Jump to content


What's with the ads?

Photo

FYI: DEBUNKING THE LEFT-BRAIN, RIGHT-BRAIN MYTH (HARVARD)

left brain/ right br theories

41 replies to this topic

What's with the ads?

#1 Moved On

Moved On

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5455 posts

Posted 06 August 2017 - 09:27 PM

https://www.cfa.harv...unit1_sec2.html

 

Quotes from the article:

 

 

 

Despite the continuing importance and validity of his richer view of human skill and of the role culture and social forces play in learning, many educators have reduced Gardner's insights to the modular model of brain functioning on which his theory was originally built. Our brains have a music module, a language module, a math module. The result has been years of misleading talk about designing lessons for visual learners and kinesthetic learners, left-hemisphere learners and right-hemisphere learners. "Right-brainers will rule the future," declares Daniel Pink. 
Although such statements are likely meant as metaphors to suggest that those who can think creatively and empathically will become increasingly important to businesses, they lock us into ways of thinking about brain function that reduce our understanding of the brain and, therefore, limit our ability to develop more effective models of education. The left-brain/right-brain metaphor puts us into the very box out of which we encourage creative people to think

 

 

 

The more we recognize and understand the complexity of the brain, the greater will be our understanding of learning and of the inevitability of differences in how we learn.

Edited by Moved On, 10 August 2017 - 02:31 PM.

  • GailV, Sadie and Minerva like this

#2 Mainer

Mainer

    Hive Mind Level 4 Worker: Builder Bee

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 302 posts

Posted 07 August 2017 - 07:10 PM

Yep, my Special Ed master's program made a big deal about how the "learning styles" idea is a myth. 



#3 OneStepAtATime

OneStepAtATime

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32322 posts

Posted 07 August 2017 - 11:18 PM

I don't think, from scientifically based studies I have read, that people literally predominantly use the right or left side of their brain more or that their learning styles indicate which side of the brain they are using.  I think the hoopla regarding actual left/right brain function was based on misinformation and a study that was misinterpreted by the masses.  I also recognize, though, that we have a LOT of learning to do with regards to brain function.  It is extremely complex and I suspect we are just touching the tip of the iceberg.

 

While I do think the left brain/right brain learning styles is not actually LITERALLY a person consistently using one side of the brain over the other, I disagree that learning styles are a myth (but maybe we are using this term differently).   

 

I do think there are absolutely different learning styles, based not on which side of the brain is dominant but on different strengths and weaknesses each individual has regarding the brain and other systems in the body.  These strengths and weaknesses are at least in part the result of very complex brain functions that we do not yet fully understand.  Because of differences in the balance of strengths and weaknesses within individuals, I think that creates different preferential learning styles.  Or maybe we should call them Learning Needs?  Perhaps the term itself has become so closely associated with the left/right brain theory of learning/personality that it is now tainted and a new term should be found.  

 

Either way, different people learn differently.   For instance,  DS learns very well through a combination of auditory exposure and colorful visuals, and especially lots of discussion.  It was obvious before we had evaluations but even though I never mentioned it to the evaluator, those preferences/strengths very definitely showed up in the evaluation.  In fact, when the evaluator presented material auditorily with a colorful visual component he functioned way above grade level in most areas.  When he was presented material with no auditory component and only in black and white his functionality dropped like a stone.  He was way below grade level and in some areas registered as profoundly impaired.

 

DD?  Very different.  She is a highly visual/spatial/tactile learner but does poorly with strictly auditory input and long discussions.  She also actually does better with black and white for many subjects instead of color.  This is not something I am making up in my head.  It is obvious when we do lessons together and again, these strengths and weaknesses showed up in the evaluations.  

 

Do I attribute these differences to some sort of predominantly left or right brain functionality?  No.  But I do recognize that because of different strengths and weaknesses each child has they have different needs for how to learn effectively.  When teaching my kids I have had to shift how I present the material based on each child.  I consider those differences differences in learning styles.  But again, perhaps there is a different term I should be using.


  • MerryAtHope, jewellsmommy, MistyMountain and 6 others like this

#4 okbud

okbud

    Cylon lover

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12089 posts

Posted 08 August 2017 - 05:41 AM

I don't think, from scientifically based studies I have read, that people literally predominantly use the right or left side of their brain more or that their learning styles indicate which side of the brain they are using.  I think the hoopla regarding actual left/right brain function was based on misinformation and a study that was misinterpreted by the masses.  I also recognize, though, that we have a LOT of learning to do with regards to brain function.  It is extremely complex and I suspect we are just touching the tip of the iceberg.

 

While I do think the left brain/right brain learning styles is not actually LITERALLY a person consistently using one side of the brain over the other, I disagree that learning styles are a myth (but maybe we are using this term differently).   

