Sheppard, Kimberly
Annotated Bibliography
ARTICLES NON-PEER REVIEWED
Caine, R., & Caine, G. (1995). Reinventing schools through brain-based learning. Educational
Leadership, 52(7), 43. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
G:\Doctorate Research\Reinventing schools through brain-based learning..pdf
Dry Creek School is discussed in their change from a traditional teaching
environment to a brain-based teaching environment. It connects the brain to a
computer and shows examples of some of the methods that Dry Creek School
uses.
This is a good example of how one particular school went through dramatic
changes both for the faculty and students using brain-based learning. It provides
helpful examples of the schools structure and daily life.
Personally, the article holds a prime example in the United States for me to
compare to other schools. I didn’t agree with the idea that students should have as
much time as they need to research in an area. Many schools have created a
school wide schedule to insure that students with special needs are able to be
resourced at times during the day when they will miss the least amount of
information.
ARTICLES PEER REVIEWED
Sheppard, Kimberly
Alferink, L. A., & Farmer-Dougan, V. (2010). Brain-(not) based education: Dangers of
misunderstanding and misapplication of neuroscience research. Exceptionality, 18(1), 4252. doi:10.1080/09362830903462573
G:\Doctorate Research\Brain-(not) Based Education- Dangers of Misunderstanding and
Misapplication.pdf
The focus is on the truths and misconceptions of brain-based learning. Shows
specific concern in the area of Special Education and reminds that while there is
truth to the research caution should still be shown in teaching children. Four
theories are discussed: right vs. left brain instruction, early brain development,
brain-based instruction, and teaching to multiple intelligences.
Information and theories in the article are well documented and although the
author is somewhat biased against brain-based learning, the cautions that are
presented are important ones to consider.
For me this article was an essential reminder of the criticisms of brain-based
learning. The author provided legitimate questions and concerns that would
provide an excellent basis for a study in proper brain-based strategies.
Geake, J. (2008). Neuromythologies in education. Educational Research, 50(2), 123-133.
doi:10.1080/00131880802082518
G:\Doctorate Research\Neuromythologies in education.pdf
The article shows a completely opposing view of brain-based learning. Several
areas are highlighted and although the author states that there is some truth it is
Sheppard, Kimberly
too often over exaggerated. Examples of neuromyths include: that we only use
10% of our brain, multiple intelligences, Brain Gym, left- and right-brained
thinking, VAK (visual, auditory and kinesthetic) learning styles, and water as
brain food.
One-size-fits all, life raft, is how the author describes brain-based learning. They
are critical of teachers that would accept a practice without documented scientific
evidence that it is acceptable. The blame or reason given why teachers might
accept these new strategies is put partly on politicians who push for higher test
scores.
I would be curious if the idea the author has of the classroom came from the
classroom, or from discussing with individuals what happens in a classroom.
Personally, it helps to know areas that weak in neuroscience and draw suspicion
and lack evidence. Although, I disagreed with this author on several issues, I do
understand that he has reason to doubt and I hope that will change.
Gülpinar, M. (2005). The principles of brain-based learning and constructivist models in
education. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 5(2), 299-306. Retrieved from
EBSCOhost.
The Principles of Brain Based Learning and Constructivist Models in Education.pdf
Learning differences between the right and left brain hemispheres are at times
disputed. This article references studies that defend the theory and explains the
process. Brain-Based Learning and Constructivist Learning Approaches are also
discussed and the author states that the research in neuroscience should drive the
Sheppard, Kimberly
assessments used in a brain-based classroom. Three important factors for the best
learning experience are: the overall climate of the classroom, real-life learning
experiences, sensory approach to learning.
The language of the article is neither too basic nor too scientific. The documents
referenced are well known and provided is a 12 step to assessing brain-based
learning. The author is not biased or persuasive but does provide facts for further
research.
Overall, this article would be a help in my research for possible ways to assess
brain-based learning. The areas of brain-based learning that are described are ones
that are typically known by many professionals in education. The references used
are ones that that I would like to look at.
Purdy, N., & Morrison, H. (2009). Cognitive neuroscience and education: Unraveling the
confusion. Oxford Review of Education, 35(1), 99-109. doi:10.1080/03054980802404741
G:\Doctorate Research\Cognitive Neuroscience and education - unravelling the
confusion.pdf
This article reviewed the debate about Brain-Based Learning and Neuroscience
and how it is being used in the classroom. They are concerned with the myths in
recent research. They request for data surveys and more communication between
classroom teachers and researchers using Brain-based learning techniques in the
classroom.
Sheppard, Kimberly
The overall caution of the author was understand and even expected. The use of
qualitative data was predominantly the methodology used. The favored source of
this author, Wittgenstein, called for a different vocabulary when it comes to
Neuroscience. The author continued to that we cannot connect psychological
attributes to the brain. For example it was said that the brain doesn’t feel pain but
it is the person that feels pain. Agreeably, the concern is that there is no current
test to determine true learning achieved through Brain-Based learning techniques.
As an article, it provided questions to consider for a researcher in this field.
There are a number of current neuroscientist and opponents that are cited in this
program that prove valuable to this field of research. It talks about the future
teacher being a neuroscientist. I think this sounds fantastic for me personally but
what would the degree require. Would teachers then receive more money and
planning time to perform the necessary neuroscientific tests for assessment? He
encourages the teacher to be the professional and observe what the student is
seeing. This is very complimentary to the teacher but it is also very subjective.
