Scientific concepts of learning and the brain are relevant for biology teachers in two ways: Firstly, the topic is an object of instruction (e.g., long-term potentiation). Secondly, biology teachers must guide their students towards sustainable learning. Consequently, their own understanding of learning and the brain has an especially far-reaching influence on students. Pre-service biology teachers endorse so-called “neuromyths,” misconceptions on the subject of learning and the brain (e.g., the existence of learning styles) even though they cover neuroscientific content during their studies. These misconceptions remain relatively stable throughout university education and practical training. In this paper, we transfer the teaching and learning model of conceptual change to the university context. We investigate whether and to what extent a university course developed in accordance with a professional conceptual change model can reduce pre-service biology teachers’ endorsement of neuromyths. In a pre-post-design, 57 university students were asked about their professional knowledge, beliefs, neuromyths, and perception and utilization of the university course. We found a positive effect of the intervention on all three elements of students’ conceptual understanding. The results show that explicitly refuting misconceptions about learning and the brain (e.g., via conceptual change texts) helps to professionalize neuromyths.

Transferring current research findings on the topic of learning and memory to “brain-based” learning in schools is of great interest among teachers. However, numerous international studies demonstrate that both pre-service and in-service teachers do not always succeed. Instead, they transfer numerous misconceptions about neuroscience, known as neuromyths, into pedagogical practice. As a result, researchers call for more neuroscience in teacher education in order to create a professional understanding of learning and memory. German pre-service science teachers specializing in biology complete neuroscientific modules (human biology/animal physiology) during their studies because they are expected to teach these topics to their students. Thus, they are required to demonstrate a certain degree of neuroscience literacy. In the present study, 550 pre-service science teachers were surveyed on neuromyths and scientific concepts about learning and memory. Pre-service science teachers’ scientific concepts increased over the course of their training. However, beliefs in neuromyths were independent of participants’ status within teacher education (first-year students, advanced students, and post-graduate trainees). The results showed that 10 neuromyths were endorsed by more than 50% of prospective science teachers. Beliefs in the existence of learning styles (93%) and the effectiveness of Brain Gym (92%) were most widespread. Many myths were endorsed even though a large share of respondents had thematically similar scientific concepts; endorsement of neuromyths was found to be largely independent of professional knowledge as well as theory-based and biography-based learning beliefs about neuroscience and learning. Our results suggest that neuromyths can exist in parallel to scientific concepts, professional knowledge and beliefs and are resistant to formal education. From the perspective of conceptual change theory, they thus exhibit characteristic traits of misconceptions that cannot simply be counteracted with increased neuroscientific knowledge. On the basis of our study’s findings, it can be concluded that new teacher programs considering neuromyths as change-resistant misconceptions are needed to professionalize pre-service science teachers’ neuroscience literacy. For this, an intensive web of exchange between the education field and neuroscientists is required, not just to deploy the latest scientific insights to refute neuromyths on learning and memory, but also to identify further neuromyths.

Brain-friendly learning is a new catchphrase in school and university instructional practice. However, it often escapes the notice of the teachers and learners involved that neurodidactics is not simply a plausible concept – it can also be a myth if applied incorrectly. Numerous international studies show that both pre-service and in-service teachers as well as university educators endorse misconceptions on the topic of learning and the brain and orient their didactic conception on so-called neuromyths. This paper presents nine neuromyths on the topic of learning and memory. Based on a review of the current research, we discuss what determines their emergence and prevalence, to what extent neuromyths pose a problem for practice, and why and how both neurodidactics and neuromyths should be made an object of university instruction.

