acquiring knowledge, one through reason, the other by experiment"
This is an interesting question which Christina has posed. In brain science there has been work on mirror neurons and the implications on this for learning by observing are evident. We are currently working closely with the French Science Academy's "Main à la Pâte" programme, which is to facilitate a hands-on approach for science learning in primary schools. Next month we are co-hosting a closed seminar on education, cognition and the brain at the Academy. You might like to visit their website although it is in unfortunately in French only:
http://www.lamap.fr/
I also believe that the question about a science education is a very valid question, however, I am not sure what level of education and what type of students you are considering. Possibly if we discuss this first we will have more clear and defined responses.
Also are you considering forums other than English and French?
Hi Karl, welcome back as we haven't heard from you for a whie,
Thoiugh in regard to this question of Science Education?
I immediately went to a dictionary definition of Science:
"Systematic knowledge of natural or physical phenomena; investigation of this; any branch of study concerned with observed material facts."
Though I would like to break down this definition?
When I undertook Science Education way back in the 60's. The focus was on being able to demonstrate a Systematic Knowledge of natural or observed phenomena. Or rather the rote memorization of facts, along with memorization of equations for the combinations of various facts.
Where the focus was on a Systematic approach, with either right or wrong answers?
Though the definition of the word Science, also contains: 'Investigation of this; any branch of study concerned with observable material facts."
Where if we put together the words; 'investigation and observable', I might suggest that this represents an Experiential Learning approach.
Where knowledge is a consequence of investigation and observation.
As oppposed to a rote memorisation of 'facts'?
Perhaps the word Science should be considered as a Verb instead of a Noun?
So that Science Education is not concerned with memorization of scientific facts? But rather with developing the skills to Investigate and Observe?
Where an understanding of the Facts, are a consequence of Observation and Investigation?
Perhaps this separation of Science into an insular category, is in fact a total misrepresentation of Science?
Where it is identified as a separate area of study?
Rather than approached as an Experiential Life Skill?
With a focus on developing the skills to investigate and observe?
As oppposed to the memorisation of Facts?
Maybe Science Education should be the underlying focus of Education? As the pivotal point for the acquisition of other Knowledge and Skills?
Though this might be balanced with Arts Education?
Perhaps this also raises the question of the labels for each 'field of study'? Where this habit of labelling of fields is an ineffective approach?
Givn that it causes a separation, instead of a comprehensive aproach and understanding.
Geoff.
Thank you for the welcome back.
My major concern is to address the interests of the list members or at least to be specific in response. I believe that there are members who are teachers in k-12 as well as educators at the college level. Some are teaching teachers. Comments for each of these groups would be different. It would be nice to have a poll of the list members. A few have written enough that I feel they are neighbors. The majority have said nothing.
I believe that the field is so new that there is a hesitance to enter conversation. This is particularly true if one is a member of a particular community of practice (cop). The stronger the cop the more the rewards from that community and the less likely they are to enter discourse in other forums.
As a free electron I orbit many different groups. I see things very differently. The more I see the more I realize how primitive our knowledge in these brain science fields is. There is great progress and great promise, however, we are only laying the foundations. This is one factor that tempers my response to the posed question.
I also see how old the ideas are. Most of the present ideas in brain science for learning have precedence in other fields. This lets people disregard the field of brain science. A lot of information about brain science is in a form that most teachers can not apply. Concepts are developed in many different disciplines each with its own thought paradigm. All of these issues must be addressed specifically thus requiring specific definitions of the subject matter.
A specific example is the issue of neural networks. Is this about cells, populations of cells, neural networks in electronic systems analysis, mathematical techniques of analysis as in artificial intelligence, mathematics such as chaos theory for the analysis of brain populations? Each of these concepts has a community of practice. Depending upon your cop you would answer the posed question differently. In Geoff's terminology each cop has “a Systematic Knowledge of natural or observed phenomenaâ€.
What is necessary now is that a new cop develop in which people feel free to deal with ignorance and to sort out these different meanings. Ignorance is not stupidity.
