Long-term impact of neuroscience outreach interventions on elementary students' knowledge.

Neuroeducation is characterized as a subarea of neuroscience that involves comprehending the teaching and learning processes and relating them to neuroanatomy, neurophysiology, and neuropsychology. The inclusion of some aspects of the neuroscience of learning in teachers' and students' formation, applying them in teaching-learning environments, contributes to the quality of education and impacts students' quality of life and health. Thus, the POPNEURO outreach program performs interventions with students and teachers of low-income schools to disseminate neuroscience concepts, relating them to the students' daily lives. This study reports the impact of these actions, assessed 1 yr after their conclusion. The results showed that the long-term impact of the activities carried out is, in general, positive. Even 1 yr after the activities end, students demonstrate knowledge about the neuroscience themes and satisfaction with participating.NEW & NOTEWORTHY This article reports on neuroscience disclosure activities performed with school students and describes their short- and long-term positive impact. Even 1 yr after the activities, students demonstrate knowledge about the themes worked on and satisfaction with the activities.

Debunking the Neuromyth of Learning Style.

Neuromyths are an important issue in the context of the educational practice, as the misunderstanding of teachers about how the human brain works lead to educational interventions that can have a negative impact on learning. In this study, neuromyths and the problems leading to education are initially defined and identified. Then, following the presentation of the qualitative study, the findings of the case study conducted on high school students regarding the neuromyth of learning styles were highlighted. From the findings, it seems that although learners may indicate or argue that they fit a particular learning style, it is not shown that they learn better with the preferred learning style. In addition, it appears from the findings of the study that learning through multiple representations is an educational practice that contributes to learning. The above highlights the need to train in-service teachers and educate prospective teachers in the principles of educational neuroscience, so that their educational interventions can have a positive impact on students' learning.

Annual Research Review: Educational neuroscience: progress and prospects.

Educational neuroscience is an interdisciplinary research field that seeks to translate research findings on neural mechanisms of learning to educational practice and policy and to understand the effects of education on the brain. Neuroscience and education can interact directly, by virtue of considering the brain as a biological organ that needs to be in the optimal condition to learn ('brain health'); or indirectly, as neuroscience shapes psychological theory and psychology influences education. In this article, we trace the origins of educational neuroscience, its main areas of research activity and the principal challenges it faces as a translational field. We consider how a pure psychology approach that ignores neuroscience is at risk of being misleading for educators. We address the major criticisms of the field comprising, respectively, a priori arguments against the relevance of neuroscience to education, reservations with the current practical operation of the field, and doubts about the viability of neuroscience methods for diagnosing disorders or predicting individual differences. We consider future prospects of the field and ethical issues it raises. Finally, we discuss the challenge of responding to the (welcome) desire of education policymakers to include neuroscience evidence in their policymaking, while ensuring recommendations do not exceed the limitations of current basic science.

Neuromyths: Misconceptions about neurodevelopment by Italian teachers.

BACKGROUND: Neuromyths are commonly held misconceptions about the brain, often generated by a misunderstanding of scientifically established facts. To date, limited research has explored the pervalence of neuromyths about neurodevelopmental disorders in the teacher population. METHOD: The current study investigated the prevalence of teachers' general and neurodevelopmental neuromyths among 820 Italian teachers. RESULTS: Italian teachers correctly identified 73% of general neuromyths and 70% of neurodevelopmental neuromyths. The difference between general and neurodevelopmental neuromyths endorsement was significant. Frequency of accessing relevant information emerged as a protective factor. A mediation analysis showed that higher need for cognition was significantly associated with a higher frequency of accessing relevant information about the brain, which in turn led to lower endorsement of neuromyths. CONCLUSION: In line with our findings, we suggest that teachers can benefit from neuroeducation initiatives aimed to enhance neuroscience literacy in both the initial education and continuous professional development of teachers.

Neuroscience literacy and evidence-based practices in pre-service teachers: A pilot study.

