Introduction

The Failure of Transmission

For centuries, a single metaphor has dominated education: the mind as an empty vessel waiting to be filled. In this model, knowledge is a substance transferred from a teacher, the full source, to a student, the empty container. The classroom is arranged to optimize this one-way flow—rows of desks facing a lecturer, a pedagogy of listening, a measure of success based on faithful reception. But this transmission model is built on a flawed premise. We do not sit as vessels to be filled; we sit as minds seeking one another. True learning is not a passive reception but an active, social, and transformative process. It is a dialogue, not a monologue.

Thesis: The Circle as a Cognitive Architecture

This article argues that education is most effective not as a process of transmission but as a structured, dialogic transformation. We propose the ‘learning circle’ as the optimal architecture for this process. A learning circle is a pedagogical system designed to foster collective discovery and, in turn, individual competence. It operates by systematically cultivating intersubjectivity—a shared space of mutual understanding. We will demonstrate that this seemingly abstract philosophical concept has a concrete, measurable neural correlate: inter-brain synchrony (IBS), the alignment of neural activity between interacting individuals. Drawing on evidence from social development theory, cognitive science, philosophy, and neuroscience, we will show that the learning circle is not a mere technique but a powerful cognitive engine, one that leverages the geometry of human interaction to build knowledge that no single mind could construct alone.

The Problem with the Empty Vessel

Defining the Transmission Model

The transmission model, also known as the “banking model” of education, positions the teacher as the sole authority and the student as a passive recipient of information (Freire, 1970). Its core activities are lecturing and rote memorization. Knowledge is treated as a static commodity to be deposited into the student’s mind. The underlying assumption is that learning is a linear, individualistic process of absorption. This framework implicitly devalues the learner’s prior knowledge, cultural context, and capacity for critical inquiry. It structures the educational environment for compliance and reproduction, not for innovation and understanding.

Empirical Shortcomings of Passive Learning

Decades of research have revealed the profound limitations of this passive approach, particularly for developing higher-order thinking skills. Extensive meta-analyses confirm that active and interactive learning methods consistently outperform traditional lecturing. One landmark study in STEM fields found that active learning increases student performance by nearly half a standard deviation and that students in traditional lecture courses are 1.5 times more likely to fail than students in courses with active learning (Freeman et al., 2014). Similarly, the ICAP framework categorizes learning activities as Passive, Active, Constructive, or Interactive, finding that learning outcomes improve significantly as students move from passive listening to interactive dialogue (Chi & Wylie, 2014). The evidence is overwhelming: learning environments that demand engagement, dialogue, and collaboration yield deeper, more durable understanding and significantly narrow achievement gaps (Theobald et al., 2020).

The Theoretical Foundations of Shared Cognition

Vygotsky’s Social Development Theory

Psychologist Lev Vygotsky posited that all higher cognitive functions originate in social interaction (Vygotsky, 1978). Learning does not move from the individual to the collective; it moves from the collective to the individual. His concept of the “Zone of Proximal Development” (ZPD) describes the space between what a learner can do alone and what they can achieve with guidance from a more knowledgeable other. Dialogue is the mechanism that operates within this zone. As Jerome Bruner, extending Vygotsky’s work, explained, what is initially borrowed in dialogue with others becomes internalized as a tool for individual thought (Bruner, 1985).

Dewey’s Link Between Democracy and Education

For philosopher John Dewey, the classroom was a microcosm of society. He argued that education is not merely preparation for life; it is life itself (Dewey, 1916). A democratic society requires citizens who can think critically, deliberate with others, and solve problems collaboratively. Therefore, the educational environment must be structured to cultivate these habits. A learning circle, with its emphasis on participation, mutual respect, and the co-construction of knowledge, is the pedagogical embodiment of Dewey’s democratic ideal. Learn more about foundational education theories.

The Philosophy of Intersubjectivity (Merleau-Ponty)

The experience of shared understanding is philosophically grounded in the concept of intersubjectivity. Defined as the psychological relation between people, it is the common-sense, shared perception of reality. Maurice Merleau-Ponty argued that we are not isolated minds observing an objective world; rather, our perception itself is shaped through our engagement with others (Merleau-Ponty, 1962). The learning circle is an intentional structure for creating this shared phenomenal field, a space where individual perspectives can be woven together into a richer, more complex tapestry of understanding.

The Science of Distributed Cognition (Hutchins, Clark & Chalmers)

Cognitive science provides a final theoretical pillar with the theory of distributed cognition. This framework proposes that human cognition is not confined to the individual brain but extends into the environment, including tools, artifacts, and, most importantly, other people (Hutchins, 1995). The mind is “extended” (Clark & Chalmers, 1998). A team of engineers working around a whiteboard, a flight crew in a cockpit, or a group of students debating a text are all examples of distributed cognitive systems. The learning circle, therefore, is not just a group of individual brains working in parallel; it is an integrated cognitive system where the conversation itself performs a kind of computation, allowing the group to achieve insights unavailable to any single member.

