Right Brain/ Left Brain Quiz

Directions: Take this test by selecting the answer which best describes you at this present time. Every time you read a description or characteristic that applies to you, select the first response that seems right. After you are done, we'll evaluate your responses automatically by adding them up. Whichever number is higher represents your dominance. If the numbers are close, that means you use both sides of your brain equally.

1. I wear a watch
Yes
No

2. I keep a journal
Yes
No

3. I believe there is a right and wrong way to do everything
Yes
No

4. I hate following directions
Yes
No

5. The expression "Life is just a bowl of cherries" makes no sense to me
Yes
No

6. I find that sticking to a schedule is boring
Yes
No

7. I'd rather draw someone a map then tell them how to get somewhere
Yes
No

8. If I lost something, I'd try to remember where I saw it last
Yes
No

9. If I don't know usually which way to turn, I let my emotions guide me
Yes
No

10. I am good at Math
Yes
No

11. If I had to assemble something, I'd read the directions first.
Yes
No

12. I'm often late getting places
Yes
No

13. Some people think I'm psychic
Yes
No

14. Setting goals for myself helps keep me from slacking off
Yes
No

15. When somebody asks me a question, I turn my head to the left
Yes
No

16. If I have a tough decision to make, so I write down the pros and the cons
Yes
No

17. I'd make a good detective
Yes
No

18. I am musically inclined
Yes
No

19. If I have a problem, I try to work it out by relating it to one I've had in the past
Yes
No

20. When I talk, I gesture a lot
Yes
No

21. If someone asks me a question, I turn my head to the right
Yes
No

22. I believe there are two sides to every story
Yes
No

23. I can tell if someone is guilty just by looking at them
Yes
No

24. I keep a to do list
Yes
No

25. I feel comfortable expressing myself with words
Yes
No

26. Before I take a stand on an issue, I get all the facts
Yes
No

27. I've considered becoming a poet, a politician, an architect, or a dancer
Yes
No

28. I lose track of time easily
Yes
No

29. If I forgot someone's name, I'd go through the alphabet until I remembered it
Yes
No

30. I like to draw
Yes
No

31. When I'm confused, I usually go with my gut instinct
Yes
No

32. I have considered becoming a lawyer, journalist, or doctor
Yes
No

Left Brain, Right Brain, Whole Brain?

An examination into the theory of brain laterilization, learning styles and the implications for education.

The idea that the left and right hemispheres exhibit different patterns of thought has caught the public attention and have inspired several educational theories, notably "Eight ways of knowing" by David Lazear , and numerous other self-help books. However theses theories have also been heavily criticized, and sometimes cast as pop-psychological myths .

Here we will investigate current understanding of left-right brain functioning; look at some of the psychological and educational models which result; an examine some of the educational implications. We will also examine for of the critiques of the theory and a couple of speculative ideas inspired by techniques in statistics and computer science. We start with a brief look at the brain.

Basic brain biology

A simplified model of the human brain consists of many parts:

Brain stem, hind brain, mid brain & cerebellum - the most ancient parts, connected to the spine, controls movement, breathing and heartbeats.
Limbic system - consisting of many specialist organs including the Hypothalamus, hippocampus -developed in mammals. Some memory functions and generation of emotional responses.
Cerebral cortex - the distinguishing feature of human brains

The cortex is divided into two hemispheres, left and right connected by a thick layer of cells called the corpus callosum. Most other parts of the brain are also divided laterally.

Each hemisphere of the cortex can further be divided into four lobes:

Occipital - visual processing
Parietal - movement, orientation, calculation, recognition
Temporal - sound and speech processing, aspects of memory
Frontal - thinking, conceptualisation, planning.

The left hand eye is connected to the right hand occipital lobe and vice-versa. The right hand side of the brain also controls the left hand side of the body.

The outer surface of the cerebral cortex, commonly called the grey matter, is made up of the cell bodies many million of neurons, which are the main processing unit of the brain. Below the surface is the white matter, this chiefly consists of dendrites and axons which connect neurons to each other.

