|
12 Design Principles
Based on Brain-based Learning Research
By Jeffery A. Lackney, Ph.D.
Based on a workshop facilitated by Randall Fielding, AIA
- Rich-simulating
environments – color, texture, "teaching architecture",
displays created by students (not teacher) so students have connection
and ownership of the product.
- Places for group
learning – breakout spaces, alcoves, table groupings to facilitate
social learning and stimulate the social brain; turning breakout spaces
into living rooms for conversation.
- Linking indoor
and outdoor places – movement, engaging the motor cortex linked
to the cerebral cortex, for oxygenation.
- Corridors and
public places containing symbols of the school community’s larger
purpose to provide coherency and meaning that increases motivation (warning:
go beyond slogans).
- Safe places –
reduce threat, especially in urban settings.
- Variety of places
– provide a variety of places of different shapes, color, light,
nooks & crannies.
- Changing displays
– changing the environment, interacting with the environment stimulates
brain development. Provide display areas that allow for stage set type
constructions to further push the envelope with regard to environmental
change.
- Have all resources
available – provide educational, physical and the variety of settings
in close proximity to encourage rapid development of ideas generated
in a learning episode. This is an argument for wet areas/ science, computer-rich
workspaces all integrated and not segregated. Multiple functions and
cross-fertilization of ideas are primary goal.
- Flexibility –
a common principle in the past continues to be relevant. Many dimensions
of flexibility of place are reflected in other principles.
- Active/passive
places – students need places for reflection and retreat away from
others for intrapersonal intelligence as well as places for active engagement
for interpersonal intelligence.
- Personalized space
– the concept of homebase needs to be emphasized more than the
metal locker or the desk; this speaks to the principle of uniqueness;
the need to allow learners to express their self-identity, personalize
their special places, and places to express territorial behaviors.
- The community-at-large
as the optimal learning environment – need to find ways to fully
utilize all urban and natural environments as the primary learning setting,
the school as the fortress of learning needs to be challenged and conceptualized
more as a resource-rich learning center that supplements life-long learning.
Technology, distance learning, community and business partnerships,
home-based learning, all need to be explored as alternative organizational
structures for educational institutions of the present and future.
This list is not
intended to be comprehensive in any way. The brain-based learning workshop
track offered participants the ability to explore implications in an open
and reflective way. The intention for these workshops was primarily to
start the public dialogue concerning the implications of research on brain-based
learning in the design of school environments.
A second caveat to
presenting these design principles for brain-compatible learning environments
concerns the need to use as many of these principles in combination in
the design of a school building as possible. Many principles reinforce
each other in providing a coherency and wholeness often lacking in buildings
designed around a single concept/fad, like open schools or house concepts.
School designs that incorporate a variety of these principles will by
definition have the flexibility to accommodate a wide array of learning
styles.
Workshop Summary
Narrative:
The objectives of
the brain-based workshop track of the CEFPI Midwest Regional Conference
were to: (a) understand the latest developments and findings from brain
research; (b) discuss how these findings may educational curriculum and
instruction for learning; and (c) explore what the implications these
findings may have on school design.
Facilitators in the
first two workshop sessions on Thursday, April 30th included Karen Holicky-Michaels,
L.J. Menzel and Cheri Lunders. Facilitators in the second workshop session
on Friday, May 1st included Burton Cohen and Peter Hilts. Randy Fielding
& Jerry McCoy acted as moderators, Jeff Lackney acted as reporter
and Paul May acted as notetaker throughout all three sessions.
After a very selective
summary of what is known from brain research about how the brain learns,
implications were drawn concerning the influence this new knowledge may
have on how schools are planned and designed to support brain-based learning.
What do we know
from brain research about how we learn?
The brain is a vastly
complex and adaptive system with hundreds of billions of neurons and interneurons
that can generate an astronomical number of neural nets, or groups of
neurons acting in concert, from which our daily experience is constructed.
Many findings seem obvious and intuitive, as one outsider asked me, "isn’t
all learning brain-based?" For example, we all know intuitively that
the best age to learn a new language is during our early childhood; what
neuroscientists call the principle of windows of opportunity. We can accept
that all brains are unique and a product of interactions with different
environments, generating a lifetime of different and varied experiences;
what scientists call plasticity. We can accept the notion that either
you use it, or you lose it; new neural pathways are created every time
we use our brains in thinking through problems, but are lost forever –
are pruned – if we do not use them.
