Mind the Mind Understanding the Links Be

  The International JOURNAL of LEARNING

  Volume 16, Number 2

Mind the Mind: Understanding the Links Between

Stress, Emotional Well-Being and Learning in

  Educational Contexts Michael Nagel

  !

" # " $ %&&' ( # ) " #* + !! $ , # " , * $

• !! $, # " !
• %&&' . $ / $ "0) ."0
• %&&' ." $ $ ! 0 + !! $ " " " #

  1 * 1 ") 2 ") $ !") # " $ ! " " " / $ 1 ! 1 " 1 " " 1 " $*) " ) "!

• + * / " ! $ $ . " 0)

  1 " 3 ! * # $ $ ! "" 1 ! # " ! "" " $ 2 ") " 4 " 5 !! $ # " !6 77 899: '9'9 , # "

  7 ! " / $) " $ #* " "" " 1 1 $ 3 $ 2 / !! *)

• " 3 1 " " #" $ " " 1 " # " $ " + !! $ ( 3 " + + ! * " "*" ! * !! $ # " ! " 1

  

Mind the Mind: Understanding the Links Between Stress,

Emotional Well-Being and Learning in Educational

Contexts

Michael Nagel, The University of the Sunshine Coast, Queensland, Australia

  

Abstract: In the last decade there has been a growing body of research literature focusing on ‘stress’

and its effects on humans. Historically much of what has been written regarding stress has not had

the insights now available through neuroscientiic research which identiies a worrying connection

between stress and cognitive impairment. Given these new insights and a greater understanding of

the deleterious impact of some forms of stress, it appears axiomatic that emotional wellbeing must be

larger part of any learning, and by association, educational agenda. In many respects developmental

and educational psychologists have long known the importance of providing safe and supportive

learning environments for children in an effort to ensure that schools could be a potential oasis of

calm for all students. Yet it would appear that more can and should be done. This paper provides a

theoretical foundation examining impact of stress on learning and draws on contemporary neuros-

cientiic research to outline what stress is, how negative stress impacts on the body and mind and why

schools may be the optimum sites for buffering the impact of stress, building resilience and enhancing

individual capacities for learning.

  Keywords: Emotional Well-Being, Stress, Cognition and Learning, Neuroscience

The Neuro-biology of Stress

  TRESS IS BOTH a dificult concept to deine, yet a popular topic of contemporary

  discussion. Bookstores often maintain a plethora of self-help volumes for dealing with stress. Go to amazon.com and search for ‘stress’ under the books category and

S

  you will be provided with over 450,000 results. Do a ‘Google’ search with the heading ‘stress management’ and you will be provided with over 18,000,000 results. Indeed, stress management courses abound in many work environments and hardly a week passes without hearing or reading about stress and/or stress related illness. It would seem that the general populous is well attuned to stress, its antecedents and its consequences. However, there is a bit of a paradox in our understanding of stress for the popular deinition of stress is often at odds with the scientiic literature (Lupien, Maheuu, Tu, Fiocco and Schramek, 2007). This discrepancy results in a number of connotations which often cloud our understanding of how the body and mind handle stressful events (McEwen, 2006).

  Part of the problem with popular beliefs about stress is that they include a myriad of psy- chological deinitions focusing on a multitude of external conditions that disturb an individu- al’s mental or physical well-being. For example, many people often associate stress with time pressure or the ‘busyness’ of life yet it is important to note that in scientiic terms, stress and time pressure are not synonymous (Lupien et al, 2007). Therefore, a more useful approach

  The International Journal of Learning Volume 16, Number 2, 2009, http://www.Learning-Journal.com, ISSN 1447-9494 © Common Ground, Michael Nagel, All Rights Reserved, Permissions: cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING to understanding stress and counteracting it in schools is to look at what science tells us about the physiological impact of stress and how we might enhance educational environments to ensure students of all ages have a better understanding of stress and how to mediate it in a positive fashion.

