Why Gesturing is Far More Important Than You Ever Thought

Technology is moving quickly into every child’s education. The computers are filled with text and pictures, cartoons and drawings. Yet, in spite of all the amazing things that technology can do, some kids still don’t “get it.” What are some possible missing ingredients?

The more you know about learning the better. Here’s one item to consider: the nonverbals by the instructor are often missing from the menu in many kinds of technology. Gestures reveal unspoken messages and can reflect additional knowledge in both child and adult learners.

For example…

Years ago, UCLA pioneer Albert Mehrabian did landmark studies on nonverbal communication. He was the first to put numbers to the research, showing that the majority of ALL interpersonal communication is from nonverbal messages (1967). He described the tonality, facial expressions and a host of other nonverbal avenues that influence the message.

Just a subset of all possible nonverbals, gestures have been recently studied in the role of classroom learning. Gestures can also play a role in changing how the child or the adult REPRESENTS thoughts, either directly or indirectly.

Because gesturing reflects thoughts, it’s also an early marker of a change in thinking or emotional state. In this way, it can be used as a DIAGNOSTIC tool, since many problems will show us as improper, or missing, gestures. When students cannot gesture a thought, they may be having trouble conceptualizing it, too. In fact, gesturing (or its lack) may be the first sign of future developmental difficulty. And because gesturing can change thought, it may prove to be useful in the home, the classroom, and the clinic as a way to alter the pace, and perhaps the course, of learning and development.

Wow!

Children frequently gesture when they explain what they know, and their gestures sometimes convey different information than their speech does. This suggests that gesturing is indeed a vehicle through which children express their understanding. The knowledge children express uniquely in the form of gestures is accessible on other tasks, and in this sense, is not tied to the hands.

Gesturing might encourage children to extract meaning implicit in their hand movements. If so, children should be sensitive to the particular movements they produce and learn accordingly. Recently, investigators manipulated student gesturing during a math lesson. Children required to produce correct gestures LEARNED MORE than children required to produce only partially correct gestures, or NONE AT ALL. Hence, research findings suggest that a child’s body movements are involved not only in processing old ideas, but also in creating new ones.

Why do gestures work? One theory is that gesturing actually lightens cognitive load while a person is thinking of what to say. There is scientific support for this theory (see all of the references below). Another possible reason (my own theory) is that it makes the brain work harder to CHANGE THE REPRESENTATION from an abstract idea to a CONCRETE thought, hence, they learn better.

Telling children to gesture encourages them to convey previously unexpressed, implicit ideas; which, in turn, makes them receptive to instruction that leads to learning. Previous studies have shown that gesturing improves learning. In summary, researchers found that children told to move their hands in a fully correct rendition of a particular problem-solving strategy (grouping) during a math lesson solved dramatically more math problems correctly. More in “Applications” below.

Want better math scores? Lean in and let’s “flesh out” what we learned from the studies above.

What exactly happened in the math studies listed above? Children in the no-gesture condition were shown a new problem without an answer, 6 + 3 + 4 = __ +4, and taught to say the words, “I want to make one side equal to the other side”, which is a correct equivalence problem-solving strategy that children who succeed on problems of this type often produce. They were then asked to solve the problem without any gestures.

Children who were instructed in using the gesture condition were shown the same problem, 6 + 3 + 4 = __ + 4, and were taught the exact same words (as those above) PLUS the following gestures:

The children were told to point with a V-shape (using two fingers of the left hand, for the two digits) to “6 + 3,” and then, to point with the right index finger (just one digit) to the blank. Undoubtedly, you realize instantly, that if these two numbers are grouped together and summed, they generate the magic solution number that belongs in the blank. Previous research suggests that successful problem solvers often use this strategy mentally as their “grouping strategy.”

Now you see that the students were NOT doing SIGN LANGUAGE, which other studies DO SUGGEST can help out the learning also. They were just identifying and isolating the groups and maybe even the process needed.

I think that kids who add MORE gesturing, have to keep forcing the CONCEPT through a processing stage in the brain, which informs, clarifies and represents the knowledge on a much deeper level.

It turns out that there is a whole slew of evidence that shows that body-based learning, action-based or total physical response is very brain-friendly instruction. Let’s cut to the chase: everything you do in your classroom is likely to have SOME effect on the brain. Brain-based education says, “Be purposeful about it.” Now, go have some fun and make another miracle happen!

Scientific Learning Corporation invites you to a Professional Development webinar with special guest, Eric Jensen.

He will be discussing the “7 Discoveries From Brain Research That Could Revolutionize Education” and how these discoveries have “real world implication” for all educators. Join the session to learn how you can apply this research to succeed with your students in the classroom. This webinar will take place on Tuesday, September 28th at 10am Pacific/1pm Eastern time.

Please click HERE to register ASAP as space is limited.

CITATIONS:
Broaders SC, Cook SW, Mitchell Z, Goldin-Meadow S. Making children gesture brings out implicit knowledge and leads to learning. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2007 Nov;136(4):539-50.Garber P, Alibali MW, Goldin-Meadow S. Knowledge conveyed in gesture is not tied to the hands. Child Dev. 1998 Feb;69(1):75-84.Goldin-Meadow S. How gesture promotes learning throughout childhood. Child Dev. Perspect. 2009 Aug 1;3(2):106-111.Goldin-Meadow S, Cook SW, Mitchell ZA. Gesturing gives children new ideas about math. Psychol Sci. 2009 Mar;20(3):267-72.
Goldin-Meadow S, Nusbaum H, Kelly SD, Wagner S. Explaining math: gesturing lightens the load. Psychol Sci. 2001 Nov;12(6):516-22.

photo credit: woodleywonderworks

The Most Critical, Must-Have Attitude You Can Possibly Have Starting a New School Year Is…

Every year, hundreds (or is it 1,000s?) of new books flood the educational marketplace. There’s no way on earth that you or I can keep up with the flood. But if you were to narrow down the list of critical things that every educator should keep at or near the top of their list, what would you put on the list?