 

I do think there are absolutely different learning styles, based not on which side of the brain is dominant but on different strengths and weaknesses each individual has regarding the brain and other systems in the body.  These strengths and weaknesses are at least in part the result of very complex brain functions that we do not yet fully understand.  Because of differences in the balance of strengths and weaknesses within individuals, I think that creates different preferential learning styles.  Or maybe we should call them Learning Needs?  Perhaps the term itself has become so closely associated with the left/right brain theory of learning/personality that it is now tainted and a new term should be found.  

 

Either way, different people learn differently.   For instance,  DS learns very well through a combination of auditory exposure and colorful visuals, and especially lots of discussion.  It was obvious before we had evaluations but even though I never mentioned it to the evaluator, those preferences/strengths very definitely showed up in the evaluation.  In fact, when the evaluator presented material auditorily with a colorful visual component he functioned way above grade level in most areas.  When he was presented material with no auditory component and only in black and white his functionality dropped like a stone.  He was way below grade level and in some areas registered as profoundly impaired.

 

DD?  Very different.  She is a highly visual/spatial/tactile learner but does poorly with strictly auditory input and long discussions.  She also actually does better with black and white for many subjects instead of color.  This is not something I am making up in my head.  It is obvious when we do lessons together and again, these strengths and weaknesses showed up in the evaluations.  

 

Do I attribute these differences to some sort of predominantly left or right brain functionality?  No.  But I do recognize that because of different strengths and weaknesses each child has they have different needs for how to learn effectively.  When teaching my kids I have had to shift how I present the material based on each child.  I consider those differences differences in learning styles.  But again, perhaps there is a different term I should be using.

 

 

Yeah, so I have SPD and I literally can not process information I hear if I can't see the person speaking. If I concentrate really hard and basically go into a meditative state I can listen to an audiobook, but even then, it doesn't get put into long-term memory (ever). So when I say that I am not an auditory learner, I freaking mean it!

 

I have never encountered anyone irl who thought people literally use the separate hemispheres of their brains more or less, as a matter of course. "Right brain, left brain" is ALWAYS used as short hand for describing very real and obvious predilections in learning when I hear it.

 


  • jewellsmommy, wapiti, Pawz4me and 3 others like this

#5 J-rap

J-rap

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11269 posts

Posted 08 August 2017 - 07:59 AM

I think left-brain/right-brain is a generalized way of looking at and understanding the brain.  People tend to use their brains differently, and a lot of it is genetic/biological and does have to do with certain parts being stronger or working faster or slower or being denser in some areas or whatever.  But at the same time, I believe the entire brain works together much more than originally thought, instead of one skill being delegated to only one area.  So much of it we really have very little understanding of.

 

But at the same time, in a family member's case where much of the left-brain was suddenly gone due to a traumatic injury, you can very clearly see what skills are now gone, and what traits are still strong.  So, the whole brain does work together much more than scientists first understood, but the different parts do take on different skills far more easily.

 

 


Edited by J-rap, 08 August 2017 - 10:14 AM.

  • jewellsmommy, WendyAndMilo, okbud and 2 others like this

#6 geodob

geodob

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1334 posts

Posted 08 August 2017 - 09:51 AM

The left-right brain myth, was developed as a marketing strategy.

Which used this metaphor, as a simple way to concieve of 'learning disorders'.

It provided a way for parents to accept a diagnosis of a 'Learning Disability'?

To term it as being a Left or Right Brain Thinker.

 

Though the development of opposing sides of the brain, connected by 2 cables called Callosums.

Didn't create an identity on each side?

What it fundamentally created, is '2 opposing points'.

These 'opposing points', provided the ability to concieve of 'before and next'. 

As well as locate points between them.

 

But essentially, both sides of the human brain,  Work in direct coordination with each other.

Which can be reduced to how opposing 'brain regions' work with each other,

But they can't operate in isolation.


  • Sadie and OneStepAtATime like this

#7 wapiti

wapiti

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11656 posts

Posted 08 August 2017 - 09:57 AM

While the left brain/right brain has always been a massive oversimplification, I don't think it logically leads to the conclusion that learning differences are a myth.  We all know that different people have different strengths and weaknesses in processing.


  • KathyBC, MerryAtHope, jewellsmommy and 4 others like this

#8 Moved On

Moved On

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5455 posts

Posted 08 August 2017 - 03:17 PM

Just here briefly to contribute a link that explains the origins of this myth. 

 

http://www.oecd.org/.../neuromyth6.htm

 

When I did my research 4 years ago, I was seeking to understand the roots of my 8 year old son's language issues, in order to help him. I did extensive research back and forth between scientific journals and other credible sources for the specific information I was looking for, which led me to the approach I took with my son. In the process I also came across more information about this myth, which I never once felt had any validity and have posted as much over the years.  

