| The nature of the relationship between neural network connections and concepts is that the more meaningful our learning of concepts, the greater the number of neural connections that are potentiated, and the greater the number of connections that are activated, the more meaningful our learning becomes. In philosophical terms(1), and in the terms used in consciousness studies(2), this implies that mind and brain are interactively interdependent, which is a basic premise of our work. |
 A ‘simple’ neuron, showing the synaptic cleft. |
| Concept development networks are not part of any computer networking system. (Although they can be incorporated into such systems, they are themselves independent.) The ‘networks’ referred to are neural networks(3) and their mental equivalents, these being the networks of what we generically referred to as ‘concepts’, that constitute our cognition. The greater the number of connections, the easier the access to the concept involved, and therefore the greater the meaning and utility (effectiveness) of application to the learner. |
 The Left and Right Cerebral Hemispheres, and the Corpus Callosum |
| We begin learning before we are born. There is evidence that we can recognise sounds, and smells at birth, and can recognise a face very soon after birth. These things occur because the brain’s neural networks are well developed before birth, even though they are not fully activated. This means that they have the potential to be linked into a complex, integrated network, but that this has not fully occurred. There is neuroscientific evidence that the development of the brain’s neural network does not cease at birth, but continues until the age of three years, this development being in part the pruning of surplus neurons, and in part an increase in the activation of new neuron (synaptic) connections. Up to the age of three the child is virtually a ‘learning machine’. |
 (Click for a larger image)The Cajal Nueron |
| Whereas, as adults, we direct our learning to what our experience has told us we need to know, as young children we are open to all experience. At about the age of three, the functions of the left cerebral hemisphere (LCH) develop, catch up with, and in some ways overtake those of the right (RCH). Later in life the LCH will have more neurons than the RCH. It is for this reason that the left cerebral hemisphere is sometimes (inaccurately) referred to as the dominant hemisphere. It has more neurons simply because it requires them in order to perform its functions. In reality, the two cerebral hemispheres operate in conjunction with each other via the corpus collosum, the fibrous bridge between the two hemispheres. Neither cerebral hemisphere can function very well without its counterpart, and both function best when acting in unison with the other, hence the advantage to the learner when both cerebral hemispheres are activated during learning.One example of the collaborative manner in which the two hemispheres co-operate is found in language, which is often well developed by the time a child is three. In fact many young children can have between fifty and two-hundred words by the age of two. The manner in which the two hemispheres collaborate to produce speech is that the left cerebral hemisphere deals with the acquisition of vocabulary and language, with the right cerebral hemisphere providing the essential nuances of paralanguage, such as intonation, emphasis, pacing and rhythm.This of course goes some way to proving the inaccuracy of the myth, which is an inaccurate summary of the work of Roger Sperry, The myth is that the left cerebral hemisphere is for language and maths, and the right is for art and music. The inaccuracy in the popular reporting of Sperry’s work has been responsible for many misconceptions. In fact, he reportedly argued in the 1960s, that ‘Interaction between the two results in the processing of information as a whole… accounts for the integral functioning of the brain as a whole. The activity of the brain as a whole involves more than the sum of its individual parts. The brain perceives and processes parts and wholes simultaneously. Brain research indicates that parts and wholes interact. The interactivity of the two hemispheres constitutes the physiological basis for the brain’s natural wholistic perspective. The brain’s potential for learning is a function of the interdependent and integrated functioning of the left and right hemispheres’.(4)Art, or drawing at least provides another example of the cerebral collaboration, with the right cerebral hemisphere dealing with pattern (or gestalt), and the left contributing the detail of the picture. Both of these examples provide even more evidence of how different (and quite disparate) parts of the brain collaborate, since in both of the examples, psychomotor skills are required. In the first example it is required in order to provide the co-ordinated movement of the tongue, lips, jaw, vocal cords and breathing to produce speech, and in the second example, to enable the holding of the drawing implement, and to control the movement of the arm. Both of these examples further disprove the old myth that only one part of the brain is in use at any particular time.It is likely that as a result of subsequent neural pruning, most of us have a larger neural network by the age of three years than we have during the rest of our lives, although we probably become more efficient in the use of what remains if our learning has been meaningful. It has been estimated that by the age of three we have one hundred billion neurons, each of which has at least one axon with one or more synaptic connections to other neurons. Through the activation of neurons through the axons and dendrites, the neurons are potentiated so that the networks continue to grow, although in a more specialized manner, into our late teens or beyond. Although the number of connections are believed to decrease during the late teens or twenties, this could be due to a decrease in meaningful learning. In most people the decrease continues, but there is some evidence that it increases again later for some individuals who find a new interest or activity as they near the official retirement age. In brief, an active neural network means an active brain, and an active brain means a more fulfilled mental and emotional life.
