[스크랩] 두뇌과학에 근거한 수월성 교육의 필요성: 강남대 이상복교수

먼저 <Whole-Brain Education>에 관한 영어강의를 청취해봅시다!!!

 

http://www.truveo.com/Right-Brain-Education-for-Accelerated-Early/id/1547564595

 

 

 

독해: #1

 

[시론] 다양한 체험과 음악활동으로 상상력 높여야 2008년 06월 24일(화)

▲ 과학영재들의 대학 교육  ⓒ연합뉴스 과학문화 시론 오늘날 사회는 과학 문명의 급속한 발달로 인해 지식정보사회로의 이동이 가속화 되고 있으며, 또한 사회의 강조점이 동질에서 이질로, 표준화에서 비표준화로, 경쟁에서 상호의존으로, 위계에서 상호작용으로, 물질적 만족에서 문화적 만족으로 그리고 효율성에서 심미와 윤리로 변화하고 있다. 이러한 이동과 변화는 오늘을 살고 있는 우리들 모두에게 창의적인 방식으로 사고하고 행동하기를 요구하고 있다. 또한 앞으로의 세상은 더 빠르게 변화할 것이며 더 다양한 직업이 창출될 것이므로, 우리는 이러한 변화속도에 맞추어 현상을 유지하거나 피동적으로 따라가는 것이 아니라 변화를 주도할 수 있는 주체가 되도록 해야 할 것이다. 따라서 창의적인 사고를 갖기 위한 교육의 기본적 목적은 개인차에 따른 내재된 잠재능력을 어떻게 이끌어 내어 미래사회가 요구하는 문제해결을 위한 새로운 지식과 기술을 창조해 낼 것인가 하는 점이다. 이러한 새로운 변화와 발전을 가능케 하는 창의성(또는 창의력)이란 위대한 예술가나 과학자들의 이야기 속에서 주로 들어오던 것이었으나, 최근에는 거의 모든 분야에서 자연스럽게 광범위하게 사용되고 있다. 창의성의 정의를 살펴보면, 협의의 창의성은 발산적 사고와 같은 의미로 다양성과 양적인 개념으로 평가하며 광의의 창의성은 유용성과 가치성을 갖고 있는 아이디어를 생성해 내는 과정을 의미한다. 이러한 창의성 교육의 성패는 국가의 미래의 명운이 달려있다 할 수 있으므로 아이들의 개인차를 고려한 교육에 더 많은 배려를 해주어야만 할 것이다. 창의성이 요구되는 사회 또한 수월성 교육 측면에서 영재교육은 이러한 창의성을 더욱 강조하고 있는데, 부존자원이 부족한 우리나라의 교육에 있어서는 국가 · 사회적 요청 즉 국가경쟁력의 강화를 위하여 아이들의 잠재능력 계발의 필요성이 더 부각되고 있는 것이다. 창의적인 산출은 창의적인 사람이 창의적인 사고를 거치며 창의적인 사회 환경이 조화롭게 되어야 새로움과 유용성을 갖게 될 것이다. 이러한 관점에서 우리 사회는 개인적인 자아실현보다는 ‘우리’라는 공동체 의식에 치중하는 경향이 있으므로 국가가 필요로 하는 창의성 교육에 더 많은 관심을 가져야 한다는 것이다. 먼저 대뇌 반구분리와 창의성과의 관계를 살펴보면, 1960년대 실험심리학자인 Roger Sperry와 M.S. Gazzaniga에 의하여 대뇌 반구사이의 커뮤니케이션의 중요성 및 각 반구들의 전문화에 대한 이해를 하게 되었는데, 근래에 이르러 이러한 연구 결과를 단순화시켜 ‘우뇌인’과 ‘좌뇌인’으로 나누어 분류하고 우뇌인은 창의적, 예술적 및 직관적인 반면 좌뇌인은 언어적, 분석적이라고 표현하는 것은 다소 문제가 있다. 먼저 좌우 반구의 전문적인 특징을 살펴보면, 좌뇌는 언어, 논리, 수 및 계열적 처리를 담당하며 분석적이고 논리적 기능을 수행하므로 비판적 사고 기능을 포함한다. 반면에 우뇌는 형태를 인식하며, 음악 및 정서에 반응하며 주로 시각적이고 상상적인 성질을 갖고 있으므로 아이디어 생산적 사고 기능을 주로 한다. 우뇌인은 예술적, 좌뇌인은 분석적? 창의력은 우뇌만의 산물이라기보다는 좌우 반구의 상호작용으로 생긴다. 창의적 문제해결은 아이디어 생성에 기반을 둔 우뇌의 기능과 이를 다듬고 평가하는 비판적 사고의 좌뇌 기능이 하나로 작용해야 한다. 일반적으로 우뇌의 특징을 강조하는 것은 좌뇌의 기능적인 특징을 지나치게 강조해서 나타나는 반작용이거나 좌우 반구의 기능의 균형을 강조하기 위한 것이라 여겨진다. 특히 우리나라의 경우 초 · 중등 학생들의 과도한 학습으로 파생된 좌뇌의 기능적인 역할이 상대적으로 높게 형성된 것으로 보인다. 