Learning & the Brain Presentation: Michael Posner

One of my favorite conferences is the Learning and the Brain Conference held at various locations several times a year. The most recent conference was held in Washington, D.C. in early May. I tried to play the role of on-the-spot-reporter and posted on Twitter live from the conference.

To provide readers with a sense of the conference, I'm going to post my Twitter stream from each presentation. These are the actual "tweets" I posted from the conference. I've cleaned them up a little, but other than a few corrected typos, they represent the raw ideas presented at the conference.

As you read through these "tweets," keep in mind that I was posting the comments/ideas of the presenter. These do not necessarily represent my conclusions from the research.

Here are my posts from the first keynote presenter, Michael Posner:

• First speaker is Michael Posner, topic: Brain’s Attention Networks. Will use initials (MP) to indicate speaker.
• Posner is from the University of Oregon and was recently honored by the President for his work in cognitive neuroscience.
• MP: Attention is a central topic for education. New tech giving us new insight into nature of attention.
• MP: Attention is a set of neural networks—at least 3: alerting, orienting, & executive. Each set associated w/different brain area.
• MP: At rest, two brain networks are active, “default state,” which alert brain to change.
• MP: Alerting deficits in early childhood later negatively affect the executive network.
• MP: There are both overt AND covert shifts in attention.
• MP: A deficit in orienting attention network correlates with some autistic behaviors.
• MP: Executive network is associated with conflicts in sensory data and self-regulation.
• Post on importance of self-regulation: http://is.gd/bXdb.
• MP: Effortful control of attention is one self-regulation element of the executive network.
• MP: The anterior cingulate is related to self-regulation; size & activity can predict self-regulation capacity.
• MP: Executive network deficiency is related to most cognitive disorders.
• MP: Individual differences in executive network functioning are wide-ranging.
• MP: For example, the speed in managing conflicts in sensory data correlate w/self-regulation capacity.
• MP: Separate white matter pathways deal with the three attention networks.
• MP: Recent study shows IBMT (form of meditation) actually influences those white matter pathways positively.
• MP: IBMT meditation influences brain state, which positively influences executive functions.
• MP: Differing neurotransmitters are also associated with each attention network. This can help guide gene research.
• MP: When does executive network begin to self-regulate individual? Evidence shows around 7-10 months of age.
• MP: Around 7 months, a child is aware of conflicts in sensory data—e.g., a scene different from expectation.
• MP: Anticipatory looking at 4-7 months correlates w/some self-regulation abilities at 4 years of age.
• MP: Connectivity of the executive network, however, develops slowly—present at age 9 but not fully connected.
• MP: Showing novel objects may help produce connectivity within executive attention networks.
• MP: Gene DRD4 present on a specific chromosone correlates with ADHD. (Genetic basis discovered?)
• MP: If gene is present AND parenting is poor, MAJOR ADHD impulsivity develops.
• MP: “True experts” have “highly elaborated semantic memory,” correlated w/activity in fusiform gyrus.
• MP: High levels of experience influence brain activity for specific areas. Fusiform gyrus active in chess, bird, & dog experts.
• Posner now taking questions from audience.
• MP: Alerting attention deficiency associates w/aging & ADHD disorders.
• MP: Orienting attention deficiency associates w/autism.
• MP: Executive attention deficiency associates w/Alzheimer’s, schizophrenia, addiction, & others.
• MP: Parents not to blame for ADHD children; research shows correlation in extreme impulsivity.
• MP: With research subjects, parenting classes actually decreased children’s impulsivity.
• (As you can imagine, some resistance to these ideas. Posner: “Just sharing what research shows.”)
• MP: My research will be translated to classroom by educators, not me. I’m just a scientist. We need teachers to think this through.

Creative Thinking in the Classroom, Part 1

Sirens seize our attention. They scream, “Crisis!” and we scan the horizon or media streams to secure the details.

Despite their obvious function, sirens do little to actually address the emergencies they signal. After awareness is achieved, sirens fall silent while those charged with solving problems shift into high gear. The perp is pursued, the fire is fought, the EMT's and ambulance crew care for the injured. It’s these individuals on the ground who address whatever triggered the siren’s screech across the airwaves.

Creativity has become the target of many sirens, pundits who find purpose in critiquing current educational practices. Some, such as Sir Ken Robinson, go so far as accusing education of killing students’ creativity. (By the way, this is not a criticism of Mr. Robinson. I appreciate his thinking, share his talks with others, and have read all of his books!) These sirens have served a purpose: educators are aware of and talking about the need to develop students’ creative capacities. However, many of us are not shifting into high gear to address this problem because we have not been equipped to do so. Returning to the analogy, if I am the first on an accident scene I’ll do what I can while praying for the EMTs to arrive soon. I’m simply not equipped to deal with serious injuries. And with all due respect, suggesting that more dance or drama be added to the curriculum does little to help the people “on the ground,” classroom teachers, foster creative thinking in students.

