ArticlePDF Available

The Myth of Left-vs Right-Brain Learning



It has been more than a decade since researchers began calling for caution over certain brain-learning strategies supposedly based on neuroscience. Nonetheless, misconceptions still persist. This paper explores the myth of hemispheric dominance in learning, and provides advice to educators, parents, and others in the field. It has long been a popular view that some people favour one hemisphere over the other and that such cognitive preferences have implications for learning. Scientific research into the structures and functions of normal brains, both as they develop and on into adulthood, has demonstrated the fallacy of this belief. As such, interventions and products that target left-or right-brain learning should be treated with caution. It is unlikely that these interventions successfully target one hemisphere over the other, or that they improve learning outcomes in ways that depend on such perceived differences. Educators, parents, and others in the field are urged to inform themselves about the fundamental features of neuroscience, and to look for significant independent research that supports specific learning programs. While many school-based programs in mainstream settings are supported by research, school leaders, teachers and parents should take into consideration the quality of evidence available, the purpose of the intervention and how the intervention or program may fit the needs of the students and context.
International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change.
Volume 5, Issue 1, November 2019
The Myth of Left- vs Right-Brain
Dr Kelly-Ann Allena & Dr Rick van der Zwanb
a Senior Lecturer, Monash University, Australia b Cognitive Neuro-Scientist
Consultant, Australia
It has been more than a decade since researchers began calling for
caution over certain brain-learning strategies supposedly based on
neuroscience. Nonetheless, misconceptions still persist. This paper
explores the myth of hemispheric dominance in learning, and
provides advice to educators, parents, and others in the field. It has
long been a popular view that some people favour one hemisphere
over the other and that such cognitive preferences have
implications for learning. Scientific research into the structures and
functions of normal brains, both as they develop and on into
adulthood, has demonstrated the fallacy of this belief. As such,
interventions and products that target left- or right-brain learning
should be treated with caution. It is unlikely that these interventions
successfully target one hemisphere over the other, or that they
improve learning outcomes in ways that depend on such perceived
differences. Educators, parents, and others in the field are urged to
inform themselves about the fundamental features of neuroscience,
and to look for significant independent research that supports
specific learning programs. While many school-based programs in
mainstream settings are supported by research, school leaders,
teachers and parents should take into consideration the quality of
evidence available, the purpose of the intervention and how the
intervention or program may fit the needs of the students and
Keywords: Brain Learning, Brain Hemisphere, Education, Psychology, Research-based
International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change.
Volume 5, Issue 1, November 2019
Neuroscientists have long known that brains are plastic’: If they were not, learning would
occur neither during development nor maturation (Blakemore & Cooper, 1970; Ismail, Fatemi,
& Johnston, 2017; Kolb, 2018; Munte, et al., 2002). As such, many educators have, for some
time, looked to neuroscience to help inform their practices. Despite that recognition, and as
Howard-Jones (2009) points out, Decades without formal interdisciplinary communication
have allowed many unscientific ‘brain-based’ ideas to become established in the classroom”
(p. 550). While some of those ‘ideas’ have been developed by well-intentioned, classroom-
based teachers and school leaders, an industry that offers products and learning programs that
claim neuroscientific authenticity has also grown.
Discriminating between ideas and programs that have scientific merit and those that don’t can
be difficult. As a consequence, researchers have urged that so-called ‘brain-based’ learning
strategies be approached with caution (Goswami, 2006; Howard-Jones, 2009; Dekker, et al.
2012). The challenge in that approach is, of course, that myths still prevail, as do the so-called
learning strategies based on those myths. The aims of this paper are (i) to highlight the myth
of brain-dominance in learning, and (ii) to provide advice to educators, parents, and others on
how best to avoid programs and interventions based on this myth.
Hemispheric Asymmetry
Brains are among the most complex structures in the known universe. One hundred billion
neurons are distributed across the two hemispheres of the brain, with the hemispheres being
located on either side of our bilateral mid-line. Joining the two hemispheres is a massive bundle
of fibres called the corpus collosum. While the hemispheres are symmetrically distributed
within the brain, one on each side, they are morphologically asymmetrical, and develop
asymmetrically (Levin, 2005; Zaidel, 2001).
Perhaps unsurprisingly, in that context, the two hemispheres function asymmetrically as well.
That is, each hemisphere has functions that are not similarly represented in the other. Almost
International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change.
Volume 5, Issue 1, November 2019
all brain processes are undertaken by specialised groups of neurons in identifiable and
predictable locations. Certainly, all clusters of neurons are massively interconnected with other
parts of the brain, but specific areas are “tuned” for specific tasks and functions. Those areas
develop at specific times during maturation, and damage to an area can lead to a deficit in
whatever task it is that the neurons in that area do.
