Everyday wonders and miracles

Every day we are engaged in a miracle… a blue sky, white clouds, green leaves, the black, curious eyes of a child — our own two eyes. All is a miracle.— "The Miracle of Mindfulness" by Tich Nhat Hanh

Vietnamese monk Thích Nhất Hạnh, who passed away on January 22, 2022, at the age of 95, was one of the foremost teachers of Zen Buddhism, mindfulness, and meditation. Having joined a monastery at age 16 in 1942, the spiritual leader spent most of his life studying, practicing, and spreading the Buddhist principles of nonviolence and awareness. He was an author, poet, artist, and peace activist with a gift for distilling ancient Buddhist philosophies into accessible daily practices. His teachings helped people all around the world to slow down, catch their breath, and enjoy the present moment.

 When I was younger, I used to lay down in the meadow on beautiful sunny days, to rest from whatever chore we were doing on the farm that day. I would lie still, listening to the insects, the breeze and I would soak in the smells of nature. From time-to-time clouds would float by and I would begin to draw shapes in my head. I would see the horse, the hidden face, the whisp of a young girl's hair. I would get lost in the miracles of the universe that I saw unfolding in front of me. If I had the luxury of time, I would begin to create stories that featured the shape of the clouds that drifted before my eyes. This I later learned was left-brain thinking and all creative people have it and use it to help them create. They see and hear what most of us miss, but I think that all children have this innate ability.

 As I grew older, I found I had less and less time to spend in this type of pursuit and soon my days of creating stories and painting pictures in my mind were left behind for more right-brain activities, I was lucky because I held on to that ability and later on in life,  I was able to use left-brain thinking to solve problems my right brain could not solve.

 

A Fresh Look at Brain-Based Education

By Eric P. Jensen


I have been a big advocate of Brain Based Education since the 1980's when I first read Leslie Harts book on Brain Based Education. It has been more than 20 years since it was first suggested that there could be connections between brain function and educational practice. In the face of all the evidence that has now accumulated to support this notion, Mr. Jensen advocates that educators take full advantage of the relevant knowledge from a variety of scientific disciplines. The full article is here


TEN YEARS ago John Bruer, executive administrator of the James S. McDonnell Foundation, began a series of articles critical of brain-based education. They included "Education and the Brain: A Bridge Too Far" (1997), "In Search of . . . Brain-Based Education" (1999), and, most recently, "On the Implications of Neuroscience Research for Science Teaching and Learning: Are There Any?" (2006).1 Bruer argued that educators should ignore neuroscience and focus on what psychologists and cognitive scientists have already discovered about teaching and learning. His message to educators was "hands off the brain research," and he predicted it would be 25 years before we would see practical classroom applications of the new brain research. Bruer linked brain-based education with tabloid mythology by announcing that, if brain-based education is true, then "the pyramids were built by aliens -- to house Elvis."2

Because of Bruer's and others' critiques, many educators decided that they were simply not capable of understanding how our brain works. Other educators may have decided that neuroscience has nothing to offer and that the prudent path would be simply to ignore the brain research for now and follow the yellow brick road to No Child Left Behind. Maybe some went so far as to say, "What's the brain got to do with learning?" But brain-based education has withstood the test of time, and an accumulating body of empirical and experiential evidence confirms the validity of the new model.


Many educationally significant, even profound, brain-based discoveries have occurred in recent years, such as that of neurogenesis, the production of new neurons in the human brain. It is highly likely that these discoveries would have been ignored if the education profession hadn't been primed, alerted, and actively monitoring cognitive neuroscience research and contemplating its implications and applications. Here, I wish to discuss how understanding the brain and the complementary research can have practical educational applications. I will make a case that narrowing the discussion to only neurobiology (and excluding other brain-related sciences) diminishes the opportunity for all of us to learn about how we learn and about better ways to teach. In addition, I will show how the synergy of biology, cognitive science, and education can support better education with direct application to schools.

In 1983 a new model was introduced that established connections between brain function and educational practice. In a groundbreaking book, Human Brain, Human Learning, Leslie Hart argued, among other things, that cognitive processes were significantly impaired by classroom threat.3 While not an earthshaking conclusion, the gauntlet was thrown down, as if to say, "If we ignore how the student brain works, we will risk student success." Many have tied brain function to new models either of thinking or of classroom pedagogy.4 A field has emerged known as "brain-based" education, and it has now been well over 20 years since this "connect the dots" approach began. In a nutshell, brain-based education says, "Everything we do uses our brain; let's learn more about it and apply that knowledge."

