Shichida in English - book review Children Can Change through Right Brain Edu...

[crunchynerd]

I loved reading this thread, for the discourse.
I think there are a lot of people out there selling the idea that we can all mold our kids into Profoundly Gifted if we but buy the right strategy, the right method, the right tools, and apply them rigorously enough. My aim is to help my kids be their best selves, but they have to be happy in their own growth or it would just be me forcing them into a mold for pride or fear.

[Chris1]

Shichida’s claims on ESP, QSR and babies ability to subitize large quantities are all evidence-free nonsense. These evidence-free ideas persist in our minds because of confirmation bias. Robust evidence that contradicts our beliefs does not cease to exist, simply because we choose to ignore it.
 
Concerning the ESP study posted earlier- it is important to realise that if enough studies are conducted, a few of the studies will provide a statistically significant result by pure chance and it is these results that the media decide to publish.

Glenn Doman also makes misleading claims in his “Teach Your Baby Maths” book. The book claims that babies can effortlessly subitize beyond 100 and that they can use this ability to perform complex mental calculations. The evidence from this forum alone contradicts these claims, yet many of us here cling onto our original acceptance of the claim and choose to ignore the evidence.

If an idea disagrees with experiment it is wrong.
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/OL6-x0modwY&rel=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/OL6-x0modwY&rel=1</a>
Chris.

[robbyjo]

I'm unable to give a long reply, but as I pointed out, there are many memory techniques that have been validated by research out and out. Example:
Roediger, Henry L. (1980) The effectiveness of four mnemonics in ordering recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, Vol 6(5), Sep 1980, 558-567
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/xlm/6/5/558/

And look at the many articles that cited this article since:
http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.citedRefsRecord&uid=1981-25043-001

It is an active research topic.

The question is: What is so different with Shichida's method? Why didn't he or his foundation publish a research paper or at least a technical white paper?

If you answer "right-brain learning", it's a term so broad and generic that it's meaningless.

If you answer "alpha-wave learning", yes it has been proven effective (cf: this article). However, translating such research results to babies or kids are still a stretch since the nature of brainwaves of very young kids is very different (see the same article) so that it is almost unnecessary for the kids to need alpha-wave stimulation. Also, this article suggests that alpha-wave is related to visuo-spatial attention. This suggests that non-interactive programs (such as DVDs, especially right-brain DVDs) are detrimental to alpha-wave inducement. This also suggests that parental interaction with children when viewing DVDs (learning or not) is absolutely important.

I could go on and on. But I'm running out of patience. Especially with the so many new Early Learning "Approaches" claiming to be the "result of a new research". The word "research" will then become a new weasel word, and this would consequently undermine public's trust on honest intellectual endeavor. That is unacceptable.

[robbyjo]

Continuing my writing...

I haven't commented anything about subitizing; I haven't read Doman's book on Math, only on Reading. So, I can't comment much on the validity. I think the fantastic memory feat requires far more than just subitizing. I am more inclined towards more classical memory training (such as method of loci and the likes), and, of course, lots of practice.

As for Doman goes: He was a genuine researcher. He wrote real research papers. It is not too hard to find one of his works. For example: This one, I think, was a genuine research that generated quite a lot of comments and follow up studies. Doman's assertion in book is somehow supported, by this article, for example, where cases of reading precocity occur in normal kids. Newer studies, such as this one and this one, show that early reading is a product of both genetics and environment. In other words, there is something that parents can do to help their kids reading early and some kids will read early anyway. And it is known that reading is linked to short term memory (STM). To me, Doman's exercises appear to train STM, so I think it is not a huge leap to say that Doman's method would work.

Math skills, on the other hand, depends on working memory (WM), which requires far more information processing. So, I don't think that Doman's strategy for reading would work for math.

