Evaluación de conocimientos y actitudes sobre neuromitos en futuros/as maestros/as

Fuentes, Adela; Risso, Alicia

doi:10.17979/reipe.2015.0.06.530

Cited by 16 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

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

“…Other protectors include reading journals (Dündar and Gündüz, 2016 ), specifically, scientific or peer-reviewed journals (Ferrero et al, 2016 ; Macdonald et al, 2017 ; Falquez Torres and Ocampo Alvarado, 2018 ). Additionally, education level or having more years of formal education (Fuentes and Risso, 2015 ; Falquez Torres and Ocampo Alvarado, 2018 ; Zhang et al, 2019 ) and interest (Dekker et al, 2012 ; Falquez Torres and Ocampo Alvarado, 2018 ) and courses in neuroscience (Macdonald et al, 2017 ; Ruhaak and Cook, 2018 ) are related to better scores on neuromyths. This suffers the same limitations associated with the method and materials used.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Neuromyth is not a new concept. The word was first coined during the 1980s when the neurosurgeon Alan Crockard used it to describe a misleading concept about the brain function in the discipline of medicine (Howard-Jones, 2014 ; Fuentes and Risso, 2015 ). From an educational approach, a neuromyth was described as “a misconception generated by a misunderstanding, a misreading, or a misquoting of facts scientifically established (by brain research) to make a case for the use of brain research in education and other contexts” (OECD, 2002 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

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

“…Studies investigating the endorsement of neuromyths among in-service teachers of various subjects have been conducted in the Netherlands, England [27,28], Portugal [29], Greece [30], Switzerland [31], Spain [32], China [33], Turkey [34], Australia [35], Latin America [36,37], the United States [38], and Canada [26]. Howard-Jones et al [39], Fuentes and Risso [40], Dündar and Gündüz [41], Düvel et al [42], Canbulat and Kiriktas [43], Kim and Sankey [44], Papadatou-Pastou et al [45], and Grospietsch and Mayer [24] provide evidence for pre-service teachers' endorsement of neuromyths. Most studies have found that university students believe in a large number of neuromyths, thus indicating a need for intervention.…”

Section: Misconceptions About Learning and The Brainmentioning

confidence: 99%

Professionalizing Pre-Service Biology Teachers’ Misconceptions about Learning and the Brain through Conceptual Change

Grospietsch

Mayer

2018

Education Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scientific concepts of learning and the brain are relevant for biology teachers in two ways: Firstly, the topic is an object of instruction (e.g., long-term potentiation). Secondly, biology teachers must guide their students towards sustainable learning. Consequently, their own understanding of learning and the brain has an especially far-reaching influence on students. Pre-service biology teachers endorse so-called “neuromyths,” misconceptions on the subject of learning and the brain (e.g., the existence of learning styles) even though they cover neuroscientific content during their studies. These misconceptions remain relatively stable throughout university education and practical training. In this paper, we transfer the teaching and learning model of conceptual change to the university context. We investigate whether and to what extent a university course developed in accordance with a professional conceptual change model can reduce pre-service biology teachers’ endorsement of neuromyths. In a pre-post-design, 57 university students were asked about their professional knowledge, beliefs, neuromyths, and perception and utilization of the university course. We found a positive effect of the intervention on all three elements of students’ conceptual understanding. The results show that explicitly refuting misconceptions about learning and the brain (e.g., via conceptual change texts) helps to professionalize neuromyths.

show abstract

Evaluación de conocimientos y actitudes sobre neuromitos en futuros/as maestros/as

Cited by 16 publications

References 18 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

Professionalizing Pre-Service Biology Teachers’ Misconceptions about Learning and the Brain through Conceptual Change

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About