# data[].attributes.body
Dr. Kelly McGonigal

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to Make Stress Your Friend | Kelly McGonigal | TED

# data[].attributes.body
News Article on mirror neurons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the mid-1990s, researchers at the University of Parma in Italy were investigating motor neuron activity in the brains of macaque monkeys. They placed electrodes on the premotor cortex, a region of the brain which controls movement. Then they recorded activity in the brain when the monkey grabbed a peanut, noting how its neurons reacted when it carried out this particular action. During the experiment, the researchers, led by Prof Giacomo Rizzolatti and Prof Vittorio Gallese, noticed something surprising. Some of the neurons they were monitoring responded not only when the monkey performed a certain action, but also when the monkey watched that action being performed. So, for example, the same neurons that responded when the monkey grasped a peanut, also responded when the monkey watched one of the researchers grasp a peanut.

The researchers dubbed these newly-discovered neurons mirror neurons because of the way they apparently mirrored an observed action in the monkey's brain. When subsequent research found corresponding results in humans, these tiny cells were hailed as "one of the most important findings in neuroscience in the last decade". Indeed, mirror neurons are an amazing discovery, important not just for neuroscientists but for us all. They are the first neurological findings that help us start to unravel how humans interact socially.

"It is the discovery of the most basic building block that allows us to understand vicariously or empathically the actions of other people", says Dr Mary Helen Immordino-Yang, assistant professor of psychology at the Brain and Creativity Institute in Los Angeles. Thanks in part to their evocative name, mirror neurons have been posited as the answer to long-standing questions on subjects as wide ranging as art appreciation, empathy, language, imitation, mind-reading and autism.

Yet mirror neurons themselves are not special neurons. Their distinctiveness comes from their location in the brain, between mechanisms for perception and mechanisms for action. "What they do," says Dr Immordino-Yang, "is enable a convergence between the motor planning that your brain would do to produce the actions that you see another person doing and the perception mechanisms that allow you to actually perceive what the other person is doing."

Since mirror neuron activity is believed to create a simulation of the activity being observed in the observer's brain, the observer seems to gain a deeper understanding of a particular movement through simulation rather than through inference. Looked at in this way, the mirror neuron system emerges as the most basic, low-level system in the brain by which humans impute a goal to the actions of another human being and then understand the actions as if they were their own.

Significantly however, these neurons do not, as their name suggests, mirror the observed world. "The word 'mirror' is actually misleading," says Dr Immordino-Yang. "Mirror neurons are not mirrors. It's not that they just automatically reflect what is going on in front of you." The triggers, it turns out, are in the neurons of the beholder. For your mirror neurons to function, you have to know something about the action you are observing and its meaning.

Dr Daniel Glaser, a cognitive neuroscientist at University College London, conducted a ground-breaking study on this subject using contrasting dance styles. Dancers from the Royal Ballet in London and dancers of capoeira, a martial art form from Brazil, watched videos of ballet dancers and capoeira dancers performing. The mirror neuron systems of the ballet dancers showed more activity when watching ballet dancers, while the mirror neuron systems of the capoeira dancers showed more activity when watching capoeira dancers. In other words, the mirror neuron system functions differently depending on your particular physical expertise.

"We think that this is a form of resonance," said Dr Glaser in an interview about the study. "That your own motor control cortex is more excited when you see other people doing moves that you can do." Exactly how these mirror neuron systems work and what happens in the brain when they are triggered is still being investigated. "Nobody really knows," says Dr Immordino-Yang. "The activation of these neurons is only the very first, low-level step in being able to understand somebody else's actions. You then call up all kinds of experiences that you've had in similar contexts, what they mean, how you evaluated them emotionally, how you remembered them and what happened next. You use all that information to extrapolate beyond."

In all likelihood, this process happens very quickly and involves not just mirror neurons but many parts of the brain. "You have to understand the action of these mirror neuron systems as falling into a bigger paradigm about the role of action and mental action in understanding the world in general," says Dr Immordino-Yang. As Antonio Damasio and Kaspar Meyer wrote in an article in Nature in July 2008: "The neurons at the heart of this process ... are not so much like mirrors, after all. They are more like puppet masters, pulling the strings of various memories."

Whatever their name and however these neurons function, the research underway has far-reaching implications for our understanding of, among other things, the way we appreciate art and engage with films, theatre and television. After all, mirror neuron activity may be most pronounced when people are face to face, but it does occur when we observe actions, in any format, about which we understand the implicit goal.

However, science has yet to reach this complex level of understanding about how mirror neuron systems work. "We are still working on very basic questions," says Dr Immordino-Yang. "For example, people who are subjectively more empathetic, more in tune with the people around them, do they have more mirror-neuron activity compared with people who aren't when they are just watching a certain action, such as somebody lifting a tea cup?"

One thing is certain, unravelling how mirror neuron systems work and their connections with other parts of the brain is a key to understanding the relationship between what we see and what we do. rcarroll@thenational.ae

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mirror, mirror, in the brain | The National

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the mid-1990s, researchers at the University of Parma in Italy were investigating motor neuron activity in the brains of macaque monkeys. They placed electrodes on the premotor cortex, a region of the brain which controls movement. Then they recorded activity in the brain when the monkey grabbed a peanut, noting how its neurons reacted when it carried out this particular action.

# data[].attributes.headline
#17 Article: More that an imitation game

# data[].attributes.subject
#17 Article: More that an imitation game

# data[].attributes.body
Article on Mirror Neurons - NEW

# data[].attributes.body
John Hattie

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Find out more about John Hattie’s Visible Learning meta-study

# data[].attributes.headline
Video: How we learn- synapse and neural pathways

# data[].attributes.subject
Video: How we learn- synapse and neural pathways

# data[].attributes.body
BBC

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Classroom Tools - Learning and the Brain

Why do we sometimes struggle when we are learning something new? Scientists have discovered that learning is about creating and strengthening neural pathways in the brain that allow information to transfer between brain cells. The first time a signal crosses from one brain cell to another requires the greatest effort. The first trip is the most difficult, but transfer becomes easier over time. As we continue to apply effort to new challenges, we establish more stable and reliable pathways, until the connection is so strong that information transfer is effortless.

This brief clip from the BBC documentary, The Human Body, demonstrates how establishing new neural pathways between brain cells is like building a bridge to cross a ravine.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This website explores the Ideas, the People, and the Practices related to student learning and achievement.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Powerful Inspirational true story...Never give up!

# data[].attributes.headline
Video: Peer Influence and adolescent behavior

# data[].attributes.subject
Video: Peer Influence and adolescent behavior

# data[].attributes.body
Brains on trial

# data[].attributes.headline
#2 Articulo: la biologia del aprendizaje ¿como aprende el cerebro?

# data[].attributes.subject
#2 Articulo: la biologia del aprendizaje ¿como aprende el cerebro?

# data[].attributes.headline
#15 : John Hattie- Understanding Learning 

# data[].attributes.subject
#15 : John Hattie- Understanding Learning 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Plenary 4 - Understanding Learning - lessons for learning teachi

# data[].attributes.headline
#14 Article :Learning Styles- Fact or Fiction

# data[].attributes.subject
#14 Article :Learning Styles- Fact or Fiction

# data[].attributes.body
Vanderbilt

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
by Derek Bruff, CFT Assistant Director
Back in November I attended the 30th annual Lilly Conference on College Teaching at Miami University in Ohio. I thought I'd share some session highlights with my Vanderbilt colleagues. Here's the third in a series of posts about the conference. This post is longer than the earlier posts in the series, but the topic warrants the extra length.
The Truth about Learning Styles - Linda Nilson Clemson University
When I asked D. Christopher Brooks what he thought about learning styles prior to Linda Nilson's keynote on this topic, he pointed me to Cedar Riener and Daniel Willingham's recent Change article, " The Myth of Learning Styles." The authors argue that "learners are different from each other, these differences affect their performance, and teachers should take these differences into account." This is a nice summary of what How People Learn calls learner-centered instruction, which is well supported by cognitive science research. Learners' prior knowledge and experience matter, and every student's prior knowledge and experience is unique. The authors also note that students do indeed have preferences for how they learn. However, they argue, "When these tendencies are put to the test under controlled conditions, they make no difference-learning is equivalent whether students learn in the preferred mode or not."

Riener and Willingham cite the recent meta-analysis of relevant research by Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer, and Bjork in Psychological Science in the Public Interest that found no evidence of the so-called matching hypothesis, the idea that matching one's teaching style to one's students' learning styles improves learning. They note that the matching hypothesis hasn't been subjected to a lot of very rigorous research, but what research has been conducted has failed to turn up evidence for the hypothesis. There's some controversy over this finding, but I think that it's a reasonably solid one, particularly given what Linda shared at her keynote.

Are there learning styles? That's the question that Linda Nilson answered in her keynote. See her slides for all the details, but the short version is that several popular learning styles models, including Howard Gardner's multiple intelligences model, the VARK model (visual, aural, read/write, kinesthetic), the Kolb learning style model, and the Myers-Briggs personality model, have very little predictive validity. That is, a student's "style" as determined by one of these tests doesn't have an effect on how well they learn through various activities. (To be fair, the Myers-Briggs model isn't meant to predict how students learn best. It's a personality inventory that is geared more towards interpersonal dynamics and career choice.)

Is there a learning style model with reasonable predictive validity? Yes, according to Linda. The Felder-Silverman model has "good construct and predictive validity" within the context of teaching engineering students. The Felder-Silverman model isn't as well known as the other models listed here, but given its greater validity, it's worth being familiar with. The model identifies four dimensions of cognitive processing: active vs. reflective, sensing vs. intuitive, visual vs. verbal, and sequential vs. global. Knowing where a student falls on these dimensions can indeed help predict how students will engage with various learning activities.

Does this provide evidence in favor of the matching hypothesis? Linda didn't talk explicitly about the matching hypothesis, but I gathered that the predictive validity of this model isn't so strong as to "prove" the matching hypothesis. Instead, the model is useful for predicting the ways that students will approach learning tasks. Visual students will focus on images provided to them, whereas verbal students will try to get traction on a problem by reading the text of it, and so on.

Linda encouraged us to move away from talking about learning "styles" and towards talking about teaching "modalities." She made three important points about modalities, drawn from cognitive science:

1. Visual thinking tools help everyone. Visual teaching modalities lead to deeper, more conceptual learning since visuals can provide the "big picture" as to how concepts are related. Visuals also promote longer retention and easier retrieval of information. See Linda's slides and the visual thinking teaching guide Maria Ebner and I wrote for lots of ideas on this topic.

2. Use the best modality or modalities for the content. While there's little evidence that matching one's teaching style to one's students' learning styles helps them learn, there's much stronger evidence that matching one's teaching style to one's content is wise. Linda's examples included using experiential learning for teaching students how to do something physical, using reading and auditory activities to teach poetry, and using a variety of modalities to teach recent history. This last example leads to Linda's third point...

3. People learn new material best when they encounter it multiple times and through multiple modalities. Since different modalities activate different parts of the brain, when students encounter new material in many different ways, they're in a better position to make more sense of the material.

Here's my personal anecdote on that last item: During my senior year of college, I participated in a foreign study in England and Ireland through my university. While we were in Ireland, we focused on the troubled history of that country in the 20th century. The textbook on this topic we read before traveling was informative, but incredibly dry. Watching the 1996 Liam Neeson movie Michael Collins, a biopic about one of the leaders of the 1916 Easter Rising in Ireland, helped provide a narrative for one thread of the topic. Actually visiting the locations described in the textbook and dramatized in the movie made the stories and information more concrete for me, and hearing from various Irish experts while we were there helped me connect the history we had studied to the current political state of the country. Any one of these modalities would have been insufficient for me to get a handle on the 20th century history of Ireland (particularly that textbook!), but their combination was incredibly effective.

