Neuroscience and Education

by David Kramaley, MSc Psychology of Education (BPS) student at Bristol University

[simplydt-blog]

Read my other blogs over at...

Hi everyone, if you’ve stumbled upon my tumblr blog, I’m sad to say it’s no longer maintained but I am now blogging over at https://www.chessable.com/blog/ and http://davidkramaley.com - check it out!

[simplydt-blog]

Internet and technology, good or bad?

In the last decade, there has been increasing debate in the scientific community about whether technology is good or bad. To keep it simple, it seems to come down to what you do when you are using technology and the internet. There are good ways of using it and bad ways as well. This is the case with almost anything we do as humans.

However, for me, the big issue is that as the many bad ways of using technology become commonplace, they are seen as 'normal' and just the way we do things in this day and age. Few people ever stop to question whether the norm is good for us, it's normal isn't it? So while scientists debate with inconclusive evidence, confounding factors, the big tech companies (Facebook, Google) keep going. These corporate giants do not stop to question what they are doing, ethically or scientifically. User engagement means more money in their pocket, disguised behind a cleverly written mission statement.

Would it not be good for the ones making all the money out of technology to encourage critical research? Such research is desperately needed to understand the pros and cons better. How do we reduce the chance that we shall use technology maladaptively?

From my experience working in technology, such questions are very rarely considered. Tech companies want users as 'engaged' as possible, never thinking about effects on their users well-being. Responsible technology design is not yet commonplace, but as one converted technologist, I hope and will work towards it so that one day it will be.

PS.- Going back to my post and confession from a few weeks ago, I've managed to reduce my tech consumption even further. The result? I sleep better; I remember better, and I am more productive when I do go on-line and work. PPS.- A great, inspiring talk, about stillness and solitude and how technology is affecting this key life skill: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUBawr1hUwo

[simplydt-blog]

ADHD, Dyslexia and Dyscalculia, do they exist?

Do learning disorders such as ADHD, Dyslexia and Dyscalculia exist or not? This question is a complicated one. To give an educated answer an open mind and extensive consideration of all the sciences is needed. In my opinion, with the current state of neuroscience and genetics, and other sciences, such an answer could take a lifetime of elusive seeking.

The reality is humans do have trouble concentrating, trouble learning to read, trouble with numbers. The reality is also that giving such problems labels may be creating more problems than solving. However, the labels are also a sensitive area that needs a lot of care when approached.

It is not surprising that as humans we are having these problems. From the point of view of evolutionary psychology, these are all relatively new behaviours. They have become necessary only in the last century. Before, it was reserved for just a few intellectuals. How could we observe all these problems before the behaviour was adopted by the masses?

The people with problems in these areas do need extra guidance; they need extra motivation and extra help. That is the only truth to the matter.

[simplydt-blog]

Cognitive Enhancers: Why They Should Be

This is my second post on cognitive enhancing drugs! After a little bit more of a reflection, my stance on the topic has not changed. In short, the use of these substances by healthy individuals should be illegal. Here is why.

The evidence that cognitive enhancers work to enhance ability is ample. It is real, it exists. Medication for ADHD, Alzheimers, and others do improve certain cognitive abilities. However, whenever such evidence gets presented, there is no mention of longitudinal or prospective studies on the long-term negative repercussions of using them! That is the worrying part, of course, they work short term, but what are they doing to our brains and our lives in the long run? This is an important question that needs to be asked, and it will take years to answer it.

For instance, evidence on caffeine, a very popular enhancer, has shown that long-term use diminishes your cognitive capability below levels of caffeine free people! You then need your coffee just to catch up with the non-drinkers. Quitting caffeine is then a huge pain, with terrible withdrawal symptoms.

These 'new' cognitive enhancers are where caffeine was before we truly understood it. Yes, you may get your short-term benefit, but in the long-term the effect may wear off, and you may regret it a few years down the line when you need to quit.

Until we understand the full and long-term effects of such drugs, they should be made illegal to protect the people who are unable to make a fully informed judgement.

