Symposium Plan

by Ewing Coleman Green EDD 8260 CRN 50099

Linking Learning and Leadership to Brain Research

Nova Southeastern University July 14, 2013

Table of Contents

Page Introduction ………………………………………………………………………….....................2 Symposium Concept ………………...……………………………………………………………2 Overview ……………………………………………………………………………….…2 Venue and logistics ……………………………………………………………….............3 Marketing …………………………………………………………………………………4 Pilot testing and student involvement ……………………………………..……………...5 Literature Review ……………………………………………………………………………..…..6 Symposium Overview ……………...……………………………………………………………14 Kickoff and keynote address …………………………………....………………...…..…15 Session details ………………………………………………………………………...…15 Participant connection making …………….………………………..…………………...17

Feedback ………………………………..……………………………………………….17 Digital resources ………………………………………………………...………………18 Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………………....18 References .……………………………………………………………………………………....19

ii

  2

Symposium Plan

This paper outlines a learning symposium designed to engage participants in a purposeful

variety of sessions designed to maximize student learning at Shanghai American School (SAS).

Of particular emphasis in the sessions is the focus on right brain engagement since the

preponderance of learning activities in schools today are left brain oriented and the 21st century

global workplace commands a premium on right brain function (Pink, 2006).

Symposium Concept

The proposed symposium title is Turn Right for Whole Brain Learning Symposium.

Metaphorically speaking, teachers are the drivers of the school bus on the 21st century

educational superhighway. Based on traditional left brain dominant educational practices, in

order for students to be engaged in balanced cognitive development teachers must 'turn right.'

That is, educators need to ensure the engagement of appropriate right hemispheric learning

strategies for maximum student development. The author is the symposium organizer.

Overview.

The symposium will involve all middle school teaching staff, and campus principals and

senior administrators will be invited as well. These individuals are in the best position to support

best practices learning at the school, give constructive feedback, and lead positive change that

improves whole brain learning engagement going forward. This totals approximately 50 adults.

They bring a wide variety of experience as well as a diverse spectrum of teaching environments,

from the predominant left brain approaches in mathematics to the stronger reliance on right brain

engagement in the performing arts, such as drama and music. In addition, all middle school

students will attend the kickoff and keynote address, and they will have the opportunity to attend

the symposium for 45 minutes.

  3

Venue and logistics.

The symposium will, appropriately, be held at the Performing Arts Center (PAC) and will

entail 13 continuously running sessions. Given the strong right brain engagement in the

performing arts, there is no better place to make the point to all attendees than the conveniently

located PAC. The symposium will be held on Wednesday, September 18, 2013 from 12:45 to

4:30. This takes advantage of the middle school schedule where a special schedule can easily be

constructed by learning community team leaders across all three grade levels and the Wednesday

after school faculty meeting time can be easily devoted to the symposium. By the principal

designating the entire middle school faculty meeting time to attend the symposium, a strong

message sent as to its importance.

Besides its convenience, thus likely generating greater participation than an offsite

location, the PAC is an excellent venue since it includes a large two floor auditorium, large

stage, large three-tiered lobby area, and multiple smaller rooms to the sides. This arrangement is

ideal for an open format, multiple session, multiple station, cross-disciplinary multi-sensory

learning environment that will appeal to the right brain.

Since school is in session on the day, considerable logistics must be considered to

maximize symposium effectiveness. Lunch will be extended 15 minutes to facilitate an all-

middle school assembly, faculty and students, in the PAC for the kickoff. Grade eight teachers

will facilitate cross-grade study halls from 1:15 to 2:00. Grade six and seven teachers will

facilitate cross-grade study halls from 2:00 to 3:00 after which their buses depart. This results in

grade six and seven teachers being able to start the symposium at 1:15 and grade eight teachers

being able to start at 2:00. This planning helps to maximize participant involvement and stagger

the load. In order to gather student input on the symposium, the 160 grade eight students will be

  4

released from their 2:15-3:00 exploratory after which their buses depart. The sessions will be a

bit busier for this 45 minutes. Thereafter, from 3:00 to 4:30, the PAC will host all grade level

teachers and administrators. These logistics will be planned in detail between the author and the

middle school leadership team in the weeks leading up to the symposium.

Marketing.

