I just watched Jeremy Paxman give this a damn good thrashing on NewsNight...

http://www.braingym.org.uk/

Regards,
Jon

I watched that too. What an arse Jeremy was! I mean, some of the explanations did sound really stupid to me and it was easy to mock them. And the guy who came up with it all could barely spring a sentence together, so that didn't help (maybe he should have pressed his brain trigger point!!) But the more important thing is that these Brain Gym exercises seemed to be working for some people. Both the teachers and the students agreed on that. The explanations are maybe the least important thing when you consider that the exercises were designed to get certain results and they do seem to be getting those results.

Even if it's all a trick/placebo, if kids are learning more, quicker, easier... I think that's still a good thing.

Personally I think that whatever the 'knockers' say about Brain Gym it does get the kids up and active and changes their state. Doing a bit of exercise gets most people in a good mood and if you do the exercises to some funky music even better.

Brain Gym rocks !

I dont agree with all of its claims but placebo or whatever, it is fun and it does increase the childrens ability to sit and learn. From an exercise and PE perspective it builds core strength, coordination, balance etc. It increases energy levels and focusses the students on the person at the front of the class. The kids in that school looked angelic but when you have kids loaded on Haribo "But Sir it is made with real fruit juice" Sweets and Sunny "But Sir it IS Orange Juice" Delight Brain Gym activities offer an excellent way to change the students state and get them back on task.

BBC Media Player

How can the "expert" claim exercise and movement does not increase blood flow to the brain? Does HE have any scientific results to back this up?

Putting my hand over the "experts" mouth and nose does not directly stop blood getting to his brain but I think he will experience a difference in blood flow to his brain very quickly.

Paxman did give the bloke a hard time but to the detriment of the interview, it is just Paxman massaging his ego in public.

Matt

It's Paxmans job to question what he is given and he would question its effectiveness regardless of whether or not he liked the material... The point of the excercise was regarding tapping like EFT and I think he can be forgiven for thinking the likes of EFT and 'electrical circuits' are not useful as these come from 'alternative' and not 'mainstream' therapies.

Regards,
Jon

brain gym is the goods!! i havent seen the report, but i have seen reports that give the impression that the reporter want to portray.

I know one thing is for sure, if your commited to results you will get them, and if you were to spend half an hour a day doing brain gym exercises you would be much better off than if you say.... watched tv...?

Well I am not going to respect the opinion of a tv interviewer whose job it is to debunk anything in front fo him. Read the science. We don't any longer need to trust a dogmatic principle. we can wire folk up to ecgs and watch how the brain responds to activity - whether this is Brain gym Tai chi, yoga, or other forms of exercise. Grandma had it right and now the science is proving it. Plenty of sleep, plenty of exercise, 3 meals a day and lessons that are interesting. One of my studenst said that every lesson should be a 'treat'.
Kate

Hi Kate,

The reason why brain gym is given a poor rating is probably because:-


are pretty much what works already so much so that BG looks like some bizarre new age crap... those four things above are not in my opinion provided effectively in our society.

Jon,

"The reason why brain gym is given a poor rating is probably because:-"

I dont think BG is given a poor rating, not by anyone who is

1 Qualified to comment and

2 Experienced in using it.

The woman in the interview asks many rhetorical quesions but gives few openminded answers to any of them.

The reporter could just as easily say...

"Is it true that NLP is based around linguistic exercises?

Don't you think we should take action to help people with problems and not just sit around talking?

I've spent all day with these NLP'ers and they enjoy taking, one of them even studied English at college just so they could talk using longer words.

NLP is claimed by its believers that it can actually change your what chemicals the body releases, wow, in the future rather that sunbathe to get a tan, according to these so called nlp'er you can simply get that tan by talking about it"

It is just masses of deliberatly assuming the wrong thing and connecting that with selective quoting.

I have watched Jeremy Paxman for many years, he's a fair man, I believe he silently implied time and money be better spent doing more practical things i.e. the three R's...

did he balance that view or just give a one sided reccomendation?

Linking this to another thread on this site, I was once doing some story writing with a group of 7/8 year olds that particularly struggled with spellings. I told them to write a story and not to worry about spellings or grammer and if they could not think of the right work to use then they can make one up. The aim was to help their imagination and creativity develop and not let their poorer spelling ability hold them back. Jumping up and down on a student for their spelling when in fact you should be celebrating a lovely creative piece of writing is disaterous for their motivation and self esteem. You cannot judge the creativity of a story on how good the spellings are.

