Shichida Method and Right-Brain Education: What to Know Before Enrolling

Why this topic is on parents’ minds

I think many of you have had the experience, while pregnant or right after giving birth, of a mom friend recommending, “You should go to Shichida,” or “The golden period of the right brain is until age 3, so now is your chance.”

Shichida Method early learning classes operate nationwide, and the monthly fees are by no means cheap. The videos shown at information sessions—“babies reacting to flashcards,” “children guessing cards while blindfolded”—strongly sway parents who want to bet on their child’s potential.

For both families who already attend and families now considering it—we will tell you frankly where neuroscience currently stands, and the value that “really does remain” in the classes.

Where did this method come from?

The founder of the Shichida Method is Makoto Shichida (1929-2009). He was known as an education researcher, and his starting point was opening a small cram school called the “Children’s Education Research Institute” in Gotsu City, Shimane Prefecture, in 1958.

After that, he systematized his own educational theory centered on drawing out the abilities of the right brain, and in 1987 expanded Shichida Child Academy Co., Ltd. as a franchise. It grew into one of Japan’s representative early learning schools.

In 2018, the headquarters side, EQWEL Child Academy, and the Shichida family side, Shichida Method Classes, split into separate corporations, and now two lines run classes in parallel (with common roots in educational content).

1. 1958

   The Children's Education Research Institute opens

   Makoto Shichida opened a cram school in Gotsu City, Shimane Prefecture. He began research into his own educational methods for young children and schoolchildren.

2. 1980s

   Right-brain education is systematized

   He developed, in his books, an educational theory centered on 'drawing out the abilities of the right brain.' Flashcards, image training, recitation, speed reading, and more were built into a curriculum.

3. 1987

   Shichida Child Academy is founded

   Franchise expansion began in earnest, spreading the network of classes across Japan.

4. 2009

   Makoto Shichida dies

   The founder died at age 79.

5. 2018

   The split into EQWEL and Shichida Method Classes

   After events over the licensing between the headquarters corporation and the Shichida family side, it split into two lines: EQWEL Child Academy and Shichida Method Classes (both start from Makoto Shichida's educational thought).

Historically, it has parts that are close in thought to the “right-brain, massive input” lineage of figures such as Glenn Doman in the United States (a person who applied rehabilitation methods for children with brain injuries to early education for typically developing children). The style of making heavy use of flashcards is a feature of this lineage (for details, see the flashcards article (Japanese)).

What the Shichida Method claims

Organized, the central claims of the Shichida Method and right-brain education can be divided roughly into these three.

1. The left brain and right brain have separate abilities. The left brain governs “language, logic, and analysis,” and the right brain governs “imagery, intuition, massive memory, and ESP-like abilities”
2. Because the workings of the right brain become fixed by around age 6, the right brain needs to be “opened” before then through massive input (flashcards, recitation, speed reading, image training)
3. Children whose right brains have been opened come to show “genius abilities” such as photographic memory, ultra-fast calculation, and seeing through cards while blindfolded

Of these, what has been the focus of debate in the research world is mainly 1 and 3. Let’s look at them in order.

What does the research say?

Main finding 1: “Left-brained people / right-brained people” is not supported by neuroscience

The idea that is the premise of “right-brain education”—“people come in left-brain types and right-brain types, and training the right brain makes you creative”—has been classified in the world of neuroscience as a “neuromyth,” that is, a mistaken popular belief that sounds like neuroscience.

The largest test of this was by a research team at the University of Utah in the United States.

Nielsen and colleagues at the University of Utah (2013)

A study that imaged the brains of 1,011 people ages 7 to 29 with fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging), divided the whole brain into 7,266 small regions, and examined, person by person, whether the “networks” of the left or the right hemisphere were stronger

concluded that the pattern of “some people have generally stronger left-brain networks, and others have generally stronger right-brain networks” could not be confirmed.

In other words, the personality-like classification of “left-brain type” and “right-brain type” did not exist in the brain images.