The first step is securing the support of the principal and vice principal for the

symposium. This is essential since the event involves a modified schedule for the afternoon and

proposes to absorb the Wednesday after school faculty meeting slot. Even if priorities prevent

the use of that time, the symposium could easily be shortened to 12:45-3:00 where the time is

designed by individual learning communities. Also, even if the event scope is curtailed to one

grade level, such as the author’s grade eight, that would suffice as a championing event and the

concept could grow from there. With the principal’s support and given his leadership style the

author would present the symposium concept early in the school year to the middle school

leadership where the event would be fine tuned and, hopefully, positive energy would be

generated throughout the entire middle school.

In addition to the reporting out from the leadership team meeting by learning community

leaders, the symposium will be marketed through the development of an electronic brochure,

banners, and email. Four large banners will be developed that will include the title (Turn Right

for Whole Brain Learning Symposium), date, location, and time, and the banner will be designed

with an SAS school bus driving down the 21st Century Education Superhighway appearing to

turn right. This image and the accompanying text should set the stage. The banners will be hung

in the following strategic locations: middle school entrance, upper student commons, lower

student commons, and on the cafeteria exterior wall where such banners are normally placed.

  5

Trifold brochures, thematically similar to the large banners, will be developed and placed

in faculty inboxes several weeks before the event. For additional enticement, the brochure will

include bullet points of rationale based on the literature review below. Posters with similar

content will also be posted on bulletin boards throughout the middle school. In addition, emails

will be sent out to all faculty and administrative invitees reminding them of the event and the

rationale. During the week that the brochures are placed in faculty inboxes, posters are placed,

and emails are sent, the author will, given prior approval from the principal, ask the faculty at a

Wednesday full faculty meeting if they have any questions or concerns.

All of these marketing steps will help ensure positive communication takes place and to

the maximum extent possible all questions and concerns are addressed in advance. Experience

has shown to the author that lack of ownership can derail such events.

Pilot testing and student involvement. Experience has also proven that proactive involvement of participants can be extremely

beneficial. To that end, during the weeks leading up to the symposium and in order to design

effective sessions, the author will secure the eight laptops from the Apple Center, seek the

assistance of the two drama teachers, two art teachers, and orchestra teacher, and the input of

both his learning community team and his students. Since the learning community team meets

three mornings every week, this will be easy to accomplish, and since the author teaches 80

grade eight students he can easily devote some time in class to overview the symposium, the

logistics, and the sessions in an effort to seek improvement ideas from students. In addition, the

author can seek the help of colleagues in designing sessions and running them on the day. This is

consistent with the school’s highly collaborative culture and others will very likely volunteer to

help, improving the product along the way.

  6

Literature Review

The literature contains ample support for the symposium as outlined above. Paralleling

advances in neurological imaging and the increase in research devoted to brain functioning, the

literature reflects an interest in, an understanding of, and recommendations for enriching student

learning. Following is a literature review that connects symposium elements to the primary goal

of right brain development.

Bellah, Robinson, Kaufman, Akers, Haase-Wittler, and Martindale (2008) reported that

brain-based learning shifts the primary focus from linear and hierarchical teaching to complex,

thematic, and integrated activities by emphasizing thinking versus memorization. Teaching for

enduring understanding involves relaxed alertness, immersion in complex experience, and active

engagement in the learning experiences. This type of pedagogy, the authors argued, engages a

“multidimensional spectrum of multiple intelligences working together to anchor experiences for

long-term retention” (pp. 20-21).

Likewise, Madrazo and Motz (2005) reported that significant advances are being made in

brain-based education as a result of new connections between the biology of the brain and

teaching and learning. The authors stated that active student communication and right brain

oriented social relating in the classroom are more effective learning strategies than lecture. They

argued, “although lecture continues to be the most widely used method in the classroom,

countless studies indicate that students retain the most by teaching other, practicing by doing,

and discussing in groups” (p. 57). Consistent with Hawkins (2009), Madrazo and Motz (2005)

reported that right brain friendly differentiation strategies are important, stating, “Teachers must

cater to the learning styles and diversity of learners. This requires constant attention to elements

  7

such as noise and music, light, social structure, mobility, and the design of the classroom” (p.

58).