Here is a list of the usual: be rigorous (assign challenging content), assess often (formative assessment is big these days), use inclusion more (it’s more politically correct and it saves money), and be sure to differentiate (flash news bulletin: kids are unique), plus a dozen others.

Are ALL of those a good idea?

In some ways, yes. But if your list got narrowed further and further to just the top three or four items, what would you put on the list for the upcoming school year? I know what I would insist that everyone on your staff keep in the top 5. In fact, I would be relentless about it until it was heavily embedded in every class, every day.

What are these top 5 “must do” items?

We all accept the reality that colds and the flu are contagious. We think that since there are often airborne particles or hand and face transferred germs involved, we can “catch” something from others. But could your students “catch” achievement? It sounds far-fetched, but is it?

New science is telling us that the culture at your school may be more important than you think. I’m going to make a case for a new list of top 5 items to be on your list: start the new year with a “malleable brain” or “growth mindset.”

Why? Traditionally, we have believed that the individual differences we see among our kids are just that; differences that “reside” inside our kids. But new evidence suggests that we might be thinking a bit too small.

A recent cluster of “attitude” and belief studies explore the consequences of organization-level (think “whole school”) transfer of intelligence. Collectively, the studies tell us the following:

1. Organizations (like schools) exude a number of values to its own members, as well as to the public. Remember how Disney treats its customers as “guests” and the staff as “cast members.” This experience shifts the way employees ought to think about how they relate to customers. At your school, what is the accepted “label” and “identity” of your staff? Do you all “teach” or are you “change agents”? There’s a BIG difference. Teachers focus on teaching content and change agents focus on changing lives through building skills and new attitudes.
2. We systematically shift our level of self-presentation (display of “smarts” to others) when we join an organization. This means that kids will “present” themselves as “higher” at a school which asserts itself as a “top level”, than they would at a school which exudes a “struggling school” mentality. What is your school’s mentality?
3. These personal shifts are inferences for participants’ behavior and ultimately, their self-concepts. The studies show that the effects of an organization’s “vibe” are not due to a simple priming effect, and that environments shape cognition and behavior. Your students will grow, stay the same or fall back after this upcoming school year.
4. School kids theories of their own intelligence (whether they believe it is fixed or flexible) are critical to their failure or success. Their personal theory will influence their own tendency to either give up or persevere in the face of failure. A flexible theory says, “I might fail today, but I can be better tomorrow.” This belief is often transferred by the prevailing school culture to individuals. But, that alone isn’t everything. Their belief is either strengthened or weakened by the student’s perception of how it will affect ‘my’ status. In other words, if kids think they’ll LOSE status when they do better academically, it weakens their interest in developing a growth mindset. Each of these works together.
5. Often, educators use words like “smart students” or “slower students.” These terms alter the child’s mindset in negative ways. If you’re “smart” then, in theory, you don’t need to put out much effort. If you’re supposedly “slow” then you’re not going very far, so no need to put out much effort. In fact, researchers have demonstrated that children with disabilities are LESS likely than other children to hold a mindset of upward possibilities in their intellectual abilities. This is scary because the lower a child’s IQ, the more “upside gain” is possible.

But does all this theory work? You bet!

In study after study (citations below) students with a growth mindset, even in mathematics, did better than the control group who were NOT given the positive growth mindset. In other words, if you change the culture at school, both across the board and in students (1 at a time), you’ll get better results, even if your instruction never changes! Add new instructional changes (like more engagement) and you can expect miracles this coming year!

Let’s “flesh out” what we learned from the studies above.

1. Change your staff’s identity from that of “employees” or “teachers” to a role that better reflects what you are trying to do this coming year. Are you agents that transfer information, ‘miracle workers’, ‘change agents’, or ___?
2. Focus on the highest aim for your students, not the lowest. School-wide, what is your “niche” or role in society? Do you engage students in a rigorous curriculum by first building the skills and attitudes that the kids need to succeed, or do you lower your sights because your kids are “not college material”? By the way, most kids can be prepped for college, but not all should go. Some are better served in a technical, vocational or specific job training path.
3. Focus on building the skills and attitudes that kids need to succeed. The top two attitudes are: 1) Growth: “I can learn, grow and improve myself”, and 2) Hope: “I am optimistic about my future.” The core skills are those that build “executive function”, such as memory and organizational skills.
4. Help boost student status by rewarding (through affirmation, public notice, grades, etc.) effort and strategy, not just the final outcome. If a kid finishes something extra fast, say to him/her, “It’s kind of a shame that the assignment was so easy for you. You didn’t get to learn anything NEW. Let’s find something more challenging that will better match up with where you’re at.”
5. Avoid labeling kids. Do not say, “Wow, you’re smart, you finished that quickly.” Instead say, “I like how your effort and strategy paid off. That was sweet.” Notice the focus on effort and strategy, not luck or genes.

Which leads us back to building the brains of your students. Let’s cut to the chase: everything you do in your classroom is likely to have SOME effect on the brain. Brain-based education says, “Be purposeful about it.” Go have some fun and make another miracle happen!

Eric Jensen

P.S. Thanks to everyone who attended our summer programs. We were sold out all summer. If you missed out this summer, the new dates and locations are already posted online for the upcoming school year and Summer 2011. You will find the schedule at www.jensenlearning.com.

Blackwell LS, Trzesniewski KH, Dweck CS. Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: a longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Dev. 2007 Jan-Feb;78(1):246-63.

Da Fonseca D, Cury F, Bailly D, Rufo M. [Role of the implicit theories of intelligence in learning situations]. Encephale. 2004 Sep-Oct;30(5):456-63.

Mangels JA, Butterfield B, Lamb J, Good C, Dweck CS. Why do beliefs about intelligence influence learning success? A social cognitive neuroscience model. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2006 Sep;1(2):75-86.

Murphy MC, Dweck CS. A culture of genius: how an organization’s lay theory shapes people’s cognition, affect, and behavior. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2010 Mar;36(3):283-96.

