Chris is Professor of Political Science at Western Connecticut State University, a Fulbright Scholar, Director of the Kathwari Honors Program, and founding Director of the Center for Compassion, Creativity & Innovation. He is also the author of "The Compassionate Achiever: How Helping Others Fuels Success" (HarperOne, 2017).
The American Dream, as James Thurow coined and described it in 1931, is about the equality of opportunity. If you believe that Thurow is right, then you need to wake up and open your eyes … now, because organizations from the American Federal Reserve to the International Monetary Fund to Science magazine have all released reports this year showing that inequality is dangerously high. The reports caution that if nothing is done to address the inequality of opportunity in the United States, the American Dream will slowly become a nightmare for Uncle Sam.
The nightmare is being conjured up by two interconnected trends: a growing income gap fueled by diminishing educational opportunities. Educational opportunity provides the surest footing when climbing America’s socio-economic ladder but that foothold is slipping away from an increasing number of Americans each year. In other words, education is becoming less of a force for economic opportunity because the number of Americans each year that have the resources to pursue educational achievements (which will help them climb the socio-economic ladder) is fewer and fewer.
Janet Yellen, Chairperson of the United States Federal Reserve, recently explained (October 17, 2014) “The extent and continuing increase in inequality in the United States greatly concern me…I think it is appropriate to ask whether this trend is compatible with values rooted in our nation’s history, among them the high value Americans have traditionally placed on equality of opportunity.” The International Monetary Fund (IMF) warned in March 2014 that the level of inequality in the U.S. “has returned to levels not seen since before the Great Depression” and more generally that “rising income inequality is weighing on global economic growth and fueling political instability.” Science magazine focused its entire May 2014 issue on inequality and one of its main findings was that “the United States has both the lowest [socio-economic] mobility and highest inequality among all wealthy democratic countries.” There are many other non-partisan reports, books and articles released this year but I think you get the point: inequality and, more specifically, inequality of opportunity is rapidly growing thereby slowly killing the American Dream (it is neither a Democrat nor Republican issue but an American challenge).
The best way to keep the American Dream alive has been and continues to be through education, especially a college education (it offers every individual an opportunity to climb the socio-economic ladder). Although Yellen called early education and higher education the “cornerstones of opportunity,” she worried aloud stating “I fear the large and growing burden of paying for it may make it harder for many young people to take advantage of the opportunity higher education offers.” She cited a report showing that “the median annual earnings of full-time workers with a four-year bachelor’s degree are 79 percent higher than the median for those with only a high school diploma” but also provided statistics that showed that every year there are fewer Americans who have the resources to pursue such an opportunity:
…the wealthiest 5 percent of American households held 54 percent of all wealth reported in the 1989 survey. Their share rose to 61 percent in 2010 and reached 63 percent in 2013. By contrast, the rest of those in the top half of the wealth distribution—families that in 2013 had a net worth between $81,000 and $1.9 million—held 43 percent of wealth in 1989 and only 36 percent in 2013. The lower half of households by wealth held just 3 percent of wealth in 1989 and only 1 percent in 2013.
The problem is that although education is the key for unlocking economic prosperity—especially in a globalized-knowledge based economy—the key is out of reach for an increasing proportion of Americans every year. Education has been our society’s equalizer until the last couple of decades. However, a new college-rating index that ranks colleges on their ability to provide “pathways for social and economic mobility” was released this month and it seeks to refocus and strengthen America’s great equalizer: higher-education.
The Social Mobility Index (SMI), which was created by CollegeNET and PayScale, was constructed to “stimulate other schools to move beyond opportunity rhetoric towards meaningful action.” Some universities such as Western Connecticut State University (ranked #11 in the country and #1 in Connecticut), where I am fortunate to be a professor, are taking meaningful actions—but there are too few WCSUs “contributing in a responsible way to solving the dangerous problem of economic immobility in our country” (SMI). In answering the question “What should students and their families take away from the SMI rankings?” the authors reply: “If a student wants to pursue academics in an institution that models awareness and civic responsibility, the SMI can provide a valuable guide.” Shouldn’t all educational institutions and organizations strive to pursue such meaningful actions? Wouldn’t a focus on SMI rankings rather than “pursuing the false prestige in popular periodicals” (you know the ones) make our society stronger and more dynamic?