Given that I found some wealth of scholarly information and research in Doman's method for reading, I found none for Shichida's. Not even in Japanese. All I found was marketing fluffs or blogs. I might not have searched hard enough, but please help me find at least one of them. I am inclined to think that Shichida, given his stature in Japanese government, must be a genuine scientist. Japanese gov't wouldn't hire a quack scientist, would they? He might not have published a lot, or might have published in Japanese journals only. I guess other people simply spun his research and added unsubstantiated claims like ESP. Now then, I am interested to see what Shichida's research has found, along with the implications and how he established his methods based on his research.

So, this is not an east-versus-west debate. Not to me, at least. I am surprised at the dearth of real scholarly information about Shichida's approach.

[Chris1]

Shichida appears to use the freely available memory linking method. I used a combination of methods to teach my daughter the first thirty elements. See how quickly you can learn the first ten elements in order. The number of items that you can recall is greatly extended if you incorporate periodic review of the material.

First ten elements only.
Peg list based on association 1=pencil 2=bicycle 3=pyramid 4=racing car 5=starfish 6=dice 7=rainbow 8=octopus 9=cat and 10=Pele etc. Bicycle has two wheels, racing car four etc.

Images used for the first 10 elements- 1 zeppelin for Hydrogen, 2 balloons for Helium, 3 camera(lithium battery) for Lithium, 4 berries for Beryllium (substitute/sound like word), 5 bored starfish for Boron, 6 coal for Carbon, 7 Trojan horse for Nitrogen(substitute word), 8 oxygen mask for Oxygen, 9 floor for Fluorine, 10 neon lights for Neon.

Choose a room and decide on locations to store your linked images-start at a corner and moving clockwise arrange your images in these locations:

1 2 3

8 9 4

7 6 5

Starting at a corner of the room we imagined trying to puncture a noisy zeppelin with a very large pencil. Moving clockwise to the door we see a bicycle with balloons attached to the handle bars-hear the bell ring, burst a balloon. Moving clockwise to the next corner we see the pyramids and take a photograph (Lithium batteries). Again moving clockwise-between corners we see a noisy racing car-we climb in to discover that the seat is made of juicy berries-very messy! In the next corner, behind the door, we hear/see a bored starfish yawning. Location 6- we sit on our large dice shaped chair and discover that it is made of coal. Location 7-we see a beautiful rainbow leading to the wet Trojan horse. Location 8- we see an octopus struggling to breath with an oxygen mask. Location 9- we see our cat sleeping on the floor. Next room-again starting in a corner we see Pele with a giant neon 10 sign on his shoulders.

The Major Memory System is another powerful technique used to remember numbers. With some practice I was able to recall over a 100 digits without any difficulty.

These old techniques will not give your child a photographic memory. Your child will be able to memorise information if they take the time to memorise locations , apply the appropriate techniques and periodically review the material. The techniques are powerful but they require conscious effort.

Chris.

[robbyjo]

Thank you for the clarification, Chris.

The only substantive "article" about Dr. Makoto Shichida is from the Japanese Wikipedia. Evidently, he was a successful educator, not a researcher, and he was convinced that emotional need must be fulfilled before any learning can commence. This is already well-established (see this recent paper, for example, going as old as 1978). Maybe Shichida was an early adopter of this strategy.

I'm not surprised that Dr. Shichida adopted a well known method for fantastic memory feat. As an educator, he perhaps concocted a curriculum just for kids and he was successful at that.

About the "Right-brain learning" that he purportedly formulated: The only credible information I found online is, again, from Japanese Wikipedia. My Japanese is next to nothing, so can someone please translate it? Thanks. Apparently he used a mnemonic method for the memory feat.

[robbyjo]

I would have to add that the article about Shichida's method (by, purportedly, Dr. Celeste A. Miller of Winona State University) is *not* a scientific paper. It is more or less an informal description of the method, nothing more. A real research paper would not simply quote one or two sources, but dozens. This so-called "paper" draws its content from Dr. Shichida's books or articles.