 

That is all I am prepared to share and contribute to this discussion. Like I have mentioned before, I have embarked on a new journey of research and self-education to benefit my boys, but also, the study of the brain and cognitive neuroscience are fascinating to me and a personal interest. This means that I no longer have the time to read or contribute to this board, as my time will be better spent on my goals and interacting with my children. I wish you all, all the best on your journeys.

 

ETA: Here's the research from the University of Utah that officially debunked the left brain/ right brain theories via a fMRI study:

 

Researchers Debunk Myth of "Right-brain" and "Left-brain"Personality Traits

https://healthcare.u...lity_traits.php

 

 


Edited by Moved On, 20 August 2017 - 05:29 PM.


#9 Mainer

Mainer

    Hive Mind Level 4 Worker: Builder Bee

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 302 posts

Posted 08 August 2017 - 07:03 PM

I'm not saying learning styles are completely wrong, just that we shouldn't box kids into one style or another. I know some people, younger than me, who had their learning styles assessed in school. Their teachers separated them into groups based on the styles - and then they had to do things like draw pictures of vocabulary words if they were "visual," make up songs to remember them if they were "auditory," etc. That's just going too far. It's fine to work with the child's strengths, but we should never assume that a child is 100% one way, or that their strengths can never change/expand. If we assume a child is only good at learning with lots of visuals, and never work on reading text without visuals, then we're doing them a disservice. Same if we insist on text-only and never allow them visuals. 

 

Personally, I definitely comprehend better when I'm able to read text rather than listen or watch. I really, seriously loathe watching video presentations... but it could also be that I'm just not that good at listening or watching for comprehension. I also never practice those skills, because I hate them (and I'm an adult, so I can choose that), but it's possible that I could expand my skills, if I worked at it.

 

Obviously for kids with APD or something, you really can't insist that they do a ton of listening-only work. I'm just saying that nothing is set in stone, so we have to be cautious about labeling learning styles. We also do have to teach kids to work with their strengths as well. It's a balance.


  • Moved On, Heathermomster and kbutton like this

#10 Mainer

Mainer

    Hive Mind Level 4 Worker: Builder Bee

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 302 posts

Posted 08 August 2017 - 07:09 PM

When teaching my kids I have had to shift how I present the material based on each child.  I consider those differences differences in learning styles.  But again, perhaps there is a different term I should be using.

 

I think problem with the term "learning styles" is that it makes abilities (and weaknesses) seem fixed. If a teacher tells a student that they're so good with visuals but not with text, for example, that student may never be willing to try very hard to comprehend text. Or... they may feel compelled to study a certain way that "fits" their learning style. 

 

I don't think this is necessarily AS true for people with disabilities (like if you have APD, for example), but it's worth knowing that in research studies, teaching to someone's supposed "learning style" had no benefits.


  • Sadie likes this

#11 OneStepAtATime

OneStepAtATime

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32322 posts

Posted 08 August 2017 - 07:19 PM

I think problem with the term "learning styles" is that it makes abilities (and weaknesses) seem fixed. If a teacher tells a student that they're so good with visuals but not with text, for example, that student may never be willing to try very hard to comprehend text. Or... they may feel compelled to study a certain way that "fits" their learning style. 

 

I don't think this is necessarily AS true for people with disabilities (like if you have APD, for example), but it's worth knowing that in research studies, teaching to someone's supposed "learning style" had no benefits.

I agree, people may assume things are fixed and unchangeable but especially with regards to brain function and physiology, things CAN change.  The term used not literally but figuratively can be helpful but also can be more like a straightjacket, locking someone into thinking a person can only think/process one way.

 

I don't find someone else using the term as something to immediately be shot down.  It can help as a short cut to further understanding.  But yes, it can also end up being limiting.


  • okbud likes this

#12 Moved On

Moved On

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5455 posts

Posted 08 August 2017 - 08:17 PM

Mainer, from the original article in my first post, which is basically saying a lot of what you said in one of your posts:

 

 

In 1983, Howard Gardner's Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences changed the way many people thought about intelligence and teaching and learning. Gardner succeeded in challenging and expanding the notion of intelligence and revealed the role of cultural and social bias in how different abilities are valued and developed in children. His ideas resonated with the experiences of parents and teachers, who witnessed daily the rich variety of "talent" or "intelligence" in budding writers, debaters, poets, mathematicians, athletes, musicians, painters, politicians, scientists, dancers and psychologists. IQ tests seemed to view people through a peephole darkly, so when Gardner offered a larger vision of human potential that jibed with observation and experience, teachers and parents rushed to embrace it.

Despite the continuing importance and validity of his richer view of human skill and of the role culture and social forces play in learning, many educators have reduced Gardner's insights to the modular model of brain functioning on which his theory was originally built. Our brains have a music module, a language module, a math module. The result has been years of misleading talk about designing lessons for visual learners and kinesthetic learners, left-hemisphere learners and right-hemisphere learners. "Right-brainers will rule the future," declares Daniel Pink.