T.E. Lawrence (a.k.a. Lawrence of Arabia) said “All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity. But the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes, to make it possible.” While WCSU is one of this country’s leading universities in creating Lawrence’s day dreamers, educational institutions and leaders at all levels have important roles to play in creating and sustaining America’s day dream believers (men and women capable of transforming their dreams into reality). This country was built on the equality of opportunity and education has been a cornerstone of not only building the American Dream but for its realization. Those who diminish and weaken our educational institutions and opportunities at any level (local, state & national) and for any reason will abruptly awaken to a living nightmare created by their own vanity. Education on the pre-K, primary, secondary and higher-ed levels are the ‘pillars’ upon which the strength of America rests and the ‘pillows’ upon which the American Dream occurs.
Binyamin Appelbaum, “Janet Yellen Warns of Inequality Threat,” The New York Times, October 18, 2014
Gilbert Chin and Elizabeth Culotta, “The Science of Inequality: What the Numbers Tell Us,” Science, May 2104
Pedro Nicolaci da Costa, “Janet Yellen Decries Widening Wealth Disparity,” The Wall Street Journal, October 17, 2014.
Nicholas Kristof, “It’s Now the Canadian Dream,” The New York Times, May 14, 2014
Survey Acknowledges WCSU as a Leader in Promoting Social Mobility Western Connecticut State University website
Ian Talley, “IMF Warns on the Dangers of Growing Income Inequality,” 3/14/2014, The Wall Street Journal
Yellen, Janet L., “Perspectives on Inequality and Opportunity from the Survey of Consumer Finances,” Speech at the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System at the Conference on Economic Opportunity and Inequality (October 17, 2014), Boston, MA.
Compassionate achievers—successful people who are other-focused and have stronger internal (i.e., looking for meaning in work) rather than instrumental (i.e., looking for money in work) motives—reach higher levels of success than self-centered achievers. Internal or intrinsic values “are those we uphold regardless of the benefits or costs” and instrumental values are those we support because they directly benefit us. Compassionate achievers are people who follow intrinsic values that have positive instrumental consequences; the consequences, however, are not part of their motives. A recent study of over 11,000 West Point cadets concluded: “Helping people focus on the meaning and impact of their work, rather than on, say, the financial returns it will bring, may be the best way to improve not only the quality of their work but also—counterintuitive though it may seem—their financial success.” Learning to be a compassionate achiever increases a person’s success not only at school and home but work.
A Wall Street Journal article outlining tips on “How to Get Ahead ” provided this general advice: “Top executives are attracted to people who lift their heads up from their desks and understand the impact their assignments might have on other departments—not just their own teams.” Employees that help each other are the engines of successful companies and top execs know it. Understanding what others need or need to avoid and then acting on that understanding is at the heart of what compassion is and what a compassionate achiever does. How do you foster compassionate workplaces and achievers? Shawn Achor—author of The Happiness Advantage: the Seven Principles of Positive Psychology that Fuel Success and Performance at Work—provides one way with his idea of social investment.
Social investment (building and strengthening the relationships of our social support network) in the people around us is one of Achor’s seven principles for fueling success and performance at work. Success is dependent on the quality of our connections to the people around us and compassion improves the quality. Achor talks about how positive social connections release a specific hormone — oxytocin — that increases our focus and attention while reducing anxiety. The more employees socially invest, the more oxytocin there is around the office. And the more oxytocin, the greater chance for success. In a section of Achor’s book called “Glue Guys,” he writes “The people who actively invest in their relationships are the heart and soul of a thriving organization.” Glue guys, as the Wall Street Journal describes, is baseball speak for players who “quietly [hold] winning teams together…Statisticians don’t buy that they exist, but psychologists do. And players and managers swear by them…They’re the reliable guys…players who are greater than their statistics indicate…If you have some outstanding role models who deal with pressure effectively, that glue is going to spill out of the bottle and help everyone.” Social investment is about spreading the glue so that success will stick.
