Arts with the Brain in Mind


Arts with the Brain in Mind

by Eric Jensen



Copyright © 2001 by Eric Jensen. All rights reserved. No part of this publication—including the drawings, graphs, illustrations, or chapters, except for brief quotations in critical reviews or articles—may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from ASCD.

Preface

I think it's fair for me to state up front what my biases are. You deserve to know what flavors this book. First, I am not, in any traditional way, an artist. We all create our lives in a broadly artistic way, and writing is certainly some kind of art or skill. But I have no vested interest in pushing any particular art expression. Second, I have no children enrolled in any schools where I'm trying to influence someone's education, in particular. And third, I am deeply committed to making a significant, positive, and lasting contribution to the education of all children. Although I do workshops and speak at conferences on learning with the brain in mind, I am, above all, an advocate for improving education. It has been through my research that I have come to support the arts.

This book is an exploration of how I came to support the arts. I started with three major questions. First, how do the arts stack up as a major discipline? Second, what is their effect on the brain, learning, and human development? Third, how might schools best implement and assess an arts program?

Education is not an either-or scenario. It's not the arts versus a rigorous, demanding curriculum. I want learning to be engaging, challenging, vigorous, and integrated. The arts should not be a path only for the alternative learner or those who would otherwise fail, any more than math is an easy path for those who can't do arts. I favor challenging work in all the disciplines (arts as one of them), with regular, accurate, and purposeful assessment and strong standards in learning.

Education must be attentive to individual differences and community building. Student-centered learning is better than teacher-centered learning. I support constructivism over mindless factual accumulation, and I favor depth over breadth of knowledge. I favor variety in education over one-size-fits-all. I want our schools to foster ethical, fair-minded, disciplined, cooperative, thoughtful, considerate, problem-solving, creative citizens.

Flying in the face of these hopes is an educational juggernaut unlike any we've seen in recent history. It's called "higher standards," and it's the latest version of the politician's Holy Grail. Some believe that higher standards will ensure that all learners do better in school. That may or may not be true. But there is no evidence that higher standards actually produces better human beings—unless accompanied by better-quality teaching, more targeted resources, greater opportunities for underserved populations, stronger role models, high expectations, and a dozen other key variables.

To reach these standards, educators seek some kind of strategy to get over the hump—some kind of "magic pill." Some are calling for a more rigorous core curriculum; for others, it's learning styles; and still others are determined that the multiple intelligences model will do the trick. The fact is, humans are unique; and educators need different approaches and strategies to reach a wide range of learners. Believe it or not, many schools, districts, and states have been using a powerful solution for decades. It's called the arts.

By making arts a core part of the basic curriculum and thoughtfully integrating the arts into every subject, you might not get the high test scores you want immediately. The evidence is mixed on that issue, though it leans in favor of the arts. If you do get higher scores, it certainly won't happen overnight. But much more important, you may get fewer dropouts, higher attendance, better team players, an increased love of learning, greater student dignity, enhanced creativity, a more prepared citizen for the workplace of tomorrow, and greater cultural awareness as a bonus. This book demonstrates that the collective data not only support the value of widespread arts implementation, but the evidence also shows no downside risk.

Only 28 of 50 states in the United States have arts requirements for graduation (Kantrowitz & Leslie, 1997). At least, that's up from just 2 states in 1980. A federally mandated basic arts education policy does not exist. That's not just embarrassing and inexcusable; it's irresponsible. Sufficient data exist to overwhelmingly support the fundamental value and role of arts on equal standing with every other so-called academic discipline, including science, languages, and math. It can no longer be called a "cultural add-on" or "right-brained frill." The times are changing, and arts are roaring back into curriculums with renewed purpose. They can no longer be targeted as a desperate solution for inner-city schools.

Art advocates are constantly being asked to show evidence that, for example, music improves math scores. Let's turn that around: Does math improve music? No one asks the questions, "Does math improve the arts? Does science improve reading? Does English actually improve the mind, or does it only serve as an accumulation of a snobbish bravado?" The fact is, we have historically assumed that other disciplines (excluding art) are valuable; yet they are not held to the same level of scrutiny to which art is now being held. For the few who remain convinced, after reading this book, that the arts are a frill, you might as well let computers take over and run civilization from a motherboard in an underground silo. Without arts, we can pack our tents, admit we have lost our humanity, and all go home to an online, pay-per-grade, computer-based education.