Of course, it is a fact in itself that individual functions are lateralized (language processing leans left, spatial cognition leans right, and so on). This has been known for more than 100 years. The error is not there, but in generalizing that “therefore humans can be divided into left-brain types or right-brain types, and training one side changes personality.”

Main finding 2: “Education that trains the right brain” is not supported by education research either

Then what about research that tested, without bringing in neuroscience, “whether children who received right-brain education grew more than children who did not”?

Lindell & Kidd in Australia (2011)

A paper that critically examined, as a neuroscience review, a group of methods in education based on the left-brain/right-brain dichotomy, such as “right-brain education” and “whole-brain education”

points out that “the idea of left-brain types and right-brain types was already rejected in the neuroscience literature more than 25 years ago,” and concludes that there is no independent, high-quality evidence that programs advertising “right-brain education” are effective.

While noting that it is understandable that education settings are susceptible to the language of “brain science,” the authors propose that “precisely for that reason, educators should learn the basics of the brain and become able to distinguish evidence-based programs from pseudoscientific ones.”

Dekker and colleagues at VU University Amsterdam (2012)

A study that surveyed 242 teachers in the U.K. and the Netherlands on how much they believed 15 neuromyths about the brain

reported that a striking 91% of teachers believed the neuromyth that “people mainly use either the left brain or the right brain, and this explains differences in how they learn.” There is a large gap between the evaluation in the expert world and what is widely believed on the ground.

Main finding 3: About claims of abilities such as “photographic memory / seeing through cards”

Claims of abilities told at Shichida Method information sessions and in its books—“guessing cards while blindfolded,” “memorizing thousands of pictures in an instant”—are themes that have long been tested in psychology in the research areas of ESP (extrasensory perception) and exceptional memory abilities.

For these abilities, no high-quality studies reproduced under rigorous experimental conditions (where the examiner does not know the answers, answers are tallied under conditions where they cannot be seen, etc.) can be found at present. Everyday experiences that “look amazing” and reproducibility under controlled experimental conditions need to be treated as separate things.

What matters here is not “whether the child reacted amazingly,” but “whether it could be reproduced in third-party testing with controlled conditions.” The sight of children actually lighting up in class is real, but it is natural in research terms to read it not as evidence that “the right brain has opened,” but as evidence that the child is in an environment where they can concentrate happily.

Main finding 4: Then is there something in the class that “works”?

Reading this far, some of you may worry, “Is there no point at all in going to the class?” But research shows something else.

Let’s break down into elements what actually happens in Shichida Method classes.

• Parent and child sit together and talk while looking at picture books and cards
• They sing songs and play rhythm games
• They play catch with words through recitation and repetition
• They loosely interact with other parents and children attending the same class
• Parents form a habit of “making time for the child”

All of these are elements whose effects have been repeatedly confirmed in research on language development, social-emotional development, and attachment formation (see also the article on reading aloud (Japanese)).

In other words, it is natural in research terms to read it not as “the child grew because the right brain opened,” but as “the child grew because rich time facing each other with the parent was secured.” This is not a story denying the value of the classes. It means that the logic on the signboard and the mechanism actually at work are separate things.

Dialogue

What you can do instead (or together with a class)

The wish to “help my child’s language and cognitive development grow” makes sense according to research. Whether or not you go to a class, what you can do at home is the same.

1. Reading picture books aloud

As we wrote in detail in the article on reading aloud (Japanese), a meta-analysis of 99 studies produced the strong result that the amount of reading aloud in the preschool years explains 12% of the differences in later oral language ability. You can start from age 0, and it costs almost nothing. It can be said that adding one more picture book has thicker research support than buying flashcards.

2. Increase everyday conversation

While shopping, while cooking, while walking—in any situation, put names to what your child is seeing and share your impressions. Play conversational catch: “What’s this?” “Mommy likes ___.” This works better than materials.

