RESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Personal Docente , Maestros , Humanos , Alfabetización , Curriculum , ItaliaRESUMEN
Williams syndrome (WS) is a rare genetic syndrome. As with all rare syndromes, obtaining adequately powered sample sizes is a challenge. Here we present legacy data from seven UK labs, enabling the characterisation of cross-sectional and longitudinal developmental trajectories of verbal and non-verbal development in the largest sample of individuals with WS to-date. In Study 1, we report cross-sectional data between N = 102 and N = 209 children and adults with WS on measures of verbal and non-verbal ability. In Study 2, we report longitudinal data from N = 17 to N = 54 children and adults with WS who had been tested on at least three timepoints on these measures. Data support the WS characteristic cognitive profile of stronger verbal than non-verbal ability, and shallow developmental progression for both domains. Both cross-sectional and longitudinal data demonstrate steeper rates of development in the child participants than the adolescent and adults in our sample. Cross-sectional data indicate steeper development in verbal than non-verbal ability, and that individual differences in the discrepancy between verbal and non-verbal ability are largely accounted for by level of intellectual functioning. A diverging developmental discrepancy between verbal and non-verbal ability, whilst marginal, is not mirrored statistically in the longitudinal data. Cross-sectional and longitudinal data are discussed with reference to validating cross-sectional developmental patterns using longitudinal data and the importance of individual differences in understanding developmental progression.