Empirical Evidence: From Neural Coupling to Classroom Outcomes

Brain-to-Brain Coupling as a Measure of Shared Attention

When we communicate successfully, our brains literally get on the same wavelength. This phenomenon, known as inter-brain synchrony (IBS), is the dynamic and transient coupling of neural activity between individuals. Groundbreaking research showed that speaker-listener brain activity becomes coupled during effective communication, and the degree of this coupling predicts the listener’s comprehension (Stephens et al., 2010; Hasson et al., 2012). This is not a metaphor; it is a physiological reality.

This laboratory finding has been extended to the real world. Studies using portable EEG and fNIRS “hyperscanning” setups in classrooms have found that brain-to-brain synchrony between students tracks their engagement and predicts their learning outcomes (Dikker et al., 2017). Furthermore, the synchrony between the teacher’s brain and the students’ brains can predict academic performance, demonstrating a neural basis for effective instruction (Davidesco et al., 2023).

Meta-Analyses on Dialogic and Cooperative Learning

The neurological evidence aligns perfectly with a vast body of educational research. Dialogic teaching, which emphasizes structured, cumulative, and purposeful talk, has been shown to improve student achievement across various subjects (Alexander, 2018; Tao et al., 2024). Similarly, cooperative learning structures not only boost academic outcomes but also enhance higher-order thinking, problem-solving skills, and positive social behaviors (Boke et al., 2025; Ridwan et al., 2022). These large-scale studies provide robust, macro-level confirmation of what the neuroscience suggests: structuring interaction is the key to unlocking deeper learning.

The Neurological and Physiological Signature of Collaboration

Inter-brain synchrony is part of a broader suite of physiological signals that reflect group cohesion and performance. Cooperative behavior reliably evokes inter-brain synchrony, particularly in the prefrontal cortex, a region associated with planning and social cognition (Czeszumski et al., 2022). This extends beyond the brain; groups working together also exhibit interpersonal physiological synchrony in heart rate, respiration, and electrodermal activity (Ohayon et al., 2024). This multi-level synchrony is not an epiphenomenon; it predicts key group outcomes like cohesion and coordinated performance (Tomashin et al., 2022; Réveillé et al., 2024). The circle, it seems, coordinates us from the neural level up.

Objections and Refinements

The Critique of Unstructured Discovery

The argument for the learning circle is not an argument for an unstructured free-for-all. Rigor and intentional design are paramount. Critics have rightly pointed out that unguided or “pure discovery” learning can be ineffective and inefficient, particularly for novice learners. It can impose a heavy cognitive load, leading to frustration and misconceptions (Kirschner et al., 2006). This is a valid and crucial objection. The learning circle is not an abdication of the teacher’s responsibility but a transformation of it. The circle is a highly structured environment. The teacher’s role shifts from being a “sage on the stage” to an “architect of discovery,” designing the tasks, providing the cognitive scaffolds, and enforcing the protocols that make collective inquiry productive.

The Risk of Unequal Participation

Another significant challenge is the tendency for a few dominant voices to monopolize conversation, silencing others and undermining the group’s collective intelligence. Without intentional design, a “circle” can easily replicate existing social hierarchies. The solution lies in implementing specific protocols—structured turn-taking, reciprocal questioning, and assigned roles—that guarantee equity of voice and enforce cognitive reciprocity. Research shows that such dialogic interventions can effectively promote more equitable participation and, consequently, better learning outcomes for all students (Sedova et al., 2025).

Distinguishing Synchrony from Groupthink

Finally, it is critical to distinguish productive inter-brain synchrony from the neural signature of conformity or groupthink. High synchrony is not intrinsically good. If an entire group simply synchronizes to a dominant, incorrect idea, learning is inhibited. The most effective forms of synchrony appear to be dynamic and flexible, allowing for moments of coupling (shared understanding) and decoupling (individual thought, critical dissent) (e.g., Liu et al., 2022). The goal is not a monolithic group mind, but a state of structured coherence—a polyphony where multiple voices contribute to a single, complex understanding.

Synthesis: The Circle as a System

Structure Determines Function: Protocols for Equity and Rigor

The core principle of the learning circle is that structure determines function. The arrangement of bodies in a circle is the physical starting point, but the system’s power comes from the social and cognitive protocols that govern interaction. These rules are not about etiquette; they are algorithms for thinking together. By managing turn-taking, requiring participants to build on others’ ideas, and mandating the explicit consideration of counter-evidence, these protocols transform a simple conversation into a powerful engine for rigorous inquiry.