따라서 사고 기능이나 상상력 개발을 위한 좌우뇌 기능의 균형을 고려한 우뇌 기능을 개발할 필요성이 제기된다. 그리고 창의적인 사람들의 특성은 고정되어 있는 것이 아니라 창의적인 특성들은 역동적이며 경험과 교육을 통하여 변화 가능하다. 이를 위하여 유아에서 초 · 중학생은 책읽기를 통한 사고의 틀을 다양화하면서 더 많은 상상력을 갖도록 하는 것이 필요하다. 그러나 불행하게도 고등학생들은 입시에 전념하다보니 제대로 책읽기를 하는 시간이 매우 부족하여 미래에 자신의 역할에 대한 책임과 의무를 잊어버리고 소중한 시간들을 대학에서 낭비하는 안타까운 현실을 초래하고 있다. 우리 아이들의 창의력이 국가의 미래를 결정할 정도로 중요한 요인이라고 생각한다면 단순히 부모의 역할에만 의지할 것이 아니라 사회가 이러한 시스템을 갖도록 책임을 다하도록 하며 학교교육이 정상적인 체제 하에서 이루어지도록 하여야만 한다. 또한 아이들에게 다양한 체험활동의 기회를 제공하여 직접 보고 만지면서 자연현상을 과학적인 사고를 통하여 체계적으로 이해할 수 있도록 해야 할 것이다. 그리고 어릴 적부터 하나의 악기를 다룰 수 있도록 교육을 하든지 아니면 음악회를 통한 음악활동을 생활화하여 정서함양 및 감성 개발에 시간을 투자하면 상상력을 향상시킬 수 있으리라 기대한다. 더불어 다양한 독서와 체험활동 등을 통한 글쓰기는 좌우 반구의 균형개발에 적합할 것으로 생각하며 창의적인 아이디어를 생성하는데 많은 도움이 되리라 판단한다. 다양한 체험과 음악활동으로 상상력 함양 창의성 교육을 저해하는 중요한 요인으로는 아이들의 지적 호기심 충족을 위한 단순한 속진교육과 더불어 아이들이 쉽게 짜증내도록 하고 학습에 대한 의욕 상실을 초래하는 반복학습을 들 수 있다. 이를 해결하기 위해서는 특정한 문제에 관심을 나타내는 영재아들의 특성을 고려하여 개개인의 능력에 맞는 장기형 프로젝트 학습법 등을 통하여 창의적인 사고를 할 수 있는 기회를 제공해야 한다. 사고의 도구는 지식인데, 유용한 도구가 많이 저장되어 있고 손쉽게 사용할 수 있다면 우리는 문제해결을 훨씬 더 쉽고 효과적이며 재미있게 수행할 수 있다. 그리고 지식을 새로운 형태로 조합하고 재배열하면 우리의 마음속에는 새로운 형태의 아이디어가 생성될 것이다. 이렇게 생성된 아이디어를 사용가능한 구체적인 아이디어로 평가하고 발전시켜 나가야 한다. 특히 아이들이 발산적 및 수렴적 질문을 하여 더 나은 아이디어를 생성해 내어 문제해결을 하도록 하는 것이 필요하다. 그리고 학교와 가정에서 늘 끊임없는 격려와 관심으로 아이들이 창의적인 행동을 할 수 있도록 다양한 창의적 질문과 사고를 할 수 있도록 유도하면 창의적 사고력이 크게 향상되어 창의적 문제해결력이 신장될 것이다. 국가 · 사회가 필요로 하는 인재를 양성하기 위해서는 자기만족을 위한 수월성교육 보다는 누구의 뛰어난 자식이 아닌 우리 모두의 아이로 인식하는 자세가 필요하다. 이를 위해 올바른 프로그램의 개발 및 실행 전략 추진해야만 미래사회에 세계와 당당히 경쟁할 수 있는 글로벌 리더들을 양성할 수 있을 것이다. 개인별 장기형 프로젝트 학습법이 필요 이들이 올바른 인성을 갖출 수 있도록 사회에서 소외된 자들을 위하여 우리의 아이들이 부모와 국가 · 사회로부터 받고 있는 혜택을 다시 사회로 되돌려줄 수 있는 자세도 갖도록 하여야 할 것이다. 또한 역사체험활동을 통한 다양한 관점과 명확한 역사인식을 가질 수 있도록 하여 국가의 미래에 적합한 인재로 키워 나가야 될 것이다. 더불어 창의적인 사회 환경을 조성하기 위하여 학부모의 국가 교육목표에 대한 이해와 인내를 바탕으로 국가·사회의 전략적 지원도 필요할 것이다. 아울러 국가 수준의 창의력 계발 센터의 설치가 필요하며 전국 25개 대학 부설 과학영재교육원과 관련 연구 집단들과의 협력이 기본 전제가 되어야 한다. 이러한 체제 하에서 센터는 창의성의 수준을 확인, 측정 및 예측보다는 학교 현장에 적합한 창의성 교육 프로그램의 개발 및 실행전략을 수립하여 단계적으로 추진하는 것이 바람직할 것이다.

