Loved this! Feeling kind of smug that I am one of the 10% of UK teachers who knew the first two were myths, but have to admit I stand corrected on the effects of sugar on kids.
During my teaching career I once sat through a presentation on how fluorescent lighting reduced learning in boys. Education remains a profitable hunting ground for crackpots and grifters.
The last one is a very useful myth though - its a useful justification that kids can understand we can use to refuse to give them another slice of cake after their 3rd!
I suppose the apotheosis of left/right brain distinction is found in Iain MacGlichrist's 'Master and His Emissary'? Not individuated as in 'ways to learn', but in the expression of ideas emanating from one dominance as against the other dominant? I see its persuasiveness, but in many ways, it might simply be a neuroscientific explanation for something quite other- like a moral dimension or a holistic reappraisal. The correction of too much rationalisation?
I've seen McGilchrist mentioned a few times but I haven't read any of his writing. Based on the descriptions I've seen of it and the weird defensiveness he has on his own page about its scientific credibility, I am highly skeptical of his theories. The only mention of it I've seen in the scientific literature is on this article (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3897366/) where it's just mentioned as a recent example exaggerated speculation that "goes far beyond the neurological facts"
I read it with avid interest when I was writing my book 'Involution: An Odyssey Reconciling Science to God' ( an hypothesis that the chronology of scientific understanding suggested it was spurred on by (and followed) the incremental recovery of memory- the so-called inspirations of genius, memory most likely coded in DNA). The Master... is beautifully written, very erudite and does draw persuasive distinctions in the different epochs of ideas, but I am (with fair good reason) suspicious of anyone who appropriates a too dogmatic scientism to commandeer explanations so easily reducible to structure or transmission. Cellular 'intelligence', water retention of memory...so many other options!
Interesting comment about learning styles. While I'm not an educational professional or someone studying these things, I do know through practical experience and observation that the way I learn is different from others. I'm a scientist, so I think about these things. I know I learn best when I understand what I'm learning, others prefer just to memorise things. To me, that's why some people learn languages easier than others, including me, as language learning is usually quicker for those happy to memorise without digestion.
Are these just personal differences rather than discernible styles of learning? I'm not one for categorising everything, and I certainly wouldn't formalise this kind of thing to instruct teachers, but I would take it into account with a class or a team (adults) that I was attempting to help learn something, as this difference must be present even in a small group.
The learning styles myth is specifically about people learning better through specific sensory modalities--that there are visual vs auditory learners. It's about the method of learning rather than the content learned. That some people might be better at learning languages or math is a different matter
Iain Mcgilchrist’s work has extensively studied brain lateralizaron. He both notes that traditional discussions of left vs right brain are not at all scientific, but explains that there are key important differences in the way the hemispheres pay attention. I think his work is some of the most interesting and important in the field of psychology in decades.
Teachers like structure, and teaching to a specific learning style or the old right brain left brain research makes that easier than just saying, “Teach in every style or use multiple modalities for all students all the time.” That’s an overwhelming expectation. Plus, in the past, teachers stayed in the profession for decades so learning new research and adapting wasn’t as common. I’m not sure what that will look like in the future especially with how challenging teaching has become. In the U.S. it’s incredibly difficult to keep teachers in the classroom.
As for sugar with ADHD, I’ve read a lot of the research on that as well and the results were somewhat mixed with no definitive conclusions from what I've seen - leaning toward it not being a factor.
But what I can say from experience is that when my ADHD niece was younger and I took care of her often, if she ate something with sugar in it, it was like clockwork. She would start flying around the room, jumping up and down on things, aggravating the dogs even though just minutes before she was calmly engaged in an activity or watching TV. It didn’t matter if we were home or out in public. The results were always the same. So while the research may be somewhat inconclusive, sugar can definitely impact symptoms for some people just like certain foods can aggravate sensitivities.
I find the learning styles and the left/right brain descriptions helpful as categories for how people can process information and interact with their environment, but not as designations of what kind of *person* an individual is.
It's unsurprising that the industrial model of schooling is botching this for kids.
Thanks for this!
I see your veneer and I too, would like to extend your veneer. Perhaps with sufficient veneering we'll have collectively upgraded to a varnish.