  From a neurobiological perspective, stress is an adaptive response to some environmental stimuli triggering the brain into action (ibid; Selye 1975a, 1975b; Arnsten 1998; McEwen 2002; Dickerson & Kemeny 2004). Optimum levels of stress (eustress) often act as powerful empathetic, motivational and creative forces allowing individuals to achieve success in many demonstrable ways while negative, chronic or traumatic stress (distress) is potentially very destructive given how it engages the body’s physiology (Selye 1974; Lazarus 1999). It is the negative stress response that is the focus of this article. As advances in scientiic research continue, the overall picture being painted with regards to negative stress and its impact on the brain is not a pretty one. In order to understand the impact of negative stress, a brief look at how the body responds to stress is warranted.

  The emotional and physical responses an individual has to stress are set in motion by a series of chemical releases and reactions. When someone faces a negative stressor, a powerful defence mechanism takes over. Often referred to as the ight-or-light response, it is this response that helps each person react to an emergency and/or cope with change (McEwen, 2002). This reaction may require great energy, oxygen, bodily fuel, muscle power, heightened pain thresholds and mental acuity which in turn rely on the brain to stimulate various hormones, glands, the heart, lungs, immune system and blood to make everything happen (ibid). In essence, a response to negative stress sets a myriad of functions in motion that can engage the entirety of one’s neurological and physiological make-up. Therein lies a signiicant problem. Too much stress, or more worryingly a chronic overreaction to stress, overloads the brain with powerful hormones and ignites a response that evolution designed for short-term duty in emergency situations only.

  From an evolutionary standpoint, brain development appears to have followed three sig- niicant stages, each of which provided humans with certain capacities and levels of sophist- ication (MacLean, 1990). According to MacLean (1990), these stages of development resulted in three regions of function; the reptilian system, or R-complex, the limbic system, and the

  

neocortex. While all three regions serve particular functions, they interact substantially, es-

pecially in terms of ensuring the body maintains ‘homeostasis’ or a constant stable state. th

  The term homeostasis was irst used in the mid 19 century by the French physiologist Claude Bernard. Bernard’s work, which eventually led to the concept and science of stress, emphasized the body’s need to maintain a constant state (McEwen, 2002). Many of our bodily functions must remain constant or within very rigidly proscribed limits or homeostatic set points (ibid; Sapolsky 2004). Drastic changes in body temperature, the blood’s glucose, acid base content and oxygen levels, the amount of blood reaching the brain, and levels of hydration can cause death; homeostasis helps to keep these, and other bodily systems, in balance. Fortunately, the body also has another system in place that helps to maintain the balance.

  In the late 1980’s, researchers recognised that variations of circumstance required different homeostatic set points and coined the term ‘allostasis’ which refers to maintaining stability or homeostasis through change (Sterling & Eyer, 1988). For example, sleeping and the act of bungee-jumping are likely to impact on an individual’s blood pressure and respiratory rate in entirely different ways and as such the maintenance of an optimal homeostatic set

  MICHAEL NAGEL point may demand far-lung regulatory changes within the body instead of just minimal or localised adjustments (Sapolsky, 2004). In other words, different contexts and circumstances (or what can be referred to as ‘stressors’), could impact on the body’s capacity to maintain stability (allostasis) and disrupt homeostasis. Indeed, from a neuro-biological perspective, stress occurs when homeostasis is disturbed or becomes unbalanced (Sapolsky 2004; Howard 2006).

  Stress can result from a wide array of variables and a contemporary deinition of a stressor is anything which throws the body out of allostatic balance (Sapolsky 2004; McEwen 2006; Lupien et al 2007). Allostasis, in itself, is often considered the ‘ight or light’ response but in reality, ight or light is actually allostasis with a sense of urgency (McEwen 2006). When one fears for their life the brain sets off an allostatic response to prepare the body for whatever is required to survive. This action generally results in the release of many powerful hormones and vast sums of energy being expended. It is important to keep in mind however that ight- or-light is allostasis at an extreme and the overall purpose of allostasis is ‘to help an organism remain stable in the face of any change and to provide enough energy to cope with any challenge – not just the life-threatening ones’ (McEwen 2006, p.7). Therefore, the allostatic response from stress does not always result from a sense of something life threatening but, may in fact, occur from the innumerable challenges and circumstances of every day living. Bruce McEwen, widely recognised as a world expert in stress research, refers to this type of stress response or the feeling of being ‘stressed out’ as ‘allostatic load’; ‘the damage that the allostatic response causes when it is functioning improperly’ (McEwen 2006, p.7). In

  st the 21 century it would appear that allostatic load is a growing and worrying trend.

