Sharp Brains: Brain Fitness and Cognitive Health News

Neuroplasticity, Brain Fitness and Cognitive Health News


Teaching is the art of changing the brain

James Zull is a pro­fes­sor of Biol­o­gy. He is also Direc­tor Emer­i­tus of the Uni­ver­si­ty Cen­ter for Inno­va­tion in Teach­ing and Edu­ca­tion at Case West­ern Reserve Uni­ver­si­ty in Ohio. The Art of Changing  the Brain - James ZullThese roles most assured­ly coa­lesced in his 2002 book, The Art of Chang­ing the Brain: Enrich­ing the Prac­tice of Teach­ing by Explor­ing the Biol­o­gy of Learn­ing.

This is a book for both teach­ers and par­ents (because par­ents are also teach­ers!) Writ­ten with the earnest­ness of first-per­son expe­ri­ence and reflec­tion, and a life­time of exper­tise in biol­o­gy, Zull makes a well-round­ed case for his ideas. He offers those ideas for your perusal, pro­vid­ing much sup­port­ing evi­dence, but he doesn’t try to ram them into your psy­che. Rather, he prac­tices what he preach­es by engag­ing you with sto­ries, inform­ing you with fact, and encour­ag­ing your think­ing by the way he posits his ideas.

I have read a num­ber of books that trans­late cur­rent brain research into prac­tice while pro­vid­ing prac­ti­cal sug­ges­tions for teach­ers to imple­ment. This is the first book I have read that pro­vides a bio­log­i­cal, and clear­ly ratio­nal, overview of learn­ing and the brain. Zull pro­vokes you into think­ing about his ideas, about your own teach­ing prac­tice, and ulti­mate­ly, what it means to learn.

Zull doesn’t lec­ture here; rather, he dis­cuss­es his ideas so you can fol­low their pro­gres­sion. The impe­tus for his ideas stem from David Kolb’s 1984 book, Expe­ri­en­tial Learn­ing. Kol­b’s mod­el con­tains four por­tions:

  • - engag­ing in a con­crete expe­ri­ence
  • - fol­low­ing it with reflec­tive obser­va­tion
  • - devel­op­ing an abstract con­cep­tu­al­iza­tion based upon the reflec­tion
  • - active­ly exper­i­ment­ing based upon the abstract

Kol­b’s mod­el, like Zul­l’s, is a cycle, and there­fore it is pos­si­ble to jump in at any point in the process. Zull takes Kol­b’s mod­el and pro­vides the biol­o­gy.

James Zull David Kolb learning cycleZul­l’s con­clu­sion is that:

Teach­ing is the art of chang­ing the brain.

Zull spends the bulk of the 250 pages explor­ing the biol­o­gy and prac­tice behind “cre­at­ing con­di­tions that lead to change in a learner’s brain.” He pro­vides a list of ten strate­gies (page 129), based upon the biol­o­gy of the brain, which can help in mak­ing those changes. These strate­gies apply to par­ents who are try­ing to par­ent, as well as to our own learn­ing process, for ide­al­ly we are all life-long learn­ers.

1. Watch for inher­ent net­works (nat­ur­al tal­ents) and encour­age their prac­tice.
2. Repeat, repeat, repeat!
3. Arrange for “fir­ing togeth­er.” Asso­ci­at­ed things should hap­pen togeth­er.
4. Focus on sen­so­ry input that is “error­less.”
5. Don’t stress mis­takes. Don’t rein­force neu­ronal net­works that aren’t use­ful.
6. Try to under­stand exist­ing net­works and build on them. Noth­ing is new.
7. Mis­con­nect­ed net­works are most often just incom­plete. Try to add to them.
8. Be care­ful about res­ur­rect­ing old net­works; error dies hard.
9. Con­struct metaphors and insist that your stu­dents build their own metaphors.
10. Use analo­gies and sim­i­les, too.

