RELATION BETWEEN SEASON AND BRAIN HEMISPHERE
ACTIVITY IN UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
Boris Zakharov1, Anatoly Tkachev2
1Natural
Sciences Department, LaGuardia Community College, City University of New York,
31-10 Thomson Ave., Long Island City, Queens, NY 11101, USA bzakharov@lagcc.cuny.edu
25
Lesosechnaya Street, Apt. 49, Novosibirsk, 630060, Russia metapractice@gmail.com
Abstract. The mode and teaching methods in education practice remain the same at all seasons.
However, it is well known that the mood of the students is changing from season to season. This
change happens because of many factors that affect brain activity and result on cognitive ability
of students. The study explores the seasonal variation of left and right hemisphere brain activity
among undergraduate students of a big urban Community College. Left and right hemisphere
activity was identified by visual observation of neurological cues during the face-to-face
interview. The study shows a significant shift from predominantly left hemisphere brain activity
during the Fall session toward the prevalence of right hemisphere brain activity during the
Spring session. Female students demonstrate a higher stability of left and right hemispheric
activities between Fall and Spring sessions, whereas male students show a meaningful difference
in their hemispheric activity between seasons.
Keywords: learning, Fall and Spring sessions, gender, left and right brain hemisphere,
lateralization of brain activity.
INTRODUCTION
The study grows from a common observation, which is familiar to all educators, who know
how dramatically students’ mood may vary. Some days our students do a great job in the class,
along with the other days, when students cannot concentrate on the studying. The variations
happen with some regularity and depend on the physiological processes that determine the state
of our students’ minds and, as a result, their ability to learn. Among educators such “crazy days”
are called “right brain days” (Grinder, 1991). Our study was based on a few fundamental
paradigms of modern Psychology and Neuroscience.
 It is well known that emotions result from interaction among physiological states and
cognitive factors (Schachter, Singer, 1962).
 The modern neuroscience recognizes the high complexity of the cognitive process that
consists of multiple parallel processing of sensory input. The substantial data suggests
functional specialization of different areas of the cerebral cortex, which results in
modular organization of the human brain (Gazzaniga, 2000, 2011; Gazzaniga et al.,
2013).
Hypothesis. We hypothesize that at a different time automatically may come to action (or
more precise, take the charge in learning behavior) different (left or right) cerebral hemispheres.
And because their ways to process the incoming information are different, then the result of the
learning process will be also different. We have found that there are some data that let us to
design a comparatively simple way for the evaluation of this hypothesis.
 The unity of human mind and body is an axiom of the neuroscience and psychology. The
idea of the body as a mirror of the mind explains the existence of the neurological cues
that represent brain activity in body language.
 The particular eye movements are indicative of specific sensory components of thought
(Buckner et al., 1987; Sharot et al., 2008). Posture, facial expression, head movements
(Kingsbourne, 1972; Gazzaniga, 2000), and usage of words (Tkachev, 1988, 1999) also
indicate the particular (left or right) hemisphere activity.
MATHERIAL AND METHOD
The study was conducted among undergraduate students who take courses in Human
Anatomy and Physiology, and Vertebrate Anatomy and Physiology. The data were collected
during the face-to-face interview in Fall and Spring semesters of 2011-2013. During the
interview students were asked how the classroom environment affects his or her study. The
answer and neurological cues (facial expression and involuntary eye movements) were
observed and recorded in an individual interview protocol. 118 (36 male and 82 female)
undergraduate students of the LaGuardia Community College (CUNY) were interviewed: 68
(21 male and 46 female) during the Spring sessions and 50 subjects (15 male and 35 female)
during the Fall sessions were interviewed.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Fall session
Spring session
Male students
Female students
Male students
Female students
Left (%) Right (%)
Left (%)
Right (%)
Left (%)
Right (%)
Left (%)
Right (%)
53
60
40
29
71
47
53
47
Table 1. Neurological cue of left-right brain hemispheres activity in the class between male and
female undergraduate students demonstrates meaningful shift from the left brain hemispheric
activity in the Fall semester to right brain activity in the Spring semester.
Observation of the neurological cues of left-right brain hemisphere activity in the class among
male and female undergraduate students demonstrates a meaningful shift from the brains’ left
hemispheric activity in the Fall semester to brains’ right hemispheric activity in the Spring
semester.
80
70
60
50
Males
40
Females
30
20
10
0
Fall
Spring
Fig. 1. Increase in right brain hemisphere activity during the transition from the Fall session to
Spring session.