These ‘networks’ are graphic networks, which mimic the mental networks, or networks of concepts through which we learn, think, create new ideas and solve problems. Essentially, both the graphic and mental networks mimic the neural networks of the brain, which are considered to be the neurological basis of the development and interactions of mental concepts. It could be said that the whole of life is a matter of consolidating the mental and neurological networks, even to the level of the psychomotor and sensory systems. Because of the complexities of the brain’s physical neural networks, attempts to describe them in a simple manner inevitably result in inaccuracies due to over-simplifications, such as arguably occurred with the reporting of the discoveries by Sperry with regard to the functioning of the left and right cerebral hemispheres. These led to ‘Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain’(5) and ‘Mind Maps’(6). By taking advantage of the different ways in which the left and right cerebral hemispheres function, and by increasing their interaction via the corpus callosum, we provide further integration (integration of function). This increases the ability of the neural network in creativity and problem solving, and in integrated complex and multi-concept development, sometimes even beyond the ability of the learner to describe them verbally. This means that tacit learning and intuitive gestalt creativity become activated. These factors are believed to be at the root of most original thinking. Importantly, it also improves our ‘cross-referencing’ ability, which is the root of meaningful learning, occurring because of the increased relatedness of the synaptic connections of the neural cortex, and the improved synergy of the left and right cerebral hemisphere functions, in unison with the prefrontal cortex and the hippocampus. In essence, each connection equates with another stage of development and of a more widespread concept network. |
 |
|
The Hippocampus |
 |
| The Prefontal Cortex |
| When we facilitate concept development networks we assist the learner in the development of this schematic network in a structured and disciplined manner, so that it is applicable in any subject matter area or discipline, whether it be in the sciences, arts or humanities. Furthermore, it is the most applicable route to the cross curricula or multidisciplinary learning methodologies being promoted in the more advanced educational systems, recently including that of the UK.The major advantages of concept development networks are that, (1) they allow for algorithms and hierarchical analysis, (2) by multi-layering, they allow for continuous or staggered (plateaux) development, (3) they encourage cross-curricula and interdisciplinary networking, and (4) they allow for listing and cross-referencing during the learner’s developmental phases.Whilst the first three of these are of significance to the learner during formal education, the listing and cross-referencing functions are possibly most important in terms of improved efficiency in learning throughout the development of the individual.David P Ausubel’s idea ‘meaningful learning’ now seems obvious to those of us involved in human development and education. Neuroscience has given the proof to validate his theory, and we now know that meaningful (effective) learning occurs when we increase the number of connections in the brain’s neural network. Equally obvious is the validity of his argument that meaningful learning requires that we take the learner ‘from the known to the unknown’, implying that in order to teach effectively we need to know ‘where the learner is at’ in their development. He argued that learning takes place by the assimilation of new concepts and propositions into existing concept and propositional frameworks held by the learner. It has also been argued that it is the ever-changing neural network system which gives rise to the development of our ‘frame of reference’, the data base according to which we live out most of our lives. Kandel(7) later proved that ‘memories are stored in the new neural connections FORMED DURING LEARNING’.Whilst we might feel now that this is obvious, at the time, a lot of ‘teaching’ was in point of fact simply ‘telling’, (rote teaching) which we now know does not require learning, but only remembering. At that time many