“Neuro” is popping up increasingly in ELT. For instance, in a recently published piece by Cambridge University Press on “neurolearning” the author argues that “neurolearning” is useful for creating a “brain-compatible environment”. The article goes on to use language like “Homeostasis” and “Hypothalamus” in order to suggest rather ordinary things like keeping the classroom at a good temperature. The author published another article saying that “no matter the target language, try to think about activities that will appeal to the different learning styles – visual, auditory and kinaesthetic.” and “a brain-compatible environment can only be created by a passionate teacher”. Unfortunately, after some online criticism, the page seems to have been removed. Exactly what the word “neuro” adds to any of the approaches suggested in article, is not clear.
Neurolanguage Coaches are trained in the practical application of neuroscientific principles, relating to how the brain learns, functions and reacts, in particular in relation to emotional triggers when learning a language, drawing Krashen´s affective filter into the scientific evidence arena.
Bloblolgy
Another curious side-effect of the rise of Neuro are the endless pictures of colourful brains accompanied by effusive explanations that this proves that X or Y is the case:
Here’s a spot that lights up when subjects think of God (“Religion center found!”), or researchers find a region for love (“Love found in the brain”). Neuroscientists sometimes refer disparagingly to these studies as “blobology,” their tongue-in-cheek label for studies that show which brain areas become activated as subjects experience X or perform task Y. (link)
This current “neurophilia” is not completely without precedent in ELT. The 90s saw a rise in popularity of Neuro-linguistic programming. NLP, which has very strong pseudoscientific elements became so popular that it made appearances in a number of respectable people’s work. And what concerns me is that people who might have previously been previously swept up in various “brain-based” approaches might now be getting swept up in the “neuro” craze.
For example, I recently discovered that the “language teacher“Journal had had an NLP special edition (volume 21, no. 2) and one of the contributors to this special edition, an advocate of educational hypnosis and a proponent of NLP, is also a founder of the JALT Brain, Mind and Education sig. Other founders have also published articles on, for example, the Kolb model of learning styles, the learning pyramid (a theory which must surely be on life support at this point) and a study into the VAK learning styles of over 30,000 dental students.
These articles are fairly old and it is possible that the authors no longer buy into these kinds of practices. Evidence for this can be seen in that the group has a handy neuro myths website and the NeuroELT website explicitly warns readers to watch out for neuromyths. The creator of “neurolanguage coaching®” has, likewise, explicitly distanced herself from NLP (her upcoming conference, however, does feature one speaker who is an NLP practitioner.) All of this is reassuring, but I am still left with a linger sense of unease about the prospects for “neuro” in ELT.
Enjoyable read, as always.\”This current \”neurophilia\” is not completely without precedent in ELT.\”You may already be aware of this of course, but just in case not, you might be interested to know that the relation between linguistics and mysticism of one kind or another seems to have been a recurring theme for quite some time.The legendary phonetician Daniel Jones, for instance, had a strong interest in Theosophy, a kind of new age religion whose Wikipedia entry explains that it:\”teaches that there is an ancient and secretive brotherhood of spiritual adepts known as the Masters, who—although found across the world—are centered in Tibet. These Masters are believed to have cultivated great wisdom and supernatural powers, and Theosophists believe that it was they who initiated the modern Theosophical movement through disseminating their teachings via Blavatsky.\”Christopher Hutton's excellent book, \”Linguistics and the Third Reich: Mother-tongue fascism, race and the science of language\” (1998) includes a catalogue of frankly bizarro world beliefs that were nevertheless considered to have been rooted in science-based enquiry.Chapter 8, which includes a subsection entitled Theosophy and anthroposophy: linuists as cranks?', is particularly illuminating on the whole question of Woo and scientificised mysticism.As Hutton says (p. 233):\”[L]inguistics – overtly or covertly – also reflects the wider intellectual obsessions of the surrounding culture. Ideas promoted by linguists about form and meaning, human and ethnic origins, homelands and migrations, community and communication, put them in the company of mystics and dreamers, social visionaries and utopian theorists. For linguistics is fundamentally a search for transcendence, for insight into the language system in its purest state, and the subject matter of linguistics – language(s) – resists easy ontological categorization, complicating the relationship between linguistics and the ‘hard’ sciences on the one hand, and the human and social sciences on the other.\”
LikeLike
Hi! Thanks for reading and thanks for this fantastic comment. I had no idea about the link between linguistics and mysticism. I'm off to see if I can get a hold of that book now! THe quote \”[L]inguistics – overtly or covertly – also reflects the wider intellectual obsessions of the surrounding culture.\” Made me chuckle. We are still so much in the grip of \”wider intellectual obsessions\” to this day.
LikeLike
No worries!I think you'll enjoy it a lot – certainly that chapter if not the rest.Hope you're managing the Covid madness OK.
LikeLike