Acknowledgement of seasonal dynamic of brain cortex hemispheres’ activity requires increased
flexibility from educators. The male students demonstrate the most dramatic change in their
“state of mind”. During the Fall semester they did very well with the traditional lecture-centered
learning and usually demonstrated high analytical ability. During the Spring semester traditional
lectures bore them and the best way to study for male students at that time is to do something
creative. For example, Peer Instruction technique (Crouch, Mazur, 2001; Lasry et al., 2008;
Mazur, Watkins, 2009; Miller et al., 2006; Nicol, Boyle, 2003; Rao, DiCarlo, 2000) will have the
strongest impact on this group of students during the Spring semester. At the same time female
students demonstrate stable continuous efforts toward learning. For them the combination of
traditional and creative styles of learning is beneficial during the whole academic year (Hazari et
al., 2007; Labudde et al., 2000; Lorenzo et al., 2006).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was inspired by the LaGuardia Community College (CUNY) Carnegie Seminar for
the Teaching and Learning and its facilitator Michele Piso. Authors are very grateful to the
members of the seminar: Patricia Sokolski, Dennis Aguirre, Maria Entezari, Karim Sharif,
Kathleen Karsten, Dionne Miller, Mangala Kothari, Dong Wook, Reem Jaafar, Rahman Zahidur,
and Philip Gimber. Authors value the help of all colleagues that made this study possible.
LITERATURE
Amabile T.M. (1979). Effects of external evaluations on artistic creativity. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 37: 221-233.
Benson D.E. (1994). The neurology of thinking. Oxford University Press.
Buckner W. M. N.M., Reese E., Reese R. (1987). Eye movement as an indicator of sensory
components in thought. Journal of Counseling Psychology 34 (3): 283-287.
Charron S., Koechlin E. (2010). Divided representation of concurrent goals in the human frontal
lobes. Science, 328: 360-363.
Cook N.D. (2002). Tone of voice and mind: The connections between intonation, emotion,
cognition and consciousness. John Benjamins North America, Philadelphia.
Corballis P. (2003). Visuospatial processing and the right-hemisphere interpreter. Brain and
Cognition 53(2): 171-176.
Crouch C.H., Mazur E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American
Journal of Physics 69 (9): 970-977.
Denenberg V. (1977). Assessing the effects of early experience. In: Methods in psychobiology 3:
127-147. Academic Press.
Gazzaniga M.S., Bogen J.E., Sperry R.W. (1967). Dyspraxia following division of the cerebral
commissures. Archives of Neurology 16(6): 606-612.
Gazzaniga M.S., LeDoux J.E. (1978). The integrated mind. Plenum Press, New York.
Gazzaniga M.S., Smylie C.S. (1983). Facial recognition and brain asymmetries: clues to
underlying mechanisms. Ann. Neurology 13: 536-540.
Gazzaniga M.S., Smylie C.S. (1990). Hemispheric mechanisms controlling voluntary and
spontaneous facial expressions. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2: 239-245.
Gazzaniga M.S. (2000). Cerebral specialization and interhemispheric communication. Does the
corpus callosum enable the human condition? Brain 123: 1293-1326.
Gazzaniga M.S. (2011). Who’s in charge? Harper Collins Publishers, New York.
Gazzaniga M.S., Ivry R.B., Mangun G.R. (2013). Cognitive neuroscience. The biology of the
mind. W.W. Norton, New York – London.
Green A., Nicholson N.S., Vaid J., White N., Steiner R. (1990). Hemispheric involvement is
shadowing vs. interpretation: A time-sharing study of simultaneous interpreters with
matched bilingual and monolingual controls. Brain and Language, 39: 107-133.
Grinder M. (1991). Righting the Educational Conveyor Belt. Metamorphous Press. Portland, OR.
Goldberg E., Podell K., Harner R., Lovell M. (1994). Cognitive bias, functional cortical
geometry, and the frontal lobes: laterality, sex, and handedness. Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience, v. 6, N 3: 276-296.
Grodzinsky Y., Amunts K. (2006). Broca’s region. Oxford University Press, New York.
Hari R., Kujala M.V. (2009). Brain basis of human social interaction: From concepts to brain
imaging. Physiological Review 89: 453-479.
Hazari Z., Tai R., Sadler P. (2007). Gender differences in introductory university physics
performance: The influence of high school physics preparation and affective factors.
Science Education 91 (6): 847-876.