While some areas are bilaterally represented the same place in each hemisphere exhibits the
same types of functions - the tuning of neurons in each hemisphere typically is not. For
example, visual processing occurs at the back of the brain, in the occipital lobes (put your hands
behind your head and your palms are resting above the occipital pole of each hemisphere).
Both the left and right occipital lobes process visual information, but the left hemisphere
processes information from the right visual field, and the right hemisphere processes
information from the left. That same pattern is seen for other functions too the left frontal
lobe controls the right side of the body, and so on.
In addition to those processing asymmetries, more specific hemispheric specialisations, or
performance dominances’ occur. That is, there are examples of brain processes that occur
predominantly in one hemisphere, and much less so, or not at all, in the other. The most salient
example is language. In 1865, Paul Broca first noted that lesions in the left hemisphere affected
language ability in stroke patients. A hundred and fifty years later, functional magnetic
resonance imaging studies have unpacked the complex nature of language specialisation. In
95% of right-handed people, language is processed predominantly in the left hemisphere. For
the other 5%, language processing seems to be distributed bilaterally between the hemispheres.
In left-handers, the left-hemisphere performance dominance in language processing is reduced
to around 75%, while language is processed bilaterally in 14% (Pujol, Deus, Losilla, &
Capdevila, 1999), and a weak right-hemisphere predominance is found in the remaining 11%.
While various other functions have, over time, been cited as being specific to the left or the
right hemisphere, there is little evidence that any normal cognitive functioning occurs in only
one hemisphere or the other. The corpus collosum provides a connection that ensures massive
data-exchanges between the two hemispheres. Activation of neurons in any one location in one
International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change.
Volume 5, Issue 1, November 2019
hemisphere will lead to activity in many other regions of both hemispheres as well. While
diseased or damaged brains may function differently, in well-functioning brains, the notion that
one hemisphere can work independently of the other is false.
So… people really aren’t right-brain or left-brain thinkers?
While a simple model of hemispheric specialisation for learning is attractive as a heuristic, the
notion is a fallacy. There is currently no substantial empirical evidence to suggest that people
use their left or right brain more for thinking (Lindell & Kidd, 2011). It is certainly true that
some people tend to be stronger in analytical types of thinking, others are stronger in creative
thinking, and some are strong across multiple domains. But, there are no good grounds at all to
associate these traits with the predominance of one hemisphere over the other (Nielsen,
Zielinski, Ferguson, Lainhart, & Anderson, 2013).
That means that despite tuning asymmetries and despite hemispheric specialisations, there is
no research to date that has demonstrated that individuals are left- or right-brained learners. In
fact, the idea of right- or left-brain learning is possibly one of the oldest and most pervasive
neuromyths circulating today.
Origins of the left-brain/ right-brain learning myth
The origin of the myth of left/right-brain learning is unclear, but it may have emerged from the
scientific literature on split-brain patients. Split-brain surgery was initially developed in the
1940s as a treatment for seizures. The procedure involved severing the corpus callosum, the
massive neuron pathway connecting the right and left hemispheres, and offered one of the first
opportunities to study interactions between the hemispheres.
The procedure which is now replaced by more refined protocols allowed researchers at that
time to study a small population of split-brain patients (Gazzaniga, Bogen, & Sperry, 1962;
Sperry, 1961; Sperry, 1968). Gazzaniga (2008) has noted that split-brain surgery was
successful in decreasing seizure activity and, happily, produced no instances of ‘split
personalities. He also noted that while cutting the corpus collosum produced little or no change
International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change.
Volume 5, Issue 1, November 2019
in cognitive activity in the ‘dominant’ left hemisphere of most patients, the right hemisphere
in split brain patients often showed a significant decrease in activity.
Of course, cutting the corpus collosum prevents language processes accessing the right
hemisphere, which among other things, specialises in making perceptual distinctions, and
processing and managing emotions (Gazzaniga, 2008). In other words, being able to articulate
ideas looks like a function of the left hemisphere, and handling perceptions and emotions looks
like a function of the right hemisphere. In normal, healthy individuals, that distinction is
obviously incorrect and based on gross simplifications of complex interactions between the
hemispheres. Nonetheless, it may be one source of the myth of left-brain/right-brain learning
Another source of the left/right brain learning myth may relate to misconceptions surrounding
hemispheric dominance. As explained above, hemispheric dominance relates to the sites of
origin of specific processes within the brain. The same term has colloquially become associated
with other functions; left or right handedness or what side of your body you choose to sleep
on, for example. In reality, it is difficult-to-impossible to identify by observation any types of
hemispheric dominance, and that is likely because of the vast amounts of information being
exchanged between the hemispheres at any one moment and all cognitive processes depend on
the coordination of complex interhemispheric processing (Doron, Bassett, & Gazzaniga, 2012).
