Neuromyth #2 in education - Edu-K or Brain Gym

Neuroscience is not just an important area of consideration in education, it is also rapidly gaining popularity. As professor Deheane indicates in a 2013 WISE talk on neuroscience and reading teachers work with the brain and therefore can benefit from understanding the neuroscience of learning. I am a firm believer that neuroscience has a lot to offer for teachers and learners alike. Similarly, I think educationalists have a unique and valuable perspective to offer to neuroscience.

As stated by Ansari, Coch and De Smedt (2011) I too aim  in the long run to use neuroscience findings to inform classroom practice. However, as Ansari, Coch and De Smidt (2011), I encourage using individual neuroscientific findings carefully, with understanding of the context and limitations as well as with academic scrutiny of the sources, research methodology etc.  In short, I encourage teachers to study neuroscience and critically examine claims others may make regarding the use of neuroscience in education, comparing it to findings reported by other authors. 

Neuromyths

As in any field, there are also often misconceptions, half truths and pseudoscientific information floating around in the education field regarding neuroscience (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2002). These are called neuromyths (Lethaby & Harries, 2016). Neuromyths often are cleverly disguised over-generalisations or distortions of facts in neuroscience (Howard-Jones, 2010), which fool teachers, even those with a greater general knowledge of the brain and its workings (Tardif, Doudin and Meylan's, 2015) into believing the neuromyth. Organisations and marketers of the neuromyths are remarkably good at convincing parents, teachers and even academia into believing the neuromyth, and sadly often to pay a hefty fee for enrolling their children in such programs.  

As I stated in a previous post, I am of the view that teachers believing in these neuromyths do so without any malicious intent. I contend that the popularity of these neuromyths are in part because most teachers want to do the best for their learners. This combined with a lack of formal training in neuroscience and rigorous research methods, as well as  demanding workloads and a vast number of new initiatives all competing for teachers' attention, and some ingenious marketing of some of the neuromyths, makes education an easy breeding ground for neuromyths.  

Brain Gym or educational kinesiology (Edu-K)

I will be discussing the neuromyth behind Brain Gym or educational kinesiology (Dennison & Dennison, 1994) in this post. Gray (2013) found that 88% of teachers believed the central claim of Brain Gym (Dennison & Dennison, 1994) that specific, short, simple exercises can improve brain functioning, despite the then department of education (in Britain) admitting that studies have found no support for such a claim (Gray, 2013). Interestingly, Brain Gym South Africa (2016), agrees with Gray (2013) that Brain Gym is still widely used in Britain's state schools. If you, like me, as a teacher once believed or maybe still believes in any of the neuromyths, you certainly are not alone. 

Brain Gym South Africa

Brain Gym was originally developed by Dennison and Dennison in 1970s to assist children with learning difficulties (Stephenson, 2009). According to the website of Brain Gym South-Africa (2016) they charge R2800 for a training course presented by Dr Carla Hannaford on the physiological basis of learning. The cost of other courses were not clear from the website. The route to become a certified Brain Gym practitioner (Brain Gym South Africa, 2016) consists of a 750 hour learning track, which includes 250 prior learning, 250 training and 250 hours practicum hours.  The training consists of various prescribed and elective modules on levels i to iii (Brain Gym South Africa, 2016). According to Brain Gym South Africa (2016) this learning track is certified by Education, Training and Development Practices Sector Education and Training Authority (ETDP SETA) ETDP10122 and the South African Council For Educators (SACE) PR10846. Social workers in South Africa can even receive continuous professional development (CPD) points for completion of Brain Gym courses (Brain Gym South Africa, 2016). I could not locate brain gym courses accredited by the Health Profession Council of South Africa (HPCSA) for educational psychologists, counsellors or neuropsychologists, the fields of psychology specialising in learning and development as well as neuroscience. Brain Gym South Africa (2016) even requires 48 hours per 4 years of continuous professional development (CPD) for Brain Gym practitioners.

