No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
In-service teachers’ neuroscience literacy in Hungary: A large-scale cross-sectional study
Abstract
Background
This is the first study that assesses neuroliteracy, namely the prevalence of neuromyths (NMs) and general knowledge about the brain (GKAB) among Hungarian in-service teachers.
Method
Participants (n = 734) completed an online survey, adapted from a widely used neuroliteracy questionnaire. A scoping review was conducted for international comparison. Associations between prevalence of NMs and predictor factors were analyzed by logistic regression.
Results
The NM error score was 59.7 %, while the correct response score to GKAB was 77.1 %. Compared with other countries, we found the fifth highest level of NM endorsement, but the third most favorable score in GKAB. Acceptance of NMs was significantly associated with reading scientific journals and perceived neuroliteracy.
Conclusion
Hungarian in-service teachers are more likely to believe in neuromyths (especially those related to motor functions) compared with most other countries. Further studies should investigate the impact of the prevalence of motor therapies on the belief in NMs.
... These statements were categorized as either incorrect (reflecting neuromyths) or correct (labeled as neurofacts 2 ). For instance, they asked participants whether the statement "Individuals learn better when they receive information in their preferred learning style (e.g., [12,15] Netherlands [2] Luxembourg [16] Switzerland [17] Austria [18,19] Germany [20][21][22] Italia [23,24] Greek [25,26] Hungary [27,28] Spain [29][30][31] Portugal [32] Asia Russia [33] Turkey [34][35][36] Malaysia [37] India [38] China [39][40][41][42] South Korea [43] Africa Morocco [44] Australia [11,12,[45][46][47] ...
Despite considerable progress made in educational neuroscience, neuromyths persist in the teaching profession, hampering translational endeavors. The initial wave of interventions designed to dispel educational neuromyths was predominantly directed at preservice teachers. More recent work in the field, reviewed here, has shifted its focus primarily to in-service teacher professional development interventions. We discuss various interventional approaches, including refutation texts embedded into a brief training in foundational neuroscience, personalized refutation texts, insightful reflections upon science of learning key concepts (e.g., brain plasticity), and immersive experiences within research groups, highlighting their strengths and limitations. The evolving nature of scientific knowledge, the imperative to respect educators' personal and professional sensitivities, as well as challenges posed by conceptual change, are also addressed. This narrative review underscores the need to bring neuromyth investigations into the classroom environment. At the turn of the millennium, major advances in neuro-science fueled expectations for an education grounded in scientific knowledge of the brain (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2002). Access to neuroimaging technology, such as functional magnetic resonance imaging, has allowed for the emergence of a mediational field-educational neuroscience-to probe brain structures and functions involved in the acquisition
Background: Neuromyths are commonly held misconceptions about the brain, often generated by a misunderstanding of scientifically established facts. To date, limited research has explored the pervalence of neuromyths about neurodevelopmental disorders in the teacher population. Method: The current study investigated the prevalence of teachers’ general and neurodevelopmental neuromyths among 820 Italian teachers. Results: Italian teachers correctly identified 73% of general neuromyths and 70% of neurodevelopmental neuromyths. The difference between general and neurodevelopmental neuromyths endorsement was significant. Frequency of accessing relevant information emerged as a protective factor. A mediation analysis showed that higher need for cognition was significantly associated with a higher frequency of accessing relevant information about the brain, which in turn led to lower endorsement of neuromyths. Conclusion: In line with our findings, we suggest that teachers can benefit from neuroeducation initiatives aimed to enhance neuroscience literacy in both the initial education and continuous professional development of teachers.