A simplified model of the processing of a neuron is that it receives inputs through its dendrites and depending upon the level of inputs it will fire a signal along its axion. Towards the end of the axion its splits and connects to dendrites of other neurons causing them to fire. While each individual neuron performs a simple processing task, the shear number of neurons give the brain is power. More importantly it is the number of connections which distinguish the way a brain function to the typical functioning a computer today, the ratio of connections to processing unit is much larger in the brain than in a computer.

The behaviourist work of Pavlov and Skinner led Donald Hebb to develop a model of synapse in 1949 that could account for how associations could be formed . This model has become the accepted model and is central to questions on how memories form and learning takes place. Consider the situation where two incoming neurons (A,B) synapse onto a third (C) and (before learning) a signal from A will be strong enough to cause C to fire but a signal from B will not. During learning when both A and B fire together biochemical processes will strengthen the response to signals from B. After learning a signal from B will be strong enough to cause C to fire. This general model has been confirmed by decades of research in memory. During learning specific cells change their properties which can be morphological changes including growth of new dendratic spines, increase in synapse numbers and dimensions and changes in electrical properties of a synaps.

We will now examine the theories of how processing in the left and right hand hemisphere differ.

Research into Brain lateralization

Much of the theory of left-right specialisation has been developed through examining patients who have had physical defects in one part of the brain. One of the earliest of these investigations was Paul Broca's work in 1861 with a patient nicknamed Tan who had a large cyst in the left hand side of his brain. Tan could only say one word: "Tan", hence the nickname. This indicated that some language functions were concentrated in the left hand side of the brain. Further study of eight patients who all had language problems revealed they also had left hemisphere lesions and the study of left-right specialisation was born.

Since Broca's early work there has been much research into the processing of language. Several specific areas of the brain have been identified which play a part in language (for most people these all reside in the left hemisphere).

Broca's area: plays a part in grammatical processing.
Wernicke's area: naming object (syntactical processing)
Angualar gyri: involved in the recognition of visual symbols
Supra-marginal gyri:

In most (97%) right-handed people language is controlled by the left hemisphere. Left-handers have a more even distribution of language in both hemispheres. In 19% this is concentrated in the left hemisphere, and in 68% it is concentrated in the right hemisphere, the remainder have language processing in both hemispheres.

Steven Pinker's "The Language Instinct" , give a good overview of how we process language, the specific roles that certain areas of the brain play and also they types of speech defects that damage to these areas can give rise to.

If language is mainly processed on the left of the brain, then what happens on the right hand side, and what functions do the corresponding areas on the right hand side have? Here research has fewer results which are more contentious.

We shall now move onto the split brain research of Dr. Roger W Sperry.

Nobel prize winner R Sperry's research concentrated on what happens when parts of the corpus callosum, which connects left and right hemisphere, is cut. Some of this work was on animals and some was on human patients who had their corpus callosum cut for medicinal reasons (often to alleviate epilepsy). A typical result of this research involved presenting an image to the left eye (connected to right hand side of the brain), the patient would be unable to say the name of the object (using language centres in the left hemisphere), but could pick out a similar object with the left hand (right hemisphere) . Perhaps the most intriguing split brain research was with a patient of another pair of split brain researcher, Michael Gazzaniga and Joseph LeDoux, who had some limited language facilities in his right brain. This patient show marked preferences in responses from the two hemispheres. When asked, "What do you want to do?" the left hemisphere replied "draftsman", but the right hemisphere (using scrabble letters) replied "automobile race" .

The overall results of Sperry's research can be summarised by his quote: "Everything we have seen indicates that the surgery has left these people with two separate minds. That is, two separate spheres of consciousness" .