A discussion of this topic could fill books, but the focus here will be on two key issues. First, how can we define the terms, scope, and role of brain research in education? That is, what are the disciplines and relevant issues that should concern educators? These issues are multidisciplinary. Evidence will show that "brain-based" is not a loner's fantasy or narrow-field model; it's a significant educational paradigm of the 21st century. Second, what is the evidence, if any, that brain research can actually help educators do our job better? Is there now credibility to this burgeoning field? What issues have critics raised? Can the brain-based advocates respond to the critics in an empirical way?

Defining Brain-Based Education
Let's start this discussion with a simple but essential premise: the brain is intimately involved in and connected with everything educators and students do at school. Any disconnect is a recipe for frustration and potential disaster. Brain-based education is best understood in three words: engagement, strategies, and principles. Brain-based education is the "engagement of strategies based on principles derived from an understanding of the brain." Notice this definition does not say, "based on strategies given to us by neuroscientists." That's not appropriate. Notice it does not say, "based on strategies exclusively from neuroscience and no other discipline." The question is, Are the approaches and strategies based on solid research from brain-related disciplines, or are they based on myths, a well-meaning mentor teacher, or "junk science"? We would expect an educator to be able to support the use of a particular classroom strategy with scientific reasoning or studies.

Each educator ought to be professional enough to say, "Here's why I do what I do." I would ask: Is the person actually engaged in using what he or she knows, or does he or she simply have knowledge about it without actually using it? Are teachers using strategies based on the science of how our brain works? Brain-based education is about the professionalism of knowing why one strategy is used instead of another. The science is based on what we know about how our brain works. It's the professionalism to be research-based in one's practices. Keep in mind that if you don't know why you do what you do, it's less purposeful and less professional. It is probably your collected, refined wisdom. Nothing wrong with that, but some "collected, refined wisdom" has led to some bad teaching, too.

While I have, for years, advocated "brain-based" education, I never have promoted it as the "exclusive" discipline for schools to consider. That's narrow-minded. On the other hand, the brain is involved in everything we do at school. To ignore it would be irresponsible. Thus an appropriate question is, Where exactly is this research coming from?

more right and left brain ideas

The terms "left brain" and "right brain" refer to the left and right hemispheres of your brain. They each tend to process things differently, as explained in the following two paragraphs. However, the following are generalizations. They hold true for over 90% of right-handed people, and only 70% of left-handed people. In the cases where they aren't true, the division of labor and processing styles is usually still there, but reversed, with the right side handling the things that most people's left side handles, and vice-versa.

The left brain processes thing more sequentially and systematically than the right. It is more rational, or at least more logical, analytical and objective. It tends to look at the parts more than the whole. Finally, it was learned early on in studies of the hemisphere that the left side handles speech for most of us.

The right brain is the "artists" brain. It handles thing in more random and subjective manor. It is generally responsible for "hunches" and other intuitive processes. It looks more at wholes, and is best at pattern-recognition, making it the "map reading" part of the brain.

How distinct are the two halves of your brain? Consider the amazing experiments involving people who have had the corpus callosum cut. This surgery is performed on epileptics to reduce the incidence of seizures. It isolates most of the right hemisphere from the left hemisphere.

In a typical experiment, a divider lets a subject see two objects - say, a cup with the right eye and a lemon with the left. Asked what they see, they'll say "a cup," because their left brain process both language and information from the right eye. When asked to write down what they see, however, using their left hand, they'll write "a lemon," because both their left hand and eye are controlled by the right side of the brain.

The two hemispheres normally work more closely together. These split-brain experiments show how distinct the two sides really are, though. Many people think that there is some benefit to getting the two sides working better together, as they each have their strengths. Some claim that meditation accomplishes this, and there is some evidence at least for the balancing of electrical activity between the two sides during a meditative state. Alternately, you could develop whichever hemisphere seems weakest in you.

Left Brain Right Brain Dominance

You will usually favor one style or another of thinking, and this may be an indication of the dominance of either your right brain or left brain. It seems likely, for example, that the choice between joining the debating team or the art class in school would have something to do with which side is dominant. You may have noticed that left-handed people, who presumably have a more developed right hemisphere, are more often artists.