 

Many people were misled, including people in the homeschool world. Pointing out to others that they are being misguided, out of concern, I suppose is construde as shooting down, by some.  :001_rolleyes: . 

 

Anyway, I just wanted to add that quote as it seems that some people just read the quotes from my original post and not the actual article. 

 

ETA: The article touches on the left brain/ right brain theories, which it refutes through the use of a study in Texas. It inludes Gardner's theories that were also misinterpreted and misused as part of these left brain/ right brain theories. 


Edited by Canadian Mom of 2, 08 August 2017 - 08:44 PM.

  • Sadie likes this

#13 Heathermomster

Heathermomster

    Isilwen Meneldur of the Woodland Realm

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4516 posts

Posted 08 August 2017 - 09:23 PM

Accidental posting...sorry..

Edited by Heathermomster, 08 August 2017 - 09:24 PM.


#14 geodob

geodob

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1334 posts

Posted 09 August 2017 - 07:06 AM

Though in a way related to this, is a current discussion of a Memo from Google. That they employ more males, because the female brain isn't suited to computer coding?

Which extends to the broader assumption, that the female brain is less suited to Math.

 

Where this false assumption about the 'female brain', is a far greater issue in today's world.

As we move into an age of increasing automation, and jobs shifting to computer programming.

Given the global dominance of Google, it is of great concern that they have this attitude to the 'female brain'!

 

This is perhaps the greatest Myth, that needs to be debunked !


  • OneStepAtATime likes this

#15 OneStepAtATime

OneStepAtATime

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32322 posts

Posted 09 August 2017 - 07:44 AM

Though in a way related to this, is a current discussion of a Memo from Google. That they employ more males, because the female brain isn't suited to computer coding?

Which extends to the broader assumption, that the female brain is less suited to Math.

 

Where this false assumption about the 'female brain', is a far greater issue in today's world.

As we move into an age of increasing automation, and jobs shifting to computer programming.

Given the global dominance of Google, it is of great concern that they have this attitude to the 'female brain'!

 

This is perhaps the greatest Myth, that needs to be debunked !

:iagree:



#16 okbud

okbud

    Cylon lover

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12089 posts

Posted 09 August 2017 - 08:52 AM

Though in a way related to this, is a current discussion of a Memo from Google. That they employ more males, because the female brain isn't suited to computer coding?

Which extends to the broader assumption, that the female brain is less suited to Math.

 

Where this false assumption about the 'female brain', is a far greater issue in today's world.

As we move into an age of increasing automation, and jobs shifting to computer programming.

Given the global dominance of Google, it is of great concern that they have this attitude to the 'female brain'!

 

This is perhaps the greatest Myth, that needs to be debunked !

 

It was not FROM google. Google fired the employee who wrote it.


  • Sadie and OneStepAtATime like this

#17 Moved On

Moved On

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5455 posts

Posted 09 August 2017 - 02:22 PM

Though in a way related to this, is a current discussion of a Memo from Google. That they employ more males, because the female brain isn't suited to computer coding?

Which extends to the broader assumption, that the female brain is less suited to Math.

 

Where this false assumption about the 'female brain', is a far greater issue in today's world.

As we move into an age of increasing automation, and jobs shifting to computer programming.

Given the global dominance of Google, it is of great concern that they have this attitude to the 'female brain'!

 

This is perhaps the greatest Myth, that needs to be debunked !

Geodob, there's more to a story than how the media chooses to spin it. I found this article interesting:

 

https://www.theatlan...le-memo/536181/

 

Employment opportunites should not be based on 50% men/ 50% women, rules. This is why psychometric tools were created. I won't go any further, but companies set "behind closed doors" rules when it comes to hiring They are "behind closed doors" to avoid discrimination lawsuits. This guy had the courage to call them on it, in writing! He also offered recommendations. There's a lot to be said about why he was fired, too! 

 

I won't go any further as to my personal views. I will just ask, whatever happened to equal opportunity and may the best man (or woman  ;) ), win (or in this case, get the job)?

 

If I had some time to spare, I would read his memo. But right now, it would just be a distraction. My husband was in the field; he would have quite a bit to say in regards to employment decisions.

 

Anyway, back to my world  :D


Edited by Canadian Mom of 2, 09 August 2017 - 02:27 PM.