Living with Stress

  Life is busy! How many times have you heard someone deine their lives with the word ‘busy’ and treat this synonymously with the term ‘stress’? As noted earlier, many people deine stress as dealing with the busyness of life or ‘time pressure’, yet research tells us that time pressure is a consequence of stress and not its cause. (Lupien et al, 2007). In reality, stress is a highly individual experience that depends on speciic psychological determinants to ignite a stress response in the brain and throughout the body (ibid). Physiologically speaking, in order for allostatic load to occur vis-à-vis a stress response a situation must present itself as threatening and/or novel and/or unpredictable and/or where an individual feels like they do not have control over the situation (Mason 1968; McEwen 2002; Dickerson & Kemeny 2004; Lupien et al 2007). Given the characteristics required to elicit a stress re- sponse it is safe to assume that all individuals mediate various stressors throughout their lives and develop coping mechanisms for dealing with stress as part of growth and maturation. This is a key consideration, as we grow older we learn to manage stress more eficiently and while we learn to deal with stress as a product of maturation, stress responses do not discrim- inate on the basis of age.

  Arguably, most adults believe that they encounter stressors more regularly and suffer the effects of stress to a greater degree than children. After all, what does a ‘carefree’ child without any adult-like responsibilities have to be stressed about? The reality, however, is that children are probably more vulnerable to the debilitating effects of stress than many of the adults around them. It is important to remember that the nervous system continues to THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING mature throughout childhood and adolescence, therefore young people’s brains may be more vulnerable to the impact of stress than mature adult brains.

  Earlier it was noted how a reaction to stress engages powerful mind and body processes. The stress response mechanism releases powerful hormones and prepares the body for sur- vival. What is worrisome however is that the cumulative effects of these hormones have been shown to damage parts of the brain and kill certain brain cells (McEwen, 2006). For a long time now, scientists have also known that stress and our bodily reactions to stressors adversely effects our immune system (MacKay, 2008). Moreover, the day-to-day realities of life which can evolve into stressors resulting in the brain activating allostatic load and children are not immune from this process.

  While the responses to stress are similar for children and adults alike, the trigger might be entirely different. For example, while a public transportation strike might engage a stress reaction in an adult, a similar stress reaction can happen to a child on their irst day of school. In this sense, allostatic load is not age speciic but children rarely have the skills, ability or capacity to control situations in a way that might decrease novelty, unpredictability, threat or sense of control. Concurrently, children’s skill deicits in terms of reacting to a stressful situation at the nexus of brain development suggests that understanding the debilitating effects of stress on children should be on the forefront of any educational and parental agenda.

Children and Stress!

  In order to understand how stress can be very detrimental to children, it is important to take a more detailed look at what happens to the body when the brain triggers a stress response. At the risk of appearing repetitive it is equally important to remember that full maturation of the brain does not happen until the second decade of life and as such the developing brain is far more sensitive to the chemical processes involved while mediating a stressful event.

  In themselves, stressors which can induce allostatic load can be characterised as falling into two categories; absolute and relative. Absolute stressors are ‘real’ threats to all while relative stressors are events or situations interpreted as being threatening, novel, unpredictable and/or out of one’s control (Lupien et al, 2007). An earthquake is a good example of an ab- solute stressor while a lat battery in a car is more characteristic of a relative stressor. Import- antly, absolute stressors evoke the greatest physiological response but are rare. Relative stressors, on the other hand can result in variations in physiological responses given they are dependent on the individual and individual’s capacity to cope with the nature of the stressor. However, regardless of the speciic nature of a relative stressor – injury, anxiety, fear, hunger, relational conlict, too cold, too hot – when individuals activate a stress response the effects of this can be very problematic considering what happens to the mind and body (Sapolsky, 2004).