Over emphasising the 3'rs is a dangerous strategy that will leave very capable people behind. Anyhow, brain gym is very good to use before teaching elements close to the 3r's. A good use of BG exercises is to use them as a break between topics, as classroom resources are being cleared away and bought out, that way no time is taken up in doing them.

The "3 r's" represent methods of teaching that are thankfully long gone, give me personalised leaning strategies and guided learning anyday. Jeremy Paxman I am guessing hasnt taught, qualified in teaching/learning nor spent much time in the education environment. With that in mind, what is his opinion worth?

I've worked as a researcher on Newsnight and separate to that I've been interviewed by Jeremy three times. He doesn't claim to be impartial or fair on 'new age' or 'modern psychology' issues - and he wasn't impartial or fair on that section about Brain Gym. He pushed his own agenda and distorted the facts to fit. If he did that on other subjects, there would be uproar. Somehow everyone thinks they're an expert on education.

Well fair according to what and whom and over what length of time... He's clearly a person who likes things tried and tested which has its advantages and disadvantages. But I'd doubt anyone on here would effectively challenge my claim that is abundantly clear in the papers that education is in need of more support for real deal features. If those kids were disabled (I don't recall they were) then a need for an extra supplement may be worth pursuing. Money should be spent on schools, teachers and equipment and when thats sorted out, then experiment... Good schooling is not rocket science and doesn't need new age crap either. I got the strong impression he considered it a waste of time because of that (assuming he appreciates the view above).

3rs are in need fyi, far too many people nowadays have poor literacy, poor math and poor reading too! Even in university I've been shocked at the level of basic education people have. This is why not so many years ago, maybe 5, so called 'key skills' exams were setup. These really need to be improved, we already know how, we just need to do it. As for his opinion, as someone whose subjected to the news all the time its probably worth a lot and as for your suggestion his opinion is worthless, he doesnt need experience as a teacher to have an opinion. Do you need to plan a war to know it will cost a lot of lives and money?

"Good schooling is not rocket science "

fancy coming to do a week of supply work for me? How long into you first session will it become a farce?

Can I challenge your terminology?

"If those kids were disabled (I don't recall they were) then a need for an extra supliment may be worth pursuing"

Every kid is diabled, the term means less-able. If a group are working on PE, art, maths or whatever then there are some who are more able and there are some who are less-abled.

You have a few choices here, you can let the less=abled students fall behind more and more every week as lessons progress on to more difficult things or you (the teacher) can use a different strategy with them. The tried and tested method would be to ask a kid to do something, if the kid doesnt get it then shout the same instructions at them (as if the volume was the problem) and if that doesnt work then send them out of the class for not trying. Modern teaching puts the emphasis on what is learnt in the classroom and not what is taught, think about it, teaching and learning are two different things. Should a teacher teach or should they facilitate learning?

In a class of 30 learners you will have sub-groups of student who have a bias towards different preferred learning styles. If you are doing a session on reading skills do you offer 1 way of learning and be confident that some of your learners will not get it at all and some will be very good at hiding their lack of understanding. Or do you offer the knowledge in ways that embrace audio, kineasthetic and visual biased learners? As an NLP'er we know the significance of understanding these areas. Does this come under a 'real deal' strategy or new age crap?

Let's do some hands on here, is there something you didnt really get at school? As an exercise, share it here and we can try and offer the teaching to you in a way that matches different learning styles.

If I wanted to learn about journalism then I would pay good money to listen to Paxman. If I wanted to learn about how to improve schools then he would not register as a person to listen to.

"3rs are in need fyi, far too many people nowadays have poor literacy, poor math and poor reading too"

are you talking about a generation who had the 3r's rammed down their throats at school?

"he doesnt need experience as a teacher to have an opinion"

as long as his opions are taken in the contexts that they are based on no experience, fact or ability then that is fine!

Not everybody got it...

"Not everybody got it..."

So does that mean some kinds of different approach is needed?

Not everybody was subjected to it is what I meant.

Ok, my mistake.

I suspect (I cant be arsed to do the research) that at the end of the show on,

Immigration and how young immigrants are not looked after in our education system are making them dispondant to engaging in British culture- well, schools will be told they can do more citizenship and community work.

The show on increased teengage pregnancy, well, schools will be told they MUST do more sex ed.

The show on teenage crime and lack of opportunites for young offenders, this time schools will be told they really have to do more on self esteem and teaching morals.

When obesity and health issues in life are being discussed and the roots of the problem are in education, well, this time without fail schools really must do more PE, health awareness and fitness.

When industry and the NHS is having a hard time due to skills shortages and students entering into engineering is an all time low, well, schools should do more science and social studies topics.

Do you see a theme developing here? What would you drop from the curriculum to do more of the 3r's?