Brain-based Education Based on Evidence
While it has been 70 years since the first split brain surgery and despite the almost exponential
growth in brain research and neuroimaging studies, there is a considerable time lag between
findings generated by ‘pure’ research and the implementation of that research into teaching
practice. That situation is not unique to education. The estimated lag in health research, which
is the time from initial research to practical healthcare solutions, is 17 years. In the case of
education, we can expect the lag to be much greater (Balas & Bohen, 2000).
International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change.
Volume 5, Issue 1, November 2019
One reason for that is there are a number of steps required to convert brain science into
impactful teaching strategies. Brain imaging or functioning needs to be linked, unambiguously,
to observable and teachable behaviours and skills. Those behaviours and skills need to be
linked to valuable learning outcomes, and then those learning outcomes need to be
implemented into curriculum. Each step requires professional expertise, and without someone
explicitly and systematically undertaking each of those steps, and supporting each transition
with scientifically meaningful evidence, myths arise and mistakes can occur (Donoghue &
Horvath, 2016; Horvath & Donoghue, 2016). For busy school staff, gaining the technical and
scientific expertise to translate the most up-to-date neuro-jargon into useful practices and
knowledge in the classroom can be difficult even if they do have the time to work through the
process. As consequence, teachers and other educators can, despite good intentions, mistake
misconceptions and outdated theories for scientifically-based innovations.
Morris, Wooding, and Grant (2011) note that the time between initial research and useful
practice does have the benefit of providing an opportunity to ensure the efficacy of any new
programs or approaches. But for that time to be an advantage, parents, schools, interested
others, and skilled, reputable researchers have to undertake some due-diligence. That is, they
need to carefully explore or conduct research investigating the claims made by brain training
programs or interventions (see, for example, Shipstead, Hicks, & Engle, 2012; Stong,
Togerson, Togerson, & Hulme, 2010). Educators should find opportunities to partner with
researchers to explore the efficacy of new programs and approaches. Parents and schools
interested in exploring the efficacy of new programs or approaches should carefully eschew
marketing brochures and websites to explore more carefully the claims of brain-based training
programs. An easy way to start is to look at how recent the science is behind the program. If
little time has passed, it is likely there have been little corroborating science, and certainly little
chance that the proposed programs have been rigorously tested.
International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change.
Volume 5, Issue 1, November 2019
What else do teachers and parents need to know?
Many mainstream educational programs are of a high standard and there are a number
supported by sound research. Nonetheless, parents and educational professionals should be
wary of educational programs that lack independent empirical evidence or that rely on the use
of personal stories and testimonials (Bowen & Snow, 2017). Some programs and products
muddy the waters with assertions like neuroscience proves that our program grows your brain”
or “this program makes your child’s brain light up”. Whether, or not, such claims are true, they
are something of a distraction from a couple of important questions: The most important
question we can ask of any program that is supposed to improve student learning is “Does this
program improve student learning?” And the next question must be “Where is the science to
show it is so?” Those questions may sound obvious, and they are, but they often get lost in
irrelevant claims about supposed neural mechanisms. In the end, it matters little whether brains
get bigger or smaller; it matters little whether whole brains are more, or less active. What
matters is the impact of the learning mechanisms do learners learn more? Or do they learn
more effectively? Is their retention better? And do they enjoy the learning process (a critical
step in becoming lifelong learners)? And, if they do, show us the evidence for that. Not
someone’s claim, but real, and valid data.
There are many excellent, expert researchers working to discover strategies that help make
learning more effective. A few minutes on Google Scholar, for instance, will reveal how much
formal work has been done to study or validate strategies, as well as the outcomes of that work.
A key message here is that if you type in the name of a commercially available program and
find nothing, then it is wise to be cautious about accepting its promises or effectiveness (Bowen
& Snow, 2017).
Useful guidelines are available for parents and educators in this area, especially for those
raising or working with children with learning difficulties or developmental delays (Bowen &
Snow, 2017; Stephenson, Wheldall, & Carter, 2017). Parents and schools need to do their own
homework to determine whether the broad claims made in a program’s promotional materials
International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change.
Volume 5, Issue 1, November 2019
are indeed true. They should ensure that interventions and strategies fit with their unique needs
and context, and suit the purpose at which they are aimed at.
How to Start?
Parents should be aware that early childhood is a time of rapid cognitive development and
growth. Brains are born with a full complement of undifferentiated neurons, and require normal
experiences to drive the development of processes and pathways.