  When a situation is interpreted as stressful, it triggers a system in the brain that tells the hypothalamus to release chemicals that initiate a series of reactions. These reactions, in turn, result in an increased low of oxygen to the muscles requiring the heart and respiratory system to work harder. Furthermore, during this response, blood vessels in the skin may constrict to diminish any bleeding in case of injury, stored carbohydrates in the body are liquidated to provide suficient fuel for any measure of response and the immune system may become enhanced in preparation for whatever part of the body is injured (McEwen, 2002). Given the reactive nature of the brain to stress it should be apparent that a prolonged or continuous

  MICHAEL NAGEL stress response to the relative stressors around us may have negative impacts over the long term. In a sense, the very system designed to protect us can threaten our well-being if it is activated too often.

  Amongst many deleterious effects of stress, studies with humans and other mammals have shown that chronic stress can reduce dendrite and neural growth in the brain, damage the brain’s adaptive systems, impair the immune system and diminish the body’s capacity to heal wounds (Tanapat et al 1998; Brunson et al 2002; Avitsur et al 2003; Cook & Wellman 2004; Sheridan et al 2004). Now consider the impact of stress on those whose brain is still developing and maturing.

  There is a large body of research that tells us that children who live in chronically stressful environments may be at greater risk of developing a variety of disorders throughout their lifetime (see for example Shore 1997; McEwen & Seeman 1999; National Scientiic Council on the Developing Child 2007). There is also a growing body of neuro-scientiic research telling us that the powerful chemicals (hormones) designed for our survival in stressful situations can actually impact on the normal growth and development of very important re- gions of the brain, especially during the early stages of life and through adolescence (McEwen & Sapolsky 1995; McEwen & Seeman 1999; Gunnar & Donzella 2002; McEwen 2006; Lupien et al 2007; National Scientiic Council on the Developing Child 2007; Heim et al 2008). Concurrently, children live in a less stable, more stressful environment than decades ago with higher divorce rates, variations in family structures, instant access to information, increased family mobility, pressure from society to perform and look good, access to glob- alisation and increasingly easier access to drugs and alcohol (Bhindi & Hough, 2006). To that end, it could be argued that the relative stressors of childhood and adolescence today may be of greater frequency and more pronounced than any other time in modern history and as such educators and parents need to be proactive in ensuring that relative stress does not become chronic.

  Aside from the impact of long term stress factors on children, it is also signiicant to note that the stressors which occur throughout a child’s daily activities can impact on any measure of success in educational settings. Two of the most important regions, among many, that suffer when the developing brain is marinated with excessive levels of stress hormones are the hippocampus and amygdala; areas responsible for learning, memory and emotional re- sponses (McEwen 2002; Yang et al 2004; Friedman 2006). Stress hormones in themselves can even shut down a child’s capacity to think. For example, one of the chemicals released by the brain as a result of allostatic load is a stress hormone known as cortisol. Cortisol is a very powerful substance and we have all experienced the effects of elevated cortisol levels.

  Think back to a time when you were involved in a heated argument with someone resulting in a great deal of anger, frustration and stress. Regularly this type of event signals a stress response resulting in increased levels of cortisol in the bloodstream. Now think back to after that event when some time later you appeared to regain clarity of thought resulting in some measure of an epiphany and you saying to yourself ‘why didn’t I say this’ or ‘how come I didn’t say that’. When cortisol levels are high your capacity to think is diminished because you are in a ight or light response and your brain is geared for survival. Only after enough time has passed for cortisol to return to normal levels do you begin to have clarity of thought. Researchers refer to this neurological phenomenon as ‘downshifting’’ whereby we lose a great deal of access to higher order thinking, creativity and some of our normal cognitive THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING capacities so that we may deal with the immediacy of the stressful moment (Caine & Caine, 2001).

  Arguably most individuals would agree that two of the fundamental purposes of schools are to foster creativity and enhance cognitive capacities. Aside from the intellectual and cognitive goals noted above, schools are also responsible for developing healthy emotional and social minds. However, children who arrive at school stressed, encounter stress during the day or more worryingly deal with allostatic load constantly will function at a very low cognitive, emotional and social levels. When children are too stressed they are also less likely to show curious, novelty-seeking, risk-taking and exploratory behaviours which are all prerequisites for healthy emotional, social and cognitive development (Jensen, 2006). In the end too much stress, whether short or long term, markedly diminishes the opportunities for children to positively engage with others and hinders learning and higher order thinking processes. That’s the bad news…the good news is that there are things we can do to help children and adults alike manage the responses to stressful situations.