Conversation as Computation

From a distributed cognition perspective, the structured conversation within the circle performs a type of computation. Each participant contributes processing power and a unique dataset (their knowledge and perspective). The protocols act as the operating system, ensuring that these individual contributions are integrated efficiently. The result is a collective output—an idea, a solution, a shared understanding—that is more robust and nuanced than what any single participant could have generated. This is the essence of collective intelligence, where the performance of the group systematically exceeds the performance of its individual members (Woolley et al., 2010).

Synchrony as a Diagnostic, Not a Goal

Within this system, inter-brain and physiological synchrony serve as a valuable diagnostic tool, not the ultimate goal. The goal is discovery and learning. Synchrony is a real-time, objective measure of whether the necessary underlying conditions—shared attention, mutual engagement, and cognitive coupling—are being met. Low synchrony might indicate that the task is unclear, the protocol is failing, or participants are disengaged. High but rigid synchrony might signal a lack of critical thinking. By monitoring these dynamics, we can potentially diagnose and improve the functioning of the learning system in real time.

Implications for Practice and Design

For the Classroom Teacher: From Lecturer to Facilitator

The teacher’s role fundamentally changes. Instead of being a purveyor of content, the teacher becomes a designer and facilitator of learning experiences. Their expertise is deployed not in lecturing, but in formulating powerful questions, designing cognitively demanding tasks, selecting and implementing interaction protocols, and guiding the group’s process of inquiry and synthesis. Their primary responsibility is to manage the structure that allows knowledge to emerge from the group itself.

For the Instructional Designer: Scaffolding Collective Work

For instructional designers, the focus shifts from creating content for individual consumption to designing artifacts that scaffold collective work. This includes developing shared digital workspaces, creating prompt sequences that guide discussion through stages of inquiry, and designing “cognitive artifacts”—like checklists, argument maps, or data visualizations—that offload cognitive burdens and focus the group’s mental energy on higher-order thinking.

For Educational Technology: Tools for Thoughtful Interaction

Technology should not aim to automate or replace the teacher, but to augment the learning circle. Future tools could provide real-time feedback on conversational dynamics (e.g., “Person X has spoken for 60% of the time”). They could facilitate more structured forms of debate or enable groups to collaboratively build complex models. AI-enhanced systems might serve as a “Socratic partner” in the circle, posing challenging questions or summarizing emergent themes to aid the group’s metacognition (Cui et al., 2024).

Conclusion: The Transformative Question

The transmission model of education is an artifact of an era that lacked the tools to see, measure, and understand the deep dynamics of human interaction. We now know better. We have the theoretical grounding, the empirical evidence from both classroom outcomes and neuroscience, and the practical design principles to move beyond it. The learning circle is not a sentimental preference for collaborative work; it is a high-performance cognitive architecture, engineered to do what individual minds cannot. It replaces the old question, “What do I give you?” with a far more powerful and transformative one: “What can we discover together that none of us could find alone?”

---

End Matter

Assumptions

• This model assumes the primary goal of education extends beyond rote memorization to include critical thinking, problem-solving, and socio-emotional skills.
• It assumes that inter-brain synchrony is a valid and reliable proxy for the quality of cognitive coupling and shared attention, though the precise relationship is still under investigation.
• It assumes that teachers and facilitators can be effectively trained to manage the complex social and cognitive dynamics of a learning circle.

Limits

• The applicability of this model may vary across different domains (e.g., creative arts vs. procedural mathematics) and developmental stages.
• The technology for measuring and providing real-time feedback on inter-brain synchrony in authentic classroom settings is still nascent and not widely accessible (Tan et al., 2023).
• This post focuses primarily on the cognitive and neurological benefits, giving less weight to crucial motivational and affective factors that also drive successful collaboration.

Testable Predictions

• Prediction 1: An educational intervention that trains teachers to use specific dialogic protocols (e.g., structured turn-taking, accountable talk) will result in a measurable increase in class-wide inter-brain synchrony and will lead to greater pre-post test learning gains compared to a control group.
• Prediction 2: In a collaborative problem-solving task, the temporal dynamics of a dyad’s inter-brain synchrony (e.g., periods of high coupling followed by decoupling) will predict their performance better than the average synchrony alone.
• Prediction 3: Groups using a digital tool that visualizes conversational participation patterns will demonstrate more equitable turn-taking and report higher levels of psychological safety and collective intelligence compared to groups without the tool.

