Should we use brainwave headsets to inform our assessment of students?

You are a committed and qualified ESOL Teacher and I know your sensitivity to and concern for students well-being and cultures being respected.

Can I ask you for your response to the following situation:

Brainwave measuring headsets track beat, gamma, theta and other waves harmlessly and, for the student, sit comfortably on their head much like headphones for listening to music. The headsets are sometimes called bci - brain-computer interfaces.

Do you think that such a headset would be intrusive or culturally offensive or seen to be controlling?  Is the head too sensitive or - in some cultures, sacred - an area for a teacher to be adjusting a headset there?
http://emotiv.com/product/emotiv-epoc-14-channel-mobile-eeg/  

One of the ways of dealing with that may be to have information sessions where adults and students can move around the room touching the headsets trying them on and monitoring themselves (e.g. De Nisco, 2016). 

There are numerous programs for use with the bci headsets such as watching different       coloured brainwaves react while you concentrate hard or laugh and talk. 

For example, this youtube clip shows a young man playing around with a Neurosky headset and one of the programs that go with it. https://youtu.be/ZnX0aysPFqQ

There are numerous programs to use with bci headsets.

http://emotiv.com/software/  

  

Flight by thought: this is a Neurosky headset. I am  flying a drone by concentrating!! It was sitting on the desk and by focusing my mind on it I managed to get it to take off and fly. You can see they're usually not really intimidating and can be great fun. However there's another issue.

PART 2 of my question:

These headsets can provide data on the resting-state of an individual's brain, when they just sit with their eyes closed for a few minutes.

If for example I had such a headset and put it, one by one, on my students, the results I would garner would include a very powerful indicator of who would learn a second language quickly. The research literature is very clear on this. (e.g.Buchweitz, 2013; Mamiya et al, 2016; Prat et al, 2016).

This is because the brain waves that are being read reflect the structure of the brain. That structure is formed by genetic factors. And by environmental factors like experience. It may seem like a bad thing to know someone is slow in picking up languages, yet that knowledge would also allow us to develop helpful interventions (e.g. DeNisco, 2016). 

One of the main interventions that improves brain connectivity and structure is the learning of a second language. Hence if the brain waves are saying 'slow rate of learning', the prognosis is not necessarily 'slow'. Because learning a second language will help that individual brain become more efficient and thus improve its resting-state indices in the future.

So one can ask, 

How are these results to be used ?

When is it appropriate to gather them ? 

In the future our learning about our learning will increasingly be informed by technological devices that will support and potentially redefine assessment as depicted by the SAMr model. With bci headsets we stand at a new point in language assessment - shall we use these new devices to assess our students and inform our teaching? They will doubtless only become more inexpensive and more powerful. Perhaps we need to start thinking about this question now.

http://www.elearning.tki.org.nz/Professional-learning/Teacher-inquiry/SAMR-model

To reiterate:

Subjective elements of testing: Our normal behavioural testing gives results for reading comprehension, listening skills, knowledge of grammar and so on.These results are in current use yet they have many subjective elements and in particular do not really indicate the whole scope of the language learning process, the varied skill sets of the student and therefore the student's real "level". (Linck et al, 2013). It is difficult to assess a process as many-sided as language - "such a complex cognitive task such as language learning". (Weiss & Mueller, 2012).

Brain wave readouts from the bci headsets are objective. And they tell us something about the cognitive abilities of the individual at that point in time. They can inform us accurately about the individual's rate of learning a second language. They do not tell us about the quality of knowledge or the future development of the individual in their attitudes or experiences. 

Although these indices are reliable (Badcock et al, 2013) and will for instance repeat in zygotic twins (Prat, 2016), they are not fixed. The three network-level characteristics of the brain which relate to high-level language achievers, as well as general cognitive ability, are efficiency - how well the brain uses or needs to use its resources, synchronization - the degree of efficient connectivity between different networks in the brain and adaptability - how well the cortical system changes to meet different demands. It is important for educators to note that these three characteristics are "genetically based but experientially modifiable". This is discussed by Prat et al in Resting-state qEEG predicts rate of second language learning in adults (2016) .

So the learning of a second language can be the vehicle by which the brain develops enhanced structure for that same language learning. That development in structure also translates to better cerebral resources for other cognitive tasks. Perhaps that could be seen as an encouragement to use the headset devices available to inform our assessment of ESOL students more fully. Yet there may still be hesitations about using bci headsets.

What is your opinion on that?

Your reply will be perused with interest and gratitude.

Thanks

Sue Sullivan

Christchurch, N.Z.