More recently, and consistent with Madrazo and Motz (2005), Shore (2012) lamented the

ineffectiveness of lecture, reporting that “only about five percent is actually retained by the

listener the day after it is delivered” (p. 132). To improve on that poor statistic, the author

reported lecture accompanied by audiovisuals and discussion groups increased retention to

nearly 50 percent, and that in order to reach 90 percent students must thoroughly research a

topic, put the learning to immediate use, and/or teach others. Additional research-based whole

brain friendly pedagogical engagements included creating a community of learners using humor,

promoting hope, incorporating novelty in the forms music, dance, or poetry, regrouping,

movement, color, games, and constructing tactile representations of content.

Mindful of the means by which understanding is constructed, Fanselow and Poulos

(2005) described the associative learning (the linking of concepts to generate understanding)

process in mammals, and reported that learning begins when neural pathways carry signals

stimulated by biologically important events. As these signals are processed by the amygdala and

cerebellum, neural plasticity occurs and is the basis for associative memory formation. The

authors suggested that the learning is in proportion to the degree of stimulation and complexity.

For example, Hawkins (2009) reported that in order to effectively address the cognitive

diversity in classrooms, teachers must provide differentiated instruction opportunities to students.

He argued that by doing so teachers avoid a one-size-fits all approach and provide purposeful

learning based on where individual students are on their learning journeys, and thereby maximize

learning and prepare students for their future academic and work endeavors. Hawkins (2009)

suggested that effective differentiated environments appeal to right brain learning by employing

  8

“varied strategies and practices including graphic organizers, varied levels of fiction and non-

fiction materials, small group instruction, student-as-worker guided practice, immediate feedback

and judicious review, and curriculum compacting” (p. 12). The author cited numerous research

studies on the benefits of differentiated instruction based on “brain research, learning styles,

constructivism, challenging learning environments, clarity of purpose, dynamic assessments and

constructive feedback, and flexible grouping” (p. 12).

In a similar vein, Johansson (2008) reported on the neuroscience of learning with a focus

on language and music in an attempt to bridge the perceived divide between the sciences and the

humanities. The author stated that the right hemisphere plays a prominent role in comprehending

the complexities of language such as in stories and metaphors. In addition, since many forms of

music involve both language and pitch, particularly through singing, learning benefits accrue.

Johansson (2008) reported that studies show “music training improves verbal memory, an

important factor in language learning” (p. 420). The author concluded that there is evidence of

the importance of right hemispheric development and whole brain functioning in the acquisition

of language and music capacities. In the same year, Szirony, Burgin, and Pearson (2008) also

found a correlation between music and right hemisphere development.

In another study providing insights on right brain development, O’Boyle (2008) reported

on the cognitive neuroscience involving mathematically gifted children, finding that their brains

are “quantitatively and qualitatively different from those of average math ability” (p. 181). The

author stated that math-gifted children exhibit enhanced right hemispheric development and a

“heightened interhemispheric exchange of information between the left and right sides of the

brain, reflecting an unusual degree of neural connectivity” (p. 181). Taken together with the

work by Nikolaenko (2005), this may help explain why the literature reports that boys

  9

traditionally have held an advantage in math-rich academic endeavors, and again suggests why

whole brain development is particularly important for girls. In addition, O’Boyle (2008) argued

that differentiated learning opportunities appropriate for math-gifted children is essential, lest

they suffer from boredom, potentially become a behavioral problem in the classroom, and, most

importantly, risk being underdeveloped.

Although Prigge’s (2002) report is a bit dated now, it mirrors updated cognitive and

neuroscience research in making practical suggestions that benefit whole brain learning. The

author suggested music, interactive learning environment, emotional connection making,

laughter, learning that is student-relevant, and creative repetition.

Likewise, and reporting at about the same time, Roberts (2002) argued for a Brain

Compatible Approach to learning that moved beyond learning by doing and embraced

neuroscientific findings about learning. The author referenced the interconnected, unique, and

neuroplastic nature of the human brain in offering principles and tips of brain based learning.

Many were right brain friendly and included chunking learning content and time, big picture

approach, building both teacher-student and student-student relationships, and balancing novel

and repetitive activities.

Rushton and Larkin (2001) made similar arguments from neuroscience applied to the

educational setting. They reported that balanced brain-friendly development included

differentiated learning engagements, concrete, vivid imagery, storytelling, music, movement,

drawing, painting and constructing, and real life relevancy.