Rushton, S., Juola-Rushton, A., & Larkin, E. (2010). Neuroscience, play and early childhood
education: Connections, implications and assessment. Early Childhood Education
Journal, 37(5), 351-361. doi:10.1007/s10643-009-0359-3
G:\Doctorate Research\Neuroscience, Play and Early Childhood Education Connections, Implications and Assessment.pdf
This explains, in part narrative form, how learning stimulates neurotransmitters.
The neuroscientific vocabulary is similar to other neuroscientists. The focus of
Sheppard, Kimberly
the article is how to stimulate elementary children in the classroom that brain
activity is at the highest possible. Also included is a discussion on assessment
tools for a Brain-based learning classroom.
As well as providing good definitions of neuroscience vocabulary, the article is
also very informative and entertaining dialogues. It is a very easy read for a busy
elementary teacher. Sources provide excellent global coverage.
I appreciated and enjoyed a mental picture of the author’s idea of a brain-based
classroom. It was easy to see how such a classroom would stimulate students in
their learning environment. It is also an encouragement that this classroom could
be replicated in some form.
Schrag, F. (2011). Does neuroscience matter for education?. Educational Theory, 61(2), 221237. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.2011.00401.x
DOES NEUROSCIENCE MATTER FOR EDUCATION.pdf
Although the author does look at this question the predominate thought of the
paper is that neuroscience is more likely to affect the learning than the teaching in
a classroom. This is a review of two anthologies: The Jossey-Bass Reader on the
Brain and Learning and New Philosophies of Learning. There are three main
parts: the review of the articles, look at philosophers on these points, the author’s
solution. He does not believe that neuroscience will help in the classroom.
The idea mentioned in the first sentence above about how neuroscience will affect
the classroom is interesting and a different approach than many. Those against
brain-based learning say that it is not the brain that learns and many of those for
Sheppard, Kimberly
brain-based learning will state that the brain is how we learn. The author was
stating that the brain is what helps the person learn. The references were broad;
everything from Descartes to more modern neuroscientists and philosophers.
I found this to actually be an exciting read that draws the reader in, whether they
agree with the topic or not. From a research standpoint his message was almost
saying, instead of saying there is no scientific evidence; someone’s got to try it to
see if it works. This article could be easily referenced.
Tommerdahl, J. (2010). A model for bridging the gap between neuroscience and education.
Oxford Review of Education, 36(1), 97-109. doi:10.1080/03054980903518936
A model for bridging the gap between neuroscience and education.pdf
In the fields of neuroscience and education there are distinct differences in
vocabulary as mentioned by Tommerdahl. Discussed are five different levels
discussed: neuroscience, cognitive neuroscience, psychological mechanisms,
educational theory, and finally the classroom. The suggestion is that these levels
are not linear in that they go from top to bottom but instead that they must transfer
information continually up and down to be successful.
This is more of a comparison/contrast article that looks at both sides of the coin.
It recommends caution when using brain-based approaches and notes that there is
still a large communication gap from neuroscientists to educators. There is a
great restaurant analogy that describes the neuroscientists as the raw foods
distributors and the educators as the cooks, experimenting with the ingredients.
Sheppard, Kimberly
I appreciate the statement that brain-based methodologies are not supposed to be
the only one used but instead they should be used in conjunction with more
prominent methodologies. The author shows great knowledge in the field and
would be a great resource to use for further information.
Wasserman, L. (2007). The correlation between brain development, language acquisition, and
cognition. Early Childhood Education Journal, 34(6), 415-418. doi:10.1007/s10643-0070155-x
G:\Doctorate Research\The Correlation Between Brain Development, Language
Acquisition, and Cognition.pdf
The brain is noted to have been studied since 1700 B.C., by the Egyptians. The
language center of the brain is the first part discussed, noting that someone with
normal range language skills are lopsided. Whereas someone with deficits in
language acquisition will have a brain with equal sides at the right side of the
brain is growing faster as the language components are learned. A critical time
for maximum learning is the second point mentioned and the third is information
for educators.
The information presented is told so that educators will have more of timeline
when information should be presented. It does not mean that a child cannot learn
before or after those timelines. The scientific vocabulary, although greater than
most educators would feel comfortable with, was well explained and equipment
was defined.
Sheppard, Kimberly
Analogies are very helpful to me when learning and this article provided a
number of great examples. The idea of synapses are not new to me but I
appreciated the story that was told to as an example of how important it is to
always continue learning and to not give up on students.
Zull, J. E. (2006). Key aspects of how the brain learns. New Directions for Adult & Continuing
Education, (110), 3-9. doi:10.1002/ace.213
G:\Personal\Doctorate Research\Key aspects of how the brain learns..pdf
This concise article provides basic information about brain parts and functions for
educators. Sensory data is discussed and what is happening to the brain as it takes
in this new information. The last page provides notes specifically for the
educator on the theories presented and reiterates that they are just theories that
may change as universal knowledge about the brain grows.
If an educator has studies some strategies to brain based learning but is interested
in why they work this will be beneficial. The word bauplan is mentioned but is
never truly defined. For an educator, understanding which part of the brain that
you are trying to reach with any particular assignment would be helpful while
planning a lesson. This article provides a start to research in brain-based learning.
The information didn’t seem crammed in but instead broken down into digestible
sections.
Personally, I found the article helpful as I have little knowledge in the area of
brain function. The clear and even at times visual description of the learning
Sheppard, Kimberly
process the brain goes through was helpful to create mental pictures. This would
be a source that I could return to for further reference.