The narrative is oblivious to recent research development on neuroplasticity or even alpha-wave-based learning, for example. Plus, right-vs-left brain false dichotomy in learning is pretty much destroyed. Excerpt:

These courses suggest, for example, that children should be identified as either 'left-brained' or 'right-brained' learners, because individuals 'prefer' one type of processing3. Teachers are told that the left brain dominates in the processing of language, logic, mathematical formulae, number, sequence, linearity, analysis and unrelated factual information. Meanwhile, the right brain is said to dominate in the processing of forms and patterns, spatial manipulation, rhythm, images and pictures, daydreaming, and relationships in learning3. Teachers are advised to ensure that their classroom practice is automatically 'left- and right-brain balanced' to avoid a mismatch between learner preference and learning experience3. This neuromyth probably stems from an over-literal interpretation of hemispheric specialization.
...
Many in education accept claims such as these as established fact5. Scientists have already alerted society to the neuromyths that are dominant in education at present6, 7, 8. In addition to the left brain/right brain learning myth, neuromyths that relate to critical periods for learning and to synaptogenesis can be identified. The critical period myth suggests that the child's brain will not work properly if it does not receive the right amount of stimulation at the right time (an insightful analysis is provided by Byrnes9). Direct teaching of certain skills must occur during the critical period, or the window of opportunity to educate will be missed. The synaptogenesis myth promotes the idea that more will be learned if teaching is timed with periods of synaptogenesis7. Educational interventions will be more effective if teachers ensure that they coincide with increases in synaptic density. Educational interventions are also sometimes suggested to be superior if they encourage 'neuroplasticity'10, and teachers are told that neural networks can be altered by 'neuroplasticity training programmes'10. Teachers do not realize that, although there might be sensitive periods for some forms of learning, the effects of any type of training programme that changes behaviour will be reflected in the 'remapping' of neural networks.

Here's a link to a more recent article (free access). Read the abstract yourself:

The OECD’s Brain and Learning project (2002) emphasized that many misconceptions about the brain exist among professionals in the field of education. Though these so-called “neuromyths” are loosely based on scientific facts, they may have adverse effects on educational practice. The present study investigated the prevalence and predictors of neuromyths among teachers in selected regions in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. A large observational survey design was used to assess general knowledge of the brain and neuromyths. The sample comprised 242 primary and secondary school teachers who were interested in the neuroscience of learning. It would be of concern if neuromyths were found in this sample, as these teachers may want to use these incorrect interpretations of neuroscience findings in their teaching practice. Participants completed an online survey containing 32 statements about the brain and its influence on learning, of which 15 were neuromyths. Additional data was collected regarding background variables (e.g., age, sex, school type). Results showed that on average, teachers believed 49% of the neuromyths, particularly myths related to commercialized educational programs. Around 70% of the general knowledge statements were answered correctly. Teachers who read popular science magazines achieved higher scores on general knowledge questions. More general knowledge also predicted an increased belief in neuromyths. These findings suggest that teachers who are enthusiastic about the possible application of neuroscience findings in the classroom find it difficult to distinguish pseudoscience from scientific facts. Possessing greater general knowledge about the brain does not appear to protect teachers from believing in neuromyths. This demonstrates the need for enhanced interdisciplinary communication to reduce such misunderstandings in the future and establish a successful collaboration between neuroscience and education.

[TeachingMyToddlers]

Yes, it is certainly an article, not a paper. I wanted to share it here because when someone with credentials goes out on a limb to share information about controversial methods, it definitely catches my eye.

[robbyjo]

TeachingMyToddlers: Thank you. It is certainly one of the better articles about the program.

document.getElementById('recent_loading').style.display = 'none';document.getElementById('recent_page_box').style.display = '';

Page: 1/4  

Loading...

Members

• Total Members: 214772
• Latest: addisonjones

Stats

• Total Posts: 110526
• Total Topics: 19136
• Online Today: 451
• Online Ever: 826
• (January 22, 2020, 12:09:49 AM)

Users Online

• Users: 0
• Guests: 406
• Total: 406