The picture painted above creates an air of a professional and research-based practise around Brain Gym South Africa. So much so that I asked myself, can I be wrong in considering Brain Gym a neuromyth? This doubt quickly evaporated reading the description of "learning disabilities" (or more correctly specific learning disorders as per the DSM-5 of the APA, 2013) on the website of Brain Gym South Africa (2016). For learning more about specific learning disorders (note not "learning disabilities") such as dyslexia I recommend reading professor Dehaene's book Reading in the Brain. The new science of how we read. (2009) which is a comprehensive summary of the neuroscience of reading. One example of the misinterpretation of neuroscience research in reading found on the website is that reading requires smooth movements of the eyes across a page. When one reads your eyes are not moving smoothly across the words, but in saccades or jerky movements of 7-9 letters in size (Dehaene, 2009, p. 13-18). A lack of smooth eye movements is definitely not one of the causes of dyslexia, as the Brain Gym South Africa (2016) website states. Jerky eye movements during reading is quite normal. 

Another, rather annoying error was the classification of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder as a "learning disability" (Brain Gym South Africa, 2016). It is not. According to the DSM-5 (APA, 2013) it is a neuro-developmental disorder. Furthermore, since 2013 no distinction is made between ADD and ADHD (APA, 2013). They are seen as two different presentation types within the same disorder. I will not be going into the causes of ADHD - this will just become a much longer discussion if I do. 

Furthermore, the only academic references quoted by Brain Gym South Africa (2016) on their website are those of their founders and practitioners. These references include:

• Paul Dennison's PhD thesis in Education on beginner's reading achievement and the relationship with cognitive development and inner speech - incorrectly likened to thinking skills on the website, but not in the thesis
• Dennison and Dennison's books Brain Gym: Simple Activities for Whole Brain Learning (1986), Brain Gym and Me: Reclaiming the Pleasure of Learning (2006) and Brain Gym: Teacher’s Edition, 1987, 1996, and 2010.

Neuromyths and facts in Brain Gym or Edu-K

Before we turn to the neuromyths underlying  Brain Gym, let us have a look at some of the facts in neuroscience (Howard-Jones, 2010):

• regular exercise is good for the brain and for your general health
• rehearsal of some mental processes can change the shape and and structure of the brain. 

The above facts are not in dispute. However, the application of these facts in Brain Gym or Edu-K (Stephenson, Carter and Wheldall, 2007) is. In their study on the prevalence of support for neuromyths Dekker, Lee, Howard-Jones & Jolles (2012) found Brain Gym to be one of the top three neuromyths widely supported by teachers.  

Brain Gym's authors Dennison and Dennison (1994) proposes a  series of 26 exercises that supposedly enhances learning abilities and academic achievement. Scientific studies of Brain Gym, e.g. Spaulding, Mostert and Beam (2010) found no support for the effectiveness of Brain Gym. Haytt in his meta-analysis in 2007 identified 5 peer reviewed journal articles regarding the effectiveness of Brain Gym:

• one study was excluded since the author was also a research participant
• two studies (Khalsa, Morris & Sifft, 1988; Sifft & Khalsa, 1991) respectively found increased static balance and response time in response to Brain Gym exercises, but did not consider improved academic learning
• one study (Cammisa, 1994) found improvement in perceptual motor skills, but no academic improvement in response to a yearlong Brain Gym programme
• one study (De los Santos, 2002) found perceived improvements in academic achievement based on teacher ratings, but no  statistical evidence of improvement nor of the significance of the changes are provided. 

Maskell, Shapiro and Ridley (2004) found that including Brain Gym exercises into a physical exercise program did not lead to additional improvements in crossing of the midline. 

Even more damning than the lack of peer review articles linking  Brain Gym to academic achievement or improved learning is that it seem to stem from highly contested and controversial studies, including:

• mixed cerebral dominance (Orton, 1937)
• perceptual motor training (Barsch, 1965)
• neurological repatterning (Doman, 1968). 

The publication dates of the above publications alone should ring a warning bell. Unless, considered a seminal work, research dating back more than four decades should be used with care. 