As we begin the new millennium, one of the questions raised will be "What can't technology do?" Computers will amass, modify, and manipulate data like never before. Revolutionary software programs will calculate, sort, summarize, write, edit, translate, compose, and present knowledge in unimaginable new ways. But what makes us most human is what will be the most desirable commodity. That's the ability to thoughtfully regulate, express, and channel emotions into arts such as music, performances, movement, painting, and design. Art will increase, not decrease in value.

The thesis of this book is that arts are not only fundamental to success in our demanding, highly technical, fast-moving world, but they are what makes us most human, most complete as people. Arts contribute to our growth as human beings. The time has come to take the arts seriously. At a time when higher standards are being thrust on all of us, arts have an even bigger place. Even if one could get the higher scores without a basic or integrated arts curriculum, do you really want to live in a world where the best that we have to offer is a high-test-score graduate, but a person who can't work with others, be creative and express himself, solve real-world problems, and do it with civility? I would not choose that world; would you?

Obviously, I'm making some strong claims about the value of arts. I want you to know I did not come to that decision frivolously. In this book I cite the scientific basis for my claims, as well as provide real-world examples of how to implement and how to assess an arts program. Though there will still be skeptics who are uncomfortable with a stronger arts role in school, the facts are in: You can make as good a case, or better, for arts than you can make for any other discipline.



Chapter 1

The Arts as a Major Discipline

Right from the start, it's imperative to understand that evidence from brain research is only one of many reasons to support the arts as an integral part of the educational process. There are studies that report benefits from a long-term arts curriculum, but many of them are deficient in some respect (Eisner, 1998). A recent Project Zero study (2000) cautioned against making causal links between arts and academic performance. This Harvard group is correct; arts are not to be used as a "quick fix" to shore up other nagging deficits in a district's educational process. Arts are for the long term; and one should be cautious in claims about how they affect test scores. In fact, a report by the Arts Education Partnership and the President's Committee on the Arts and the Humanities, funded by General Electric Corporation and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Champions of Change (Fiske, 1999), suggests that the influence of the arts is far wider and deeper than simply improved letter grades.

If we place value only on higher test scores—and if the tests measure only math, problem-solving, and verbal skills—the arts are at a clear disadvantage. If we demand quick results, the arts will not supply them. The arts develop neural systems that often take months and years to fine-tune. The benefits, when they appear, will be sprinkled across the spectrum, from fine motor skills to creativity and improved emotional balance.

In today's educational climate, delaying returns on investment beyond a few weeks is considered inefficient and sinful; and since art-making is inefficient, how does one justify arts in the curriculum? In the past, supporters of arts education tried to show it boosted test scores in other disciplines. Judith Burton of Columbia University gathered research to show that subjects such as science, mathematics, and language require complex cognitive and creative capacities "typical of arts learning" (Burton, Horowitz, & Abeles, 1999).

Eventually, though, the way the question is framed changes to, "Does music help math?" "Does art help language?" "Does P.E. help science?" That is ludicrous. The arts do not need—and may not be able—to justify their existence that way.

Second, and paradoxically, even if the arts did help every other discipline to a degree, it may not be the most efficient way to learn them. If students learn history through the arts, couldn't they learn it faster by doing it much more directly? It's essential to recognize that in this recent push for greater school efficiency (e.g., every minute counts), the arts are terribly inefficient. It is dreadfully time consuming to learn visual, musical, and movement arts. A theater group might rehearse for 100 minutes a day for 100 days to put on a single 90-minute play. For other students, long hours over several years are invested, with marginal artistic results. So now the question shifts to, If arts are not efficient, what are they?

Art as a Brain Developer

The central theme of this book is that the arts promote the development of valuable human neurobiological systems. Theories of the brain exist that help us understand what is going on when we do art. Chapters 2–4 introduce separate theories for the musical, visual, and kinesthetic arts. It's not enough to say that the arts probably benefit us; we ought to be able to articulate what goes on in the brain to make that happen. Chapter 5 addresses controversial arts assessment issues.

