Learning certainly maintains plasticity in the brain, and this malleable feature is not restricted to just young learners but extends to people well over their middle and old ages. New learning causes neural firing but practice strengthens and maintains it, and over a period of time, neurons that fire together, also wire together to form more long-standing networks in the brain. Fueling creativity, i.e. doing this in a novel way where value can be perceived it doing it that way, creates newer and more diverse neural pathways, thus contributing to physical changes in our brains.

However, I'm not quite sure of the left brain-right brain imbalance that you spoke about. Though there is some lateralization, with certain types of tasks (verbal/ analytical/ musical) calling for heightened activity in certain key regions of the brain, recent research has proven that no cognitive activity is carried out solely in one hemisphere of the brain, and that both sides are actually in essence equal in terms of neural connectivity and contribution to the task at hand. Which means, that for example, even though the language and speech center lies in the left brain of most right-handed people, it does not imply that when writing or speaking, one only uses that side of the brain or that it is richer in neurons. It is in in fact the overall connections between different parts of the brain, that allow for cognitive activities whether they be creative or analytical. In fact, research has also shown that in states of apparent idleness, when th brain is actually not involved in anything focused (such as in day- dreaming states), a set of disparate regions in the brain light up and work in startlingly synchronous ways, which is why creative ideas often bubble from unconscious thought rather than from full-frontal analysis. This is called the Default Mode Network (DMN) and it utilizes distal segments of the brain, that are not restricted to any particular side.

One of the ways teachers can induce the changes you talk about, are not just through practice (which has great value) but also by teaching in context. Context awakens our internal schema, and allows for easier and more rapid connections, thus igniting new networks and solidifying existing ones.

Looking forward to see some answers from experts in this field because this is very interesting, even though I think it would be difficult to determine physical changes in a students brain because of only 1 factor/input ie the teacher.

Antonio,

I think that teachers are only guaranteed to change minds of students if the idea is simple and requires no special leap of creativity in order to understand it. But, in this instance, the idea itself would not be particularly psychologically potent.

When it comes to more difficult concepts the proper role of the teacher is to create in the mind of the student a set of ideas in which the concept to be communicated is implicit. The leap from 'implicit' to 'explicit' can only be made by the student. It is a pedantic point, perhaps.

To offset the sort of ethical considerations that, I assume, lie behind your question, the teacher should bear in mind that his primary duty is to teach the student 'how to think', rather than 'what to think'.

As it goes to early year education i think teacher have influences of changing physical brain of students for the imbalance growth of left and right brain.

I ve seen how a pe teacher teach students in ecy/kindergarden 3 change motorik skill by practicing the students where as the students cant move around zigzag obstacle to be able to run following the pattern.

Changing that balancing or adding a new neuron need more research but from practical and observation view there suppose to have change in students brain development.

Learning certainly maintains plasticity in the brain, and this malleable feature is not restricted to just young learners but extends to people well over their middle and old ages. New learning causes neural firing but practice strengthens and maintains it, and over a period of time, neurons that fire together, also wire together to form more long-standing networks in the brain. Fueling creativity, i.e. doing this in a novel way where value can be perceived it doing it that way, creates newer and more diverse neural pathways, thus contributing to physical changes in our brains.

However, I'm not quite sure of the left brain-right brain imbalance that you spoke about. Though there is some lateralization, with certain types of tasks (verbal/ analytical/ musical) calling for heightened activity in certain key regions of the brain, recent research has proven that no cognitive activity is carried out solely in one hemisphere of the brain, and that both sides are actually in essence equal in terms of neural connectivity and contribution to the task at hand. Which means, that for example, even though the language and speech center lies in the left brain of most right-handed people, it does not imply that when writing or speaking, one only uses that side of the brain or that it is richer in neurons. It is in in fact the overall connections between different parts of the brain, that allow for cognitive activities whether they be creative or analytical. In fact, research has also shown that in states of apparent idleness, when th brain is actually not involved in anything focused (such as in day- dreaming states), a set of disparate regions in the brain light up and work in startlingly synchronous ways, which is why creative ideas often bubble from unconscious thought rather than from full-frontal analysis. This is called the Default Mode Network (DMN) and it utilizes distal segments of the brain, that are not restricted to any particular side.

One of the ways teachers can induce the changes you talk about, are not just through practice (which has great value) but also by teaching in context. Context awakens our internal schema, and allows for easier and more rapid connections, thus igniting new networks and solidifying existing ones.

@ Monica. I agree with everything you have said.

What I was wondering with my question was: If a teacher, for example, realizes that what and how she/he teaches will, inescapably induce changes in the brain's circuitry, then that is an important responsibility - you are actually causing a human (or humans) brain to change physically. If done effectively, it can have very long-term consequences - maybe even for a student's whole lifetime!

Good teachers are like good doctors, both are concerned about the well-being and thriving of their client, now and in the future.

Too often, people who teach in high school and university level, are focused on the subject matter, without a single thought about these, potentially, long-term effects on the students' brains.

If, a new viewpoint is taken in which the teachers are aware of how the brain works, especially how it learns and what affects the learning process, they can take these concepts, including heuristic models of the brain, to plan their lessons so that they are more effective and the student will receive long-lasting benefits.

Also, if the public is made more aware of what is happening to the brain of the student, they may give good teachers the respect and the remuneration they deserve.

Hi Antonio,

I think it's a very worthwhile suggestion to be able to garner some awareness on the extent to which we can affect learners' brains. It is not just awareness for teachers as such, but also for parents as well as students to be consciously aware of this process. I would even want to include the elderly here, since they are at the greatest risk of cognitive decline. But getting back to young learners, I think it helps to make everyone conscious of what the learning process does to their neural networks. The concept of the brain gym, an explicit brain training program, has been especially helpful for children with learning disabilities, as is BSC (brain state conditioning) for those with post traumatic stress disorder. Most mainstream schools should also probably do a bit of research before designing their curriculum, in a way that it best enhances plasticity and that may range from introducing newer activities to toning down existing course content in order to give the brain more time to 'breathe' and engage in rich cognitive exercises. A Suduko, in my opinion, is the best way to start the day!

Thanks for sharing this interesting topic. Much food for thought.

Excellent answers!

It is clear that you have been thinking and doing things along these unconventional lines.

I will read your postings again. I'm sure there is a lot of gold to be sifted from them.

Some teachers appear to be afraid of reading straight neuroscience material; so many of these who want to incorporate aspects of neuroscience in their teaching are depending on intermediaries who interpret and apply neuroscience in their own way to education and learning. I think, partly because it such new ground to be explored, it is best to immerse oneself in neuroscience to the extent one feels necessary, then come away with principles and heuristic models that allow oneself to see how these can be applied to one's specific circumstances and students - there is no recipe or pedagogy yet (and, in my opinion, hopefully there will never be).

Thanks! Appreciate it. There is indeed no recipe for pedagogy, rather no fixed recipe. There's richness and value in diversity, each customized to meet the specific learning needs of a specific target audience.

An interesting concept I came across recently speaks about MENTAL BANDWIDTH.

The idea is that one has only a limited amount of mental processing capacity. If one's processing capacity is consumed with tasks such as: survival, multi-tasking, making ends meet in your family budget, care-taking, overcoming a large challenge, doing mounds of homework, then your brain does not have left-over capacity to put things in perspective, to be innovative, to be creative, and to think critically.