From a human behavior standpoint, Goldberg (2009) reported that while each hemisphere

has been linked to specific functioning, such as language in the left and spatial processing in the

right, modern research suggests a great deal of inter-functioning and “the two hemispheres have

  10

much more in common than what makes them different” (p. 40). In addition, Goldberg (2009)

argued that the field of cognitive neuroscience is increasingly embracing a “gradiental” model of

brain functioning, as opposed to a modular one, which views the brain as “massively parallel and

interconnected” (p. 59). This model embraces the notion that the brain behaves as a neural

network and has emergent properties due to brain plasticity.

Furthermore, Sylwester (2004) stated, “the right hemisphere (in most humans) is

principally organized to process novel challenges, and the left hemisphere to process knowledge

and effective routines developed during previous similar challenges” (p. 44). Each hemisphere

contains four lobes, where “the three lobes in the back half receive and analyze incoming sensory

information and integrate it into a perceptual map of the current challenges—the right

hemisphere focusing on the novel and the left hemisphere on familiar elements” (p. 45). The

frontal lobe then “determines a response strategy—the right hemisphere again focusing on

creative solutions to novel challenges, and the left hemisphere on activating established routines”

(p. 45).

Pink (2006) argued that while both hemispheres are involved in even simple tasks, the

left hemisphere is “sequential, logical, and analytical” and the right hemisphere is “nonlinear,

intuitive, and holistic” (p. 3). The left hemisphere “specializes in text” while the right

hemisphere “specializes in context” (p. 20), such as when processing conversation; the left

hemisphere “handles what is said” while the right hemisphere “focuses on how it’s said,”

including nonverbal cues (p. 21); and, the left hemisphere “analyzes the details” while the right

hemisphere “synthesizes the big picture” (p. 22).

Pink (2006) argued that there are three major influences in the current age of

globalization: abundance, Asia, and automation (p. 30). He pointed out that the economic growth

  11

in Asian countries is partly explained by a strong reliance on left hemispheric thinking and

development. Pink (2006) coined the terms “L-Directed Thinking” as thought dominated by the

left hemisphere and “R-Directed Thinking” as thought dominated by the right hemisphere (p.

26), and suggested that L-Directed Thinking has fueled the success of Asian countries in the age

of globalization. As evidence of this, he cited the significant degree of outsourcing of L-Directed

Thinking jobs (financial analysis, radiology, computer programming, etc.) to lower wage scale

countries such as India and China.

Reflecting upon mega economic movements over recent human history, Pink (2006)

stated that the Industrial Age was “built on people’s backs”, that the Information Age was “built

on people’s left brains,” and the modern Conceptual Age depends “more on people’s right

brains” (p. 50). He argued that much of the advances made during the Information Age were

built by L-Directed Thinking, but that the modern Conceptual Age demands greater engagement

of R-Directed Thinking (p. 49). He reported that L-Directed Thinking is dominant in education

through “SAT-ocracy,” a reference to the importance of performing well on the widely used

college admissions standardized test that “depends on the ability to reason logically, sequentially,

and speedily” (p. 29).

To combat this bias, Pink (2006) called for the deployment of a “whole new mind” (p.

25). He argued that success in today’s Conceptual Age global job market relies more on “using

R-Directed abilities such as forging relationships rather than executing transactions, tackling

novel challenges instead of solving routine problems, and synthesizing the big picture rather than

analyzing a single component” (p. 39-40). He argued that a “whole new mind” (p. 51) is vital in

the current Conceptual Age, and that while “L-Directed Thinking remains indispensible, it’s just

no longer sufficient” (p. 51). By better balancing hemispheric development and functioning, Pink

  12

(2006) argued, the left hemisphere “handles logic, sequence, literalness, and analysis” while the

right “takes care of synthesis, emotional expression, context, and big picture” (p. 25).

In addition to the general discussion of student learning, there are differences that also

need to be taken into account between the genders. Nikolaenko (2005) reported that substantial

research supports the premise that women are superior in use of language while men excel at

spatial tasks. Studies suggest that there is left hemisphere predominance in women and less

asymmetric functioning in men. Nikolaenko (2005) stated, “It can be concluded that the increase

capability for the verbal learning in girls is due mostly to the processes of the auditory-verbal

integration within the limits of the left hemisphere, whereas in boys this verbal ability depends

on the relative predominance of the interhemispheric connections” (p. 697). It could be argued,

therefore, that while right brain-rich development is important to both genders, perhaps there is

additional upside for girls.