#18 Heathermomster

Heathermomster

    Isilwen Meneldur of the Woodland Realm

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4516 posts

Posted 09 August 2017 - 03:27 PM

I don't know if learning styles are a myth. What I do know is that DS learned how to read, parts of speech, the times tables, and how to write paragraphs using direct and explicit multisensory instruction. Sitting at a desk quietly in a classroom and listening to lecture didn't do much for him when he was younger. He also required PT/OT to overcome some motor issues that were adversely affecting his posture, coordination, and ability to sit still. After therapies, remediation, and accommodations, DS has successfully sat through many classes as a high schooler.
  • OneStepAtATime likes this

#19 Moved On

Moved On

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5455 posts

Posted 09 August 2017 - 03:40 PM

I don't know if learning styles are a myth. What I do know is that DS learned how to read, parts of speech, the times tables, and how to write paragraphs using direct and explicit multisensory instruction. Sitting at a desk quietly in a classroom and listening to lecture didn't do much for him when he was younger. He also required PT/OT to overcome some motor issues that were adversely affecting his posture, coordination, and ability to sit still. After therapies, remediation, and accommodations, DS has successfully sat through many classes as a high schooler.

 

The article does not call learning styles a myth. They have their place. It's the misuse in the schools that the article is calling out. If it interests you and you read some of the articles I have linked, you can see where all these theories went too far. 


Edited by Canadian Mom of 2, 09 August 2017 - 04:17 PM.

  • Sadie likes this

#20 Moved On

Moved On

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5455 posts

Posted 09 August 2017 - 03:55 PM

Geodob, you might find these interesting:

 

Two minds - The cognitive differences between men and women (Stanford Medicine):
 
And this one, which I skimmed through early this morning, before having my tea and with eyes partly open  :lol: . I need to read this again but my eye caught that it has not been peer reviewed, yet. 
 
Study finds some significant differences in brains of men and women
 
 
Anyway, I know you are a research guy, so I thought I would share. It doesn't answer your question in a previous post, as I think studies should be used for the purpose they were intended and not extrapulated upon (which was what happened to our original studies that created the topic of this thread  :)) , but I thought they had some interesting findings. There's a brief mention of brain differences in autistic boys and girls in the first one, as well. 

 

ETA: Ooops, edited to fix the second link. 


Edited by Canadian Mom of 2, 09 August 2017 - 03:57 PM.


#21 Heathermomster

Heathermomster

    Isilwen Meneldur of the Woodland Realm

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4516 posts

Posted 09 August 2017 - 04:28 PM

The article does not call learning styles a myth. They have their place. It's the misuse in the schools that the article is calling out. If it interests you and you read some of the articles I have linked, you can see where all these theories went too far. 

I cannot even agree with the premise that teachers are misusing Gardiner's theories.  DS sat in a classroom for 8 years and the teachers were very traditional and wedded to one type of teaching.  Purposefully designing lessons using kinesthetic or visual modalities would have been a blessing whatever their incorrect opinions were about brain function. These people barely passed college algebra.  Basic math 2nd and 3rd-grade math using Singapore blew their minds.  

 

I would love to meet teachers that took the trouble of attempting to incorporate Gardiner's theories correctly or incorrectly.


  • okbud, OneStepAtATime and mshanson3121 like this

#22 Moved On

Moved On

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5455 posts

Posted 09 August 2017 - 04:54 PM

I cannot even agree with the premise that teachers are misusing Gardiner's theories.  DS sat in a classroom for 8 years and the teachers were very traditional and wedded to one type of teaching.  Purposefully designing lessons using kinesthetic or visual modalities would have been a blessing whatever their incorrect opinions were about brain function. These people barely passed college algebra.  Basic math 2nd and 3rd-grade math using Singapore blew their minds.  

 

I would love to meet teachers that took the trouble of attempting to incorporate Gardiner's theories correctly or incorrectly.

 

Which says a lot about the school system and its variability from country to country, place to place, region to region, neighborhood to neighborhood. Misusing the theories did not fix the problem, it just created a host of new ones. Making assumptions about the brain's functions and grossly underestimating its complexity could never have a positive outcome. That's my take on it, anyway! Which is why I read carefully and compare sources. In the end I follow what makes sense to me for my kids. I use the research to build on my understanding. 


Edited by Canadian Mom of 2, 09 August 2017 - 04:55 PM.


#23 Moved On

Moved On

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5455 posts

Posted 09 August 2017 - 04:56 PM

It's also another reason why I don't share much of how I approach things. What I follow, I follow specifically with each of my two boys in mind. It does not mean that it would apply or be useful to any other child. 


Edited by Canadian Mom of 2, 09 August 2017 - 04:58 PM.


#24 Heathermomster

Heathermomster

    Isilwen Meneldur of the Woodland Realm

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4516 posts

Posted 09 August 2017 - 05:22 PM

It's also another reason why I don't share much of how I approach things. What I follow, I follow specifically with each of my two boys in mind. It does not mean that it would apply or be useful to any other child.