So how do you invest? You can become a giver. Givers, according to Adam Grant (professor at The Wharton School and author of Give and Take), are people who “are other-focused, paying more attention to what other people need from them” as opposed to takers who are exclusively self-focused. Grant warns, however, against becoming a selfless giver who becomes a doormat to others. Rather his type of giver is someone who balances the concerns of others with concern for themselves. A giver helps others without selflessly sacrificing their own interests; it is otherish as Grant likes to say. He cites Tania Singer’s neuroscience work on compassion to highlight the difference between who his givers are and those who empathize to a fault. Model givers not only help people network together and address otherish needs, but they ask thoughtful questions and patiently listen to colleagues and employees. An added benefit of being an otherish-giver is that it helps with self-compassion (concern for oneself) and that facilitates creativity. An office with more creative people is an office where innovation is constantly generated. Is it any wonder that top executives are attracted to employees who lift their heads off their desks to understand how their work affects others? Compassion brings meaning to work and, therefore, success to individuals, departments and companies. When employees find meaning in their work, they are three times as likely to stay with their company, they “report 1.7 times higher job satisfaction and are 1.4 times more engaged at work.” Compassion adds to the bottom line without even trying, something compassionate achievers intrinsically know.
ARTICLES & BOOKS:
Shawn Achor, The Happiness Advantage: The Seven Principles of Positive Psychology That Fuel Success and Performance at Work (New York: Crown Business, 2010).
Jessica Amortegui, Why Finding Meaning at Work is More Important than Feeling Happy, FastCompany (June 26, 2014)
Darren Everson, “Baseball’s Winning Glue Guys,” The Wall Street Journal (July 16, 2009).
Adam Grant, Give and Take: A Revolutionary Approach to Success (New York: Penguin Group, 2013).
Melissa Korn and Anita Hofschneider, How to Get Ahead As a Middle Manager: Try These Tips: The Wall Street Journal (August 8, 2013): B5.
Amy Wrzesniewski and Barry Schwartz, The Secret of Effective Motivation: The New York Times (July 4, 2014): SR9.
Darya L. Zabelina and Michael D. Robinson, Don’t Be So Hard on Yourself: Self-Compassion Facilitates Creative Originality Among Self-Judgmental Individuals: Creativity Research Journal 22, no.3 (2010): 288-293.
Emotion is an integral part of a person’s rationality and vision—literally—of reality. From studies on people who lost a part of their brain’s frontal cortex to researchers at the University of Toronto testing how emotion influences vision, neuroscientists are demonstrating that emotion affects every aspect of cognition. Indeed, without emotion human beings find it difficult to be rational.
Historically, from Plato to Descartes to most modern economists, it has been assumed and argued that logical decision-making excludes emotions and feelings. The work of neuroscientist Antonio Damasio upends that historical assumption. Damasio’s research on people with brain damage to their frontal cortex clearly demonstrates that emotion plays an important role in logical reasoning. In the preface to his seminal work, Descartes’ Error, Damasio writes::
…the reasoning system evolved as an extension of the automatic emotional system, with emotion playing diverse roles in the reasoning process…When emotion is entirely left out of the reasoning picture, as happens in certain neurological conditions, reason turns out to be even more flawed than when emotion plays bad tricks on our decisions…[I] see emotion as at least assisting reason and at best holding dialogue with it…I view emotion as delivering cognitive information, directly and via feelings…the brain systems that are jointly engaged in emotion and decision-making are generally involved in the management of social cognition and behavior.
Logical decisions are made when emotions are a part of the reasoning process. If emotions are taken out of the reasoning process, as occurred in Damasio’s patients, irrational behavior increases. One of my favorite television and movie characters, Commander Spock of Star Trek, is now tarnished after reading Damasio’s various studies. For how would Spock respond to Damasio’s finding that “Reduction in emotion may constitute an equally important source of irrational behavior”?
A person’s emotions or mood are such integral parts of cognition that they sometimes play the role of gatekeeper for how and to what extent each one of us sees reality. Our vision is literally affected by our emotions. Positive and negative moods, according to a 2009 neuroscience study, affect the way we see the world around us by either broadening (positive) or narrowing (negative) our peripheral vision respectively. The study clearly demonstrates that our moods modulate the activity of the visual cortex “with positive affect broadening and negative affect narrowing the distribution, or scope, of one’s field of view (FOV).” Our feelings about (rather than for) people even determine if we see them as attractive or not. The more honest we believe someone to be, for example (and reported by Robert Sapolsky), the more likable they are to us “and the more likable, the more physically attractive” we see them to be (and vice versa). The reason, according to neuroscience, is that we do not ‘see’ with our eyes; rather, we see with our brains. Because it is our brains that see and not the eyes, emotions and opinions define our vision of reality.