The good news is that parents can drive development simply by providing rich and stimulating
environments and experiences. Those experiences do not need to be complex or expensive.
Parents can give their children a solid foundation for future learning by helping their children
build positive and supportive relationships with caregivers (including teachers); giving them
opportunities to play, socialise, read books, and listen to nursery rhymes; exposing them to
languages and music; giving them opportunities to learn social and emotional competencies;
providing a healthy diet; and keeping kids physically active (Allen, Kern, Vella-Brodrick,
Waters, & Hattie, 2018; Allen, Vella-Brodrick, & Waters, 2017; Barreto, de Miguel, Ibarluzea,
Andiarena, & Arranz, 2017; Grove, Reupert, & Maybery, 2015; Riebschleger, Grove,
Cavanaugh, & Costello, 2017).
Once kids reach formal learning settings, even as early as preschool, qualified teachers and
educators provide children with age- and stage-appropriate opportunities to develop into
functioning adults. Children who are able to embark on a safe and healthy developmental
trajectory, void of neglect, trauma or abuse, and surrounded by caring, trusting and nurturing
relationships are in a good position for healthy brain development to naturally occur.
Despite its fallacy, the myth of left- or right-brain dominance is problematically enduring.
Parents and educators should be extremely cautious when approaching educational programs,
interventions, phone apps, or books that claim to stimulate one hemisphere in preference to the
other (e.g., right-brain approaches).
International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change.
Volume 5, Issue 1, November 2019
Similarly, the claim that a program or resource is “whole-brain” or “brain-based” in its
approach should be a red flag for educators and parents, especially in the absence of rigorous
scientific research. This is because all learning environments and experiences drive the whole-
brain” since it is the brain that learns.
To Gregory Donoghue, The University of Melbourne and the Australian Council for
Educational Research (ACER) for feedback and consultation.
International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change.
Volume 5, Issue 1, November 2019
Allen, K. A., Kern, P., Vella-Brodrick, D., & Waters, L. (2018). Understanding the priorities
of Australian secondary schools through an analysis of their mission and vision
statements. Educational Administration Quarterly, 54(2), 249-274.
Allen, K. A., Vella-Brodrick, D., & Waters, L. (2017). School belonging and the role of
social and emotional competencies in fostering an adolescent’s sense of connectedness
to their school (pp 83-99). In E. Frydenberg & A. Martin (Eds.), Social and Emotional
Learning in the Australasian Context (pp. 83-99). Melbourne, AU: Springer Social
Balas, E. A., & Boren, S. A. (2000). Managing clinical knowledge for health care
improvement. In J. H. van Bemmel & A. T. McCray (Eds.), Yearbook of Medical
Informatics, 9(01), 65-70.
Barreto, F. B., de Miguel, M. S., Ibarluzea, J., Andiarena, A., & Arranz, E. (2017). Family
context and cognitive development in early childhood: A longitudinal study. Intelligence,
65, 11-22.
Blakemore, C. & Cooper, G.F. (1970). Development of the brain depends on the visual
environment. Nature, 228, 477-478.
Bowen, C., & Snow, P. (2017). Making sense of interventions for children with developmental
disorders: A guide for parents and professionals. Hampshire, United Kingdom: J & R
Press Limited.
Dekker, S., Lee, N.C., Howard-Jones, P., & Jolles, J. (2012) Neuromyths in education:
Prevalence and predictors of misconceptions among teachers. Frontiers in Psychology,
3, 429.
Donoghue, G. M & Horvath, J.C. (2016). Translating neuroscience, psychology and education:
An abstracted conceptual framework for the learning sciences, Cogent Education, 3(1),
DOI: 10.1080/2331186X.2016.1267422.
International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change.
Volume 5, Issue 1, November 2019
Doron, K. W., Bassett, D. S., & Gazzaniga, M. S. (2012). Dynamic network structure of
interhemispheric coordination. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
109(46), 18661-18668.
Gazzaniga, M. S. (2008). Human: The science behind what makes us unique. New York, NY:
Gazzaniga, M. S., Bogen, J. E., & Sperry, R. W. (1962). Some functional effects of
sectioning the cerebral commissures in man. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 48(10), 1765-1769.
Goswami, U. (2006). Neuroscience and education: from research to practice? Nature Reviews
Neuroscience, 7, 406-413.
Grove, C., Reupert, A. E., & Maybery, D. J. (2015). Gaining knowledge about parental mental
illness: how does it empower children? Child and Family Social Work, 20(4), 377 -
Horvath, J. C. & Donoghue, G. M. (2016). A Bridge Too Far Revisited: Reframing Bruer’s
Neuroeducation Argument for Modern Science of Learning Practitioners. Frontieres
Psychology, 7(377), DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00377.
