Ten O'Clock Scholar - Learning styles of girls vs. boys

In general, do girls and boys have different learning styles? Find out here!

                It seems that the different learning styles reflect, in general, the learning differences between girls and boys. Of course there are always exceptions, but girls tend to be more audio-sequential (left-brain), while boys tend to be more visual-spatial (right-brain). No wonder boys typically do better with 3-dimensional video games and girls generally enjoy writing more! (For more in-depth discussion of learning styles, see my previous blogs.)

                This is counter-intuitive to the original left-brain/right-brain theory of men vs. women, but explains why many boys don’t catch up academically to girls until middle school age. I was always taught that men were more logical and left-brained, and women were more right-brained. Dr. Silverman’s research shows, not necessarily. Perhaps the idea that men are more “logical” stems from the truth that it is more common for females to network both brain hemispheres simultaneously, whereas males tend to use one side at a time. Often men don’t to understand the leaps that women make in connecting multiple data streams, therefore think they are illogical. Quite the opposite is true, actually.

                Plus, socially it is more acceptable for women to express emotions, so they do. The emotions can still be based on intuitive logic, but misunderstood by men, who have learned to suppress most emotions in public (except anger). Both sexes feel the whole range of emotions, but their intensity and manifestation may differ. And what is important to males and females may be different, whether genetic, social, or both. Thus they can misinterpret each other’s motivating factors. This does not mean one is more logical or emotional than the other. They complement each other.

                Personally, I seem to have parts of both learning-styles: I learn better by seeing than hearing, but I am more sequential than spatial. Call me, visual-sequential, with a little of everything else thrown in.

        There is an intriguing article by Sharon Begley, Gray Matters, Newsweek (March 27, 1995), at http://www.newsweek.com/1995/03/26/gray-matters.html. Quoting several sections:

                “Of course men and women are different. Boy, are they different. In every sphere of life, it seems, the sexes act, react or perform differently. Toys? A little girl daintily sets up her dolls, plastic cups and saucers, while her brother assembles his Legos into a gun -- and ambushes the tea party. Navigating? The female tourist turns her map every which way but right, trying to find the way back to that charming bistro, while her boyfriend charges ahead, remembering every tricky turn without fail. Relationships? With spooky intuition, women's acute senses pick up subtle tones of voice and facial expressions; men are insensitive clods who can't tell a sad face until it drenches them in tears. Cognition? Females excel at language, like finding just the right words to make their husbands feel like worms; males can't verbalize even one good excuse for stumbling home at 2 a.m.

                “Stereotypes? Maybe -- but as generalizations they have a large enough kernel of truth that scientists, like everyone else, suspect there's something going on here. As Simon LeVay, a Salk Institute neuroscientist put it recently, "There are differences in the mental lives of men and women.''

And from a scientific study:

                “With new technologies like functional magnetic resonance imaging (FMRI) and positron emission tomography (PET), researchers catch brains in the very act of cogitating, feeling or remembering. Already this year researchers have reported that men and women use different clumps of neurons when they take a first step toward reading and when their brains are "idling.'' And, coming soon to a research journal near you, provocative studies will report that women engage more of their brains than men when they think sad thoughts -- but, possibly, less of their brains when they solve SAT math problems.

                “Twenty-two male and 22 female students were PET-scanned while they solved SAT math problems. By detecting areas of the brain using the most blood, PET pinpoints active regions.

                “Male students with high SAT scores showed intense activity in the temporal lobes (red spots at top and sides), compared with men with average scores. In men, it seems, ability is related to how hard the brain works.

                “Brain activity in the mathematically gifted women was less intense than in the high-SAT men, even though their scores were comparable. These women expended no more neural effort than the average-SAT women.

                Summarized from the PET Scan Photo:

·         The region of the cerebral cortex that helps control hearing, memory and a person's sense of self and time, is stronger in men.

·         Women have more neurons in a tiny region of the temporal lobe behind the eye, which understands language as well as melodies and speech tones. In cognitively normal men, this region has about 10 percent fewer neurons than it does in women.

·         The bundle of neurons that is the main bridge between the left brain and the right, carrying messages between them is larger in men. (A bigger brain area matters only if it has more neurons, the cells that carry communications, in it. This is not yet proven.)

·         In women, the back part of the callosum is bigger than in men. This may explain why women use both sides of their brain for language. A man's corpus callosum takes up less volume in his brain than a woman's does, suggesting the two hemispheres communicate less.

·         In men, the commissure is smaller than it is in women, even though men's brains are, on average, larger than women's. The larger commissure in women may be another reason their two cerebral hemispheres seem to work in partnership on tasks from language to emotional responses.

                “Women tend to have better language skills -- perhaps because the emotional right brain enriches their left-brain vocabulary. And women have better intuition -- perhaps because they are in touch with the left brain's rationality and the right's emotions simultaneously.

                “Women can't understand why men find it so hard to be sensitive to emotions. According to the PET scans, women's brains didn't have to work as hard to excel at judging emotion. Women's limbic system, the part of the brain that controls emotion, was less active than the limbic system of men doing worse. That is, the men's brains were working overtime to figure out the faces. But the extra effort didn't do them much good.

