LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

approaches, such as those that emphasize teaching different parts of the brain separately (Howard-Jones, 2014). For example, a common brain-based education instructional strategy is to teach for the left or right lateralized brain. The “left brain” is said to be the “logical” hemisphere, concerned with language and analysis, while the “right brain” is said to be the “intuitive” hemisphere concerned with spatial patterns and creativity (Sousa, 2001). Brain-based learning theorists may then encourage teachers to teach specific hemispheres during adapted lessons. To teach to the left hemisphere, teachers have students engage in reading and writing, while right hemisphere–oriented lessons have students create visual representations of concepts (Sousa, 2001). Brain researchers, however, are sharply critical of left/right brain teaching because, although the brain is lateralized, it functions as a whole (Howard-Jones, 2014). Language and spatial information—and, for that matter, most other abilities—are processed differently but simultaneously by the two hemispheres (Corballis, Lalueza-Fox, Orlando, Enard, & Green, 2014). It is highly improbable, then, that any given lesson, regardless of analytic or spatial type, can stimulate activation of only one hemisphere.

      For this reason, some experts argue that the leap from neurological research to the classroom is large and not supported (Alferink & Farmer-Dougan, 2010). For many researchers, the problem of brain-based education is its reliance on the brain itself and in its oversimplification of complex theories and research (Alferink & Farmer-Dougan, 2010; Busso & Pollack, 2014). Although we have learned much, brain research is in its infancy. Researchers do not know enough about how the brain functions and learns to draw direct inferences about teaching (Bruer, 2008). For example, MRI research illuminates patterns of brain activity, but researchers do not yet conclusively know what those patterns mean or if those patterns of brain activity have implications for behavior (Willis, 2007). Applying these findings to inform education is premature. Many researchers, therefore, find it problematic to state that teaching strategies should be derived from brain research—at least not yet.

      On the positive side, however, brain-based education emphasizes active learning. Teachers who foster active learning encourage students to become engaged and participate in their own learning, such as being creative in artwork, physical activity, and story making (Bruer, 2008). Active learning is an important educational strategy. Although many developmental researchers argue that the neurological science behind brain-based education is questionable, the active learning practices that comprise many brain-based learning activities advance children’s learning.

      What Do You Think?

      1 Identify an advantage and a disadvantage to brain-based education.

      2 In your view, should preschools emphasize teaching specifically to a specific part of the brain, such as the left or right hemisphere?

      In contrast, problems have been documented with rigid teacher-directed academic programs. Children immersed in such programs sometimes show signs of stress such as rocking, may have less confidence in their skills, and may avoid challenging tasks compared with children who are immersed in more active forms of play-based learning (Stipek, Feiler, Daniels, & Milburn, 1995). Such programs are also negatively associated with reading skills in first grade (Lerkkanen et al., 2016).

      Instead of a purely academic approach, many practitioners advocate for a developmentally appropriate practice, which tailors instruction to the age of the child, recognizing individual differences and the need for hands-on active teaching methods (Kostelnik et al., 2015). Teachers provide educational support in the form of learning goals, instructional support, and feedback, but they also emphasize emotional support and help children learn to manage their own behavior (S. Anderson & Phillips, 2017). Moreover, teachers are provided with explicit instruction in how to teach and the teaching strategies needed to support young children’s literacy, language, math, social, and self-regulatory development (Markowitz, Bassok, & Hamre, 2018). Responsive child-centered teaching is associated with higher reading and math scores during first grade (Lerkkanen et al., 2016).

      Effective early childhood educational practice is influenced by cultural values (Gordon & Browne, 2016). In the United States, a society that emphasizes individuality, a child-centered approach in which children are given freedom of choice is associated with the most positive outcomes (Marcon, 1999). Yet in Japan, the most effective preschools tend to foster collectivist values and are society centered with an emphasis on social and classroom routines, skills, and promoting group harmony (Holloway, 1999; Nagayama & Gilliard, 2005). Japanese preschools prepare children for their roles in society and provide formal instruction in academic areas as well as art, swordsmanship, gymnastics, tea ceremonies, and Japanese dance. Much instruction is teacher directed, and children are instructed to sit, observe, and listen. Teachers are warm but address the group as a whole rather than individuals. This structured approach is associated with positive outcomes in Japanese children (Holloway, 1999; Nagayama & Gilliard, 2005), illustrating the role of culture in influencing outcomes of early childhood education. Even within a given country such as the United States, there exist many ethnicities and corresponding cultures, such as those of Native Americans and Mexican Americans. In each case, instruction that is informed by an understanding of children’s home and community culture fosters a sense of academic belongingness that ultimately influences academic achievement (Gilliard & Moore, 2007; Gordon & Browne, 2016).

      In Western countries, children spend most of their day at school and, aside from household chores such as picking up their toys or cleaning their dinner plates, work is not a part of the typical Western child’s day. Most children are segregated from adult work and know little about their parents’ workplace. Some educators advocate for applying neuroscience findings to improve early childhood education, as discussed in the Brain and Biological Influences on Development feature.

      Early Childhood Education Interventions

      Recognizing that young children’s developmental needs extend beyond education, one of the most successful early childhood education and intervention programs in the United States, Project Head Start, was created by the federal government to provide economically disadvantaged children with nutritional, health, and educational services during their early childhood years, prior to kindergarten (Ramey & Ramey, 1998). Parents of Head Start children also receive assistance, such as education about child development, vocational services, and programs addressing their emotional and social needs (Zigler & Styfco, 2004).

      Over the past four decades, a great deal of research has been conducted on the effectiveness of Head Start. The most common finding is that Head Start improves cognitive performance, with gains in IQ and achievement scores in elementary school (Zhai, Brooks-Gunn, & Waldfogel, 2011). Compared with children who do not participate in Head Start, those who do so have greater parental involvement in school, show higher math achievement scores in middle school, are less likely to be held back a grade or have problems with chronic absenteeism in middle school, and are more likely to graduate from high school (Duncan, Ludwig, & Magnuson, 2007; Joo, 2010; Phillips, Gormley, & Anderson, 2016). Head Start is associated with other long-lasting social and physical effects, such as gains in social competence and health-related outcomes, including immunizations (Huston, 2008). Yet some research has suggested that the cognitive effects of Head Start may fade over time such that, by late childhood, Head Start participants perform similarly to control group low socioeconomic status children who have not participated in Head Start (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services & Administration for Children and Families, 2010). Early intervention may not compensate for the pervasive and long-lasting effects of poverty-stricken neighborhoods and inadequate public schools (Schnur & Belanger, 2000; Welshman, 2010). At the same time, long-term advantageous effects of attending Head Start include higher graduation rates and lower rates of adolescent pregnancy and criminality for low-income children who attend Head Start compared with their control group peers (Duncan & Magnuson, 2013). Despite these findings, only about one third of poor children are enrolled in Head Start, and this proportion has shrunk over the past decade, as shown in Figure 7.7.

Скачать книгу