문성배 부산대학교 과학영재교육원 원장 | sbmoon@pusan.ac.kr 저작권자 2008.06.24 ⓒ ScienceTimes   @ScienceTimes의 재인용입니다@   ________________________________________________________________________________   독해 #2:   for the Whole Brain      Shaun Kerry, M.D. Diplomate, American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology                                                                  The human brain has many parts, but our present educational system only addresses a small percentage of those.  Most of our education today focuses on a narrow segment of the brain, located in the left portion of the cerebral cortex.  Isolating certain parts of the brain does not promote  cohesion: ideally, all parts of the brain should work together. According to research conducted at the California Institute of Technology during the 1950s, the left side of the brain gives us the ability to analyze, use words, and work with numbers.  Conversely, the right side of the brain is responsible for our ability to unify concepts - to put details together resulting in the formulation of a complete picture - and to be creative. Much as people are right or left handed, most people are right or left- brain dominant.  Left-brain dominant people are most successful in our current educational system, which limits creativity, and relies mostly upon words and numbers. Our system neglects to consider the needs of right-brain dominant individuals; the 50% of the population that is dubbed "functionally illiterate" by some educators. There are many parts of the brain that do different things, as described in footnote one, but knowing these details is not essential to your understanding of our story. Each brain has a unique personality, which is determined largely at the moment of conception, when egg and sperm join together.  This uniqueness entails that every person will require a different educational experience.  In our culture, however, these differences are not recognized, and most students are lumped into an educational system that caters to the needs of left-brain dominant individuals.  Our society severely neglects the limbic system and the right cerebral hemisphere of the brain.  This is very damaging to the development of mindfulness. When the limbic system is excluded from proper stimulation, subjects become dull and lifeless.  Emotions and their connection to thoughts are completely ignored; we are constantly given the message to stop feeling.      Many people cope with the harshness of society by not showing emotion.  As this becomes a habit, emotions are denied altogether.  When abuse, forced busyness, or control from external authorities is imposed upon a student, the result is anger, apathy, and an abandonment of the sense of self.  Over time, these feelings become so painful that the brain severs neural connections between the limbic system and awareness.  The student, in order to adapt to the pain, unconsciously looses touch with his emotions.   An animal with its foot caught in a trap will chew its own leg off in order  to survive.  Similarly, the brain dismembers itself in order to preserve its more basic functions.  This enormous loss is dealt with through denial. During their training, psychotherapists encounter this phenomenon first hand.  In most psychotherapy training programs, forced memorization is halted, and the student is asked to assess his true feelings.  Usually, the results of this comes as a very disturbing shock.  When the soothing effect of denial is removed, the student realizes that he has lost touch with his emotions.  By protecting ourselves from pain, we also inhibit ourselves from experiencing heightened degrees of happiness.  The loss of such emotions is every bit as severe as the loss of an arm or a leg. An inevitable byproduct of this process is self-directed anger.  Anger directed toward the self results in depression, the occurrence of which has reached epidemic proportions in our culture.  Anger directed outwardly results in cruelty, scapegoating, violence, and also epidemics in our society. Footnote 1: Located at the center of our brain is the limbic system, which controls our capacity to form relationships with others.  The basal ganglia, large structures deep within the brain, are responsible for our mental activity.  Situated near our forehead, the frontal cortex enables us to make judgments and decisions, construct plans, and restrain ourselves from acting on impulse.  Furthermore, it ensures that we stay focused and attentive to our tasks.  The part called the 'cingulate gyrus,' over the corpus callosum, gives our brain the ability to shift our thoughts from one subject to another.  (The word "gyrus" means a convolution.)  Below the temple are the temporal lobes, which enable us to remember events, facts, and faces.   A large bundle of fibers, the corpus callosum, joins the two sides of the outer shell - cortex - together, and transmits messages from one side of the brain to the other. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________     독해 #3:

Left Brain, Right Brain, Whole Brain?

An examination into the theory of brain laterilization, learning styles and the implications for education.

 

The idea that the left and right hemispheres exhibit different patterns of thought has caught the public attention and have inspired several educational theories, notably "Eight ways of knowing" by David Lazear , and numerous other self-help books. However theses theories have also been heavily criticized, and sometimes cast as pop-psychological myths .

Here we will investigate current understanding of left-right brain functioning; look at some of the psychological and educational models which result; an examine some of the educational implications. We will also examine for of the critiques of the theory and a couple of speculative ideas inspired by techniques in statistics and computer science. We start with a brief look at the brain.

Basic brain biology

A simplified model of the human brain consists of many parts:

• Brain stem, hind brain, mid brain & cerebellum - the most ancient parts, connected to the spine, controls movement, breathing and heartbeats.
• Limbic system - consisting of many specialist organs including the Hypothalamus, hippocampus -developed in mammals. Some memory functions and generation of emotional responses.
• Cerebral cortex - the distinguishing feature of human brains

The cortex is divided into two hemispheres, left and right connected by a thick layer of cells called the corpus callosum. Most other parts of the brain are also divided laterally.

Each hemisphere of the cortex can further be divided into four lobes:

• Occipital - visual processing
• Parietal - movement, orientation, calculation, recognition
• Temporal - sound and speech processing, aspects of memory
• Frontal - thinking, conceptualisation, planning.

The left hand eye is connected to the right hand occipital lobe and vice-versa. The right hand side of the brain also controls the left hand side of the body.

The outer surface of the cerebral cortex, commonly called the grey matter, is made up of the cell bodies many million of neurons, which are the main processing unit of the brain. Below the surface is the white matter, this chiefly consists of dendrites and axons which connect neurons to each other.

