home
| How the Bleep Do We Learn? |
How do we learn? How a body, be it government or corporate, answers that question will affect the success of its country or business in today’s evolving economy. We are now in the “Information Age” where knowledge is being described as a “rentable skill”, and the ability to continuously innovate will determine the extent of one’s ability to compete in the marketplace. De la Mothe writes: If we accept the accuracy of these statements, it becomes critical that we have clarity about how to develop the required skills in our nation’s students. Before we can effectively educate the youth with respect to invention and innovation, however, they must become more literate and numerate than they are now. We consider Canada to be a well-educated nation, but recent studies show (2) that significant numbers of Canadian children and adults, including college and university students, are not sufficiently literate to compete in the world economy. Only when we can accomplish the task of effectively increasing literacy and numeracy skills while students also “learn how to learn” will we as a nation be prepared for the future. Intuition is the source of scientific knowledge. We thus return to the original question and add two more: Is our current paradigm for learning serving us? Is there another one to consider? This paper will examine our understanding of learning through the lens of classical physics and contrast it with one that might emerge within the context of a branch of quantum physics that strays radically from traditionally held views about the world and what constitutes reality. Classical physics is also referred to as “Newtonian” physics because this model of reality was developed primarily by Newton. Descartes, Bacon and other 17th century scientists also contributed to this paradigm that explains our sensory perceptions in mathematical terms. We are comfortable with this version because it relates in a common sense way to our human experience. Classical physics offers four basic assumptions about reality that correspond to how we experience the world with our five senses: “Reality” is the only word in the English language that should always be used in quotes. The general worldview developed rapidly via these assumptions, replacing the medieval one that was based on faith and superstition. Scientific methodology was applied to discover explanations about the observable world. Many of these classical ways still adequately explain much of biology, chemistry and the neurosciences and have provided sufficient knowledge to create significant technological advances. With respect to learning, classical researchers have focused on the anatomy of the brain, paying particular attention to brain size and neural connections. Experiments have been conducted to determine, inter alia, how to increase cortical mass and neural connections, what causes reductions in brain size and connections, how to measure whether learning has occurred, and what improves test scores on standardized tests. (3) Research has shown that some activities that do not directly involve literacy or mathematics can enrich skills in these areas. Both in the United States and Canada, arts education research has shown these benefits flowing from music, drama, and visual arts. (4) There is also a growing body of research that suggests that physical activity improves and maintains cognitive processes. (5)
Studies performed in the 1960s (Rosenzweig, Bennett, Diamond, and Krech, 1964) found that rats raised in enriched environments were smarter and had larger brains than rats that received no or little stimulation socially, emotionally or physically. Subsequent studies by the same researchers showed that adult rats were also capable of increasing cortical size and performing better on maze tasks than adult rats from isolated environments. By showing that experience can induce concrete and observable changes in brain structure, these and other studies (Hubel and Weisel, 1962) challenged the belief that our neural brain connections are genetically predetermined and fixed, and have profoundly influenced our understanding of education and the human mind for decades. Despite these studies, however, many people currently believe that there exists a small window during which a child’s brain can be maximally developed, and only if the child is exposed to the right neurologically focused stimulation. Public figures such as Hilary Rodham Clinton and Rob Reiner have supported well-meaning programs that have caused some parents to fear that they may miss their child’s boat if they do not provide the right stimulation at the right time. (6) Bruer address this when he refers to the huge cottage industry of brain-based education as: "…a mixture of very basic but quite dated results from cognitive science and experimental psychology mixed in with really bad brain science….Only by understanding behavior can we understand the brain—there's very little in terms of explanatory value coming back the other way. We simply don't know enough yet." (7) The challenge that exists is that while we are beginning to generate data about what improves one’s ability to learn, we do not understand why it happens. One consequence of this mystery is a lack of homogeneity in the practical application of information in developing pedagogy. We consistently create new methods within the classical paradigm we know. What if our clinging to this paradigm is preventing us from finding universal solutions? This may be occurring for two reasons:
Without a unifying paradigm for brain function and learning that differs in some way from the one to which we currently subscribe, we may chase the elusive learning key, and generate statistics that are not complimentary to our educational systems for some time. Broad, wholesome, charitable views…can not be acquired by vegetating in one’s little corner of the earth. Perhaps at the root of Bruer’s concern is a misapplication of the results of brain studies due to a misunderstanding of the nature of science. In the classic book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (9) science historian Thomas Kuhn describes how the scientific community holds paradigms, “like an accepted judicial decision in the common law.” He explains: This means that scientists are compelled to produce more data to support the paradigm, preferring consistency to novelty. Anomalies are overlooked until they become too disruptive to ignore.