Howard-Jones, P. (2009). Scepticism is not enough. Cortex, 45, 550-551.
Ismail, F. Y., Fatemi, A., & Johnston, M. V. (2017). Cerebral plasticity: windows of
opportunity in the developing brain. European Journal of Paediatric Neurology, 21(1),
Kolb, B. (2018). Brain Plasticity and Experience. In R. Gibb & B. Kolb (Eds.), The
Neurobiology of Brain and Behavioral Development (pp. 341-389). Cambridge, MA:
Academic Press.
Levin, M. (2005). Leftright asymmetry in embryonic development: a comprehensive review.
Mechanisms of Development, 122(1), 3-25.
Lindell, A. K., & Kidd, E. (2011). Why right‐brain teaching is half‐witted: A critique of the
misapplication of neuroscience to education. Mind, Brain, and Education, 5(3), 121-127.
Morris, Z. S., Wooding, S., & Grant, J. (2011). The answer is 17 years, what is the question:
understanding time lags in translational research. Journal of the Royal Society of
Medicine, 104(12), 510-520.
International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change.
Volume 5, Issue 1, November 2019
Münte, T. F., Altenmüller, E., & Jäncke, L. (2002). The musician’s brain as a model of
neuroplasticity. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 3, 473-478.
Nielsen, J. A., Zielinski, B. A., Ferguson, M. A., Lainhart, J. E., & Anderson, J. S. (2013). An
evaluation of the left-brain vs. right-brain hypothesis with resting state functional
connectivity magnetic resonance imaging. PloS one, 8(8), e71275.
Pujol, J., Deus, J., Losilla, J. M., & Capdevila, A. (1999). Cerebral lateralization of language
in normal left-handed people studied by functional MRI. Neurology, 52(5), 1038-1038.
Riebschleger, J., Grove, C. J., Cavanaugh, D., & Costello, S. C. (2017). Mental health
literacy content for children of parents with a mental illness: Thematic analysis of a
literature review. Brain Sciences, 7(11), 1-19.
Shipstead, Z., Hicks, K. L., & Engle, R. W. (2012). Cogmed working memory training: Does
the evidence support the claims? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and
Cognition, 1(3), 185-193.
Sperry, R. W. (1961). Cerebral organization and behavior. Science, 133(3466), 1749-1757.
Sperry, R. W. (1968). Hemisphere deconnection and unity in conscious awareness. American
Psychologist, 23(10), 723-33.
Stephenson, J., Wheldall, K., & Carter, M. (2017, September). Is it a scam? Nomanis Notes,
(1). Retrieved from
Strong, G. K., Torgerson, C. J., Torgerson, D., & Hulme, C. (2011). A systematic meta
analytic review of evidence for the effectiveness of the ‘Fast ForWord’language
intervention program. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 52(3), 224-235.
Zaidel E. (2001). Brain asymmetry. In N.J. Smelser & P.B. Baltes (Eds.), International
Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 1st Ed (pp. 1321-1329). Oxford,
United Kingdom: Elsevier Ltd.
This article is devoted to the study of personality traits in the light of the achievements of modern neuroscience. We focus our attention on the extraversion, the key component of the "Big five" personality model. The data relating to psychogenetics, neurophysiology and neurochemistry of extraversion are summarized. Neuropsychological mechanisms of nature of extraversion are investigated in the context of psychological theories of personality. According to our results we state that building a "hedonictic profile" according to inherited and acquired specific characteristics of reward processing of an individual, can be valuable both in theoretical and clinical context. There is a connection between psychogenetic studies of extroversion, neuropsychological approach to the extraversion as a personality trait (as well as its aspects: assertiveness and enthusiasm) and the individual characteristics of the processing of pleasurable stimulus. The components of the "hedonistic profile" of the personality are defined in this study, which allow to assess individual differences in sensitivity to reward. The individual variability of extraversion is represented in a continuum from pronounced anhedonia (minimum level of extraversion) up to the harmonious ability to experience pleasure. Obviously, the pole of extraversion is more adaptive, indicating the desirable direction of personal development or possible psychotherapeutic efforts. Most of accessible clinical cases of depression and related disorders, described in special sources, demonstrate a deficit of taking into account individual parameters of extraversion, both at the level of its aspects and in terms of interaction with reward over time. This allows us to figure out how to build so called "individual hedonistic profiles" of the personality. In this study, the following variants of profiles were defined and described: anhedonic profile (reduced sensitivity to pleasure observed at all stages of the processing of hedonistic stimuli; increased risk of abuse), narcissistic profile (assertiveness significantly outweighs enthusiasm; anticipation and expectation of interaction with the stimulus is much stronger than the pleasure during its real consumption and at the stage of satisfaction, so called "aftertaste"), abulic profile (assertiveness is much lower than enthusiasm, reduced activity of the Behavioral Approach System - BAS; expectation is low but "on-line" consumption is pleasurable), compulsive profile (increased assertiveness prevails at the stage of interaction with the stimulus; consumption is repeated more and more, but satisfaction does not occur) and harmonious profile (adaptive version, which optimally combines assertiveness and enthusiasm; a balanced combination of hedonism and self-restraint; evenly distribution of pleasure experience in time).
