Assessment of Educational Neuromyths among Teachers and Teacher Candidates

Canbulat, Tuncay; Kiriktaş, Halit

doi:10.5539/jel.v6n2p326

Cited by 19 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results presented in this study confirm previous findings that it is not just in-service teachers who believe in neuromyths – a large share of pre-service teachers endorse them as well (Howard-Jones et al, 2009; Fuentes and Risso, 2015; Dündar and Gündüz, 2016; Canbulat and Kiriktas, 2017; Düvel et al, 2017; Kim and Sankey, 2017; Papadatou-Pastou et al, 2017; Im et al, 2018). Out of a total of 11 misconceptions (neuromyths) about learning and memory, the existence of learning styles (93%), the effectiveness of Brain Gym (92%), and the assumption that information is stored in specific locations (hard drive) (85%) were endorsed most frequently.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…One study of post-graduate teacher trainees found that 56–83% of respondents encountered educational programs based on neuromyths in their first year working in schools, which was associated with high levels of acceptance of those myths (Howard-Jones et al, 2009). Studies by Fuentes and Risso (2015, Spain), Dündar and Gündüz (2016, Turkey), Canbulat and Kiriktas (2017, Turkey), Düvel et al (2017, Germany), Kim and Sankey (2017, Australia), Papadatou-Pastou et al (2017, Greece), and Im et al (2018, South Korea) indicate that neuromyths are already present during the academic stage of teacher education. However, no studies focusing on neuromyths related to learning and memory have been conducted with pre-service samples either.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Pre-service Science Teachers’ Neuroscience Literacy: Neuromyths and a Professional Understanding of Learning and Memory

Grospietsch

Mayer

2019

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Transferring current research findings on the topic of learning and memory to “brain-based” learning in schools is of great interest among teachers. However, numerous international studies demonstrate that both pre-service and in-service teachers do not always succeed. Instead, they transfer numerous misconceptions about neuroscience, known as neuromyths, into pedagogical practice. As a result, researchers call for more neuroscience in teacher education in order to create a professional understanding of learning and memory. German pre-service science teachers specializing in biology complete neuroscientific modules (human biology/animal physiology) during their studies because they are expected to teach these topics to their students. Thus, they are required to demonstrate a certain degree of neuroscience literacy. In the present study, 550 pre-service science teachers were surveyed on neuromyths and scientific concepts about learning and memory. Pre-service science teachers’ scientific concepts increased over the course of their training. However, beliefs in neuromyths were independent of participants’ status within teacher education (first-year students, advanced students, and post-graduate trainees). The results showed that 10 neuromyths were endorsed by more than 50% of prospective science teachers. Beliefs in the existence of learning styles (93%) and the effectiveness of Brain Gym (92%) were most widespread. Many myths were endorsed even though a large share of respondents had thematically similar scientific concepts; endorsement of neuromyths was found to be largely independent of professional knowledge as well as theory-based and biography-based learning beliefs about neuroscience and learning. Our results suggest that neuromyths can exist in parallel to scientific concepts, professional knowledge and beliefs and are resistant to formal education. From the perspective of conceptual change theory, they thus exhibit characteristic traits of misconceptions that cannot simply be counteracted with increased neuroscientific knowledge. On the basis of our study’s findings, it can be concluded that new teacher programs considering neuromyths as change-resistant misconceptions are needed to professionalize pre-service science teachers’ neuroscience literacy. For this, an intensive web of exchange between the education field and neuroscientists is required, not just to deploy the latest scientific insights to refute neuromyths on learning and memory, but also to identify further neuromyths.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pre-service Science Teachers’ Neuroscience Literacy: Neuromyths and a Professional Understanding of Learning and Memory

Grospietsch

Mayer

2019

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite a lack of large effects, the literature evaluated has shown that the higher the score in general knowledge about the brain, the fewer are the neuromyths correctly identified (Dekker et al, 2012 ; Gleichgerrcht et al, 2015 ; Ferrero et al, 2016 ; Canbulat and Kiriktas, 2017 ; Kim and Sankey, 2017 ; Papadatou-Pastou et al, 2017 ; Varas-Genestier and Ferreira, 2017 ; van Dijk and Lane, 2018 ; Tovazzi et al, 2020 ). Nevertheless, studies have also revealed opposing data (Dekker et al, 2012 ; van Dijk and Lane, 2018 ; Zhang et al, 2019 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Persistence of Neuromyths in the Educational Settings: A Systematic Review