Yet, with all we
know now scientifically, and claim we have known intuitively, why do so
many people, educators and design professionals make instructional and
physical design decisions that contradict these findings?
The findings from
neuroscience are now validating scientifically much of the new instructional
strategies being advocated in educational reform efforts since the 1960s.
Individualized instruction for instance is validated by findings concerning
the importance of intrapersonal intelligence. Activity-based learning
is now on solid footing with what we know about body-kinesthetic intelligence.
Cooperative learning strategies are a logical extension of the growing
body of knowledge about the importance of interpersonal/social intelligence
and brain development.
Yet, it was the consensus
of many participants at the brain-based workshop that brain-based learning
and the strategies that are emerging from that research is still at a
buzzword stage. Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences theory that posits
a number of dimensions of intelligence (linguistic, logical/mathematical,
spatial, musical, body/kinesthetic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal)
is just one of a number of equally valid theories about intelligence and
brain-based learning. Gardner himself has been frustrated by what he sees
as reductionist thinking of many educational practitioners that talk the
language, but walk using their old instructional strategies, dividing
up learning activities into distinct learning modalities to the exclusion
of other dimensions. Brain-based learning requires a more systemic way
of conceptualizing how learning takes place and how to facilitate it.
Another concern with
knowledge emerging from neuroscience is the need for translation into
brain-based learning strategies that can be used by educators. Over ninety
percent of all neuroscientists are alive and still practicing today. Interpreting
the rapidly growing information on brain research generated by these scientists,
especially when some of that information is contradictory, can be a daunting
task
The conclusion reached
by both facilitators and general participants was that we should use caution
when applying the findings of brain-based research, but at the same time
move ahead with what we know. We should not wait, we need to act on what
is known today knowing that some of this will change in the future. One
example that was brought up during the workshop was that scientists used
to think that the brain was hardwired at a very early age and set for
the rest of life, what is called pruning. This assumption is only partially
true today. Pruning does take place at an early age, but research has
confirmed that nerves continue to grow throughout one’s life. You
can teach old dogs a few new tricks after all. This is a huge discovery
and has implications for life-long learning. When we learn a skill later
in life, such as when we learn stick-shift driving or skiing, we find
the learning process to be frustrating and awkward at first, but soon
these skills become automatic. This is a clear example growing new neural
connections and the principle of plasticity in connection with the development
of body/kinesthetic intelligence.
As with any new learning,
frustration seems to follow, as in the case of learning to drive stick-shift.
There is a period of time when we can’t get our body to do what our
mind wants it to do. We get emotional. From brain research we know now
that when we get emotional about a task we are involved in learning. Brain
research has confirmed that emotions are linked to learning by assisting
us in recall of memories that are stored in our central nervous system.
Emotions originate in the midbrain or what has been termed the limbic
system and the neo-mammalian brain. Sensory information is relayed to
the thalamus in the midbrain, which acts as a relay station to the sensory
cortex, auditory cortex, etc. When sensory information reaches the amygdala,
another structure in the midbrain, that sensory information is evaluated
as either a threat or not, creating the familiar fight or flight response
– the physiological response of stress. This information is only
then relayed to the frontal cortex, our higher cognitive functions, where
we take the appropriate action. How does information from the midbrain
reach the frontal cortex? Chemicals, neurotransmitters, are released into
the endocrine system which is connected to synapses, altering, coloring
and intensifying our conscious experience of a situation. Emotions aid
in memory retention (learning) of this situation as being good or bad.
Decreasing threat ("driving our fear", mistrust, anxiety and
competition) through cooperation, providing safe places, and providing
a motivational climate for positive emotions ensure that learning will
be retained.
But, brain research
also suggests that the brain learns best when confronted with a balance
between stress and comfort: high challenge and low threat. The brain needs
some challenge, or environmental press that generates stress as described
above to activate emotions and learning. Why? Stress motivates a survival
imperative in the brain. Too much and anxiety shuts down opportunities
for learning. Too little and the brain becomes too relaxed and comfortable
to become actively engaged. The phrase used to describe the brain state
for optimal learning is that of relaxed-alertness. Practically speaking,
this means as designers and educators need to create places that are not
only safe to learn, but also spark some emotional interest through celebrations
and rituals.
