We used to regularly speak of left and right brain thinkers, as in she's a left brain thinker because she is very logical and enjoys mathematics, and he is a right brained thinker because he's an artist, and the right brain controls his creative side. While the notion of left and right "brained" thinkers has been perpetuated for decades since the popularization of Dr. Roger Sperry's work, there is no scientific basis in support of lateralization. In reality, while certain brain functions are largely regionalized within the brain, these functions almost always work in tandem with other functions located in all parts of the brain. This is especially true of complex tasks like problem solving, creative thought and personal expression.
More recently, there has been a lot of work on the distinctions between male and female brain structure and processing. Research suggests that some men have "female" brains that process more like those of their biological counterparts, just as some percentage of women have "male" brains, neither of which are causally tied to sexuality or sexual preference. Male brains are indeed larger on average than female brains, but then again, men are usually anatomically larger. There is no correlation between the difference in brain size in men and women and their capacity to think deeply and with complexity. By analogy, there are a number of mammals with larger brains, but few would contend that their cognitive abilities are greater than those of human beings.
The December proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences outlines the University of Pennsylvania's ongoing research in neuroanatomy and physiology. This study suggests that male brains tend to have greater connectivity within each hemisphere from front to back and with the cerebellum; whereas female brains tend to have greater connectivity across hemispheres. Of course, any mention of the distinctions between male and female brain architecture leads to controversy and this study has been challenged, not because of the findings themselves, as much as for the conclusions its researchers have drawn and the suppositions they have rendered about what these structural differences mean.
Neuroscience and our understanding of brain function and learning has grown by leaps and bounds over the last two decades. This most recent study ties to a growing body of research that suggests there are anatomical and physiological reasons for the gender-distinct learning behaviors that educators regularly witness and navigate in classrooms. For example, we know by experience that girls tend to be more sensitive to touch, especially in and around the face, to color, and to sound. Boys tend to be far more kinesthetic, though not exclusively so, in their learning; that is, they depend on physical manipulation and movement to process most effectively. Patterns of socialization are quite different. If the aforementioned research about bilateral vs. unilateral processing is indeed accurate, this would explain why boys are far more likely to respond quickly when asked questions, but these responses are not necessarily as nuanced as those provided by girls.
We have a long way to go before we truly understand the human brain, but the implications for the classroom are striking. An optimal learning environment for girls might be different from an optimal learning environment for boys. However, the benefits of cross-gender socialization, provided that a teacher facilitates a learning environment where the needs of different learners are met, far outweigh the benefits of single-sex classrooms. More so, because these brain types are not exclusive to males or females; not all boys or girls would be best served in a single-sex environment. In other words, our students inhabit a gendered world, and they have to develop strategies for problem solving, communication, and socialization in order to live successful, adult personal and professional lives with and among those of the opposite sex.
While conversations about gender distinctions in learning are important, conversations about individualized instructional approaches are more crucial if we are to serve our students most effectively. This is why our attention to pedagogical approaches (to challenging, inquiry-based, student-centered teaching and curricula) and assessment practices (aimed at informing how learning can be improved or advanced) is key to a complete approach to teaching and learning. This is why, as a school, we are committed to continuous professional development and to the International Baccalaureate.
See you around campus.
More recently, there has been a lot of work on the distinctions between male and female brain structure and processing. Research suggests that some men have "female" brains that process more like those of their biological counterparts, just as some percentage of women have "male" brains, neither of which are causally tied to sexuality or sexual preference. Male brains are indeed larger on average than female brains, but then again, men are usually anatomically larger. There is no correlation between the difference in brain size in men and women and their capacity to think deeply and with complexity. By analogy, there are a number of mammals with larger brains, but few would contend that their cognitive abilities are greater than those of human beings.
The December proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences outlines the University of Pennsylvania's ongoing research in neuroanatomy and physiology. This study suggests that male brains tend to have greater connectivity within each hemisphere from front to back and with the cerebellum; whereas female brains tend to have greater connectivity across hemispheres. Of course, any mention of the distinctions between male and female brain architecture leads to controversy and this study has been challenged, not because of the findings themselves, as much as for the conclusions its researchers have drawn and the suppositions they have rendered about what these structural differences mean.
Neuroscience and our understanding of brain function and learning has grown by leaps and bounds over the last two decades. This most recent study ties to a growing body of research that suggests there are anatomical and physiological reasons for the gender-distinct learning behaviors that educators regularly witness and navigate in classrooms. For example, we know by experience that girls tend to be more sensitive to touch, especially in and around the face, to color, and to sound. Boys tend to be far more kinesthetic, though not exclusively so, in their learning; that is, they depend on physical manipulation and movement to process most effectively. Patterns of socialization are quite different. If the aforementioned research about bilateral vs. unilateral processing is indeed accurate, this would explain why boys are far more likely to respond quickly when asked questions, but these responses are not necessarily as nuanced as those provided by girls.
We have a long way to go before we truly understand the human brain, but the implications for the classroom are striking. An optimal learning environment for girls might be different from an optimal learning environment for boys. However, the benefits of cross-gender socialization, provided that a teacher facilitates a learning environment where the needs of different learners are met, far outweigh the benefits of single-sex classrooms. More so, because these brain types are not exclusive to males or females; not all boys or girls would be best served in a single-sex environment. In other words, our students inhabit a gendered world, and they have to develop strategies for problem solving, communication, and socialization in order to live successful, adult personal and professional lives with and among those of the opposite sex.
While conversations about gender distinctions in learning are important, conversations about individualized instructional approaches are more crucial if we are to serve our students most effectively. This is why our attention to pedagogical approaches (to challenging, inquiry-based, student-centered teaching and curricula) and assessment practices (aimed at informing how learning can be improved or advanced) is key to a complete approach to teaching and learning. This is why, as a school, we are committed to continuous professional development and to the International Baccalaureate.
See you around campus.