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neuroscience influences education, and these two areas have converged in a new field denominated “Neuroeducation.” However, the growing interest in the education–brain relationship does not match the proper use of research findings. In 2007, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) warned of the misunderstandings about the brain among teachers, labeling them as neuromyths. The main objective here is to observe the prevalence of the neuromyths in educators over time. After two decades of publications of research on neuromyths among in-service or prospective teachers, this work presents a systematic scientific review. To select the articles, we used the words: “teachers,” “preservice teachers,” “neuromyths” combined with the Boolean data type “and.” The search was filtered according to the following criteria: (a) identifiable author, (b) written in English, Spanish, French, Italian, or Portuguese, (c) word neuromyth in title, abstract, or keywords, (d) research with a participant's survey, (e) sample focused on educators, (f) peer-review publication index in JCR, SJR, or ESCI. The documents were found through Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, Dialnet, ProQuest, EBSCO-host, and Google Scholar. After the search, 24 articles were identified as being of sufficiently high quality for this systematic review. This result highlights that neuromyths are still the subject of attention almost two decades after their definition. The findings present neuromyths as the consequence of a lack of scientific knowledge, a communicative gap between scientists and teachers, and the low-quality information sources consulted by teachers. In addition, the data on protectors and predictors of neuromyths is inconsistent. There is also no standard scientific methodology nor a guideline to determine a new neuromyth. The results show the need to improve the scientific content in higher education and the importance of in-service teacher training. This research justifies the requirement for university professors to be active researchers and to establish a close link with educators from other fields and levels. Neuroeducation will be the bridge that unites scientific knowledge and practical application in education, with a rigorous, standard method for the entire scientific-educational community.

show abstract

“…These two survey studies were therefore included. Another study (Canbulat and Kiriktas, 2017) was not clear and no additional information was available. Two emails were sent to the corresponding author with a request for clarity, but no response was received.…”

Section: Study Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Common Is Belief in the Learning Styles Neuromyth, and Does It Matter? A Pragmatic Systematic Review

Newton

Salvi

2020

Front. Educ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A commonly cited use of Learning Styles theory is to use information from self-report questionnaires to assign learners into one or more of a handful of supposed styles (e.g., Visual, Auditory, Converger) and then design teaching materials that match the supposed styles of individual students. A number of reviews, going back to 2004, have concluded that there is currently no empirical evidence that this “matching instruction” improves learning, and it could potentially cause harm. Despite this lack of evidence, survey research and media coverage suggest that belief in this use of Learning Styles theory is high amongst educators. However, it is not clear whether this is a global pattern, or whether belief in Learning Styles is declining as a result of the publicity surrounding the lack of evidence to support it. It is also not clear whether this belief translates into action. Here we undertake a systematic review of research into belief in, and use of, Learning Styles amongst educators. We identified 37 studies representing 15,405 educators from 18 countries around the world, spanning 2009 to early 2020. Self-reported belief in matching instruction to Learning Styles was high, with a weighted percentage of 89.1%, ranging from 58 to 97.6%. There was no evidence that this belief has declined in recent years, for example 95.4% of trainee (pre-service) teachers agreed that matching instruction to Learning Styles is effective. Self-reported use, or planned use, of matching instruction to Learning Styles was similarly high. There was evidence of effectiveness for educational interventions aimed at helping educators understand the lack of evidence for matching in learning styles, with self-reported belief dropping by an average of 37% following such interventions. From a pragmatic perspective, the concerning implications of these results are moderated by a number of methodological aspects of the reported studies. Most used convenience sampling with small samples and did not report critical measures of study quality. It was unclear whether participants fully understood that they were specifically being asked about the matching of instruction to Learning Styles, or whether the questions asked could be interpreted as referring to a broader interpretation of the theory. These findings suggest that the concern expressed about belief in Learning Styles may not be fully supported by current evidence, and highlight the need to undertake further research on the objective use of matching instruction to specific Learning Styles.

show abstract

Assessment of Educational Neuromyths among Teachers and Teacher Candidates

Cited by 19 publications

References 15 publications

Pre-service Science Teachers’ Neuroscience Literacy: Neuromyths and a Professional Understanding of Learning and Memory

Pre-service Science Teachers’ Neuroscience Literacy: Neuromyths and a Professional Understanding of Learning and Memory

The Persistence of Neuromyths in the Educational Settings: A Systematic Review

How Common Is Belief in the Learning Styles Neuromyth, and Does It Matter? A Pragmatic Systematic Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About