A simplified model of the processing of a neuron is that it receives inputs through its dendrites and depending upon the level of inputs it will fire a signal along its axion. Towards the end of the axion its splits and connects to dendrites of other neurons causing them to fire. While each individual neuron performs a simple processing task, the shear number of neurons give the brain is power. More importantly it is the number of connections which distinguish the way a brain function to the typical functioning a computer today, the ratio of connections to processing unit is much larger in the brain than in a computer.

The behaviourist work of Pavlov and Skinner led Donald Hebb to develop a model of synapse in 1949 that could account for how associations could be formed . This model has become the accepted model and is central to questions on how memories form and learning takes place. Consider the situation where two incoming neurons (A,B) synapse onto a third (C) and (before learning) a signal from A will be strong enough to cause C to fire but a signal from B will not. During learning when both A and B fire together biochemical processes will strengthen the response to signals from B. After learning a signal from B will be strong enough to cause C to fire. This general model has been confirm!ed by decades of research in memory. During learning specific cells change their properties which can be morphological changes including growth of new dendratic spines, increase in synapse numbers and dimensions and changes in electrical properties of a synaps.

We will now examine the theories of how processing in the left and right hand hemisphere differ.

Research into Brain lateralization

Much of the theory of left-right specialisation has been developed through examining patients who have had physical defects in one part of the brain. One of the earliest of these investigations was Paul Broca's work in 1861 with a patient nicknamed Tan who had a large cyst in the left hand side of his brain. Tan could only say one word: "Tan", hence the nickname. This indicated that some language functions were concentrated in the left hand side of the brain. Further study of eight patients who all had language problems revealed they also had left hemisphere lesions and the study of left-right specialisation was born.

Since Broca's early work there has been much research into the processing of language. Several specific areas of the brain have been identified which play a part in language (for most people these all reside in the left hemisphere).

• Broca's area: plays a part in grammatical processing.
• Wernicke's area: naming object (syntactical processing)
• Angualar gyri: involved in the recognition of visual symbols
• Supra-marginal gyri:

In most (97%) right-handed people language is controlled by the left hemisphere. Left-handers have a more even distribution of language in both hemispheres. In 19% this is concentrated in the left hemisphere, and in 68% it is concentrated in the right hemisphere, the remainder have language processing in both hemispheres.

Steven Pinker's "The Language Instinct" , give a good overview of how we process language, the specific roles that certain areas of the brain play and also they types of speech defects that damage to these areas can give rise to.

If language is mainly processed on the left of the brain, then what happens on the right hand side, and what functions do the corresponding areas on the right hand side have? Here research has fewer results which are more contentious.

We shall now move onto the split brain research of Dr. Roger W Sperry.

Nobel prize winner R Sperry's research concentrated on what happens when parts of the corpus callosum, which connects left and right hemisphere, is cut. Some of this work was on animals and some was on human patients who had their corpus callosum cut for medicinal reasons (often to alleviate epilepsy). A typical result of this research involved presenting an image to the left eye (connected to right hand side of the brain), the patient would be unable to say the name of the object (using language centres in the left hemisphere), but could pick out a similar object with the left hand (right hemisphere) . Perhaps the most intriguing split brain research was with a patient of another pair of split brain researcher, Michael Gazzaniga and Joseph LeDoux, who had some limited language facilities in his right brain. This patient show marked preferences in responses from the two hemispheres. When asked, "What do you want to do?" the left hemisphere replied "draftsman", but the right hemisphere (using scrabble letters) replied "automobile race" .

The overall results of Sperry's research can be summarised by his quote: "Everything we have seen indicates that the surgery has left these people with two separate minds. That is, two separate spheres of consciousness" .

Some specific differences between the two hemispheres resulted from this and subsequent research. The right-brain is better at:

	Right Hemisphere	Left Hemisphere
Specialities	Copying of designs, Discrimination of shapes e.g. picking out a camouflaged object, Understanding geometric properties, Reading faces, Music, Global holistic processing, Understanding of metaphors, Expressing emotions, Reading emotions.	Language skills, Skilled movement, Analytical time sequence processing.
Shared	Sensations on both side of face, Sound perceived by both ears, Pain, Hunger, Position.
Emotions	Negative emotions (fearful mournful feelings),	Positive emotions
neurotransmitters	Higher levels of norepinephrine	Higher levels of dopamine
Grey Matter White Maatter ratio	More white-matter (longer axons) on right	more grey-matter (cell bodies) on the left.

One particular difference in patient with damage to one side of the brain is how they copy a diagram. A patient with left brain damage will tend to copy the overall outline of a diagram but not the details and a patient with right brain damage will tend to get the details correct but not the overall outline.(Carter)

Often the differences are small, but statistically significant. Some of the results also vary for left handed people. Numerous researchers using have confirm!ed these results using a variety of techniques. Functional brain imaging using EEG and PET scans, which record brain activity while a patient is performing a particular task are some of the more modern techniques.

One curious fact is that women tend to have a more active corpus callosum with 10% more neuron fibers . The level of connection will have a large impact on mental processes.

Due to the controversial nature of the subject a note on the reference is called for. The above results have been taken from R Carter, Mapping the Mind , pp48-61 and D Falk, Braindance, pp102-107 . Both books are popular science works rather than academic articles. However both authors seem to present relatively unbiased results of the scientific literature. Carter is a medical writer and she used the assistance of C Firth a Welcome Principal Research fellow as a consultant. Dean Falk is a professor at SUNY specialising in neuro-anatomy and biological anthropology.