Thank you all very much for your insightful responses!
As Karl notes, the current isolation of communities of practice is a major challenge to an interdisciplinary approach to education. However, if we follow Geoff’s astute advice consider science as a verb then, perhaps we can move from noting what is to discussing what can be done…
Karl gives one very usefull suggestion of building new, interdisciplinary communities of practice. Do we have other thoughts on how to begin addressing this problem?
Cheers,
Christina
Christina recently gave a link to a survey from which I was lead to the following excerpt from the transcript of group 4 of the ESRC-TLRP Seminar Series
“Collaborative Frameworks for Neuroscience and Education 20 April 2005â€
Mark Johnson (Brain & Cognitive Development, Birkbeck College)
“MJ: Why does the brain appeal to the general public? There are problems with the press and media because journalists try to simplify things and in doing so they can lose the essence. They try to process neuroscience in terms of simple ‘facts’ (such as the brain region or gene “for†a specific cognitive function), which is wrong. Others outside neuroscience want a simple fact that they can use. Much of the neuroscience relevant to education will be complex and involve discussion of dynamic processes. Maybe only training a generation of genuine “neuro-educators†will help.â€
I believe that the concept of “neuro-educators†is worth considering. I believe that this may be a necessary transition to a new form of education and educator. Christina's question in this context is: “ ... implications for science education for a new class of 'neuro-educators'. Do we have some thoughts on this?â€
Hi Christina
As an informal educationalist these pages are a powerful rescourse for me and I am sure for many others, the directions you Seagarma and others give as are extremely useful for my own thinking and for others.
The website you gave us warns us that brain research is still in its infancy,
I have pulled two truths that encompass my own thoughts from the above article; I see no more difficulty learning science then learning history or even my own first subject agriculture.
The Myths and Promises of the Learning Brain by Kurt Fischer
Harvard Graduate School of Education
December 1, 2004
Educational theory must be research-based, just as medical theory is. The field will be more professional when educational practices, as a rule, are tested to determine when they work and when they don’t. We need to be able to say that “this educational intervention for kids with dyslexia helps 50 percent of the kids who fit a certain pattern, but only five percent of the kids who fit another kind of a pattern”—just as doctors break down results for medical treatments. Pushing toward these kinds of findings will feed back into classrooms in ways that are more honest and useful for the people who really matter: children.
Informal Learning for Children
An interview with HGSE Lecturer Joe Blatt
“The secret of a good media experience, as in a good classroom or any other learning environment, is engagement. For most of us, learning happens when we are motivated to grapple with facts and skills and ideas, to do the mental processing and organizing that makes new material our own.”
Children will learn more on their own than ever before, encountering unfiltered information and constructing from it their own meanings and understandings. That means it will be critical for teachers and parents to help children develop sophistication and taste, and learn how to assess a source, how to detect persuasion and manipulation, and how to synthesize their own views based on multiple inputs.
FOR THE FUTURE WE MUST MAKE MORE EDUCATION SELF TAUGHT
WE MUST ALSO MAKE FULL USE OF THE ABACUS AND THE ALPHABET
WE MUST ENSURE BASIC SKILLS ARE AVAILABLE TO ALL CHILDREN
TESTING ADAPTING AND PROVING IS THE WAY FORWARDS
ADVERTIZING A MAYFLY ON AOL TODAY LEADS TO UNDERSTANDING SIMPLE ASSOCIATION TECHNIQUES
repetion and the the ability to repeat superbly produced DVD type material along with classroom discussion has to become the norm.
one well produced DVD will inform a billion people about anything.
i need help to produce a brilliant DVD OF THE ABACUS AND THE ALPHABET
OECD expert Wrote:Thanks very much for your thoughts Karldw. An example of a program that has been designed for this purpose is Harvard's Mind, Brain and Education program: http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?key...cb.page635
All the best,
Christina
Christina
The Harvard Mind, Brain and Education program certainly appears to be a good concept. I believe you are in that program and I would be interested in your comments. I looked at the catalog of courses offered and it appears that these are the same courses that are offered in the other graduate school programs. Are there courses that are specific to the BME program?