References

Badcock,N.A., Mousikou, P., Mahajan, Y., de Lissa, P., Thie, J., McArthur G.(2013.) Validation of the Emotiv EPOC EEG gaming system for measuring research quality auditory ERPs. Peer Journal 1 :e38

Becker, T.M., Prat, C.S. & Stocco, A. (2016). A network-level analysis of cognitive flexibility reveals a differential influence of the anterior cingulate cortex in bilinguals versus monolingual. Neuropsychologia, May. 85, 62-73. DOI: 10.1016.

Buchweitz, A., & Prat, C. (2013). The bilingual brain: Flexibility and control in the human cortex. Physics of life reviews, 10(4), 428-443.

Buchweitz, A., & Prat, C. S. (2013). Pushing the boundaries of language in the bilingual brain: A reply to commentary on The bilingual brain: Flexibility and control in the human cortex. Physics of Life Reviews,10(4), 454-456.

DeNisco, A. (2016). Study of brain waves could answer how learning occurs.  District Administration, May.  http://www.districtadministration.com/article/study-brain-waves-could-answer-how-learning-occurs                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Linck, J. A., Hughes, M. M., Campbell, S. G., Silbert, N. H., Tare, M., Jackson, S. R., Smith, B. K., Bunting, M. F. and Doughty, C. J. (2013), Hi-LAB: A New Measure of Aptitude for High-Level Language Proficiency. Language Learning, 63: 530–566.

Mamiya, PC., Richards,T.L., Coe, B.P., Eichler, E.E., Kuhl, P.K. (2016). Brain white matter structure and COMT gene are linked to second-language learning in adults. Proceedings of National Academy of Science. U S A. Jun 28;113(26):7249-54.

Prat,C.S., Yamasaki, B.L., Kluender, R.A. & Stocco, A. (2016) Resting-state qEEG predicts rate of second language learning in adults. Brain and Language. Jun-Jul; 157-158:44-50. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2016.04.007.

Shohamy, E. (2000). The relationship between language testing and second language acquisition, revisited. System, 28(4):541-553.

Weiss, S., Mueller, H.M. (2012). Too Many betas do not Spoil the Broth: The Role of Beta Brain Oscillations in Language Processing. Front Psychol. 2012 Jun 25;3:201. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00201. 

Should we use brainwave headsets to inform our assessment of students?

You are a committed and qualified ESOL Teacher and I know your sensitivity to and concern for students well-being and cultures being respected.

Can I ask you for your response to the following situation:

Brainwave measuring headsets track beat, gamma, theta and other waves harmlessly and, for the student, sit comfortably on their head much like headphones for listening to music. The headsets are sometimes called bci - brain-computer interfaces.

Do you think that such a headset would be intrusive or culturally offensive or seen to be controlling?  Is the head too sensitive or - in some cultures, sacred - an area for a teacher to be adjusting a headset there?
http://emotiv.com/product/emotiv-epoc-14-channel-mobile-eeg/  

One of the ways of dealing with that may be to have information sessions where adults and students can move around the room touching the headsets trying them on and monitoring themselves (e.g. De Nisco, 2016). 

There are numerous programs for use with the bci headsets such as watching different       coloured brainwaves react while you concentrate hard or laugh and talk. 

For example, this youtube clip shows a young man playing around with a Neurosky headset and one of the programs that go with it. https://youtu.be/ZnX0aysPFqQ

There are numerous programs to use with bci headsets.

http://emotiv.com/software/  

  

Flight by thought: this is a Neurosky headset. I am  flying a drone by concentrating!! It was sitting on the desk and by focusing my mind on it I managed to get it to take off and fly. You can see they're usually not really intimidating and can be great fun. However there's another issue.

PART 2 of my question:

These headsets can provide data on the resting-state of an individual's brain, when they just sit with their eyes closed for a few minutes.

If for example I had such a headset and put it, one by one, on my students, the results I would garner would include a very powerful indicator of who would learn a second language quickly. The research literature is very clear on this. (e.g.Buchweitz, 2013; Mamiya et al, 2016; Prat et al, 2016).

This is because the brain waves that are being read reflect the structure of the brain. That structure is formed by genetic factors. And by environmental factors like experience. It may seem like a bad thing to know someone is slow in picking up languages, yet that knowledge would also allow us to develop helpful interventions (e.g. DeNisco, 2016). 

One of the main interventions that improves brain connectivity and structure is the learning of a second language. Hence if the brain waves are saying 'slow rate of learning', the prognosis is not necessarily 'slow'. Because learning a second language will help that individual brain become more efficient and thus improve its resting-state indices in the future.