A neuromítoszok olyan tévhitek, amelyek az agyműködéssel kapcsolatos informá-ciók, jelenségek, idegtudományi eredmények félreértésén alapulnak. E tévhitek az oktatási rendszerben is elterjedtek, és sokszor kapcsolódnak össze különböző, úgynevezett neuropedagógiai elképzelésekkel, amelyek közvetlenül befolyásolhatják a gyakorlati pedagógiai munkát. Az elmúlt húsz évben egyre nagyobb figyelmet kapott az a kérdés, hogy mennyire elterjedtek a neuromítoszok, milyen tényezők befolyásolják jelenlétüket és elfogadottságukat az oktatás területén, és milyen hatást gyakorolnak a tanítási módszerekre. A kutatások egyöntetűen arra jutottak, hogy ezen mítoszok igen elterjedtek mind a pedagógusok, mind a pedagógusjelöltek körében. Ezen mítoszokra olyan fejlesztési javaslatok és terápiás eljárások épülnek, melyek hatástalanságuk miatt felesleges idő-és energiaráfordítást is jelenthetnek. Jelen tanulmány célja, hogy egyrészt három elterjedt oktatási neuromítosz tudományos alapjainak rövid áttekintésével bemutassa a jelenség súlyát, másrészt átfogóan ismertesse az oktatási neuromítoszokkal összefüggő tudományos tudományos eredményeket, a téma kutatásának jövőbeli irányait.
Módszer
Tanulmányunk a neuromítoszokkal, ezen belül a három legelterjedtebb neuromítosszal kapcsolatos magyar és angol nyelvű szakcikkek feldolgozása alapján készült, műfajában narratív jellegű kritikai összefoglaló elemzés.
Eredmények
Hazánkban alig jelent meg tanulmány a témában. A nemzetközi szakirodalom azonban egyre szélesebb körben foglalkozik az oktatási neuromítoszokkal, amelyek közül a legelterjedtebbek (1) a tanulási stílusokkal, (2) az agyféltekei dominanciával és (3) az agyféltekei integrációval kapcsolatos mítoszok. A neuromítoszok elfogadását, illetve elutasítását elősegítő (prediktív, illetve protektív) tényezők egyaránt a vizsgálatok homlokterében állnak.
Következtetések
A pedagógusok, pedagógusjelöltek és pedagógusképzésben dolgozó munkatársak evidenciaalapú idegtudományi ismereteinek bővítése kulcsfontosságúnak látszik a neuromítoszokkal szembeni küzdelemben. Lényeges szerepet töltenek be az aggyal kapcsolatos korszerű ismeretek, és a neuromítoszok felismeréséhez szükséges kritikai gondolkodás.
Abstract
Background and Aims
Neuromyths are misconceptions that are based of the misunderstanding on brain-related information and phenomena and neuroscientific evidence. These misconceptions are widespread in the education system and are often associated with so-called neuropedagogy theories, which may directly influence teaching practice. In the past twenty years, the prevalence of neuromyths, the factors that influence their presence and acceptance in the field of education and their effects on teaching methods have been the subject of increasing attention. Multiple studies have univocally shown that these myths are widespread among teachers as well as teacher candidates. Developmental programs and therapeutic approaches based on these myths are ineffective and thus require unnecessary expenditure of time and resources. The aims of our study are to highlight the significance of this phenomenon by reviewing the scientific background of three widespread educational neuromyths, and to provide a comprehensive description of the scientific evidence related to these neuromyths as well as future research directions.
Methods
This article is a critical, narrative review of Hungarian and English scientific publications related to neuromyths, in particular the three most prevalent neuromyths.
Results
We found hardly any Hungarian studies on educational neuromyths. However, an increasing number of international papers have been published on this topic, including the most prevalent educational neuromyths, which are related to: (1) learning styles, (2) hemispheric dominance, (3) interhemispheric integration. A main focus of these studies has been the influence of predictive and protective factors on the acceptance of neuromyths.
Conclusion
Broadening the knowledge of teachers, trainee teachers and experts working in teachers' education in the field of evidence-based neuroscience seems to be of key importance in the fight against neuromyths. Up-to-date information on the brain and critical thinking required for the recognition of neuromyths are particularly important.
Teachers with poor neuroliteracy fail to distinguish scientific evidence from neuromyths (NM), which might lead to the implementation of pseudoscientific educational methods. The prevalence of NM and general knowledge about the brain (GKAB) among in-service and pre-service teachers has been assessed in multiple countries, but no such study has been performed in Hungary. The aims of this study were to (1) assess the neuroliteracy of pre-service teachers, (2) compare the results with those of previous studies and (3) analyze the factors influencing neuroliteracy. Our sample included 822 pre-service teachers from 12 Hungarian universities. We developed a survey including 10 NM and 13 GKAB statements, adapted from a widely used questionnaire. The average rate of incorrect answers to NM was 56.9%, whereas the average rate of correct answers to GKAB was 70.9%. Male gender and frequency of using Facebook as the primary information source about neuroscience were the only predictors of NM acceptance. In comparison with other studies, the Hungarian pre-service teachers had the second highest endorsement of NM. The most prevalent NM were linked to motor functions, which might be related to the widespread use and promotion of motor therapies in Hungary.