Despite persistent efforts and a continuous flow of innovations by educators around the globe, public education is not achieving desired results. High dropout rates and less than satisfactory literacy rates are prevalent worldwide where public education is available.(10) Are these anomalies disruptive enough to seek an alternative to the classical view when developing pedagogy? Not for some. Peterson acknowledges that many writers of brain theory-based books “talk confidently about what we know in spite of the vastness of our ignorance.” He suggests that we be patient, farsighted and resist deluding ourselves into believing that we know more than we do. Jensen works in conjunction with a dozen neuroscientists who support his work, but believes that less than one percent of neuroscientists see a link between neuroscience and teaching methodology. Is this because the task looms too large or even seems impossible for many? Is it because most of what is being promoted appears to be good common sense rather than science? Is the reluctance of many scientists to enter this field preventing us from entering a new, more effective paradigm? Is it necessary that scientists be involved in developing pedagogy at all? When a thing is new, people say: “It is not true.” Later, when its truth becomes obvious, they say: “It is not important.” Finally, when its importance cannot be denied, they say: “Anyway, it is not new.” Tom Huston suggests that we have a need for scientific support in justifying spirituality: As it is for spirituality, it appears that we cannot walk away from science as we venture into the realm of learning. Considering that classical physics has not opened the door to success in learning for many, it may be time to apply the quantum physics paradigm. The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew. Quantum physics, or quantum mechanics, has been the preeminent scientific description of reality for 70 years. It is a precise mathematical account of the behaviour of fundamental particles that has generated astoundingly accurate predictions about some aspects of reality that could not be explained by classical physics. At the turn of the twentieth century, scientists sought a theory to explain observations in which light (and electromagnetism in general) behaved both as particles and waves, possibly at the same time. Quantum mechanics was developed to account for this nature of light and matter, and was found to offer a superior description of the fabric of physical reality itself. Einstein’s general Theory of Relativity, that connected mass, energy, space and time, also shifted the Newtonian view of the structure of reality. This suggests that we only experience a limited aspect of what reality may be. Quantum mechanics has developed theories in this century that challenge all of the assumptions of classical physics:
Useful as it is under everyday circumstances to say that the world exists “out there” independent of us, that view can no longer be upheld.
J.A. Wheeler
We have to remember that what we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning.
Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it.
The complexity of quantum physics has naturally spawned many interpretations. How far one is willing to stray from classical assumptions about reality determines what version of quantum mechanics one adopts. Some physicists (of whom Einstein was one) subscribe to Neo-realism, and refuse to believe that the world could be so complex, insisting that quantum mechanics is incomplete but “fixable” so that classical assumptions will ultimately be shown to be correct. The Copenhagen interpretation is the orthodox version promoted by Danish physicist Niels Bohr. It contends that there is no knowable reality and that quantum physics means nothing in ordinary human terms. Other interpretations include ones that state that reality is an undivided whole, that there exist many potential universes, or that we need to replace our assumptions about logic with “wave logic”. “Consciousness Creates Reality” is an interpretation that was promoted in the 2005 movie What the Bleep Do We Know? It suggests that reality is created by observation and perhaps even human consciousness. If combined with Bohm’s wholeness interpretation some very interesting possibilities could be applied to learning. For example, what if the unobserved state of reality is a quantum oneness of possibility? Everyone could access this coexistence with everything else by focusing one’s attention inward. Meditation has been promoting such a connection for many millennia. Because there is no such thing as linear time, we could continuously access all that ever has been or could be. Learning would become a practice of accessing and integrating this information.
