Learning-Related Changes in Adolescents’ Neural Networks During Hypothesis-Generating and Hypothesis-Understanding Training

Abstract

Fourteen science high school students participated in this study, which investigated neural-network plasticity associated with hypothesis-generating and hypothesisunderstanding in learning. The students were divided into two groups and participated in either hypothesis-generating or hypothesis-understanding type learning programs, which were composed of 12 topics taught over a 12-week period. To measure change in student competence and brain networks, a paper & pencil test and an fMRI scanning session were administered before and after the training programs. Unlike the hypothesis-understanding group, a before and after training comparison for the hypothesis-generating group showed significantly strong changes in hypothesis explanation quotients and functional brain connectivity associated with hypothesis-generating. However, for the hypothesis-understanding group, the brain network related to hypothesis-understanding significantly strengthened, not from hypothesis-generating type learning, but from hypothesis-understanding type learning. These findings suggest that for hypothesis-generating and hypothesis-understanding there are at least two specialized brain network systems or processes at work in the brain. Furthermore, hypothesis-generating competence could be developed by appropriate training programs such as teaching by way of active hypothesis generation rather than present passive expository teaching practices.

A Systematic Review of MRI Neuroimaging for Education Research

“…As our study results show, 25 MRI neuroimaging studies on education-related topics since 2000 were reviewed and divided into three domains: cognitive function, science education, and brain development. In these studies, the theme of language acquisition has received the most attention (i.e., Xiang et al, 2012 ; Goldman and Manis, 2013 ; Borst et al, 2016 ; Braga et al, 2017 ; Hong et al, 2017 ; Giraldo-Chica and Schneider, 2018 ; Horowitz-Kraus et al, 2018 ), followed by mathematical learning (i.e., Cantlon et al, 2011 ; Gullick et al, 2011 ; Lee and Kwon, 2012 ; Lee et al, 2015 ). In research method, fMRI is generally applied to all three domains, while sMRI is only applied to the two domains of cognitive function and brain development.…”

“…In sum, the findings suggested that the two hypothesis processes do not occur in the same neural network and should be trained separately. Lee and Kwon (2012) also examined whether constant scientific reasoning training could alter brain activation regions and networks. They designed two parallel 12-week training program; while one required the participants to actively generate a hypothesis (hypothesis-generating), the other asked the participants to passively understand a hypothesis (hypothesisunderstanding).…”

Brain networks supporting scientific creative thinking.

“…Although no prior study has examined brain network connectivity associated with open-ended hypothesis generation, a few studies have assessed univariate brain activity during closed-ended hypothesis generation (convergent thinking; Kwon et al, 2009). For example, in a longitudinal study, Kwon et al (2009) found that following 2 months of training undergraduates how to generate accurate hypotheses (with a single/correct solution), brain activity increased within the left inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) of the ECN, as well as the anterior cingulate cortex of the SN (compared to a control group; Lee & Kwon, 2012). Other studies have examined cognitive processes relevant to scientific creative thinking, such as analogical transfer and abductive reasoning (H. Zhang et al, 2014).…”