Some specific differences between the two hemispheres resulted from this and subsequent research. The right-brain is better at:

	Right Hemisphere	Left Hemisphere
Specialities	Copying of designs, Discrimination of shapes e.g. picking out a camouflaged object, Understanding geometric properties, Reading faces, Music, Global holistic processing, Understanding of metaphors, Expressing emotions, Reading emotions.	Language skills, Skilled movement, Analytical time sequence processing.
Shared	Sensations on both side of face, Sound perceived by both ears, Pain, Hunger, Position.
Emotions	Negative emotions (fearful mournful feelings),	Positive emotions
neurotransmitters	Higher levels of norepinephrine	Higher levels of dopamine
Grey Matter White Maatter ratio	More white-matter (longer axons) on right	more grey-matter (cell bodies) on the left.

One particular difference in patient with damage to one side of the brain is how they copy a diagram. A patient with left brain damage will tend to copy the overall outline of a diagram but not the details and a patient with right brain damage will tend to get the details correct but not the overall outline.(Carter)

Often the differences are small, but statistically significant. Some of the results also vary for left handed people. Numerous researchers using have confirmed these results using a variety of techniques. Functional brain imaging using EEG and PET scans, which record brain activity while a patient is performing a particular task are some of the more modern techniques.

One curious fact is that women tend to have a more active corpus callosum with 10% more neuron fibers . The level of connection will have a large impact on mental processes.

Due to the controversial nature of the subject a note on the reference is called for. The above results have been taken from R Carter, Mapping the Mind , pp48-61 and D Falk, Braindance, pp102-107 . Both books are popular science works rather than academic articles. However both authors seem to present relatively unbiased results of the scientific literature. Carter is a medical writer and she used the assistance of C Firth a Welcome Principal Research fellow as a consultant. Dean Falk is a professor at SUNY specialising in neuro-anatomy and biological anthropology.

I have not found any reliable sources which contradict the above findings. The critiques tend to focus on the interpretations of these result, of which more will follow below.

Grey matter - white matter ratios

Of the above results the difference in the ratios of grey matter to white matter in the two hemisphere seemed deserves some more investigation. From a computational point of view the difference in these ratios can partially explain some of the differences in functioning of the two hemispheres.

In the field of computer science different types of processing tasks require different types architecture. The typical desktop computer will have a single central processing unit, which will read and write data to from its memory. The central processing unit acts in a sequential manner performing a large number simple operations one by one at a very fast pace (several orders of magnitude quicker than the human brain). This is an example of an architecture with few connections and a very fast processing unit. This type of computer excels at performing routine processing tasks such as simple mathematical processing. The task of displaying a word processing document can easily be broken down into a sequence of mathematical operations that convert the data in memory into pixels on the screen. However it is poor at other tasks, often those which humans are good at: recognition of speech and images (faces).

The field of Artificial Intelligence has struggled for many years to make any progress in these fields. Speech recognition is finally becoming more reliable, and visual recognition is only beginning to make progress. For these tasks a very different types of architecture show better results. These are often based on Neural Networks which have been heavily influenced the structure of the human brain and the Hebb model of learning in the synapse. The distinguishing feature of this approach is to have a large number of simpler processors and a very large number of connections between them. Using feedback techniques this type of architecture can be made to learn by strengthening some of the connections between processors and weakening others.

Speech and visual processing are mathematically two very different problems. Speech is a one-dimensional temporal problem where as vision is a three dimensional special problem. Speed of processing is more important for temporal problems, whereas there are more interacting variables in spatial problems and requiring tasks like mentally rotating objects. The types of architecture for the two will be different. Speculatively the types of architecture for the two could depend of the ration of processors to connections with more connections required for the latter, i.e. the type of distinction observed in the different hemisphere. An emerging field is beginning to look at spatial-temporal problems which may require different architecture again.

