Tak Cheung Chan and Garth F. Petrie
In his new book, Teaching With the Brain in Mind, Eric Jensen (1998) observes that we all want solutions to educational challenges and problems, but cautions that we must be careful about how we apply new discoveries. When someone promotes a particular approach to learning as being brain compatible, it may not be the final word on the topic. But Jensen affirms that interest in brain-compatible learning is here to stay. It will come to affect nearly everything we do, including teaching strategies, discipline, music and art, special education, curriculum, technology, learning environments, teacher training, assessment, and organizational change.
Energy for Learning
Although the brain represents only two percent of an adult's body weight, it consumes 20 percent of the body's energy. This energy is transmitted to the brain through a highly oxygenated blood supply that comes directly from the lungs via the carotid artery. Our brains need about 8 gallons of blood per hour, or almost 200 gallons per day.
The electrolytic balance for proper brain functioning comes from water. To insure this balance, we require six to twelve glasses of water per day. Without enough water, we don't learn as well. Hannaford (1995) identifies dehydration as a common classroom problem that leads to lethargy and impaired learning. Yet where are most water fountains in schools? Except for early primary classrooms, most school water fountains are found outside the classroom where students have limited access to them.
Another essential ingredient for proper brain functioning is oxygen. Without fresh air, we can't expect the brain to function at its best. School facility planners can't afford to neglect the requirements of quality ventilation.
As we learn, our brain cells—neurons—pass information along at speeds of up to 200 miles an hour. A single neuron can receive thousands of signals from other neuronal sources even though they do not make physical contact with one another. Rather, our neurons send and receive chemical messages (Jensen 1998). Constantly firing with electrical and chemical energy, our neurons gain strength through use. This makes the brain a truly miraculous electro-chemical processor.
The brain begins to form its learning patterns from birth, or even possibly during pregnancy. As each individual responds and adapts to his particular environment, the brain adapts itself to that system of living and learning. The learning patterns that an infant initiates will endure and serve for a lifetime unless something intervenes to change the pattern. School should be one of those intervening places for change.
Many people believe that heredity sets the limits of a child's learning, but this view is in dispute. It appears that the environment has much more influence on brain development than previously thought. Most scientists now think the influence of heredity vs. environment on brain development is a 50-50 proposition at best.
For young children, who have twice as many neurons as adults, play, exercise, experience, and challenge are major sources of learning. Yet schools for young children are often designed contrary to how children learn. Facilities that stimulate real challenge through such things as swimming pools are seldom part of the school experience for young children; swimming pools are built only at high schools, if at all.
Artistic Environment
Optimal learning occurs when our brains are appropriately challenged. But when the learning challenge is perceived as being too threatening, our brains "down-shift" (Hart 1983). A school environment that challenges brain development in non-threatening ways makes use of the arts for teaching thinking and for building emotive expressiveness and memory. By learning and practicing in the visual and performing arts, the human brain actually rewires itself to make more and stronger connections (Kolb and Whishaw 1990). Simmons (1995) reported that better visual thinking, problem-solving, language and creativity were associated with music and art training in Japanese, Hungarian, and Netherland schools.
An effective learning environment supports art and music programs with appropriate facilities. In well-designed schools, both the architecture and landscaping are aesthetically stimulating. Such school environments engage, challenge, and interact with brain growth.
Activity Areas
Physical activity is essential in promoting the growth of mental functions. Exercises such as spinning, crawling, rolling, rocking, tumbling, swinging, and jumping strengthen the brain's main areas: the basal ganglia, the cerebellum and the corpus callosum. Exercise brings more oxygen to the brain, enhancing connections between neurons (Palmer, 1980; Brink, 1995). Jensen (1998) suggests that learning is enhanced by daily stretching, walking, and dancing, as well as other physical movement. To accommodate these activities, schools need spacious areas. In classrooms, moveable, stackable, or collapsible furniture helps clear space for physical activities.
Color and Light
Brain research suggests that color and lighting may influence learning. Birren (1977) reported that warm colors and brilliant lighting increased muscular tension, respiration rate, pulse, blood pressure, and brain activity. Insufficient lighting causes visual fatigue. Distracting color combinations can lead to task confusion and slow reaction. Quality lighting and appropriate colors improve visual processing and reduce stress (Birren, 1972).