Furthermore, according to Sylwester (2004), although most people view the genders as

polar opposites, he stated that, “It thus appears that individuals are either clearly male or female,

or else exist (for whatever biological or cultural reason) somewhere along an androgynous

continuum between the two pure gender strains” (p. 72). From a biological standpoint, the two

genders have differing reproductive roles and thus “although the hormones testosterone,

estrogen, oxytocin, and vasopressin are present in everyone, females typically have more

estrogen and oxytocin, and males more testosterone and vasopressin” (p. 72). Structurally and

behaviorally, males and females are much more similar than different, but the differences

manifest in important ways. Sylwester (2004) reported that the corpus callosum that connects the

two hemispheres is slightly larger in females, females tend to have a more dominant left

hemisphere and males a more dominant right hemisphere, males seem to have a slight edge in

  13

systematizing and females in empathizing, females seem to have an edge on factual recall and

males on conceptual recall, males seem to depend more on geometric cues and females on

landmarks, and the typical male stress response is a fight/flight aggressive response whereas in

females it is often a tend/befriend nurturing response. Therefore, given that there are anatomical

differences and the notion of gender lies on a continuum, rendering stereotypes inaccurate, there

are general male and female tendencies in effect.

In addition, Goldberg (2009) reported his work on adaptive decision making styles and

found that males are more context-dependent and females more context-independent. The

implications, he argued, inform how males and females tend to react to novel and chaotic

situations. Males, he stated, operating more from a context-dependent perspective, do not have a

default response option, and “will attempt to capture the unique properties of the situation at

hand right away even though the available information may be woefully insufficient,” resulting

in comparatively erratic behaviors when confronting new situations (p. 128). Goldberg (2009)

suggested that while a balanced decision making strategy is probably optimal, in highly unstable

environments a context-dependent (male-like) approach is preferable. This has important

implications in modern society with increasing pace of change. He also reported that “it has been

known for some time that structural, biochemical, and functional differences between the

hemispheres are greater in males than in females” and that this is true of the frontal lobes as well

(p. 124). He reported that certain neurological diseases are more prevalent in males than in

females, such as schizophrenia, Tourette’s syndrome, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder,

and that all of these diseases are associated with the frontal lobes. In addition, Goldberg (2009)

reported that “left-right (hemisphere) differences are better articulated than in the female brain”

but “in the female brain the front-back differences are better articulated than in the male brain”

  14

(p. 135). In summary, he suggested that this all paints “a rather elegant, equitable picture of two

complementary neuroanatomical connection emphases in males and females which may account

for some of the fundamental cognitive differences between the two sexes” (p. 135).

Symposium Overview

Sessions for the symposium were designed as a direct result of the literature review

above. Given the symposium objective, to maximize learning by emphasizing right brain

engagement, the sessions are designed to primarily stimulate right hemispheric functioning. The

literature clearly reveals that such engagements include humor, music, stories, dance, games,

poetry, noise, light, color, audiovisuals, vivid imagery, graphic organizers, drawing, painting,

social structure, emotional connections, interaction, mobility, flexible grouping, differentiation,

student-relevant content, creative repetition, collaborative discussion, peer teaching, feedback,

reflection, and constructing tactile representations of content.

In addition, the sessions as outlined below support the further development of teacher

pedagogical mental maps. Black and Gregersen (2008) reported that people develop competence

through experiences over time and these successes create mental maps that guide behavior. It can

be argued, by extension, that teachers tend to form teaching and learning routines that can

become imbalanced, such as the literature suggests is the case with the preponderance of left

brain centric education. This symposium, therefore, may serve as stimulus to rebalance whole

brain learning. Also, the symposium serves as a miniature learning organization, such as Senge

(1990) called, for where colleagues continually enhance professional abilities toward desired

organizational objectives.

  15

Kickoff and keynote address.