When a parent asks a question, I answer. People are intelligent and will make their own minds up as to how they teach their children.
  • Jennifer-72, okbud and mshanson3121 like this

#25 Moved On

Moved On

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5455 posts

Posted 09 August 2017 - 05:31 PM

Agreed! But it's one thing to answer a question based on your experience with your child and quite another to mislead someone with misrepresented theories and then claim that there's research backing them because you have supposedly researched it, but then not provide said research. Not referring to you on this! 


Edited by Canadian Mom of 2, 09 August 2017 - 05:33 PM.


#26 Moved On

Moved On

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5455 posts

Posted 09 August 2017 - 05:35 PM

And that's not to mention how people sometimes misinterpret what they read, or stretch it to suit their own needs and ideas! 


Edited by Canadian Mom of 2, 09 August 2017 - 05:39 PM.


#27 Moved On

Moved On

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5455 posts

Posted 09 August 2017 - 07:00 PM

When a parent asks a question, I answer. People are intelligent and will make their own minds up as to how they teach their children.

 

This is also oversimplified, because in real life, people don't always make decisions based on their intelligence. In this situation, with SN kids, a mom could be young, lacking experience, new to the diagnosis, desperate to help her child... She sees people that have tried certain things, figures that person tried it with their child and the results were positive, and attempts to apply the same approach to her own child. Only... the results that the person giving the advice had with her/ his child, will not necessarily be replicated with another. So much plays into what makes a therapy/ strategy or other form of treatment, successful! We are talking about children with brain differences and comorbidities unique to each child, with studies trying to find common ground through fMRI testing! It is why there is so much research, and it was the purpose of the original research from the University of Utah that I linked in the other thread. The debunking of the left brain/ right brain theories, was secondary. Here's the short video I had linked. 

 


Edited by Canadian Mom of 2, 09 August 2017 - 07:02 PM.


#28 Mainer

Mainer

    Hive Mind Level 4 Worker: Builder Bee

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 302 posts

Posted 09 August 2017 - 07:42 PM

Making kids sit through lecture-style teaching as the primary way to learn is horrible. I sympathize with you and your son! Learning styles notwithstanding, that's just not going to be good for anybody, and if anything will lead to behavior problems as kids get bored/confused. Classroom teaching doesn't have to be non-stop fun, but it does have to be very interactive with kids answering/actively thinking/working on things nearly all the time. 


  • Moved On likes this

#29 Moved On

Moved On

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5455 posts

Posted 09 August 2017 - 07:50 PM

Marva Collins is one of the handful of educators I have found inspiring as a homescooler. She inspired the kids in her school to look beyond physical, cultural, or whatever other limitations and break through stereotypes. She gave them a voice!



#30 Heathermomster

Heathermomster

    Isilwen Meneldur of the Woodland Realm

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4516 posts

Posted 09 August 2017 - 07:55 PM

Making kids sit through lecture-style teaching as the primary way to learn is horrible. I sympathize with you and your son! Learning styles notwithstanding, that's just not going to be good for anybody, and if anything will lead to behavior problems as kids get bored/confused. Classroom teaching doesn't have to be non-stop fun, but it does have to be very interactive with kids answering/actively thinking/working on things nearly all the time. 

In fairness, I am harsh about classrooms.  DS did attend a private school where teachers were not always given appropriate in-service teaching, and the school was barely amenable to the high functioning students with difficulties.  Son's 5th grade was harsh.  His Bible/history teacher taught in a lecture style after copying a full board of notes.  I don't know why I am reliving this currently.  



#31 OneStepAtATime

OneStepAtATime

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32322 posts

Posted 09 August 2017 - 07:57 PM

When a parent asks a question, I answer. People are intelligent and will make their own minds up as to how they teach their children.

 

FWIW, I am forever grateful to the parents (including you) that did just that.  They answered my questions.  Sometimes the answer wasn't truly relevant to my particular circumstances and sometimes I disagreed with their approach in general and sometimes they seemed to be basing their answers on things I didn't believe in, but they answered.  When I felt I was completely alone, they answered.  Without the wonderful people willing to answer my questions we would almost certainly have never discovered all the things that DID work.  And I am grateful.


Edited by OneStepAtATime, 09 August 2017 - 08:13 PM.

  • Jennifer-72, Heathermomster, kbutton and 2 others like this

#32 okbud

okbud

    Cylon lover

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12089 posts

Posted 10 August 2017 - 07:08 AM

OP I get the feeling that you just don't want anyone to talk about their lived experience because the lessons they have learned over the years are not universally  applicable and the results of their trial and error are not repllicable in a study.

 

Asserting that lay people should only speak to scientific truisms goes against everything we know to be true of human community. And ironically, the more resilient (ie diverse) one's community, the better the outcome for ANY human problem.

 

This is also oversimplified, because in real life, people don't always make decisions based on their intelligence. [...] Only... the results that the person giving the advice had with her/ his child, will not necessarily be replicated with another.