AIM: K-12 educators are susceptible to "neuromyths" or misconceptions about the brain and learning, yet how these beliefs relate to practice is not yet understood. This exploratory pilot study investigated how knowledge and beliefs about the brain and learning relate to knowledge of evidence-based teaching and learning principles. METHODS: Preservice teachers (N = 29) completed an online survey that measured their knowledge and beliefs about the brain and learning, including belief in neuromyths, and their knowledge of evidence-based teaching and learning principles. RESULTS: Pre-service teachers commonly endorsed several neuromyths, consistent with prior research. There was a strong positive correlation between participants' knowledge and beliefs about the brain and learning, and knowledge of evidence-based teaching and learning principles. DISCUSSION: Our findings suggest that new teachers with better knowledge of the brain and learning may also have more knowledge of evidence-based principles, though more research is needed to determine their impact on teaching.

Why educators endorse a neuromyth: relationships among educational priorities, beliefs about learning styles, and instructional decisions.

Despite evidence to the contrary, many people believe in learning styles (LS)-the idea that students learn best in their preferred modality, such as visual, auditory, or kinesthetic. However, the impact of this belief on instructional decisions remains unclear. Therefore, this study investigated how belief in the neuromyth impacts instructional choices and why educators choose an LS lesson plan or an alternative. We found that educators' beliefs about LS indeed predicted their instructional choice, but that other factors influenced their decisions as well. Three themes encapsulate educators' justifications for their lesson plan choices: beliefs about LS, practical considerations, and student learning and motivation. These findings suggest that for many educators, implementing an LS lesson provides an opportunity to integrate diverse teaching strategies that address multiple educational priorities. Although many prior studies have replicated the prevalence of the myth, this is one of the first to explore the reasons that LS is attractive to educators. Attempts to dispel the LS neuromyth could leverage the reasons educators find LS appealing to provide alternative research-backed approaches to meet their goals. Future research should examine the extent to which beliefs in the LS neuromyth are translated into instructional practices within classroom lessons and explore potential differences across grade levels.

Educational neuromyths and instructional practices: The case of inclusive education teachers in Hong Kong.

BACKGROUND: Educational neuromyths are known to exist amongst teachers in Western countries, and some researchers argue that neuromyths may affect classroom teaching. METHOD: An online survey was designed and distributed to sixty-four Hong Kong inclusive education teachers. Descriptive statistics, Pearson's correlation, Hierarchical Multiple Regression, and Thematic analysis were used to analyzed the collected data. RESULTS: First, there is a relatively low prevalence of neuromyths among Hong Kong teachers. Second, neuromyths were not significantly correlated with inclusive teachers' instructional practices. Third, teachers' general knowledge of the brain was significantly correlated with neuromyths and is a significant predictor of neuromyths. Fourth, the work-related stress of teachers was the main barrier to learning about neuroscience and adopting evidence-based practices in classroom teaching in Hong Kong. CONCLUSION: Our findings raise awareness of environmental and cultural factors that need to be considered and might affect the prevalence of neuromyths studies in non-WEIRD contexts.

What Happens to the Principles of Evidence-Based Practice When Clinicians Become Educators? A Case Study of the Learning Styles Neuromyth.

Introduction: The approach of matching teaching practice to individual student "Learning Styles" has been repeatedly shown to be ineffective, even harmful. Yet, it appears a majority of educators believe it to be an effective approach. The status of Learning Styles theory in health professions education is unclear. Method: We surveyed health professions educators to determine whether they believed that Learning Styles theory is effective and whether this belief translates to action. We also test knowledge of Learning Styles theory. Results: 87.4% of participants are familiar with Learning Styles, but knowledge about specific models varies. 69.9% of participants believed that Learning Styles theory is effective, but only one-third of them were actually using it. Discussion: More effort is required to emphasise the importance of evidence-based educational awareness and practice in the healthcare community. As is the case with clinical practice, a culture of promoting pedagogy validated by the scientific method should be the norm. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-023-01849-1.