I have not found any reliable sources which contradict the above findings. The critiques tend to focus on the interpretations of these result, of which more will follow below.

Grey matter - white matter ratios

Of the above results the difference in the ratios of grey matter to white matter in the two hemisphere seemed deserves some more investigation. From a computational point of view the difference in these ratios can partially explain some of the differences in functioning of the two hemispheres.

In the field of computer science different types of processing tasks require different types architecture. The typical desktop computer will have a single central processing unit, which will read and write data to from its memory. The central processing unit acts in a sequential manner performing a large number simple operations one by one at a very fast pace (several orders of magnitude quicker than the human brain). This is an example of an architecture with few connections and a very fast processing unit. This type of computer excels at performing routine processing tasks such as simple mathematical processing. The task of displaying a word processing document can easily be broken down into a sequence of mathematical operations that convert the data in memory into pixels on the screen. However it is poor at other tasks, often those which humans are good at: recognition of speech and images (faces).

The field of Artificial Intelligence has struggled for many years to make any progress in these fields. Speech recognition is finally becoming more reliable, and visual recognition is only beginning to make progress. For these tasks a very different types of architecture show better results. These are often based on Neural Networks which have been heavily influenced the structure of the human brain and the Hebb model of learning in the synapse. The distinguishing feature of this approach is to have a large number of simpler processors and a very large number of connections between them. Using feedback techniques this type of architecture can be made to learn by strengthening some of the connections between processors and weakening others.

Speech and visual processing are mathematically two very different problems. Speech is a one-dimensional temporal problem where as vision is a three dimensional special problem. Speed of processing is more important for temporal problems, whereas there are more interacting variables in spatial problems and requiring tasks like mentally rotating objects. The types of architecture for the two will be different. Speculatively the types of architecture for the two could depend of the ration of processors to connections with more connections required for the latter, i.e. the type of distinction observed in the different hemisphere. An emerging field is beginning to look at spatial-temporal problems which may require different architecture again.

Even more speculative is an evolutionary approach to human brain development. The bi-lateral nature of the cortex perhaps owes most to our evolutional heritage where the brain has developed from the earlier mammalian brain where there was a direct connection with the left and right hand sides of the body. Now if we have a bi-lateral cortex, there are two main options, either it can be a pair of redundant systems each performing the same task (as in control systems of an airline), or the two halves can specialize. The cost of redundant systems is probably outweighs the advantages indicating a need to specialize. But how to specialise? One very simple way to achieve this would be to subtly alter the grey matter/white matter ratios and also the presentation of neurotransmitters. The results we see in the human brain could be a simple consequence of this specialization with the variations in functions tending to happen in the side most suitable for it. I have no evidence to backup this paragraph apart from a bit of (right brain) lateral thinking.

Learning styles and personality

Ned Herrmann is "Father of brain dominance technology". He drew on the work of Sperry and developed the theory brain dominance where people develop a dominant mode of thinking preference. These can range from an analytical "left brain" approach to "right brain" approaches involving pattern matching and intuitive understanding. These preferences have their roots in our genetic makeup and how it affects our underlying cognitive capabilities. For example left-right handed preferences have been observed in the womb. As we develop we tend to respond with our strongest abilities as these lead to quicker short-term rewards. This can create a positive feedback system that will strengthen those abilities. Eventually this can lead to a powerful preference for one style over the other and a dislike and discomfort for other modes of thinking.

Herrmann then went onto develop the four-quadrant model of cognitive preferences and a questionnaire called the Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI) , . The inspiration for this model came from dividing the brain into as four different systems with four preferred styles:

• A: Left cerebral hemisphere - analytical
• B: Left limbic system - sequential
• C: Right limbic system - interpersonal
• D: Right cerebral hemisphere - imaginative

An immediate critique is that there seems to be little evidence for differences in the left and right hand limbic systems. However, Herrmann's system does not try to be an accurate model of the way the brain functions. Instead it should really be thought of as a model of different styles, partially inspired by the brain, but also the result of extensive questionnaires. As he refined his questionnaires four (rather than just two) separate clusters seemed to emerge which are reflected in the model. Considerable work has gone into testing the validity of this system with overall positive results.

It is worth examining these four styles in more detail:

A Quadrant: Analytical thinking.

• Key word: logical, factual, critical, technical and quantitative.
• Preferred activities: collecting data, listening to informational lectures, reading textbooks. Judging ideas based on facts, criteria and logical reasoning.

B Quadrant: Sequential thinking.

• Key word: conservative, structured, organised, detailed, and planned.
• Preferred activities: following directions, repetitive detailed homework problems, time management and schedules.

C Quadrant: Interpersonal thinking

• Key word: kinaesthetic, emotional, spiritual, sensory, feeling.
• Preferred activities: listening to and sharing ideas, looking for personal meaning, sensory input, and group study.

D Quadrant: Imaginative thinking.

• Key word: Visual, holistic, intuitive, innovative, and conceptual.
• Preferred activities: Looking at the big picture, taking initiative, simulations (what if questions), visual aids. Appreciate beauty of a problem, brainstorming.

One of the central ideas of the Herrmann's approach it to develop "whole brain thinking". This focussing on strengthening the week points by using techniques that require a particular style of thinking. This can lead to "Creative problem solving" where a combination of different techniques can be used to arrive at a better solution.

