Dispelling the Myth: Training in Education or Neuroscience Decreases but Does Not Eliminate Beliefs in Neuromyths

Abstract

Neuromyths are misconceptions about brain research and its application to education and learning. Previous research has shown that these myths may be quite pervasive among educators, but less is known about how these rates compare to the general public or to individuals who have more exposure to neuroscience. This study is the first to use a large sample from the United States to compare the prevalence and predictors of neuromyths among educators, the general public, and individuals with high neuroscience exposure. Neuromyth survey responses and demographics were gathered via an online survey hosted at TestMyBrain.org. We compared performance among the three groups of interest: educators (N = 598), high neuroscience exposure (N = 234), and the general public (N = 3,045) and analyzed predictors of individual differences in neuromyths performance. In an exploratory factor analysis, we found that a core group of 7 “classic” neuromyths factored together (items related to learning styles, dyslexia, the Mozart effect, the impact of sugar on attention, right-brain/left-brain learners, and using 10% of the brain). The general public endorsed the greatest number of neuromyths (M = 68%), with significantly fewer endorsed by educators (M = 56%), and still fewer endorsed by the high neuroscience exposure group (M = 46%). The two most commonly endorsed neuromyths across all groups were related to learning styles and dyslexia. More accurate performance on neuromyths was predicted by age (being younger), education (having a graduate degree), exposure to neuroscience courses, and exposure to peer-reviewed science. These findings suggest that training in education and neuroscience can help reduce but does not eliminate belief in neuromyths. We discuss the possible underlying roots of the most prevalent neuromyths and implications for classroom practice. These empirical results can be useful for developing comprehensive training modules for educators that target general misconceptions about the brain and learning.

The Impact of a Modified Initial Teacher Education on Challenging Trainees' Understanding of Neuromyths

“…Although there is some evidence that those with significantly more expert knowledge of the brain are less likely to believe in neuromyths (Howard‐Jones et al, ; MacDonald et al, ), this is not a consistent finding. In their study of in‐service teachers, Dekker et al () found that an interest in the brain made belief in neuromyths more likely, possibly due to the increased likelihood of encountering more dubious claims.…”

“…There is a growing body of literature documenting the neuromyths found commonly and widely among in‐service teachers with studies in the United Kingdom and Netherlands (Dekker, Lee, Howard‐Jones, & Jolles, ), East China (Pei, Howard‐Jones, Zhang, Liu, & Jin, ), Greece (Deligiannidi & Howard‐Jones, 2015), Turkey (Karakus, Howard‐Jones, & Jay, ), Latin America (Gleichgerrcht, Lira Luttges, Salvarezza, & Campos, ; Spain (Ferrero, Garaizar, & Vadillo, , Canada (Sarrasin, Riopel, & Masson, ), Switzerland (Tardif et al, ), the United States (MacDonald et al, ), and South Korea (Im, Cho, Dubinsky, & Varma, ). The most prevalent neuromyths have been remarkably consistent across countries, with widespread beliefs that teaching should be tailored according to a pupil ' s learning style and that cerebral hemispheric dominance explains differences between learners.…”

“…Over the past decade, there have been increasing calls for greater integration and collaboration between cognitive psychology, neuroscience, and teaching, but also a recognition that this is problematic and that deliberate bridging is required (Goswami, ; Horvath & Donoghue, ; Howard‐Jones, ; Royal Society, ; Sigman, Peña, Goldin, & Ribeiro, ). This study addresses how teachers are prepared to engage with scientific accounts of learning during their initial teacher education (ITE) by recognizing and challenging misconceptions about the brain and learning, known as “neuromyths” (OECD, ), that are prevalent among trainee teachers (Grospietsch & Mayer, ; Howard‐Jones, Franey, Mashmoushi, & Liao, ; MacDonald, Germaine, Anderson, Christodoulou, & McGrath, ; Papadatou‐Pastou, Haliou, & Vlachos, ; Pasquinelli, ; Tardif, Doudin, & Meylan, ).…”

Neuromyths and Their Origin Among Teachers in Quebec

“…In addition, while it may be difficult to verify the precise content of the courses in initial teacher training, it may be judicious to ensure that course descriptors and textbooks provide content in accordance with current knowledge. Finally, the introduction of neuroeducation courses in initial training, including the refutation of certain neuromyths (see Kowalski & Taylor, ; Macdonald, Germine, Anderson, Christodoulou, & McGrath, ), could constitute a part of an interesting solution. These solutions could ultimately allow teachers to be aware of these neuromyths, could prevent them from emerging, dispel those already present in education, and help move towards an education increasingly based on research.…”

Learning Neuroscience with Technology: a Scaffolded, Active Learning Approach

“…When teachers and students receive instruction on the neuroscience of learning, teachers’ pedagogy and students’ school performance and attitudes towards learning improve (Blackwell et al 2007; Dubinsky 2010; Dubinsky et al 2013). As these ideas drive neuroscience teaching to become more widespread, designing approaches to handle misconceptions will be critical for preventing the creation and spread of new neuromyths (Macdonald, Germine, Anderson, Christodoulou & McGrath 2017). …”