Brain Mechanisms of Learning
In this series of writing, I have gathered the research findings in neuroscience and try to clarify the myth about the CPH. This will guide the parents in making a wise decision as to when to send their children to learn the English language.
Also from the new findings of the bilingual brain, I try to see what are the other aspects that the policy of learning English for children should consider to provide a sound policy to offer children a better learning environment for English learning.
I will argue that though many factors bring about the phenomenon of parents wanting to send their children to bilingual pre-school institutions, the root of the problem should be examined. This phenomenon shows that parents are being misled by the expert’s opinion.
Therefore, intervention in parental belief would lead to the correction of early childhood education for a foreign language. The government before implementing the educational policy should establish a channel for communication with parents and preschool administrators through providing societal participation and parental consultation.
The findings in neuroscience studies can provide a basis for decisions that take account of children’s physical and mental development. So the government can set up educational policy according to this basis.
The process of learning refers to the mechanism of neuronal signal transmission and neuronal network connection (Gazzaniga et al., 2008; Sylwester, 1995). For the core issues of education, namely, “learning, memory, thinking, emotion, and creativity”, none of these abilities doesn’t rely on the coordination and control of the brain (Smith et al., 2007).
In the past, the aim of education was based on assumptions and speculations; the principle of education was developed by the teaching experience; and when educational scholars introduced a strategy for effective teaching based on a theory, the effectiveness of practice could not be measured.
Now, neuroscience research can provide evidence for mechanisms that cannot be detected by behavioral research (Laufs et al., 2008). If scholars and teachers can utilize the findings from the molecular structure of cells to prove one teaching strategy that can really improve the function of the brain, it means that we can employ an objective standard to verify the quality of curriculum design and the teaching strategy.
The most important is that neuroscience research can provide a substantial basis for setting up and implementation of educational policy to eliminate parents’ doubts and distrust. Is ‘the sooner the better’ approach consistent with the principle of physical and mental development for young children?
I aim to investigate the cogency of this hypothesis from the neuroscience perspective. I attempt to throw light on debates and tensions between different perspectives (parents, professionals, and the government). I hope that in due course the children can grow in an appropriate educational environment.
References
Gazzaniga, M. S., Ivry, R. B. Mangun, G.R. (2008). Cognitive neuroscience: the biology of the mind. London: W. W. Norton.
Sylwester, R. (1995). A celebration of neutrinos: An educator’s guide to the human brain. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Smith, E.E. & Kosslyn, S.M. (2007). Cognitive psychology: mind and brain. London: Pearson.
Laufs, H., Daunizeau, J., Carmichael, D.W., & Kleinschmidt, A. (2008). Recent advances in recording electrophysiological data simultaneously with magnetic resonance imaging. NeuroImage, 40, 515–528.
Originally published at http://poeticmindfulness.wordpress.com on August 22, 2020.