 

 

 

You have said several times that you don't share your own experience because it's not relevant to others because human brains are so unique. Is it such a stretch that you can not imagine that, in our semi-infinite uniqueness, many of us gain deeper understandings of ourselves, our children, and our struggles (along with their solutions) through exactly the sort of discourse you think is... ? I don't know what you think it is. Unscientific at the least, harmful at the outside, and a bunch of negative stuff in the middle.


  • soror, Jennifer-72, Heathermomster and 1 other like this

#33 Moved On

Moved On

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5455 posts

Posted 10 August 2017 - 07:57 AM

OP I get the feeling that you just don't want anyone to talk about their lived experience because the lessons they have learned over the years are not universally applicable and the results of their trial and error are not repllicable in a study.

Asserting that lay people should only speak to scientific truisms goes against everything we know to be true of human community. And ironically, the more resilient (ie diverse) one's community, the better the outcome for ANY human problem.



You have said several times that you don't share your own experience because it's not relevant to others because human brains are so unique. Is it such a stretch that you can not imagine that, in our semi-infinite uniqueness, many of us gain deeper understandings of ourselves, our children, and our struggles (along with their solutions) through exactly the sort of discourse you think is... ? I don't know what you think it is. Unscientific at the least, harmful at the outside, and a bunch of negative stuff in the middle.


That is what you got from the comment I made :001_rolleyes: , which you completely misunderstood and misinterpreted! I am dumbfounded!

Best of luck. I have nothing further to say.

Edited by Canadian Mom of 2, 10 August 2017 - 08:32 AM.


#34 OneStepAtATime

OneStepAtATime

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32322 posts

Posted 10 August 2017 - 08:37 AM

That is what you got from one comment I made  :001_rolleyes: , which you completely misunderstood and misinterpreted! I am dumbfounded! 

 

Best of luck. I have nothing further to say.

Well, to be fair, I got the same feeling and it wasn't just from the one comment.  Some of your other posts in this and other threads seem to sometimes imply that only heavily researched and scientifically supported posts should be taken seriously and parents should not share or make statements unless they are prepared to back up their statements with scientific research.  I think others are kind of getting the same impression.  If that wasn't your intention then I'm sorry there has been a breakdown in communication.

 

I do appreciate you posting links and trying to have a discourse on this and other topics.  I want to make that clear.  I think your "voice" on this forum can be very helpful and I appreciate your input.  Apparently, though, sometimes what you are saying is being said in a way that does not appear to be conveying the meaning you intended.  I've had the same thing happen and it is frustrating for all parties.  I am sorry if that is what is happening here.  In this instance, it has, upon occasion, come across to some of us as you chastising posters for not backing up everything they say with scientific research.   Since I find that approach to be extremely limiting in dialogues on this forum I am glad to hear that this is not what you are trying to tell people.

 

I appreciate you starting this thread and hope that others will continue to discuss this topic as I find it very interesting and relevant.  Best wishes.


Edited by OneStepAtATime, 10 August 2017 - 08:40 AM.

  • Jennifer-72 and okbud like this

#35 Moved On

Moved On

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5455 posts

Posted 10 August 2017 - 08:38 AM

Case in point!

And that's not to mention how people sometimes misinterpret what they read, or stretch it to suit their own needs and ideas!



#36 Moved On

Moved On

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5455 posts

Posted 10 August 2017 - 08:53 AM

OneStep, what you are saying, I have only posted in very specific situations. Yes, in those specific situations I felt it was warranted. I have never said that about sharing our experiences with our children. Those are two different things. And when I always see this comment about people using their intelligence to make decisions!!! I think we can all agree that this is not always the case. Perhaps I feel the weight of responsibility when recommending things more than others! I don't know! What I do know is that I sometimes see people feeling the need to defend previous comments about themselves and their kids because certain people tend to misinterpret or use their comments to support their own theories and ideas and it is beyond my ability to just stand by and watch anymore. This is why it is time for me to go.

Thank you for your wishes! I wish you the best as well.

Edited by Canadian Mom of 2, 10 August 2017 - 08:55 AM.

  • OneStepAtATime likes this

#37 OneStepAtATime

OneStepAtATime

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32322 posts

Posted 10 August 2017 - 09:38 AM

OneStep, what you are saying, I have only posted in very specific situations. Yes, in those specific situations I felt it was warranted. I have never said that about sharing our experiences with our children. Those are two different things. And when I always see this comment about people using their intelligence to make decisions!!! I think we can all agree that this is not always the case. Perhaps I feel the weight of responsibility when recommending things more than others! I don't know! What I do know is that I sometimes see people feeling the need to defend previous comments about themselves and their kids because certain people tend to misinterpret or use their comments to support their own theories and ideas and it is beyond my ability to just stand by and watch anymore. This is why it is time for me to go.

Thank you for your wishes! I wish you the best as well.