Full-text available
Full-text available
Oddajemy w ręce Czytelników książkę związaną z szeroko pojętą problematyką restrukturyzacji i upadłości przedsiębiorstw. To z jednej strony bardzo trudne etapy cyklu życia organizacji, z drugiej – towarzyszące naszej przestrzeni życia gospodarczego nieustannie, więc warte uwagi i głębszego zrozumienia. Tak jak człowiek i jego indywidualne życie stanowią pewną składową szerszego ekosystemu relacji, tak przedsiębiorstwa – niezależnie od specyfiki i skali działania – są składnikiem większego, złożonego systemu gospodarczego. Realizacja podstawowej działalności operacyjnej tych jednostek wiąże się zatem z koniecznością nawiązywania relacji zarówno na poziomie mikro- jak i makrootoczenia. Nie jest w zasadzie możliwym funkcjonowanie podmiotu w warunkach próżni ekonomicznej – każda jednostka realizująca cele komercyjne (ale i nie tylko) musi w większym lub mniejszym stopniu zabiegać o zawiązanie relacji w otaczającej ją przestrzeni gospodarczej. Zrozumienie natury procesów zachodzących w wymiarach otoczenia jest ponadto podstawą do zrozumienia podstaw formułowania strategii organizacji, jak i szerzej – zarządzania podmiotem. Książka odwołuje się do współczesnych wyzwań pandemii COVID-19 i jej wpływu na kondycję finansową (oraz ryzyko upadłości) przedsiębiorstwa.
Full-text available
Em um cenário globalizado, é evidente o papel que as línguas estrangeiras estabelecem em diferentes áreas como o comércio, turismo, ciência, entre outros. Nesse contexto, é reconhecida a importância de aprender uma língua estrangeira, tanto porque estamos em um mundo bilíngue e multilíngue, quanto por todas suas influências nos ambientes acadêmicos, profissionais, familiares, sua presença nas políticas públicas, nas tecnologias e sua intrínseca relação com a cultura. Nesse ínterim, surge a importância do estudo do bilinguismo, fenômeno que pode ser investigado a partir de pontos de vista culturais, linguísticos, cognitivos, bem como a partir de aspectos como repertórios individuais, processos e contextos de aquisição, critérios de avaliação, causas/visões sobre o bilinguismo, tipologias de bilíngues, etc. As definições sobre bilinguismo foram se modificando ao longo do tempo. Nessa mudança de forma como o bilinguismo é visto, passou-se a considerar no status bilíngue, aspectos relativos às transformações linguísticas e seu emprego nos diferentes contextos. Um dos expoentes dessa visão é Grosjean (1982), para quem bilinguismo seria a habilidade de emprego de duas (ou mais) línguas cotidianamente e não somente o conhecimento, o desempenho, a fluência ou proficiência. A visão de Grosjean é uma das definições atualmente mais usadas em trabalhos de bilinguismo. Para o autor, há uma progressão contínua do mono ao bilinguismo ou multilinguismo, um continuum, passando-se por diferentes estados intermediários de processamento e ativação das línguas (GROSJEAN, 1985). Apesar de mais da metade da população mundial falar duas ou mais línguas orais e o bilinguismo e o multilinguismo serem realidades cada vez mais frequentes na contemporaneidade, certamente esse é um tema cercado de mitos, de verdades incompletas, tanto mundialmente quanto no Brasil. Assim sendo, pretende-se, neste breve artigo, discutir alguns desses mitos/verdades, especialmente do ponto de vista cognitivo e social.