Neuromyths are prevalent in all spheres of life and can be found in all professions. The teaching profession is especially susceptible to neuromyths as teachers want to provide the most effective, science based instruction to their students. Sometimes these instructions are not based on scientific studies but on a misinterpretation of scientific findings or neuromyths. The goal of the present paper was to examine the prevalence of seven popular neuromyths in teachers in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BIH). The research study comprised 300 teachers from all parts of BIH. The research material comprised 300 teachers (232 females and 62 males) from all parts of BIH. Participants were either personally invited to the study or recruited through an online survey sent to schools throughout BIH and teacher organizations. As a me thod we used the Questionnaire consisting of basic demographic information on the participants (gender, working experience, type of teacher) and 7 neuromyths statements on which participants were asked to answer whether they think the statement is true, not true, or they do not know, The results of this study indicate a wide prevalence of neuromyths in BIH teachers. The prevalence ranged from 17% to 82%. The most prevalent myth is about learning styles, while the least prevalent was that drinking less than 8 glasses of water causes a brain to shrink. There were statistically significant differences in the prevalence of neuromyths in relation to the teachers' gender for every statement. However, the trend is not uniform. Although, overall the neuromyths were more prevalent in female teachers (for 5 items), for two neuromyth statements, male teachers had a higher prevalence. Additionally, the prevalence of neuromyths was more frequent in early-grade teachers. It should be noted that there are also differences in the results obtained for the different types of neuromyths. Neuroscience is important for education and for the teachers. Thus, more attention should be given to the process of translating neuro-scientific findings into useful facts for teachers. One way to improve this process is through the continual professional development of teachers in the field of neuroscience.
The aim of this study is to determine the neuromyths among Turkish and Israeli high school teachers and compare them across countries. The Educational Neuroscience Data Collection Scale, which was adapted into Turkish by Gülsün and Köseoğlu (2020) from Dekker et al. (2012) with regard to the brain and its functioning, was utilized as the data collection tool. Teachers working in Turkish high schools and teachers working in the Israeli Ministry of Education constituted the study sample. Between June 2019 and December 2020, there were 184 teachers (Turkey:112; Israel: 72) who volunteered to participate in the study. The research model is a relational investigation based on the general screening model. Data analysis included t-test and chi-square tests; when the independent variable was continuous, the t-test was used for independent groups, and when the independent variable was discrete, the chi-square approach was used, in accordance with the assumptions required to make group comparisons. According to the results of the study, there were significant differences between countries about the brain functions and the items related to neuromyths. However, no statistically significant difference was found between the country averages of the items in the data collection tool and the total item. With the intercountry comparison, it is considered that suggestions for eliminating neuromyths of teachers working in countries and suggestions to be made in teacher training programs will be important.
The article presents the results of research conducted among Polish teachers. Their aim was to check the prevalence of neuromyths in schools and kindergartens, and to identify predictors of both belief in neuromyths and the level of knowledge about the structure and functioning of the brain. The obtained results partially confirmed the reports from international studies. Neuromyths turned out to be very popular among Polish teachers, even despite the high level of basic knowledge in the field of neurobiology. The research also revealed a number of factors that determine the level of the above-mentioned knowledge. The influence of age, gender, seniority, workplace, interest in training in neuroeducation, earlier access to knowledge in the field of neurobiology or the use of neuromyths-based work methods in educational practice has not been confirmed.
