Prevalence of neuromyths among psychology students: small differences to pre-service teachers

Abstract

Neuroscience will possibly aid the educational practice but neuromyths are prevalent worldwide. Certain misconceptions about learning, memory and the brain are prevalent in different groups and hard to dispel. Bridging the gap might be too far. However, Psychology may serve as a bridge between these distant fields. The present study examined neuromyth endorsement in psychology students. An online questionnaire based on 20 neuromyths and 20 neurofacts was used. Additionally, neuroscience exposure at university and media exposure was assessed. The sample consisted of psychology students (N = 116) in Austria and was compared to a teacher-training sample. The different groups were compared using Signal Detection Theory, Chi-square test, non-parametric correlation analyses, and independent sample t-test. No correlation between neuroscience exposure at university and leisure time for psychology students at the beginning of their studies could be found. Here, the same misconceptions were among the most prevalent—compared to the teacher-training students sample. Results show significant difference between the groups on discrimination ability and response bias. Although psychology students share the same most prevalent misconceptions, they differ significantly in their amount of agreement. The reported study reveals a better discernment ability and lower response bias on neuromyths in the Psychology students’ sample. On the individual item level, they performed better at rejecting some neuromyths than pre-service teachers. In conclusion, some neuroscience and pedagogical psychology training improves the ability to discriminate between true and false statements. Therefore, directly addressing these misconceptions within the study program—Teacher Training and Psychology—could reduce neuromyth endorsement.

Neuromyths and knowledge about intellectual giftedness in a highly educated multilingual country

“…In our sample, these types of supports were, respectively, the second and third main sources of selfstudy in both groups, with group 2 nevertheless relying on them to a greater extent than group 1. A nuance can therefore be added in light of a recent study similar to our own (Novak-Geiger, 2023). Despite the fact that the group of psychology students held the same neuromyths as the group of preservice teachers, the author measured a difference in the degree of appreciation thanks to the training.…”

The Prevalence and Usage of “Neuromyths” Among German in‐Service‐ and Pre‐Service Teachers – Compared to Neuroscience Specialists and the General Public

“…3 Are people with specific knowledge in neuroscience more likely to identify NM as such compared to teachers or members of the general public having no specific connection to neuroscience or education? Although some papers (e.g., Macdonald et al, 2017;Novak-Geiger, 2023) have already studied the role of neuroscience exposure, the current paper extends the comparison to specialists in the neurosciences and non-teaching participants. Following the results of Macdonald et al (2017) as well as Novak-Geiger (2023), it is anticipated that people with higher neuroscience exposure will endorse NM to a lesser extent than teachers or members of the general public.…”

Reducing Brain Injury Misconceptions and Willingness to Risk Concussion with a Three-Week Introductory-level Neuroscience Course

“…Introductory courses have been shown to reduce misconceptions that are common in the general public in psychology (Taylor and Kowalski, 2004) and can change students' beliefs about the relationship between mind and brain in neuroscience (Harrington, 2013). Much of the literature around neuroscience education has focused on dispelling "neuromyths" like using only 10% of the brain and right/left brain personalities, especially for future educators, with mixed results (Macdonald et al, 2017;Novak-Geiger, 2023). It remains to be seen, however, if brain injury knowledge and misconceptions can be impacted by information from an introductory-level undergraduate course that is not focused on concussion education per se, but instead is part of a general background in understanding brain function and brain-behavior relationships.…”