Full-text available
Los neuromitos son creencias sobre el cerebro y su funcionamiento, basadas en argumentaciones pseudocientíficas o malinterpretaciones de ciertos hallazgos. Estas ideas equivocadas pueden tener su origen, entre otros, en la transmisión de información errónea o mal explicada a través de medios masivos de comunicación, en el desconocimiento del lenguaje técnico utilizado en las neurociencias o el acceso limitado a fuentes primarias. Con el objeto de examinar si los resultados de investigaciones previas se replicaban en una muestra de habla hispana de futuro profesorado y así, evaluar el nivel de consciencia sobre neuromitos en esta población, se aplicó una versión traducida al español del cuestionario creado por Dekker et al. (2012). La muestra estuvo compuesta por 99 estudiantes de pedagogía de Chile y España. El instrumento contenía 32 aseveraciones sobre el cerebro y el aprendizaje, 12 de las cuales correspondían a neuromitos. Los resultados muestran una alta adhesión a neuromitos en ambos grupos de futuro personal docente. A pesar de la creciente evidencia que refuta varias de estas concepciones erróneas, los resultados permiten concluir que persiste una brecha de conocimiento neurocientífico en estos grupos. Las consecuencias de una incomprensión o tergiversación del conocimiento científico vigente en la práctica pedagógica nos impelen a insistir en una educación basada en la evidencia. No solo la lectura, sino también la selección e inclusión cuidadosa de fuentes científicas en la formación inicial de docentes son esenciales para formar docentes que lean crítica y reflexivamente para que puedan tomar decisiones pedagógicas fundadas en la evidencia científica disponible.
Full-text available
Purpose: The vision or mission statement of a school outlines the school’s purpose and defines the context, goals, and aspirations that govern the institution. Using vision and mission statements, the present descriptive research study investigated trends in Australian secondary schools’ priorities. Research Methods: A stratified sample of secondary school vision and mission statements across 308 schools from government, independent, and Catholic sectors in Victoria, Australia, was analyzed using qualitative and quantitative approaches. Findings: Academic achievement was the most common theme, with school belonging and mental health promotion themes cited by over half of the schools. School belonging was emphasized more often by Catholic schools compared with independent and government schools, and by rural schools compared with urban schools. Implications: Australian schools are seemingly adopting a dual purpose: to be academic institutions and well-being enhancing institutions. Understanding the priorities of schools using vision and mission statements may guide researchers, administrators, and teachers about how to better meet the academic and psychological needs of the students. The priorities of schools also have implications for how research in this area is communicated to schools, and this study provides a method for capturing these priorities.
Full-text available
Millions of children have a parent with a mental illness (COPMI). These children are at higher risk of acquiring behavioural, developmental and emotional difficulties. Most children, including COPMI, have low levels of mental health literacy (MHL), meaning they do not have accurate, non-stigmatized information. There is limited knowledge about what kind of MHL content should be delivered to children. The aim of this exploratory study is to identify the knowledge content needed for general population children and COPMI to increase their MHL. A second aim is to explore content for emerging children's MHL scales. Researchers created and analyzed a literature review database. Thematic analysis yielded five main mental health knowledge themes for children: (1) attaining an overview of mental illness and recovery; (2) reducing mental health stigma; (3) building developmental resiliencies; (4) increasing help-seeking capacities; and (5) identifying risk factors for mental illness. COPMI appeared to need the same kind of MHL knowledge content, but with extra family-contextual content such as dealing with stigma experiences, managing stress, and communicating about parental mental illness. There is a need for MHL programs, validated scales, and research on what works for prevention and early intervention with COPMI children.
Full-text available
Educators strive to understand and apply knowledge gained through scientific endeavours. Yet, within the various sciences of learning, particularly within educational neuroscience, there have been instances of seemingly contradictory or incompatible research findings and theories. We argue that this situation arises through confusion between levels of analysis applicable to various disciplines. In this article, we propose a conceptual framework for the science of learning which integrates sociological, psychological, biological and neurological perspectives of learning. This framework seeks to recognise the distinction between learning—essentially a complex neurological phenomenon—and education, an even more complex sociocultural phenomenon. As such, the framework allows a coherent perspective to emerge that can help resolve a number of key issues. Specifically, we argue that its adoption will (a) provide the science of learning with a foundation to assist in the development of a translational par...
Full-text available
In Education and the Brain: A Bridge Too Far, John Bruer argues that, although current neuroscientific findings must filter through cognitive psychology in order to be applicable to the classroom, with increased knowledge the neuroscience/education bridge may someday be built. Here, we suggest that translation cannot be understood as a single process: rather, we demonstrate that at least 4 different ‘bridges’ can conceivably be built between these two fields. Following this, we demonstrate that, far from being a matter of information lack, a prescriptive neuroscience/education bridge (the one most relevant to Bruer’s argument) is a practical and philosophical impossibility due to incommensurability between non-adjacent compositional levels-of-organization: a limitation inherent in all sciences. After defining this concept in the context of biology, we apply this concept to the learning sciences and demonstrate why all brain research must be behaviorally translated before prescriptive educational applicability can be elucidated. We conclude by exploring examples of how explicating different forms of translation and adopting a levels-of-organization framework can be used to contextualize and beneficially guide research and practice across all learning sciences.