The arts enhance the process of learning. The systems they nourish, which include our integrated sensory, attentional, cognitive, emotional, and motor capacities, are, in fact, the driving forces behind all other learning. That doesn't mean that one cannot learn without the arts; many have. The arts, however, provide learners with opportunities to simultaneously develop and mature multiple brain systems, none of which are easy to assess because they support processes that yield cumulative results. The systems and processes are not, in and of themselves, the results. Testing the processes instead of results can narrow the development of the very neurobiological systems they depend on. Students will restrict their artistic activities in hopes of better grades.

It may be more important, finally, to value the nonacademic benefits of the arts. Why be sheepish about the possibility that the arts may promote self-discipline and motivation? What's embarrassing about countless otherart benefits that include aesthetic awareness, cultural exposure, social harmony, creativity, improved emotional expression, and appreciation of diversity? Aren't these the underpinnings of a healthy culture? In Champions of Change: The Impact of the Arts on Learning, the contributors highlight some of the "take-home" messages about arts (Fiske, 1999):

So the arts should be taught not only because there is some science that argues for their inclusion. We should support the arts in education because of their dynamic and broad-based value as a peer of every other widely accepted discipline.

What Makes a Major Discipline?

Let's start with a question. What makes a subject or discipline a "major discipline"? How do we decide what is worth making everybody study and learn? It's a difficult question, well worth exploring. I believe educators can use seven criteria to define major disciplines like science or languages. Let's discover whether or not the arts receive a passing grade as a major discipline.

  • Is the discipline assessable? Assessing the arts can and has been done. In Wisconsin, a coalition of art educators has worked closely with state leaders to create a comprehensive quality arts assessment (e.g., Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, 1997). Whether the arts should be assessed is a topic we'll explore later. For testing purposes, the arts are often broken down into the visual, musical, and kinesthetic (or movement) arts. But there are other ways to organize them. Many organizations, districts, and committees have done admirable, and at times, stunning jobs developing measurable criteria for excellence in all of the arts. Chapter 5 addresses the assessment issue in detail. Grade for the arts: Pass.

  • Is it brain based? Here we ask if there's a built-in biological basis for the discipline. Is it hard-wired into the brain? Are there identifiable places in the brain that respond only to that discipline? After all, there are language centers in the brain—what about the arts? As it happens, brain research in each of the three subdisciplines—visual, musical, and kinesthetic—has located anatomical structures dedicated to processing specific art experiences. Back in the late '70s and early '80s a myth arose that the arts are just a right-brain frill. This hang-over from the days of the "left brain is logical and the right brain is creative" is dead wrong. Chapters 2–4 present brain-based evidence showing the biological basis for art-making. And not only do the arts engage many areas of the brain (see Figure 1.1), but they also have multiple, far-reaching effects on the learner's mind. This book presents a comprehensive arts-based brain theory. Grade for the arts: Pass.

  • Is it culturally necessary? A discipline should serve clear cultural needs. It should promote the betterment of humanity as well as of local culture. In disciplines such as science the answer to this question is obvious. Learn science, then invent a vaccine like for polio and you're Jonas Salk. But what about the arts? Do they serve clear needs? The answer is yes. The arts promote the understanding and sharing of culture. The arts promote social skills that enhance awareness of others and tolerance of differences. The arts promote unity and harmony. They enhance cognitive and perceptual skills. They serve as vehicles for cultural identity and free expression. At Columbia University, Judith Burton's study of more than 2,000 children found that those in an arts curriculum were far superior in creative thinking, self-concept, problem-solving, self-expression, risk-taking, and cooperation than those who were not (Burton et al., 1999). Grade for the arts: Pass.

  • What is the downside risk? There must be a minimal or zero downside to education in the discipline. Could it hamper the learning process? Does it impede the learning of other disciplines—or potentially harm a person? There are no known cases where an arts curriculum, either integrated or modular, has, by itself, lowered test scores, increased problems, or reduced graduation rates. Even when the teaching of art is done at a suboptimal level, learners derive some benefit. Grade for the arts: Pass.

  • Is the discipline inclusive? A major discipline cannot be elitist. Can it be learned, if not mastered, by an overwhelming majority of students? Research and our own experience show that all levels of society can and do participate in the arts. Race, religion, culture, geography, and socioeconomic levels do not constitute barriers. In fact, underserved populations receive more benefit from exposure to the arts than other children. In the landmark document Champions of Change, Catterall, Chapleau, and Iwanaga (1999) report that 21 percent of students of low socioeconomic status who had been exposed to music scored high in math versus just 11 percent of those who had not. By 12th grade, the figures grew to 33 percent and 16 percent, respectively, suggesting a cumulative value to music education. The Suzuki method is another demonstration that nearly everyone can become a competent musician. The arts have the capacity to engage us all. Grade for the arts: Pass.