Here are two other quick takeaways on this topic that emerged in the Twitter backchannel during the keynote:

Students can learn how to learn in particular modalities more effectively. That's the idea behind metacognition.

As useful as visual tools are, some students have visual impairments that prevent them from using those tools fully. Eric Stoller and I had a great conversation on Twitter about this during Linda's keynote. Be sensitive to accessibility issues when using different modalities.

Finally, I'll leave you with this link, shared by Todd Zakrajsek in his session at Lilly. It's from the Onion: " Parents of Nasal Learners Demand Odor-Based Curriculum." Enjoy!
Image: "345/365 touch-up," Katie Harris, Flickr (CC)
Tags: Conferences, Learning Styles

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Learning Styles: Fact and Fiction - A Conference Report

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
by Derek Bruff, CFT Assistant Director Back in November I attended the 30th annual Lilly Conference on College Teaching at Miami University in Ohio. I thought I'd share some session highlights with my Vanderbilt colleagues. Here's the third in a series of posts about the conference.

# data[].attributes.headline
#13 Article: Nine things educator need to know about the brain

# data[].attributes.subject
#13 Article: Nine things educator need to know about the brain

# data[].attributes.body
Greater good science

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The human brain wasn't designed for industrial education.

It was shaped over millions of years of sequential adaptation in response to ever-changing environmental demands. Over time, brains grew in size and complexity; old structures were conserved and new structures emerged. As we evolved into social beings, our brains became incredibly sensitive to our social worlds.

This mixture of conservation, adaptation, and innovation has resulted in an amazingly complex brain, capable of everything from monitoring respiration to creating culture. This added complexity came with a cost. Not only do all of these systems have to develop and interconnect, but they also have to stay balanced and properly integrated for optimal performance.

This evolutionary history poses a challenge for educators. While findings from social neuroscience can provide some welcome guideposts for teachers, they cannot substitute for the flexibility needed in the classroom to accommodate a range of students. Students and teachers are not uniform raw materials or assembly-line workers, but a diverse collection of living, breathing human beings with complex evolutionary histories, cultural backgrounds, and life stories.

If we are going to move forward, we will have to admit that a one-size-fits-all model of education is doomed to fail the majority of students and teachers.

And through understanding how students' brains actually work and using that knowledge to benefit classroom learning, we may be able to positively influence classroom education and prepare students to better face unknowable futures. Here are nine scientific insights that educators might want to keep in mind.

1. The brain is a social organ.

Our brains require stimulation and connection to survive and thrive. A brain without connection to other brains and without sufficient challenge will shrink and eventually die-moreover, the modern human brain's primary environment is our matrix of social relationships. As a result, close supportive relationships stimulate positive emotions, neuroplasticity, and learning.

That's why it pays for teachers to create positive social experiences in the classroom. From a neurobiological perspective, the position of the teacher is very similar to that of the parent in building the child's brain. Optimism, encouragement, and giving someone the benefit of the doubt have been shown to positively impact performance-and so does a caring and positive regard for students. Promoting social-emotional learning programs that decrease student conflict and create positive social climates in the classroom are invaluable to learning.

2. We have two brains.

The cerebral hemispheres have differentiated from one another and developed specialized functions and skills. In general, the left hemisphere has taken the lead on language processing, linear thinking, and pro-social functioning while the right hemisphere specializes in visual-spatial processing, strong emotions, and private experience.

Most tasks, though, involve contributions from both hemispheres. So, it is important to understand how to engage both in the classroom context.

Good teachers intuitively grasp this in their students, and they will seek to balance the expression of emotion and cognition, encouraging overly rational students to be aware of and explore their feelings while helping anxious students develop the cognitive capabilities of their left hemispheres to regulate their emotions.

Storytelling can help here, as stories can serve as powerful organizing tools for neural network integration. A story that is well told, containing conflicts and resolutions and thoughts flavored with emotions, will shape brains and connect people.

3. Early learning is powerful.

Much of our most important emotional and interpersonal learning occurs during our first few years of life, when our more primitive neural networks are in control. Early experiences shape structures in ways that have a lifelong impact on three of our most vital areas of learning: attachment, emotional regulation, and self-esteem. These three spheres of learning establish our abilities to connect with others, cope with stress, and feel that we have value.

Every time children behave in a way they (or we) don't understand, a teacher has the opportunity to engage in an exploration of their inner world. When painful experiences can be consciously thought about, named, and placed into a coherent narrative, children gain the ability to reintegrate dissociated neural networks of affect, cognition, and bodily awareness.

Encouraging students to write about their experiences in diaries and journals can help, as it lets students become the masters of their experience and reducing anxiety and stress. Research has shown that writing about your experiences can increase well-being and help with emotional regulation, which may have been impaired through early traumatic experiences.

4. Conscious awareness and unconscious processing occur at different speeds, often simultaneously.

Conscious awareness and explicit memory are but a small fraction of the vast amount of neural processing that occurs each millisecond.

Think of how many things you do without having to think about them: breathing, walking, balancing, even constructing the syntax of a sentence, is handled automatically. The brain is able to process incoming information, analyze it based on a lifetime of experience, and present it to us in half a second. The brain then creates the illusion that what we are experiencing is happening right now and that we are making decisions based on our conscious thought processes.

Because of this, it is especially important to teach students to question their assumptions and the possible influences of past experiences and unconscious biases on their feelings and beliefs.

This is especially true when thinking about prejudice. Because fear conditioning does not require conscious awareness, the brain's knee-jerk reaction to individuals of other races is unrelated to our conscious attitudes. Open discussion and increased interracial exposure can work against prejudice being turned into conscious beliefs and negative behaviors.
5. The mind, brain, and body are interwoven.
Physical activity exerts a stimulating influence on the entire brain that keeps it functioning at an optimal level. Exercise has been shown to stimulate the birth of new neurons in the hippocampus and to pump more oxygen through the brain, stimulating capillary growth and frontal-lobe plasticity.

Proper nutrition and adequate sleep are also essential to learning. Although the brain is only a fraction of our body's weight, it consumes approximately 20 percent of our energy, which makes good nutrition a critical component of learning. Sleep boosts cognitive performance and augments learning while sleep deprivation limits our ability to sustain vigilance and attention. Sleep deprivation has also been shown to impair flexible thinking and decision-making.

An awareness of these biological realities can lead to changes in school start times, lunch programs, and recess schedules. Teachers can teach students about the importance of sleep and make suggestions for better sleep habits, such as how to create a good sleep environment and promote relaxation. Good nutrition and regular exercise can be incorporated into the school environment. Teaching about the interconnections among the brain, the body, and how we learn will provide students with important scientific knowledge, which could improve their academic performance and physical health.

In addition, learning can be enhanced by certain environmental conditions and hampered by others. Inadequate school facilities, poor acoustics, outside noise, and inadequate classroom lighting all correlate with poorer academic performance. Chairs with poor support hamper blood supply to the brain and impede cognition while temperatures above 74-77 degrees Fahrenheit have been shown to correlate with lower reading comprehension and math scores. A more hospitable climate for learning can help performance by providing for the physical needs of the body.
6. The brain has a short attention span and needs repetition and multiple-channel processing for deeper learning to occur.
Curiosity, the urge to explore and the impulse to seek novelty, plays an important role in survival. We are rewarded for curiosity by dopamine and opioids (feel-good chemicals in the brain), which are stimulated in the face of something new. Because our brains evolved to remain vigilant to a constantly changing environment, we learn better in brief intervals.

This is likely one reason why variation in materials, breaks, and even intermittent naps facilitate learning. It is probably important for teachers to reestablish attention in their students every five to 10 minutes and continue to shift the focus of attention to new topics.

Learning also involves the strengthening of connections between neurons. "What fires together wires together," say neuroscientists, which is why repetition supports learning while the absence of repetition and exposure results in its decay. Teachers would do well to make sure they repeat important points in their lessons to deepen learning.

Given that visual, semantic, sensory, motor, and emotional neural networks all contain their own memory systems, multichannel learning engaging each of these networks increases the likelihood of both storage and recall. We have an amazing capacity for visual memory, and written or spoken information paired with visual information results in better recall. There is a greater likelihood that learning will generalize outside the classroom if it is organized across sensory, physical, emotional and cognitive networks.

7. Fear and stress impair learning.

Evolution has shaped our brains to err on the side of caution and to trigger fear whenever it might be remotely useful. Fear makes us less intelligent because amygdala activation-which occurs as part of the fear response-interferes with prefrontal functioning. Fear also shuts down exploration, makes our thinking more rigid, and drives "neophobia," the fear of anything new.

Stressful situations trigger the release of the stress hormone cortisol, which interferes with neural growth. Prolonged stress impairs our ability to learn and maintain physical health.

Success in school depends upon a student's ability to somehow decrease their stress. The inclusion of stress-management techniques into the curriculum is an obvious application of neuroscience to education that can improve learning, emotional well-being, and physical health. Teachers can use their warmth, empathic caring, and positive regard to create a state of mind that decreases fear and increases neuroplasticity and learning.

8. We analyze others but not ourselves: the primacy of projection.

Our brains have evolved to pay attention to the behaviors and emotions of other people. Not only is this processing complex, but it is lightning fast, shaping our experience of others milliseconds before we even become consciously aware of their presence. We automatically generate a theory of what is on their mind-our ideas about what they know, what their motivations may be, and what they might do next. As a result, we are as quick to think we know others as we are slow to become aware of our own motives and faults.

Taking our thoughts about others and trying them on for size has the potential to teach us about ourselves and increase our empathic abilities. Simple exercises that guide students to examine what and how what they think and feel about others may be true for themselves can open a window of self-awareness, empathy, and insight. Teachers can ask students to examine the lives of historical figures and characters from books and movies to help them gain a third-eye perspective on their own strengths, motivations, and flaws.
9. Learning is enhanced by emphasizing the big picture-and then allowing students to discover the details for themselves.
When problems are represented at higher levels of abstraction, learning can be integrated into larger schemas that enhance memory, learning, and cognitive flexibility. Starting with major concepts and repeatedly returning to them during a lecture enhances understanding and memory, a phenomenon that increases when students create their own categories and strategies of organizing information. Chunking material into meaningful segments makes it easier to remember, and improves test performance while increasing prefrontal activity during encoding.

When it comes to discovering the details, bear in mind that our brains evolved to learn is through trial-and-error exploration. This is true of learning and adapting to both our social and physical environments. Therefore, using what we learn to attempt to solve real-world problems and adjusting our behaviors or ideas based on the results augments the retention of skills and information. We are born to explore, and teachers who make use of that will probably find more success in the classroom.

Greater Good wants to know: Do you think this article will influence your opinions or behavior?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nine Things Educators Need to Know About the Brain

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The human brain wasn't designed for industrial education. It was shaped over millions of years of sequential adaptation in response to ever-changing environmental demands. Over time, brains grew in size and complexity; old structures were conserved and new structures emerged. As we evolved into social beings, our brains became incredibly sensitive to our social worlds.

# data[].attributes.headline
#12 - Article: Studying with quizzes helps make sure the material sticks

# data[].attributes.subject
#12 - Article: Studying with quizzes helps make sure the material sticks

# data[].attributes.body
MindShift

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Roddy Roediger is a psychology professor at Washington University in St. Louis and runs the school's Memory Lab. He's been obsessed with studying how and why people remember things for four decades.

"The actual act of retrieving the information over and over, that's what makes it retrievable when you need it."