The buzzword brain-based learning emerged in the 1970s and continues to fascinate teachers and learners in schools and universities today. However, what interested teachers often fail to realize is that brain-based or brain-friendly learning can not only be a plausible concept, but also a myth when applied incorrectly. Numerous empirical studies reveal a high degree of support for misconceptions about learning and the brain, known as neuromyths, among both pre-service and in-service teachers. When applied in the classroom, these myths can waste the educational system’s money, time and effort. Even though the neuromyths issue has been known for two decades and the topic remains a focus of constant research, even today, the research discourse barely goes beyond replicating the earliest research findings. This review article provides an overview of the theoretical and empirical state of research on neuromyths. As part of this, ten neuromyths on the subject of learning and memory will be described in terms of content and the results of prior studies on neuromyths will be summarized. The overview of the theoretical and empirical state of research serves as a basis for highlighting controversies, fundamental concepts, issues and problems, current research gaps and potential developments in the field. Topics discussed include whether controversial research findings on correlations with endorsement of neuromyths are merely a methodological artefact, and why contradictions exist between the theoretical and empirical state of research. In addition, three central research gaps will be identified: First, studies should be conducted on whether and to what extent the endorsement of neuromyths really deprives teachers and students of opportunities to spend the education system’s money, time and effort on more effective theories and methods. Second, there is too little work on developing and evaluating intervention approaches to combat neuromyths. Third, a standard scientific methodology or guidelines for determining new neuromyths are lacking. As desirable future developments in the field, more work educating people on neuromyths, uniform vocabulary, and interdisciplinary cooperation are highlighted. This contributes to answering the question of to what extent interweaving neuroscience, educational science and cognitive psychology can contribute to reducing the prevalence of neuromyths in education.
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 notmatch 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.
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.
Brain-friendly learning is a new catchphrase in school and university instructional practice. However, it often escapes the notice of the teachers and learners involved that neurodidactics is not simply a plausible concept – it can also be a myth if applied incorrectly. Numerous international studies show that both pre-service and in-service teachers as well as university educators endorse misconceptions on the topic of learning and the brain and orient their didactic conception on so-called neuromyths. This paper presents nine neuromyths on the topic of learning and memory. Based on a review of the current research, we discuss what determines their emergence and prevalence, to what extent neuromyths pose a problem for practice, and why and how both neurodidactics and neuromyths should be made an object of university instruction.
Zeitschrift für Bildungsforschung (in press):
Der Transfer von neurowissenschaftlichen Befunden in die schulische Praxis wurde begleitet von der Entstehung von Fehlkonzepten über das menschliche Gehirn, sogenannte Neuromythen. Neuromythen sind unter Lehrkräften weltweit verbreitet. Unklar ist, ob Neuromythen bereits zu Beginn des Lehramtsstudiums bestehen und ob diese im österreichischen Bildungssystem eine ähnlich hohe Prävalenz aufweisen wie in anderen Ländern. Die vorliegende Studie untersucht, ob österreichische Lehramtsstudierende ihre Ausbildung bereits mit dem Glauben an Neuromythen beginnen. Darüber hinaus soll die Rolle des Wissens über das menschliche Gehirn für die Prävalenz von Neuromythen kritisch hinterfragt werden. 582 Lehramtsstudierende bearbeiteten zu Beginn ihres Lehramtsstudiums 40 Aussagen über das menschliche Gehirn; 20 dieser Aussagen waren Neuromythen und 20 korrekte Aussagen über das menschliche Gehirn, sogenannte Neurofakten. Es zeigte sich, dass bereits zu Beginn des Lehramtsstudiums mehrere Neuromythen eine hohe Prävalenz aufwiesen. Analog zu anderen Ländern bezogen sich die prävalentesten Neuromythen auf Lerntypen und auf ein getrenntes Arbeiten der Gehirnhälften. Darüber hinaus wurde gefunden, dass Neuromythen kein eindimensionales Konstrukt abbilden. Schließlich zeigte sich, dass das Wissen über das menschliche Gehirn nicht mit dem Glauben an Neuromythen zusammenhing. Da Neuromythen bereits zu Lehramtsstudienbeginn stark vertreten sind, sollte die Lehramtsausbildung diese auch auflösen. Hierfür scheint es ratsam zu sein, nicht nur generell Wissen über das menschliche Gehirn zu vermitteln, sondern Neuromythen gezielt zu thematisieren. Dies sollte insbesondere für jene Neuromythen getan werden, deren Umsetzung zu potentiell schädlichen Schulpraktiken führen könnte.
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.