                “Men and women were asked whether the expressions on actors' faces were sad or happy and were monitored by PET scans as they decided”

                “Men did as well as women -- 90 percent right -- in identifying happy male and female faces. But they were worse at sensing sad women. Overall, women were better able to judge facial expressions of both sexes. The PET scan showed their brains required less energy than the men's to decide.

                “But if the first tantalizing findings are any clue, the research will show that our identities as men and women are creations of both nature and nurture. And that no matter what nature deals us, it is we -- our choices, our sense of identity, our experiences in life -- who make ourselves what we are.”

                Great article, right?! But some people may try to use such scientific data to prove one sex is superior over the other. The truth is, society needs both types of brains, male and female, to function well. Our need for men’s single-minded focus and for women’s networking abilities became obvious to me in a wonderful book, Women's Diaries of the Westward Journey, by Lillian Schlissel, Schocken Books (1992).

                In her book the author gives the historical account of the United States’ westward movement through the eyes of the women. Historians typically write from the men’s journals and perspectives, but Schlissel’s work showed a different side to seeking land in Oregon, following the California gold rush, or the Mormon exodus to the Salt Lake Valley, to name a few of the prospects that pulled pioneers westward. The viewpoint of pioneer women gave a much richer flavor to the decisions and approaches to leave everything behind.

                Men sought the bigger picture, gold, land, religious freedom, with a one-track mind, and made sure the wagons, animals, tools, rifles, etc., were ready to go. Women saw the difficulties in the details of how to keep children safe, keep yeast-starter for bread dough alive, how to cook, how to find water, pack enough food, essentially take care of everyone’s everything. They had no desire to leave their established, comfortable homes in the East to head into the unknown. They must have been terrified to imagine giving birth without a midwife in the middle of nowhere. What if their children fell under the horses’ hooves or wagon wheels? What if they got sick? Most pioneer women would never have gone west if their husbands hadn’t insisted. Yet they were the glue that held the journey together.

                As I read these true stories, I realized that progress takes both men and women; men to fearlessly forge ahead, and women to make sure everyone is safe, nurtured and cared for. That does not mean that they are pigeon-holed in those roles; there is a lot of overlap as men and women help each other. But in general, men’s brains, using one brain hemisphere – or the other – at a time, give them the ability focus on the end goal. 

               Women’s brains, using both hemispheres simultaneously, give them the ability to keep track of the details of everyday life and families. Men may be more aggressive to confront problems, while women may be more willing to compromise. Both ways of thinking balance each other. Neither is superior. We should celebrate everyone’s gifts and appreciate each contribution to the community and family as a whole. I am equally proud of my eight daughters and my seven sons. All are encouraged to pursue whatever interests, talents, and vocations they enjoy.

                Some quote studies saying that our genes make us who we are. But that’s only part of the truth. Environment and our own free-will both play a big part in whom we choose to become. Our consciousness is more than just the genes in our DNA. In fact, we can choose to overcome our genetic tendencies.

Dr. Stanton E. Samenow’s book, “Before It’s Too Late – Why some kids get into trouble and what parents can do about it,” reports many cases of mind-over-matter in juvenile delinquents and their siblings. Nature plays a part in our tendencies; nurture plays a large part in galvanizing them; but our choices of how we respond to events play an equal part in whether we solidify those tendencies or not. Of course, good nurturing can help guide our choices towards the positive.  http://www.amazon.com/Before-Its-Late-Stanton-Samenow/dp/0812916468 

                Health Day News reports that “it's not nurture or nature that determine a predisposition toward delinquent behavior in adolescents, it's the combination of the two,” say researchers from the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. Genetics and social factors are tied to male delinquency: family, friends, and school all impact the expression of certain molecular variants.

                The American Sociological Review points to three genetic polymorphisms that, when paired with social factors, can predict future serious and violent delinquency:

                "While genetics appear to influence delinquency, social influences such as family, friends and school seem to impact the expression of certain genetic variants," said study author – Professor Guang Guo of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. "Positive social influences appear to reduce the delinquency-increasing effect of a genetic variant, whereas the effect of these genetic variants is amplified in the absence of social controls."

                "Our research confirms that genetic effects are not deterministic," Guo added. "Gene expression may depend heavily on the environment."

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/brain-and-behavior/articles/2008/07/17/genetics-social-factors-tied-to-male-delinquency 

                As Begley said, “…no matter what nature deals us, it is we -- our choices, our sense of identity, our experiences in life -- who make ourselves what we are.”

                This is why dyslexia is not genetic but induced. Even if a child has hearing-processing difficulties or genetic tendencies for dyslexia (and related disorders), his exposures to parenting and/or teaching methods are the most significant factors. The physical problems and tendencies can be surmounted. Triggers for dyslexia (et al), such as noise pollution and sight-reading, can be avoided. Early reading the right way erases dyslexic tendencies.

Taken from my book, Vol. 8, It's Not Rocket Surgery! by Shannah B Godfrey

http://thegodfreymethod.com