However, the final bit of straw is captured in the reactions of neuroscientists and educationalists specialising in the field of neuroscience and cognition to Brain Gym:

• Howard- Jones (2007) refers to Brain Gym as "complete bananas" (p.7)
• Geake (2005) objected to Brain Gym's claim that physical exercise can stimulate specific parts of the brain - note that the senso-motor cortex contains a topological representation of the body (Purvis et al., 2012), but this fact cannot be generalised to the claim that physical exercise can stimulate specific parts of the brain involved in academic learning
• Geake (2008), Goswami (2006) and Sense about Science (2008) do not support the claim that pressing or massaging "brain buttons" leads to stimulation of specific brain areas.

Here is some of the more interesting responses from neuroscientists, neurobiologists and cognitive scientists courtesy of Sense about Science (2008) on specific claims made by  Brain Gym creators and practitioners:

• "Brain Gym activities....enables students to access those parts of the brain previously inaccessible to them" - Dr Losiewisc responds "There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that any part of the active brain goes "unused". Even when resting, there is brain activity occurring throughout."
• "the student lightly touches the [positive points] above each eye with the fingertips of each hand....halfway between the airline and the eyebrows. The positive points bring blood flow from the hypothalamus to the frontal lobes, where rational thought occurs." Professor Atwell responds "Rational thought does not just occur in the frontal lobes and there is no evidence that touching these points can alter blood flow within the brain."
• Centuring is the ability to cross the midline between the upper and lower body and the corresponding upper and lower brain functions: the midbrain (emotional content) and cerebrum (abstract thought)." Dr LaVere Smith responds "The idea of symmetry between brain and body does not hold true. The top of the body doesn't match up with the the top of the brain and so on. Also the midbrain isn't the seat of emotional content. Emotional content is processed all over the brain, including the cerebrum and amygdala"
• "In the same way that electrical circuits in a house can become overloaded, neurological and physiological signals can become jammed and switched off, blocking the normal flow of brain-body communication...Hook-ups connect the electrical circuits in the body" Dr Lazic responds "It sounds plausible, but in reality the only time a neurological signal would become "jammed", "blocked" or "switched-off" is during a pathological event such as seizure, stroke, head trauma or perhaps a  neurodenegenerative disorder". The point here is that neurons are "switching on and off" (i.e. firing action potentials or not firing action potentials) and various neurotransmitters are increasing or decreasing the probability of a neuron firing or not firing all the time. These changes can happen in milliseconds. 
• "Water is an excellent conductor of electrical energy...[drinking water] activates the brain for efficient storage and retrieval of information" Dr Coan responds "Water is a poor electrical conductor and only by containing dissolved metallic solids such as salt is water able to conduct"

The last point is an excellent example of how physiological and neuroscience facts are distorted and over-generalised in neuromyths. Everyone agrees dehydration is not good for your body and brain, and can even be fatal. No teacher will argue that giving children water to drink is bad for the children, unless of course the water is polluted or contaminated in some way. However, claiming it is because water is a good conductor of electrical energy is just unscientific. Dehydration is also often associated with fatigue and dizziness, difficulty concentrating and other metabolical disturbances. But again, it is not because water is a good conductor of electricity, but because dehydration causes metabolite imbalances. 

Way forward

I firmly believe that discussing neuromyths in educational forums (and even on social media) will encourage incorporating neuroscience into teacher training and making neuroscience research more accessible to teachers - thus leading to less believers of neuromyths. 

Tardif, Doubin and Meylan (2015) found strong opposition from teachers and student teachers when they presented research challenging neuromyths. I expect no less. I however in the spirit of academic debate would love to hear your opinions, whether you agree with me or not.  I invite you to be critical about my opinions as stated above. 

Disclaimer

All opinions expressed is solely my own and do not represent the opinions of any of the organisations I am associated with or employed by. 

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed). DSM-5. Washington: American Psychiatric Publishing. 

Ansari, D., Coch, D. & De Smedt, B. (2011). Connecting education and cognitive neuroscience: Where will the journey take us? Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(1), 37-42. 

Barsch, R.H. (1965). The movigenic curriculum (Bulletin No.25). Madison: Department of Public Instruction (Bureau for Handicapped Children).