Shouldn’t we be trying to create more positive environments at home, school and work, simply based on neuroscience, if we are interested in attaining our goals? If positive values such as compassion and trustworthiness increase your awareness of the world around you and your likability, wouldn’t that also increase your probability of achieving success? It appears as though the color of success is rose; for the argument of wearing the proverbial rose-tinted glasses just became stronger.
ARTICLE & BOOK:
Antonio Damasio, Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain (New York: Penguin Group, Inc., 2005).
Robert Sapolsky, “Pretty Smart? Why We Equate Beauty with Truth,” The Wall Street Journal (January 17, 2014).
Taylor W. Schmitz, Eve De Rosa, and Adam K. Anderson, “Opposing Influences of Affective State Valence on Visual Cortical Encoding,” The Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 29, no. 22 (June 3, 2009).
9/11 is a day when memories of patriotism and compassion come to life. The world witnessed not only the compassion of first responders rushing into burning buildings to save lives but the patriotism of young men and women volunteering to enter the armed services. It was a day where two values that are sometimes contradictory to one another became blended to such an extent that their combination created a moment in history where the world, however briefly, became one; an iconic symbol of that moment was France’s Le Monde headline that read “We are All Americans.”
On this day of remembrance and in honor of all those who have fallen in pursuit of their patriotism and compassion, I am making a clarion call for bringing compassion into patriotism. The mixture of patriotism and compassion creates a sum far greater than its two parts; for compassion eliminates the negative factor of patriotism (exclusiveness) while multiplying its positive factor (inclusiveness). The combination (a new form of being a ‘compatriot’) unites rather than divides.
Martha Nussbaum, a philosopher at the University of Chicago, has written a well-known and in-depth essay about the inclusiveness and exclusiveness of patriotism. She writes: “Patriotism is Janus-faced. It faces outward, calling the self, at times, to duties toward others, to the need to sacrifice for a common good. And yet, just as clearly, it also faces inward, inviting those who consider themselves ‘good’ or ‘true’ Americans to distinguish themselves from outsiders and subversives, and then excluding those outsiders. Just as dangerous, it serves to define the nation against its foreign rivals and foes, whipping up warlike sentiments against them.”
The difference of simple patriotism versus patriotism with compassion is the difference between ISIS (The Islamic State in Iraq & Syria) and ISS (The International Space Station). While ISIS excludes to horrific extremes, ISS is about taking inclusiveness to new heights. Where members of ISIS consider themselves patriots of a particular cause without compassion (extreme exclusiveness), astronauts of ISS represent a patriotism that transcends geographic borders and single-minded causes; they represent all humanity (expansive inclusiveness). Compassion, in essence, mitigates the weakness of patriotism (its exclusiveness of facing inward) by enlarging its strength (its inclusiveness of facing outward).
The evolutionary history of human beings is an inevitable walk toward an inclusive patriotism where compassion for all human beings is the norm rather than the exception. We keep taking steps toward making such a norm a reality but some who feel as though it is a purely “Utopian dream” and antithetical to their beliefs such as ISIS are only delaying and not stopping the rise of humanistic patriotism. 
Deems Taylor (seen here), a composer and essayist from the late 19th and early 20th centuries and commonly referred to as “the Dean of American music,” addressed the idea of the broadening of patriotism in 1917 (near the end of World War I) when he wrote the following words in the New York Tribune Sunday Magazine:
“It is all a matter of what we mean by patriotism. We are all patriotic, but not always for the same thing. We have stopped thinking first about our state, or our town, or our neighborhood, and are putting the United States first. If we would only do that a little oftener we wouldn’t have to insist that this is the finest country in the world; other people would tell us so. Patriotism is a loyalty to something bigger than our immediate interests, and the history of the world is the history of the broadening of patriotism, the widening of the field of men’s loyalties. Cavemen were loyal to their families. Then they came out of their caves and formed tribes, and were loyal to those. The tribes settled down in villages, and the members of one village would defend it to the death against members of another. The villages became clans, and men were loyal to those. The clans united and became little kingdoms, or states, or duchies. Late in the Middle Ages the little kingdoms and duchies became fused into bigger ones, and men found that they belonged to nations. The great war came, and the nations of Europe split into great camps. Half the men in Europe were loyal to one side and half to the other. Now we are talking of a League of Peace after the war, in which whole nations will be patriots. For they will be loyal to something bigger than they are. Some day, I think, some day very far in the future, we are going to be world patriots; we are going to be loyal to the human race. But that, of course, is what people call a Utopian dream.”