Herrmann's theory offers a strong critique of traditional educational practices. These can be viewed as focussing on sequential reasoning skills and digestion of established theories. Creativity and C and D quadrant skills are often overshadowed or actively discouraged .

An equivalent non-proprietary instrument developed was developed by Eugene Raudsepp: online test.

A related but independent theory is Howard Gardner's 1983 theory of Multiple Intelligences . Here he identified seven types of intelligence:

• Verbal-linguistic,
• Logical-mathematical,
• Visual-spatial,
• Body-kinaesthetic,
• Auditory-musical,
• Inter-personal communication,
• Intra-personal communication,

Gardner later added Naturalist Intelligence and Existentialist Intelligence. Whilst Gardner had a background in neuro-psychology he does not appear to make any specific links between brain science and his theories. Gardener is a strong believer in the plurality of intelligences and does not consider these to be the definitive set. He is also keen to differentiate intelligences from learning styles. David Lazear's "Eight Ways of Knowing" expands upon this theme giving many sample exercises for each mode, as well as a rather uncritical review of the literature. The visual-spatial seems to have some aspect of right brain styles.

Of these the logical-mathematical intelligence seems a questionable grouping. Arithmetic is often associated with the left brain sequential processing yet there is good evidence that mathematically gifted children tend to be left handed implying a right-brain dominance . This could reflect a difference between early mathematics which is often a repetitive rote learning, and more advanced mathematics which often requires high levels of visual-spatial reasoning and abstract thinking. The naturalistic grouping is also questionable, some very different skills such as classifying flora and fauna (very much a analytical/sequential skill in Herrmann's system) to immersing yourself in a natural setting (accessing emotional and holistic preferences).

Two other theories are also worthy of note: The 4MAT System of Learning styles developed by Bernice McCarthy is derived from the Kolb learning cycle and identifies four main types Divergers (Why questions), Assimilators (What questions), Converges (How questions) and Accommodators (What if questions). Studies have questioned the validity of Kolb's model.

The VARK (Visual Auditory Reading Kinaesthetic) is another related model. Whilst this shows some characteristics of a left-right distinction, such as the presence of Visual and Kinaesthetic components associated with the right hemisphere, it is more a model of perceptual style rather than cognitive style. It does not address the different modes of thinking exhibited by sequential/holistic styles.

The other is the, currently in vogue, Mayer-Briggs personality type index. Here four axes are used to record a persons dominant personality type: introversion/extraversion, sensing/intuitive, thinking/feeling and judging/perceiving. This gives a total of sixteen different types. Recent research (New Scientist, last year) has shown good correlation with some of these types and the presentation of certain genes. There are many other personality type theories and even C G Jung has got into the personality type debate .

If a simplified form of Mayers-Briggs, without the introversion/extraversion spectrum, is used it can be shown that it is essentially equivalent to the HBDI after some rotation of coordinate . In particular sensing/intuitive spectrum (openness to interpretation in the Big 5 model), fits well with a simplified version of left-right hemisphere specialization. It is worth expanding on this axis in more detail:

Information can be gathered through sensation (S), concentrating on facts and details, or through a more intuitive (N) process that seeks and constructs patterns and uses a global or holistic information gathering style

All the above models seem to echo some aspects of the left-right specialisation. As an aside we will briefly examine some of the underlying mathematical techniques used.

A Meta-Theory of Theories and Principal Component Analysis

Various correlations can be made between all these different theories and also with left-right preferences in the brain. It could be said that each theory shows a different aspect of the same fundamental variations.

The number four (or eight) also seems to be popular in these theories. Perhaps this has more to do with the way we perceive information rather the underlying science. For example: splitting things into four quadrants allows two axis to be drawn which means that the variations can be easily drawn on the page. Also it is commonly believed that the maximum number of things we can hold in our short term memory is six of seven. Having four types makes it easy for us to remember the systems!

A mathematically more elegant theory would be to consider that there are actually a very much higher number of variation, which maybe do not nicely fit into convenient categories, perhaps related to individual gene expression!s. Indeed one researcher Guilford has identified over 120 factors to the structure of the human intellect .

Principal component analysis is a statistical technique used for analysing data with a very large number of (correlated) variables. In this mathematical operations are applied to the data to pick out the dominant modes of variation. It is typically found that a large proportion of the variation can be summarised by the first few modes of variation. It could well be the case that the above theories have stumbled upon some of these dominant modes, and other theories report observations which are combinations of these modes. This opens up the question that there may be more as yet undiscovered modes which have weaker responses.

This type technique has been successfully applied to the multitude of different personality test. Which has shown that most are subtle variants on the Big5 test.

Critiques

The whole field of left-right specialisation has been received some very vocal criticism.

"Brain scientists will tell you that the idea of a rigid divide is a popular myth. They even have a word for the public's enthusiasm for the subject: 'dichotomania'. Like 'modern phrenology' the word is a put-down, intended to imply that the real situation is far too complex for simple conclusions to be drawn." , emphasis mine.

I've found no substantial criticism of the underlying science, most of the criticism seems to be of some of secondary works which draw conclusions far removed from science. The word rigid in the above quote is particularly important. It would be incorrect to say that anyone is "left brained" or "right brained" or that a particular task is carried out solely in one hemisphere. Its better to talk of general trends, indeed results from Herrmann seem to indicate that most people have more than one dominant mode . There is also a danger of concentrating one particular aspect of brain behaviour and missing other more important phenomena.