3. Wait for your child’s reaction

With cards or picture books, rather than telling the answer right away, wait for the time your child points, makes a sound, or thinks. This “waiting” time draws out the child’s words and thinking.

4. Protect your own breathing room as a parent

This is also important. Dekker and colleagues (2012), who studied how neuromyths spread, point out that the more keen people are on education, the more susceptible they are to neuroscience-sounding stories. If parents are worn down by messages like “if you don’t do this, your child can’t become a genius” or “it’s too late by age 6,” the most important thing—“a state in which the parent can face the child calmly”—is lost. What works best for your child is not materials but engagement from a parent with room to breathe.

Closing dialogue

Research details

Primary sources

StrongNielsen et al.2013PLoS ONE, 8(8), e71275

Study design: A large-scale cross-sectional observational study using functional MRI (fMRI)

Participants: 1,011 people in the United States (ages 7 to 29). Brain functional networks at rest were imaged.

Analysis: The gray matter of the whole brain was divided into 7,266 small regions, and the strength of functional connectivity (networks) in the left and right hemispheres was compared for each individual.

Main results: While left-right lateralization was confirmed for individual functions (language leaning left, attention leaning right, etc.), the pattern “a given individual has stronger left-hemisphere networks / stronger right-hemisphere networks across the whole brain” was not confirmed. No basis was found supporting a personality-like, whole-brain classification of “left-brain type / right-brain type.”

Limitations: It is an analysis of resting-state connectivity with fMRI, and did not directly measure activity during specific tasks or long-term learning effects. Even so, with a large sample size and refined analysis methods, it is among the strongest grounds to date for rejecting the left-brain/right-brain personality theory.

StrongLindell & Kidd2011Mind, Brain, and Education, 5(3), 121-127

Study design: A neuroscience review paper (a critical evaluation of “right-brain education” programs in education)

Main results: It concludes that the concept of hemisphericity—“left-brain type / right-brain type”—was already rejected in the neuroscience literature more than 25 years ago. It concludes that no evidence has been confirmed that educational programs advertising “right-brain education” or “whole-brain education” have shown effects in independent, high-quality testing. It proposes incorporating basic brain science into teacher education.

Limitations: It is not an empirical study newly measuring the effects of individual educational programs, but a review and discussion of existing research.

StrongDekker, Lee, Howard-Jones & Jolles2012Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 429

Study design: Questionnaire survey (of teachers in the U.K. and the Netherlands)

Participants: 242 primary and secondary school teachers interested in neuroscience

Main results: When asked to judge whether 32 statements about the brain (15 of which were neuromyths) were true or false, teachers on average believed 49% of the neuromyths to be “true.” In particular, the statement “people mainly use either the left brain or the right brain, and this explains differences in learning styles” was supported by 91% of teachers. Teachers with more general knowledge about the brain tended to believe neuromyths at a higher rate too.

Limitations: It is a sample of teachers in the U.K. and the Netherlands, and whether it generalizes as is to Japanese parents and educators needs testing. However, it suggests that the tendency “the more keen people are on education, the more susceptible they are to neuroscience-style claims” may be common across cultures.

StrongAmerican Academy of Pediatrics1999Pediatrics, 104(5), 1149-1151

Study design: Policy statement (an evaluation by a professional society)

Scope: A comprehensive evaluation of existing research on the Glenn Doman method (patterning treatment by the IAHP), which is in the lineage of the Shichida Method.

Main results: It concluded that “this method is based on an outdated and oversimplified theory of brain development, and there is currently no evidence supporting its effectiveness.” It further pointed out that “the burden on families is large, and household finances may be severely strained or stress may arise in marital relationships.” It has expressed a similar position several times, in 1968, 1982, 1999, and 2010.

Limitations: It is a policy statement and does not provide new empirical data. The AAP is a U.S. medical professional organization, and its views may not necessarily reflect regional cultures. Note that this statement directly addresses the Doman method, but it is referred to as a point relevant to early childhood education programs in general that assume the left-brain/right-brain dichotomy and massive input.