Neuromyths about neurodevelopmental disorders in Chilean teachers.

Misconceptions about how the brain works (neuromyths) are shown to be common among educators, but little is known about neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs) neuromyths. Here, we explored the prevalence of both general and neurodevelopmental disorders neuromyths in Chilean teachers and other educational professionals. One hundred forty-four participants answered an online neuroscience knowledge, interest, and training questionnaire. Regression analysis showed that both teachers and non-teachers endorsed more neuromyths related to NDDs compared to general neuromyths and that familiarity with the NDDs but not necessarily neuroscience training or interest plays an important role in the endorsement of these neuromyths. The findings indicate that dyscalculia is the least known neurodevelopmental disorder. Although inclusion politics demand training for all educational actors, the current findings suggest effective translational efforts between neuroscience and education fields should continue.

The Prevalence of Educational Neuromyths among Hungarian Pre-Service Teachers.

Teachers with poor neuroliteracy fail to distinguish scientific evidence from neuromyths (NM), which might lead to the implementation of pseudoscientific educational methods. The prevalence of NM and general knowledge about the brain (GKAB) among in-service and pre-service teachers has been assessed in multiple countries, but no such study has been performed in Hungary. The aims of this study were to (1) assess the neuroliteracy of pre-service teachers, (2) compare the results with those of previous studies and (3) analyze the factors influencing neuroliteracy. Our sample included 822 pre-service teachers from 12 Hungarian universities. We developed a survey including 10 NM and 13 GKAB statements, adapted from a widely used questionnaire. The average rate of incorrect answers to NM was 56.9%, whereas the average rate of correct answers to GKAB was 70.9%. Male gender and frequency of using Facebook as the primary information source about neuroscience were the only predictors of NM acceptance. In comparison with other studies, the Hungarian pre-service teachers had the second highest endorsement of NM. The most prevalent NM were linked to motor functions, which might be related to the widespread use and promotion of motor therapies in Hungary.

How essentialist reasoning about language acquisition relates to educational myths and policy endorsements.

How people conceptualize learning is related to real-world educational consequences across many domains of education. Despite its centrality to the educational system, we know little about how the public reasons about language acquisition, and the potential consequences for their thinking about real-world issues (e.g., policy endorsements). The current studies examined people's essentialist beliefs about language acquisition (e.g., that language is innate and biologically based), then investigated how individual differences in these beliefs related to the endorsement of educational myths and policies. We probed several dimensions of essentialist beliefs, including that language acquisition is innate, genetically based, and wired in the brain. In two studies, we tested specific hypotheses regarding the extent to which people use essentialist thinking when reasoning about: learning a specific language (e.g., Korean), learning a first language more generally, and learning two or more languages. Across studies, participants were more likely to essentialize the ability to learn multiple languages than one's first language, and more likely to essentialize the learning of multiple languages and one's first language than the learning of a particular language. We also found substantial individual differences in the degree to which participants essentialized language acquisition. In both studies, these individual differences correlated with an endorsement of language-related educational neuromyths (Study 1 and pre-registered Study 2), and rejection of educational policies that promote multilingual education (Study 2). Together, these studies reveal the complexity of how people reason about language acquisition and its corresponding educational consequences.

Neuromyths and knowledge about intellectual giftedness in a highly educated multilingual country.

Introduction: Understanding brain functioning and intellectual giftedness can be challenging and give rise to various misconceptions. Nonetheless, there seems to be a widespread fascination and appetite for these subjects among the lay public and diverse professionals. The present study is the first to investigate general knowledge about the brain, neuromyths and knowledge about giftedness in a highly multilingual and educated country. Methods: Starting from and extending two seminal studies on neuromyths, several novel statements on intellectual giftedness have been included in order to explore knowledge and misconceptions concerning giftedness. Our sample (N = 200) was composed of Luxembourgish education professionals, including students in educational science and cognitive psychology, thus allowing to analyze responses in general and according to training and professional profiles. Specifically, Group 1 consisted of teachers and futures teachers (n = 152). Group 2 consisted of other education professionals and psychology students (n = 48). Results: Despite the size and the unbalanced distribution of the sample, our findings indicate a good level of general knowledge about the brain and learning (71.3% of correct responses in average) which does, however, not preclude the presence of the typically observed original neuromyths. Thus, we replicate the classical finding that misconceptions on Learning Styles (70% of error rate) and the Multiple Intelligence Theory (71.5% of error rate) are the most represented, both in (future and in-service) teachers and other education professionals. Moreover, the present sample also revealed a high presence of misconceptions on intellectual giftedness. Discussion: Limitations and future directions are discussed.