Neuromyths are misinterpretations of neuroscientific knowledge that may negatively affect the development of science-based education. They arise from complex scientific advances that are often communicated in a simplified form by the media and consumed by the untrained public, including education professionals, in a variety of cultural and social contexts. To better understand such variations, the present research used a questionnaire to survey the belief in neuromyths among headmasters in Gansu province in northwestern China. In all, 253 headmasters of the elemental and middle school participated in the survey, the results showed that headmasters in Gansu province were interested in neuroscience and that they commonly believed neuromyths. The most widespread neuromyths were those about learning styles, rich environments for pre-school children, and exercise to improve brain function. The educators' personal backgrounds, such as level of education and school type, may be predictive of their belief in neuromyths. Our results indicated that headmasters must be alert in attempting to apply neuroscience laboratory results to classroom teaching.
A number of studies have recently demonstrated a high level of belief in ‘neuromyths’ (fallacious arguments about the brain) amongst trainee and non-award winning educators. The authors of these studies infer this to mean that acceptance of these neuromyths has a negative impact on teaching effectiveness. In this study, we explored this assumption by assessing the prevalence of neuromyth acceptance amongst a group of internationally recognized, award-winning teachers and comparing this to previously published data with trainee and non-award winning teacher populations. Results revealed the acceptance of neuromyths to be nearly identical between these two groups, with the only difference occurring on 2 (out of 15) items. These findings suggest that one cannot make simple, unqualified arguments concerning the relationship between belief in neuromyths and teacher effectiveness. In fact, the idea that neuromyths negatively impact upon teaching might, itself, be a neuromyth.
Misconceptions about the brain and its relation to education are widespread. This can lead to the implementation of ineffective methods and the waste of precious resources. To examine the extent of belief in neuromyths, a survey about the brain in education was conducted. Respondents (n = 169) came from special education (n = 83) and general education (n = 78), and included preservice teachers (n = 34), in-service teachers (n = 63), higher education faculty (n = 39), and educational leaders (n = 33). The survey contained 15 Myths and 18 Facts, and overall, participants were able to correctly identify approximately 66% of all the Facts. On the other hand, on average, respondents responded correctly for only one third of the Myths. The most commonly misidentified Myths were related to motor coordination exercises to improve literacy skills, the right brain-left brain myth, and learning styles. Higher education faculty were able to identify more Myths than any other group. Implications for teacher preparation and ongoing professional learning for teachers and educational leaders are discussed.
There has been an exponential growth in research examining the neurological basis of human cognition and learning. Little is known, however, about the extent to which sports coaches are aware of these advances. Consequently, the aim of the present study was to examine the prevalence of pseudoscientific ideas among British and Irish sports coaches. In total, 545 coaches from the United Kingdom and Ireland completed a measure that included questions about how evidence-based theories of the brain might enhance coaching and learning, how they were exposed to these different theories, and their awareness of neuromyths. Results revealed that the coaches believed that an enhanced understanding of the brain helped with their planning and delivery of sports sessions. Goal-setting was the most frequently used strategy. Interestingly, 41.6% of the coaches agreed with statements that promoted neuromyths. The most prevalent neuromyth was “individuals learn better when they receive information in their preferred learning style (e.g., auditory, visual, or kinesthetic),” which 62% of coaches believed. It is apparent that a relatively large percentage of coaches base aspects of their coaching practice on neuromyths and other pseudoscientific ideas. Strategies for addressing this situation are briefly discussed and include changing the content of coach education programs.
The present study investigated the prevalence of neuromyths and the general neuroscience knowledge of Chilean teachers. We surveyed 91 teachers working in primary and secondary education at different schools. Consistent with previous research, the results showed that teachers have some general knowledge of neuroscience, but also hold many misconceptions about the brain, the so called "neuromyths", especially those associated with VAK methodologies, Brain Gym®, and hemispheric dominance. Teachers who reported higher general neuroscience knowledge also showed high prevalence of neuromyths, which indicates that as they learn real neuroscience knowledge, they also learn misconceptions. The only significant predictors of neuromyths were Reading popular scientific magazines and self-evaluation of neuroscience knowledge. We discussed these predictors and the origin of the most popular neuromyths from a neuroscientific perspective, in order to reveal the evidence that debunks these misconceptions.