[simplydt-blog]

Nobel Prize winner’s theory of human development is wrong, here is the real answer.

James Heckman developed an interesting theory. His theory is widely misinterpreted when making decisions for investment in human development. Since the original idea comes from a Nobel Prize winner, the misinterpretation has spread like wildfire through dry grass.

The poor understanding of his theory leads to bad recommendations. For example some attempt to focus investment on just one particular age group, such as the 0 to 4-year-olds. This often results in the lack of funds for other age groups.

Plenty of evidence out there shows that all ages can benefit in different ways. Neuroscience reinforces this view as brain plasticity is known to continue all life. Even Heckman has changed stances and yet the myth lives on. So, how do we put out the fire?

The answer likely lies in a new model that meets the needs of the people who use the misinterpreted one. The model should reflect real and current science. I have a strong hunch that the real picture may be something we are all familiar with, the normal or bell curve.

The bell curve appears everywhere in the sciences, so why wouldn't it also appear in human development investment? My guess is it does, and as our understanding develops perhaps it will soon become the way forward.

[simplydt-blog]

Dr. Manfred Spitzer on digital dementia: The reason I do not own a smartphone.

It has been almost a year and a half since I got robbed in Argentina. It was then that I experienced significant withdrawal or ‘cold turkey’ symptoms from not having a smart phone. Fortunately, Argentina’s tax on imports is so high I was not able to replace it straight away, and it allowed me to realise just how addicted I was to my smartphone.

Many months later and I still do not own a smart phone. I must say I do not miss it, and I am almost as well connected as all my peers. All this means is that sometimes I am unavailable, perhaps because I am working in the library or working on my start up. I can text and make phone calls using my Nokia, and that is enough. After all, I can always get on the computer later and catch up, it doesn’t have to be this instant, those notifications can wait!

I love this talk by Dr. Manfred Spitzer; a prominent German neuroscientist who I believe identified the issue spot on. It’s worth listening to and if you think you are not addicted to your smartphone, try going without it for a week! The point is proven by the South Koreans who have to campaign to get people to shut off their smartphones for 1 hour during one day a week. Ridiculous.

A little confession and something to work towards, I still have to cut down on my media usage. The laptop is the next problem, and I am actively trying to lower my usage of it. At least, I get a break when I am out, but when I am home and doing work either for my start up or my Master’s degree, I’m connected! At least, no smartphone, that’s a good first step.

If you are to argue the point smartphones are not or do not have to be addictive, please attempt to live without one for a week. If you can do so successfully, and you indeed moderate your smartphone usage well, resisting the many notifications and applications calling you, then you are one of the lucky few. Well done you! However, I see this problem every day, the majority, whether they like it or not, use their smartphones way too much and can’t go but a minute without looking at one, the reason given? They have ‘nothing else to do’.

Of course, doing nothing is a whole other story in its own right, and lately, I’ve come up with neuroscience and psychology to back it up. A post for the future.

[simplydt-blog]

Can genes predict academic achievement?

There exists research suggesting that how you perform in school can be explained a lot by your genes. The problem when reading such a statement is that the most important takeaway message is often ignored. Notice how it doesn’t say it fully explains the outcome! While a big part of one’s performance in academia or school can perhaps be explained by genes and their expression, there is another equally large part that is contributed to the outcome by the environment.

In science, this is referred to as the phenotype. The phenotype is what becomes of your genes when they account for the environment and even your other genes! Epigenetics! Therefore, both genes and environment are just as important!

However, we should not neglect the other side of the coin either; genes are important, and we need to understand more about them. Many of today’s schools are largely environmentally deterministic. Many may reflect the stance that since the environment is what we can influence and change, it is what we should be focusing on and often teachers are blamed for failure to achieve, when actually, the learners are not getting the guidance they need!

The future, however, holds the promise that with an increasing understanding of how individual differences are affected by genetics, we may be able to tailor better education programmes, to maximize its benefit to each and every individual.

[simplydt-blog]

Improving learning: Learning styles, the good and the bad.