There is also a vigorous globalisation/localisation debate. Are mental tasks carried out over the whole brain or in one particular area? Hard and fast answers seem to be elusive. Brain scan techniques do seem to suggest that certain tasks have greater levels of activity in particular areas. But there can be difference in individual people especially depending on handedness.

The idea of repressed intellect seems to be common in some of these secondary works. With the idea that our intellectual capacity has been repressed by school, and society, and that all we need is a few simple techniques to let our creativity flow.

One particular book seems to be a favourite target for critiques: "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain: How to unlock your hidden artistic talents" by Betty Edwards . A lot of the criticism seems to be inspired by the title without a careful reading of the inside. Whilst it does present a simplified view of the brain it does also have one of the most concrete and convincing examples of technique specifically designed to utilise certain brain functions. This is concerned with copying a picture. Apparently, one of the problems with accurate drawing is caused by our symbolic processing: we tend to use pathways similar to those used for language to process images and copy images. This can result in a cartoon style result. By the simple procedure of turning the picture to be copied upside-down the symbolic processing is suppressed and very much more accurate pictures result.

Gardner's work seems to have also drawn a lot of criticism . Much of this stems around the use of the word "intelligence", where "interest" might be a more appropriate term. Gardner defines "an intelligence" as set of techniques used to solve a problem or produce a work (e.g. a scientific theory or musical composition) . Personally I'm suspicious over any use of the word intelligence, "learning style" (i.e. techniques we use learn) seems a more concrete term to use. Other critiques focus around the lack of evidence for results from the classroom.

I've found Gardner's work (actually Lazear's interpretation) to be rather unsatisfactory. Certain parts of the classification seem to be muddled, there seems to be no treatment of concepts of holistic (large system, D quadrant) understanding. The work as a whole is void of any critical analysis, instead treating the theory as a given.

Herrmann's work does not seem to have attracted as much criticism, indeed when viewed as a representation of the Mayers-Briggs scheme there seems to be overwhelming evidence for the general scheme. Critiques of Mayers-Briggs (and by implication Herrmann) centre on the methodology used rather than the underlying traits: the lack of falsifiability, the possibility that subjects will give responses to enhance certain characteristics they would like to have, and the dangers of pigeonholing.

Educational Implications

If we accept the theory of left-right dominance and learning styles then there are profound implications for education:

Most ... educators take the traditional view of students as being a homogenous learning group, with similar interest in [and] aptitudes for the subject. However, greater learning and understanding may be accomplished if the learning group is thought of as being heterogeneous, that is, highly dissimilar in interest and aptitudes.

These variations have implications throughout the process of education:

• Selection of appropriate courses: both those suited to the learning style of student, but also those aimed at strengthening certain aspects.
• Methods of delivery of material: using techniques which appeal to a range of senses but also with a mix of big picture and detail. Some students may prefer to see the big picture first and then break it down, other may prefer to study the details first working up in a logical manner to more involved material.
• Activities that appeal to and strengthen different styles.
• Assessment methods that reward different styles but which also stimulate different modes of thinking.

Awareness of a students learning styles may help in tailoring a course, although there is a danger of pigeonholing. These need no necessarily be through a formal questionnaire, a teacher may become aware of the styles as they work with the student, showing a good differentiation. Initial assessment such as the VARK test may be useful, but reaction to this at St Austell seems to be mixed:

We don't use the VARK results much as they generally give multi-modal results" Anon.

There seems to be a problem with what to do with the results to the once they are collected. How do we use these results to inform our teaching?

Awareness of their own preferred styles can be a useful tool for teachers: do they tend to work with a particular style? Could other techniques be used in their teaching? How much are their own ideas of education influenced by their preferred styles?

For example when asked the question "What is wrong with education?" a left brained thinker would typically reply, "Get back to basis and discipline - get rid of unnecessary frills like sport and art". A right-brained thinker would rather suggest cooperative, hands on educational activities, including integrating social and creative activities into the whole of education.

And perhaps more importantly how do they react to students with a different style?

Some good examples of very different educational styles can be found in the field of introductory IT.

The European Computer Driving License (ECDL) lies strongly in a quadrant B learning and assessment style. The course material consists of a very step-by-step approach: "type this text", "click this button". The assessment follows a similar style: make this heading bold, and a paragraph here. As such it may be appropriate to many learners, who comprise much of the intended client group, but it might not be suitable to others. Furthermore, it does not address all the skill necessary for fully successfully using a computer, issues like how to design a document or application, or how to successfully navigate the very diverse nature of the Internet.

This can be contrasted with the Open College Network's introductory IT course and assessment. The assessment were heavily based around portfolio building with a criteria referenced making scheme. This more open ended system address a broader range of skills and are closer to how a computer will actually be used. This did require greater input from the teacher and cross-referencing work pieces with criteria can be a confusing process.

Conclusions

The biological understanding of how two the two hemisphere of our brain function has now reached general consensus. There is still much work to do, particularly on the differences observed between individuals and understanding all the brain processes involved on cognition. We may never find the localisers dream of every pattern of though can be located into specific areas, things are more likely to show some combination of local and global processing. No doubt much more will be found this century as techniques of functional brain imaging and genetic understanding improve.