Olson KR, Dunham Y, Dweck CS, Spelke ES, Banaji MR. Judgments of the lucky across development and culture. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2008 May;94(5):757-76.

photo credit: Audra B

Wow, what an amazing first few weeks of summer. Thanks to everyone who has registered for our summer programs. We are sold out and our groups enjoyed the learning and the great city of San Antonio, Texas. The city is full of superb restaurants. We’re going to take a cognitive break and focus on eating.

And that reminds me of a true story…

On most of our visits to local restaurants, the waitress typically asks for the drink order, and second, brings bread or chips. I wish I could tell you that I always resist, but I don’t. But, maybe I should resist, and you should too. Why? Are either of these “restaurant staples” really a good idea?

Breads and alcohol are carbohydrates and some are better than others. This is hard for me to say (as a bread-lover), but less bread in your diet is better. Pass on the breads at the restaurant. Alcohol is, of course, not good for the brain. Some anti-aging effects may be in red wine – but that’s an exception, so keep your intake levels to low or moderate. Alcohol consumption prior to a meal sets off a neurochemical chain reaction in the brain that encourages us to eat more (Yeomans et al., 2003). People who drink more alcohol tend to consume more calories, especially from the foods that contain much higher percentages of fats (cholesterol and all forms of fatty acids) (Kesse et al., 2001). Sounds unfair, doesn’t it?

A study of nearly 73,000 middle-aged and highly educated women, whose drinking habits ranged from abstinence to heavy drinkers, found that cholesterol intake was 32 percent higher in heavy drinkers than nondrinkers; caloric intake was 29.5 percent higher among drinkers, and consumption of animal products, cheese, processed meats, vegetable oil, potatoes, breakfast cereals and coffee increased among alcohol drinkers.

Also, the intake of vegetables decreased among this group. Wine was the drink of choice among two thirds of the drinkers. Other research suggests that alcohol’s appetite-stimulating factors may contribute to the excess accumulation of abdominal fat found often in persons who drink regularly (Dorn et al., 2003).

Does any of this research apply to you? If you eat out at restaurants just three times a month and you modified your eating on two of the three visits (the other one is a “free pass” and you can eat the way you have before), miracles could occur.

How? I knew you’d ask.

In your two visits a month, instead of bread and alcohol, have iced tea (sweetened with Stevia) and no bread. This simple action will save you 200-400 calories per visit. Add up 24 visits per year and you get 4800-9,600 calories a year. Over five years, this works out to an extra 10-30 pounds. Plus, if you behaved on two of the three visits, you got to keep the one visit per month that allowed you to have the bread and alcohol.

Now that you’re already looking leaner and healthier, what else can you do this summer?

AM Drinks: Hot tea, real (100%) fruit juice and coffee are all good choices. Fruit juice (the real stuff) contains plenty of sugars that can ramp up energy. Both tea and coffee are likely to have some caffeine which helps alert the brain. Stay away from the artificial sweeteners (like Equal® and NutraSweet®). The three ingredients in them, at the point when they enter the central nervous system in typical high concentrations, are nasty for the brain. They can cause aberrant neuronal firing and potential cell death. The neurotoxic effects of these are linked to headaches, mental confusion, balance problems and possibly seizures. Worse, the effects are subtle, cumulative and develop over a prolonged period of time. Do words like poor cognitive function, crankiness, fuzzy thinking or even cancer sound good to you?

Of the approximately 120 independent studies conducted on aspartame, over 90 percent have demonstrated significant health risks. Instead sweeten with Stevia®. Also, avoid the fake dairy products, such as Coffee Mate® and go with the real thing, milk.

Breakfast Carbohydrates: Complex carbos are great for the brain. The list is short: oatmeal, grits, Cream of Wheat, and Wheatena. Whole grain breads are good, but keep them to a minimum. Reduce your intake of all breads by 90% (I did this “cold turkey”) when I started gaining the weight that I didn’t need. With breads (rolls, sliced, muffins, biscuits, toast, etc.) you’ll be astonished how fast the pounds start dropping!

Breakfast Proteins: If you’re not having a complex carbo breakfast, enjoy proteins and fruit. Proteins facilitate production of the “upper” neurotransmitters (dopamine, epinephrine and norepinephrine). These, in moderate amounts, are linked to mental alertness. Suggested breakfast foods are: eggs (hard-boiled, poached or scrambled). Plastics release toxins fast under heat: so avoid microwaving anything in plastic, and avoid frying with Teflon (compounds like Teflon and plastics have countless untested chemicals). Better to be safe than sorry.

Fresh Fruits: Best ones are ones with a skin, to avoid the scourge of pesticides (choose bananas, oranges, pineapples, papayas and pineapples). The apples, peaches, and pears and strawberries have thin skins that are more likely to absorb pesticides.

PM Drinks: Water, Iced tea, hot tea, coffee (if it’s cold outside). Keep your consumption of soft drinks to the minimum and cut them out entirely if you can. Welch’s 100% Concord Grape Juice, Fresh squeezed orange juice or carrot juice are all high in sugar energy, good tasting and well liked! Avoid drinks with “high fructose corn syrup.” Some research suggests it can interfere with liver function, dysregulate the body’s glucose levels and contribute towards obesity.

Good Snacks: Raisins (set out those mini-lunch box sizes), small yogurts (plain is best, avoid those with high-fructose corn syrup), and nuts (walnuts, almonds, cashews or Brazil nuts). Chocolates are good, but buy the higher quality bars with 60-70% cocoa. In lower quality chocolate, you get too much sugar and fat. For most situations, get the imported Belgian or Swiss chocolate (Di Tomaso, et al, 1996). It has far less fat, sugar and butter with a higher percentage of cocoa. Chocolate stimulates the production of phenyethylamine, a mild mood enhancer, theobromine and caffeine, both stimulants.

Let’s cut to the chase: everything you do is likely to have SOME effect on the brain.

Brain-based education says, “Be purposeful about it.” Now, go have some fun and make another miracle happen!

CITATIONS:

Di Tomaso, E.; M. Beltramo; and D. Piomelli. (1996). Brain cannabinoids in chocolate (letter), Nature, Aug. 22; 382(6593): 677-678.

