Whole Brain Teaching DeBunked!

By Elizabeth Scheinberg

Sixteen years after Whole Brain Teaching was first marketed by Chris Biffle and some teacher friends, neuroscientists are looking at the program and the longitudinal data and some are even calling the technique child abuse. Yeah, it's well marketed, but it's highly controversial. Here is some of the body of criticism both from former "users" and highly respected edu/neuro researchers.

https://dianeravitch.net/2014/03/29/reader-whole-brain-teaching-is-psychological-child-abuse/

This method of “conditioning” children with authoritarian fear and intimidation is “abusive”. It is the same as “bullying”. It’s purpose is to “break” children. Adults who use and teach this method obviously grew up in a dysfunctional environment of “bullying”, so it is “normal” for them, but it is NOT normal by society’s standards.

http://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3249&context=dissertations

WBT claims. Biffle (2010) asserted that when the whole brain is stimulated during the learning process, improved self-beliefs and achievement ensued. Biffle (2010) proposed the use of seven teaching techniques, referred to as The Big Seven, to address 32 student need for brain stimulation in the classroom. Before a description of these techniques and related literature are presented, a close examination of the resesarch link on the whole brain teaching website is warranted as caution is expressed among neuroscientists (Coch & Ansari, 2012; Immordino-Yang & Faeth, 2010; Willis, 2010) in the use of brain research for education as its implications were only suggestive. While brain research has been used to help guide educational interventions, it cannot predict the outcomes of these interventions. In addition, brain-based claims found in educational resources often appeared to be based on overgeneralizations and inaccurate interpretations of neuroscientific research (Coch & Ansari, 2012). While Biffle (2010) maintained that the seven teaching techniques were developed as a result of feedback received from WBT conference participants and from teachers via information from the whole brain teaching website, the brain-based claims throughout the WBT approach suggested that a neuroscientific foundation is present. This was seen in Biffle’s (2010) claim that use of the WBT techniques in the classroom would activate students prefrontal, motor, and visual cortex’s, Brocas’ and Wernicke’s areas, the limbic system, and the hippocampus. Wholebrainteaching.com presents Annual Performance Index (API) Growth data from the Victor Elementary School District in California. The principal at 6th Street Prep in the Victor Elementary School District was referenced as attributing improved API scores at the school to the implementation of WBT techniques. The superintendent of Victor Elementary School District is quoted as stating that the district saw an increase in student learning results and teachers routinely using WBT practices were lending support to mastery learning for students. The assessment indicating increased student learning 33 results is not specified. However, the API scores were implied. While API data indicated growth in student performance in a portion of the district, there was no WBT implementation data providing record as to the WBT techniques used, which schools used them, and how long they were used. It would be appropriate then to question whether other factors contributed to API growth. Without data on the districts implementation of WBT techniques available, a true correlation between API growth and use of the techniques could not be made. These reports were merely informal observations, subject to bias, and hardly sound evidence of a correlation between positive achievement outcomes and the use of WBT techniques. While these outcomes must be considered with caution, as scientific inquiry into the data as it relates to WBT is not apparent, using this information as preliminary data for scientific investigation was warranted.

http://www.ohio.com/news/local/teachers-learn-ways-to-keep-students-attention-but-are-brain-claims-valid-1.319731#

The method might be fun, engaging and popular, judging by teacher testimonials and company-conducted polls.

But the techniques are not validated by contemporary brain research, according to two experts in the relationship between neuroscience and education who reviewed the claims for the Akron Beacon Journal.

“Nothing I see here indicates that there is any neuroscientific backing for anything they’re suggesting,” said Dan Willingham, a cognitive neuroscientist at the University of Virginia.

The Beacon Journal also asked David Daniel, managing editor of the peer-reviewed science journal Mind, Brain and Education to examine the research page at www.wholebrainteaching.com.

“I think he has these ideas that may or may not work, and he’s using brain stuff to market them,” said Daniel, a psychology professor at James Madison University. “The brain stuff on the web page is very cursory, very shallow. That could be just his way of communicating or it could be his level of understanding. Either way, it’s misleading.”