  • Does it have survival value? Is this discipline necessary for the species to survive? Mastering the skills of language or scientific inquiry clearly enhances survival. You can succeed in—not just cope with—this fast-moving world. The arts help, too, in less self-evident ways. Communities survive based not only on their technology, but also their culture. Art creates, enhances, and defines culture. The work of two cultural anthropologists (Coe, 1990; Dissayanake, 1988) demonstrates that art-making has been present for thousands of years, and may guide survival. Art-making facilitates the creation of large, strong communities that embody important values. These community values are established and shared through the metaphors of the visual, musical, and kinesthetic arts. Grade for the arts: Pass.

  • Is it wide ranging? The discipline must have subdisciplines that add breadth, depth, and credibility. We all recognize the tremendous breadth and depth of disciplines such as science, from biology to chemistry, from physics to electronics. The arts can hold their head just as high. Among the musical arts, we can include performance, listening, composing, arranging, analysis, singing, improvisation, and song writing. In the visual arts we can list drawing, photography, decoupage, illustration, costume design, computer-based graphics, film-making, set design, and the creation of communication tools. In the movement arts, the ranges run from physical education through drama, games, improvisation, dance, auto mechanics, sports, crafting, stretching or aerobic fitness, as well as disciplines like martial arts, yoga, and Tai Chi. Taken as a whole, the arts are wide ranging and deep in substance. Grade for the arts: Pass.

    • The arts should not be held to more rigorous standards than other major disciplines. Nor should they be held to any less of a standard. The criteria we've examined show the arts as fit for inclusion in the curriculum as any other discipline. Not just sometimes, when you happen to have an arts teacher, but every day, at every grade in every school, as a major discipline. No ifs, ands, or buts.

    Disarming Aversion to the Arts

    Often you'll encounter a person who is afraid that the "arts thing" is another one of the "liberal educational agendas" full of "touchy-feely" programs that vaporize when you try defend them. These critics of an arts curriculum have a concern—well, let me be more accurate—a deep fear. They fear that the arts are not as rigorous as, let's say, math. They fear students won't get the discipline of memorizing times tables. They fear the arts will compete for resources, or even that the arts might make education too enjoyable.

    I have news for critics of the arts as a major discipline. Times have changed. The cries for cultural literacy and "back to basics" ignore significant evolutions in today's world. The promoters of more content per school year are living in the past. Yes, there was a time when scholars could master a good deal of what was known. It was called the Dark Ages. But information has begun doubling, again and again, faster and faster. Today, a heavily content-based curriculum makes less and less sense.

    First, teachers' lectures and textbooks are no longer the primary sources of content in our world. Students are more likely to hear and see things on television or access information on the Internet. That changes the whole concept of an educational system as the source of content. Teachers can no longer stand in front of the class and tell students all the content they need to master. Filling the brain with knowledge is history. Content increases far too rapidly for mastery. Today, the "brass ring" in learning is not what you know, but knowing how to find information and how to use that information quickly, creatively, and cooperatively.

    Second, high school graduation rates for the first 20 years of the 20th century were close to 25 percent. Kids typically left school after the 8th grade and went to work. But during the Great Depression, those rare and precious jobs went only to family breadwinners, and teenagers stayed in school.

    By 1950 and through 1970, high school graduation rates in the United States averaged an estimated 50–70 percent. From the '70s to the end of the century, the number of graduates as a percentage of 18-year-olds remained close to 70 percent. The number of 25- to 29-year-olds with high school diplomas in 1995 rose to about 87 percent because of alternative programs such as night school (NCES, 1998).


    How Education Is Changing

    Old Reality

    More content added yearly

    Exclusive instruction

    Fewer students graduate

    Teach to the test

    Dichotomy of logic vs. art

    Knowledge is power

    The Digital World

    Students overloaded already

    Inclusive, differentiated instruction

    High graduated rates needed

    Learn for a real world

    Integrated art & science

    Emotional intelligence is key

    In the course of that increase in graduation rates, the educational agendas of the past 30 years became more inclusive. The students who used to drop out because of financial needs, behavior and attention disorders, poor memory, pregnancy, weak social skills, household violence, or a host of other problems, are now in schools. The bottom line is that so-called hard-to-reach students used to drop out. Now we are committed to helping them stay in school—and to succeed. The arts are the best vehicle available to do that job. This book presents data to support this claim.