Dorn, J. M., Hovey, K., Muti, P., Freudenheim, J. L., Russell, M., Nochakski, T. H., & Trevisan, M. (2003, Aug). Alcohol drinking patters differentially affect central adiposity as measured by abdominal height in women and men. Journal of Nutrition, 133(8), 2655-62.

Kesse, E., Clavel-Chapelon, F., Slimani, N., van liere, M., & E3N Group (2001, Sept). Do eating habits differ according to alcohol consumption? Results of a study of the French cohort of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 74(3), 322-7.

Yeomans, M. R., Caton, S., & Hetherington, M. M. (2003, Nov). Alcohol and food intake. Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition and Metabolic Care, 6(6), 639-44.

photo credit: neil conway

Over the years, all of us have heard how important it is to have kids drink water at school. That reminds me of a true story…

On one of my trips out to a school district, I was picked up at the airport by the local superintendent. We struck up a conversation on the way to the event. Since my topic was brain-related, the superintendent was gushing about how his district was now “brain compatible.”

I said, “Really? That’s great. Tell me what you’re doing.”

With a good deal of pride, he said, “We have water bottles on every kid’s desk.”

At that point I politely replied, “That’s nice.”

But IS it “nice”?

Is water on the desks really a good idea?

The Research

Years ago, I often repeated things I had heard from others who I thought were experts. But many were self-proclaimed experts who were also repeating what they had heard from other experts. Put enough experts together in one room and you have… grander delusions. Bottom line is that I was, at times, too careless and failed to go dig for the quality research. I know better now. Today, lean in close and read the truth about drinking water.

First, many of the studies promoted as “evidence” to support more hydration have 100 or fewer in the study. That’s too risky to draw much of a conclusion from, and has too few participants to generalize. In our first study, 58 children aged 7-9 years old were randomly allocated to either a group that received additional water or to a group that did not. Results showed that children who drank additional water rated themselves as significantly less thirsty than the control group and they performed better on visual attention tasks. Huh? What about every other type of task? That’s the best we can do? (Edmonds, et al. 2009)

Many questions arise from these studies.

For example, were the following variables teased out about the study:

What was the weather like during the study? How much humidity? Temperature?

What had the participants eaten? High or low water content foods?

Did the participants have any strenuous physical activity prior to the study?

What about water quality? Cultural favorite drinks? How about peer pressure?

Another study (same author) studied younger kids. This study had just 23 kids, aged 6-7 years old. There were improvements with the water group, who had less thirst and more “happiness.” They were also better on visual attention and visual search skills, but not visual memory or visuomotor performance (Edmonds, et al. 2009.) Again, too small of a sample, and the results are hardly dramatic.

Another recent study of 24 volunteers found that with a 24-hour dehydration, cognitive-motor function is preserved, but mood and reaction time deteriorated. No big shock there. There was a 2.6% decrease of body weight (woo-hoo!) during water deprivation (Szinnai, et al. 2005.) The most interesting part of this study was that females showed greater diminished capacity than males. In a follow-up study (Szinnai, et al. 2007) moderate dehydration induced by water restriction had no effect on blood pressure or heart rate reactivity to mental stress. However, stress-induced states become fortified during dehydration in females, but not males.

I was unable to find, anywhere in the medical journals, any scientific evidence that says, “Drink eight glasses of water per day.” In fact, getting too much water may be just as bad as not enough (Valtin, 2002.) In one study, when initial thirst was high, the more water ingested, the higher the performance. When initial thirst was low, the more water ingested, the poorer the performance. This reminds us NOT to go overboard with pushing water on students every ten minute. A drink of water can improve or impair mental performance depending on small differences in thirst. But make the water available, don’t push it on them.

There are, however, two additional issues to consider. One, children from lower income families cannot afford a constant supply of quality bottled water from home. It’s expensive and it’s no better than most tap water. Because of this, I suggest schools ensure all drinking fountains work well and have good water.

But wait; there’s more…

What about the studies on… the container! In fact, maybe this whole discussion is moot unless you consider the container. The soft plastic water bottles are a bad idea. They have BPA (polychlorinated biphenyls) which have known links to cancer,and in fact, many studies point to it as a source for lowering cognition. You might be laughing at the risks, but may I remind you of a major study in a peer-reviewed journal that said 90-95% of ALL cancers are environmentally induced (Anand, et al, 2008.) Tobacco alone has 50 known carcinogens. The most common products are often the worse: deodorants, sun block, motor vehicle exhaust, nitrates, pesticides, water bottles and Teflon. Most carcinogens are ingested (nitrates, nitrosamines, pesticides, and dioxins) coming from food or from cooking processes. You do not need to add any more risks! Bisphenol A (BPA) is the monomer used to manufacture polycarbonate plastic, the resin lining of cans, and other products.

Bisphenol A is a xenoestrogen, a known endocrine disruptor, meaning it disturbs the hormonal messaging in our bodies. Synthetic xenoestrogens are linked to breast cancer and uterine cancer in women, decreased testosterone levels in men, and are particularly devastating to babies and young children. BPA has even been linked to insulin resistance and Type 2 Diabetes (vom Saal FS, Hughes C. 2005.) In short, you’ll need to monitor not just the water, but also the delivery device for it.

PART TWO: Applications

Let’s “flesh out” what we learned from the studies above. First, quality studies in education (large sample sizes, randomized, cross-over design, longitudinal, etc.) are very expensive and rare. Second, with small samples on a limited budget, there’s not a whole lot that can be gained or learned. Third, there are many beverages and each may induce a different response. Finally, I notice a pattern. Certain researchers, as you might expect, seem to have bias. Every one of their published studies will be either pro or con, but with no change of position. With studies on both sides of the argument, I still say to be cautionary, but positive. Watch the container, because the positive effect from hydrating might be lost by the negative effects of the container.

What to do? Which leads us back to… the need for many convenient school drinking fountains! Around you own home, use a water filter for all your household water. Then refill the water you take to school using your own bottles which you have carefully chosen!

