Do differences in individuals’ brains  affect the way students learn?   Experts speaking at the 2009 NCTI conference suggest that the answer is, “yes.”  Confirming a commonplace notion, featured panelists reaffirmed that individual characteristics make differentiated learning valuable not only for students with disabilities, but for all students.  Going further, our experts in residence focused light on a complex and sometimes misunderstood subject, sharing findings that individual brains learn differently, that apparently similar skills are not always transferrable, and ability to acquire skills works differently in different life stages.

On the subject of learning differently, University of Rochester’s Daphne Bavelier finds that video gamers respond faster with similar accuracy as non-gamers when partaking in action oriented video games.  While training of non-gamers does improve their ability to shoot and score, it does not seem to raise their skill level to that of the native true gamers.  Neither is skill development necessarily transferable to other endeavors.  For example, Bavelier notes that skilled players of the popular video game Tetris might be expected to be skilled in mentally rotating shapes wherever they find them. But the ability to rotate shapes in the context of the game does not translate to other activities.

Chief Education Officer and Founder of CAST (Center for Applied Special Technology), David Rose, explains that individuals may solve the same problem multiple ways.  He humorously suggests that a dog catching a Frisbee in mid-air must know calculus. Of course, the dog’s innate ability to catch flying objects does not suggest an ability to calculate changes in velocity or lift of an object. But the dog dramatizes that different approaches to a problem utilize different brain functions and talents.  He emphasizes the need to accommodate those with different strengths through a universal design approach to methods and tools.

Distinguished Michigan State professor, Yong Zhao, concurs as he relates how representation, or method of presentation, can empower one group over another.  Zhao reflects on the introduction of the alpha-bet as a defining moment in human history, as this new technology seemed to cater more to the abilities of males than females. He notes that prior to the introduction of the alphabet, humans spoke more of goddesses than gods, and after, focused more on the male gods.  He asks whether the age of pervasive multimedia communication, aligning with traditional more female abilities, could be leading us back again to an age of goddesses?

If  Zhao, Rose and Bavelier  are correct, individualized technologies and methods of representation, as in universal design, will indeed make a difference in the ability of all students to learn by speaking to their strengths.

Barry Gordon, Director of the John Hopkins Memory Clinic, concurs as he recognizes  much progress in our understanding of the brain.  He asks, “What is stopping us from doing more with education technology?”  Specifically, he poses three questions to inform practical advances in the field:

1. Why can’t we get generalization?  With improvements in visual attention, why can’t we get the same improvements in hearing?  Can we improve brain function in people who cannot speak or learn?
2. Knowing what we know now, how can we improve brain function?
3. Which areas promise the most impact and which problems should we  invested in solving?

For researchers, innovators and practitioners, the answers to these questions can help lead to practical solutions for improving the way student of all abilities and disabilities not only learn, but excel.