Theory of Mind-- Brain Rules Part 4
More from Brain Rules by John Medina…Chapter 3 Wiring
When we last left off, John was just about to share some ideas about what we can do about the Brain Rule theory that all brains are different and learn different.
One idea John mentions is smaller class size.
“All things being equal, it has been known for many years that smaller, more intimate schools create better learning environments than megaplex houses of learning. The Brain Rule may help explain why smaller is better.”
This is an interesting assertion. On the face it seems to match well with the Brain Rule theory, but most research has shown that class size is not an indicator of better learning. Having worked with grants that directly relate to class size reduction, I have not found one study that directly relates class size with better learning.
John may not be saying test scores go up when class size goes down. He explains that…
“Given that every brain is wired differently, being able to read a student’s mind is a powerful tool in the hands of a teacher.”
And we have now arrived at the second theory described in this chapter, The Theory of Mind.
The Theory of Mind has two important parts that apply directly to teachers.
First, “It is defined as the ability to understand the interior motivations of someone else…”
Second, “…and the ability to construct predictable ‘theory of how their mind works’ based on that knowledge.”
John explains the importance of these two parts to teachers.
“This give teachers critical access to their students’ interior educational life. It may include knowledge of when students are confused and when they are fully engaged. It also gives sensitive teachers valuable feedback about whether their teaching is being transformed into learning.”
So this would explain his preference for small class sizes. Obviously this can be accomplished much easier in a smaller class. In other words a small class size makes it easier to tell if your teaching is working.
“Students comprehend complex knowledge at different times and at different depths. Because a teacher can keep track of only so many minds, there must be limit on the number of students in a class—the smaller, the better.”
And the crowd goes wild. Who doesn’t like that?
In other words teachers are mind managers. They manage several minds at time and quite obviously can better manage fewer minds at one time than the many.
Here is another very interesting idea that results from this theory.
“This suggests that an advanced skill set in Theory of Mind predicts a good teacher. If so, existing Theory of Mind tests could be used like Myers-Briggs personality tests to reveal good teachers from bad, or to help people considering careers as teachers.”
“I have come to believe that people with advanced Theory of Mind skills possess the single most important ingredient for becoming effective communicators of information.”
A test to see if you will be a good teacher would certainly cause some debate.
Another suggestion, aside from smaller class size is the use of customized instruction. The more individualized the instruction, the better the learning. Technology is a key component here.
So, John suggests that future research be conducted between brain and education scientist in three areas.
1. Evaluate teachers and teachers-to-be for advanced Theory of Mind skills.
2. Develop adaptive software for a variety of subjects and grade levels.
3. Test both ideas in various combinations.
Catalytic Questions:
How could Theory of Mind testing be added to the current teacher selection process?
In what ways might we create smaller class sizes?
How would the role of the teacher change if he or she viewed him/herself as a manager of minds?
What would the role of mind manager look like in a classroom, as opposed to the standard view of a teacher’s role?
Suggested Reading:
Brain Rules Part 1
Comments