Book Reviews

A CTL review of Unleashing the Power of Perceptual Change: The Potential of Brain-Based Research
by Renate Nummela Caine & Geoffrey Caine

Review by Joseph Bilotta, Psychology

The purpose of this book was to develop and implement, a 'brain-based' teaching system based on our current understanding of how the brain works and develops. The book begins with an overview of our current understanding of brain function and development. This is followed by the introduction of Caine and Caine's 'brain-based' teaching system that involves twelve "brain/mind" learning principles. The book concludes with the authors' attempt to train teachers to implement this new type of teaching. I thought that the authors' overview of our current understanding of brain functioning was very good. They highlighted the overview by describing how the brain is changed by experience, and that while the brain was most flexible at younger ages, even adult brains are still capable of development and modification. They conclude with the statement that that the brain is highly interconnected and for the most part, functions as a whole integrated system.

At this point, I was looking forward to how they were going to translate this information into a teaching approach. Unfortunately, I was disappointed. They describe their twelve 'brain/mind learning principles' and, for the life of me, I could not see the relationship between these principles and brain functioning. The principles seem to be nothing more than 'catch' phrases that sound like they should be important in learning. For example, three of the principles are 'the brain is a social brain', 'the search for meaning occurs through patterning', 'learning is developmental'. What do these have to do with the brain? To support these principles, they rely on generalized statements, a variety of quotes, stories and personal experiences. For example, brain-based teachers were "teachers who were at home on the edge of possibility" (p. 2). The book is replete with phrases and sentences like the above phrase whose meaning is far from clear.

The only attempt the authors make to relate their brain/mind learning principles back to neuroscience is that they relate learning to the phrase 'plasticity' (which I assume means 'neural plasticity') in which they claim "Plasticity means that the brain records all events, not just positive ones. Particularly in infants and children, negative experiences associated with violence, hunger, and trauma can be 'hard-wired'" (p. 10); I don't know what that means, but that is not how plasticity is defined in neuroscience. The support for these learning principles comes mostly from quotes that were for the most part very confusing. For example, a quote from Keidel (1995, p. 5), "human organization reflects cognitive organization" (p. 42). I guess I can't argue with that? They relate their principles to examples in quantum mechanics, ecology, and their 74-year old neighbor's reflection on society's view of pollution. Of course, the best, and most profound, quote comes from Star Trek's Mr. Spock "I believe, Captain, we are to them as the amoeba is to us" (p. 24). How all of these examples relate to 'brain-based' teaching was unclear to me. In fact, I would argue that virtually all teaching is brain-based because for learning to take place, there must be corresponding changes in brain structure and function. I don't see how this technique does it any differently. Just because you call it brain-based teaching doesn't mean that it is based on principles of neuroscience.

Finally, the last part of the book examines the effectiveness of their method by training teachers to use the method in the classroom. They assessed the method's effectiveness the following way: "Our approach simulated an hermeneutic spiral as we observed, discussed, and reflected on what we saw, questioned our premises, read profusely, and came back to the original questions" (p. 36); I'm not sure that this methodology is something to brag about. However, it seems to me that if you are going to assess the effectiveness of a learning method, you should examine the method's impact on student learning. They did not do that; instead they examined the perceived impact on the part of teachers.

Overall, I must admit that I was confused most of the time as I was reading the book. Many of the arguments just didn't seem, as Mr. Spock would put it, logical. For example, early in the book they argue that the current teaching techniques used in the classroom were archaic and developed for a society in the "Industrial Era", and that this technique was based on the following assumptions: "1) Only experts create knowledge, 2) Teachers deliver knowledge in the form of information, and 3) Children are graded on how much of the information they have stored" (p. 4, numbers mine). They then go on to say that this era, in which information appears to be regarded as the most important aspect of teaching, has been replaced with the "Information Era". "Our society is now well into the Information Age, and education has no choice but to follow suit" (p. 5). I'm afraid that this book does not have enough information for me to do that.