Learning is the art of changing the brain. Teachers (and trainers and mentors) can certainly take advantage of research to increase the likelihood of the change --- but the brain making and strengthening connections isn't in the teacher's head.

(Well, okay, the teacher's learning, too, we hope...)

In the organizational and corporate world, alas, there's still a lot of reliance on the Little Red Schoolhouse approach to skill and knowledge in the workplace. Having more people read books like Zull's may help overcome that.

Yes, anything and everything in which we engage can change our brains. Indeed, most teachers are hoping for change that lasts and is substantive, not superficial. However, I am willing to bet most teachers do not consciously stop to think about what they do in terms of physically changing the brain of the learner.

Zull’s book does an exemplary job of explaining what happens in the brain as it learns and changes. Teachers appreciate tools and explanations that are useful, understandable and immediately applicable. By placing the biological results of learning front and center, Zull provides an account of what is happening in the brain, giving teachers an insight into the (hoped for) results of their efforts. This may help some understand why what they do works, and may provide others with a fresh toolbox for figuring out ways to make an impact on a learner’s brain.

The conclusion may seem trivial to those well-versed in biology, but to those whose lens is filtered by a room full of children or young adults, thinking of teaching as the art of changing the brain may seem rather empowering.

Regards,
Laurie

Let me first emphasize the value of that cycle: what Zull and others found out, and he explains very well, is that our brain goes exactly through that sequence of steps while learning (at least with the activities that were tested). Judgements such as "that is linear" may not help appreciate that reality, that finding, and discuss potential implications.

Now, you are right that brain research (which has been around for perhaps a century, with neuroimaging only for 10-20 years) can only help understand a small portion of learning and teaching (which has of course been around as a species for a while longer...)

I also do agree with "The brain makes culture and culture makes the brain". Science advanced with hypotheses and with testing, gaining ground cumulatively. The work that Laurie reviews is but a step in that direction. There are many others.

Again, thank you for your thoughtful comment.

First, I was responding to Laurie's linear layout of Zull's/Kolb's cycle, especially in light of scientific procedure. (Ah, the limits of discursive writing.)

My understanding from reading deeply in the area of neuro and cognitive science is that while models of cognitive process are still debated, one illuminating paradigm speaks of a non-linear, "emergent" picture of learning. In my view, Laurie's review, while generous in coverage, did not address that perspective.

Second, my question stems from years of teaching research methods in the arts and humanities. Both students and I recognize the value of phenomenological and empirical inquiry, though visual and performing art students show great leanings toward non-empiric, non-phenomenological methods, characterized by my Cal Tech colleagues as "fuzzy logic", i.e., they'll rely on diffused, syncretic hunches or intuitive cross-referential approaches to both deductive and inductive inquiry. Please note, by using these terms, I am not suggesting a return to an old, outmoded rational/irrational picture of human psychology. I'm simply pointing out what the Sharpbrains community already knows: different disciplines require different learning strategies.

Third, I agree, "our brain is our brain," but would you not agree, that the pictures and theories we form about how the brain works influences the process of brain research? e.g., systems of representation like neural networking, right/left brain correspondence theory? The brain makes culture and culture makes the brain. Oui?

Finally, Zull's four stages are quite familiar to those of us raised on the brain/mind science of creativity. I applaud his efforts to update the biology of the learning/creative process.

Again, grateful for Laurie's review and for the chance to debate critical questions for 21st century education.

Respectfully,

M. A.

Our brain is our brain is our brain. we don't impose on it our views on how it works/ should work, but we try to understand what is in fact going on so we can all benefit from that knowledge. Zull's is a masterful book in that regard.

M. A. Greenstein
Founding Director, The George Greenstein Institute for the Advancement of Somatic Arts and Science