About 20 years ago, Roediger was running an experiment on how images help people remember. He separated his subjects into three groups and asked each group to try to memorize 60 pictures. The first group just studied the pictures for 20 minutes. The second studied them for most of that time, but was asked to recall the pictures once during the session. But Roediger tested the third group on the pictures three times over the 20 minutes.

When Roediger tested the three groups on the pictures a week later, there were huge differences in how much they each remembered. The first group, which had just studied the whole time, remembered 16 of the 60 pictures. The second group did a little better. But the third group, the ones he had tested over and over, did great. They remembered 32 pictures - twice as many as the first group.

This phenomenon - testing yourself on an idea or concept to help you remember it - is called the "testing effect" or "retrieval practice." People have known about the idea for centuries. Sir Francis Bacon mentioned it, as did the psychologist William James. In 350 BCE, Aristotle wrote that "exercise in repeatedly recalling a thing strengthens the memory."

But the testing effect had been mostly overlooked in recent years. "What psychologists interested in learning and memory have always emphasized is the acquisition part. The taking [information] in and getting it into memory," Roediger said.

Laypeople - and even experts - tend to think of human memory as a box to be packed with information.

"What people neglected and didn't think about was the 'getting it out' part," Roediger said. "We don't get information into memory just to have it sit there. We get it in to be able to use it later. ... And the actual act of retrieving the information over and over, that's what makes it retrievable when you need it."

Why does retrieval, or quizzing, slow forgetting and help us remember?

"It's a good question, and we don't know the answer to it," said Roediger's colleague Mark McDaniel.

One theory is that the act of retrieving information from the vastness of our memory systems poses a challenge to the brain, and retrieval practices that act: in effect, greasing the wheels of memory.

Another theory is that information goes into our brains attached to context. The texture of the book page that we flip as we read; the hum of the air conditioner in the background; the taste of the chips we're snacking on as we study: these all become part of a stored memory.

"Memory is dynamic, and it keeps changing," McDaniel said. "And retrieval helps it change."

Every time a memory is retrieved, it becomes connected to new sensations and contexts. "The more things you have it connected to, the easier it is to pull it out, because you have lots of different ideas that can lead you to that particular material," McDaniel said. "And the things you retrieve get more accessible later on, and the things you don't retrieve get pushed into the background and become harder to retrieve next time."

Studying using these methods requires a lot of work. Rather than just reading, students have to create little quizzes for themselves. It can feel uncomfortable and inefficient. "This is a difficult way to study," McDaniel admitted. "I think most people want learning to be easy and effortless. They want a magic bullet for it. And learning is not easy and effortless. It takes work, and it takes effort and time and dedication."

"The issue with learning is, no one ever sits down and teaches you how to study."

"I didn't know how to study," said Sydney Baranovitz, a student studying occupational therapy at Georgia Regents University who credits "retrieval practice" for saving her medical career. "I had the ability; I just didn't know what to focus on. The issue with learning is, no one ever sits down and teaches you [how to study]."

Mark McDaniel agrees. "One of the gaps or problems in the educational system is that no one ever helps a student figure out how to learn, and yet that's the primary challenge a student is faced with. You've got to assist them with how to do that. And that's where I think we're failing somewhat."
TEST OFTEN FOR BETTER RESULTS
It's not just that many students are never taught how to study. It's also that many classes, especially in higher education, are set up to encourage bad study habits.

Andrew Sobel is a professor of international studies at Washington University in St. Louis. He used to teach a freshman introduction to political science class. He structured it in the traditional way, with daily lectures, a midterm exam and a final.

Then he heard Roddy Roediger give a presentation on the testing effect, and Sobel realized that his students were studying in exactly the wrong way, by rereading their notes the night before his two exams.

A vastly better model, Sobel thought, would be one where he essentially forced his students to retrieve knowledge over and over again throughout the course.
So, every semester, instead of two exams, he started giving his students nine quizzes. All these little tests would count for a grade, but they would also, Sobel hoped, be a tool for learning.

At first, Sobel says, his students hated the quizzes. But he was shocked when he realized that by the end of the semester, his students were writing answers to his questions that were comparable to those of his upper division students. "That had never happened before," Sobel said. "And so the only thing that can explain that, the only thing that varied in there, was the testing structure."

Sobel has tried to talk to his colleagues about the results he was seeing with quizzing, but he says most of them aren't interested in switching from a few exams to multiple quizzes. "University faculty are considered very smart, but are also very conservative," Sobel said. "We don't like to change our ways."

"I've always said there was kind of a conspiracy between students and faculty," Roediger said. "Faculty hate making up and grading tests. Students hate taking them. So we pretend they're not very important, and we don't give them. ... [Our lab] is arguing for more testing, not less - not standardized tests, but tests that help kids learn."
This story originally appeared on American RadioWorks. Listen to "The Science of Smart" documentary:
Studying With Quizzes Helps Make Sure the Material Sticks

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Studying With Quizzes Helps Make Sure the Material Sticks

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Roddy Roediger is a psychology professor at Washington University in St. Louis and runs the school's Memory Lab. He's been obsessed with studying how and why people remember things for four decades. "The actual act of retrieving the information over and over, that's what makes it retrievable when you need it."

# data[].attributes.body
descripcion

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Quick excerpt from Brainology Español, in video form for easy access.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Growth Mindset (1 of 5) | Social Emotional Learning for kids

# data[].attributes.body
npr- radio hour

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The brain can seem as mysterious as a distant galaxy, but scientists are starting to map and manipulate its many regions. In this hour, TED speakers take us on a trip through the human brain.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This video summarizes the basics of emotions (definitions, key theories) as well as their role in decision-making processes.

# data[].attributes.headline
Video: What is so unique about the human brain

# data[].attributes.subject
Video: What is so unique about the human brain

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is so special about the human brain? | Suzana Herculano-Houzel

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The human brain is puzzling -- it is curiously large given the size of our bodies, uses a tremendous amount of energy for its weight and has a bizarrely dense cerebral cortex. But: why? Neuroscientist Suzana Herculano-Houzel puts on her detective's cap and leads us through this mystery.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Getting stuck in the negatives (and how to get unstuck) | Alison Ledgerwood | TEDxUCDavis

# data[].attributes.body
Perceptions experiment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Close your eyes and imagine the last time you fell in love. Maybe you were walking next to your sweetheart in a park or staring into each other's eyes over a latte.

Where did you feel the love? Perhaps you got butterflies in your stomach or your heart raced with excitement.

When a team of scientists in Finland asked people to map out where they felt different emotions on their bodies, they found that the results were surprisingly consistent, even across cultures.

People reported that happiness and love sparked activity across nearly the entire body, while depression had the opposite effect: It dampened feelings in the arms, legs and head. Danger and fear triggered strong sensations in the chest area, the volunteers said. And anger was one of the few emotions that activated the arms.

The scientists hope these body emoticons may one day help psychologists diagnose or treat mood disorders.

"Our emotional system in the brain sends signals to the body so we can deal with our situation," says Lauri Nummenmaa, a psychologist at Aalto University who led the study.

"Say you see a snake and you feel fear," Nummenmaa says. "Your nervous system increases oxygen to your muscles and raises your heart rate so you can deal with the threat. It's an automated system. We don't have to think about it."

That idea has been known for centuries. But scientists still don't agree on whether these bodily changes are distinct for each emotion and whether this pattern serves as a way for the mind to consciously identify emotions.

To try to figure that out, Nummenmaa and his team ran a simple computer experiment with about 700 volunteers from Finland, Sweden and Taiwan.

The team showed the volunteers two blank silhouettes of a person on a screen and then told the subjects to think about one of 14 emotions: love, disgust, anger, pride, etc. The volunteers then painted areas of the body that felt stimulated by that emotion. On the second silhouette, they painted areas of the body that get deactivated during that emotion.

"People find the experiment quite amusing. It's quite fun," Nummenmaa tells Shots. "We kept the questions online so you try the experiment yourself." (You can try it here.)

Not everybody painted each emotion in the same way. But when the team averaged the maps together, signature patterns emerged for each emotion. The team published these sensation maps Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The team still doesn't know how these self-reported sensations match with the physiological responses that occur with emotion.

But previous studies have found marked changes in bodily sensations in mood disorders, Nummenmaa says. "For instance, with depression sometimes people have pain in their chest."

And there's even some evidence that when you change your own body language - like your posture or stance - you can alter your mind.

Neuroscientist Antonio Damasio, who was not involved in this study, says he's "delighted" by Nummenmaa's findings because they offer more support for what he's been suggesting for years: Each emotion activates a distinct set of body parts, he thinks, and the mind's recognition of those patterns helps us consciously identify that emotion.

"People look at emotions as something in relation to other people," Damasio, who is a professor at the University of Southern California, says. "But emotions also have to do with how we deal with the environment - threats and opportunities." For those, Damasio says, you need your body as well as your mind.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mapping Emotions On The Body: Love Makes Us Warm All Over

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How do you know you're in love? Angry? Or sad? Emotions start off in the brain, then ripple through the whole body. Now scientists have charted where we consciously feel specific emotions. They hope these sensation maps will one day help diagnose and treat mood disorders.

# data[].attributes.headline
#16 Article: Teach Students About their BRAIN: ENHANCE learning

# data[].attributes.subject
#16 Article: Teach Students About their BRAIN: ENHANCE learning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Explicitly teaching students about neuroplasticity can have a transformative impact in the classroom. A central facet of our work as teacher educators is teaching about how the brain changes during learning. Many teachers have told us that these findings have had a positive effect on their expectations for their students and on students' perceptions of their own abilities.

Lessons on discoveries that learning changes the structure and function of the brain can engage students, especially when combined with explicit instruction on the use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies that guide them to learn how to learn (Wilson & Conyers, 2013). Using these strategies effectively produces learning gains, which motivate students to take charge of their learning, which leads to further academic success and may have the additional benefit of alleviating classroom management issues. When students see this process as changing their own brains, the result is a powerful and positive cycle.

The force behind this cycle is students' belief that they can get smarter through study and practice, which enhances their commitment to persist in the hard work that learning sometimes requires. Nisbett (2009) reports on classroom research involving seventh graders who were taught that learning changes the brain and that intelligence is expandable. Students in this experimental group did better on math tests than peers who did not receive that instruction.

The same dynamic of persisting to succeed applies to teaching. Keeping the idea of brain plasticity at the forefront of your professional practice offers a constant reminder than when students struggle with lessons, it isn't because they can't learn, but because they need more practice and instructional support.

Strategies for Engagement

Lessons and activities about the power of brain plasticity can take many forms for students of all ages, as the following examples demonstrate.

License to Drive

Remind students that they "drive" their own brains, and teach them useful learning strategies. Second grade teacher Donna Garland leads her students in daily exercises to practice cognitive and metacognitive strategies that they can use in learning all their core subjects. Students' desks are decorated with colorful "brain car" cartoons as reminders that they are in charge of their learning.

Going BIG

Make these lessons a BIG deal. Nichole Galinkin designed a literature-based cognitive skills program she calls "Brains In Gear (BIG): Big Secrets for Thinking and Learning" for the K-3 students in her exceptional education classes. Children explore picture books that reinforce thinking skills, engage in role playing, and talk to teachers, aides and volunteers about how they benefit from thinking about their thinking.

"What I enjoy most of all is listening to the kids as they remind themselves of a catch phrase or a strategy and hearing them share those strategies with others," Ms. Galinkin says. "It's great to actually see them using the information they're learning."
Credit: Donna Wilson and Marcus Conyers
Practice, Practice, Practice

Have a ready answer to the question, "Why do we practice so much?" For example, here's a great story about neuroscientists investigating how learning affects the brain. Medical researchers were fascinated with how veteran cab drivers could navigate the busy streets of London so effortlessly and remember all the shortcuts without consulting a map. So they did brain scans and discovered that the cabbies' hippocampal areas, the part of the brain associated with spatial reasoning, were larger than those of other adults. All those years of driving and remembering routes had literally changed their brains. Studies of musicians have found similar results of the impact of practice, practice and more practice.