Another general finding
from brain research is that the brain is a pattern maker. Pattern making
is pleasing (emotional content) for the brain. The brain takes great pleasure
in taking random and chaotic information and ordering it. The implications
for learning and instruction is that presenting a learner with random
and unordered information provides the maximum opportunity for the brain
to order this information and form meaningful patterns that will be remembered,
that will be learned. Setting up a learning environment in this way mirrors
real life that is often random and chaotic.
The brain, when allowed
to express its pattern-making behavior, creates coherency and meaning.
Learning is best accomplished when the learning activity is connected
directly to physical experience. We remember best when facts and skills
are embedded in natural, spatial memory, in real-life activity, in experiential
learning. We learn by doing. The implications of applying the findings
of neuroscience related to coherency and meaning suggest that learning
be facilitated in an environment of total immersion in a multitude of
complex interactive experiences which could include traditional instructional
methods of lecture and analysis as part of this larger experience.
Interaction of the
brain with its environment suggests that the more enriched environment,
the more enriched brain. As one observer suggests, we need to enrich like
crazy. According to Ronald Kotulak in his 1996 book "Inside the Brain",
an enriched environment can contribute up to a 25% increase in the number
of brain connections both early and later in life. Our environments need
to allow for active manipulation.
To summarize, there
are at least twelve principles of brain-compatible learning that have
emerged from brain research.
- Uniqueness –
every single brain is totally unique.
- Impact of threat
or high stress can alter and impair learning and even kill brain cells
- Emotions are critical
to learning – they drive our attention, health, learning, meaning
and memory.
- Information is
stored and retrieved through multiple memory and neural pathways
- All learning is
mind-body – movement, foods, attentional cycles, drugs and chemicals
all have powerful modulating effects on learning.
- The brain is a
complex and adaptive system – effective change involves the entire
complex system
- Patterns and programs
drive our understanding – intelligence is the ability to elicit
and to construct useful patterns.
- The brain is meaning-driven
– meaning is more important to the brain than information.
- Learning is often
rich and non-conscious – we process both parts and wholes simultaneously
and are affected a great deal by peripheral influences.
- The brain develops
better in concert with other brains – intelligence is valued in
the context of the society in which we live.
- The brain develops
with various stages of readiness.
- Enrichment –
the brain can grow new connections at any age. Complex, challenging
experiences with feedback are best. Cognitive skills develop better
with music and motor skills.
What might be
some school design principles that support brain-based learning?
Burton Cohen and
Peter Hilts took the material we discussed in the previous two workshops
and challenged the group to think about how as planners and designers
we might begin to create places for learning that support what they referred
to as optimal learning experiences. What would a brain-forming environment
look like?
The first caveat
we recognized as a group was that attempting to link research literature
on brain research in neuroscience, first, to interpretations about this
research forming principles of brain-based learning, and second, to facility
implications is a very tentative exercise at best. With this in mind,
we attempted to outline what we felt were a dozen sound principles for
design. Interestingly, many of these principles seemed intuitively right
– principles any good designer would use. If this is so, then why
we asked do most schools appear to work against brain-forming? What makes
these principles new is the way in which they have been framed: as brain-forming
principles based directly on what we know about the neurophysiology of
the brain and optimal learning environments.
Embracing the concept
of "place" and placemaking – a opposed to space design
-- is critical to understanding the way in which design principles for
optimal learning environments are intended to be approached. When designing
for optimal learning environments, design must be approached in a holistic,
systemic way, comprising not only the physical setting, but also the social,
organizational, pedagogical, and emotional environments that are integral
to the experience of place. Reducing these design principles to "physical"
design solutions negates the potential for creating authentically brain-compatible
learning environments. This point can not be stressed strongly enough.
Designing successful brain-compatible learning environments will require
us as educators and design professionals to transform our traditional
disciplinary thinking and challenge us to think in much more interdisciplinary
ways – just as cognitive scientists have had to do to address the
complexity of brain research.
|