I was tying to think of what such a program should include and how to phrase it. Fortunately the page on BME goals lists the following: neuroscience, philosophy, linguistics, computer science, genetics, and other relevant disciplines. As they say the devil is in the details. How can I find more about course content for the BME program.
Karl
Hi Karl,
Thanks for your interest.
The
Mind, Brain and Education program consists of a yearlong core course taught by Kurt Fischer and Howard Gardner entitled
Cognitive Development, Education and the Brain, which is specific to the program, a choice of one of seven overview courses designed to meet the programs goals, and two additional related courses. You can read descriptions of all of these at the following url:
http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?key...b.page9422
As you note, the program draws on a wide range of disciplines. The philosophy is that each disciplinary perspective provides a tool that is both uniquely useful and specifically limited. Therefore, it is most prudent to construct an interdisciplinary understanding through collaborative use of disciplinary tools as appropriate.
The program is directed by Kurt Fisher, and I have found that his carefully calculated and truly brilliant dynamic skill theory can serve as a cohesive framework within which varied threads of thought can be joined into a cohesive whole.
I believe that this interdisciplinary lens gets us closer to truth than any one philosophy of learning ever has.
However, it is important to remember that a question still remains: What does this mean for education? The gap between learning and education involves values and, I believe, this section must be crossed by each particular learning community.
I am very happy to answer any other questions that come up regarding Harvard’s program.
All the best,
Christina
OECD expert Wrote:You can read descriptions of all of these at the following url:
http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?key...b.page9422
I am very happy to answer any other questions that come up regarding Harvard’s program.
All the best,
Christina
Christina
Thank you for the link. The program is very impressive. How many students are in it now? How do you see the graduates of the MBE program being involved in education in the future?
I am also impressed with the amount of information that is available. I am going through it now and I will have many questions soon.
I STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT EVERYONE TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT THIS PR0GRAM!!!!!!
Karl
October 29, 2005
Actually implications of brain research for science education is the salient point to the tune $90 million dollars that the National Science Foundation has awarded four multidisciplinary teams "to bring the burgeoning field of neuroscience to the classrooms." says Kenneth S. Kosik, M.D. Neuroscience Research Institute, University of California at Santa Barbara. We are lucky to have such a scholar in the UC system and located just down the beach. Dr. Kosik is also director of the Kosik Laboratory of Cellular Neurobiology at the Harvard Institute of Medicine.
This past week I attended a great conference that dealt with this very thing...in Cambridge, Mass.
I spoke to Dr. Kosik at the conference and he plans to carry on this work at the next years conference being planned for Santa Barbara. It looks like there may be one conference on the west coast and one on the east coast in April and October of 2006. We shall see what happens.
The point that Dr. Kosik was making in bringing up the $90,000 million dollar is quite profound...and we can see that in the purpose of the award...which is to bring neuroscience to the classrooms. This will mean a great leap in the committment in the direction of neuroscience and a reciprocal committment to educators....
This is a well chosen topic OECD expert.....
Best,
Segarama
Welcome back Rob.
Thanks for this.
Karl:
There are about 30 students in the program this year and it has been running for three years.
The involvement of MBE students in education will vary greatly. For example, some graduates will work on interdisciplinary research linking biology, cognitive science and education, while others will work as teachers, bringing an interdisciplinary understanding to their practice.
Thank you for posing that very essential question: Then what?
All the best,
Christina
OECD expert Wrote:Welcome back Rob. Thanks for this.
Karl:
There are about 30 students in the program this year and it has been running for three years.
The involvement of MBE students in education will vary greatly. For example, some graduates will work on interdisciplinary research linking biology, cognitive science and education, while others will work as teachers, bringing an interdisciplinary understanding to their practice.
Thank you for posing that very essential question: Then what?
All the best,
Christina
Christina
I have read a little of the materials on the web. The faculty could not be stronger. The institution could not be stronger. What bothers me is that 30 students per year will not even provide one student per state! It is probably better that the graduates go into research and teach teachers so that they can multiply their numbers.