Room to Improve

Encourage older students to make the most of their brain plasticity, too. By the time high school students make it to Jeremy Green's AP psychology and U.S. history classes, some seem convinced that their academic shortcomings are innate and permanent. They are resigned to "making do" in their struggles with reading high-level texts, the most common problem Mr. Green encounters among his students.

With the goal of dispelling the misconception that "you're stuck where you are," Mr. Green begins the school year by sharing a presentation titled "Your Brain Is Amazing." He reinforces that message throughout the school year by teaching cognitive strategies alongside core content, such as explicit instruction on the organizational skills that students will need to complete a research project, and tricks for puzzling out the meaning of unfamiliar terms. The same message applies to the football players he coaches: "You're either going to get worse or better, but nobody's going to stay the same."

"Our role as teachers and coaches is to sell them on the idea that they can get better. If we improve, we win -- period," Mr. Green adds. "We talk about this on the first day of class -- how you're not just what you are today, and that hard work really matters."

How do you engage your students in learning how to learn?

Notes

Hinton, C., Fischer, K. W., & Glennon, C. Students at the Center: Mind, Brain, and Education [ Executive Summary], March 2012.

Nisbett, R. Intelligence and How to Get It: Why Schools and Cultures Count. New York, NY: Norton, 2009.

Wilson, D. L., & Conyers, M. A. Five Big Ideas for Effective Teaching: Connecting Mind, Brain, and Education Research to Classroom Practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press, 2013.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Engaging Brains: How to Enhance Learning by Teaching Kids About Neuroplasticity

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explicitly teaching students about neuroplasticity can have a transformative impact in the classroom. A central facet of our work as teacher educators is teaching about how the brain changes during learning. Many teachers have told us that these findings have had a positive effect on their expectations for their students and on students' perceptions of their own abilities.

# data[].attributes.body
Self Esteem Video

# data[].attributes.headline
#12 Article: Benefits of bilingual education

# data[].attributes.subject
#12 Article: Benefits of bilingual education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Part of our ongoing series exploring how the U.S. can educate the nearly 5 million students who are learning English.
Brains, brains, brains. One thing we've learned at NPR Ed is that people are fascinated by brain research. And yet it can be hard to point to places where our education system is really making use of the latest neuroscience findings.

But there is one happy nexus where research is meeting practice: bilingual education. "In the last 20 years or so, there's been a virtual explosion of research on bilingualism," says Judith Kroll, a professor at the University of California, Riverside.

Again and again, researchers have found, "bilingualism is an experience that shapes our brain for a lifetime," in the words of Gigi Luk, an associate professor at Harvard's Graduate School of Education.

At the same time, one of the hottest trends in public schooling is what's often called dual-language or two-way immersion programs.

Traditional programs for English-language learners, or ELLs, focus on assimilating students into English as quickly as possible. Dual-language classrooms, by contrast, provide instruction across subjects to both English natives and English learners, in both English and in a target language.

The goal is functional bilingualism and biliteracy for all students by middle school.

New York City, North Carolina, Delaware, Utah, Oregon and Washington state are among the places expanding dual-language classrooms.

The trend flies in the face of some of the culture wars of two decades ago, when advocates insisted on "English first" education. Most famously, California passed Proposition 227 in 1998. It was intended to sharply reduce the amount of time that English-language learners spent in bilingual settings.

Proposition 58, passed by California voters on Nov. 8, largely reversed that decision, paving the way for a huge expansion of bilingual education in the state that has the largest population of English-language learners.

Some of the insistence on English-first was founded in research produced decades ago, in which bilingual students underperformed monolingual English speakers and had lower IQ scores.

Today's scholars, like Ellen Bialystok at York University in Toronto, now say that research was "deeply flawed."

"Earlier research looked at socially disadvantaged groups," agrees Antonella Sorace at the University of Edinburgh, in Scotland. "This has been completely contradicted by recent research" that compares more similar groups to each other.

So what does recent research say about the potential benefits of bilingual education? NPR Ed called up seven researchers in three countries - Sorace, Bialystok, Luk, Kroll, Jennifer Steele, and the team of Wayne Thomas and Virginia Collier - to find out.
Attention
It turns out that, in many ways, the real trick to speaking two languages consists in managing not to speak one of those languages at a given moment - which is fundamentally a feat of paying attention.

Saying "Goodbye" to mom and then " Guten tag" to your teacher, or managing to ask for a crayola roja instead of a red crayon, requires skills called "inhibition" and "task switching." These skills are subsets of an ability called executive function.

People who speak two languages often outperform monolinguals on general measures of executive function. "[Bilinguals] can pay focused attention without being distracted and also improve in the ability to switch from one task to another," says Sorace.

Do these same advantages accrue to a child who begins learning a second language in kindergarten instead of as a baby? We don't yet know. Patterns of language learning and language use are complex. But Gigi Luk at Harvard cites at least one brain-imaging study on adolescents that shows similar changes in brain structure when compared with those who are bilingual from birth, even when they didn't begin practicing a second language in earnest before late childhood.
Empathy
Young children being raised bilingual have to follow social cues to figure out which language to use with which person and in what setting. As a result, says Sorace, bilingual children as young as age 3 have demonstrated a head start on tests of perspective-taking and theory of mind - both of which are fundamental social and emotional skills.
Reading (English)
About 10 percent of students in the Portland, Ore., public schools are assigned by lottery to dual-language classrooms that offer instruction in Spanish, Japanese or Mandarin, alongside English.

Jennifer Steele at American University conducted a four-year, randomized trial and found that these dual-language students outperformed their peers in English-reading skills by a full school year's worth of learning by the end of middle school.

Such a large effect in a study this size is unusual, and Steele is currently conducting a flurry of follow-up studies to tease out the causality: Is this about a special program that attracted families who were more engaged? Or about the dual-language instruction itself?

"If it's just about moving the kids around," Steele says, "that's not as exciting as if it's a way of teaching that makes you smarter."

Steele suspects the latter. Because the effects are found in reading, not in math or science where there were few differences, she suggests that learning two languages makes students more aware of how language works in general, aka "metalinguistic awareness."

The research of Gigi Luk at Harvard offers a slightly different explanation. She has recently done a small study looking at a group of 100 fourth-graders in Massachusetts who had similar reading scores on a standard test, but very different language experiences.

Some were foreign-language dominant and others were English natives. Here's what's interesting. The students who were dominant in a foreign language weren't yet comfortably bilingual; they were just starting to learn English. Therefore, by definition, they had much weaker English vocabularies than the native speakers.

Yet they were just as good at decoding a text.

"This is very surprising," Luk says. "You would expect the reading comprehension performance to mirror vocabulary - it's a cornerstone of comprehension."

How did the foreign-language dominant speakers manage this feat? Well, Luk found, they also scored higher on tests of executive functioning. So, even though they didn't have huge mental dictionaries to draw on, they may have been great puzzle-solvers, taking into account higher-level concepts such as whether a single sentence made sense within an overall story line.

They got to the same results as the monolinguals, by a different path.
School performance and engagement.
Wayne Thomas and Virginia Collier, a husband and wife team of professors emeritus at George Mason University in Virginia, have spent the past 30 years collecting evidence on the benefits of bilingual education.

"Wayne came to our research with skepticism, thinking students ought to get instruction all day in English," says Virginia Collier. "Eight million student records later, we're convinced," Wayne Thomas chimes in.

In studies covering six states and 37 districts, they have found that, compared with students in English-only classrooms or in one-way immersion, dual-language students have somewhat higher test scores and also seem to be happier in school. Attendance is better, behavioral problems fewer, parent involvement higher.
Diversity and integration.
American public school classrooms as a whole are becoming more segregated by race and class. Dual-language programs can be an exception. Because they are composed of native English speakers deliberately placed together with recent immigrants, they tend to be more ethnically and socioeconomically balanced. And there is some evidence that this helps kids of all backgrounds gain comfort with diversity and different cultures.

Several of the researchers I talked with also pointed out that, in bilingual education, non-English-dominant students and their families tend to feel that their home language is heard and valued, compared with a classroom where the home language is left at the door in favor of English.

This can improve students' sense of belonging and increase parent involvement in their children's education, including behaviors like reading to children.

"Many parents fear their language is an obstacle, a problem, and if they abandon it their child will integrate better," says Antonella Sorace of the University of Edinburgh. "We tell them they're not doing their child a favor by giving up their language."
Protection against cognitive decline and dementia.
File this away as a very, very long-range payoff. Researchers have found that actively using two languages seems to have a protective effect against age-related dementia - perhaps relating to the changes in brain structure we talked about earlier.

Specifically, among patients with Alzheimer's in a Canadian study, a group of bilingual adults performed on par with a group of monolingual adults in terms of cognitive tests and daily functioning. But when researchers looked at the two groups' brains, they found evidence of brain atrophy that was five to seven years more advanced in the bilingual group. In other words, the adults who spoke two languages were carrying on longer at a higher level despite greater degrees of damage.
The coda, and a caution
One theme that was striking in speaking to all these researchers was just how strongly they advocated for dual-language classrooms.

Thomas and Collier have advised many school systems on how to expand their dual-language programs, and Sorace runs " Bilingualism Matters," an international network of researchers who promote bilingual education projects.

This type of advocacy among scientists is unusual; even more so because the "bilingual advantage hypothesis" is being challenged once again. A review of studies published last year found that cognitive advantages failed to appear in 83 percent of published studies, though in a separate meta-analysis, the sum of effects was still significantly positive.

One potential explanation offered by the researchers I spoke with is that advantages that are measurable in the very young and very old tend to fade when testing young adults at the peak of their cognitive powers.

And, they countered that no negative effects of bilingual education have been found. So, they argue that even if the advantages are small, they are still worth it.

Not to mention one obvious, outstanding fact underlined by many of these researchers: "Bilingual children can speak two languages! That's amazing," says Bialystok.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
6 Potential Brain Benefits Of Bilingual Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Part of our ongoing series exploring how the U.S. can educate the nearly 5 million students who are learning English. Brains, brains, brains. One thing we've learned at NPR Ed is that people are fascinated by brain research. And yet it can be hard to point to places where our education system is really making use of the latest neuroscience findings.

# data[].attributes.headline
#11 Articulo : Lo que los nuerocientificos nos dicen sobre la enseñanza de lenguas extranjeras

# data[].attributes.subject
#11 Articulo : Lo que los nuerocientificos nos dicen sobre la enseñanza de lenguas extranjeras

# data[].attributes.headline
#11 Article: What neuroscience tells us about how to teach foreign languages

# data[].attributes.subject
#11 Article: What neuroscience tells us about how to teach foreign languages

# data[].attributes.headline
Estoy aterrada con LA NUEVA INFORMACION DE LEARNING STYLES

# data[].attributes.subject
Estoy aterrada con LA NUEVA INFORMACION DE LEARNING STYLES

# data[].attributes.body
COOOLLLL!! Me parece buenisimo , Sylvia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
BioInteractive has featured the latest neuroscience research in many of its lectures, interactives, and animations.