The developing brain is especially sensitive to a wide range of experiences, showing a remarkable capacity for plastic changes that influence behavioral outcomes throughout the lifetime. We review the theoretical underpinnings of research on brain plasticity in development, the methods of studying both plastic changes in brain and behavior, the types of plastic changes in the developing brain, the underlying mechanisms, and the effects of a wide range of factors on plasticity in both the normal and injured developing brain.
This study explores the influence of the quality of the family context and sociodemographic factors on cognitive development in a population-based cohort of 295 children and their families. The quality of the family context was assessed when children were approximately 2 years old (mean age = 26.2 months) in home visits, during which data were gathered on the quality of stimulation of both cognitive and socioemotional development and the physical and social context. The children's cognitive development was individually assessed approximately 2 years later (children's mean age = 53.6 months). Structural equation modelling showed that better-quality socioemotional interactions improve parental performance in the promotion of cognitive and linguistic development, a variable that is a long-term predictor of children's cognitive development. First-born status and exposure to a bilingual environment also predict cognitive development at age 4. These findings are presented in the form of a complex model, including multiple sources of influence on the criterion variable. Results may guide the implementation of parenting programmes aimed at strengthening the promotion of cognitive development.
Background: Neuroplasticity refers to the inherently dynamic biological capacity of the central nervous system (CNS) to undergo maturation, change structurally and functionally in response to experience and to adapt following injury. This malleability is achieved by modulating subsets of genetic, molecular and cellular mechanisms that influence the dynamics of synaptic connections and neural circuitry formation culminating in gain or loss of behavior or function. Neuroplasticity in the healthy developing brain exhibits a heterochronus cortex-specific developmental profile and is heightened during "critical and sensitive periods" of pre and postnatal brain development that enable the construction and consolidation of experience-dependent structural and functional brain connections. Purpose: In this review, our primary goal is to highlight the essential role of neuroplasticity in brain development, and to draw attention to the complex relationship between different levels of the developing nervous system that are subjected to plasticity in health and disease. Another goal of this review is to explore the relationship between plasticity responses of the developing brain and how they are influenced by critical and sensitive periods of brain development. Finally, we aim to motivate researchers in the pediatric neuromodulation field to build on the current knowledge of normal and abnormal neuroplasticity, especially synaptic plasticity, and their dependence on "critical or sensitive periods" of neural development to inform the design, timing and sequencing of neuromodulatory interventions in order to enhance and optimize their translational applications in childhood disorders of the brain. Methods: literature review. Results: We discuss in details five patterns of neuroplasticity expressed by the developing brain: 1) developmental plasticity which is further classified into normal and impaired developmental plasticity as seen in syndromic autism spectrum disorders, 2) adaptive (experience-dependent) plasticity following intense motor skill training, 3) reactive plasticity to pre and post natal CNS injury or sensory deprivation, 4) excessive plasticity (loss of homeostatic regulation) as seen in dystonia and refractory epilepsy, 6) and finally, plasticity as the brain's "Achilles tendon" which induces brain vulnerability under certain conditions such as hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy and epileptic encephalopathy syndromes. We then explore the unique feature of "time-sensitive heightened plasticity responses" in the developing brain in the in the context of neuromodulation. Conclusion: The different patterns of neuroplasticity and the unique feature of heightened plasticity during critical and sensitive periods are important concepts for researchers and clinicians in the field of pediatric neurology and neurodevelopmental disabilities. These concepts need to be examined systematically in the context of pediatric neuromodulation. We propose that critical and sensitive periods of brain development in health and disease can create "windows of opportunity" for neuromodulatory interventions that are not commonly seen in adult brain and probably augment plasticity responses and improve clinical outcomes.
The split brain behaves in many respects like two separate brains, providing new research possibilities.
This study examined the utility of a digital video disc (DVD) intervention, designed to educate children, whose parents have depression and/or anxiety. Twenty-nine children completed pre- and post-DVD exposure questionnaires, on mental health knowledge and help seeking, and 18 were interviewed about their experiences and use of the DVD. Post-DVD, children's knowledge of mental illness improved. The DVD also challenged mental illness misconceptions. Most children preferred watching the DVD with a parent. The study explains how children utilize information about mental illness.
Cogmed working memory training is sold as a tool for improving cognitive abilities, such as attention and reasoning. At present, this program is marketed to schools as a means of improving underperforming students’ scholastic performance, and is also available at clinical practices as a treatment for ADHD. We review research conducted with Cogmed software and highlight several concerns regarding methodology and replicability of findings. We conclude that the claims made by Cogmed are largely unsubstantiated, and recommend that future research place greater emphasis on developing theoretically motivated accounts of working memory training.