Reducing Stress and Enhancing Wellbeing

  As noted earlier, the individual nature of relative stressors make it dificult to identify those factors that might engage a stress response in a particular person. One could justiiably assume that there are a number of consistent variables in a home and school environment that might trigger a stress response. For example, it is not beyond reason to believe that bullying, exams, over-demanding parental expectations, rude or harsh teachers and other events of life children experience might contribute to stress. Therefore, one of the irst things educators, parents and those interested in the overall wellbeing of children need to do is be able to identify sources of relative stress and perhaps the greatest conduit for such information would be to look at what children and students identify as stressful. Remember, in order for relative stressors to engage allostatic load a situation must be one or a combination of the following: novel, unpredictable, threatening or beyond one’s sense of control. Therefore adult perspect- ives of what might be stressful may be inaccurate, incomplete or naïve.

  At times, much of what might be contributing to student stress in any educational envir- onment is either misread or neglected by parents and educationalists. One of the most obvious examples of something which can contribute to student stress is the actual physical environ- ment where students are expected to engage with learning. Acoustical noise, poor lighting, lack of fresh air, overall size and dimensions of physical space, temperature and odour have been identiied as sources of stress for children (Evans & Maxwell; 1997; Heshong Mahone Group 1999, 2003; Read et al 1999; Evans et al 2001; Jensen, 2006). The physical environ- ment aside, other stressors which may not be as obvious include relationships along with the social and cultural expectations of schools and of ‘schooling’.

  In an ever increasing world of educational accountability coupled with some ambiguous notion of preparing for the future, ‘schooling’ has become increasingly competitive, assess- ment oriented and task and test driven. For many Australian students those areas identiied as stressors in schools include academic performance, educational relevance and relationships with peers and teachers (Byrne & Mazanov 2002; Byrne et al., 2007).

  Empirically and anecdotally, it appears that education’s growing preoccupation with ‘academic’ success has marginalised many, hindered relationship building, diminished cre- ativity and created no shortage of stress and anxiety related disorders (Goleman, 1995; Kohn,

  MICHAEL NAGEL 1999; Robinson, 2001). Currently in Australia there is an ever expanding political push to standardise education and demarcate levels of academic achievement in conjunction with student, teacher and indeed school accountability. Ironically, narrowly derived standards of success may do more harm than good and actually create greater stress. Other countries which have embarked on a journey of standardisation have found that such endeavour has created a great deal of angst and stress for both students and teachers. Studies in the United States have identiied growing numbers of students who feel that ‘schooling’ is a negative experience and stressful whereby the drive for success is as problematic as the irrelevance of topics covered (Kohn, 1999; Leone and Richards, 2000; Sax, 2005). Studies in Australia and noted above are identifying similar outcomes and sentiments.

  A further problem with standardisation is its overall impact on learner engagement and teacher motivation. Examinations along with other high stake assessment measures and homework are often at the nexus of a standards approach to schooling and contributing factors to stress. Moreover, a broad-based approach to engage educational standards at a state and national level which is predominantly premised on rewards, punishments and ac- countability diminishes student motivation and drives educators into a mode where good teaching vanishes, preparation for tests is the norm and survival prevails (Caine & Caine, 2001). Therefore, in an era of standards and accountability, educators and parents would do well to carefully monitor assessment practices and scrutinising any agenda towards widespread ‘standardisation.

  Along with focusing on academic agendas, educators should keep in the back of their minds that children who experience stress and anxiety disorders are often reliant on school as a place of safety and security. For parents and educators alike it is equally important to remember that many sources of stress exist outside of the boundaries of educational institu- tions and are beyond the day-to-day interactions of teachers, administrators and students. For children stress can occur as a result of many situations. To that end schools offer an important context for developing and delivering programs focussing on emotional wellbeing and emotional literacy and therefore these types of programs should be at the cornerstone of educational endeavour. Given the immature nature of a child’s developing brain resulting in them being highly vulnerable to stress, students of all ages need the information and skills to understand the power of the emotional part of their psyche and how to deal with stress. Learning to cope with emotional upheaval and stress is as important, or arguably more im- portant, than learning facts, igures and subject content. Children who are stressed will have dificulty learning and need opportunities to build a repertoire of skills for combating allo- static load.