classroom hours were taken with up enabling the pupil to simply ‘remember and repeat’ such phrases as ‘one and one are two, two and two are four…’. Unfortunately, some of this rote teaching persists to this day, but the problem still remains that it provides no integration of connections within the neural network. A few years after Ausubel’s discovery, Professor Joseph D Novak(8) of Cornell University developed a method of introducing meaningful learning into the teaching of science using a form of networks which he described as ‘C’maps or ‘concept maps’. These should not be confused with ‘Mind Maps®’, a method of note-taking, registered to Tony Buzan, who claims to be ‘the world’s leading author, lecturer and adviser to government, businesses, the professions, universities and schools, on the brain, learning and thinking skills’(9). Nor should they be confused with Stan Rosenthal’s ‘network’ (or ‘CDN’ system. To overcome any confusion, the three systems are described briefly. Professor Novak’s novel approach was to use graphic mapping to aid concept development. This system had not been used in education up to that time, but the American government, anxious not to fall behind Russia in science and technology, invested heavily in concept mapping for science education. Many of today’s leading American educated scientists owe their careers in large part to the application of concept mapping to meaningful learning, proving the efficacy of both concept mapping and meaningful learning. At about the same time, two networking systems were being employed by DoD and NASA in the USA on large scale projects, to integrate the work of sub-contractors, and Stan Rosenthal (later to become founder and CEO of Meaningful Learning Ltd) was independently introducing the network methods, known then as Critical Path Analysis, and Programme Evaluation and Review Technique) into the UK. Some years later (1974) Tony Buzan ‘formally introduced Mind Maps to the world’(10), and as Owen Kelly, writes, “He intends to imply that the technique he is selling reaches the parts of the human mind that remain inaccessible to other forms of thinking and planning. His evidence for this claim seems to be secondhand at best, but you are free to believe him….I have read allegations that academic studies have disproved many of the claims Buzan has made for mind maps…”(11) There are various rules for mind-mapping, but Tony Buzan suggests that the user develops his or her own style. Whilst mind-mapping is doubtless of use to many learners, we believe its main drawback to be that it is strictly hierarchical, developing ‘family tree’ or ‘organization chart’ type graphics radiating out from a centre point. Whereas Tony Buzan claims this is essential, others might feel that this is an encumbrance. Novak’s concept maps have multiple finishing points, and Rosenthal’s Concept Development Networks (CDN) allow for multiple start and finishing points as these relate to a specific topic. The ‘loose’ concepts can then become linked to a larger network by the inclusion of further concepts learnt later in the development of the individual. Prof. Novak himself describes concept map structures as being ‘dependent on the context in which they will be used, (so) it is best to identify a segment of a text, a laboratory activity, or a particular problem or question that one is trying to understand. This creates a context that will help to determine the hierarchical structure of the concept map’(12). Whilst concept mapping was to become widely known in the USA, there was no equivalent knowledge of the system in the UK. But in the meantime, Rosenthal researched its development for use both with the British National Curriculum, and for graduate and postgraduate education in this country. With the announcement of the introduction of cross-curricula activities into the New National Curriculum, he saw how networking could be used to advantage by those being educated in the UK. A particular advantage of networking is the fact that the user can employ multiple starts and or finishes to their network. This encouraging both divergent and convergent thinking, and allows for ‘loose ends’ which can be used to link with concepts from other disciplines, encouraging cross curricula and interdisciplinary concepts (in the example below these are marked with an x). As demonstrated by the same example, even at a provisional level, the system can integrate religion, sociology and music. |