From my own teach­ing expe­ri­ence, I know these strate­gies are well worth uti­liz­ing. How­ev­er, imple­ment­ing them may not always be so easy due to con­straints of typ­i­cal class sched­ules (insuf­fi­cient time) or class sizes (too many stu­dents), or ingrained habits (for exam­ple, view­ing mis­takes through a neg­a­tive lens). How­ev­er, I believe these strate­gies can aid stu­dents in learn­ing about how they learn and engag­ing in metacog­ni­tion. In the final analy­sis, if stu­dents under­stand how they learn, they can take respon­si­bil­i­ty for their own learn­ing, thus chang­ing their brains through their own efforts.

This is a book that can be read com­fort­ably, and you will progress through the four stages of the learn­ing cycle as you take in the words and ideas (gath­er­ing data), reflect on how they can impact yours and your student’s teach­ing and learn­ing process (reflec­tion), con­sid­er how you might alter some­thing about what you do (cre­ate an hypothe­ses), and try out that idea (active test­ing). Of course, try­ing out your idea will lead to a new expe­ri­ence, which you will take in and reflect on, per­haps caus­ing you to make a change … And the cycle con­tin­ues.

For more about James Zull:

- James Zull in his own words – New Hori­zons for Learn­ing arti­cle: What is “The Art of Chang­ing the Brain?”, May 2003
— Sharp­Brains inter­view with James Zull: An ape can do this. Can we not?, Octo­ber 2006

For more about David Kolb:

- Kolb’s fac­ul­ty page at Case West­ern

Laurie BartelsLau­rie Bar­tels writes the Neu­rons Fir­ing blog to cre­ate for her­self the “the grad­u­ate course I’d love to take if it exist­ed as a pro­gram”. She is the K‑8 Com­put­er Coor­di­na­tor and Tech­nol­o­gy Train­ing Coor­di­na­tor at Rye Coun­try Day School in Rye, New York. She is also the orga­niz­er of Dig­i­tal Wave annu­al sum­mer pro­fes­sion­al devel­op­ment, and a fre­quent attendee of Learn­ing & The Brain con­fer­ences.

Leave a Reply...

Loading Facebook Comments ...

10 Responses

  1. Lau­rie, thanks for review­ing Zul­l’s book. Clear­ly a boon for those who fol­low lin­ear, empir­ic mod­els of inquiry.
    How about his thoughts on non-lin­ear empir­ic or net­work­ing learn­ing?

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

  2. Hel­lo M.A., I had the for­tune to read Zul­l’s book too, and am a bit mys­ti­fied by your com­ment. He is a biol­o­gist and edu­ca­tor, so his per­spec­tive (as ours) is brain-based, research-based. Research has lit­tle to do with linear/ non-lin­ear, and net­worked or not. In fact, many of his points, as reflect­ed in Lau­rie’s review, are non-lin­ear (use of metaphors, analo­gies), and empathize the role of neu­ronal net­works.

    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.

  3. Alvaro and Sharp­brains com­mu­ni­ty, allow me to clar­i­fy the point of my ques­tion.

    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.


    M. A.

  4. Hel­lo M.A, thank you for that excel­lent clar­i­fi­ca­tion.

    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.

  5. I haven’t read the book, but “Teach­ing is the art of chang­ing the brain”? That’s the con­clu­sion, real­ly? I mean, if stu­dents are to learn at all the brain has to change. Indeed, if you’ve read this com­ment, I’ve just “changed your brain”. The con­clu­sion, in oth­er words, is utter­ly triv­ial giv­en mod­ern cog­ni­tive sci­ence and the com­pu­ta­tion­al the­o­ry of mind…

  6. Hi Michael,

    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.


  7. Lau­rie’s com­ments seem to align with a quib­ble I had: teach­ing is the art of try­ing to change the brain.

    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.

  8. Michael, Lau­rie, Dave, thank you for cre­at­ing a superb con­ver­sa­tion that reflects our effort to con­verse across sev­er­al dis­ci­plines: cog­ni­tive sci­ence, med­i­cine, edu­ca­tion, train­ing. We need many more exchanges like this!

Leave a Reply

Categories: Cognitive Neuroscience, Education & Lifelong Learning

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

About SharpBrains

As seen in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, BBC News, CNN, Reuters,  SharpBrains is an independent market research firm tracking how brain science can improve our health and our lives.

Search in our archives

Follow us and Engage via…

RSS Feed

Watch All Recordings Now (40+ Speakers, 12+ Hours)