Prevalence of neuromyths among psychology students: small differences to pre-service teachers.

Neuroscience will possibly aid the educational practice but neuromyths are prevalent worldwide. Certain misconceptions about learning, memory and the brain are prevalent in different groups and hard to dispel. Bridging the gap might be too far. However, Psychology may serve as a bridge between these distant fields. The present study examined neuromyth endorsement in psychology students. An online questionnaire based on 20 neuromyths and 20 neurofacts was used. Additionally, neuroscience exposure at university and media exposure was assessed. The sample consisted of psychology students (N = 116) in Austria and was compared to a teacher-training sample. The different groups were compared using Signal Detection Theory, Chi-square test, non-parametric correlation analyses, and independent sample t-test. No correlation between neuroscience exposure at university and leisure time for psychology students at the beginning of their studies could be found. Here, the same misconceptions were among the most prevalent-compared to the teacher-training students sample. Results show significant difference between the groups on discrimination ability and response bias. Although psychology students share the same most prevalent misconceptions, they differ significantly in their amount of agreement. The reported study reveals a better discernment ability and lower response bias on neuromyths in the Psychology students' sample. On the individual item level, they performed better at rejecting some neuromyths than pre-service teachers. In conclusion, some neuroscience and pedagogical psychology training improves the ability to discriminate between true and false statements. Therefore, directly addressing these misconceptions within the study program-Teacher Training and Psychology-could reduce neuromyth endorsement.

What Does the General Public Know (or Not) About Neuroscience? Effects of Age, Region and Profession in Brazil.

The field of Neuroscience has experienced a growing interest in recent decades, which has led to an exponential growth in the amount of related information made available online as well as the market for Neuroscience-related courses. While this type of knowledge can be greatly beneficial to people working in science, health and education, it can also benefit individuals in other areas. For example, neuroscience knowledge can help people from all fields better understand and critique information about new discoveries or products, and even make better education- and health-related decisions. Online platforms are fertile ground for the creation and spread of fake information, including misrepresentations of scientific knowledge or new discoveries (e.g., neuromyths). These types of false information, once spread, can be difficult to tear down and may have widespread negative effects. For example, even scientists are less likely to access retractions of peer-reviewed articles than the original discredited articles. In this study we surveyed general knowledge about neuroscience and the brain among volunteers in Brazil, Latin America's largest country. We were interested in evaluating the prevalence of neuromyths in this region, and test whether knowledge/neuromyth endorsement differs by age, region, and/or profession. To that end, we created a 30-item survey that was anonymously answered online by 1128 individuals. While younger people (20-29-year-olds) generally responded more accurately than people 60 and older, people in the North responded significantly worse than those in the South and Southeast. Most interestingly, people in the biological sciences consistently responded best, but people in the health sciences responded no better than people in the exact sciences or humanities. Furthermore, years of schooling did not correlate with performance, suggesting that quantity may surpass quality when it comes to extension or graduate-level course offerings. We discuss how our findings can help guide efforts toward improving access to quality information and training in the region.

