This is an introductory piece to an article I will probably write in the next day or so. It explains the background research, questions and bitter disputes. But before I frame my ideas around these ideas, I want readers to give the ideas a good raking over and a chance to provide counter-references. I'd rather rework my conclusions from a sound premise than write a lengthy piece that's based on a flawed premise.
Virtually all of my ideas on learning, education, etc, is partially derived from the following sources:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?um=1&ie=UTF-8&lr&q=related:qHDLFPn3Es2JXM:scholar.google.com/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0387760499000224
That first link should be to a lot of studies on London taxi drivers, before acquiring The Knowledge and after, and how they compare to others.
The results seem to indicate that intensive active learning can modify and enlarge any section of the brain by up to 20%. The combinatorial explosions that result should increase the power of that part of the brain exponentially - if current understanding of the brain is correct.
There is only so much space in the skull, so you can't increase everything 20%. Even starting in the first few months (the best time to learn a second language, apparently), when the skull hasn't fused and is still soft and relatively malleable, is only going to buy you a little.
However, that's a decent amount and suggests serious under-education.
The NAGC (National Association for Gifted Children) has, in the past, linked school violence with class activities incompatible with ability. That theory would explain why so many have brains that aren't developed anywhere near their potential.
No, this isn't the 10% myth. The brain is always fully used, but you can't magically conjure up enough space to enlarge a brain region 20%, the space has to be there. Since neurons are pruned if superfluous to requirements, around the ages of 7 and 24 if I remember the research rightly, the obvious question to ask is why neurons would be superfluous.
(Brain cells shrink during sleep, allowing them to be washed of toxins. This is why not sleeping will kill you, but is probably also why aging brains need less sleep.)
My other source is James Burke. Link not guaranteed to work, but points to his series The Real Thing (which discusses how the brain perceives the world and why it's wrong).
This body of work led me to wonder if there is a neurological way to optimize learning for any individual. That's the first step.
The second is to argue that if the extra brain circuitry works as believed (distributing the whole of a problem, compartmentalizing similarities between problems), then the extra brain matter should improve the ability to learn (you've more associations you can utilize) and retention of brain function into old age.
The third step is to say that there should be a strategy that maximizes ability in key areas, optimizes freedom to utilize those areas in multiple useful ways (so a sort-of multi-disciplinary specialist, rather than a true generalist) and maximizes freedom to do this throughout life. Since this is neurologically-finessed learning, it should be possible to detect harmful directions long before harm actually happens and to detect when neurological/genetic abnormalities are resulting in unintended developments. As long as you're using sensitive-enough gear and know what to look for. In other words, the strategy should be constantly retuned rather than rigid and dogmatic.
The fourth step is to then theorize what you'd need to do this (it's... not pretty) and to theorize what the effect would be.
But each of those steps is contingent on the one before being true in a meaningful way, with the first being contingent on the validity of the structural MRI research. I don't know of any way to prove probable correctness without doing a 20-year experimental test run. Proving obvious incorrectnesd would be easier, it just requires a counter-study that specifically shows no relationship between brain development outside normal parameters and both ability and training.
I've heard claims of such studies, by believers in the doctrine that everyone learns the same.
The left/right brain thing may well be a myth, but the idea that nobody has a different method of learning (aside from being obviously impossible to reconcile with The Real Thing, where everyone is guaranteed a unique experience all the time and therefore a unique set of clues with which to interpret the world) is clearly false. If it were true, everyone in a class would get identical grades because they'd learn an identical amount.
However, it does demonstrate that even those highly trained in the subject of neurology informing education aren't getting to grips with the science. Or maybe they are, and it's the world that's wrong...
Anyway, either we can divvy up that extra capacity in a way that improves mental freedom, personal accomplishments and enjoyment of life, the premise of neurologically-calibrated education, or we can't. If the former, what can we do? If the latter, well, it's the end of that line of thinking.