I understand what you are saying (at least I think I do and I apologize if I have misunderstood).  I guess one disconnect here is that I do not feel it is my responsibility to expect posts from others to have been researched and vetted scientifically, nor do I feel obligated to do the same.  Most of us here are not scientists doing long term extensive professional research studies on learning challenges (there are exceptions, LOL).  I don't expect that type of response here from most posters.  

 

Frankly, some of the scientific research I did was absolute bunk in the end, anyway, so even if we were to have that expectation, there is no guarantee that the resulting information would be accurate or helpful to individuals on this forum.  Still, having those references can actually be extremely helpful.  I absolutely acknowledge that.  And I do understand feeling a need to debunk what might appear to me to be assumptions based on false or inaccurate information.  I have done that upon occasion when I felt it was warranted.  I just don't see it as my duty or responsibility or even necessarily helpful to approach the vast majority of conversations, especially on this forum, from that perspective.  And I have also realized that sometimes it is not actually helpful to the OP.

 

I agree, by the way, that people do not always make decisions based on "intelligence" (although I honestly find that term unhelpful and would prefer not to even use it) but we, as parents, are making decisions based on what we know at the time.  Sometimes that knowledge/experience level is extremely limited and that means that sometimes decisions end up being, in hindsight, rather poor choices.  It happens.  I wish all kids came with a comprehensive manual with step by step instructions.  It would sure save a lot of stress and confusion.   :)

 

I certainly made a colossal pile of mistakes with my own children based on my lack of knowledge and understanding (but then so did several of the "professionals" I turned to for help, as well as certain scientific studies I found were full of bad information/inaccurate conclusions). But I was definitely using my "intelligence" when I made the decisions I did.  

 

 I think what has helped me the most, hands down and without reserve, over the years I have posted here is all these people yes, posting links where relevant including scientific research, but also just talking.  Just coming here to have a conversation/share/ask for help/ask for support/offer support/explore ideas in a supportive and understanding way.  We don't always agree.  And sometimes there is a disconnect between what we think we are saying and what others are "hearing".  But keeping up that dialogue has been phenomenally helpful to me.   I come here not for lots of scientific research or expecting other posters to back up what they say with copious scientific data but to simply hear from others on a more personal level.  Honestly, those have frequently been the conversations that helped me and my kids the most.

 

I hope my post adds some clarity about my own views.  Best wishes.


Edited by OneStepAtATime, 10 August 2017 - 09:49 AM.

  • Jennifer-72, okbud, kbutton and 1 other like this

#38 geodob

geodob

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1334 posts

Posted 11 August 2017 - 10:13 AM

While this term 'scientific research' has been used a lot in this discussion?

What needs to be highlighted, is that their are 2 branches of scientific research?

Quantitative and Qualitative.

 

With Quantitative (quantity), this is a statistical analysis to identify statistical significance.

But with Qualitative (quality), this looks across the broad range of experience.

Which is more interested in the broad range of variations, around any 'experience/condition'.

That tries to understand the diversity?

 

Though what needs to be appreciated, is how the Internet and Forums like this. Have opened up the potential for Qualitative Research?

How many people do you have 'face to face discussions' with, about 'Learning Challenges'?

Maybe a few?    Until now, it has been extremely difficult to gather enough participants for Qualitative Research?

Which can only provide a narrow view.

 

But then if we look at this forum, we have a great number of participants. 

Where discussions provide an insight into the diversity and individual variations, of 'learning challenges'.

Qualitative research, can be used to analyse and understand this diversity.

Which can then be used to define 'topics' for Quantitative research.

Yet these 'topics' are just a part of the broader picture.

One possible piece of the puzzle?


  • okbud and OneStepAtATime like this

#39 Heathermomster

Heathermomster

    Isilwen Meneldur of the Woodland Realm

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4516 posts

Posted 11 August 2017 - 01:47 PM

Geodob, what do you think of the Eides and their work on MIND strengths?
  • OneStepAtATime likes this

#40 Moved On

Moved On

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5455 posts

Posted 19 August 2017 - 05:45 PM

http://forums.welltr...-and-classical/



#41 OneStepAtATime

OneStepAtATime

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32322 posts

Posted 19 August 2017 - 09:33 PM

http://forums.welltr...-and-classical/


I have to admit I'm not really understanding why the link. Could you maybe follow up with what you were wanting to tie in to this thread? Sorry. Maybe it should be obvious but I'm not making the connection. I apologise.
  • kiwi mum likes this

#42 Moved On

Moved On

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5455 posts

Posted 20 August 2017 - 04:26 PM

I only stuck around to delete/ edit old posts of my choosing. It took me this long and I am finally done. I am not looking to explain anything nor do I wish to return. For those that followed the story and sincerely want to see, they can figure out why I posted that link. 

 

All the best!