Even more speculative is an evolutionary approach to human brain development. The bi-lateral nature of the cortex perhaps owes most to our evolutional heritage where the brain has developed from the earlier mammalian brain where there was a direct connection with the left and right hand sides of the body. Now if we have a bi-lateral cortex, there are two main options, either it can be a pair of redundant systems each performing the same task (as in control systems of an airline), or the two halves can specialize. The cost of redundant systems is probably outweighs the advantages indicating a need to specialize. But how to specialise? One very simple way to achieve this would be to subtly alter the grey matter/white matter ratios and also the presentation of neurotransmitters. The results we see in the human brain could be a simple consequence of this specialization with the variations in functions tending to happen in the side most suitable for it. I have no evidence to backup this paragraph apart from a bit of (right brain) lateral thinking.

Learning styles and personality

Ned Herrmann is "Father of brain dominance technology". He drew on the work of Sperry and developed the theory brain dominance where people develop a dominant mode of thinking preference. These can range from an analytical "left brain" approach to "right brain" approaches involving pattern matching and intuitive understanding. These preferences have their roots in our genetic makeup and how it affects our underlying cognitive capabilities. For example left-right handed preferences have been observed in the womb. As we develop we tend to respond with our strongest abilities as these lead to quicker short-term rewards. This can create a positive feedback system that will strengthen those abilities. Eventually this can lead to a powerful preference for one style over the other and a dislike and discomfort for other modes of thinking.

Herrmann then went onto develop the four-quadrant model of cognitive preferences and a questionnaire called the Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI) , . The inspiration for this model came from dividing the brain into as four different systems with four preferred styles:

A: Left cerebral hemisphere - analytical
B: Left limbic system - sequential
C: Right limbic system - interpersonal
D: Right cerebral hemisphere - imaginative

An immediate critique is that there seems to be little evidence for differences in the left and right hand limbic systems. However, Herrmann's system does not try to be an accurate model of the way the brain functions. Instead it should really be thought of as a model of different styles, partially inspired by the brain, but also the result of extensive questionnaires. As he refined his questionnaires four (rather than just two) separate clusters seemed to emerge which are reflected in the model. Considerable work has gone into testing the validity of this system with overall positive results.

It is worth examining these four styles in more detail:

A Quadrant: Analytical thinking.

Key word: logical, factual, critical, technical and quantitative.
Preferred activities: collecting data, listening to informational lectures, reading textbooks. Judging ideas based on facts, criteria and logical reasoning.

B Quadrant: Sequential thinking.

Key word: conservative, structured, organised, detailed, and planned.
Preferred activities: following directions, repetitive detailed homework problems, time management and schedules.

C Quadrant: Interpersonal thinking

Key word: kinaesthetic, emotional, spiritual, sensory, feeling.
Preferred activities: listening to and sharing ideas, looking for personal meaning, sensory input, and group study.

D Quadrant: Imaginative thinking.

Key word: Visual, holistic, intuitive, innovative, and conceptual.
Preferred activities: Looking at the big picture, taking initiative, simulations (what if questions), visual aids. Appreciate beauty of a problem, brainstorming.

One of the central ideas of the Herrmann's approach it to develop "whole brain thinking". This focussing on strengthening the week points by using techniques that require a particular style of thinking. This can lead to "Creative problem solving" where a combination of different techniques can be used to arrive at a better solution.

Herrmann's theory offers a strong critique of traditional educational practices. These can be viewed as focussing on sequential reasoning skills and digestion of established theories. Creativity and C and D quadrant skills are often overshadowed or actively discouraged .

An equivalent non-proprietary instrument developed was developed by Eugene Raudsepp: online test.

A related but independent theory is Howard Gardner's 1983 theory of Multiple Intelligences . Here he identified seven types of intelligence:

Verbal-linguistic,
Logical-mathematical,
Visual-spatial,
Body-kinaesthetic,
Auditory-musical,
Inter-personal communication,
Intra-personal communication,

Gardner later added Naturalist Intelligence and Existentialist Intelligence. Whilst Gardner had a background in neuro-psychology he does not appear to make any specific links between brain science and his theories. Gardener is a strong believer in the plurality of intelligences and does not consider these to be the definitive set. He is also keen to differentiate intelligences from learning styles. David Lazear's "Eight Ways of Knowing" expands upon this theme giving many sample exercises for each mode, as well as a rather uncritical review of the literature. The visual-spatial seems to have some aspect of right brain styles.