So one can ask, 

How are these results to be used ?

When is it appropriate to gather them ? 

In the future our learning about our learning will increasingly be informed by technological devices that will support and potentially redefine assessment as depicted by the SAMr model. With bci headsets we stand at a new point in language assessment - shall we use these new devices to assess our students and inform our teaching? They will doubtless only become more inexpensive and more powerful. Perhaps we need to start thinking about this question now.

http://www.elearning.tki.org.nz/Professional-learning/Teacher-inquiry/SAMR-model

To reiterate:

Subjective elements of testing: Our normal behavioural testing gives results for reading comprehension, listening skills, knowledge of grammar and so on.These results are in current use yet they have many subjective elements and in particular do not really indicate the whole scope of the language learning process, the varied skill sets of the student and therefore the student's real "level". (Linck et al, 2013). It is difficult to assess a process as many-sided as language - "such a complex cognitive task such as language learning". (Weiss & Mueller, 2012).

Brain wave readouts from the bci headsets are objective. And they tell us something about the cognitive abilities of the individual at that point in time. They can inform us accurately about the individual's rate of learning a second language. They do not tell us about the quality of knowledge or the future development of the individual in their attitudes or experiences. 

Although these indices are reliable (Badcock et al, 2013) and will for instance repeat in zygotic twins (Prat, 2016), they are not fixed. The three network-level characteristics of the brain which relate to high-level language achievers, as well as general cognitive ability, are efficiency - how well the brain uses or needs to use its resources, synchronization - the degree of efficient connectivity between different networks in the brain and adaptability - how well the cortical system changes to meet different demands. It is important for educators to note that these three characteristics are "genetically based but experientially modifiable". This is discussed by Prat et al in Resting-state qEEG predicts rate of second language learning in adults (2016) .

So the learning of a second language can be the vehicle by which the brain develops enhanced structure for that same language learning. That development in structure also translates to better cerebral resources for other cognitive tasks. Perhaps that could be seen as an encouragement to use the headset devices available to inform our assessment of ESOL students more fully. Yet there may still be hesitations about using bci headsets.

What is your opinion on that?

Your reply will be perused with interest and gratitude.

Thanks

Sue Sullivan

Christchurch, N.Z.

References

Badcock,N.A., Mousikou, P., Mahajan, Y., de Lissa, P., Thie, J., McArthur G.(2013.) Validation of the Emotiv EPOC EEG gaming system for measuring research quality auditory ERPs. Peer Journal 1 :e38

Becker, T.M., Prat, C.S. & Stocco, A. (2016). A network-level analysis of cognitive flexibility reveals a differential influence of the anterior cingulate cortex in bilinguals versus monolingual. Neuropsychologia, May. 85, 62-73. DOI: 10.1016.

Buchweitz, A., & Prat, C. (2013). The bilingual brain: Flexibility and control in the human cortex. Physics of life reviews, 10(4), 428-443.

Buchweitz, A., & Prat, C. S. (2013). Pushing the boundaries of language in the bilingual brain: A reply to commentary on The bilingual brain: Flexibility and control in the human cortex. Physics of Life Reviews,10(4), 454-456.

DeNisco, A. (2016). Study of brain waves could answer how learning occurs.  District Administration, May.  http://www.districtadministration.com/article/study-brain-waves-could-answer-how-learning-occurs                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Linck, J. A., Hughes, M. M., Campbell, S. G., Silbert, N. H., Tare, M., Jackson, S. R., Smith, B. K., Bunting, M. F. and Doughty, C. J. (2013), Hi-LAB: A New Measure of Aptitude for High-Level Language Proficiency. Language Learning, 63: 530–566.

Mamiya, PC., Richards,T.L., Coe, B.P., Eichler, E.E., Kuhl, P.K. (2016). Brain white matter structure and COMT gene are linked to second-language learning in adults. Proceedings of National Academy of Science. U S A. Jun 28;113(26):7249-54.

Prat,C.S., Yamasaki, B.L., Kluender, R.A. & Stocco, A. (2016) Resting-state qEEG predicts rate of second language learning in adults. Brain and Language. Jun-Jul; 157-158:44-50. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2016.04.007.

Shohamy, E. (2000). The relationship between language testing and second language acquisition, revisited. System, 28(4):541-553.

Weiss, S., Mueller, H.M. (2012). Too Many betas do not Spoil the Broth: The Role of Beta Brain Oscillations in Language Processing. Front Psychol. 2012 Jun 25;3:201. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00201.