 (Click for a bigger image)Klesmer network |
| The background to this particular network is also interesting in its own right. Meaningful Learning Ltd received an email from an Open University music student suffering from shingles (herpes zoster), a debilitating nerve infection. She had an essay to write, based on a CD of a piece of music, and said she was finding it very difficult to ‘sort out her thoughts’, and so was contacting Meaningful Learning’ to discover if CDN could help. Knowing nothing of her subject, we suggested she ‘phone us, and for an hour or so, we explained CDN to her, and asked her some questions, telling her only how she could compile a network diagram from the answers she gave. (Part of the diagram is shown below, together with the text derived from that part of the diagram). She ‘phoned us back a couple of hours later, and explained how compiling the CDN had ‘prodded her memory’, a few weeks later she ‘phoned again to tell us she was delighted to have gained the marks she needed. (The concepts marked with an ’x’ were not analysed or developed further. If the network was to have been submitted with her essay, they would probably have been omitted, the introductory concepts (Music and Instruments) would have been shown is a different shaped or coloured enclosure, as would the ‘linking (interdisciplinary) concepts ( Religion, Sociology and Instruments). The student wrote in her essay, “The track on the CD is an example of ‘Klezmer’ music, a form of Jewish music, specifically ‘Ashekenazy’ (northern and eastern European, rather than southern European). It is music played at special functions, usually of a celebratory nature. The instruments performing the music are clarinet, violin and double bass. The word ‘klezmer’ derives from to two Yiddish words, ‘kley’ meaning ‘instrument’, and ‘zemor’, meaning ‘song’. It is usually played at celebratory functions such as weddings and ‘bar-mitzphas’, where it accompanies dancing.” For the purposes of this document, the term ‘concept’ implies any unit of learning, whether it is related to cognition, affect, social ability or psychomotor skill. In cognitive psychology the term is used in a more limited sense, to represent a unit of intellectual knowledge. Because it is now widely accepted that even cognitive learning is influenced by the other elements, we have introduced other references, so that if required, these other disparate aspects of learning can be included as an interface in the concept development network, and so that we can distinguish between them more easily when compiling an integrated CDN for cross-curricula purposes. This new addition is just another of the advantages (in the UK at least) of CDN over other systems generically known as ‘mapping’, but it is not always necessary, as is shown by this CDN produced as a ‘skeleton’ for the book, ‘How Art Happens’. |
 Book skeleton network(Click for bigger image) |
(1) ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY: MACMILLAN AND FREE PRESS: 1967
(2) THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN CONSCIOUSNESS AND CONCEPTS
(3) FOR THE SAKE OF SCIENTIFIC ACCURACY, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE NEURAL NETWORKS REFERRED TO IN ‘COMMON LANGUAGE’ TERMS DO NOT ACTUALLY CONSIST OF ‘JOINED TOGETHER’ NEURONS. INREALITY THE NEURONS ARE SEPERATED BY THE SYNAPTIC CLEFT BETWEEN THE AXONS AND DENDRITES, AS SHOWN ABOVE, RIGHT. IT IS THE ELECTRO-CHEMICAL IMPULSES ACROSS ACROSS THE SYNAPTIC CLEFT THAT CREATES LEARNING AND MEMORY, PROBABLY BY CHANGING THE ELECTRICAL RESISTANCE OF THE TRANSMITTERS (AXONS) AND RECEPTORS (DENDRITES).
(4) SPERRY, R W: REPORTED IN www.holisticeditor.com (DOWNLOADED 29/02/08)
(5) EDWARDS, B: DRAWING ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE BRAIN: HARPERCOLLINS; 2001
(6) BUZAN, THE MIND MAP BOOK: BBC (DATE UNKNOWN)
(7) Kandel, E R: IN SEARCH OF MEMORY; THE EMERGENCE OF A NEW SCIENCE IN MIND: W W NORTON & CO: ny: 2006
(8) Novak, J D: A Theory of Education: Cornell University Press: Ithica, Y, 1977
(9) Buzan, Tony with Buzan, Barry: The Mind Map ® Book: BBC Active: Harlow: 2006
(10) Buzan, Tony with Buzan, Barry: The Mind Map ® Book: BBC Active: Harlow: 2006
(11) Kelly, O: http://pkab.wordpress.com/2008/01/21/concept-maps-are-not-mind-maps/