To explore creative thinking in the classroom we must first recognize that creativity is broader than the arts. Don’t get me wrong. I’m a HUGE supporter of arts in the schools. Music, drama, writing, architecture, and literature are major contributors to my life, and I’m learning to appreciate the arts not included in that list. I believe strongly that young people should receive regular experiences and instruction in the arts.

However, creative thinking is a valued process in nearly every field. The Root-Bernsteins realized this when they launched their ground-breaking research on creative thinking. From their penetrating study, the Root-Bernsteins identify “thinking tools” employed by creative individuals.1 These tools cross disciplines, showing creative breakthroughs in multiple professional fields. For example, a practicing biologist is just as likely to gain insight from analogizing as a sculptor of abstract artwork. The Root-Bernsteins show us that creative thinking possesses value beyond the stage and easel. Unfortunately findings from the study “Are They Really Ready to Work?” reveal that only 21 percent of American corporate leaders reported excellence in this area among recent college graduates seeking employment with their companies.”2 Nearly ⅘ of the corporate world is dissatisfied with the creativity new hires bring to the workplace. Creative thinking needs to be an emphasis in all of education, not just students’ training in the arts.

To integrate creative thinking into our teaching, we need answers to a few questions: 1) What do we know about creative thinking?, 2) Is there any relationship between creative thinking and learning?, and if so 3) How can we engage students in creative thinking while continuing to teach our required curriculum?

While much of what sparks creativity and the neurological processes that enable it remains a mystery, evidence suggests creativity includes a period of disorganization prior to creation. In the landmark book The Creative Brain: The Science of Genius, Dr. Nancy C. Andreasen hypothesizes:

...that during the creative process the brain begins by disorganizing, making links between shadowy forms of objects or symbols or words or remembered experiences that have not been previously linked. Out of this disorganization, self-organization eventually emerges and takes over in the brain. The result is a completely new and original thing: a mathematical function, a symphony, or a poem.3

My favorite description of this disorganization-reorganization process comes from architect Steven Holl, who writes:

In each project, we begin with information and disorder, confusion of purpose, program ambiguity, an infinity of materials and forms. All of these elements, like obfuscating smoke, swirl in a nervous atmosphere. Architecture is the result of acting on this indeterminacy.4

Perhaps the presence of “obfuscating smoke” is what prevents us from knowing more about creativity. However, it appears that a period of disorganization gives way to a period of defining and organizing, which is followed by a period of associating data with known concepts through which patterns begin to emerge.

If true, creativity shares some cognitive processes with learning. In fact, since learning involves the transformation of data into meaning, some researchers describe learning itself as a creative act. It is possible that these shared processes result, in part, from shared brain geography. As Science writer Greg Miller explains, researchers at University College London found that the hippocampus, a brain structure critical for forming new memories, is also essential for imagining scenes. Such findings “provide experimental evidence that memory and imagination may share neural circuitry.”5

These findings hold potential implications for us as educators.

First, if creative thinking promotes personal and professional success, it is something we should be addressing in schools. Sir Ken Robinson is right: “Creativity is possible in science, in technology, in management, in business, in music, in any activity that engages human intelligence.”6 As such, creative thinking should be one of the portals through which we engage students in our subject matter.

Second, if creativity and learning aren’t completely different languages—if, in fact, they share cognitive processes—then integrating creative thinking into learning should be possible. We should be able to design instruction that engages creative thinking that not only fosters its own development but also deepens the learning of our original subject matter. We need to find ways to welcome the “obfuscating smoke” into our classrooms!

We’ll explore some how-to ideas in the second post on this topic. Perhaps then we can silence, or at least dampen, some of the sirens.

By the way, these ideas are explored in depth Chapter 8 of The Architecture of Learning: Designing Instruction for the Learning Brain. Copies are available directly from Clerestory Press or through Amazon.com.

Sources

1. Root-Bernstein, R. & Root-Bernstein, M., Sparks of Genius: The 13 Thinking Tools of the World’s Most Creative People (Boston: Mariner Books, 2001), 118.
2. Rappaport, J., Arts Skills are Life Skills. http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2007/06/12/arts_skills_are_life_skills/.
3. Andreasen, N.C., The Creative Brain: The Science of Genius (New York: Penguin Group, 2005), 77-78.
4. Holl, S., Phenomena and Idea. http://www.stevenholl.com/writings/phenomena.html.
5. Miller, G., A Surprising Connection Between Memory and Imagination, Science, 315, (2007), 312.
6. Robinson, K., Out of Our Minds: Learning to Be Creative (Oxford, UK: Capstone Publishing, 2001), 10.

Images

• 'Fire Hose' http://www.flickr.com/photos/93635055@N00/2422704380
• 'Chalk' http://www.flickr.com/photos/53326337@N00/4273547554