Brain Gym
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Brain Gym is a training program that makes various claims about the benefits of certain exercises and postures in learning. It is widely used in British state schools. It is also offered to both children and adults in parts of the United States and Canada.
Contents |
[edit] The program
The program is billed as an introductory level program in Educational Kinesiology (Edu-K), a form of applied kinesiology previously known as Edu-Kinesthetics. It was presented by Paul E. Dennison and Gail E. Dennison in their booklets Switching On: A Guide to Edu-Kinesthetics (1980) and Brain Gym – Simple Activities for Whole Brain Learning (1986). It is based on the premise that all learning begins with movement, also supporting the idea that any learning challenges can be overcome by finding the right movements, to subsequently create new pathways in the brain. It claims that the repetition of certain movements "activates the brain for optimal storage and retrieval of information".[1] Aside from its scientific claims, the success of Brain Gym in early childhood educational settings can be attributed to its systematic and common-sense approach to body movement. Children in such settings often have difficulty focusing on abstract concepts in school because it is their natural tendency to want to move. Brain Gym exercises have therefore gained great popularity in the educational setting and wide support among the teaching community.
[edit] Criticism
Brain Gym has been criticised as being unscientific in a review of research into neuroscience and education published in 2007 by the UK Economic and Social Research Council's Teaching and Learning Research Programme.[2] The report noted that doing any exercise can improve alertness, and exercise systems like Brain Gym may help for that reason.[3]
Brain Gym has also been criticized by Ben Goldacre of The Guardian's Bad Science pages, who found little supporting evidence for the assertions put forward by some Brain Gym proponents in main public research databases.[4] Upon learning that the program was used at hundreds of UK state schools, he called it a "vast empire of pseudoscience" and went on to dissect parts of their teaching materials, refuting for instance claims that rubbing the chest would stimulate the carotid arteries, that "processed foods do not contain water", or that liquids other than water "are processed in the body as food, and do not serve the body's water needs."[5] Many teachers responded by writing letters in support of Brain Gym based on their first hand experience and its effectiveness in classroom settings. Goldacre reiterated his point that exercises and breaks were good for students, and that he was merely attacking "the stupid underlying science of Brain Gym".[6]
In a separate column, Guardian writer Philip Beadle sided with him, adding that Goldacre's "argument is with what Dr Barry Beyerstein, a professor of psychology at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, Canada, describes as 'commercial ventures promoted by hucksters who mislead consumers into thinking that their products are sound applications of scientific knowledge'."[7]
In 2008 Sense About Science published a pamphlet with UK scientists' responses to Brain Gym's "pseudo-scientific" claims.[8]
[edit] See also
[edit] References
- ^ Brain Gym - FAQ. The Official Brain Gym Web Site. Retrieved on 2008-05-03. “BRAIN GYM works by facilitating optimal achievement of mental potential through specific movement experiences. All acts of speech, hearing, vision, and coordination are learned through a complex repertoire of movements. BRAIN GYM promotes efficient communication among the many nerve cells and functional centers located throughout the brain and sensory motor system.”
- ^ Neuroscience and Education: Issues and Opportunities. the ESRC's Teaching and Learning Research Programme website. Retrieved on 2007-08-03. “The pseudo-scientific terms that are used to explain how this works, let alone the concepts they express, are unrecognisable within the domain of neuroscience.”
- ^ Neuroscience and Education: Issues and Opportunities. the ESRC's Teaching and Learning Research Programme website. Retrieved on 2007-08-03. “short sessions of Brain Gym exercise have been shown to improve response times, and such strategies, if they are effective, may work because exercise can improve alertness.”
- ^ Ben Goldacre. "Work out your mind", The Guardian, 2003-06-12. Retrieved on 2007-08-03. "On the off chance that it might not be rubbish I looked it up on the main public research databases. Nothing supported their assertions."
- ^ Ben Goldacre. "Brain Gym exercises do pupils no favours", The Guardian, 2006-03-18. Retrieved on 2007-08-03. "I've accidentally stumbled upon a vast empire of pseudoscience being peddled in hundreds of state schools up and down the country."
- ^ Ben Goldacre. "Exercise the brain without this transparent nonsense", The Guardian, 2006-03-25. Retrieved on 2007-08-03. "The advice they are offering is sensible: "take an exercise break to help you concentrate" ... But in stark contrast, the science they use to justify this so often seems to be bogus, empty PR, that promotes basic scientific misunderstandings, and most of all is completely superfluous in every sense except the commercial: because the ropey promotional "science" is the cornerstone of their commercial operation, they need it to promote themselves as experts selling a product that is unique and distinct from the obvious, sensible diet and exercise advice that you can't copyright."
- ^ Philip Beadle. "Keep your pupils stretched and watered", The Guardian, 2006-06-13. Retrieved on 2007-08-03. "[Ben Goldacre's] argument is with what Dr Barry Beyerstein, a professor of psychology at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, Canada, describes as "commercial ventures promoted by hucksters who mislead consumers into thinking that their products are sound applications of scientific knowledge."
- ^ Sense About Science - Brain Gym. Sense About Science. Retrieved on 2008-04-11. “These exercises are being taught with pseudoscientific explanations that undermine science teaching and mislead children about how their bodies work.”
