First-hand Experiences Are Essential Cognitive Rehearsals for Writing and Reading (in that order)

When asked to begin a writing assignment, students often respond by asking one of two questions (and often both). Their first question is "What do I write about?" Their  second question is frequently "How do I get started?" According to Colorado master educator, Eileen Patrick, “You can't make the words or ideas come out of your pencil, until you can get them to come out of your mouth first.”

Discourse and dialogue are the vitally important “cognitive rehearsals” that should always precede any writing assignment. Unfortunately, teachers typically tell students, "If you aren't ready to begin writing your essay, then outline it first," which is unwittingly asking them to engage in a higher cognitive task (synthesizing and summarizing) than the writing itself.  

Before students are asked to write about a given topic, they should be afforded (1) an opportunity to have a first-hand or virtual (visual) experience with it to gain some degree of appreciation for the "what," (2) some time allotted to reflect on and digest the experience, and then, (3) time to talk with peers about what was learned, what was discovered that was surprising, and what they might still "wonder" about the topic, both specifically and  generally -- the "why it is so."  Through the talking about related personal/virtual experiences with a given subject, students prepare themselves to write about it. They can write down that which they have just articulated.

Although we are prone to say that "words are used to communicate," before we can even utter those words, we must think about them first. A more accurate statement is "words are used to think, and we can say what we think." It is impossible to speak without thinking  first (yes, there are people who do so, sponsoring more derision than admiration). Prior to expressing our thoughts, we must "think them" first. Preparing a student to think more deeply about a topic and expressing that thinking coherently is the first step in what we refer to academically as "good" student writing.  

During first-hand learning experiences, students quickly add important new vocabulary words to their personal "working" vocabularies. We often hear that students can best learn new words "in context," it should be stated more precisely that they learn new words more efficiently in the context of doing, rather than in the process of reading. This is because, when the written text is unfamiliar, coupled with the introduction of words that the learner has never seen before, neither the concept or the vocabulary will be readily grasped. Most likely, both will remain elusive.

While the accumulated vocabulary that a student brings to a text largely determines if he/she will spend more time trying to understand the target concept or devote a majority of the reading time merely attempting to make sense of the strange new words being used to bring the concept to light.

Research suggests that 95% of what a student gains from reading a passage depends on his/her background knowledge or what the student "brings to the text." Students with little or no background knowledge will likely comprehend far less than a student who is well versed in the same topic. (Similar to cooking without many of the basic ingredients). No prior experience with the vocabulary words tends to expand the gap between the novice learner and comprehending the topic. Having either personal or virtual experiences with a subject, and having talked about and having written about it provide the level of background knowledge that enhances reading comprehension. 

Conceptual development progresses along a distinctly consistent pathway that is grounded in concrete experiential learning.

Experiences Are Cognitive Rehearsals

When playing with objects, learners are simultaneously manipulating/playing with ideas (internal dialogues attach words and meaning to actions – the “mind’s eye”) building the representative brain circuitry.

Exploring and experimenting involve examining relationships, interactions and systems, where learners formulate their own personal “theories” (mental constructs)

Thinking is a cognitive rehearsal for discourse.

Discourse is a cognitive rehearsal for writing (phonological loop or “inner voice”).

Playing with objects and ideas, exploring and experimenting, thinking, talking, and writing become cognitive rehearsals (background knowledge) for reading.

Writing and reading clarify one’s thoughts, generate coherent thinking, and cultivate precision in expressing one’s inner thoughts (supporting long-term memory consolidation).

Experience, discourse and writing become cognitive rehearsals for assessment.

In today's academic world driven by accountability, producing high test scores is viewed as the indicator of a quality education being offered. However, brain-considerate learning strategies such as these have a greater long-term impact on teaching "thinking," which is the true mission of formal education. 

Left-brained? or Right-brained?

 

Left-brained or Right-brained?

Few discoveries in contemporary neuroscience have had a greater spill-over effect into the educational community than the now-legendary “split-brain” (corpus calloscotomy) research of Roger Sperry for which he received the 1981 Nobel Prize in the category of Physiology or Medicine.

Neuroscientist Michael Gazzaniga began his early career in the field with Sperry, and subsequent made significant contributions to our understanding of how the two hemispheres of the brain communicate with one another (or fail to do so when surgically separated from one another).