At 12:45 the author will welcome the entire middle school and introduce the guest

speaker, Daniel H. Pink, a leading author and thinker in whole brain learning. Mr. Pink will

deliver a 25-minute presentation reviewing advances made in the 20th century and highlight the

need for greater right brain engagement in the 21st century. As the literature clearly suggests,

lecture will be greatly minimized from the outset of the symposium. Following Mr. Pink’s

address the author will briefly describe the flexible organization of the symposium including a

schematic of the location of the 13 continuously running sessions, participants will have the

opportunity to ask questions, and will then be released to begin their experiences. Students will

be released according to the plan. Posters will be placed throughout the PAC showing the

locations of the sessions. Should participants arrive late and miss Mr. Pink’s keynote address, it

will be digitally recorded and posted to the symposium wiki. Information on the digital resource

component of the symposium is addressed below.

Session details.

As stated above, the PAC is an excellent venue since it includes a large auditorium, large

stage, multi-tiered lobby area, and multiple smaller rooms around the periphery of the

auditorium. This arrangement is ideal for an open format, multiple session, multiple station,

cross-disciplinary multi-sensory learning environment that will appeal to the right brain. The

middle school drama teachers will run two movement and dance sessions on the stage, the

orchestra teacher will run the music session on the second floor, the two art teachers will run the

drawing and painting workshops in one side room to facilitate resource and idea sharing, and

eight multi-media interactive laptop sessions will be run with two in each of two side rooms and

four set up in the top two tiers of the lobby.

  16

The 13 sessions, repeating approximately every 30 minutes, are designed to primarily

engage right brain learning, are overviewed as follows. The movement and dance sessions on the

PAC stage will focus on the importance of big picture orientation, choreography of learning,

emotional connections, kinesthetics, social structure, mobility, interaction, noise, and flexible

grouping techniques. The art sessions will focus on drawing and painting using vivid imagery,

light, color, graphic organizers and mind mapping, feedback, reflection, and constructing tactile

representations of academic content. The orchestra session will focus on music, differentiation,

peer teaching, collaborative discussion, feedback, and reflection. The eight interactive laptop-

based sessions will be divided into four core subject learning centers (mathematics, science,

language arts, and social studies) focusing on multi-media audiovisuals and will engage

participant learning with the use of humor, stories, games, poetry, student-relevant content, and

creative repetition as right brain stimulants. While the engagements will center on a given core

subject area, they will utilize cross-disciplinary content.

Participants are free to move about the sessions in any order they choose and are

encouraged to attend them all, if only briefly. Even if participants attend only half of the sessions

they should begin to see strong connections about the key elements of right brain learning,

including multi-sensory, larger context, social, and active student-relevant content. Following the

keynote address when participants move to the sessions, the author and Mr. Pink will float

amongst the 13 stations, answer questions, and assist in any way necessary to maximize

participant learning. Since Mr. Pink’s time will be secured for the day, in the morning he will

have met with the superintendent and campus principals to brainstorm how the school can

effectively address strategic educational needs of the school.

  17

Participant connection making.

In order to facilitate teachers with making useful connections between symposium

offerings and their work with students, a prompt sheet will be provided in the email invitation

and given to each participant at the symposium. The author will also post a Microsoft Word

version of the document on the wiki as described below. The prompt sheet will include such

transfer prompts as How is this session relevant to your teaching?, What ideas does this session

spark in making right brain connections in your teaching?, In what unit(s) does this thinking best

fit?, When do these units occur this year?, and What are your next steps as a result of this

session? The final two prompts will be What parts of this symposium are best? and What specific

parts of this symposium need improvement and what suggestions do you have? These final two

prompts will facilitate meaningful symposium feedback from the survey as discussed below.

Feedback.

The primary objective of the symposium is helping teachers ‘turn right’ to maximize

student learning by more fully engaging the right hemisphere as students prepare for the

21st century global workplace which promises to place a premium on right brain function. It is

important to determine how effectively this occurred, so feedback in the form of a Survey

Monkey online survey will be administered. The author will design a short, 10-item maximum

questionnaire to be anonymously completed by teachers, administrators and grade eight students

who attended the symposium. An email including a thank you and the survey link will be sent

out Thursday, September 19, the day following the symposium, asking for completion by the end

of the following week. The feedback will be analyzed with strengths and areas for improvement

highlighted. Since the author will have the benefit of attending all symposium sessions with Mr.