  Parents, teachers and administrators alike could also learn a great deal about how emotions impact on cognition and learning as well as glean greater insight into their own emotions and relative stressors. Adult stress can be a contributing factor to childhood stress (McEwen & Sapolsky, 1995) suggesting that all who work with children would beneit from knowing how to diminish their own stress and create emotional environments that foster growth and enhance wellbeing. Some of the simplest ways to counteract allostatic load include exercise, healthy eating, plenty of sleep and the fostering of social relationships all of which are not beyond pre-existing capacities of children and/or adults (McEwen, 2006). Those few things may seem somewhat simplistic in nature but they are a readily available starting point.

  Finally, it is worth noting that the last decade of research has provided us with incredible insights into the brain and how it serves and protects us. It would therefore seem that educa- THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING tional institutions and the people in them can either continue down a pathway of naivety re- garding the brain, stress and learning or can embrace the newest indings about emotion and work to truly enhance emotional wellbeing and opportunities for academic, social and emotional success. Over ten years ago Daniel Goleman (1995: 286) argued that children were emotionally skill poor and stated:

  …as a society we have not bothered to make sure every child is taught the essentials of handling anger or resolving conlicts positively – nor have we bothered to teach empathy, impulse control, or any other fundamentals or emotional competence. By leaving the emo- tional lessons children learn to chance, we risk largely wasting the window of opportunity presented by the slow maturation of the brain to help children cultivate a healthy emotional repertoire.

  Given the wealth of information we now have at our disposal regarding how problematic

  st

  stress can be for children, Goleman’s assertions should not go unheeded. As the 21 century presents a brave new world to children it is incumbent upon the adults around them to, as much as possible, diminish the negative stressors impacting on children and also provide the skills necessary for navigating through situations which engage allostatic load. Moreover, as we continue to learn how the mind and body work together we must also continue to rethink what we do in schools and how we do it…emotion and cognition are intertwined in the mind, so too should they be in any curriculum endeavour and learning agenda.

  References Arnsten, A. (1998). The biology of being frazzled. Science, 280(5370), 1711-1712.

  Avitsur, R., Padgettt, D.A., Dhabhar, F.S., Stark, J.L., Kramer, K.A., Engler, H. & Sheridan, J.F.

  (2003). Expression of glucocorticoid resistance following social stress requires a second signal. Journal of Leukocyte Biology, 74(4), 507-513.

Bhindi, N. & Hough, M. (2006). Working more effectively with generations X & Y within a school

environment. Paper presented at the Australian Council for Educational Leaders (ACEL)

  Conference, Canberra.

  

Brunson, K.L., Grigoriadis, D.E., Loran, M.T. & baram, T.Z. (2002) Corticotropin-Releasing Hormone

(CRH) Downregulates the Function of Its Receptor (CRF1) and Induces CRF1 Expression in Hippocampal and Cortical Regions of the Immature Rat Brain. Experimental Neurology, 176(1), 75-86.

Byrne, D.G. & Mazanov, J. (2002). Sources of stress in Australian adolescents: Factor structure and

stability over time. Stress and Health, 18, 185 -192.

Byrne, D.G., Davenport, S.C. & Mazanov, J. (2007). Proiles of adolescent stress: The development

of the adolescent stress questionnaire (ASQ). Journal of Adolescence, 30(3), 393-416.

Caine, G. & Caine, R.N. (2001). The Brain, Education and the Competitive Edge. Lanham, Maryland:

The Scarecrow Press Inc.

Cook, S.C. & Wellman, C.L. (2004). Chronic stress alters dendritic morphology in rat medial prefrontal

cortex. Journal of Neurobiology, 60(2), 236-248.

Dickerson, S.S. & Kemeny, M.E. (2004). Acute Stressors and Cortisol Responses: A Theoretical In-

tegration and Synthesis of Laboratory Research. Psychological Bulletin, 130(3), 355-391.