There also seems to be a convergence of the different models of learning styles and personality, which all seem to echo some flavour of left-right specialisation.

However, it probably unwise to make too much of a causal link between biology and learning styles as it can lead to polarised ideas that we are either a left-brained or right-brained thinker. In reality we show a mix of different styles influenced as much by past experience as by biology. The theory gives us just one dimension to describe the vast range of difference in peoples thinking.

These theories, which have been around for the past thirty years, do raise many important questions for education. Has the educational system responded? There is some evidence that it has: there is a wider range of activities used in the class room. But there is still much to address: we still have high numbers of students who do not respond well to education, is this a learning styles issue?

For me studying this issue has been an interesting journey. It has focussed my attention on the different modes of thinking and styles used by the different authors. For example Lazear seems to use a very visual style, trying to describe all aspects of learning, but little critical analysis. Other authors are of a more critical persuasion often presenting their work in a more linear fashion. This raises questions about how to judge each work: is it just a reflection of the favoured modes of the authors and should these be judged by other criteria?

It has also caused me to think about the range of skills used in writing this essay:

• Accumulation of information
• Critical analysis of the sources
• Fitting the information into a coherent whole
• Filtering the information
• Presenting the information in a sequential manor
• Attention to detail and time management

These seem to address a wide range of techniques across both side of the brain.

At one point I had hopped to look at how Dyslexia fitted with this scheme, however time and space precluded this. Intriguingly the two examples of quadrant D thinkers in Lumsdaine: Einstein and De-Vinci are both also listed as dyslexic and left-handed. One study seems to indicate that there is a relationship but its far from clear and seems to indicate that dyslexics may not be a coherent grouping showing bi-model results in two laterilazation tests.

To end I would like to finish with a cartoon from Scot Mc Cloud's "Understanding Comics" . For me this illustrates much of a "right-brain style": strongly visual, and big conceptual concepts. If only all education was done this way!

References

Brain Biology

• S Rose, The Making of Memory, Bantam Books, London, 1992
• S. Pinker, The Language Instinct, Penguin, 1994.
• R.W. Sperry, Brain bisection and consciousness, in How the Self Controls Its Brain, ed C. Eccles. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1966.
• R. Carter, Mapping the Mind, Phoenix, London, 2004, Originally Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1998..
• D Falk, Braindance, Henry Holy, New York, 1992.
• Sala, Sergio Della, editor. Mind myths: Exploring popular assumptions about the mind and brain. J. Wiley & Sons, New York. 1999.

Learning Styles and personality types

• Ned Herrmann, The Creative Brain, Brain Books, Lake Lure, North Carolina, 1990.
• Herrmann International website.
• E. Lumsdaine, M. Lumsdaine, Creative Problem Solving, McGraw-Hill, 1995.
• E. Raudsepp, Managing Your Career. College Edition of the National Employment Weekly, Fall, 7-11. 1992.
• David Lazear, Eight ways of knowing: Teaching for Multiple Intelligences (3rd edition). SkyLight Professional Development, Illinois, 1999.
• Gardener, Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligence (1983) ISBN 0465025102 (1993 ed.)
• C. G. Jung, Gerhard Adler, R. F.C. Hull, Psychological Types (Collected Works of C.G. Jung Vol.6) Bollingen, 1976.
• J.P. Guilford, Way Beyond the IQ, Creative Education Foundation, 1977.
• Wikipedia, Theories of multiple intelligences, (Version 11 April 05).
• Wikipedia, Mayers-Briggs Type Indicator (Version 11 April 05).
• kuro5hin, Describes the history of the Big5

Other

• A Growth Model for Shape, R. J. Morris, J.T. Kent, K.V. Mardia, R. G. Ackroyd, Proc. Medical Image Understanding and Analysis, London 2000.
• H. Singh, M.W. O'Boyle, Interhemispheric Interaction During Global-Local Processing in Mathematatically Gifted Adolescents, Average-Ability Youth, and College Students. Neuropsychology, Vol 18 No 2, 2004.
• Stout, D.E. & Ruble, T.L. (1994). A reassessment of the Role of the Learning Style Inventory (LSI-1985) in Accounting Education Research, Journal of Accounting Education, 12(2), 89-104.
• R. Martin, R. Hulme, J. Karayan, Students' Cognitive Styles and Success in AIS Classes, preprint
• Nutt, P.C. (1989). Making Tough Decisions. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
• B. Edwards, Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain, Fontana/Collins, 1982.
• J. J. Taschetta, J.R. Achor, The Whole Brain Approach in Teaching Engineering Technology, 1990 ASEE Conference Proceedings, Vol. 1, (1990) pp 311-316.

 

***참조: 위 글들은 나의  논문이 아닙니다. "학생들의 학습과 영독을 위해" 게시한 논문(http://www.singsurf.org/brain/rightbrain.php)임을 밝힌다.

무단 복재 금함. (독해#1, 2, & 3)***

 

 

 

 

 

 ________________________________________________________

 

@@두뇌과학에 기반을 둔 영재교육 및 수월성교육 특강요청:

강남대학교 이상복교수 ("미국 수월성교육" 저술자, 학국교육개발원발행 - 세계의 수월성교육 저서중에서): brainwork28@hanmail.net

 

출처 : 영재교육

글쓴이 : 이상복 원글보기

메모 :