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

Abstract

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.

The Impact of a Modified Initial Teacher Education on Challenging Trainees' Understanding of Neuromyths

“…This study investigated changes in teachers' beliefs over the course of a modified ITE program that included a novel intervention designed to challenge primary teachers' beliefs in neuromyths and in doing so, to support their development as future critical consumers of neuroscience in education. As in previous studies of preservice teachers (Grospietsch & Mayer, ; Howard‐Jones, ; Im et al, ; Papadatou‐Pastou et al, ), we found significant evidence of neuromyths with the learning styles/VAK myth and left brain/right brain myth being held by trainees. Also, the “rich environments” myth and “fish oil” myth were particularly prominent, which is in line with previous findings in the United Kingdom (Dekker et al, ).…”

“…However, it is a relatively short period of time in a teacher ' s professional learning, and as such there is little systematic consideration of recent developments in the learning sciences, or how this may inform the future practice of trainee teachers. Recent research focused on trainee teachers has found similar patterns of interest in neuroscience, and belief in neuromyths to those seen among in‐service teachers (Dündar & Gündüz, ; Grospietsch & Mayer, ; Papadatou‐Pastou et al, ). As a result, targeting primary trainee teachers may provide a long‐term, developmental solution to improve the way in which neuroscientific research may inform educational practice, by equipping teachers from the very outset with the ability to critically analyze claims from both robust and questionable research.…”

“…Interestingly, a comparison between South Korean preservice elementary teachers taking an educational psychology course and a control group found that the course improved general neuroscience literacy but did not reduce belief in neuromyths (Im et al, ). Similarly, in Germany, Grospietsch and Mayer () found that Biology trainee teachers held neuromyths in parallel with their neuroscientific understanding and suggest that sociocultural factors support neuromyths. However, in‐service teacher professional development that focused on the neurobiology of learning, particularly exploring the concept of plasticity, was shown to increase teachers ' neuroscience knowledge and to impact positively on classroom pedagogy (Dubinsky, Roehrig, & Varma, ).…”

“…Over the past decade, there have been increasing calls for greater integration and collaboration between cognitive psychology, neuroscience, and teaching, but also a recognition that this is problematic and that deliberate bridging is required (Goswami, ; Horvath & Donoghue, ; Howard‐Jones, ; Royal Society, ; Sigman, Peña, Goldin, & Ribeiro, ). This study addresses how teachers are prepared to engage with scientific accounts of learning during their initial teacher education (ITE) by recognizing and challenging misconceptions about the brain and learning, known as “neuromyths” (OECD, ), that are prevalent among trainee teachers (Grospietsch & Mayer, ; Howard‐Jones, Franey, Mashmoushi, & Liao, ; MacDonald, Germaine, Anderson, Christodoulou, & McGrath, ; Papadatou‐Pastou, Haliou, & Vlachos, ; Pasquinelli, ; Tardif, Doudin, & Meylan, ).…”

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

“…For example (Grospietsch and Mayer, 2018) reported surveying belief in the existence of Learning Styles. However, the content of this paper discussed knowledge acquisition in the context of matching, and stated that the research instruments was derived from Dekker et al 2012, and had been used in an additional paper by the same authors (Grospietsch and Mayer, 2019), while a follow-up paper from the same authors described both these earlier papers as surveying belief in matching instruction to Learning Styles (Grospietsch and Mayer, 2020). These two survey studies were therefore included.…”