# data[].attributes.body
THIS HAS GONE VIRAL IN FACEBOOK

# data[].attributes.headline
#10 Article: All you need to know about the "learning styles" Myth in 2 minutes

# data[].attributes.subject
#10 Article: All you need to know about the "learning styles" Myth in 2 minutes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On a sunny hike along a Madeiran levada a couple of years ago, I got chatting to a retired school teacher and I told him about the brain myths book I was writing. An affable chap, he listened with interest about the 10 percent myth and other classic misconceptions, but his mood changed when I mentioned learning styles. This is the mistaken idea that we learn better when the instruction we receive is tailored to our preferred way of learning. The friendly teacher was passionate about the concept's merit - his own preferred style, he said, was to learn "by doing" and no-one would ever convince him otherwise.

How widely believed is the myth?
The teacher I met in Madeira is far from alone in endorsing the myth. It is propagated not only in hundreds of popular books, but also through international conferences and associations, by commercial companies who sell ways of measuring learning styles, and in teacher training programs. The TeachingEnglish website published by the British Council and the BBC states boldly "Your students will be more successful if you match your teaching style to their learning styles" - this includes, they claim, being: right- or left-brained, analytic vs. dynamic, and visual vs. auditory. A recent international survey of teachers from the UK, China and elsewhere found that 96 percent believed in the idea of preferred learning styles.

Why is the idea so popular?
Parents, understandably, like to think that their children are receiving a tailored education. Teachers, also understandably, like to think that they are sensitive to each child's needs and many are clearly motivated to find out more about how to fulfill this ideal. Also, no-one likes to think of themselves as low in ability. It's more comforting to my ego to think that a class was difficult because of a teaching style I didn't like than because I wasn't concentrating or because I'm simply not clever or motivated enough.

Is there any evidence to support the learning styles concept?
Yes there is a little, but experts on the topic like Harold Pashler and Doug Rohrer point out that most of this evidence is weak. Convincing evidence for learning styles would show that people of one preferred learning style learned better when taught material in their favored way, whereas a different group with a different preference learned the same material better when taught in their favored fashion. Yet surprisingly few studies of this format have produced supporting evidence for learning styles; far more evidence (such as this study) runs counter to the myth. What often happens is that both groups perform better when taught by one particular style. This makes sense because although each of us is unique, usually the most effective way for us to learn is based not on our individual preferences but on the nature of the material we're being taught - just try learning French grammar pictorially, or learning geometry purely verbally.

Are there any other problems with the myth?
Oh yes! Another major problem is that there are so many different possible ways to describe people's preferred learning styles. Indeed, a review published in 2004 identified over 71 different styles mooted in the literature. As Paul Kirschner and Jeroen Merrienboer explained in their recent article on "urban legends" in education, if we view each learning style as dichotomous (e.g. visual vs. verbal) that means there are 2 to the power of 71 combinations of identified learning styles - more than the number of people alive on earth! What's more, even if we accept a particular scheme for measuring learning styles, evidence shows that learning style questionnaires are unreliable and people's self-reported preferences are poorly correlated with their actual performance. In other words, a person might think they learn better, say, visually rather than verbally, but their performance says otherwise! The fact is, the more accurate predictor for how well a person will fare in a math learning task, is most likely not the degree of match between their preferred learning style and the teaching style, but their past performance on math tests.

So, should we completely give up on tailoring our teaching styles?
No. While people are often poor at judging which teaching methods are most effective for them, and while there is little strong evidence for the benefits of matching teaching style to preferred learning style, this does not mean there is no scope for tailoring teaching style to improve learning. For example, as Kirschner and Merrienboer point out, there is evidence that novices learn better from studying examples, whereas those with more expertise learn better by solving problems themselves. Other research shows how learning is improved (for most everyone) by combining different activities - such as drawing alongside more passive study.

Let's bury this harmful myth
Many leading experts believe the myth of preferred learning styles is not just a benign misconception, but is likely causing harm. As Scott Lilienfeld and colleagues write in 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology, the approach "encourages teachers to teach to students' intellectual strengths rather than their weaknesses." Yet, they add: "students need to correct and compensate for their shortcomings, not avoid them." There's also an economic case. Many learning style questionnaires and training programs are expensive. "Given the costs of assessing students' supposed learning styles and offering differentiated instruction," write Rohrer and Pashler, the news of the lack of scientific evidence for learning styles "should come as good news to educators at all levels."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
All You Need to Know About the 'Learning Styles' Myth, in Two Minutes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On a sunny hike along a Madeiran levada a couple of years ago, I got chatting to a retired school teacher and I told him about the brain myths book I was writing. An affable chap, he listened with interest about the 10 percent myth and other classic misconceptions, but his mood changed when I mentioned learning styles.

# data[].attributes.headline
#9 Article: Neuromyths in education. Prevalence and Predictors of misconceptions among teachers

# data[].attributes.subject
#9 Article: Neuromyths in education. Prevalence and Predictors of misconceptions among teachers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Introduction

There is widespread interest among teachers in the application of neuroscientific research findings in educational practice. Neuroscientific research has received a lot of attention since 1990-2000, which was declared the "Decade of the Brain" in the United States. Yet, the field of neuroscience is complex and the accurate transfer of research findings to the classroom is often difficult ( Jolles et al., 2005; Devonshire and Dommett, 2010; Ansari et al., 2011). This gap between neuroscience and education has enabled many misconceptions about scientific findings to occur ( Goswami, 2006). In 2002, the Brain and Learning project of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) drew international attention to this phenomenon. The organization raised concerns with regards to the rapid proliferation of so-called "neuromyths". These were defined as "a misconception generated by a misunderstanding, a misreading, or a misquoting of facts scientifically established (by brain research) to make a case for use of brain research in education and other contexts" ( Organisation for Economic Co-operation, and Development, 2002). The influence of these myths in the classroom is problematic because it wastes money, time, and effort, which could be better spent on the development of evidence-based practices ( Sylvan and Christodoulou, 2010; Pasquinelli, 2012). Despite concerns regarding the rapid proliferation of neuromyths (e.g., Goswami, 2006), not much is known about the prevalence of neuromyths among professionals in the field of education. The current study investigated if belief in neuromyths was common among teachers that were interested in the neuroscience of learning. It would be of concern if neuromyths were found in this sample, because these teachers will be most eager to implement (wrong) brain-based ideas in educational practice. Furthermore, these teachers might promote the circulation of myths and spread their ideas to teachers who are less engaged and acknowledged with brain research. In addition to examining the prevalence of neuromyths, the study also investigated which myths were most and least prevalent. To shed light on how the proliferation of myths may differ between countries, teachers from specific regions in both the United Kingdom (UK) and the Netherlands (NL) were involved. Additionally, this study focused on identifying factors that predict belief in neuromyths.

Although neuromyths are incorrect assertions about how the brain is involved in learning, their origin often lies in genuine scientific findings. An example of a neuromyth is that learning could be improved if children were classified and taught according to their preferred learning style. This misconception is based on a valid research finding, namely that visual, auditory, and kinesthetic information is processed in different parts of the brain. However, these separate structures in the brain are highly interconnected and there is profound cross-modal activation and transfer of information between sensory modalities ( Gilmore et al., 2007). Thus, it is incorrect to assume that only one sensory modality is involved with information processing. Furthermore, although individuals may have preferences for the modality through which they receive information [either visual, auditory, or kinesthetic (VAK)], research has shown that children do not process information more effectively when they are educated according to their preferred learning style ( Coffield et al., 2004). Other examples of neuromyths include such ideas as "we only use 10% of our brain", "there are multiple intelligences", "there are left- and right brain learners", "there are critical periods for learning" and "certain types of food can influence brain functioning" (e.g., Organisation for Economic Co-operation, and Development, 2002; Geake, 2008; Purdy, 2008; Howard-Jones, 2010). Some of these misunderstandings have served as a basis for popular educational programs, like Brain Gym or the VAK approach (classifying students according to a VAK learning style). These programs claim to be "brain-based" but lack scientific validation ( Krätzig and Arbuthnott, 2006; Waterhouse, 2006; Stephenson, 2009; Lindell and Kidd, 2011). A fast commercialization has led to a spread of these programs into classrooms around the world.

Yet, only a few studies have examined the prevalence of misunderstandings about the mind and brain. A study examining neuroscience knowledge in the general population of Brazil revealed that many misconceptions existed among the general public, and that there was a lot of variation in the frequency of these misunderstandings ( Herculano-Houzel, 2002). The statement "we only use 10% of our brain", defined by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation, and Development (2002) as a neuromyth, was the most prevalent misconception among the public. Neuromyths were also found to be prevalent among trainee teachers ( Howard-Jones et al., 2009). In particular, myths related to commercial brain-based educational programs were commonly accepted. Furthermore, the research showed that many trainee teachers in the UK (56-83%) had encountered one or more of these commercial brain-based programs (e.g., Brain Gym or VAK approach) in their school. To our knowledge, no studies have examined the prevalence of neuromyths among teachers who are interested in the neuroscience of learning. Furthermore, it is unclear how the implementation of brain-based programs differs across countries.

Next to examining the prevalence of neuromyths, it is important to identify the factors that predict a high susceptibility to believing in myths. Experimental research has shown that people are generally more likely to believe research findings when they are accompanied by brain images and neuroscience explanations, even when these are incorrect ( Weisberg et al., 2007; McCabe and Castel, 2008). Weisberg et al. (2007) found that the public's perception of a poor explanation became more positive when neuroscience was included, even though the neuroscience was irrelevant. This may lead to misjudgments of scientific evidence. Furthermore, it may be difficult for people who lack neuroscientific expertise to recognize misconceptions about brain research in the popular media. Information provided by the popular media is often over-simplified or over-interpreted, as the popular media aims to reach many people. Therefore, popular media have been held responsible for creating misconceptions ( Wallace, 1993; Beck, 2010). Apparent simplicity in popular articles may lead to the flawed assumption that complex neuroscience is easily applicable in the classroom. When people lack a general understanding of the brain and do not critically reflect on their readings, they may be more vulnerable to neuromyths. Thus, a lack of neuroscience literacy and reading popular media may be factors that predict the number of misconceptions teachers have about the brain.

Consequently, neuroscience literacy (i.e., a general understanding of the brain) may protect against incorrect ideas linking neuroscience and education. Support for this hypothesis was found in a sample of trainee teachers ( Howard-Jones et al., 2009), where general knowledge of the brain related positively to the ability to identify neuromyths. This suggests that neuroscience literacy is an important factor that enables individuals to differentiate science from pseudoscience. Fortunately, many teachers are eager to increase their neuroscience literacy ( Pickering and Howard-Jones, 2007; Hook and Farah, 2012). Attempts to increase their literacy most often included in-service training about the brain ( Pickering and Howard-Jones, 2007), which has been identified as a strong predictor of neuroscience literacy ( Herculano-Houzel, 2002). Next to in-service training, neuroscience literacy has been predicted by reading popular science magazines and newspapers ( Herculano-Houzel, 2002). Thus, reading popular media seems to have both beneficial effects (higher neuroscience literacy) and negative effects (creating misconceptions).

The present study investigated the neuroscience literacy and prevalence of neuromyths among primary and secondary school teachers in the UK and the NL. The sample consisted of teachers who indicated they were interested in the neuroscience of learning. It would be of concern if neuromyths were found in this sample, as these teachers may want to use these incorrect interpretations of neuroscience findings in their teaching practice. By including teachers from both the UK and the NL, it was possible to examine possible differences between countries and the educational systems therein. The study aimed to give an indication of the prevalence and predictors of myths among teachers in primary and secondary school. It is therefore of potential importance for the development of educational innovations which target teachers' knowledge of neuroscience. The second aim of the study was to examine a range of factors that might be associated with belief in neuromyths such as reading popular science magazines. Teachers completed a survey comprising neuromyths and general assertions about the brain and its involvement in learning. The hypotheses were that myths related to commercialized educational programs would be the most prevalent of the myths presented. General knowledge and in-service training were expected to have a protective effect on the belief in myths. Furthermore, it was hypothesized that teachers who read popular science magazines would believe more neuromyths. Therefore, we additionally investigated whether certain teacher characteristics (e.g., age, sex, primary/secondary school teacher) were associated with knowledge and the number of myths. By this means, the study will provide valuable information about the possible prevention of neuromyths in education.

