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

Bissessar, Satyavi; Youssef, Farid F.

doi:10.1016/j.tine.2021.100155

Cited by 15 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The Visual-Auditory-Kinesthetic (VAK) learning style is a widely cited example of misconceptions about the brain functioning where both old and recent research recognized it as a weak educational application [ 4 ]. 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 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Vision is considered a privileged sensory channel for deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) students to learn, and, naturally, they recognize themselves as visual learners. This assumption also seems widespread among schoolteachers, which led us to analyse the intersection between teachers’ beliefs on deaf and hard of hearing students’ academic achievement, visual skills, attentional difficulties, and the perceived importance of image display in class. An online survey was designed to analyse the beliefs of the schoolteachers about the deaf and hard of hearing students learning in educational settings from Portugal and Sweden. Participated 133 teachers, 70 Portuguese and 63 Swedish, from the preschool to the end of mandatory education (ages 3–18) with several years of experience. The content analysis and the computed SPSS statistical significance tests reveal that surveyed teachers believe that deaf and hard of hearing students have better visual skills when compared with their hearing peers yet show divergent beliefs about visual attentional processes. Within the teachers’ perceptions on learning barriers to DHH students, the distractibility and cognitive effort factors were highlighted, among communicational difficulties in class. Conclusions about the prevalence of learning misconceptions in teachers from both countries analysed, corroborate previous studies on neuromyths in education, and bring novelty to Deaf Education field. The work of translation of scientific knowledge, teacher training updating, and partnership between researchers and educators are also urgently needed in special education.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is probably the most robust pattern to be found in the literature on neuromyths. When the sample is composed of in-service teachers, the trend is for the neuromyth score to be positively correlated with the neuro-hit score (Dekker et al, 2012;Gleichgerrcht et al, 2015;Ferrero et al, 2016;Hughes et al, 2020;Tovazzi et al, 2020;Bissessar and Youssef, 2021). By contrast, when the sample is composed of pre-service teachers, the trend is for the two scores to be negatively correlated (Howard-Jones et al, 2009;Papadatou-Pastou et al, 2017;Carter et al, 2020 2 ;Ching et al, 2020; but see Kim and Sankey, 2018, for an exception 3 ).…”

Section: Does Neuroscience Training Protect Against Neuromyths?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Interventions to Dispel Neuromyths in Educational Settings—A Review

Rousseau

2021

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…Numerous empirical studies 5 reveal that even though pre-service and in-service teachers as well as university instructors exhibit great interest in neuroscience, they are unable to differentiate neuromyths from "neurofacts" 6 (Grospietsch and Mayer, 2020). Studies demonstrating endorsement of neuromyths among inservice teachers have been conducted in England (Dekker et al, 2012;Simmonds, 2014;Horvath et al, 2018), the Netherlands (Dekker et al, 2012), Switzerland (Tardif et al, 2015), Italy (Tovazzi et al, 2020), Spain (Ferrero et al, 2016), Portugal (Rato et al, 2013), Greece (Deligiannidi and Howard-Jones, 2015), Turkey (Karakus et al, 2015), Morocco (Janati Idrissi et al, 2020), China (Pei et al, 2015), Australia (Bellert and Graham, 2013;Horvath et al, 2018), Canada (Lethaby and Harries, 2016;Blanchette Sarrasin et al, 2019), United States (Lethaby and Harries, 2016;Macdonald et al, 2017;Horvath et al, 2018;van Dijk and Lane, 2018) and Latin America (Herculano-Houzel, 2002;Bartoszeck and Bartoszeck, 2012;Gleichgerrcht et al, 2015;Hermida et al, 2016;Varas-Genestier and Ferreira, 2017;Bissessar and Youssef, 2021). Studies demonstrating endorsement of neuromyths among pre-service teachers have been conducted in England (Howard-Jones et al, 2009;McMahon et al, 2019), Germany (Düvel et al, 2017;Grospietsch and Mayer, 2018;2019), Switzerland (Tardif et al, 2015), Austria (Krammer et al, 2019;2020), Slovenia (...…”

Section: Empirical State Of Research On Neuromythsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review on the Prevalence and Persistence of Neuromyths in Education – Where We Stand and What Is Still Needed

Grospietsch

Lins

2021

Front. Educ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The buzzword brain-based learning emerged in the 1970s and continues to fascinate teachers and learners in schools and universities today. However, what interested teachers often fail to realize is that brain-based or brain-friendly learning can not only be a plausible concept, but also a myth when applied incorrectly. Numerous empirical studies reveal a high degree of support for misconceptions about learning and the brain, known as neuromyths, among both pre-service and in-service teachers. When applied in the classroom, these myths can waste the educational system’s money, time and effort. Even though the neuromyths issue has been known for two decades and the topic remains a focus of constant research, even today, the research discourse barely goes beyond replicating the earliest research findings. This review article provides an overview of the theoretical and empirical state of research on neuromyths. As part of this, ten neuromyths on the subject of learning and memory will be described in terms of content and the results of prior studies on neuromyths will be summarized. The overview of the theoretical and empirical state of research serves as a basis for highlighting controversies, fundamental concepts, issues and problems, current research gaps and potential developments in the field. Topics discussed include whether controversial research findings on correlations with endorsement of neuromyths are merely a methodological artefact, and why contradictions exist between the theoretical and empirical state of research. In addition, three central research gaps will be identified: First, studies should be conducted on whether and to what extent the endorsement of neuromyths really deprives teachers and students of opportunities to spend the education system’s money, time and effort on more effective theories and methods. Second, there is too little work on developing and evaluating intervention approaches to combat neuromyths. Third, a standard scientific methodology or guidelines for determining new neuromyths are lacking. As desirable future developments in the field, more work educating people on neuromyths, uniform vocabulary, and interdisciplinary cooperation are highlighted. This contributes to answering the question of to what extent interweaving neuroscience, educational science and cognitive psychology can contribute to reducing the prevalence of neuromyths in education.

show abstract

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

Cited by 15 publications

References 22 publications

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

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

Interventions to Dispel Neuromyths in Educational Settings—A Review

Review on the Prevalence and Persistence of Neuromyths in Education – Where We Stand and What Is Still Needed

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About