Interventions to Dispel Neuromyths in Educational Settings—A Review

Abstract

Neuromyths are misconceptions about the brain and learning, for instance Tailoring instruction to students' preferred “learning styles” (e.g., visual, auditory, kinesthetic) promotes learning. Recent reviews indicate that the high prevalence of beliefs in neuromyths among educators did not decline over the past decade. Potential adverse effects of neuromyth beliefs on teaching practices prompted researchers to develop interventions to dispel these misconceptions in educational settings. This paper provides a critical review of current intervention approaches. The following questions are examined: Does neuroscience training protect against neuromyths? Are refutation-based interventions effective at dispelling neuromyths, and are corrective effects enduring in time? Why refutation-based interventions are not enough? Do reduced beliefs in neuromyths translate in the adoption of more evidence-based teaching practices? Are teacher professional development workshops and seminars on the neuroscience of learning effective at instilling neuroscience in the classroom? Challenges, issues, controversies, and research gaps in the field are highlighted, notably the so-called “backfire effect,” the social desirability bias, and the powerful intuitive thinking mode. Future directions are outlined.

Unveiling teachers’ beliefs on visual cognition and learning styles of deaf and hard of hearing students: A Portuguese-Swedish study

“…When analysing the teaching experience time with DHH students, we partially confirm our hypothesis, since no significant differences were found in each country, but when we look at the total teachers’ sample, we found that more years of experience does not mean fewer beliefs in neuromyths. This joint sample difference corroborates previous studies that teachers in training showed fewer false beliefs than teachers who are already working [ 40 ]. One of the explanations may be related to the fact that teachers with more experience have been more exposed to sources of information, whether they are trustworthy or not, and can access the neuroscientific literature more lightly, as looking for very specific answers and over-interpreting results, which can easily lead to extrapolations to find pedagogical recipes.…”

“…inclusive educational paradigm for DHH students). Although we did not have enough data to clarify all these possible differences, this is in some way reflected in the scientific literature of both countries, which seems to serve as a reference on the teacher's practice [12,19,21,25,26,29,37,40]. Portuguese sample is the more aged one, but do not have the highest percentage in terms of experience working with DHH students.…”

“…It is also a good example of a false belief with a high percentage except if the sample is of trainee teachers [ 5 , 14 , 16 , 30 , 32 , 41 ]. So, informing teachers in the training process with reliable scientific sources and giving them the tools to be able to check data, could counteract the current trend in more experienced teachers [ 40 , 41 ].…”

“…If on the one hand, samples belong to realities with some common ground in education foundation for the deaf students, on the other, both countries follow now different ways in their educational systems (i.e., teacher´s training programs, the possibility of DHH education in mainstream schools/ special schools and conflicting arguments around the inclusive educational paradigm for DHH students). Although we did not have enough data to clarify all these possible differences, this is in some way reflected in the scientific literature of both countries, which seems to serve as a reference on the teacher’s practice [ 12 , 19 , 21 , 25 , 26 , 29 , 37 , 40 ]. Portuguese sample is the more aged one, but do not have the highest percentage in terms of experience working with DHH students.…”

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

“…Despite the evidence about the positive effect of neuroscience knowledge in education and the efforts to connect neuroscience and education through cognitive psychology, neuromyths persist [ 2 ]. Although there is still no evidence for a causal effect of beliefs in neuromyths and poor teaching practice [ 8 , 9 ], educational policies have already been influenced by beliefs in neuromyths, leading to large amount of resources being spent [ 10 ]. Up to date, the number of studies focused on neuroscience knowledge and belief in neuromyths are numerous, but experiments testing new ways to improve neuroscience knowledge and reduce belief in neuromyths are far fewer.…”