    Third, the Information Age is different from what you thought it was. Knowledge is no longer key now that everyone has access to it. Rolf Jensen, director of the Copenhagen Institute for Futures Studies, gives us a glimpse into this new 21st century:

    We are in the twilight of a society based on data. As information and intelligence become the domain of computers, society will place a new value on the one human ability that can't be automated: emotion (Jensen, 1999, p. 84).

    He's right. For the last quarter of the 20th century, information was prized. If we could just make faster chips, we could process more information quicker. So we did. The laptop that this book was written on is more powerful than a roomful of computers from the '70s. But in the first part of a new millennium, it's not information we need. It's not content. It's not more facts, names, and concepts. Pouring more content down students' throats won't work. Advocates of more content are out of step with reality. Students today are flooded with data but often starved for meaningful learning. Students may not be able to name 10 elements from the Periodic Chart or five countries in South America, or tell you why winters are colder than summers or how to turn gallons into liters—but they'd better know where to find that information quickly. They'd better understand how to solve problems, what makes arguments plausible, how to build teams, and how to incorporate the concept of fairness into daily life. What employers are telling all of us in education is this: "We want thinkers, we want people skills, we want problem-solvers, we want creativity, and we want teamwork."

    So let me translate all of those real-world, workplace demands for you: Emotional balance and cognitive flexibility will become gold (if not platinum!) That's right. At the start of this new century, for those with emotional balance and cognitive flexibility, the world will be their oyster. They will have the social skills, self-discipline, and thinking skills to thrive in a fast-changing world.

    Finally, those critical of the arts are stuck in the old dichotomy between the arts and sciences. They often pit the arts and sciences against each other in meaningless, irrelevant oppositions such as touchy-feely versus high standards, right brain versus left brain, intuition versus logic, or enjoyment versus hard work. None of those hold up under scrutiny if you understand the brain. Studies demonstrate that both the arts and sciences use both sides of the brain and, in fact, some of the arts may use more of the brain than most science. Still, to incorporate the elements that lead to better thinkers and better people, I believe elementary and secondary policymakers ought to cut the volume of content in half. Students are asked to learn far too much trivia that they'll never remember past test time. Be honest with yourself. How much subject matter content do you remember from high school? Most would say under 5 percent. Let's learn not to value something just because it is easy to teach, is easy to test, and makes politicians look good.

    It's not the quantity of textbook pages assigned that makes students smart. It's how they learn to think about their new learning. Can they analyze it, critique it, and place it in context? Students need to study bigger, more difficult questions and to take the time to ponder and reflect. The more challenging and ambiguous the problems, the better. The more disciplines learning involves, the better. The longer it takes students to explore a topic, the better. We need less trivia and more in-depth learning about the things that matter the most in our world: order, integrity, thinking skills, a sense of wonder, truth, flexibility, fairness, dignity, contribution, justice, creativity, and cooperation. Does that sound like a tall order? The arts can do all that. We need more of the arts because they can do more of that than any other discipline.

    The critic who wants students to focus on higher test scores is really saying, "I want someone who values doing well on tests. I want someone who feels strongly about the long-term gains that might come from the test. I want someone who, even though he or she might have a headache or the flu, will set their cares aside and do well on the test."

    But what does that critic really want? Isn't that critic asking educators to inculcate strong shared values and the ability to self-regulate behavior? The arts can help do this. But remember that high test scores are just part of the overall set of indicators as to whether a student is doing well.


    Make the goal high test scores and you get a majority of students who get higher test scores and a minority who are turned off by learning and school. Make your priority better human beings and you'll not only get better test scores, you'll also get cooperative, self-disciplined, creative, and compassionate students with a real love of learning.

    A Postscript and Foreshadowing

    If you're wondering, right up front, if the arts-laden curriculum I propose will work, rest assured. One good model has been succeeding for more than 50 years: the Waldorf schools, independent, arts-centered institutions that are one of the fastest-growing educational models in the world, with 130 schools in the United States and 700 worldwide (visit the Association of Waldorf Schools of North America on the Web at http://www.awsna.org/awsna/ and search for Waldorf Schools; many schools have Web sites).

