Neuromyths Among Teachers and Student Teachers

Abstract

Many so‐called brain‐based educational approaches have been strongly criticized for their lack of empirical support and occasionally for their use of pseudoscientific concepts. As a result, several use the term neuromyths to refer to false beliefs or misinterpretations regarding neuroscientific facts. We surveyed both teachers and student teachers concerning their agreement toward hemispheric dominance, modality dominance, and the Brain Gym© method. Results suggest that teachers as well as student teachers believe in the reality of hemispheric and modality dominance but only a few were aware of the Brain Gym© method. Correlation analyses show moderate relationships across different beliefs and/or their perceived benefits in education. Teachers believed more than student teachers in hemispheric dominance and its pedagogical relevance. Together with other studies, the results suggest that teachers and student teachers could benefit from appropriate training in this new field of research.

O impacto da divulgação científica na perpetuação de neuromitos na educação

“…Goswami (2006) states that educators receive a great deal of correspondence on courses that are supposedly based on brain functioning. This reinforces findings of Tardif et al (2015) that the second most frequent source of information cited by educators and future educators, concerning a number of neuromyths in which they believed in, were training Revista da Biologia (2016) 15 (1) ib.usp.br/revista knowledge of neuroscientists and educators. For this purpose, these professional groups need to have a common basis of communication which involves the obtainment of scientific knowledge by educators and of education by neuroscientists, a critical analysis of journalists covering such matters, as well as an adequate communication of scientific findings in this field by scientists.…”

Neurociencias, educación y entorno sociocultural

“…Blakemore y Frith (2000) presentaron resultados como los denominados neuromitos, dentro de los cuales se incluyen los "periodos críticos" y la relevancia de "nuevas áreas de interés potencial" en el desarrollo del aprendizaje. Varias publicaciones posteriores profundizaron en los neuromitos en el campo educativo: Goswami, 2004;Ansari y Coch, 2006;Goswami, 2006;Geake, 2008;Lindell y Kidd, 2011;OECD, 2002;Pasquinelli, 2012;Tardif y Doudin, 2011(Tardif et al, 2015. Tardif et al (2015) reportan el debate pero traen nuevos autores de los últimos años, que han enfatizado en la necesidad de acercar y juntar expertos en ambos campos con el fin de iniciar un debate constructivo entre ellos: Ansari y Coch, 2006;Ansari, Coch y De Smedt, 2011;Fischer, Goswami y Geake, 2010;Goswami, 2006; Kalra y O'Keeffe, 2011; Tardif y Doudin, 2011).…”

Two bridges between biology and learning

“…Andre har hevdet at avstanden er for stor mellom biologi og utdanningsvitenskap til at nevrobiologi kan vaere relevant for utdanning (Bruer, 1997). Flere myter om hva hjerneforskning betyr for utdanning har blitt spredt, egnet til å skape misforståelser, overdreven tro på nevrobiologi, eller til å forkaste den (Sousa, 2010;Tardif et al, 2015). Trenger vi å inkludere biologiske forklaringer på laering?…”

“…Medikamenter for hukommelse og arbeidsminne er under utvikling og til dels en realitet (Farah et al, 2004). Mange eksempler på myter om biologi og nevrobiologiens betydning for laering kan finnes hos Tardif et al (2015). Et nyansert bilde er også egnet til å imøtegå svart-hvite tolkninger der biologi, gener og arv sees som en motsetning til miljø og sosiale faktorer (Fischer & Heikkinen, 2010).…”