This would shift our view of what it means to have learning disabilities— individuals would only need to learn to access their connection to unlimited potential, having certainty of its availability. The power of belief and intention has been documented in many ways. Would Helen Keller have achieved what she did without Ann Sullivan’s conviction that she could? Was Mohammed Ali born “the greatest” or did he choose to be great? Did Ray Charles have musical talent when he was repeatedly told he did not, or did he eventually create his talent?
This new paradigm could also explain great “eureka” moments in history. It has been suggested that by having a low level of latent inhibition (filtering little redundant or useless information), habitually creating many ideas, and being in environments with other great thinkers, you increase your chances of discovering something.(17) It could also be argued that by doing those things, you are allowing yourself to access the great flow of quantum knowledge more easily, and, there is no reason why everyone would not have the ability to do the same. Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared Even if we cannot be certain about the “truth” of this interpretation of quantum physics, what if we were to design pedagogy as if it were true? What would it look like? The paradigm for learning could be thus:( I apologize for the repetition.)
Throughout all history, the great wise men and teachers, philosophers, and prophets have disagreed with one another on many different things. It is only on this one point that they are in complete and unanimous agreement. - We become what we think about. In practical terms, an ideal educational program would function within this new paradigm and integrate all forms of intelligence while creating a solid foundation in the skills necessary to succeed in both school and life. Particular attention would be paid to the ability to be focused, motivated, literate and numerate. Collaborative learning would be a central feature of the program because in both having a strong sense of belonging to a community, and teaching what we know to others, our learning is enhanced. Students would begin by using relaxation techniques, experiencing a sense of community and safety while preparing to learn. Focus and balance would be achieved through breathing, visualization, movement, music and enjoyable interactions with others. Opportunities for reflection would be made available in a variety of ways. Students would experience success quickly and repeatedly by mastering physical coordination, responsibility for attention and intention, the upper and lower case alphabets, punctuation, dictionary use, handwriting, text decoding and reading comprehension. They would then move on to master and personally integrate concepts such as change, consequence, cause and effect, choice, time, sequence and order versus disorder. A strong foundation in numeracy would be developed through mastery of counting, place value, and arithmetic functions. Such a program would be enhanced within the paradigm described above, but could also be successful if educators simply maintained an unflagging belief in everyone’s ability to learn.(18) Our current application of classical physics to learning has resulted in the exclusion of many from adequate levels of literacy and higher education. There is a belief that we are separate from each other and that some brains cannot learn as well as others. The effect of this likely extends to health and social challenges faced daily. As we watch more children falling between the cracks of our current system, there is an increasing contrast between what we desire and what we are experiencing. Until that contrast is great enough to move a critical mass of humans from a holding a velleity to taking action, we will maintain our current paradigm. Quantum mechanics opens up many possibilities for learning. Its complexity can overwhelm and stifle us if we allow it to. Imagine what might happen if we give it a chance. Endnotes:
Abused Children Have Smaller Brains
“Hilary Clinton, for instance, told the nation that "It is clear that by the time most children start preschool, the architecture of the brain has essentially been constructed." Rob Reiner, the Hollywood director and creator of the "I Am Your Child" campaign, proclaimed that the brain was "cooked" by age ten.”
In 1975, 192 “leading scientists”, including B.F. Skinner, Fred Hoyle, Linus Pauling, Sir Francis Crick and 15 other Nobel laureates, signed a manifesto against astrology. Carl Sagan declined to participate, not because he believed in astrology, but because the fact that no mechanism was known for testing it, that did not mean that it did not exist.
|