Avoid water bottles that might leach chemicals. Check the recycling symbol on your bottle. If it is a #2 HDPE (high density polyethylene), or a #4 LDPE (low density polyethylene), or a #5 PP (polypropylene), your bottle is fine.

The type of plastic bottle in which water is usually sold is usually a #1, and is only recommended for one time use. Do not refill it. Better to use a reusable water bottle, and fill it with your own filtered water from home. Remember – keep these single-use bottles out of the landfill by recycling them.

If you make water available to kids, but don’t push it unless they show symptoms of dehydration and use the good healthy containers, you’ll be fine. Let’s cut to the chase: everything you do in your classroom is likely to have SOME effect on the brain. Brain-based education says, “Be purposeful about it.” Now, go have some fun and make another miracle happen!

photo credit: MiaoVision

How You Can Choose the Perfect Music Every Time

Here is how to decide what music to play in your classroom to help with brain-based learning. While you could use an endless number of criteria, these  are a good start. I recommend using an iPod with a Bose Sound Dock player. You get the best of all worlds.

1) State. What emotional state are you trying to elicit? Pay attention to what happens to your own body and mind as you listen to a song. Pay attention to the beats per minute (BPM). Songs in the 35- 50 BPM range will be more calming, while those in the middle 55-70 BPM will be more moderate for seatwork. For activities, the pace might be 70-100 and for energizers, maybe 100-160 BPM will REALLY rev it up.

The state is also the feelings you want to have within your students. When students complete an assignment, project or even a simple task, I want upbeat celebration music. When we are doing a class stretching or reflective writing, I want slower, uncluttered, calming music. When we are about to start out on a big task, I want inspirational, upbeat, even marching music. In short, use music as a second teacher in the classroom to support the mood.

2) Age of Listener. What generation am I working with? Stay within your generation! The way to decide is ask this simple question: If they’re adults, what music did they listen to in high school and college? If they’re age 14 or less, what are the current soundtracks to movies that are hot?

3) Type of Music. Do I use music with words or instrumentals only? In general, use words only if it’s for transitions, games that require them or special occasions. Most of the time, instrumentals are better. If you use only one kind of music you’re missing out on some great alternatives.

Here are a few recommended music CDs to try in your classroom:

Whistle While You Work, available as a collection of 18-mp3 files via download, is specially produced to activate the relaxed focused system. Serotonin may be released and it is a common neurotransmitter that helps us feel pleasant and cheerful.

Play this music in the background when you’d like to reduce stress, but encourage productivity. All of these specially produced memorable selections are 100% soothing and easy-to-listen to audio gems. You’ll get positive, enjoyable listening tracks that boost learning and productivity. Your students will ask for these catchy tunes again and again. Click here to purchase – instant download.

More Whistle While You Work.

The sequel to the set of files above. It is also a collection of 18 mp3 files via download. These are different (but in the same music family) tunes, and all are specially produced to activate the relaxed and focused system. Play this music in the background when you’d like to reduce stress, but encourage productivity. All of these specially-produced memorable selections are 100% relaxing and easy-to-listen to audio gems. You’ll get positive, enjoyable listening tracks that boost learning and productivity. Your students will ask for these catchy tunes again and again. Click here to purchase – instant download.

Greatest Energizer Tunes Ever!

Do you have a classroom in need of an energy boost? This audio CD includes favorite classroom tunes that can revitalize a classroom. Its 19 up-tempo songs are paced between 120-165 BPM to raise adrenaline levels and energize classroom spirit!

Running Time: 46.5 Minutes. Click here to purchase.

Ultimate Music Variety CD.

Are you looking for ways to transition from one activity to another? This audio CD offers a broad range of songs individually designed to calm, relax, and re-direct students’ energy. Running Time: 53 Minutes.

Click here to purchase.

Top Tunes for Teaching.
977 Song Titles & Practical Tools for Choosing the Right Music Every Time. Music is a powerful classroom tool that enhances cognition, improves memory, energizes sluggish learners, and makes lessons fun for students of all ages.

This resource offers practical tips, suggestions, and lists of songs all personally tested by Eric Jensen during his own trainings and based on scientific research that supports music’s beneficial effects.

Click here to purchase.

Wake Up the Young Brain! (CD)

High-Energy Music For K-5 Learners

This energizing music CD is scientifically paced at 120-165 BPM to activate the adrenergic (adrenaline) system. Its fun, upbeat tracks for younger students are perfect for transition times, games, marches, and lesson openings.

Wake Up! the Brain will help you harness the natural energy of this age group and channel it into meaningful learning-rich activities. Your students will ask for these catchy, memorable tunes again and again. Click here to purchase.

photo credit: J Devaun

Why don’t we get the best out of people? Sir Ken Robinson argues that it’s because we’ve been educated to become good workers, rather than creative thinkers. Students with restless minds and bodies — far from being cultivated for their energy and curiosity — are ignored or even stigmatized, with terrible consequences.

“We are educating people out of their creativity,” Robinson says. It’s a message with deep resonance. Robinson’s TEDTalk has been distributed widely around the Web since its release.

A visionary cultural leader, Sir Ken led the British government’s 1998 advisory committee on creative and cultural education, a massive inquiry into the significance of creativity in the educational system and the economy, and was knighted in 2003 for his achievements.

His latest book, The Element: How Finding Your Passion Changes Everything, a deep look at human creativity and education, was published in January 2009.

Before we begin, I want to address a study that was published in the prestigious scientific journal Nature, and on the mainstream news. It claimed that “brain-training” is not effective. Huh? In spite of the quality of the journal, don’t swallow the study results. Why?

Three reasons: 1) the “brain training” was only 10 minutes a day – way too short for the brain to change. You need 20-60 min./day. 2) a small sample size was used, not a large random one, so you can’t generalize, and 3) there was no monitoring the brain training; all was done at home, where presumably, people are talking to family, spacing out, and not highly vested. Listen: the brain can change, but you have to follow the rules!

Okay; I got that off my chest. Now, let’s focus on something I ordinarily NEVER focus on.