Of these the logical-mathematical intelligence seems a questionable grouping. Arithmetic is often associated with the left brain sequential processing yet there is good evidence that mathematically gifted children tend to be left handed implying a right-brain dominance . This could reflect a difference between early mathematics which is often a repetitive rote learning, and more advanced mathematics which often requires high levels of visual-spatial reasoning and abstract thinking. The naturalistic grouping is also questionable, some very different skills such as classifying flora and fauna (very much a analytical/sequential skill in Herrmann's system) to immersing yourself in a natural setting (accessing emotional and holistic preferences).

Two other theories are also worthy of note: The 4MAT System of Learning styles developed by Bernice McCarthy is derived from the Kolb learning cycle and identifies four main types Divergers (Why questions), Assimilators (What questions), Converges (How questions) and Accommodators (What if questions). Studies have questioned the validity of Kolb's model.

The VARK (Visual Auditory Reading Kinaesthetic) is another related model. Whilst this shows some characteristics of a left-right distinction, such as the presence of Visual and Kinaesthetic components associated with the right hemisphere, it is more a model of perceptual style rather than cognitive style. It does not address the different modes of thinking exhibited by sequential/holistic styles.

The other is the, currently in vogue, Mayer-Briggs personality type index. Here four axes are used to record a persons dominant personality type: introversion/extraversion, sensing/intuitive, thinking/feeling and judging/perceiving. This gives a total of sixteen different types. Recent research (New Scientist, last year) has shown good correlation with some of these types and the presentation of certain genes. There are many other personality type theories and even C G Jung has got into the personality type debate .

If a simplified form of Mayers-Briggs, without the introversion/extraversion spectrum, is used it can be shown that it is essentially equivalent to the HBDI after some rotation of coordinate . In particular sensing/intuitive spectrum (openness to interpretation in the Big 5 model), fits well with a simplified version of left-right hemisphere specialization. It is worth expanding on this axis in more detail:

Information can be gathered through sensation (S), concentrating on facts and details, or through a more intuitive (N) process that seeks and constructs patterns and uses a global or holistic information gathering style

All the above models seem to echo some aspects of the left-right specialisation. As an aside we will briefly examine some of the underlying mathematical techniques used.

A Meta-Theory of Theories and Principal Component Analysis

Various correlations can be made between all these different theories and also with left-right preferences in the brain. It could be said that each theory shows a different aspect of the same fundamental variations.

The number four (or eight) also seems to be popular in these theories. Perhaps this has more to do with the way we perceive information rather the underlying science. For example: splitting things into four quadrants allows two axis to be drawn which means that the variations can be easily drawn on the page. Also it is commonly believed that the maximum number of things we can hold in our short term memory is six of seven. Having four types makes it easy for us to remember the systems!

A mathematically more elegant theory would be to consider that there are actually a very much higher number of variation, which maybe do not nicely fit into convenient categories, perhaps related to individual gene expressions. Indeed one researcher Guilford has identified over 120 factors to the structure of the human intellect .

Principal component analysis is a statistical technique used for analysing data with a very large number of (correlated) variables. In this mathematical operations are applied to the data to pick out the dominant modes of variation. It is typically found that a large proportion of the variation can be summarised by the first few modes of variation. It could well be the case that the above theories have stumbled upon some of these dominant modes, and other theories report observations which are combinations of these modes. This opens up the question that there may be more as yet undiscovered modes which have weaker responses.

This type technique has been successfully applied to the multitude of different personality test. Which has shown that most are subtle variants on the Big5 test.

Critiques

The whole field of left-right specialisation has been received some very vocal criticism.