Later, when these hemispheric interactions were translated into educationally appealing terminology, “left-brained and right-brained” seminars were advertised at nearly every educational conference. We saw educators, whose genuine motive was merely to be well-informed and effective in their classrooms, flock to professional development workshops on this topic.

While the notion of cortical specialization is an accurate representation of the inner workings of the brain, every healthy human brain is intricately interconnected with massive pathways stretching across the neural divide rendering the content of many of these seminars misleading at best. There are over 300 million nerve fibers crisscrossing from one hemisphere to the other.

We have unraveled more of the brain’s deep secrets over the past 5 years of research in neuroscience than during humankind's last 2,500 years on this planet. Now, one of the "unguarded secrets" is that we learn with a “whole brain” that craves and creates meaningful connections. The foundation of all learning lies in the one quadrillion connections among the neurons throughout the brain and in both of the two hemispheres. The corpus callosum sends as much as 4 billion bits of information between the two hemispheres each second.

My Brain Valentine

(a.k.a., "I’m in love with a corpus callosum who makes me whole")

Left-brained?

 

Right-brained?

Well, I use both of ‘em.

Because I have you,

My corpus callosum!

 

 

 

 

STEM's 500 year-old Foundation: Leonardo Da Vinci

Almost 500 years following his death, the name Leonardo Da Vinci still tops most lists of the greatest scientific minds in world history. The “Renaissance Man” with insatiable curiosity and determined innovation, Da Vinci became an accomplished inventor, scientist, mathematician, painter, sculptor, architect, cartographer, engineer, anatomist, botanist, geologist, and writer. Da Vinci's 7 Principles serve as guideposts for STEM/STREAM education today:

1. Curiosità: An insatiably curious approach to life and an unrelenting quest for continuous learning.  

2. Dimostrazione: A commitment to test knowledge through experience, persistence, and a willingness to learn from mistakes.  

3. Sensazione: The continual refinement of the senses, especially sight, as the means to enliven experience.  

4. Sfumato (literally means “Going up in Smoke”): A willingness to embrace ambiguity, paradox, and uncertainty.  

5. Arte/Scienza (art and science): The development of the balance between science and art, logic and imagination (“whole-brain” learning and thinking.)

6. Corporalita: The cultivation of grace, ambidexterity, fitness, and poise.  

7. Connessione: A recognition of and appreciation for the interconnectedness of all things and phenomena.

For 21st century STEM success, our students must learn to solve problems by creative/inventive Da Vincian thinking. “Creativity requires the courage to let go of certainties” as psychologist Eric Fromm stated, accentuating the fourth of Da Vinci’s Principles.

Our test-centric schools of today may be unwittingly constraining student imagination and creativity by insisting that all thinking must conform to a preordained “correct” answer, rather than allowing for multiple solutions, multiple avenues to arrive at each of them, and more than one suitable answer to the same question or problem. (It is important to note that no high-achieving nation spends as much time, money or organized efforts on standardized testing as we do).

 

 

Why STEM? Why STEM Now?

The latest career statistics and economic projections emphasize the new prerequisites for economic survival in today’s STEM-driven competitive world. Consider the following:

·       The 2006 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) reported that the average mathematics score for 15-year-old U.S. students was lower than the scores in 18 out of 24 comparison nations.   

·       The number of countries scoring higher than the United States on the PISA science assessment increased from 6 countries to 12 over the past six years.

·       A survey conducted by the Lawrence Hall of Science at the University of California, Berkeley concluded that 80% of K-5 teachers in the San Francisco Bay area spent 60 minutes or less per week teaching science. Over 16% of them reported spending no time at all delivering science instruction.

·       In the 2013 Horizon Research survey, researchers found that K-2 classes spend an average of 18 minutes per day on science, while grades 3–5 teachers were teaching science an average of 23 minutes per day.  

·       Statistics from the National Science Foundation website indicate that STEM achievement in secondary education is also decreasing overall in American schools.

The conventional practice of delving deeply in a study of the sciences in high school is coming under long-overdue scrutiny. According to a 2010 report from the International Journal of Science Education, over 65% of scientists and science graduate students reported that their personal interest in the sciences began before their middle school years. Building the necessary background knowledge that is essential for success in secondary STEM courses requires an early foundation for science beginning in the elementary grades.