There are many so-called “truths” that float around in education. Some actually are true, and others are a big, smelly pile of doo-doo. For example, if you’ve been to any of my workshops lately, you know why you should NEVER buy into the myth of the “normal” kid.But for today’s newsletter, we’d got another shocker: neuroscientist Susan Greenfield said that from a neuroscience point viewpoint, the whole idea of using learning styles for teaching is nonsense. By the way, she’s not alone in believing there is no such thing as a learning style.

But wait, there’s more…

The Association for Psychological Science (APS) commissions panels of leading psychologists and cognitive scientists to evaluate topics of public interest, and publishes their reports in Psychological Science. In late 2009, the panel concluded that an adequate evaluation of the learning styles hypothesis – the idea that optimal learning demands that students receive instruction tailored to their learning styles – requires a particular kind of study – AND IT HAS NOT BEEN DONE.

How could you “prove” learning styles.

Here’s what you’d have to do: group students into the learning style categories that are being evaluated (e.g., visual learners vs. verbal learners), and then students in each group must be randomly assigned to one of the learning methods (e.g., visual learning or verbal learning), so that some students will be “matched” and others will be “mismatched.”

After the learning and consolidation time, all students must sit for the same test. If the learning style hypothesis is correct, then, for example, visual learners should learn better with the visual method, whereas auditory learners should learn better with the auditory method. But Massa & Mayer, 2006 have found that this has not been done.

So what does this mean?

While we could say that the multiple intelligences are the “output” of a learner, the input can typically be labeled as one of the more sensory modalities (visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory and tactile.) Besides our five most commonly known senses, one author, Diane Ackerman in The Natural History of the Senses suggested we have 19 senses (1990). Researchers like Anthony Gregorc, Neil Fleming’s VARK (visual, auditory, reading/writing, kinesthetic) Learning Style Test, Rita Dunn and Kenneth Dunn, Ned Hermann’s Brain Dominance and David Kolb (among others) have all suggested that learners have a preferred way to learn. You may have noticed that in your classroom. In fact, a literature review identified 71 different theories of learning styles (Coffield, et al. 2004). Some of the proponents use broader labels than a mere sense; these labels tell a bit about how they (the learners) like to preferentially process the information. Many of these theories have become standards in schools of education.

Gregorc and Butler designed a model describing how the mind works: 1) concrete and 2) abstract; and two ordering abilities 1) random and 2) sequential.

Bernice McCarthy introduced a learning style format (the “4-MAT system”) which asks the questions based on what, how, why and if.

David Kolb has identified and integrated both personality and learning styles: 1) assimilators, who learn better when presented with sound logical theories to consider, 2) convergers, who learn better when provided with practical applications of concepts and theories, 3) accommodators, who learn better when provided with “hands-on” experiences, and 4) divergers, who learn better when allowed to observe and collect a wide range of information.

Others claim the VAK model: visual learners have a preference for seeing (think in pictures; visual aids such as overhead slides, diagrams, handouts, etc.) Auditory learners best learn through listening (lectures, discussions, tapes, etc.) Tactile/kinesthetic learners prefer to learn via experience – moving, touching, and experiencing.

For both the proponents and critics, learning styles remains one of the great conundrums in American education. Intuitively, it is hard to argue with the premise that all kids are unique. One must almost certainly agree that with many ways to learn, kids do seem to have preferences. Yet when we get to the scientific support, published in peer-reviewed journals, the evidence is weak. A recent study found research flaws (marginal quality data, poor samples, non-existent or poorly designed studies) with every major learning style (Coffield, et al. 2004.)

However, a recent brain-based (fMRI) study did match up Verbalizer-Visualizer Questionnaire (VVQ) results and modality-specific subtests of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) with location specific brain area matching using an fMRI. The results suggested that modality-specific cortical activity do underlie processing in visual and verbal cognitive styles (Kraemer et al. 2009.)

But this study was the only brain-based one in the databases. Clearly, more research is needed.

Applications:

Let’s “flesh out” what we learned from the studies above. First, quality studies in education (large sample sizes, randomized, cross-over design, longitudinal, etc.) are very expensive and rare. So the lack of quality studies may raise an eyebrow, but unless there’s a drug being tested by a company with deep pockets, it’s hard to get the best quality for studies in education. Second, you cannot “prove” anything, only disprove it. The evidence that “disproves” learning styles is not 100% airtight, by any means. Having said that, here’s what I recommend:

Something to stop doing? The vast majority of educators will tell you that learning styles are a proven fact. But they’re not. They are an unproven theory that may be useful. Stop assuming that just because other teachers say something is so, that they’re right. Stop assuming that because most everyone treats learning styles as an accepted “fact” that they are right. I have been one of those who just accepted that since “everyone” believes it, they must all be right.

Learning Styles seems so intuitively easy to support and see in the classroom, that I buy into it. But there are many things that you (we all) can buy into, even if the facts are not there yet. This does not mean that you are wrong. It just means that you can’t stand on a large body of science or research to back your beliefs. What you can do is to say, “When I did it this way, it helped this student perform better.” No one can argue with those results.

How you teach activates either more visual, auditory or tactile neuron assemblies. My thinking is that some sensory “classes” (visual, auditory, etc.), become desensitized and other classes become more activated. This makes them sensitized to specific stimulation. Huh? Yes, that means the more you activate a certain modality in a student, the greater the likelihood that you will change their brain’s response to it.

What to do? In your teaching, continue to use a variety of teaching methods. Continue to combine visual with auditory. Be sure to add the tactile and action-based processes to learning. Continue to notice which kids respond better to which types of teaching.

Ah, but nothing beats some classroom-based action research. If you’ve got a few moments, set up some experiments in your class before the year’s up and try out a few ideas like the proposed study mentioned above. You might be surprised by the results!

********************************

Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning. A systematic and critical review. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre. Willingham, Daniel. Willingham: No evidence exists for learning style theories. Retrieved on February 24, 2010, from http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/daniel-willingham/-my-guest-today-is.html

Kraemer DJ, Rosenberg LM, Thompson-Schill SL. (2009) The neural correlates of visual and verbal cognitive styles. J Neurosci. Mar 25;29(12):3792-8.

Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2009). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9, 105-119. Massa, L. J., & Mayer, R. E. (2006). Testing the ATI hypothesis: Should multimedia instruction accommodate verbalizer-visualizer cognitive style? Learning and Individual Differences, 16, 321–336.

Glenn, David. Matching Teaching Style to Learning Style May Not Help Students. Retrieved on February 24, 2010, from http://chronicle.com/article/Matching-Teaching-Style-to/49497/ Holden, Constance. Learning with Style. Retrieved on February 24, 2010, from http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol327/issue5962/r-samples.dtl

photo credit: Biology Big Brother

While many schools are reducing physical activity because of time constraints created by the No Child Left Behind Act, a large group of studies has linked physical activity with cognition.

The researchers have come at the topic from a wide range of disciplines. Some are cognitive scientists or exercise physiologists. Other advocates are educational psychologists, neurobiologists, or physical educators. The applied research, which compares academic achievement between schools where kids have physical activity and those where they don’t, also supports the hypothesis.13

Like six blind men describing different parts of an elephant, they are all addressing the same issue but from different viewpoints. They are all correct in revealing how physical experience affects the brain. Each of their viewpoints is valid, yet incomplete by itself.

Now let’s add the neuroscience perspective.

It reveals information that other disciplines cannot reveal. For example, we know that exercise is highly correlated with neurogenesis, the production of new brain cells.14 We know exercise upregulates a critical compound called brain-derived neurotrophic factor.15 We also know that neurogenesis is correlated with improved learning and memory.16 In addition, neurogenesis appears to be inversely correlated with depression.17

While careless policy makers reduce physical activity, many administrators are unaware of the inverse correlations with adolescent depression. It’s scary, but each year one in six teens makes plans for suicide, and roughly one in 12 teens attempts suicide.18 Yet there is considerable evidence that running can serve as an antidepressant.19

These data would suggest that educators might want to foster neurogenesis with physical education. But educators and policy makers can’t see the new brain cells being produced. That’s one reason to know the science, to show everyday, easy-to-influence school factors that regulate neurogenesis and, subsequently, cognition, memory, and mood. Those are the kinds of connections that should be made. They are not careless; there’s little downside risk and much to gain.

To verify this hypothesis, we check the applied research to find out what happens to student achievement in schools where physical activity is either added or strengthened.

The research in this arena is mixed because there are no broadly established protocols. For example, there are questions about when and how much physical activity is needed, what kind, and whether it should be voluntary. These are not trivial issues; our brains respond better to meaningful activities with appropriate duration and intensity over enough time to make changes. Voluntary activity is important, too. If the activity is forced, it is likely to generate distress, not cognitive or health benefits. But when the studies are well designed, there is support for physical activity in schools.

So the interdisciplinary promotion of physical activity as a “brain-compatible” activity is well founded. Again, we see the brain involved in everything we do at school.

Thus a brain-based perspective strengthens the case for maintaining or enhancing physical activities in school.

Was all of the research from the realm of neuroscience? No, it was from a wide range of sources. But every source still comes back to our brain. Is our brain enhanced or impaired by physical activity? The answer is clear: brains benefit from physical activity in many ways. The brain is involved in everything we do at school. How you measure it (basic science, cognitive science, psychology, applied research, sports research, neurochemistry, etc.) will still require the brain.

While critics are trying to narrow the discussion of brain-based education to a “turf war” over where the science comes from, the bigger picture is simple: the brain is involved in everything we do at school. To ignore it is irresponsible.

Excerpted from Eric Jensen’s article in Kappan Magazine…. You can read the full text here.

photo credit: Beneteau Sailor

Transparent Teaching.

You present a key point, using an overhead as a
 prompt for yourself. Now it’s the student’s turn to put it in his or her own words. 
You can number sentences, so that each student takes the odd ones. You can
 also color-code them so one takes those in blue and the other takes those in red. 
Everyone stand, mix up to find a partner. On cue, one person translates the
 sentence into their own words, creating meaning for themselves and maybe 
others. This is a good way to ensure that everyone understands the material.

Voting With Their Body.

This strategy is a kinesthetic affirmation based on
 others taking an action to respond by doing something with their body.

As an
 example, first ask your students to stand up. Ask them to vote with their body. 
Say, “If you believe this is true, go to that side of the room. If you disagree, go to
 this side of the room.” Then, they might do an activity such as a pair share.

Before they go sit down, you might say, “Now take in a slow deep breath and 
hold it…good. Now let it out. If you feel more confident, have a seat.”

Or, “If
 you’re ready to learn something new, please have a seat.”

Filling “Holes”.

Good for students using a notebook 
or those with any collection of pages with notes.

Each student finds the
 weakest page (one he or she’d like more info on) from his or her workbook
 from the last unit or learning segment. They open that up and leave it 
exposed.

This activity works best with a “set-up” beforehand. Talk to the students
 about learning from others and the fact that we all value other’s opinions and that
 no one can know everything. Remind students in advance, that his is a chance to
“give ideas and get ideas,” and it’s not the time for rude comments or love letters.

Students stand up and walk around the room (use music for this one). Make it 
mandatory that they stop and write on at least one open notebook page. Give
 students about 3 minutes and keep them focused. Once students have returned 
to their seats, you can evaluate how many actually did get comments. If they are
 seated in a cooperative learning group, you can also have students pass their
 notebooks or the pieces of paper to solicit comments. Then they can share with 
their team what they learned from the comments.

Be sure to check out our summer workshop on Tools For Maximum Engagement here. It’s filling fast and is one of our more powerful teacher workshops.

photo credit: woodleywonderworks

In short, schools work to the degree that the brains in the schools are working well. When there’s a mismatch between the brain and the environment, something at a school will suffer.

Schools present countless opportunities to affect students’ brains. Such issues as stress, exercise, nutrition, and social conditions are all relevant, brain-based issues that affect cognition, attention, classroom discipline, attendance, and memory.