That aside, loved the article and the links to the research!
Loved this! Feeling kind of smug that I am one of the 10% of UK teachers who knew the first two were myths, but have to admit I stand corrected on the effects of sugar on kids.
During my teaching career I once sat through a presentation on how fluorescent lighting reduced learning in boys. Education remains a profitable hunting ground for crackpots and grifters.
The last one is a very useful myth though - its a useful justification that kids can understand we can use to refuse to give them another slice of cake after their 3rd!
Yes, I was coming to say this as well!
Thank you for helping dispel these myths!
I suppose the apotheosis of left/right brain distinction is found in Iain MacGlichrist's 'Master and His Emissary'? Not individuated as in 'ways to learn', but in the expression of ideas emanating from one dominance as against the other dominant? I see its persuasiveness, but in many ways, it might simply be a neuroscientific explanation for something quite other- like a moral dimension or a holistic reappraisal. The correction of too much rationalisation?
I've seen McGilchrist mentioned a few times but I haven't read any of his writing. Based on the descriptions I've seen of it and the weird defensiveness he has on his own page about its scientific credibility, I am highly skeptical of his theories. The only mention of it I've seen in the scientific literature is on this article (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3897366/) where it's just mentioned as a recent example exaggerated speculation that "goes far beyond the neurological facts"
I read it with avid interest when I was writing my book 'Involution: An Odyssey Reconciling Science to God' ( an hypothesis that the chronology of scientific understanding suggested it was spurred on by (and followed) the incremental recovery of memory- the so-called inspirations of genius, memory most likely coded in DNA). The Master... is beautifully written, very erudite and does draw persuasive distinctions in the different epochs of ideas, but I am (with fair good reason) suspicious of anyone who appropriates a too dogmatic scientism to commandeer explanations so easily reducible to structure or transmission. Cellular 'intelligence', water retention of memory...so many other options!
Interesting comment about learning styles. While I'm not an educational professional or someone studying these things, I do know through practical experience and observation that the way I learn is different from others. I'm a scientist, so I think about these things. I know I learn best when I understand what I'm learning, others prefer just to memorise things. To me, that's why some people learn languages easier than others, including me, as language learning is usually quicker for those happy to memorise without digestion.
Are these just personal differences rather than discernible styles of learning? I'm not one for categorising everything, and I certainly wouldn't formalise this kind of thing to instruct teachers, but I would take it into account with a class or a team (adults) that I was attempting to help learn something, as this difference must be present even in a small group.
Waiting, humbly, to be shown up as an idiot ...
The learning styles myth is specifically about people learning better through specific sensory modalities--that there are visual vs auditory learners. It's about the method of learning rather than the content learned. That some people might be better at learning languages or math is a different matter
Thank you!!
Iain Mcgilchrist’s work has extensively studied brain lateralizaron. He both notes that traditional discussions of left vs right brain are not at all scientific, but explains that there are key important differences in the way the hemispheres pay attention. I think his work is some of the most interesting and important in the field of psychology in decades.
Teachers like structure, and teaching to a specific learning style or the old right brain left brain research makes that easier than just saying, “Teach in every style or use multiple modalities for all students all the time.” That’s an overwhelming expectation. Plus, in the past, teachers stayed in the profession for decades so learning new research and adapting wasn’t as common. I’m not sure what that will look like in the future especially with how challenging teaching has become. In the U.S. it’s incredibly difficult to keep teachers in the classroom.
As for sugar with ADHD, I’ve read a lot of the research on that as well and the results were somewhat mixed with no definitive conclusions from what I've seen - leaning toward it not being a factor.
But what I can say from experience is that when my ADHD niece was younger and I took care of her often, if she ate something with sugar in it, it was like clockwork. She would start flying around the room, jumping up and down on things, aggravating the dogs even though just minutes before she was calmly engaged in an activity or watching TV. It didn’t matter if we were home or out in public. The results were always the same. So while the research may be somewhat inconclusive, sugar can definitely impact symptoms for some people just like certain foods can aggravate sensitivities.
I find the learning styles and the left/right brain descriptions helpful as categories for how people can process information and interact with their environment, but not as designations of what kind of *person* an individual is.
It's unsurprising that the industrial model of schooling is botching this for kids.