My clarion call is really a call to modernize the definition of compatriot from one focused on being a citizen of a country (exclusive) to another that recognizes each person as a citizen of the world (inclusive). It is similar to President John F. Kennedy’s famous call in his 1961 inaugural address where he stated “And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world, ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man” (we seem to forget that second line more than we remember it). Are we not more than citizens of a state but aren’t we also citizens of the world?
The world’s reaction to 9/11—as highlighted by Le Monde—showed that we have compatriots in every corner of the globe. The definition of compatriot should not be limited to just the people who share a country but it should include all who share in humanity. We are all compatriots of this world, shouldn’t we all be patriots of the human race? On this day, where so many sacrificed for the common good, let’s not ever weaken our patriotism by turning inward with hate and exclusion; rather, let’s honor our fallen heroes by strengthening our patriotism by looking outward with compassion and inclusion. Let’s honor those who sacrificed and continue to sacrifice for the common good by not limiting who can be part of the common good.
ARTICLE & BOOK:
Martha C. Nussbaum, “Teaching Patriotism: Love and Critical Freedom,” Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper No. 357 (The Law School at The University of Chicago, July 2011).
James A. Pegolotti, Deems Taylor: Selected Writings (New York, NY, Routledge, 2007).
Everyone’s heard the saying that “nice guys finish last” but reality and evolutionary science show that compassionate people finish on top…together. From Charles Darwin’s The Descent of Man written 140 years ago to current neuroscience research showing that our brain’s structure is hardwired to be kind, generous and social rather than mean, selfish and asocial, the evidentiary support for compassion as the strongest instinct for evolutionary success in both the animal and business worlds as well as for creating vibrant academic and civic communities is wide and deep. Any doubt or skepticism for the idea does not come from science but from our popular culture; we commercialize “survival of the fittest” when science and reality show that it is really “survival of the kindest” that leads to more durable success.
We popularize, propagate and celebrate independent achievement above all other values and the cost of such exclusiveness has been hinted upon in newspaper headlines and academic studies over the last five years. “Almost 80 percent of [middle and high school] students,” according to a 2014 study by Harvard’s Graduate School of Education, “ranked achievement or happiness over caring for others.” The authors of the report highlight a “rhetoric/reality gap”—a mismatch between what parents and teachers say is important and what our children and students see us do—as the “root” cause of the student rankings. Another study from 2009 in a journal of business and economics reached the following conclusion after surveying the values of business students: “This evidence suggests that business school curricula that focus on acting ethically because it is the right thing to do may be ineffective. Our results indicate it may be important to openly discuss ethical behavior in a cost-benefit framework with the costs and benefits clearly defined.” The authors’ conclusion offers clear insight into the ideological undercurrent of the 2008 economic tsunami that swept over all of us.
The headlines show why we need to strive to be more than just achievers and why we need to weave compassion into learning environments at all levels of education. “Any healthy civil society,” as the Harvard Graduate School of Education report states, “also depends on adults who are committed to their communities and who, at pivotal times, will put the common good before their own. We don’t seem to be preparing large numbers of youth to create this society.” Do we really want a society of self-centered and self-absorbed achievers who answer ethical questions on a broad range of issues from a personal cost-benefit analysis? The idea that there has to be a choice between achievement and caring for others is a false dilemma. There is a better model for success that strengthens society as it strengthens the individual. We can prepare our children, students and employees to be compassionate achievers.
A compassionate achiever is someone who can apply their knowledge and skills to problems and opportunities in ways that strengthen themselves as well as others. A compassionate achiever is really a successful learner who thinks beyond him- or her-self; for learning is the process of acquiring knowledge and skills so that they can be applied with efficiency and effectiveness to problems and opportunities. The issue with education is that it has become a process of gathering and knowing facts to be recalled…period. While gathering and knowing facts is important, we should not be treating it as the ‘landing zone’ of education (via standardized tests). Rather, knowing facts should be the ‘launching pad’ for learning.
