Sheppard, Kimberly 1
Annotated Bibliography
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.
Dry Creek Elementary School is discussed in their change from a traditional teaching
environment to a brain-based teaching environment. The article, on more than one
occasion, connects the brain to a computer. Examples of some of the methods that Dry
Creek School uses are also explained. This is an example of how one particular school
went through dramatic changes both for the success of faculty and students using brainbased learning. Some may not agree with the idea that students should have as much
time as they need to research in an area as this would not create a structured school day.
On that line of thought, 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. It provides helpful examples of the
school’s structure and daily life. The article is a prime United States example to
compare to other schools. One of the authors, Renate Caine, is Associate Professor of
Education and Executive Director of the Center for Research in Integrative
Learning/Teaching at California State University and Geoffrey Caine is an Adjunct
Professor at University of Redlands, California.
ARTICLES PEER REVIEWED
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
Sheppard, Kimberly 2
Annotated Bibliography
Truths and misconceptions of brain-based learning are the focus of this article. The
article shows specific concern in the area of Special Education and how too many
teachers believe using these strategies will work for any child. The reader is also
reminded that while there is some truth to the research, attention should still be shown
in teaching children using these strategies and theories. Four theories are discussed:
teaching using right vs. left brain instruction, early brain development in different
stages of children, teaching using brain-based instruction, and teaching to multiple
intelligences. The 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 a researcher in this field, this article is an essential
reminder of the criticisms and concerns of brain-based learning. The author provides
legitimate questions and points that would provide an excellent basis for a study in
proper brain-based strategies. The authors, Larry Alferink and Valeri Farmer-Dougan,
are both from Illinois State University.
Geake, J. (2008). Neuromythologies in education. Educational Research, 50(2), 123-133.
doi:10.1080/00131880802082518
The article shows a completely opposing view of brain-based learning. Several theories
are highlighted and explained. Although the author states that there is some truth to
Brain-based learning, it is too often over exaggerated. Examples of neuromyths
include: 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, or a life raft, is how the author describes brainbased learning. The author is critical of teachers that would accept a practice without
Sheppard, Kimberly 3
Annotated Bibliography
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. It would be interesting to know if the author’s viewpoint has come
from the classroom, of observing in the classroom, or from discussing with individuals
what happens in a classroom. Many believe it helps to know areas that are weak in
neuroscience, draw suspicion and, lack evidence. The author, John Geake, is from
Oxford Brookes University, United Kingdom.
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.
Learning differences between the right and left brain hemispheres are at times disputed.
This article references studies that defend the theory and explain the process. BrainBased Learning and Constructivist Learning Approaches are also discussed and the
author states that the research in neuroscience should drive the 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, and a sensory approach
to learning. The language of the article is neither too basic nor too scientific. The
documents referenced are well known and also provided is a 12 step process to
assessing brain-based learning. The author is not biased or persuasive but does provide
facts for further research. Overall, this article would be helpful in 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
Sheppard, Kimberly 4
Annotated Bibliography
author, Mehmet Gulpinar, MD, is from Marmara University, School of Medicine,
Istanbul, Turkey.
Purdy, N., & Morrison, H. (2009). Cognitive neuroscience and education: Unraveling the
confusion. Oxford Review of Education, 35(1), 99-109. doi:10.1080/03054980802404741
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. The authors suggest a need for more legitimate data surveys to provide more
communication between classroom teachers and researchers using Brain-based learning
techniques in the classroom. The methodology used was predominately qualitative
data. The authors stated 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 neuroscientists
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. It is a very interesting concept
but what would a degree in education and neuroscience require. Would teachers then
receive more money and planning time to perform the necessary neuroscientific tests
for assessment? The authors encourage the teacher to be the professional and observe
what the student is seeing, however, this can be very subjective. One of the authors,
Noel Purdy is from Stranmillis University College, Belfast and the other author, Hugh
Sheppard, Kimberly 5
Annotated Bibliography
Morrison, is from Queen’s University, Belfast. Their interest stemmed from the current
curriculum reform in Northern Ireland.
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
Using at times an entertaining narrative form, the article describes how learning
stimulates neurotransmitters. The neuroscientific vocabulary is similar to other
neuroscientist’s work and is clear and to the point. The main focus of the article is how
to stimulate elementary children in the classroom so that brain activity is at the highest
possible. A discussion on assessment tools for a Brain-based learning classroom is also
included. The article is very informative and contains entertaining dialogues, as well
as, providing good definitions of neuroscience vocabulary. It is a very easy read for a
busy elementary teacher that would be overwhelmed if they didn’t have a knowledge of
neuroscience. Sources provide excellent global coverage. An enjoyable mental picture
of the author’s idea of a brain-based classroom is provided. It was easy to see how
such a classroom would stimulate students in their learning environment. This could
easily provide an example of a brain-based classroom for a teacher professional
learning day. Stephen Rushton, one of the authors, is from the University of South
Florida and A. Juola-Rushton is a teacher at Wakeland Elementary School, Bradenton,
Florida.
Schrag, F. (2011). Does neuroscience matter for education?. Educational Theory, 61(2), 221237. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.2011.00401.x
Sheppard, Kimberly 6
Annotated Bibliography
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, philosopher’s viewpoints in this
field, 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 brainbased 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 saying, although there is little scientific
evidence; someone’s got to try it to see if it works. Francis Schrag is in the Department
of Educational Policy Studies at the University of Wisconsin.
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
In the fields of neuroscience and education there are distinct differences in vocabulary
as mentioned by Tommerdahl. Discussed are five different levels: 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
Sheppard, Kimberly 7
Annotated Bibliography
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. An excellent point that
the author made is 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. Jodi Thommerdahl, the author is affiliated with
the University of Birmingham, United Kingdom and University of Texas, United States
of America.
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
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. It was noted that someone with
normal range language skills has a lopsided brain, since the right side of the brain is
growing faster as the language components are learned. Someone with deficits in
language acquisition will have a brain with equal sides because they are not learning or
retaining information. 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 time frame for when information should be
Sheppard, Kimberly 8
Annotated Bibliography
presented. It does not mean that a child cannot learn before or after those time frames.
The scientific vocabulary, although greater than most educators would feel comfortable
with, was well explained and equipment was clearly defined. Analogies are very when
learning and this article provided a number of great examples. Leslie Wasserman, the
author is with the University of Akron, Ohio.
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
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 studied some strategies of 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. The article would be helpful for an educator with little knowledge
in the area of brain function. The clear and even at times visual description of the
learning process the brain goes through was helpful to create mental pictures. This
would be a source that could be used for further reference. James Zull is a professor of
biology at Case Western Reserve University. He is also the founding director for the
University Center of Innovation in Teaching and Education at Case Western.