Hirstein W., Ramachandran V.S. (1997). Capgras syndrome: A novel probe for understanding
the neural representation of the identity and familiarity of persons. Proceedings of the
Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 264 (1380): 437-444.
Hugdahl K. (2005). Symmetry and asymmetry in the human brain. European Review 13: 119133.
Kingsbourne M. (1972). Eye and head turning indicates cerebral lateralization. Science 179: 539541.
Labudde P., Herzog W., Neuenschwander M.P., Violi E., Gerber C. (2000). Girls and physics:
teaching and learning strategies tested by classroom interventions in grade 11.
International Journal of Science Education 22 (2): 143-157.
Lamb M.R., Robertson L.C., Knight R.T. (1989). Attention and interference in the processing of
global and local information: effects of unilateraltemporal-parietal junction lesions.
Neuropsychologia 27: 471-483.
Lasry N., Mazur E., Watkins J. (2008). Peer instruction: From Harvard to community colleges.
American Journal of Physics 76 (11): 1066-1069.
Lennenberg E.H. (1967). Biological foundations of language. Wiley, London.
Levy J., Trevarthen C., Sperry R.W. (1972). Reception of bilateral chimeric figures following
hemispheric deconnexion. Brain 95: 61-78.
Lorenzo M., Crouch C.H., Mazur E. (2006). Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom.
American Journal of Physics 74 (2): 118-122.
Mazur E., Watkins J. (2009). Just-in-Time Teaching and Peer Instruction. In: Just in Time
Teaching Across the Disciplines. Stylus Publishing, Sterling, VA.
Meaney M., Diorio J., Francis D., Widdowson J., Laplante P., Caldji C., Sharma S., Seckl J.,
Plotsky P. (1996). Early environmental regulation of forebrain glucocorticoid receptor
gene expression: Implications for adrenocortical responses to stress. Developmental
Neuroscience 18: 49-72.
Metcalfe J., Funnell M., Gazzaniga M.S. (1995). Right-hemisphere memory superiority: studies
of a split-brain patient. Psychological Science 6(3): 157-164.
Miller R.L., Santana-Vega E., Terrell M. (2006). Can good questions and peer discussion
improve calculus instruction? Primus 16 (3): 193-203.
Mӧttӧnen R., Jӑrvelӑinen J., Sams M., Hari R. (2005). Viewing speech modulates activity in the
left SI mouth cortex. Neuroimage 24: 731-737.
Nicol D.J., Boyle J.T. (2003). Peer instruction versus class-wide discussion in the large classes:
A comparison of two interaction methods in the wired classroom. Studies in Higher
Education 28 (4): 457-474.
Nishitani N., Avikainen S., Hari R. (2004). Abnormal imitation-related cortical activation
sequences in Asperger’s syndrome. Ann. Neurol. 55: 558-562.
Nishitani N., Schürmann M., Amunts K., Hari R. (2005). Broca’s region: from action to
language. Physiology 20: 60-69.
Pecchia L., Martin J.L., Ragozzino A., Vanzanella C., Scognamiglio A., Mirarchi L., Morgan
S.P. (2013), User needs elicitation via analytic hierarchy process (AHP). A case study on
a Computed Tomography (CT) scanner. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making,
13: 2-14.
Phelps E.A., Gazzaniga M.S. (1992). Hemispheric differences in mnemonic processing: the
effects of left hemisphere interpretation. Neuropsychologia 30: 293-297.
Rao S., DiCarlo S. (2000). Peer instruction improves performance on quizzes. Advances in
Physiology Education 24 (1): 51-55.
Sakai K.L., Tatsuno Y., Suzuki K., Kimura H., Ichida Y. (2005). Sign and speech: amodal
commonality in left hemisphere dominance for comprehension of sentences. Brain 128:
1407-1417.
Schachter S., Singer J.E. (1962). Cognitive, social, and physiological determinants of emotional
state. Psychological Review 69: 379-399.
Sharot T., Davidson M.L., Carson M.M., Phelps E.A. (2008). Eye Movements Predict
Recollective Experience. PLoS ONE 3(8): e2884. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002884.
Singer S.F. (1994). Localization and lateralization in the delusion of substitution. Psychology 27:
168-176.
Snell R.S. (1999). Clinical neuroanatomy for medical students (5th Edition). Lippincott Williams
& Wilkins.
Springer S., Deutsch G. (1997). Left brain, right brain. Freeman, San Francisco.