This literature review examines peer-reviewed and scholarly research on brain-based learning and its application to classroom instruction. Drawing on neuroscience findings from the past decade and a half, the paper explores critical periods in early brain development, the theoretical foundations of brain-based education, and the practical classroom strategies recommended by leading researchers such as Eric Jensen and Stanley I. Greenspan. The review also addresses scholarly criticism of brain-based approaches, noting that while direct empirical links between neuroscience and classroom practice remain limited, numerous evidence-informed techniques — including movement integration, student choice, humor, and active engagement — have shown measurable benefits for learners of all ages, particularly young children.
The nation's schools are struggling to meet the needs of their students in a dynamic and increasingly competitive globalized marketplace (Reis, Colbert & Hebert, 2005). Although researchers have learned a great deal from psychological research that is relevant to teaching and learning, much remains unknown about how the brain functions and learns (Bruer, 1999). Educators such as Stanley I. Greenspan (2000) point out that humans typically experience a "window" of learning opportunity during their early years that cannot be replaced once it has passed. For instance, in her essay "Evaluating 'Brain-Based' Curricular Claims," Bergen (2002) reports that: "Catalogs for educational products now tout the links between the products and specific areas of brain development, and parents are urged to buy many products purporting to stimulate development of certain skills during early 'critical periods' for children's brains" (p. 376).
While this early window of learning opportunity has been widely reported in the media and scholarly literature, the fundamental approaches to brain-based education have been increasingly applied to middle childhood and adolescent education environments as well (Bergen, 2002). This point is also made by Davis, Marshall, and Puckett (1999), who report that "Emerging information on how the young child's brain develops is exciting professionals and illuminating the field of early care and education. Young children have become the focus of long-awaited and much-needed attention from scientific researchers, educators, politicians, and the media" (p. 8). Given this setting, it is little wonder that researchers have been increasingly investigating the connection between learning and how the brain works.
In their book Practical Approaches to Using Learning Styles in Higher Education, Dunn and Griggs (2000) report that people have such unique patterns for learning new and difficult information that "it is hard to judge accurately how to teach anything academically challenging without first identifying how each student learns" (p. 19). Once a student's learning style has been identified, educators can develop appropriate processing approaches, methods, and sequences of perceptual exposures to resources that are likely to make learning relatively comfortable for everyone involved (Dunn & Griggs, 2000). Educators who support this approach have adopted a brain-based approach to learning, a technique that is not without its detractors. For example, Morgan (1999) points out that "The most recent discussions concerning human knowledge acquisition come from neuroscience. Studies on monkeys and cats have been reported by educators with limited knowledge of neuroscience. This has led to leaps in logic and inappropriate interpretation of the findings" (p. 222). The brain-based approach to learning and its underlying theories are discussed further below.
According to Chance (2001), the fundamental assumptions behind brain-based education are that research in neuroscience should serve as a guide to identifying effective instructional techniques. In this regard, Chance points out that "Teachers try to change the brain every day. The more they know about how it learns, the more successful they can be" (p. 72). To date, researchers have determined that:
Complex environments produce smarter brains than do boring environments. Implication: provide lots of variety in classroom activities and offer students new challenges every day.
The brain requires sleep to clear out the neurochemical waste that accumulates during the day and to consolidate memories. Implication: encourage students to get plenty of sleep and provide rest time after lunch.
Experiencing high levels of stress for prolonged periods can destroy brain cells. Implication: reduce stress (eliminate pop quizzes) and lead students in relaxation exercises (Chance, 2001, p. 72).
According to Bruer (1999), brain-based educators generally support progressive education reforms and denounce the "factory model of education" in which "experts create knowledge, teachers disseminate it, and students are graded on how much of it they can absorb and retain" (p. 648). One of the leading proponents of brain-based education theory, Eric Jensen, maintains that the key to improving students' ability to learn is directly related to creating the physical framework required to think rationally: "The key to getting smarter," Jensen advises, "is growing more synaptic connections between brain cells and not losing existing connections. It's the connections that allow us to solve problems and figure things out" (Jensen, 1998, p. 15). By and large, brain-based educators also support a constructivist, active learning model in which students are actively engaged in learning and in guiding their own instruction (Bruer, 1999).
Earlier, however, Bruer (1997) also criticized brain-based learning because "Brain science fascinates teachers and educators… Educational applications of brain science might come eventually, but as of now neuroscience has little to offer teachers in terms of informing classroom practice" (p. 4). Other scholars suggest that more research needs to be done before educators fully embrace all of the tenets of brain-based learning: "Human understanding of the brain is in its infancy, and much research needs to be done" (Blakemore, 2003, p. 22).
Davis (2000) points out that although some educational theorists such as Jensen have offered opinions concerning what brain research means for educational practice, no studies to date have confirmed the efficacy of these techniques. "Behavioral psychology has developed theories and practices separate from the neurological sciences," she notes, and "Both fields have historically viewed the world in ways that are equally informative and knowledgeable; at this time, however, there have been no studies that directly connect these fields" (Davis, p. 100). In this regard, Bruer (1999) noted that it has been only recently that cognitive neuroscientists began investigating how "neural hardware might run our mental software" (p. 650).
While studies still need to be conducted to link specific brain operations to the following findings, Jensen (2000) and Jensen and Dabney (2000) identified these known beneficial effects of exercise on the human neurological system:
The number of capillaries increases around the neurons of the brain, facilitating an increase in blood and oxygen flow, which serves to improve the speed of recall. Circulation is enhanced through increased capillaries and the transport of more oxygen and nutrients to the brain. Gross-motor repetitive movements stimulate the production of dopamine, a mood-enhancing neurotransmitter. When certain exercises are performed, endorphins are released and alertness increases. The release of chemicals such as serotonin and dopamine reduces depression by as much as 50%. Improving fitness levels creates faster reaction times. The production of the hormone NGF (nerve growth factor), which enhances brain function by stimulating the growth of nerve cells, may also be triggered (cited in Blakemore, p. 24).
While Bruer does not agree with many of the conclusions reached by brain-based educators, the editors of Phi Delta Kappan responded to these criticisms by pointing out that Eric Jensen has been investigating brain-based learning for some time and has developed a much more complex model of learning and thinking than Bruer and other critics have acknowledged. "That model shows how different parts of the brain and body work together on most tasks," they note, "how different portions of the brain can assume different primary functions in different individuals, and how PET (positron emission tomography) scans and other new techniques provide visual evidence about learning and thinking processes" (A challenge to brain-based educators, 1999, p. 254).
In this regard, Jensen has reviewed a substantial body of evidence from neuroscientists and points out that today, "If a brain educator talks about a right-brained learner, he or she is referring to a code for certain learning or thinking preferences or talents — not to any assumption that only one portion of the brain is being used. Valuable research on brain laterality continues, but up-to-date educators are not presenting yesterday's simplistic model" (A challenge to brain-based educators, 1999, p. 254). In fact, Jensen has presented some solid findings that can be used to good effect without requiring any other substantive changes in teaching styles.
"How student autonomy improves learning outcomes"
"Games, movement, and constructing knowledge actively"
"Key conclusions and call for early intervention"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.