"Brain scientists will tell you that the idea of a rigid divide is a popular myth. They even have a word for the public's enthusiasm for the subject: 'dichotomania'. Like 'modern phrenology' the word is a put-down, intended to imply that the real situation is far too complex for simple conclusions to be drawn." , emphasis mine.

I've found no substantial criticism of the underlying science, most of the criticism seems to be of some of secondary works which draw conclusions far removed from science. The word rigid in the above quote is particularly important. It would be incorrect to say that anyone is "left brained" or "right brained" or that a particular task is carried out solely in one hemisphere. Its better to talk of general trends, indeed results from Herrmann seem to indicate that most people have more than one dominant mode . There is also a danger of concentrating one particular aspect of brain behaviour and missing other more important phenomena.

There is also a vigorous globalisation/localisation debate. Are mental tasks carried out over the whole brain or in one particular area? Hard and fast answers seem to be elusive. Brain scan techniques do seem to suggest that certain tasks have greater levels of activity in particular areas. But there can be difference in individual people especially depending on handedness.

The idea of repressed intellect seems to be common in some of these secondary works. With the idea that our intellectual capacity has been repressed by school, and society, and that all we need is a few simple techniques to let our creativity flow.

One particular book seems to be a favourite target for critiques: "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain: How to unlock your hidden artistic talents" by Betty Edwards . A lot of the criticism seems to be inspired by the title without a careful reading of the inside. Whilst it does present a simplified view of the brain it does also have one of the most concrete and convincing examples of technique specifically designed to utilise certain brain functions. This is concerned with copying a picture. Apparently, one of the problems with accurate drawing is caused by our symbolic processing: we tend to use pathways similar to those used for language to process images and copy images. This can result in a cartoon style result. By the simple procedure of turning the picture to be copied upside-down the symbolic processing is suppressed and very much more accurate pictures result.

Gardner's work seems to have also drawn a lot of criticism . Much of this stems around the use of the word "intelligence", where "interest" might be a more appropriate term. Gardner defines "an intelligence" as set of techniques used to solve a problem or produce a work (e.g. a scientific theory or musical composition) . Personally I'm suspicious over any use of the word intelligence, "learning style" (i.e. techniques we use learn) seems a more concrete term to use. Other critiques focus around the lack of evidence for results from the classroom.

I've found Gardner's work (actually Lazear's interpretation) to be rather unsatisfactory. Certain parts of the classification seem to be muddled, there seems to be no treatment of concepts of holistic (large system, D quadrant) understanding. The work as a whole is void of any critical analysis, instead treating the theory as a given.

Herrmann's work does not seem to have attracted as much criticism, indeed when viewed as a representation of the Mayers-Briggs scheme there seems to be overwhelming evidence for the general scheme. Critiques of Mayers-Briggs (and by implication Herrmann) centre on the methodology used rather than the underlying traits: the lack of falsifiability, the possibility that subjects will give responses to enhance certain characteristics they would like to have, and the dangers of pigeonholing.

Educational Implications

If we accept the theory of left-right dominance and learning styles then there are profound implications for education:

Most ... educators take the traditional view of students as being a homogenous learning group, with similar interest in [and] aptitudes for the subject. However, greater learning and understanding may be accomplished if the learning group is thought of as being heterogeneous, that is, highly dissimilar in interest and aptitudes.

These variations have implications throughout the process of education:

Selection of appropriate courses: both those suited to the learning style of student, but also those aimed at strengthening certain aspects.
Methods of delivery of material: using techniques which appeal to a range of senses but also with a mix of big picture and detail. Some students may prefer to see the big picture first and then break it down, other may prefer to study the details first working up in a logical manner to more involved material.
Activities that appeal to and strengthen different styles.
Assessment methods that reward different styles but which also stimulate different modes of thinking.

Awareness of a students learning styles may help in tailoring a course, although there is a danger of pigeonholing. These need no necessarily be through a formal questionnaire, a teacher may become aware of the styles as they work with the student, showing a good differentiation. Initial assessment such as the VARK test may be useful, but reaction to this at St Austell seems to be mixed:

We don't use the VARK results much as they generally give multi-modal results" Anon.