Hitherto, the contribution of philosophers to Neuroscience and Education has tended to be less than enthusiastic, though there are some notable exceptions. Meanwhile, the pervasive influence of neuromyths on education policy, curriculum design and pedagogy in schools is well documented. Indeed, philosophers have sometimes used the prevalence of neuromyths in education to bolster their opposition to neuroscience in teacher education courses. By contrast, this article views the presence of neuromyths in education as a call for remedial action, including philosophical action. The empirical basis of this article is a survey, conducted over a period of three years, involving a total of 1144 first-year pre-service student teachers, which revealed alarming levels of belief in five common neuromyths related to children and learning. This study also attempted to probe the origins of these mistaken beliefs and why they gain traction. The findings suggest an urgent need in teacher education to address the problem of neuromyths, not simply because they are mistaken, they often misdirect valuable resources and mislabel children. The article calls for a compulsory unit on neuroscience and education in all courses of teacher education. Moreover, teaching neuroscience in education cannot be left to specialist neuroscientists, philosophers must be involved.
A growing body of research evidence suggests that physical activity can have a positive effect on educational achievement. This book examines a range of processes associated with physical activity that are of relevance to those working in education – including cognition, learning, memory, attention, mood, stress and mental health symptoms – and draws on the latest insights from exercise neuroscience to help explain the evidence.
With contributions from leading scientists and educationalists from around the world, this book cuts through the myths to interrogate the relationship between physical activity and educational achievement in children, adolescents and young adults in a variety of cultural and geographical contexts. Examining both the benefits and risks associated with physical activity from the perspectives of exercise science and educational psychology, it also looks ahead to ask what the limits of this research might be and what effects it might have on the future practice of education.
Physical Activity and Educational Achievement: Insights from Exercise Neuroscience is fascinating reading for any student, academic or practitioner with an interest in exercise science and education.
Neuromyths are misconceptions about brain research and its application to education and learning. Previous research has shown that these myths may be quite pervasive among educators, but less is known about how these rates compare to the general public or to individuals who have more exposure to neuroscience. This study is the first to use a large sample from the United States to compare the prevalence and predictors of neuromyths among educators, the general public, and individuals with high neuroscience exposure. Neuromyth survey responses and demographics were gathered via an online survey hosted at TestMyBrain.org. We compared performance among the three groups of interest: educators (N = 598), high neuroscience exposure (N = 234), and the general public (N = 3,045) and analyzed predictors of individual differences in neuromyths performance. In an exploratory factor analysis, we found that a core group of 7 “classic” neuromyths factored together (items related to learning styles, dyslexia, the Mozart effect, the impact of sugar on attention, right-brain/left-brain learners, and using 10% of the brain). The general public endorsed the greatest number of neuromyths (M = 68%), with significantly fewer endorsed by educators (M = 56%), and still fewer endorsed by the high neuroscience exposure group (M = 46%). The two most commonly endorsed neuromyths across all groups were related to learning styles and dyslexia. More accurate performance on neuromyths was predicted by age (being younger), education (having a graduate degree), exposure to neuroscience courses, and exposure to peer-reviewed science. These findings suggest that training in education and neuroscience can help reduce but does not eliminate belief in neuromyths. We discuss the possible underlying roots of the most prevalent neuromyths and implications for classroom practice. These empirical results can be useful for developing comprehensive training modules for educators that target general misconceptions about the brain and learning.
This longitudinal study explores the association of motor competence and physical fitness with reading skills in children aged 9 and 12 years. Sixty-seven children aged 9 years completed an assessment of motor competence (measured using the Movement Assessment battery for Children), physical fitness (assessed using the Test of Physical Fitness), and reading (measured using the Wordchain test). The testing procedures were repeated after 32 months. For the 9-year-old group, there was a low, negative correlation between motor competence and reading overall, r = −.031 (girls: r = −.207; boys: r = .180). Correlation between fitness and reading was also low (r = .064). Girls had a higher correlation between fitness and reading than boys (r = .404; 17.7% shared variance, vs. r = −.138). When the children were 12 years old, there was still a low association of motor competence and fitness with reading. These low associations can be used to support the task specificity principles of learning.