Thermal and Acoustical Environments
Researchers agree that an optimal learning environment requires comfortable temperatures and protection from distracting sounds. Physical discomfort and noise sends distress messages to the brain, causing the cerebellum (our brains' central processor) to limit the brain's normal operations.
Environment Matters
The significance of the learning environment cannot be underestimated. The brain learns faster in challenging, creative, accommodating, and healthy environments. To provide for the growing, learning brains of our children, we must not forget that the environments we design have a major influence in building smarter brains.
References
Birren, F. (1972, August). The significance of light. AIA Journal, 27-30.
Birren, F. (1977, September). Color it color. Progressive Architecture, 129-133.
Brink, S. (1995, May 15). Smart moves. U.S. News & World Report. (Online database.)
Bronzaft, A. L., & McCarthy, D. P. (1975). The effect of elevated train noise on reading ability. Environment and Behavior 7(4), 517-527.
Chan, T.C. (1980). Physical environment and middle grade achievement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 198 645)
Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1990). Understanding a brain-based approach to learning and teaching. Educational Leadership 48 (2), 66-70.
Cohen, S., Evans, G., Krantz, D. S. & Stokols, D. (1980, March). Physiological, motivational, and cognitive effects of aircraft noise on children, American Psychologist, 231-243.
Dunn, R. (1985). Light up their fives: A review of research on the effects of lighting on children's achievement and behavior. Reading Teacher 38 (9), 836-869.
Eilers, J. R. (1991, March). Color scheme linked to productivity gains. Food Processing, 131-132.
Hannaford, C. (1995). Smart Moves. Arlington, VA: Great Ocean Publishing Co.
Harner, D. P. (1974). Effects of thermal environment on learning skills. CEFP Joumal 29 (4), 25-30.
Hart, L. (1983). Human brain, human learning. New York: Longman.
Jensen, E. (1998). Teaching with the brain in mind. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Ketcham, J. (1964, November). These colors fit your school decor. Nation's Schools 61.
King, J., & Marans, R. W. (1979). The physical environment and the learning process. Ann Arbor, NE: Architectural Research Laboratory.
Knirk, F. G. (1992, September). Facility requirements for integrated learning system. Educational Technology 33 (9), 26-32.
Kolb, B., & Whishaw, I. Q. (1990). Fundamentals of human neuropsycholoay. New York: Freeman and Co.
Lewis. P. T. (1977). Noise in primary schools: Implications for design. Journal of Architectural Research 6 (l), 34-37.
Lexington, A. (1989, October). Healthy offices: Hard to define, but we need them. The Office, 73-75.
Nolan, J. A. (1960, Summer). Influence of classroom temperature on academic learning. Automated Teaching Bulletin, 12-20.
Palmer, L. (1980, September). Auditory discrimination through vestibulo-cochlear stimulation. Academic Therapy 16 (l), 55-70.
Peccolo, C. M. (1962). The effect of thermal environment learning. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Iowa.
Pelletier,P.N. (1984). Comparison of the effects of continuous and intermittent pure tone at low and high frequencies on reading comprehension. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Southern California.
Poulton, E. (1978). A new look at the effects of noise: A rejoinder, Psychological Bulletin 85, 1068-1079.
Rice, A. J. (1953, November). What research knows about color in the classroom. Nation's Schools, 1-8.
Ruch, W. A. & Hershauer, J. C. (1974). Factors affecting, worker productivity. Arizona: Bureau of Business and Economic Research.
Salam, P., & Wittershiem, G. (1978) Selective noise disturbance of the information input in short-term memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 30 (4), 693-704.
Scagliotta, E. G. (1980, May). Falling barometer- failing behavior. Academic Therapy, 607-612.
Simmons, S. (1995, December). Drawing as thinking. Think Magazine, 23-29.
Sleeman, P. J., & Rockwell. D. M. (1981). Designing learning environments. New York: Longman.
Stuart, F., & Curtis. H. A. (1964). Climate controlled and non-climate controlled schools. Clearwater, FL: Pinellas County Board of Public Instruction.