The ‘launching pad’ for learning perspective is used to achieve success in everything from business to sports. Knowing the fundamentals in sports, for example, is important but learning how to apply them on the court/field is ‘everything’ when it comes to success. Although a basketball team might have three of the best players in basketball, it doesn’t mean that they will “win it all.” While the 2013 Miami Heat arguably had three of the best basketball players on their roster, the San Antonio Spurs beat them in the 2014 National Basketball Association’s Championship because the Spurs were better at applying the fundamentals as a team rather than simply as individuals. The Spurs had a better understanding and sense about where and what each of their teammates would be and do in a given situation than the Heat. The soccer legend Pele has been saying for decades that such an understanding is the key to success. Success is not a solo/asocial endeavor but a connected/social experience (neuroscience has shown that this is also how the brain successfully learns). Alexander Graham Bell, known for his inventive genius and deep compassion, knew this when he said “Great discoveries and improvements invariably involve the cooperation of many minds.” Compassionate achievers not only learn this early and continually but they live it daily and consciously and that is why they finish on top…together.
COMPASSIONATE SCHOOLS CONFERENCE:ARTICLES & BOOKS:
Peter C. Brown, Henry L. Roediger III and Mark A. McDaniel, Make It Stick: The Science of Successful Learning (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press, 2014)
Steven R. Cox, Kathy Parkison and Dianne M. Roden, “A Case for Teaching Business Ethics in a Cost-Benefits Framework: Are Business Students More Discriminating in Their Decision Making?: Mountain Plains Journal of Business and Economics Vol. 10 (2009)
Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man
Matthew Lieberman, Social: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Connect (New York: Crown Publishers, 2013)
Rick Weissbound, Stephanie Jones, Trisha Ross Anderson, Jennifer Kahn and Mark Russell, “The Children We Mean to Raise: The Real Messages Adults are Sending about Values,” Making Caring Common Project (Cambridge, MA: The President and Fellows of Harvard College, 2014)
Albert Einstein and Mark Twain didn’t experience ‘it.’ Most of us, however, believe in ‘it’ and many teachers continue to strive to make ‘it’ real in our classrooms. The ‘it’ is an education based on learning. Where Einstein said “the only thing that interferes with my learning is my education,” Twain stated that “I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.” While Einstein and Twain said it differently, they said the same thing: school-education was not based on learning. Neuroscience research over the last few decades, however, has provided a series of ideas and paths that can guide us into creating school environments where learning is at the center of education. Simply stated, neuroscience provides insights into how the brain learns. The weaving of neuroscience with pedagogical and social science research offers numerous ways to improve learning and develop more effective education policies.
Neuroscience research has recently shed light on how to improve learning; some have characterized their findings as exploring the powers of the social brain. ‘Social’ is used, such as in the title of Matthew Lieberman’s book on the brain, to highlight the fact that we learn best through connections; social-emotional and conceptual. Because all information and memories are immediately broken into fragments and spread throughout the surface of the brain’s cortex, connections (or reconnections) are at the core of learning (the brain’s storage faculty is not like any recording device or computer but more like a cooperative/coordinated event similar to a flash-mob of the brain). If we connect, we learn.
We learn by connecting ideas and emotions. Recent research has found that emotional connections are the keys for unlocking learning potential. John Medina, a developmental molecular biologist, explains in his book Brain Rules that an emotionally charged event (called an emotionally competent stimulus—ECS) creates a kind of chemical Post-It note (written in the ink of dopamine) on the brain for remembering information. An ECS can be something as simple as using paradoxes (i.e., less is more) in class to create associations between concepts for enhancing memory and learning. Neuroscience shows that connecting ideas and emotions is a key part to knowing and learning and we should be incorporating ECS Post-It notes in our classrooms.
A person’s emotions or mood are such integral parts of cognition that they sometimes play the role of gatekeeper for how and to what extent each one of us sees reality. Our vision is literally affected by our emotions. Positive and negative moods, according to a 2009 neuroscience study, affect the way we see the world around us by either broadening (positive) or narrowing (negative) our peripheral vision respectively. The study by Schmitz, De Rosa and Anderson clearly demonstrates that our moods modulate the activity of the visual cortex “with positive affect broadening and negative affect narrowing the distribution, or scope, of one’s field of view (FOV).” The reason, in part, is that we see with our brains, not with our eyes. Because it is our brains that see and not the eyes, emotions and opinions help define our vision of reality. In short, the type of classroom that a teacher constructs (positive or negative) matters more than we have given it credit for. Incorporating the learning of values such as compassion into classrooms can broaden the realm of possibilities for our students—both literally and figuratively.