Materials and Methods

Participants

The total sample of 242 participants included 137 teachers from the Dorset region of the UK and 105 teachers from several regions in the NL surrounding the Amsterdam area. Participants were primary school teachers (44%), secondary school teachers (50%), and other teachers (e.g., trainee teachers, teachers in special education, teaching assistants; 6%). The schools from which the teachers were drawn could be considered a random selection of primary and secondary schools in the UK and the NL. Teachers from both countries were comparable in age [ M age = 43 years, SD = 11.0; t(180.3) = 1.16, p = 0.249]. Furthermore, the distribution of primary school teachers, secondary school teachers, and other teachers was the same in both countries [χ(2, N = 241) = 2.42, p = 0.298]. The UK sample comprised relatively more female teachers (77%) than the Dutch sample (64%), χ(1, N = 240) = 5.05, p = 0.025. The male/female ratio did not differ between primary school, secondary school, and other teachers [χ(2, N = 240) = 5.28, p = 0.071]. Of all teachers, 93% were interested in scientific knowledge about the brain and its influence on learning. Further, 90% of the teachers thought that this knowledge was very valuable for their teaching practice.

Procedure

Schools in the selected regions were approached for participation in the research project. They were asked to forward an email with information about the research project to all teachers in their school. The research was presented as a study of how teachers think about the brain and its influence on learning. The term neuromyth was not mentioned in the information for teachers. Teachers who were interested in this topic and chose to participate, followed a link to an online survey. Average completion time was 15 min.

Measures

The online survey included 32 statements about the brain and its influence on learning (see Appendix). It comprised 15 statements that were educational neuromyths, as defined by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation, and Development (2002) and Howard-Jones et al. (2009), e.g., "Individuals learn better when they receive information in their preferred learning style (e.g., auditory, visual)". The other 17 statements were general assertions about the brain, e.g., "The left and right hemisphere of the brain always work together". The presentation order of myth and knowledge assertions was randomized. Answer options were "incorrect", "correct", or "do not know". Correct and incorrect assertions were balanced. Dependent variables were the percentage of incorrect answers on neuromyth assertions (where a higher percentage reflects more belief in myths) and the percentage of correct responses on general assertions.

Additionally, teachers provided background information about their age, sex, level of education [graduate or postgraduate, and whether they had a Postgraduate Certificate in Education (PGCE)] and whether they were a teacher in primary or secondary school. They indicated whether they were interested in scientific knowledge about the brain and its influence on learning and whether they thought this knowledge was very valuable for their teaching practice. Also, they estimated the role of genes and environment in learning. Furthermore, they were asked whether they followed any in-service or other training about the brain and whether they encountered educational approaches that claimed to be brain-based in their school (Brain Gym, Learning styles, Multiple Intelligences, Left/right brain learners). Further, they indicated whether they read popular science magazines and/or scientific journals.

Data Analysis

The data was analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 17.0 for Windows. For all analysis, a statistical threshold of α = 0.05 was used. Independent t-tests were performed to examine differences between countries (independent variable) in percentage of neuromyths and percentage of correct responses on general statements (dependent variables). To examine which factors predicted neuromyths, a regression analysis was performed for percentage of myths (dependent variable) with country, sex, age, school type (primary/secondary school), reading popular science, reading scientific journals, in-service training, and percentage of correct answers on general assertions (predictors). A second regression analysis was performed to examine the predictors of neuroscience literacy. Percentage of correct answers on general assertions was the dependent variable, and predictors were country, sex, age, school type (primary/secondary school), reading popular science, reading scientific journals, and in-service training.

Results

Prevalence of Neuromyths

Overall, teachers agreed with 49% of the statements promoting myths indicating that they believed these myths. There was no significant difference in overall prevalence between countries [ t(240) = 0.408, p = 0.684]. An analysis of the responses for each myth showed a lot of variation between the myths (see Table 1). Seven of the 15 myth statements were believed by more than 50% of the teachers. The most prevalent of these myths were (1) "Individuals learn better when they receive information in their preferred learning style (e.g., auditory, visual, kinesthetic)", (2) "Differences in hemispheric dominance (left brain, right brain) can help explain individual differences amongst learners", and (3) "Short bouts of co-ordination exercises can improve integration of left and right hemispheric brain function". More than 80% of the teachers believed these myths. Other statements related to neuromyths were often successfully identified, e.g., "Individual learners show preferences for the mode in which they receive information (e.g., visual, auditory, kinesthetic)". More than 80% of the teachers answered this statement correctly.

With respect to the general statements about the brain, a difference between countries was found [ t(240) = −3.09, p = 0.002]: Dutch teachers had higher scores on general knowledge ( M = 73% correct, SD = 12.7) than teachers from the UK ( M = 67% correct, SD = 13.5). Scores on knowledge did not vary with the teachers' level of education [UK: F(4, 133) = 0.48, p = 0.748; NL: F(3, 104) = 0.41, p = 0.743]. Furthermore, there were no differences between primary and secondary school teachers [ t(224) = −0.15, p = 0.879].

Brain Gym ( Brain Gym International, 2011), Learning Styles, and Left brain/Right brain learning programs were encountered significantly more often in schools in the UK than in the NL (see Table 2). More teachers from the UK than the NL followed in-service training. Dutch teachers read popular science magazines or scientific journals more often than teachers in the UK (see Table 2). There were significant differences between counties in teachers' views on the role of genes and environment in learning. Teachers in the NL gave considerably greater weight to genes than teachers in the UK (34 vs. 22%). Teachers in the UK attributed more to home environment (46%) and school environment (29%), compared to Dutch teachers (resp. 30 and 25%).

Predictors of Neuromyths and Knowledge

Belief in myths was significantly predicted by general knowledge of the brain (β = 0.24; see Table 3). This indicates that teachers with higher scores on knowledge were more likely to believe in myths. None of the other factors [country, sex, age, school type (primary/secondary school), reading popular science, reading scientific journals, or in-service training] predicted belief in myths. The model explained a significant proportion of variance ( R ² = 0.089) in myth scores, F(8, 210) = 2.463, p = 0.014.

General knowledge of the brain was predicted by country (β = 0.16) and reading popular science magazines (β = 0.21; see Table 4). This shows that knowledge was higher among Dutch teachers, and among teachers who read popular science magazines. Age, sex, school type, reading scientific journals, and following in-service training did not relate to scores on knowledge. The model explained 10% of the variance, which was significant, F(7, 210) = 3.24, p = 0.003.

Discussion

This study examined general knowledge about the brain and prevalence of neuromyths among teachers in specific regions of the UK and the NL. It additionally investigated a range of candidate factors that might be associated with these outcomes. The results indicated that, overall, teachers believed half of the presented myths. Seven of the 15 myths were believed by more than half of the teachers. The most prevalent myths related to Brain Gym ( Brain Gym International, 2011), learning styles, and left brain/right brain learners. The prevalence of the different myths varied between countries. A higher incidence of myths (higher percentage of questions answered incorrectly) was predicted by higher general knowledge of the brain. The average score on general knowledge of the brain was around 70%. A higher number of correct answers on general statements was predicted by reading popular science magazines. Furthermore, general knowledge about the brain was higher among Dutch teachers. Teacher characteristics (age, sex, primary/secondary school teacher) did not predict literacy or belief in neuromyths.

These results validate previously voiced concerns about the proliferation of neuromyths in the field of education ( Organisation for Economic Co-operation, and Development, 2002; Goswami, 2006). They emphasize that teachers who are highly interested in brain research are susceptible to neuromyths. This is troublesome, as these teachers in particular may implement wrong brain-based ideas in educational practice. Misconceptions related to brain-based educational programs were most prevalent, as was also found in a previous study with trainee teachers ( Howard-Jones et al., 2009). This suggests that these programs have been successfully marketed within schools ever since the "Decade of the Brain". The prevalence of misconceptions was found to vary across countries. This might be due to differences across countries regarding the marketing of brain-based programs ( Pasquinelli, 2012). For instance, in the NL, there is less marketing of these brain-based programs. There were no differences between countries in terms of general knowledge about the brain. This suggests similar familiarity with brain research between teachers from both countries.

The present research showed that knowledge about the brain was higher when teachers read popular science magazines. Teachers who are eager to learn about the brain and its possible applications in the classroom may more often search for information in the popular media. Furthermore, teachers' views on the role of genetics and environment on learning was investigated. In our survey, teachers in both the UK and NL gave considerably greater weight to the environment, with UK teachers attributing only 22% to genetic factors. This is close to the figure of 25% amongst UK trainee teachers surveyed by Howard-Jones et al. (2009). Yet, Walker and Plomin (2005) also surveyed UK teachers and concluded that the perception of their teachers that genetics was at least as important as environment in most areas was in line with research indicating substantial genetic influence on these domains (e.g., Plomin et al., 2001). Differences between the studies might be related to confusion over the term "environment", as suggested by Howard-Jones et al. (2009). This term can have a range of disparate meanings in education, most of which are narrower than its meaning within the field of genetics, and many of which may not even include the teacher's efforts.

In contrast to our hypothesis and earlier findings by Howard-Jones et al. (2009) in a sample of trainee teachers, we did not find a protective effect of knowledge on belief in myths. Instead, our results showed that belief in neuromyths correlated positively with general knowledge about the brain. It may be that a lot of interest in the brain has served trainees well in developing their general awareness about the brain. However, teachers who have worked in the field of education for a number of years, will have been confronted with more information about the brain and its influence on learning, both correct and incorrect. Apparently, it is difficult for teachers to then differentiate between this correct and incorrect information. This might be attributed to their eagerness to implement knowledge about the brain in educational practice, in combination with a lack of expertise in neuroscience. Although some of the teachers in our sample followed in-service training about the brain, none of them were experts in the field of neuroscience. Experiments by Weisberg have shown that people with some neuroscientific knowledge (people who followed an introductory cognitive neuroscience class) were fooled by neuroscientific explanations in the same way as laypeople. Only neuroscience experts (defined as people who were about to pursue or had a degree in cognitive neuroscience or related areas) were able to correctly identify non-sense neuroscientific findings. Thus, the level of knowledge of teachers in our sample was not sufficient to protect them against the general credibility of neuroscience findings. When teachers are eager to implement neuroscientific findings, but lack expertise in neuroscience and seek quick and easy solutions, they may fail to recognize misconceptions.

Besides the fact that it wastes money, time, and effort, the implementation of myths in the classroom should be prevented because it may diminish teachers' confidence in a successful collaboration between the fields of neuroscience and education ( Sylvan and Christodoulou, 2010; Pasquinelli, 2012). To reduce the number of myths that currently proliferate within schools, we would welcome explicit education for teachers about neuromyths and the lack of scientific evidence for many "brain-based" programs. Previous research has shown that this can be effective in reducing the incidence of misconceptions ( Kowalski and Taylor, 2009; Dommett et al., 2011).