Evans, G. & Maxwell, L. (1997). Chronic noise exposure and reading deicits: The mediating effects

of language acquisition. Environment and Behavior, 29(5), 638-656. Evans G, Lercher, P., Meis, M., ising, H. & Koler, W.W. (2001). Community noise exposure and stress in children. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 109(3), 1023-1027. Friedman, D. (2006). Stress and the architecture of the brain. Retrieved October 28, 2008, from http://www.developingchild.net/pubs/perspectives.html

  

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ. New York: Bantam

Books.

Gunnar, M.R. & donzella, B. (2002). Social regulation of the cortisol levels in early human development.

  Psychoneuroendocrinology, 27 (1-2), 199-220.

  

Heim, C., Jeffrey-Newport, D., Mletzko, T., Andrew H. Miller, A.H. & Nemeroff, C.B. (2008). The

link between childhood trauma and depression: Insights from HPA axis studies in humans.

  Psychoneuroendocrinology (2008) 33 (6), 693–710.

  

Heshong Mahone Group (1999). Daylighting in schools: An investigation into the relationship between

daylighting and human performance. Retrieved October 30, 2008, from http://www.h-m- g.com/downloads/Daylighting/schoolc.pdf

Heshong Mahone Group (2003). Windows and classrooms: A study of student performance and the

indoor environment. Retrieved October 30, 2008, from http://www.h-m-g.com/downloads/Day- lighting/A-7_Windows_Classrooms_2.4.10.pdf Howard, P.J. (2006). The Owner’s Manual for the Brain: Everyday Applications from Mind-Brain Research (3 rd ed.). Austin, Texas: Bard Press.

  

Jensen, E. (2006). Enriching the Brain: How to Maximize Every Learner’s Potential. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Kohn, A. (1999). The Schools Our Children Deserve: Moving Beyond Traditional Classrooms and

“Tougher Standards”. Boston: Houghton Miflin. Lazarus, R.S. (1999). Stress and Emotion. New York: Springer Publishing Company Inc.

Leone, C.M. & Richards, M.H. (2000). Classwork and homework in early adolescence: the ecology

of achievement. In G. Adams (Ed.) Adolescent Development: Essential Readings. Oxford:

  Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Lupien, S.J., Maheu, F., Tu, M., Fiocco, A. & Schramek, T.E. (2007). The effects of stress and stress

hormones on human cognition: Implications for the ield of brain and cognition. Brain and

  Cognition, 65(3), 209-237.

  

MacKay, F. (2008). Stress and immunity: from starving cavemen to stressed-out scientists. In S.A.

  Read (Ed.), Cerebrum 2008: Emerging Ideas in Brain Science (pp.125-134). New York: Dana Press.

MacLean, P.D. (1990). The Triune Brain in Evolution: Role in Paleocerebral Functions. New York:

Plenum Press. Mason, J.W. (1968). A review of psychoendocrine research on the sympathetic-adrenal medullary system. Psychosomatic Medicine, 30(Suppl. 5), 631-653.

McEwen, B.S. & Sapolsky, R.M. (1995). Stress and cognitive function. Current Opinion in Neurobi-

ology, 5(2), 205-216.

McEwen, B. & Seeman, t. (1999). Protective and damaging effects of mediators of stress: Elaborating

and testing the concepts of allostasis and allostatic load. In N.E. Adler, M, Marmot, B.S.

  McEwen & J. Stewart (Eds.), Socioeconomic Status and Health in Industrial Nations: Social, Psychological, and Biological Pathways. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 896, 30-47.

  McEwen, B. (2002). The End of Stress as We Know It. Washington, D.C.: John Henry Press.

McEwen, B.S. (2006). Protective and damaging effects of stress mediators: Central role of the brain.

  Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 8(4), 283-297.

  

National Scientiic Council on the Developing Child (2007). The Science of Early Childhood Develop-

ment: Closing the Gap Between What We Know and What We Do. Harvard University: Center on the Developing Child.

  

Read, M., Sugawara, A., Brandt, J. (1999). Impact of space and colour in the physical environment

on preschool children’s cooperative behavior. Environment and Behavior, 31(3), 413-414.