References

• Alexander, R. (2018). Developing dialogic teaching: Genesis, process, trial. Research Papers in Education, 33(5), 561–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2018.1433221
• Bevilacqua, D., Davidesco, I., Wan, L., Poeppel, D., & Dikker, S. (2019). Brain-to-brain synchrony and learning outcomes vary by student–teacher dynamics: Evidence from a real-world classroom EEG study. Mind, Brain, and Education, 13(4), 258–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12217
• Boke, H., Demirezen, M., & Aydin, S. (2025). Effects of cooperative learning on students’ learning outcomes: A meta-analysis. Sustainability, 17(4), 1695. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17041695
• Bruner, J. (1985). Vygotsky: A historical and conceptual perspective. In J. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, Communication, and Cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 21–34). Cambridge University Press.
• Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823
• Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58(1), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/58.1.7
• Cui, H., Wu, H., Wang, W., Wang, F., & Hu, Y. (2024). AI-enhanced collective intelligence: A survey, framework, and future directions. Patterns, 5(10), 100987. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2024.100987
• Czeszumski, A., Al-Zubaidi, A., Al-Jawahiri, R., & Eustergerling, S. (2022). Cooperative behavior evokes interbrain synchrony: A systematic review and meta-analysis of fNIRS hyperscanning studies. eNeuro, 9(2), ENEURO.0268-21.2022. https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0268-21.2022
• Davidesco, I., Laurent, E., Valk, H., West, T., Milne, C., & Poeppel, D. (2023). The temporal dynamics of brain-to-brain synchrony between students and teachers predict learning outcomes. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 35(10), 1754–1770. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_02030
• Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. Macmillan.
• Dikker, S., Wan, L., Davidesco, I., Kaggen, L., Oostrik, M., McClain, J., Rowland, J., & Poeppel, D. (2017). Brain-to-brain synchrony tracks real-world classroom engagement. Current Biology, 27(9), 1375–1380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2017.04.002
• Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
• Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Herder and Herder.
• Hasson, U., Ghazanfar, A. A., Galantucci, B., Garrod, S., & Keysers, C. (2012). Brain-to-brain coupling: A mechanism for creating and sharing a social world. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(2), 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.12.007
• Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. MIT Press.
• Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
• Liu, N., Zhang, L., Ma, Q., Wang, H., Liu, Y., Zhang, W., & Wei, D. (2022). Flexible brain-to-brain synchrony in creative teams. NeuroImage, 260, 119488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2022.119488
• Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception (C. Smith, Trans.). Routledge.
• Ohayon, S., Gal, O., Hess, U., & Shamay-Tsoory, S. G. (2024). Multimodal interpersonal synchrony: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuroscience Research, 200, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neures.2024.01.006
• Réveillé, C., Reinero, D. A., & Dikker, S. (2024). Using interbrain synchrony to study teamwork: A systematic review. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 158, 105512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2024.105512
• Ridwan, M. R., Sari, I. K., & Anwar, K. (2022). Meta-analysis of cooperative learning effectiveness in mathematics. International Journal of Instruction, 15(3), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2022.1531a
• Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. Oxford University Press.
• Sedova, K., Salamounova, Z., Svaricek, R., & Majcik, M. (2025). Let them all talk: Fostering equitable participation in classroom talk through a dialogic teaching intervention. Language and Education, 39(7), 649–668. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2023.2295624
• Stephens, G. J., Silbert, L. J., & Hasson, U. (2010). Speaker–listener neural coupling underlies successful communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(32), 14425–14430. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1008662107
• Tan, S. H. J., Tan, S. M. K. L., & Toh, W. X. (2023). Is neuroimaging ready for the classroom? A systematic review of the ecological validity of neuroimaging studies in education. NeuroImage, 279, 120312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2023.120312
• Tao, Y., Wan, Y., Yi, X., & Yang, X. (2024). The relationship between dialogic teacher talk and student achievement: A three-level meta-analysis. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 51, 101372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101372
• Theobald, E. J., Hill, M. J., Tran, E., Agrawal, S., Arroyo, E. N., Behling, S., Chambwe, N., Cintrón, D. L., Cooper, J. D., Dunster, G., Grummer, J. A., Hennessey, K., Hsiao, J., Iranon, N., Jones, L., Jordt, H., Keller, M., Lacey, M. E., Littlefield, C. E., … Freeman, S. (2020). Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in science, technology, engineering, and math. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(12), 6476–6483. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1916903117
• Tomashin, A., Abzt, A., Bar-Haim, Y., & Shamay-Tsoory, S. G. (2022). Interpersonal physiological synchrony predicts group cohesion. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 11874. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-15967-4
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
• Woolley, A. W., Chabris, C. F., Pentland, A., Hashmi, N., & Malone, T. W. (2010). Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science, 330(6004), 686–688. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1193147