Oversimplification or inappropriate interpretation of complex neuroscience research is widespread among curricula claiming that brain-based approaches are effective for improved learning and retention. We examine recent curricula claiming to be based on neuroscience research, discuss the implications of such misinterpretation for special education, how neuroscience actually supports many traditional teaching methods, and suggest ways to foster more accurate understanding of neuroscience research and its potential for application in the special education classroom. p. 2

Use of emerging data on brain lateralization, emphasis on particular critical periods for brain development, and misinterpretation of synaptic changes that occur during learning have resulted in teaching strategies that are ineffective. p. 2

The current article critiques four purported neuroscience-based practices: right vs. left brain teaching, educational practices that emphasize early brain development and early critical periods, brain-based instruction, and teaching to individual multiple intelligences. p. 3

The main hypothesis purported by proponents of right- versus left-brain teaching is that the different brain hemispheres control different academic functions (Jensen, 2008). p. 3

However, the leap from data on lateralization of task processing to educational approaches preferentially targeting one hemisphere is a vast one and may not be appropriate. p. 3

information is processed differently but simultaneously by both hemispheres. Thus, it is neither accurate nor realistic to believe that individuals may selectively use one hemisphere of their brain at a time for separate academic functions. Instructional activities that emphasize only the left brain while ignoring the right brain are not possible. p. 3

THE BRAIN AND CRITICAL PERIODS p. 4

A period of very rapid synaptic development occurs from birth to around age three, such that the brains of very young children become densely packed with neural circuits. These high- density levels continue until about age ten. After age ten, synaptic pruning occurs and density declines to adult growth levels by around age fifteen (Bruer, 1999a, 1999b). p. 4

Interestingly, there is little, if any, evidence linking either the number of synapses or glucose uptake as direct causal factors for rate of general learning, or indicating that five year olds are better at learning than older students (Bruer, 1999a). Instead, the data suggest changes in the type of learning across the lifespan. Younger children learn vast amounts of information, but it is not until adolescence that abilities such as critical thinking, integration, or abstract reasoning develop (Baird, Gruber, Fein, et al., 1999; Sowell, Thompson, Holmes, et al., 1999). p. 5

Early learning is important, but it is important because it sets the basis for later learning, not because the window of opportunity closes. p. 5

Further, critical thinking and analytic skills appear to have their own critical period of development in later childhood and attempts to teach such skills in early childhood have met with failure (Bosse, 1995; Schoenfeld, 2006). p. 5

BRAIN-BASED EDUCATION p. 6

Another attempt to integrate neuroscience into the classroom is brain-based (Jensen, 2008; Laster, 2008), brain-compatible (Ronis, 2007; Tate, 2003, 2004, 2005), brain-friendly (Biller, 2003; Perez, 2008), or brain-targeted (Hardiman, 2003) instructional approaches. p. 6

Tate (2003) provided an example of the brain-compatible approach, suggesting that some educational practices “grow dendrites” and others do not. Obviously, a significant goal of any teacher, but particularly the teacher of students with special needs, is to help a child learn. But, “growing dendrites” should be a goal only if growing dendrites results in information acquisition, development of critical thinking skills, and increased ability for problem solving. This is where the applications of neuroscience may have jumped beyond the data. p. 6

According to brain compatible instruction, growing dendrites is a critical goal for educators, and proponents of this approach emphasize that only some forms of instruction are brain compatible. Indeed, these theorists suggest that teaching practices such as drill, practice, and memorization do not “grow dendrites.” They purport that instructional methods that are brain compatible must follow constructivist approaches that involve open-ended, process-based, and learner-centered activities. However, Tate (2003) provided no data indicating that the methods she disparaged do not in fact grow dendrites, or that her preferred methods do. Further, she provided no evidence that it is dendritic growth that is most critical for learning and education. p. 6

Focus, then, must be two-fold. First is the focus on ensuring appropriate environmental and nutritional conditions that stimulate dendritic growth in infancy and early childhood. But second must be emphasis on improving the strength of particular neural circuits, not simply on the overall growth of dendrites. Most interestingly, instructional activities such as memorization, mastery learning, and repetition-based activities appear to best strengthen and solidify the formation and maintenance of these circuits (Garrett, 2009; Freeberg, 2006). p. 6

BRAIN-COMPATIBLE TEACHING, LEARNING STYLES, AND MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES p. 7

These authors suggested that students have distinct multiple forms of intelligence (Gardner, 1983), and learn best through sensory or learning-style modalities that are compatible with their individual intelligence profiles. Thus, the best way to teach is to teach to the child’s preferred modality. Unfortunately, the data do not support such an approach either in general education or for children with disabilities (e.g., Dembo & Howard, 2007; Kratzig & Arbuthnott, 2006). p. 7

Teaching to a specific strength in the absence of teaching to a weakness may be a disservice to students. p. 7

A child who has multiple strategies available can be taught that when one strategy is not working to switch to another, even if he or she doesn’t “like it best.” Thus, it may be more accurate to strive for learning across a variety of “learning styles and preferences.” The larger the child’s inventory of learning strategies, the more likely the child is to learn across environmental settings. p. 7