The realm of possibilities for our students, however, should not be confined by the walls of classroom. Academic success, according to neuroscientists and education researchers, is also linked to playground and recess time. From this week’s (4-8 August 2014) National Public Radio series on the importance of play in schools to analyses about the role of Finland’s “unstructured outdoor play” in achieving high standardized testing scores, the role of physical activity in aiding intellectual achievement is well documented (physical activity generates brain fuel such as oxygen and glucose). Medina says it best: “Cutting off physical exercise—the very activity most likely to promote cognitive performance—to do better on a test score is like trying to gain weight by starving yourself.” Education policymakers throughout the United States should be increasing time for recess and physical activity for students and not decreasing it, which is the current trend in many school districts. It makes no sense that America is trying to move up the international ladder of standardized test scores by making its test takers stand still.
But is standardized testing the best way to learn or measure learning? Even the debates over the most cutting edge theories of neuroscience offer insights into how to address highly controversial education policies such as testing. The neuroscience view, for instance, that the brain is a quantum environment and governed by the processes of quantum mechanics offers a strong critique of America’s current use and focus on standardized tests for learning. Although quantum physics is widely known for the idea that a particle can be in two different places at the same time, it is the not-so-well-known Quantum Zeno Effect (QZE) that provides the source of strength for the standardization critique. QZE maintains that “when any system is observed in a sufficiently rapid, repetitive fashion the rate at which that system changes is reduced.” In other words, QZE is explaining that the more a quantum system is monitored, the less decay occurs. If the human brain operates in a quantum environment (a recent discovery of quantum vibrations in the brain was announced in January 2014) and we, as educators, want the process of learning to be locked in and not decay, we should be instituting the “regimen of regular low- or no-stakes” testing of my schoolboy days and the type of quizzing that Peter Brown, Herny Roediger III and Mark McDaniel recommend in their book Make it Stick: The Science of Successful Learning. The problem with an emphasis on standardized testing, from the perspective of quantum mechanics, is that there is too much information being tested too infrequently for learning to “stick” or stabilize in the brain. This idea of quantum learning supports Roediger’s recommendations outlined in The New York Times: “We need to change the way we think about testing. It shouldn’t be a white-knuckle finale to a semester’s work, but the means by which students progress from the start of a semester to its finish, locking in learning along the way…Standardized testing is in some respects a quest for more rigor in public education. We can achieve rigor in a different way. We can instruct teachers on the use of low-stakes quizzing in class. We can teach students the benefits of retrieval practice and how to use it in their studying outside class. These steps cost little and cultivate habits of successful learning that will serve students throughout their lives.”
Einstein and Twain’s comments regarding the broken education-learning link are, in essence, quantum quotes; they say the same thing in two different ways. Einstein, however, also provided us with a way to repair or bridge the broken link via his idea of “combinatory play,” which calls for combining aspects of several disciplines when looking for solutions. The development of solutions to the Einstein-Twain quantum quote quandary (say that fast 5 times) will come from combining facets of neuroscience, education and social science research. We can improve learning in education if we follow the same type of path the brain uses to learn: a connected path.
ARTICLES & BOOKS:
Peter C. Brown, Henry L. Roediger III and Mark A. McDaniel, Make It Stick: The Science of Successful Learning (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press, 2014)
“Discovery of Quantum Vibrations in ‘Microtubules’ Inside Brain Neurons Supports Controversial Theory of Consciousness,” Science Daily (January 16, 2014)
W.R. Klemm, Mental Biology (Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 2014), 73 & 76
Matthew Lieberman, Social: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Connect (New York: Crown Publishers, 2013)
John Medina, Brain Rules (Seattle, WA: Pear Press, 2008)
National Public Radio, Series on Education and PlayL Where the Wild Things Play (August 4, 2014)
Debbie Rhea, “More Play, Better Focus,” Education Week Vol. 33, no. 22 (February 26, 2014): 21
David Rock and Jeffrey Schwartz, “The Neuroscience of Leadership” Strategy+Business Issue 43 (Summer 2006)
Henry L. Roediger III, “How Tests Make Us Smarter,” The New York Times (July 18, 2014): SR 12
Taylor W. Schmitz, Eve De Rosa, and Adam K. Anderson, “Opposing Influences of Affective State Valence on Visual Cortical Encoding,” The Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 29, no. 22 (June 3, 2009): 7199-7207
Send this to friend