Brain-Based and Traditional Learning Reaction Paper

Daniel Coffin
Concordia University, Nebraska

Submitted in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for EDUC 511
September 19th, 2015

Over the last two decades, researchers have come to know a great deal more
about that supremely important human organ about which relatively little is known or
understood: the human brain. Brain-based learning is a relatively new approach to
learning which seeks to make use of these new findings in the field of neuroscience to
structure academic learning in a way that complements how our brains naturally learn
(Jensen, 2005, p. 2).
The chief difference between brain-based teaching and learning and other traditional
learning approaches is that while most traditional educational theory builds upon a
foundation of psychology or philosophy (such as the work of Dewey, Vygotsky, Piaget,
and Skinner), brain-based learning considers the physiological and chemical workings
of the brain itself to determine how best to foster learning (Jensen, 2005, p. 4, 146).
This basis in science could be considered both a strength and a weakness of brainbased learning.
On the one hand, a basis in science means that the ideas which make up brainbased learning can be tested and validated or dismissed empirically. On the other hand,
we are just beginning to understand how the brain works, and any learning approach
built around an understanding of the brain is of necessity going to go through some
growing pains as the base of knowledge about the brain is grown and refined through
research and educational practices based on that research are altered or abandoned
(Jensen, 2005, p. 2, 6).
Conversely, traditional educational theory is largely settled. Teachers and
pedagogical theorists may expand these theories or expound upon new ways to apply
old ideas, but there are no discoveries waiting in the wings in the approach of

behaviorism, to use one example, which promise to revolutionize the way we teach and
learn.
The scientific basis of brain-based learning means that it is as objective an approach
to learning as we are likely to devise. Jensen notes each model or theory from
educational history was designed a specific way for certain reasons (2005, p. 146).
Brain-based learning, however, has no philosophical axe to grind. Educational decisions
are made with research in mind rather than a philosophical paradigm. This is not to say
that brain-based learning and traditional learning approaches need not necessarily
oppose or contradict each other. Brain-based learning has the potential to empirically
validate best practices drawn from other educational theories (Jensen, 2005, p. 4).
I think brain-based learning has the potential to radically change what it means to be
a teacher. So much of what makes a good teacher now is undefined; it is easy to
consider student learning after the fact and label one teacher as effective and another
ineffective, but it is much harder to pinpoint precisely what each does that makes them
so. At this moment, teaching is more an art than a science, which makes eliminating
ineffective practices and propagating effective ones difficult. I can foresee a time when
brain research makes it possible to empirically define what good teaching is and how it
should be conducted.
Until that time, though, brain-based teaching remains one approach among many. It
will be up to the early adopters to demonstrate how effective brain-based teaching and
learning can be to colleagues and administrators and get conversations started about
the connection between the brain and nutrition, public health, family stability, and stress
and trauma (Jensen, 2005, p. 151). Once we can connect the brain to what happens

outside the classroom as well as within the classroom and start influencing public policy,
I think we will really begin to see the revolution that brain-based learning promises.

References
Jensen, E. (2005). Teaching with the brain in mind (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.