To avoid the occurrence of misconceptions in the future, we suggest improving the communication between scientists and practitioners, in addition to enhancing the neuroscience literacy of teachers. Incorporating neuroscience courses into initial teacher training could enhance neuroscience literacy among teachers. In addition, initial teacher training should include the skills needed to evaluate scientific research ( Lilienfeld et al., 2012). This would enable teachers to develop a critical attitude toward the information they receive and examine scientific evidence before including neuroscientific findings into their teaching practice ( Howard-Jones, 2009). At the same time, scientists are advised to check translations of their research for the popular media carefully. They should clearly explain what can and what cannot be concluded from their data ( Beck, 2010). As some familiarity with brain research was not enough to distinguish myths from the truth, the present study highlights the importance of a dialog between teachers and neuroscience experts in order to establish effective collaborations between the two fields ( Jolles et al., 2005; Hruby, 2012). As Dommett et al. (2011) showed, a possible framework for how this could be achieved is to let teachers decide on the topics of neuroscience workshops and to spend considerable time on dialog between neuroscientists and teachers to reflect on the translation of this knowledge to classroom practices.

The present results reflect the prevalence of neuromyths in a sample of teachers with a strong interest in the neuroscience of learning. This yields important information about teachers who may implement wrong brain-based ideas in educational practice. However, average scores on general knowledge and myth assertions may be somewhat different in the population of teachers as a whole. Teachers who are less interested in brain research may believe even more myths, due to a lack of knowledge about neuroscience and a lack of motivation to unravel difficult findings from brain research. For future research, it is important to examine where teachers' incorrect ideas originate (e.g., books, colleagues, commercial companies) and to perform intervention studies directed at increasing teacher competence in understanding the functioning of the brain. Such intervention studies should be performed according to the principles and approach of evidence-based or evidence-informed practice. This could yield valuable information for the prevention of myths in the future and for the development of valid educational innovations.

In conclusion, this research suggests that teachers who are enthusiastic about the possible application of neuroscience findings in the classroom, often find it challenging to distinguish pseudoscience from scientific facts. Possessing greater general knowledge about the brain does not appear to protect teachers from picking up neuromyths. This demonstrates the need to enhance teacher professionalism and interdisciplinary communication to reduce such misunderstandings in the future. It is encouraging that teachers are eager to learn about the brain and its role in learning. Although the integration of neuroscience in educational practice remains challenging, joint efforts of scientists and practitioners may pave the way toward a successful collaboration between the two fields.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to David Powell for his assistance in the data collection in the UK.

References

Brain Gym International. (2011). Available at: www.braingym.org [accessed September 3, 2012].

Appendix

1. We use our brains 24 h a day (C).

2. Children must acquire their native language before a second language is learned. If they do not do so neither language will be fully acquired (I).

3. Boys have bigger brains than girls (C).

4. If pupils do not drink sufficient amounts of water (= 6-8 glasses a day) their brains shrink (I).

5. It has been scientifically proven that fatty acid supplements (omega-3 and omega-6) have a positive effect on academic achievement (I).

6. When a brain region is damaged other parts of the brain can take up its function (C).

7. We only use 10% of our brain (I).

8. The left and right hemisphere of the brain always work together (C).

9. Differences in hemispheric dominance (left brain, right brain) can help explain individual differences amongst learners (I).

10. The brains of boys and girls develop at the same rate (I).

11. Brain development has finished by the time children reach secondary school (I).

12. There are critical periods in childhood after which certain things can no longer be learned (I).

13. Information is stored in the brain in a network of cells distributed throughout the brain.

14. Learning is not due to the addition of new cells to the brain (C).

15. Individuals learn better when they receive information in their preferred learning style (e.g., auditory, visual, kinesthetic) (I).

16. Learning occurs through modification of the brains' neural connections (C).

17. Academic achievement can be affected by skipping breakfast (C).

18. Normal development of the human brain involves the birth and death of brain cells (C).

19. Mental capacity is hereditary and cannot be changed by the environment or experience (I).

20. Vigorous exercise can improve mental function (C).

21. Environments that are rich in stimulus improve the brains of pre-school children (I).

22. Children are less attentive after consuming sugary drinks and/or snacks (I).

23. Circadian rhythms ("body-clock") shift during adolescence, causing pupils to be tired during the first lessons of the school day (C).

24. Regular drinking of caffeinated drinks reduces alertness (C).

25. Exercises that rehearse co-ordination of motor-perception skills can improve literacy skills (I).

26. Extended rehearsal of some mental processes can change the shape and structure of some parts of the brain (C).

27. Individual learners show preferences for the mode in which they receive information (e.g., visual, auditory, kinesthetic) (C).

28. Learning problems associated with developmental differences in brain function cannot be remediated by education (I).

29. Production of new connections in the brain can continue into old age (C).

30. Short bouts of co-ordination exercises can improve integration of left and right hemispheric brain function (I).

31. There are sensitive periods in childhood when it's easier to learn things (C).

32. When we sleep, the brain shuts down (I).

Neuromyth assertions are presented in italic; C = correct; I = incorrect.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Neuromyths in Education: Prevalence and Predictors of Misconceptions among Teachers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The OECD's Brain and Learning project (2002) emphasized that many misconceptions about the brain exist among professionals in the field of education. Though these so-called "neuromyths" are loosely based on scientific facts, they may have adverse effects on educational practice.

# data[].attributes.headline
#8 Article: Neuroscience and Education: Myths and Messages

# data[].attributes.subject
#8 Article: Neuroscience and Education: Myths and Messages

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Scientists have created an interactive brain map showing which areas respond to different words. Nature Video explores how our brains organise the thousands of words in our heads.

This video was reproduced with permission and was first published on April 27, 2016. It is a Nature Video production.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Scientists have created an interactive brain map showing which areas respond to different words. Nature Video explores how our brains organise the thousands of words in our heads. This video was reproduced with permission and was first published on April 27, 2016. It is a Nature Video production.

# data[].attributes.body
Version en Espanol

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Experimento para comprobar el efecto Stroop. Se trata de una interferencia semántica en el tiempo de reacción de una tarea debido al proceso de automatización de la lectura.

# data[].attributes.headline
# 7 Article : Could Brain Training Games actually work? New Study surprises scientists

# data[].attributes.subject
# 7 Article : Could Brain Training Games actually work? New Study surprises scientists

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Advanced Cognitive Training for Independent and Vital Elderly, or ACTIVE, study divided 2,785 participants with an average age of almost 74 into three intervention groups and one control group. The intervention groups received, respectively, classroom-based memory strategies, classroom-based reasoning strategies and computerized speed-of-processing training in the form of a game by Posit Science, a for-profit company that offers subscriptions to its "brain training exercises" for a monthly fee.

Ten years later, the people in the speed-of-processing training experienced reduced cognitive decline; the other two interventions showed a statistically insignificant impact and a control group that received no training received no benefit.

'I remain optimistic but do not consider it to be definitive.' Dr. Murali Doraiswamy, Duke Institute for Brain Sciences

A release from the Alzheimer's Association described the game/training that the study participants received:

The user identifies an object (i.e., a truck) at the center of his/her gaze while at the same time identifying a target in the periphery (i.e., a car). As the user gets the answers correct, the speed of presentation becomes progressively briefer, while the targets become more similar. In the more difficult training tasks, the target in the periphery is obscured by distracting objects

Participants only played the Posit game for an hour, in 10 sessions over five weeks. Yet 10 years later, just 73 out of 698 people who received the training developed dementia or exhibited cognitive decline, compared with 97 out of 695 in the control group.

That's a 33 percent reduction in risk for the intervention group. Furthermore, subjects who received an additional four sessions one year after the original training and four more sessions about three years after showed a whopping 48 percent reduction in risk for the same conditions.

The ACTIVE study, which is being run by scientists from multiple institutions, had previously found people who took the Posit training reported the same or greater ability to perform the so-called instrumental activities of daily living, like doing laundry and managing medication, compared to a control group.

The ACTIVE experiments have been ongoing and are well-respected. Dr. Murali Doraiswamy, of the Duke Institute for Brain Sciences, calls it "the best trial in the field." The New Yorker reports that more than 50 peer-reviewed scientific papers have come out of it, and the study is funded in part by the National Institute on Aging.
'Sufficiently Strong Evidence'
The chief science officer for the Alzheimer's Association, Maria C. Carrillo, cautiously backed the results, saying the organization "believes there is sufficiently strong evidence to conclude that lifelong learning and certain types of cognitive training may reduce the risk of cognitive decline. These new 10-year finds are evidence that it may hold true for dementia as well as cognitive decline."

Some cognitive scientists were impressed with the results.

"That's a spectacular finding," Susanne Jaeggi, the director of the Working Memory and Plasticity Laboratory at the University of California, Irvine, and a signatory of the 2014 statement slamming brain training companies, told The New Yorker. "We didn't have any evidence that computerized training had any preventive effects on dementia. You could argue that this study provides evidence that it is possible."

Dr. Ronald Petersen, director of the Mayo Clinic Alzheimer's Disease Research Center told Reuters, "At first blush, that's kind of a big deal. This may even be clinically relevant."

Dr. Doraiswamy, from Duke, said that until the results are replicated, no conclusion can be reached. "I remain optimistic but do not consider it to be definitive. I also want to see an independent body like the FDA vet it since they will have access to all the data whereas we are just seeing what is being presented."
So Little Yields So Much?
Other researchers expressed a sense of wonder that just 10 hours of cognitive training could result in such a big benefit.

"It's hard to understand how such a brief intervention could have a long-lasting impact," Dr. Howard Fillit, executive director of the Alzheimer's Drug Discovery Foundation, which supports pharmaceutical research on the disease, told STAT. "But you have to respect the data."

Jaeggi, the expert interviewed by The New Yorker, said: "If you stop doing it after 10 or even 14 sessions, how on earth can you continue to have these effects 10 years later?"

A potential answer, from STAT:

One possibility is a bootstrapping effect. Maybe people who received speed-of-processing training "did something different over the years," said Laurie Ryan, who oversees Alzheimer's research at the National Institute on Aging. "Maybe they changed their lifestyle in some way," with the training giving them a little cognitive boost that they parlayed into more reading, more travel, more social engagement, and more of other activities that boost "cognitive reserve," the brain's cushion against dementia.

In fact, some ACTIVE participants told scientists that the cognitive boost they felt from the training inspired them to enroll in classes at a local college or keep driving, said Rebok, both of which can keep people socially and intellectually engaged.

In any event, Dr. Michael Merzenich, a co-founder and chief scientific officer of Posit Science, did not think there was any mystery to it. "We're not a bit surprised that this simple thing was protective," he told me over the phone. He said speed-of-processing functioned as a sort of "master switch" for the brain.

"It's a very straightforward result," he said. "It's hard to deny the truth of it."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Could 'Brain Training' Games Actually Work? New Study Surprises Scientists

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Advanced Cognitive Training for Independent and Vital Elderly, or ACTIVE, study divided 2,785 participants with an average age of almost 74 into three intervention groups and one control group. The intervention groups received, respectively, classroom-based memory strategies, classroom-based reasoning strategies and computerized speed-of-processing training in the form of a game by Posit Science, a for-profit company that offers subscriptions to its "brain training exercises" for a monthly fee.

# data[].attributes.headline
#6 Article: The Face as Entry way to Self

# data[].attributes.subject
#6 Article: The Face as Entry way to Self

# data[].attributes.headline
#5 Article: Do people only use 10% of their brains?

# data[].attributes.subject
#5 Article: Do people only use 10% of their brains?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The human brain is complex. Along with performing millions of mundane acts, it composes concertos, issues manifestos and comes up with elegant solutions to equations. It's the wellspring of all human feelings, behaviors, experiences as well as the repository of memory and self-awareness. So it's no surprise that the brain remains a mystery unto itself.

Adding to that mystery is the contention that humans "only" employ 10 percent of their brain. If only regular folk could tap that other 90 percent, they too could become savants who remember π to the twenty-thousandth decimal place or perhaps even have telekinetic powers.