Although very often teachers show a great interest in introducing findings from the field of neuroscience in their classrooms, there is growing concern about the lack of academic instruction on neuroscience on teachers' curricula because this has led to a proliferation of neuromyths. We surveyed 479 undergraduate (mean age = 19.60 years, SD = 2.29) and 94 postgraduate students (mean age = 28.52 years, SD = 7.16) enrolled in Departments of Education at the University of Thessaly and the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. We used a 70-item questionnaire aiming to explore general knowledge on the brain, neuromyths, the participants' attitude toward neuroeducation as well as their reading habits. Prospective teachers were found to believe that neuroscience knowledge is useful for teachers (90.3% agreement), to be somewhat knowledgeable when it comes to the brain (47.33% of the assertions were answered correctly), but to be less well informed when it comes to neuroscientific issues related to special education (36.86% correct responses). Findings further indicate that general knowledge about the brain was found to be the best safeguard against believing in neuromyths. Based on our results we suggest that prospective teachers can benefit from academic instruction on neuroscience. We propose that such instruction takes place in undergraduate courses of Departments of Education and that emphasis is given in debunking neuromyths, enhancing critical reading skills, and dealing with topics relevant to special education.
In the last decade, educational neuroscience has become increasingly important in the context of instruction, and its applications have been transformed into new teaching methods. Although teachers are interested in educational neuroscience, communication between scientists and teachers is not always straightforward. Thus, misunderstandings of neuroscientific research results can evolve into so-called neuromyths. The aim of the present study was to investigate the prevalence of such music-related neuromyths among music teachers and music students. Based on an extensive literature research, 26 theses were compiled and subsequently evaluated by four experts. Fourteen theses were selected, of which seven were designated as scientifically substantiated and seven as scientifically unsubstantiated (hereafter labeled as “neuromyths”). One group of adult music teachers (n = 91) and one group of music education students (n = 125) evaluated the theses (forced-choice discrimination task) in two separate online surveys. Additionally, in both surveys person-characteristic variables were gathered to determine possible predictors for the discrimination performance. As a result, identification rates of the seven scientifically substantiated theses were similar for teachers (76%) and students (78%). Teachers and students correctly rejected 60 and 59%, respectively, of the seven neuromyths as scientifically unsubstantiated statements. Sensitivity analysis by signal detection theory revealed a discrimination performance of d' = 1.25 (SD = 1.12) for the group of teachers and d' = 1.48 (SD = 1.22) for the students. Both groups showed a general tendency to evaluate the theses as scientifically substantiated (teachers: c = −0.35, students: c = −0.41). Specifically, buzz words such as “brain hemisphere” or “cognitive enhancement” were often classified as correct. For the group of teachers, the best predictor of discrimination performance was having read a large number of media about educational neuroscience and related topics (R² = 0.06). For the group of students, the best predictors for discrimination performance were a high number of read media and the hitherto completed number of semesters (R² = 0.14). Our findings make clear that both teachers and students are far from being experts on topics related to educational neuroscience in music and would therefore benefit from current education-related research in psychology and neuroscience.
The aim of study is to determine the neuromyth level of teachers and pre-teachers and reveal if there is significant difference in terms of some variables (gender, class, etc.). Research was designed in survey model. The research sample was formed with 241 teachers and 511 teacher candidates. In the collection of data, “Educational neuromyhts test” that has 31 questions with options “right, wrong, I have no idea” that was created by the authors by applying reliability studies. Score that can be taken from measuring tool are in the range of 0-31. According to the findings; while teachers are having an average score of “18,87”, teacher candidates received an average score of “16,70”. According to this result, teacher and teacher candidates have misplaced half of the questions of neurometry. While comparing the scores of teachers and teacher candidates, a significant difference in favor of the teachers (p=.000) were found. The results of the research are expected to led to a debate on “brain and learning” issues.
