I am fascinated by brain science, or I could say my brain is fascinated. There is a heightened and growing knowledge of how that astounding organism really works. As I’m reading John Medina’s Brain Rules (the book, which goes much deeper than the website), I keep thinking of the recent study released by the Department of Education, which compares the effectiveness of face-to-face, online, and blended learning delivery. The meta-analysis of over 1000 studies conducted between 1996 and 2008 seems to provide a solid basis for the conclusion that online instruction is “more effective in improving student achievement than the purely face to face instruction.” I wasn’t all that surprised by the findings, but I wonder if the basic comparison is all that meaningful. Is it the online versus face-to-face dichotomy that is the important distinction? Or is it innovative versus traditional approaches that make a difference in a person’s learning?
There is often an underlying presumption that the traditional, on-ground classroom offers a quality instructional experience. I can attest that I have had very inferior f2f classes and I’m sure I’m not alone. Even with a good instructor, there are serious limitations to traditional teaching methods. When I returned to graduate school in mid-life, I was dismayed to realize what a struggle it is for my brain to absorb auditory information delivered in a 1-2 hour lecture format. Having read Dr. Mel Levine’s A Mind at a Time just before entering grad school, I grasped that I wasn’t stupid—it’s just that my learning strengths did not mesh with this age-old form of teaching. Levine identifies eight key neuro-developmental systems of the brain, illustrated here. Individual variation in the strength of these systems is huge; a math “genius” may be strong in sequential ordering yet dismal in social thinking; a socially gregarious person may be strong in language but weak in higher thinking. Our traditional educational system emphasizes attention controls and higher thinking and undervalues social thinking and spatial controls. As Medina says, “our schools are designed so that most real learning has to occur at home.” Levine’s work has generated a non-profit organization that seeks to deliver knowledge to All Kinds of Minds.
In the Online Learning Study, the front-runner was actually the blend of face-to-face and online. I would guess that the blended approach provides the greatest variety of learning options, allowing learners to engage their strongest neuro-developmental systems. And perhaps purely online delivery won out over f2f because instructional designers are trying harder to be innovative and deploying more tools to address different learning styles. I’m not comfortable with Secretary of Education Anne Duncan’s summary of the report that we need to “incorporate digital content into everyday classes.” It’s not the digital component alone that provides the learning magic. There are many teachers in on-ground classrooms who are experimenting with new strategies to engage students in-person.
Medina sums up his book with this declaration:
“The greatest Brain Rule of all is something I cannot prove or characterize, but I believe in it with all my heart ….it is the importance of curiosity.”
We need to be designing learning to stimulate and satisfy curiosity. Whether that is accomplished online or in-person is secondary to the essential Brain Rule.
Recent Comments