Though an alluring idea, the "10 percent myth" is so wrong it is almost laughable, says neurologist Barry Gordon at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore. Although there's no definitive culprit to pin the blame on for starting this legend, the notion has been linked to the American psychologist and author William James, who argued in The Energies of Men that "We are making use of only a small part of our possible mental and physical resources." It's also been associated with Albert Einstein, who supposedly used it to explain his cosmic towering intellect.

The myth's durability, Gordon says, stems from people's conceptions about their own brains: they see their own shortcomings as evidence of the existence of untapped gray matter. This is a false assumption. What is correct, however, is that at certain moments in anyone's life, such as when we are simply at rest and thinking, we may be using only 10 percent of our brains.

"It turns out though, that we use virtually every part of the brain, and that [most of] the brain is active almost all the time," Gordon adds. "Let's put it this way: the brain represents three percent of the body's weight and uses 20 percent of the body's energy."

The average human brain weighs about three pounds and comprises the hefty cerebrum, which is the largest portion and performs all higher cognitive functions; the cerebellum, responsible for motor functions, such as the coordination of movement and balance; and the brain stem, dedicated to involuntary functions like breathing. The majority of the energy consumed by the brain powers the rapid firing of millions of neurons communicating with each other. Scientists think it is such neuronal firing and connecting that gives rise to all of the brain's higher functions. The rest of its energy is used for controlling other activities-both unconscious activities, such as heart rate, and conscious ones, such as driving a car.

Although it's true that at any given moment all of the brain's regions are not concurrently firing, brain researchers using imaging technology have shown that, like the body's muscles, most are continually active over a 24-hour period. "Evidence would show over a day you use 100 percent of the brain," says John Henley, a neurologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. Even in sleep, areas such as the frontal cortex, which controls things like higher level thinking and self-awareness, or the somatosensory areas, which help people sense their surroundings, are active, Henley explains.

Take the simple act of pouring coffee in the morning: In walking toward the coffeepot, reaching for it, pouring the brew into the mug, even leaving extra room for cream, the occipital and parietal lobes, motor sensory and sensory motor cortices, basal ganglia, cerebellum and frontal lobes all activate. A lightning storm of neuronal activity occurs almost across the entire brain in the time span of a few seconds.

"This isn't to say that if the brain were damaged that you wouldn't be able to perform daily duties," Henley continues. "There are people who have injured their brains or had parts of it removed who still live fairly normal lives, but that is because the brain has a way of compensating and making sure that what's left takes over the activity."

Being able to map the brain's various regions and functions is part and parcel of understanding the possible side effects should a given region begin to fail. Experts know that neurons that perform similar functions tend to cluster together. For example, neurons that control the thumb's movement are arranged next to those that control the forefinger. Thus, when undertaking brain surgery, neurosurgeons carefully avoid neural clusters related to vision, hearing and movement, enabling the brain to retain as many of its functions as possible.

What's not understood is how clusters of neurons from the diverse regions of the brain collaborate to form consciousness. So far, there's no evidence that there is one site for consciousness, which leads experts to believe that it is truly a collective neural effort. Another mystery hidden within our crinkled cortices is that out of all the brain's cells, only 10 percent are neurons; the other 90 percent are glial cells, which encapsulate and support neurons, but whose function remains largely unknown. Ultimately, it's not that we use 10 percent of our brains, merely that we only understand about 10 percent of how it functions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Do People Only Use 10 Percent of Their Brains?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The human brain is complex. Along with performing millions of mundane acts, it composes concertos, issues manifestos and comes up with elegant solutions to equations. It's the wellspring of all human feelings, behaviors, experiences as well as the repository of memory and self-awareness. So it's no surprise that the brain remains a mystery unto itself.

# data[].attributes.headline
#4 Articulo: Las 6 cosas de como aprende el cerebro

# data[].attributes.subject
#4 Articulo: Las 6 cosas de como aprende el cerebro

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
¿Cómo aprende nuestro cerebro? Es una duda que nos hemos planteado durante mucho tiempo, y a día de hoy aún no seríamos capaces de responderla con total seguridad. Sabemos algunas cosas, bastantes cosas diría yo, pero estamos alejados de todas las sorpresas que nos puede deparar la investigación en este campo (de forma similar a nuestra "ignorancia" sobre los sueños y su función). Hoy hablaremos de algunas de las pocas cosas que sabemos sobre cómo aprende nuestro cerebro, para que podáis aplicarlas en vuestro beneficio.

1. La información, si es visual mucho mejor

Es algo que ya teníamos más o menos claro: El cerebro aprende mejor de forma visual. De ahí que YouTube haya tenido tantísimo éxito en sus videotutoriales de toda índole, ¿no? El cerebro usa hasta el 50% de su capacidad para aprender de forma visual, mientras que el otro 50% se divide en las demás funciones. Nuestros ojos están siempre hambrientos de información, y algún estudio ya ha confirmado que los niños aprenden mejor mediante imágenes.

Por otra parte, nuestro cerebro tiene tendencia a prestar más atención a aquello que está en movimiento, por lo que los vídeos, gifs o animaciones tienen más puntos que ganar respecto a las imágenes estáticas, en cuanto a aprendizaje se refiere. Por tanto, en la época que vivimos, aunque no es mala idea usar las típicas tarjetas, fotos o imágenes de estudio, no está de más sacarle partido a ese smartphone, tablet o PC que usas a diario y echarle unas horas a vídeos o esquemas en movimiento. Probablemente tu cerebro lo agradecerá más.

2. Imágenes panorámicas mejor que detalles

A nuestro cerebro también le gusta ir "a lo grande", y suele fijarse más en el todo (el panorama) que en los detalles, al menos en primera instancia. Por ello cuando nos enfrentamos a un basto contenido de conocimientos, nos perdemos, pues subconscientemente intentamos abarcarlo todo. Es una tendencia natural difícil de modificar, así que ¿por qué no intentar usarla en nuestro favor?

Sabemos fijarnos en los detalles, es difícil pero no imposible, por lo que lo mejor que podemos hacer es explotar esta fijación cerebral en el panorama. Aquí la estrategia sería realizar un diagrama o esquema grande de todo lo que intentamos aprender, e ir añadiendo conceptos poco a poco, a medida que los vamos aprendiendo. Al final, ese gran esquema que representa el panorama potenciará todo lo que hemos ido aprendiendo de forma detallista, y notaremos la diferencia.

3. El sueño es esencial para el aprendizaje y la memoria

Ya lo dijimos en su día: Dormir es más importante que estudiar cuando tenemos un examen. Y no, no exagerábamos para nada, ya que muchos estudios han demostrado que una noche de sueño reparador puede potenciar nuestro aprendizaje y rendimiento de forma significativa.

Además, también tenemos el "deporte español" por excelencia: La siesta. Nos lo tomamos a broma, pero un estudio realizado por la Universidad de California demostró que una siesta tras llevar a cabo una tarea compleja consolida mejor el aprendizaje respecto a no haber realizado la siesta. Pero además, dicho estudio también demostró que dormir antes de realizar una tarea también es beneficioso.

¿Conclusión? Leer o estudiar justo antes de irse a la cama, o de realizar una siesta, puede potenciar gratamente nuestro aprendizaje, tanto motor como intelectual. ¡Ah! Y no olvidéis probar lo que denominamos " siesta de café ", una curiosa combinación entre tomar café y, posteriormente, echarse unos 20 minutos. Personalmente no me ha ido nada mal.

4. La falta de sueño disminuye el aprendizaje

Enlazando con el punto anterior, pero dándole la vuelta a la tortilla, también sabemos que la falta de sueño puede estropear nuestro aprendizaje y memoria. Aún no sabemos a ciencia cierta para qué sirve dormir, pero sí sabemos que no dormir puede tener graves consecuencias.

Entre estas graves consecuencias tenemos el aprendizaje, pues no dormir disminuye esta capacidad cognitiva hasta un 40% respecto a dormir plácidamente toda la noche. De hecho, un estudio llevado a cabo por la Facultad de Medicina de Harvard demostró que las 30 horas posteriores al aprendizaje de algún concepto son las más críticas, por lo que la falta de sueño durante ese período puede anular los beneficios del aprendizaje.

¿Solución? Nada de noches sin dormir previas a un examen, pues esto no hará más que empeorar la situación. Los días tienen 24 horas y, dependiendo de nuestra edad, debemos dormir entre siete y nueve horas, sin excusas. Nuestro cuerpo y nuestro aprendizaje lo agradecerán.

5. Aprendemos mejor si enseñamos a otros (y mejor aún si no nos ayudan)

Probablemente más de una vez lo habréis notado. Cuando intentamos enseñar cosas a alguien, como un compañero de clase que está estudiando exactamente lo mismo que nosotros, nos encontramos con que los conceptos explicados se aferran mejor a nuestra memoria: Los organizamos mejor, los recordamos mejor y los sabemos explicar mucho mejor que si tan solo los hubiésemos estudiado por nuestra cuenta.

Además, por otra parte, y aunque nos solemos quejar por esta situación, es mucho mejor aprender por nuestra cuenta que recibir ayudas externas. Ya lo comentamos en su día, pues un estudio afirmó que no recibir ayuda nos hace aprender mejor, ya que gastamos más tiempo y esfuerzo en aprender algo (por ejemplo, si nos mandan un trabajo de investigación sobre cualquier concepto), equivocándonos y volviéndonos a equivocar, hasta que encontramos la solución correcta. Sí, es más tedioso, consume tiempo y muchísimo más esfuerzo que si alguien nos echa una mano, pero todo lo que aprendemos de esa forma autodidácta se acaba consolidando mejor en nuestro cerebro.

6. Aprendemos mejor de forma intercalada

Finalmente, tenemos frente a nosotros otro concepto que nos cuesta aceptar: Si tenemos varios exámenes que realizar, es mejor estudiarlos todos de forma intercalada durante cada día, y no estudiar uno tras haber realizado el otro. Es lo que se denomina "estudiar en bloques" o de forma intercalada, pues alternar conceptos de diferentes materias hace que nuestro cerebro se adapte y aprenda mejor.

La hipótesis que se baraja sobre por qué este método es mejor que el típico de estudiar siempre lo mismo se apoya en que la intercalación beneficiaría a la fijación natural de nuestro cerebro para reconocer patrones atípicos y estar siempre alerta.

En cuanto a la intercalación para los exámenes, este método también se puede aplicar alternando las formas prácticas: Hablar, escuchar, escribir, leer... Ir alternando las formas de estudio, dentro de una misma materia, también refuerza a nuestro cerebro. Por otra parte, ir intercalando conceptos viejos ya aprendidos con los nuevos potencia al aprendizaje de dicha nueva información. La monotonía no solo nos aburre de forma externa, sino que también aburre a nuestro cerebro.

Vía | Brain Mysteries.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Las 6 cosas sobre cómo aprende nuestro cerebro que deberías saber - Omicrono

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
¿Cómo aprende nuestro cerebro? Es una duda que nos hemos planteado durante mucho tiempo, y a día de hoy aún no seríamos capaces de responderla con total seguridad. Sabemos algunas cosas, bastantes cosas diría yo, pero estamos alejados de todas las sorpresas que nos puede deparar la investigación en este campo (de forma similar a nuestra ...

# data[].attributes.headline
#3 Articulo: Como aprende el cerebro? Las claves para la educacion (capitulo) 

# data[].attributes.subject
#3 Articulo: Como aprende el cerebro? Las claves para la educacion (capitulo) 

# data[].attributes.body
English Version

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Cognitive tests: Color Reading Interference (Stroop)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Cognitive neuroscience and psychology tests and learning resources