Robinson, K. (2001). Out of Our Minds: Learning to Be Creative. West Sussex: Capstone Publishing

Limited.

  MICHAEL NAGEL THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING

  

Sapolsky, R.A. (2004). Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers: The Acclaimed Guide to Stress-Related Diseases

rd and Coping (3 ed.). New York: Henry Holt and Company.

  

Sax, L. (2005). Why Gender Matters: What Parents and Teachers Need to Know about the Emerging

Science of Sex Differences. New York: Doubleday. Selye, H. (1974). Stress Without Distress. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Selye, H. (1975a). Confusion and controversy in the stress ield. Journal of Human Stress, 1(2), 37-

  

Sheridan, J.F., Padgett, D.A., Avitsur, R., Marucha, P.T. (2004). Experimental models of stress and

wound healing. World Journal of Surgery, 28(3), 327-330.

Shore, R. (1997). Rethinking the Brain: New Insights into Early Development. New York: Families

and Work Institute.

Sterling, P. & Eyer, J. (1988). Allostasis: A New Paradigm to Explain Arousal Pathology. In Fisher,

S. and J. Reason (Eds.), Handbook of Life Stress, Cognition and Health (pp.629-649). New

  York, John Wiley & Sons.

Tanapat, P., Galea, L. & Gould, E. (1998). Stress inhibits the proliferation of granule cell precursors

in the development of the dentate gyrus. The International Journal of Developmental Neur- oscience, 16(3-4), 235-239.

  

Yang, C., Huang, C. & Hsui, K. (2004). Behavioral stress modiies hippocampal synaptic plasticity

through corticosterone-induced sustained extracellular signal-regulated kinase/mitogen-ac- tivated protein kinase activation. The Journal of Neuroscience, 24949), 11029-11034.

About the Author

  Dr. Michael Nagel

  Dr. Nagel’s work focuses on cognition and learning with a particular emphasis on neuro- development. He has published a number of articles and books focusing on neurological development from birth through adolescence and the impact of this on learning and behaviour. His current research interests focus on the impact of stress on development and learning and the importance of enhancing emotional and social well-being as well as learning capacities in children within educational contexts.

  ! ! " !" # $ ! " # % $ $

  ! ! & ! % " & ' & ( $ ) " *

• (" ' '
• " , - '#,"! (! " % ! ) " ( $ ) " ! ! ( . ! * ! ! $ )

  ! %

• " ! * ! , ! + - $% .

  ,

• ( // - , - , +
• 0 ./ ! $ ! ! 10 * * ! ( 2# " ' % % & & ! ) $ % % $% ' ) ! .

  '" + ) % % ) ' ' $" ' ! + ' ' !

  , $ ) " ! ! ! $ , " , " - ' *

  , %

• $ $ ! ! # - " # % * 3 !
• " ' ! / ! ! 3 ' '4 ' 0 # ' 0 5 " 5" " ' 0 # ' 0

  _{! *7 ! ! ,} , 60 ) ( 6 0

_{122$$$ + ! 122$$$ ' , + !}

_{$ #1 3455 3466 #1 3889 :;69} !

• 7 ! < = $ . ! ! ! _{, ! $ ! , , $ 122$$$ > + ! ! #1 3455 3498 122$$$ > + ! #1 3889 :;45 122$$$ % ! + ! # 345; 885?}

  $ > ! ! _{! ! ! $ 122$$$ @! + ! #1 3889 :;;:}

! A! ! ! ! !

_{, $ ! ! ! ! !}

_{122$$$ + ! 122$$$ + !}

_{#1 3889 :;8B #1 3889 :;9; 122$$$ ! ! + ! !}

_{! ! ! C , $ $}

, A! 1 @ $ ! > ! _{# 345; ?B38 ! $ 122$$$ + ! #1 3455 344?} > $ ! D ! _{! $ $ ! !}

_{122$$$ ! + ! #1 345? 566:}

_{A! ! ! $ , $ #1 345? ?B99 122$$$ " + ! 7 122$$$ + ! 122$$$ + ! # 345; ?B5B # 345; ?B5B}

_{! ! ,}

*7 !