Effect of a Science of Learning Course on Beliefs in Neuromyths and Neuroscience Literacy

Abstract

Misconceptions about the brain (neuromyths) among educators have been found across different countries, but little has been done to dispel them. The present study assessed the effect of a one-year Science of Learning (SoL) course on neuroscience literacy and beliefs in neuromyths in a sample of Chilean pre-service teachers. An experimental group of pre-service teachers, who took the SoL course as part of their university training, and a control group were needed for the study. Participants in both groups completed an online survey three times during the year (beginning, middle and end of year). The results showed that participants in both groups responded correctly to most assertions but held major misconceptions about the brain (Time 1), in line with previous studies. Regarding neuroscience literacy, participants in the experimental and control groups did not differ significantly at Time 1, but the experimental group showed significantly better performance than the control group at Time 2 and Time 3. Unlike neuroscience literacy, the results in neuromyth beliefs did not differ significantly by group at Time 1 and Time 2; however, at Time 3, the experimental group showed a significant decline in neuromyth beliefs. Overall, these results suggest that the SoL course significantly improved overall neuroscience literacy and reduced neuromyth belief among pre-service teachers, but the effect of the intervention was small.

Empirical model of teachers’ neuroplasticity knowledge, mindset, and epistemological belief system

“…The existing literature also supports this finding. The results of other studies support that teachers with genuine or scientific knowledge, particularly knowledge about the brain or educational neuroscience, are less likely to have a poor belief system and neuromyths (Dubinsky et al, 2013;Ferrero et al, 2016;Wilcox et al, 2021;Ferreira and Rodríguez, 2022). Teachers' fixed mindset, naïve epistemological beliefs, and neuromyths all constitute a teacher poor belief system that may hinder the quality of their pedagogical skills and decisions.…”

“…This may positively influence teachers’ patience and optimism, as well as help them to develop an effective professional attitude toward students” (p.1). Other empirical research suggests that teachers’ knowledge of educational neuroscience significantly reduces their neuromyth beliefs ( Wilcox et al, 2021 ; Ferreira and Rodríguez, 2022 ); improves the quality of learning, and promotes equity among learners ( Coch, 2018 ); enhances educators’ pedagogical practice and thinking to meet learners’ diverse needs ( Walker et al, 2019 ); provides teachers a platform to promote students’ motivation and engagement ( Dubinsky et al, 2019 ); and develops teachers’ pedagogical practice, enhances stronger relationships between teachers and learners, and increases meaningful learning ( Hachem et al, 2022 ). A significant part of teachers’ folk pedagogy and naïve pedagogical beliefs root in the lack of scientific knowledge about relevant phenomena they deal with in the teaching-learning process.…”

The use of visual, auditory, kinesthetic (VAK) learning to increase student learning outcomes

“…The VAK learning is focused on providing direct experience by seeing (visual), learning by hearing (auditory), and learning by movement and emotional (kinesthetic) (Ferreira & Rodríguez, 2022;Kusumawarti et al, 2020;Zulfadewina et al, 2020). In addition, VAK learning makes group learning and each student is required to play an active role so as to make learning more active and effective.…”

A Comparative Study about High School Teachers’ Neuromyths in Turkey and Israel

“…It shows, however, that teachers' neuromyths about the structure of the brain in Turkey and Israel might enhance false information in the teaching process and contribute to the formation of new neuromyths. Studies in the related literature based on this perspective are being conducted with the aim of removing neuromyths from educational practices and policies (Ferreira & Rodríguez, 2022;Dekker & Kim, 2022;Grospietsch & Lins, 2021;Pávová & Valent, 2020;Goswami, 2010;Howard-Jones et al, 2007;Howard-Jones, 2010). The countries covered in these studies are Turkey (Karakus et al, 2015), Greece (Deligiannidi & Howard-Jones, 2015;Papadatou-Pastou et al, 2017), Argentina (Hermida, Segretin, Soni Garcia, & Lipina, 2016), East China (Pei et al, 2015), Spain (Ferrero et al, 2016) and Latin America (Gleichgerrcht et al, 2015).…”