Tenacious educational neuromyths: Prevalence among teachers and an intervention.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have revealed a common high prevalence of educational neuromyths among teachers from different countries. However, only one intervention aimed at reducing these beliefs among in-service teachers has been reported to date, and it was conducted in a non-naturalistic setting. PROCEDURE: In the present study, we administered a survey to measure the prevalence of common neuromyths in a large sample (n = 807) of primary and secondary teachers from 203 schools across Catalonia (Spain), and then we evaluated the impact that a 15-hour online course on neuroscience had on a sample of them as compared to a control group. MAIN FINDINGS: Results showed an initial distribution of neuromyth beliefs similar to those of previous studies and a large effect of the intervention on reducing their prevalence shortly after the training and in the long term. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide evidence that an intervention addressed to in-service teachers that is low-cost and easy to implement can cast corrective effects that persist over time in neuromyth beliefs.

Neuroscience Knowledge and Endorsement of Neuromyths among Educators: What Is the Scenario in Brazil?

The field of neuroscience has seen significant growth and interest in recent decades. While neuroscience knowledge can benefit laypeople as well as professionals in many different areas, it may be particularly relevant for educators. With the right information, educators can apply neuroscience-based teaching strategies as well as protect themselves and their students against pseudoscientific ideas and products based on them. Despite rapidly growing sources of available information and courses, studies show that educators in many countries have poor knowledge of brain science and tend to endorse education-related neuromyths. Poor English skills and fewer resources (personal, institutional and governmental) may be additional limitations in Latin America. In order to better understand the scenario in Latin America's largest country, we created an anonymous online survey which was answered by 1634 individuals working in education from all five regions of Brazil. Respondents stated whether they agreed with each statement and reported their level of confidence for each answer. Significant differences in performance were observed across regions, between educators living in capital cities versus the outskirts, between those teaching in private versus public schools, and among educators teaching different levels (pre-school up to college/university). We also observed high endorsement of some key neuromyths, even among groups who performed better overall. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to conduct a detailed analysis of the profile of a large group of educators in Brazil. We discuss our findings in terms of efforts to better understand regional and global limitations and develop methods of addressing these most efficiently.

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

Educational research has shown that teachers' knowledge and beliefs are two important variables that significantly affect their pedagogical practice and decisions. Relying on the premise that knowledge is superior to beliefs in a pure epistemic dimension and rooted in the previous empirical studies, we examined the hypothesis that teachers' knowledge of neuroplasticity affects their epistemological belief system mediated by mindset. Using a survey consisting of established scales about these variables, we collected data from a sample of 345 teachers. Structural equation modeling was performed to test the hypothesis. Results showed that the path coefficients (direct effects) from teachers' knowledge of neuroplasticity to their mindset and epistemological belief system were statistically significant. In other words, we found that teachers with a higher score in the knowledge of neuroplasticity had a growth mindset and a sophisticated epistemological belief system. Teachers' knowledge of neuroplasticity also had an indirect effect on their epistemological belief system mediated by mindset. This result has a conceptual contribution to the literature because it suggests that teachers' knowledge of neuroplasticity is a predicting variable for mindset and epistemological belief system. In practice, it provides us with a tool for developing teachers' growth mindset and sophisticated epistemological beliefs.

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

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.

A cross-sectional study of neuromyths among teachers in a Caribbean nation.

BACKGROUND: The current COVID-19 pandemic and proliferation of misinformation regarding science highlights the importance of improving general science literacy. The continued preponderance of neuromyths among educators is of concern, especially in lower- and middle-income countries. METHOD: Using an adapted questionnaire, a cross-sectional survey was conducted among teachers in a small island developing state in the Caribbean. RESULTS: Two-thirds of the sample were unable to recognise at least 50% of the myths. Regression analysis demonstrated that higher scores in brain knowledge and exposure to prior teacher-training increased belief in neuromyths. On the other hand, specific in-service training pertaining to educational neuroscience improved scores. CONCLUSION: Neuromyths are prevalent among teachers and appear to inform their teaching practice. Further research needs to be conducted to explore not just the prevalence of these myths but in what ways they may be impacting teaching and learning outcomes in the classroom.

Interventions to Dispel Neuromyths in Educational Settings-A Review.

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.