Want to have a conversation...

Hey, Chris Scaturo !

I'm always up for discussing neuroscience!

I think this article is totally in line with the idea of "Collective Learning".

I'm not sure it challenges the concepts, but it provides some new perspectives and nuances that I hadn't thought of before.

For example the passage about self-control,
"The ability to exercise self-control—the inhibition of counterproductive impulses—is critical to many kinds of cognitive skills. In fact, a recent study led by Evan MacLean of Duke University found self-control and future planning to be correlated with larger brain size across 36 species of birds and mammals."

My thinking was, "But what about language? As a body of neuro-scientists, is the development of language seen as the "key" to our big brains? (aside from improved nutrition from harnessing fire to cook our food, spending less time chewing raw meat-- my editorial).

Then I ran into this next passage,

"They showed a significant learning advantage when teaching used language instead of simply demonstrating a skill. Further experiments along these lines might one day help answer the great mystery of when and why human language evolved. Teaching is not the only possible connection between toolmaking and language."

This is where I picked up on a new flavor. Is this article saying that TEACHING [tool making] to others in the community is what led to the need for language development, which led to an evolved species? That is an interesting connection. And I'm all for more kudos to importance of good teaching!

Donnetta Elsasser said:

This is where I picked up on a new flavor. Is this article saying that TEACHING [tool making] to others in the community is what led to the need for language development, which led to an evolved species? That is an interesting connection. And I'm all for more kudos to importance of good teaching!

This was my big take away.  

It's the first time I've seen teaching as cause for the development of language.   Thinking back on it, it's probably always been implied because of the relationship between language, brain development and technology improvement but it's the first time I've seen it specifically mentioned.

There's also a passage at the end that talks about watching someone do it and then having someone teach you.   I thought that was super relevant to the tik tok generation.  

I have a student teacher right now so I have the opportunity to read this article but I can also image how hard it would be for him to get better if we couldn't discuss it.  I find it interesting that this connection between tool making and language had been proposed before and set aside.  Thank you for the article and your insights.  

Chris, I'm intrigued by this article as well. I can't help but think there are similarities in the brain's activity when modern day humans are engaged in a repetitive crafting activity such as knitting or crocheting. I think there's an interesting distinction between the areas of the brain required when acquiring the skills for the task and the areas that are then running in the background once the basics have been mastered.  I'm wondering if our brains' abilities to master than revert to auto-pilot - thus allowing more neural space for creativity - has grown over these many many thousands of years. If we could be transported back to work with a fellow novice 1.7 million years ago, would our speed of learning by immensely different than it is now? 

Denise Ford said:

 I'm wondering if our brains' abilities to master than revert to auto-pilot - thus allowing more neural space for creativity - has grown over these many many thousands of years. If we could be transported back to work with a fellow novice 1.7 million years ago, would our speed of learning by immensely different than it is now? 

I have no formal training in this but I suspect the answer is no.

I haven't found any information that suggests we learn faster than we did 20,000 years ago.   There's even some evidence we're in a cognitive decline since agriculture began.

(Chris took a break here and thought more)

I mean, some things we must learn faster like how to read but I suspect most of that is boosted by technology and the access to information.   I think the speed of learning is influenced more by technology than biology.  Does that make sense?   This is a difficult thought process for me and I am still working through it.

(Chris thinks a little more)

Your point Denise, brings me back to something I have wondered about for at least 10 years in the classroom.   Are we asking kids to learn too much?  If you look back to the curriculum of 100,50, even 20 years ago  we asked kids to learn much less or at least different things, but I think less.  I graduated 8th grade knowing about the electoral college, how to divide decimals and how to (mostly) use a comma.   The kids I teach leave 8th grade knowing how to build websites, Geometry and how to evaluate modern sources, in theory .

I wonder if we are forging TO MANY pathways.   If our ability to master things is inhibited by our exposure to so many ideas.  I also wonder if that is affecting how children act in schools.  If all this neuro energy is put into these academic advancement is it slowing down the ability to socially and emotionally advance?

And to double back to Donnette's response, how much does "teaching" or at least working  closely with someone to show you skills  effect all this?Do those pathways develop "organically" when we learn from another?

I am really just thinking out loud....

Your point about asking our students to learn too much is intriguing.  It seems that the content continues to grow. Obviously, there's more to learn today than there was yesterday. How much is enough for an adolescent.  

It gives greater credence to the concept of helping our students learn how to learn. Once we can equip them with the agency to feed their curiosity and to believe that most problems can be solved given the right resources;bthey can learn anything on their own.  

There must be a different brain process involved in mastery as opposed to acquiring a collection of information.  Is this the cause of the cognitive decline.  

I'm just thinking aloud here as well. But I'm definitely . . . thinking.