Author: Ludabuddha

For today’s session in The Neuroscience of Learning the topic of how the use of rewards leads to good habits was discussed.  Habits are eventually formed when a behavior is repeated many times and stored in the basal ganglia.  For example, when first learning to ride a bicycle, a ton of cognitive space is used to focus on all the moving parts, but eventually the behavior essentially becomes automatized and we do not think much about the processes involved.

Habit building essentially has three parts.  The first is a cue (i.e., a signal to begin some behavior), the second is a routine (i.e., repeated actions), and the third is a reward.  The reward is important in that it serves as motivation to actually do the behavior in the first place.

Overall, neuroscience research shows that tempting people with rewards is more powerful than punishment.

In my own classes, I often have trouble getting students to do their homework, despite knowing that they will lose points from their final grade.  After viewing this lecture I will need to consider some sort of positive reinforcement for completing homework starting from the next academic year.

The importance of sleep was discussed today in The Neuroscience of Learning in relation to how well we can retrieve information.  As a lead-up to sleep, the benefits of spaced out learning sessions was presented and it was explained that learners who tend to revisit information later on have better retrieval rates.

One factor in this is that studying in different contexts tend to lead to more associations in the brain. For example studying in your room, and then again in a cafe is suggested.  However, it was shown that learners who tend revisit information 24 hours later have the best retrieval rates and the reason for this can be attributed to a good night’s sleep.

Returning to the hippocampus, it was discussed that during REM sleep, this part of the brain, which is associated with memory formation, sorts out important information.  REM sleep is the hour before we awake, so if we are using an alarm to wake up unnaturally, we are likely short-changing our learning ability.

As an instructor at a university, I know that many of my students do not get a full night’s sleep.  After watching this lecture, I would like to encourage them to try to do so, although I know this may be futile.  But despite this, I am pleased to hear that incorporating much more review of past sessions has scientific backing in neuroscience research.

The amygdala was the central focus of today’s lecture in The Neuroscience of Learning.  In short, it was discussed that this area of the brain is central in emotional learning, as it is physically connected the the hippocampus, which is responsible for the consolidation of short-term to long-term memories.  Traditionally, the amygdala was active in flight-or-fight responses, and essentially tells the hippocampus to store information about dangerous things for future survival.

With regard to human emotions, there tends to be a spectrum ranging from threatened to rewarded.  According to Dr. Andreatta, slightly positive emotions are the most effective for the promotion of learning.  That is, if we are reacting to something overwhelmingly positive (e.g., winning the lottery) or negative (e.g., an earthquake), chances are we could not focus on our studies.

As for how this applies to instructional design, slightly positive emotions can be triggered through such things as game play, sharing interesting information with peers, attaining insight (i.e., that “aha!” feeling), application and reflection time allowance, simple quizzes, and some light competition between learning.

In my personal experience, this is certainly true as both a teacher and when I was a graduate student.  I would just like to add as a caveat that learners themselves need to have some form of extrinsic or intrinsic motivation available to them in order to summon these positive feelings in the first place.  As a teacher I consider this a large part of my job to provide motivation through enjoyable social activities, but it also requires learners to meet me half way.

In today’s lecture in The Neuroscience of Learning the second phase, Remember, of Dr. Andreatta’s learning model began with the focus on making connections for learning.

In order to make connections in the brain, we use what are known as schemas, or some kind of representation of a concept (e.g., we have an understanding in general of what a phone is).  Interestingly and importantly, schemas can change over time (e.g., rotary phones to smart phones), which is a good reminder that instructors need to be willing to move with the times in the examples they use.

In the classroom, instructors have some options to utilize this meta-cognitive device.  For example, appreciative inquiry can be used to have learners recall a time when they were successful as a mental template for further success.  Another option is to use word play such as mnemonic devices for remembering information.  In short, helping learners to think about learning (i.e., at the meta level) can lead to stronger connections.

Towards the second half of the lecture Dr. Andreatta brought up some ways for connections to be made outside of the classroom.  One way is to have learners do their own research on a topic.  This is a good reminder of importance of assigning meaningful homework and not just rote memorization exercises from the day’s lesson.  Another important reminder she mentioned was that people tend to make conceptual connections when not actually thinking about the subject being studied because the brain needs to time to rest.

Finally, towards the end of the lecture, it was discussed that people tend to learn best in social situations  Simply put, evolution has made it so (traditionally) the odds of survival were much higher when people worked in groups to solve problems (e.g., capture a lion).  As a current EFL instructor, I am very aware of this and always aim to make interactive activities such as role-playing a major part of class time usage.

In today’s lecture in The Neuroscience of Learning Dr. Andreatta introduced her three phase model of learning: 1) Learn (exposure) 2) Remember 3) Do.

To support the first phase, Bloom’s Hierarchy of Learning was referenced to demonstrate that people tend to remember information after exposure, then gain an understanding, and eventually apply it.  After application, higher order thinking can occur where individuals may use the information in a playful manner, or engage in analysis or evaluation of what they have learned.

For me, the most salient part of this explanation was that as someone who designs learning experiences, I need to be sure to walk students through this process, possibly in a cyclical manner (e.g., reviewing information in subsequent lessons).  That is, learners need opportunities to assimilate or digest new information, play with and use their new knowledge, and ultimately reflect in abstract and analytical ways if I am to help them be successful.

As a person who is working to becoming an Instructional Designer, and who is currently an EFL instructor for adults, I think the best way I can incorporate this knowledge into my professional life is by stepping back a bit and analyzing my course syllabus and individual lesson plans to ensure these concepts are being applied.

Today I began The Neuroscience of Learning with Dr. Britt Andreatta on Lynda.com, the first course in a learning path to become an Instructional Designer.  In today’s lecture, Dr. Andreatta discussed the beliefs people have about learning in terms of fixed and growth mindsets, with relation to the work of Carol Dweck.

A fixed mindset is one in which the individual believes that their ability in a certain area is static.  For instance, many people believe they are so-called “math people” or “musically talented”, and no matter how much they study they will not improve much.  Inherent to this mindset is the practice of comparing people to one another and categorizing them as stronger or weaker in certain areas.

On the other hand, a growth mindset is the underlying belief that as the brain has plasticity, with proper instruction we can improve and essentially become “math people” or proficient in an instrument.  In contrast to the fixed mindset, what is important here is that people tend to compare themselves with themselves – that is, they measure their own improvement.

While I certainly find the evidence convincing, I am also interested in how much aptitude for certain skills can be a promoting or limiting factor in adult learning.  As the course continues I hope that this issue will be discussed.