Pink, his feedback will also be gathered. The author will share all feedback with the middle

  18

school leadership team and, if the principal believes appropriate, a short report will be given to

the entire faculty at an upcoming Wednesday after school meeting. In addition, with the feedback

shared, the author will offer suggest that a symposium debrief be added to the leadership team

meeting agenda to determine sentiments toward the offering of a future symposium. A future

symposium would be built on the successes of the first, be improved accordingly, and take into

account the latest literature on whole brain learning.

Digital resources.

As mentioned above, laptops will be widely used as learning resources beginning with

the keynote address and extending to eight sessions, and a prompt sheet will be provided to

facilitate transfer to individual teachers. The author will create a wiki entitled Turn Right for

Whole Brain Learning Symposium that will include the keynote address, all links, handouts, and

digital tools used in the sessions. This will facilitate later use by teachers and administrators as

the school goes about implementing best practices that ensure whole brain learning engagement,

and can serve as the digital platform for future symposiums.

Conclusion

This symposium plan attempts to address the key elements necessary to design and

orchestrate an inaugural Turn Right for Whole Brain Learning Symposium. The plan addresses

guidance from the literature, logistics, marketing, an outstanding keynote speaker, session

content, student involvement, prompts to help participants gain actionable takeaways, feedback,

and improvement toward a potential future symposium. As with most new initiatives, there will

be unforeseen challenges but this plan should result in an excellent experience that will benefit

student development on the 21st century educational superhighway.

  19

References Bellah, K. A., Robinson, J. S., Kaufman, E. K., Akers, C., Haase-Wittler, P., & Martindale, L.

(2008). Brain-based learning: A synthesis of research. NACTA Journal, 52(2), 15-22. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/docview/214 372917?accountid=6579

Black, J. S., & Gregersen, H. B. (2008). It starts with one: Changing individuals changes

organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Wharton School Publishing. Fanselow, M. S., & Poulos, A. M. (2005). The neuroscience of mammalian associative learning.

Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 207-234. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com. ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/docview/205751441?accountid=6579

Goldberg, E. (2009). The new executive brain: Frontal lobes in a complex world. New York,

NY: Oxford University Press. Hawkins, V. J. (2009). Barriers to implementing differentiation: Lack of confidence, efficacy

and perseverance. New England Reading Association Journal, 44(2), 11-16,92-93. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/docview/206 028501?accountid=6579

Johansson, B. B. (2008). Language and music: What do they have in common and how do they

differ? A neuroscientific approach. European Review, 16(4), 413-427. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1017/S1062798708000379

Madrazo, G. M., Jr., & Motz, L. L. (2005). Brain research: Implications to diverse learners.

Science Educator, 14(1), 56-60. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy local.library.nova.edu/docview/228762519?accountid=6579

Nikolaenko, N. N. (2005). Sex differences and activity of the left and right brain hemispheres.

Journal of Evolutionary Biochemistry and Physiology, 41(6), 689-699. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s10893-006-0011-4

O'Boyle, M.,W. (2008). Mathematically gifted children: Developmental brain characteristics and their prognosis for well-being. Roeper Review, 30(3), 181-186. Retrieved from http://

search.proproquest.com.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/docview/206704276?accountid= 6579

Pink, D. H. (2006). A whole new mind: Why right-brainers will rule the future. New York, NY:

Penguin. Prigge, D. J. (2002). Promote brain-based teaching and learning. Intervention in School and Clinic, 37(4), 237. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxylocal.library.nova.

edu/docview/211748212?accountid=6579

  20

Roberts, J. W. (2002). Beyond learning by doing: The brain compatible approach. The Journal of Experiential Education, 25(2), 281-285. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com. ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/docview/274965338?accountid=6579

Rushton, S., & Larkin, E. (2001). Shaping the learning environment: Connecting

developmentally appropriate practices to brain research. Early Childhood Education Journal, 29(1), 25-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1011304805899

Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New

York, NY: Doubleday. Shore, R. A. (2012). "Profound levels of learning" through brain-based teaching: A tribute to

Roland Barth. The Educational Forum, 76(1), 129-136. Retrieved from http://search. proquest.com.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/docview/926834034?accountid=6579

Sylwester, R. (2004). How to explain a brain: An educator’s handbook of brain terms and

cognitive processes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Szirony, G. M., Burgin, J. S., & Pearson, L. C. (2008). Hemispheric laterality in music and math.

Learning Inquiry, 2(3), 169-180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11519-008-0034-4