What if your left brain is dominant, and you want to work on developing your right brain? You could try singing, a right-side activity. By the way, those who stutter often don't stutter singing, because singing is handled differently than regular speech (right brain versus left brain). Writing or, even better, reciting free-form poetry and studying maps may help as well. These are not proven to be beneficial to "right brain development" by scientific studies yet, but there is no danger in experimenting in these areas.

To stimulate and strengthen the thinking processes of your "left brain," talk about things as logically as you can. Picking apart an argument or something you read, and analyzing it can exercise this part of the brain too. Again, there is little hard evidence as to the effects of these specific exercises, but talking or working on your analytical skills are safe things to do, so experiment freely. Writing this article is almost certainly a left brain activity, by the way.

To be more "whole brained" in your approach to things, work on your weakest areas, using some of the tips above. Try to also bring both sides into whatever you do. Metaphors, for example, are a right-hemisphere process, but can be used in logical (left-hemisphere) debate. Your artistic work could include more analysis. Can these practices really help balance your thinking? Time and more research will let us know, but it seems likely, and it seems equally unlikely that more fully using your right brain and left brain will hurt you.

Why Right brained people will rule the world one day

The following is from Daniel H. Pink’s book A Whole New Mind; Why right brainers will rule the future.


DESIGN


Buy a small notebook and begin carrying it with you wherever you go. When you see great design, make a note of it. (Example: my $6.95 Hotspot silicone trivet-a thin, flexible square that doubles as a pot holder, triples as a jar opener, and looks cool.) Do the same for flawed design. (Example: the hazard light button in my car, which is so close to the gearshift that I often turn on the hazards when I put the car in PARK.) Before long, you'll be looking at graphics, interiors, environments, and much more with greater acuity. And you'll understand in a deeper way in which design decisions shape our everyday lives. Be sure to include the design of experiences as well-buying a cup of coffee, taking a trip on an airplane, going to an emergency room. If you're not a note-taker, carry around a small digital c or camera cell phone instead and snap photos of good and bad design


Channel Your Annoyance.


1. Choose a household item that annoys you in any way.


2. Go by yourself to a cafe with pen and paper, but without a book and without a newspaper, and, for the duration your cup of coffee, think about improving the poorly signed item.


3. Send the idea/sketch as it is to the manufacturer of your annoying household item.


You never know what might come of it.

The above from Stefan Sagmeister, graphic design impresario. (More information at http://www.sagmeister.com )

Creativity and other thoughts

In the past few days I have been drawn to a number of readings that focus on spirituality, creativity and the science behind both. Is the universe trying to tell me something, those who believe in the concept that we are can control what happens to our us through our thoughts would say yes. I am a believer in the idea that what and how we think translates to actions and those actions affect those around us either in a positive (hopefully) or a negative way. I am not a believer in the concept that we control what happens to us and the law of attraction that seems to be making the rounds in peoples thinking. Karma, I was told does not come into play until your next life, for those who believe in this concept.

Creativity is another theme that I have been drawn towards over the last few days and I find this theme interesting. Can  one learn to be creative, according to Jeffery Baumgarnter who is the editor of Report 103 a monthly newsletter on creativity, imagination and innovation in business, and whose personal website is http://www.ungodly.com/, you can learn.

Jeffery talks about the seven steps of Creative Problem Solving:

1.  Clarify and identify the problem
2.  Research the problem
3.  Formulate creative challenges
4. Generate ideas
5. Combine and evaluate the ideas
6. Draw up an action plane
7. Do it! (ie. implement the ideas)

I think he has an interesting approach to problem solving, but I am not sure if it is an approach to creative problem solving. Creativity happens, I find when I least expect it, creative ideas come from the right brain and for me that process is not as logical or sequential as laid out above. The idea of having a method for solving problems is a great idea, but I am not sure if the left brain approach is the best way to bring out full creativity.

Albert Einstein, Da Vinci and Edison all were creative thinkers, but I suspect that their most creative ideas leapt out for them, and were not part of a formal process. These people were focused on particular problems and I suspect thought about the problems, dreamt about the problems and mulled their thoughts around and then the right brain, which had a solution was able to have the left brain listen to and translate the idea so that others could use the idea.

I believe we can be creative if we listen to the right side of our brains more often