The buzzword brain-based learning emerged in the 1970s and continues to fascinate teachers and learners in schools and universities today. However, what interested teachers often fail to realize is that brain-based or brain-friendly learning can not only be a plausible concept, but also a myth when applied incorrectly. Numerous empirical studies reveal a high degree of support for misconceptions about learning and the brain, known as neuromyths, among both pre-service and in-service teachers. When applied in the classroom, these myths can waste the educational system’s money, time and effort. Even though the neuromyths issue has been known for two decades and the topic remains a focus of constant research, even today, the research discourse barely goes beyond replicating the earliest research findings. This review article provides an overview of the theoretical and empirical state of research on neuromyths. As part of this, ten neuromyths on the subject of learning and memory will be described in terms of content and the results of prior studies on neuromyths will be summarized. The overview of the theoretical and empirical state of research serves as a basis for highlighting controversies, fundamental concepts, issues and problems, current research gaps and potential developments in the field. Topics discussed include whether controversial research findings on correlations with endorsement of neuromyths are merely a methodological artefact, and why contradictions exist between the theoretical and empirical state of research. In addition, three central research gaps will be identified: First, studies should be conducted on whether and to what extent the endorsement of neuromyths really deprives teachers and students of opportunities to spend the education system’s money, time and effort on more effective theories and methods. Second, there is too little work on developing and evaluating intervention approaches to combat neuromyths. Third, a standard scientific methodology or guidelines for determining new neuromyths are lacking. As desirable future developments in the field, more work educating people on neuromyths, uniform vocabulary, and interdisciplinary cooperation are highlighted. This contributes to answering the question of to what extent interweaving neuroscience, educational science and cognitive psychology can contribute to reducing the prevalence of neuromyths in education.

ZusammenfassungLehrkräftebildung hat das Ziel, Studierende zu Fachleuten für das Lehren und Lernen auszubilden. Empirische Studien zeigen jedoch sowohl bei angehenden als auch praktizierenden Lehrkräften eine hohe Zustimmung zu Fehlvorstellungen zum Thema Gehirn und Lernen – sogenannten Neuromythen. In der vorliegenden Studie wird in einem Mixed-Model-Design (N = 40) mit quantitativen und qualitativen Forschungsmethoden und vor dem theoretischen Hintergrund eines Angebots-Nutzungs-Modells untersucht, inwiefern sich durch eine universitäre Lehrveranstaltung mit Konzeptwechseltexten die Zustimmung angehender Biologielehrkräfte zu Neuromythen verändern lässt. Dazu wurde ein Seminar entwickelt und durchgeführt, in dem neun Konzeptwechseltexte eingesetzt wurden. Quantitative Daten wurden zu drei Messzeitpunkten mittels Fragebogen erhoben, qualitative Daten semesterbegleitend mittels offener Aufgaben zu Konzeptwechseltexten. Durch die systematische Verschränkung der Daten wurden Gelingensbedingungen für den Ertrag des Lernangebots geprüft. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass angehende Biologielehrkräfte Neuromythen nicht nur zustimmen, sondern fachlich nicht angemessene und subjektiv-biografische Argumente für Neuromythen nennen. Trotz identifizierter Optimierungsmöglichkeiten bei Angebot und Nutzung der Konzeptwechseltexte für/durch die Studierenden zeigen die quantitativen Ergebnisse, dass sich die Zustimmung zu Neuromythen durch das Seminar mit Konzeptwechseltexten nachhaltig und mit mittleren bis hohen Effektstärken reduzieren lässt. Die qualitativen Ergebnisse zeigen, dass die Argumente angehender Lehrkräfte für Neuromythen breit gestreut sind und nur zu 37–76 % mit den Inhalten der konzipierten Konzeptwechseltexte übereinstimmen. Die Nachbereitung der Konzeptwechseltexte durch die Studierenden verblieb in vielen Fällen auf niedrigem Niveau. Passung des Lehr-Lern-Materials sowie Nachbereitungsniveau erwiesen sich jedoch nicht als Gelingensbedingungen für den Ertrag des Lernangebots. Insgesamt stützen die Ergebnisse, dass das Aufgreifen und Reflektieren von Fehlvorstellungen eine gewinnbringende Perspektive für die Lehrkräftebildung darstellt.