Brain Gym South Africa.  (2016). Official website retrieved on 21 August 2016 from https://www.braingyminsa.co.za/

Cammisa, K.M. (1994). Educational kinesiology with learning disabled children: An efficacy study. Perceptual and motor skills, 78, 105-106. 

Clark, R.C. (2014). Evidence-based Training Methods (2nd ed). Alexandria: ASTD Press.

De Los Santos, G. (2002). Improving the faculty's effectiveness in increasing the success of Hispanic students in higher education-pronto. Journal of Higher Education, 1, 225-237. 

Dehaene, S. (2013). How the brain learn to read. Wise lecture retrieved 21 August 2016 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25GI3-kiLdo

Dekker, S., Lee, N.C., Howard-Jones, P. & Jolles, J. (2012). Neuromyths in education: prevalence and predictors of misconceptions among teachers. Frontiers of Psychology, 3(429), 1-8.  

Dennison, P. & Dennison, G. (1994). Brain gym (Teacher's edition). Ventura: Edu Kinesthetics. 

Doman, C. (1968). The diagnosis and treatment of speech and reading problems. Springfield: Thomas. 

Geake, J. (2005). The neurological basis of intelligence: A contrast with "brain-based" education. A paper presented at the British Education Research Association Annual Conference, Univeristy of Glamorgan, UK retrieved 21 August 2016 from https://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/156074.htm

Geake, J. (2008). Neuromythologies in education. Educational Research, 50, 123-133. 

Goswami, U. (2006). Neuroscience in education: From research to practice? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 7, 406-413. 

Gray, R. (1991). Tools for the trade: Neuro-linguistic programming and the art of communication. Federal Probation, 55(1), 11-16. 

Gray, J. (2013). Mind Warp. Distorted and unproven claims abouth the benfits of brain training have infiltrate Britain's schools.  New Humanist, 128(5), 20-22.

Howard-Jones, P. (2007). Introduction to educational neuromyths. Paper presented at the All Party Parliamentary Group on Scientific Research in Learning and Education, Brain-science in the Classroom Seminar, Portcullis House, UK. Retrieved 21 August 2016 from https://www.brookes.ac.uk/schools/education/rescon/ocnef/Brain-science_in_the_classroom.pdf

Howard-Jones, P.A. (2010). Introducing neuroeducational research: Neuroscience, education and the brain from contexts to practice. London: Routledge. 

Khalsa, G.K., Morris, G.S.D. & Sifft, J.M. (1988). Effect of educational kinesiology on static balance of learning disabled students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 67, 51-54. 

Lethaby, C. & Harries, P. (2015). Learning styles and teacher training: are we perpetuating neuromyths? ELT Journal, 70(1), 16-26. 

Maskell, B., Shapiro, D.R. & Ridley, C. (2004). Effects of Brain Gym on overhand throwing in first grade students. A preliminary investigation. Physical Educator, 61, 14-23.  

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2002). Understanding the brain: Towards a new learning science. Paris: OECD. 

Orton, S.T. (1937). Reading, Writing and Speech Problems in children. London: Chapman & Hall. 

Purvis, D., Augustine, G.J., Fitzpatrick, D., Hall, W.C., LaMantia, A. & White, L. E. (2012) Neuroscience (5th Ed). Sunderland: Sinauer Associates

Sense about Science. (2008). Sense about Brain Gym. Retrieved 21 August 2016, from www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/pdf/braingym/pdf. 

Sifft, J.M. & Khalsa, G.C.K. (1991). Effect of educational kinesiology upon simple response times ad choice response times. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 73, 1011-1015. 

Spaulding, L.S., Mostert, M.P. & Beam, A.P. (2010). Is Brain Gym an effective educational intervention? Exceptionality, 18(1), 18-30.

Stephenson, J., Carter, M. Weldall, K. (2007). Jumping on the balancing beam: Continued use of perceptual motor programs in Australian schools. Australian Journal of Education, 51, 6-18.

Tardif, E., Doudin, P. & Meylan, N. (2015). Neuromyths among Teachers and Student Teachers. International Mind, Brain and Education Society and Wiley Periodicals Inc. 9(1), 50-59.