Our new understanding is that every school day changes the student’s brain in some way. Once we make those connections, we can make choices in how we prioritize policies and strategies. Here are some of the powerful connections for educators to make.

1. The human brain can and does grow new neurons.

Many survive and become functional. We now know that new neurons are highly correlated with memory, mood, and learning. Of interest to educators is that this process can be regulated by our everyday behaviors. Specifically, it can be enhanced by exercise, lower levels of stress, and good nutrition. Schools can and should influence these variables. This discovery came straight from neuroscientists Gerd Kempermann and Fred Gage.6

2. Social conditions influence our brain in ways we didn’t know before.

The discovery of mirror neurons by Giacomo Rizzolatti and his colleagues at the University of Parma in Italy suggests a vehicle for an imitative reciprocity in our brain.7 This emerging discipline is explored in Social Neuroscience, a new academic journal exploring how social conditions affect the brain. School behaviors are highly social experiences, which become encoded through our sense of reward, acceptance, pain, pleasure, coherence, affinity, and stress. This understanding suggests that we be more active in managing the social environment of students, because students are more affected by it than we thought. It may unlock clues to those with autism, since their mirror neurons are inactive. This discovery suggests that schools should not rely on random social grouping and should work to strengthen prosocial conditions.

3. The ability of the brain to rewire and remap itself by means of neuroplasticity is profound.

The new Journal of Neuroplasticity explores these and related issues. Schools can influence this process through skill-building, reading, meditation, the arts, career and technical education, and thinking skills that build student success. Neuroscientists Michael Merzenich and Paula Tallal verified that when the correct skill-building protocol is used, educators can make positive and significant changes in our brains in a short time.8 Without understanding the “rules for how our brain changes,” educators can waste time and money, and students will fall through the cracks.

4. Chronic stress is a very real issue at schools for both staff and students.

Homeostasis is no longer a guaranteed “set point.” The discovery championed by neuroscientist Bruce McEwen is that a revised metabolic state called “allostasis” is an adjusted new baseline for stress that is evident in the brains of those with anxiety and stress disorders.9 These pathogenic allostatic stress loads are becoming increasingly common and have serious health, learning, and behavior risks. This issue affects attendance, memory, social skills, and cognition. Acute and chronic stress is explored in The International Journal of Stress Management, The Journal of Anxiety, The Journal of Traumatic Stress, and Stress.

5. The old-school view was that either environment or genes decided the outcomes for a student.

We now know that there’s a third option: gene expression. This is the capacity of our genes to respond to chronic or acute environmental input. This new understanding highlights a new vehicle for change in our students. Neuroscientists Bruce Lipton and Ernest Rossi have written about how our everyday behaviors can influence gene expression.10 New journals called Gene Expression, Gene Expression Patterns, and Nature Genetics explore the mechanisms for epigenetic (outside of genes) changes. Evidence suggests that gene expression can be regulated by what we do at schools and that this can enhance or harm long-term change prospects.

6. Good nutrition is about far more than avoiding obesity.

The journals Nutritional Neuroscience and the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition explore the effects on our brain of what we eat. The effects on cognition, memory, attention, stress, and even intelligence are now emerging. Schools that pay attention to nutrition and cognition (not just obesity) will probably support better student achievement.

7. The role of the arts in schools continues to come under great scrutiny.

Five neuroscience departments and universities (University of Oregon, Harvard University, University of Michigan, Dartmouth College, and Stanford University) currently have projects studying the impact of the arts on the brain. Arts and Neuroscience is a new journal that tracks the connections being made by researchers. This is a serious topic for neuroscience, and it should be for educators also. Issues being explored are whether the arts have transfer value and the possibility of developmentally sensitive periods for the arts.

8. The current high-stakes testing environment means some educators are eliminating recess, play, or physical education from the daily agendas.

The value of exercise to the brain was highlighted in a recent cover story in Newsweek. More important, there are many studies examining this connection in The Journal of Exercise, Pediatric Exercise Science, and The Journal of Exercise Physiology Online. The weight of the evidence is that exercise is strongly correlated with increased brain mass, better cognition, mood regulation, and new cell production. This information was unknown a generation ago.

9. Stunning strides have been made in the rehabilitation of brain-based disorders, including fetal alcohol syndrome, autism, retardation, strokes, and spinal cord injury.

It is now clear that aggressive behavioral therapies, new drugs, and stem cell implantation can be used to influence, regulate, and repair brain-based disorders. The Journal of Rehabilitation and The International Journal of Rehabilitation Research showcase innovations suggesting that special education students may be able to improve far more than we once thought.

10. The discovery that environments alter our brains is profound.

This research goes back decades to the early work of the first trailblazing biological psychologists: Mark Rosenzweig at the University of California, Berkeley, and Bill Greenough at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. In fact, a new collaboration has emerged between neuroscientists and architects. “The mission of the Academy of Neuroscience for Architecture” according to the group’s website, “is to promote and advance knowledge that links neuroscience research to a growing understanding of human responses to the built environment.” This is highly relevant for administrators and policy makers who are responsible for school building designs.

Since our brain is involved in everything we do, the next question is, Is our brain fixed, or is it malleable?

Is our brain shaped by experience? An overwhelming body of evidence shows our brain is altered by everyday experiences, such as learning to read, learning vocabulary, studying for tests, or learning to play a musical instrument.11

Studies confirm the success of software programs that use the rules of brain plasticity to retrain the visual and auditory systems to improve attention, hearing, and reading.12 Therefore, it stands to reason that altering our experiences will alter our brain. This is a simple but profound syllogism: our brain is involved in all we do, our brain changes from experience, therefore our experiences at school will change our brain in some way. Instead of narrowing the discussion about brain research in education to dendrites and axons, a contemporary discussion would include a wider array of topics.

Brain-based education says that we use evidence from all disciplines to enhance the brains of our students. The brain is involved with everything we do at school, and educators who understand take this fact into consideration in the decision-making process.

Excerpted from Eric Jensen’s article in Kappan Magazine…. You can read the full text here.

photo credit: Genista