Ideas in the area of learning styles have the best of intentions as they want to cater to the differences that make each one of us unique individuals. They do this to make learning easier. Since making our learning easier is a worthy goal, credit must be given where credit is due. But as in the case of VAK (Visual Auditory Kinaesthetic) learning, these ideas may be causing more harm than good.

Teachers who use VAK to help their kids learn better focus on one method of instruction for individual kids. They use either visuals, sounds or tactile interaction, depending on what they have deemed the kids’ style is. This means that if you learn better with tactile methods, you would be stuck to learning maths with an abacus for the rest of your schooling! Aside from the big issue that scientists continually report there is no evidence VAK learning improves learning, it may be the case that is instead hurting our education.

Scientists have shown that the converse is true. For example in foreign languages, learning by combing the different methods of delivery works best. This also backs up classical teaching theory, where we learn by combining visuals with audio (the teacher speaking and writing on the board!). Science also shows that in the brain all of our senses are interconnected. Our senses interact with each other and thus combining learning styles makes more and more sense!

Improving learning for individuals and society is indeed a worthy goal. We must be careful to do this the right way so we do not end up making it harder! In the case of VAK, learning becomes harder and if you are using it, you may be doing more harm than good! What else is there you say? Well, in my own quest for learning mnemonics have worked wonders! Of course, there are many more helpful things out there, you just have to look a tiny bit harder.

[simplydt-blog]

Performance Enhancing Drugs

I wasn't planning on posting this on this blog, but it seems like the most appropriate place for these thoughts anyway. I haven't had the time to delve into the literature and scientifically base these ramblings, but I have a hunch I would be able to if needed. Meanwhile, this is to be treated mostly as philosophy, which is perhaps one of the correct fields of inquiry for performance enhancing drugs. Thanks to Marcus and Anna, who helped me formulate these thoughts by instigating conversation that brought back to mind a recent discussion.

If you choose to use performance enhancing drugs, it sounds to me like just another form of maladaptive coping. Maladaptive coping may (or may not) lead to other bad habits or well-documented negative repercussions. The idea that a pill is a solution for most problems is very prevalent in today's societies that have been heavily influenced by materialism and positivism.

The hard work that is required to build good life-lasting habits is often forgotten due to the preference for quick-fix solutions or "hacks". Wanting these quick answers and lacking good habits is perhaps why problems such as fearing failure on assessment can even exist. Just like you can misuse alcohol to cope poorly with stress you can abuse things such as methylphenidate also. If people choose to do so, of course, it is their choice and who are we to stop them with doing what they want with their lives?

But if you do elect to use performance enhancing drugs, then, at least, you should be aware that no one is sure of what negative repercussions you may be setting yourself up for. These can range from possible pathological problems to simply the bad habits you are forming, setting yourself up for future maladaptive coping. Of course, there is also the well-evidenced fact that memory is context-dependent, therefore, if you overuse your drugs you may have trouble remembering your learnings unless you are in the same context (taking the drugs)! Do you want to always be taking these drugs? Or is it just that one time?

I for one, am happy to refrain from performance enhancing drugs! What about you? Thoughts? Would love to hear them.

[simplydt-blog]

Neuroscience and Education: What it’s all about.

This blog has been created to discuss topics and issues that relate the fields of neuroscience and education, attempting to address such questions in a language that is accessible to a wider audience than the one required to access and critique scientific literature that is often loaded with jargon. The result of this will hopefully be a clearer understanding of concepts and issues that may then be applied to the field of education with a grounding or understanding in neuroscience.

Some of these matters may be controversial and open to debate. It is the goal of this blog to bring a bit of clarity on such issues and help everyone understand what exactly is going without having to research and criticise scientific literature for themselves. To do this openness, honesty and good-careful communication is required so as not to end up with new neuromyths or give rise to misunderstandings that may be if nothing more be a waste of people's effort and time.

Considering that I am mostly involved in the Psychology and Neuroscience literature while working on my MSc Psychology of Education (BPS) at Bristol, I look forward to to hearing back from the Education community out there to make this a real two-way communication.