    Other exemplary schools—not in the Waldorf system—include Anza Elementary School in Los Angeles; Eliot Elementary in Needham, Massachusetts; and Davidson Middle/High School in Augusta, Georgia.

    At a Waldorf school, there are countless things to drive straight-line, high standards, bean-counting, highly competitive parents crazy. Waldorf teachers avoid textbooks. They heap on field trips, encourage journal reflections, downplay tests. These schools use the looping practice, where teachers stay with students for years, usually 1st through 8th grades. This places a premium on long-term relationships. Waldorf schools never force reading on students, focusing instead on love of languages and literature. Often children don't learn to read until age 7, 8, or even 9. Students often spend a whole year building a piece of furniture or a musical instrument. Valuable class time is used for community service. This kind of loosey-goosey schooling really tests the patience of anxious parents. Understandably, some panic and pull their children out of school.

    But something must be working. Prominent educational figures such as Howard Gardner and Theodore Sizer admire Waldorf schools. Oppenheimer (1999) recounts a number of facts about Waldorf: On Scholastic Assessment Tests, Waldorf students outperform national averages. Waldorf school records are full of athletic victories over schools two or three times their size. At a local martial arts studio, the instructor muses, "In thirteen years, I've had two black belts, both Waldorf kids." Graduates commonly get into the best universities. They often pass achievement tests at double or triple the rate for public school students. College professors remark about the humility, sense of wonder, concentration and intellectual resourcefulness of Waldorf graduates.

    So what is the secret? How do small, underfunded private schools produce successful graduates like Oscar-winning actor Paul Newman, Nobel laureate and novelist Saul Bellow, and legendary dancer Mikhail Baryshnikov?

    You may have guessed the answer. The Waldorf curriculum is heavily grounded in the arts. Younger students do drawings with crayons and colored pens every day. They work with puppets and dolls early on. Student notebooks are filled with notes, records, and observations from classroom experiments and field trips. Students give oral presentations nearly every day. Students hear fables and stories every day. They build wooden art objects from scratch, often taking months to complete projects.

    Music is just as strong. All 1st graders learn to play a recorder, storing them in cases they build themselves. The schools offers jazz, choir, orchestra, and more. A day starts with singing and may end with a drama. Students learn math by hopping around an exercise room in a syncopated pattern. Movement, dance, and physical education are embedded throughout the curriculum.

    Obviously, over the years, students learn a tremendous amount of science, literature and math. But they do it through the processes of the arts.

    What does all this do for the students? Graduate Peter Nitze, who attended Waldorf then later graduated from both Harvard and Stanford, said, "If you've had the experience of binding a book, knitting a sock, playing a recorder, then you feel you can build a rocket ship—or learn a software program you've never touched. It's not a bravado, just a quiet confidence. There's nothing you can't do. . . ." By the way, Nitze is the global operations director for Allied-Signal, a multinational, billion-dollar aerospace and automotive manufacturing corporation.

    * * *

    Is there a lesson here for other schools? There could be—if you're looking for a way to not just raise test scores, but to raise better people, go through the doorway marked, "The Arts Taught Here."


    Copyright © 2001 by Eric Jensen. All rights reserved.


    About the Author

    Eric Jensen's passion is the brain and learning. He has taught at the elementary, middle school, and senior high school levels, as well as at three California universities. In 1981, he co-founded SuperCamp, the most successful brain-compatible learning program for students in the United States; the camp has more than 35,000 graduates. He helped introduce brain-based learning to four continents. Jensen authored the best-selling ASCD book, Teaching with the Brain in Mind, as well as Student Success Secrets, SuperTeaching, The Learning Brain, Brain-Based Learning, and eight other books. He's spoken at most major conferences, and his work has been featured in USA Today, in The Wall Street Journal, and on CNN. Jensen is a staff developer and member of the Society for Neuroscience and the New York Academy of Science. Eric Jensen speaks at conferences on the arts and Teaching with the Brain in Mind.

    Jensen also provides in-depth educational opportunities, such as the following:

    Author contact: Eric Jensen, Box 2551, Del Mar, CA 92014; Phone: (858) 642-0400; E-mail: eric@jlcbrain.com; Fax: (858) 642-0404