 

 

 

 

STEM: Making Transdisciplinary Connections

Research has shown that approximately 13% of pupils in an average classroom are auditory learners, who learn best by listening to others (typically the teacher). The dominant teaching method of most schools is likely not meeting the learning needs of 87% of our students. Our brains do their best work when we are learning in by doing, not by passively listening.

Scientists, engineers, mathematicians and others STEM professionals spend a great portion of their day applying skills and concepts that fall outside the boundaries of their discipline. The National Research Center found that reading and writing comprise over half of the work of scientists and engineers (NRC 2011).  Speaking, listening, reading, writing, computing, sketching, collaborating with others, etc., make up the typical day for most professionals, where we use these competencies on an as-needed basis throughout the day. It is natural for us to engage in STEM daily if we participate in any brand of regular problem-solving.

By completing the chart below, we are reminded of this important academic reality.

By filling in the appropriate boxes of this chart with students, parents and educators, hopefully, we can reduce the number of times we hear, “Why do I need to know this?”  and “When will I ever use this?” It is through these “aha” moments that students not only appreciate STEM, but they also understand the value of a truly “interconnected” curriculum that provides a multidimensional backdrop for understanding their transdisciplinary world.

The connections their young brains make reach across numerous academic borderlines fostering what we first refer to as knowledge, and subsequently as creative thinking.

Failure IS an Option!

In keeping with our current assessment obsession, educators have unwisely borrowed the popular mantra “Failure is not an option” from the business community (where failures are forgiven, because they are “too big to fail,” but small children should pay a hefty emotional fine.) A deeper examination of this maxim reveals its glaring inaccuracy when applied to both how young brains learn and how inventors innovate.

Students may struggle in school with reading, they often fall short of a perfect score in mathematics, they will frequently misinterpret cause-and-effect relationships in science, it is not uncommon for them to repeatedly make the same spelling errors, and display developmentally-appropriate academic missteps. Occasionally, our students appear to be impervious to the best efforts of well-trained professionals.

 

The goal of academic “rigor” becomes almost rigor mortis for them. In nearly all cases, each learning difficulty is indicative of a naturally occurring neurological under-investment in the necessary brain wiring that is mandatory for successfully demonstrating a specific skill.

 

When we refer to a concept or skill that is not “developmentally-appropriate” to children of a given age, the reference we are making is to their brain development not our curriculum development. With this backdrop, certain academic shortcomings are highly anticipated outcomes.

 

However, these events foster teacher, parent and student frustrations in the meantime, since the child “doesn’t get it”. With time, maturation, and most important, the proper brain circuitry, he/she will surely "get it" quickly and with apparent ease.

 

When it comes to learning, failure is a predictable prerequisite during the lengthy course of converting new information into personal knowledge. This is particularly true when learners lack similar prior learning experiences, which prevents the new information from readily merging with neural pathways that don't yet exist. If there is nothing with which to integrate new knowledge, the conceptual development process must begin from an earlier starting point and new learning can be quite a lengthy process for some children, who are not “slow,” the brain-building process is frequently slow.

 

If learning occurred effortlessly, error-free, easily, and occurred without any naturally occurring obstacles, then wouldn't formal education from the pre-school years to graduate school fall somewhere between pointless and redundant?

In science, technology, engineering, mathematics, architecture, and the myriad other science-related fields, mistakes are not just prerequisites, they are nearly requirements for future success.

 

Most inventors and creative geniuses have a long history of failures leading to their ultimate triumph – the success that they were after from the beginning. Along the road to success, the greatest inventors looked into the face of failure for most of their journey to achievement.

Below are several famous failures, who are only known for their famous successes. Failure was an option, but they became icons for persistence and success, following their early failures.

 

STEM: Leveling the Playing Field for Struggling Students

One of the first revelations for STEM teachers has been that STEM tends to level the academic playing field quickly for students who are typically struggling learners. Distinguishing them from the high achievers in the STEM classroom is frequently difficult. These classroom events become peak motivational experiences for the less-academically proficient student.

 

For many students, feeling a sense of competence through STEM lessons can constitute the first in-school learning occasion that has a tendency to conceal their “low-achiever” stigma rather than to broadcast it. More importantly, this motivational boost can thwart the tendency toward “performance avoidance,” where academic insecurities entice struggling students to dodge classroom participation at any cost in order to mask their well-known history of learning failures.