There seems to be a problem with what to do with the results to the once they are collected. How do we use these results to inform our teaching?

Awareness of their own preferred styles can be a useful tool for teachers: do they tend to work with a particular style? Could other techniques be used in their teaching? How much are their own ideas of education influenced by their preferred styles?

For example when asked the question "What is wrong with education?" a left brained thinker would typically reply, "Get back to basis and discipline - get rid of unnecessary frills like sport and art". A right-brained thinker would rather suggest cooperative, hands on educational activities, including integrating social and creative activities into the whole of education.

And perhaps more importantly how do they react to students with a different style?

Some good examples of very different educational styles can be found in the field of introductory IT.

The European Computer Driving License (ECDL) lies strongly in a quadrant B learning and assessment style. The course material consists of a very step-by-step approach: "type this text", "click this button". The assessment follows a similar style: make this heading bold, and a paragraph here. As such it may be appropriate to many learners, who comprise much of the intended client group, but it might not be suitable to others. Furthermore, it does not address all the skill necessary for fully successfully using a computer, issues like how to design a document or application, or how to successfully navigate the very diverse nature of the Internet.

This can be contrasted with the Open College Network's introductory IT course and assessment. The assessment were heavily based around portfolio building with a criteria referenced making scheme. This more open ended system address a broader range of skills and are closer to how a computer will actually be used. This did require greater input from the teacher and cross-referencing work pieces with criteria can be a confusing process.

Conclusions

The biological understanding of how two the two hemisphere of our brain function has now reached general consensus. There is still much work to do, particularly on the differences observed between individuals and understanding all the brain processes involved on cognition. We may never find the localisers dream of every pattern of though can be located into specific areas, things are more likely to show some combination of local and global processing. No doubt much more will be found this century as techniques of functional brain imaging and genetic understanding improve.

There also seems to be a convergence of the different models of learning styles and personality, which all seem to echo some flavour of left-right specialisation.

However, it probably unwise to make too much of a causal link between biology and learning styles as it can lead to polarised ideas that we are either a left-brained or right-brained thinker. In reality we show a mix of different styles influenced as much by past experience as by biology. The theory gives us just one dimension to describe the vast range of difference in peoples thinking.

These theories, which have been around for the past thirty years, do raise many important questions for education. Has the educational system responded? There is some evidence that it has: there is a wider range of activities used in the class room. But there is still much to address: we still have high numbers of students who do not respond well to education, is this a learning styles issue?

For me studying this issue has been an interesting journey. It has focussed my attention on the different modes of thinking and styles used by the different authors. For example Lazear seems to use a very visual style, trying to describe all aspects of learning, but little critical analysis. Other authors are of a more critical persuasion often presenting their work in a more linear fashion. This raises questions about how to judge each work: is it just a reflection of the favoured modes of the authors and should these be judged by other criteria?

It has also caused me to think about the range of skills used in writing this essay:

Accumulation of information
Critical analysis of the sources
Fitting the information into a coherent whole
Filtering the information
Presenting the information in a sequential manor
Attention to detail and time management

These seem to address a wide range of techniques across both side of the brain.

At one point I had hopped to look at how Dyslexia fitted with this scheme, however time and space precluded this. Intriguingly the two examples of quadrant D thinkers in Lumsdaine: Einstein and De-Vinci are both also listed as dyslexic and left-handed. One study seems to indicate that there is a relationship but its far from clear and seems to indicate that dyslexics may not be a coherent grouping showing bi-model results in two laterilazation tests.

To end I would like to finish with a cartoon from Scot Mc Cloud's "Understanding Comics" . For me this illustrates much of a "right-brain style": strongly visual, and big conceptual concepts. If only all education was done this way!

Wednesday 8 February 2012

BRAIN RESEARCH