I presume that you have just done the HT100 debate on Bruer and Egan. Which side did you have to take? Which side do you personally relate to? What are your feelings about the questions?
Question #1:
Can cognitive\developmental psychology inform educational practice at all?
Question #2:
Can neuroscience inform educational practice at all?
November 4, 2005
It is extremely important that educators and those in science work together to better deliver the best information for our students.
I was forturnate to hear Kenneth S. Kosik, M.D. speak at the LEARNING AND THE BRAIN CONFERENCE, October 26-29 held at the Harvard University Faculty Club and Hyatt Regency Cambridge, MA.
Dr. Kosik is the Co-Director, Neuroscience Research Institute, UCSB - and Director of Kosik Laboratory of Cellular Neurobiology at the Harvard Institute of Medicine. Please read his Welcoming letter:
Thank you,
Rob
____________________________
WELCOME
Kenneth S. Kosik, M.D.
Harvard Medical School &
University of California, Santa Barbara
"Welcome to this online community. This membership site celebrates what seems all too obvious, but is often forgotten: educators and neuroscientists share a great many goals. Neuroscience is delving into realms that have pre-occupied educators for years, such as learning and memory, the emotional development of children, the basis of musical talent, bilingual experiences, and dyslexia to name only a few areas of mutual interest.
What emerges from the labs of brain scientists is the raw material that educators must evaluate carefully. Neuroscience data does not come with a how-to manual for the classroom, and so it falls to the educator to determine how this wealth of new information will best be translated. The translational task is not easy; it is full of pitfalls. While the scientist reports the results of an experiment, drawing conclusions from those results is the challenge as we know all too well when contending with the often contradictory findings about healthy diets.
Because neuroscience is such a rich field with information ripe for the picking, educators need to establish what will constitute the standards in their field for evaluating and accepting new teaching methods and curricular adjustments. When the findings of neuroscientists are uncritically transferred to the classroom, students can suffer from the premature and inappropriate application of neuroscientific data. On the other hand, the failure to change our schools in the face of overwhelmingly clear data is equally remiss. And indeed, there are areas where the data is clear such as the beneficial effects of physical education on scholastic performance, the ability to acquire a second language at an early age, and the detrimental effects of sleep deprivation on academic performance.
We hope this online community will lead to more collaborations between educators and neuroscientists to promote new research in schools, new ideas toward learning, and a sharing of science-based strategies so no child is left behind. "
Quoted from the Learning and the Brain Presentation Manual: Public Information Resources, Inc., A Partner of the Dana Alliance for Brain Initiatives' Brain Awareness Week Campaing.
http://WWW.EDUPR.COM
segarama Wrote:November 4, 2005
When the findings of neuroscientists are uncritically transferred to the classroom, students can suffer from the premature and inappropriate application of neuroscientific data. On the other hand, the failure to change our schools in the face of overwhelmingly clear data is equally remiss.
Segarama
Thank you for sharing with us a portion of the knowledge you got from your conference.
Dr. Kosik warns both of misuse of findings and of the failure to use findings. Do you know of any examples of how brain science has been used in education?
Bea Esser Wrote:Segarama
Thank you for sharing with us a portion of the knowledge you got from your conference.
Dr. Kosik warns both of misuse of findings and of the failure to use findings. Do you know of any examples of how brain science has been used in education?
Hi Bea,
Yes I have....and as you can understand as a former superintendent for many years I cannot discuss it,because it was incorrect and the teacher has been informed along with the parents. I do agree with Dr. Kosik on this one.
The subject was 5th grade astronomy.....and the sun is still the center of our universe....As far as brain science, yes we have had a number of parts of the brain held responsible for functions that were not even remotely associated. It seems the amygdala is responsible for everything regarding emotions in all cases. What I am getting at is that the amygdala is certainly tied up in emotions but does not contribute to everything emotional. Such has been the case in some brain science teachings.
Best,
Rob