Background: Teachers’ conceptions and misconceptions about neuroscience are crucial in establishing a proper dialogue between neuroscience and education. In recent years, studies in different countries have examined primary and secondary school teachers’ conceptions. However, although preschool education has proved its importance to later academic outcomes, there is limited investigation of neuroscience conceptions focused exclusively on preschool teachers. Purpose: The present study sought to explore preschool teachers’
conceptions and misconceptions about neuroscience in an Argentine setting. Sample, design and methods: We used quantitative and qualitative approaches to explore concepts about neuroscience, including specific neuromyths. Data were collected using a 24-statement questionnaire and 5 in-depth interviews. The survey was administered to 204 teachers of children between the ages of 0–5-years in Argentina. Results and conclusions: Results from this exploratory study suggested a relatively high level of general knowledge of neuroscience
amongst the preschool teachers in the study. However, three particular issues seemed unclear for teachers: memory, plasticity and the myth that ‘we only use 10% of the brain’. Specifically, ‘memory’ was understood as ‘learning by heart’; neural underpinnings of memory and plasticity processes were unknown; and the myth that we only use 10% of the brain was used to explain individual differences in intelligence in a straightforward way. In addition, anecdotal evidence was used by teachers to justify their conceptions about neuroscience. Finally, the wider implications of these results for bridging neuroscience and education are discussed.
Enthusiasm for research on the brain and its application in education is growing among teachers. However, a lack of sufficient knowledge, poor communication between educators and scientists, and the effective marketing of dubious educational products has led to the proliferation of numerous ‘neuromyths.’ As a first step toward designing effective interventions to correct these misconceptions, previous studies have explored the prevalence of neuromyths in different countries. In the present study we extend this applied research by gathering data from a new sample of Spanish teachers and by meta-analyzing all the evidence available so far. Our results show that some of the most popular neuromyths identified in previous studies are also endorsed by Spanish teachers. The meta-analytic synthesis of these data and previous research confirms that the popularity of some neuromyths is remarkably consistent across countries, although we also note peculiarities and exceptions with important implications for the development of effective interventions. In light of the increasing popularity of pseudoscientific practices in schools worldwide, we suggest a set of interventions to address misconceptions about the brain and education.
Resumen:
En este trabajo se analizan la persistencia de neuromitos en futuros maestros estudiantes de la UDC, y sus actitudes respecto a aspectos relacionados con este mismo tópico. Se reflejan también los resultados de análisis comparativos con aquellos estudios de investigaciones precedentes recogidos en docentes de distintos ámbitos geográficos. Se concluye, a través del proceso de análisis de datos, que el nivel de formación de los futuros maestros podría perfilarse como una influencia favorable al proceso de disipación de neuromitos, y que se reflejaría, de igual modo, en sus actitudes. //
Abstract:
In this paper prevalence of neuromyths among UDC future teachers, and their attitudes about same topic had been analyzed. Through a comparative analysis with results of previous research gathered in teachers from different geographical areas, we could conclude that the level of training of future teachers would emerge as a favorable influence to dispelling neuromyths. This fact would be reflected too in their attitudes.
There is concern amongst neuroscientists and educators about the prevalence of neuromyths in education, which are often associated with poor or unevaluated practices in the classroom. The present study surveyed 217 primary and secondary school teachers in Greece. Analysis revealed that Greek school teachers held many misconceptions about concepts related to brain-based educational programs that have been observed elsewhere in Europe. These include believing that differences in hemispheric dominance (left brain, right brain) can help explain individual differences amongst learners, and the effectiveness of teaching to learning styles. However, international comparison with other studies also revealed some interesting differences reflecting the influence of cultural forces on teachers’ ideas about brain function. For example, teachers in Greece appear to possess a more complex construction of the mind-brain relationship than observed in the UK and Netherlands, with most considering that this relationship is mediated by the soul. A relationship was also observed between attributing educational outcomes to genetics and a belief in a biological limit to student achievement.
Neuroscience adds a new perspective to the field of education. However, it is challenging to bridge the gap between those deeply-rooted fields. Historically, the gap has generated certain neuromyths and these can be quite damaging. In order to prevent this situation, teachers should be sufficiently informed. Thus, there are some efforts in some countries to prevent the spread of neuromyths, such as UK, Netherlands, Brazil, US, Greece, Portuguese etc. However there have been no studies in Turkey. The present study took a two-stage mixed-methods approach to explore primary and secondary school teachers’ concepts about the brain in Turkey and to identify potential sources of misconceptions. 278 primary and secondary school teachers were surveyed and 6 of them were interviewed for in depth responses. Analyses revealed that teachers held many misconceptions about concepts related to brain that have been observed elsewhere in Europe. On the other hand the comparison between Turkey, UK and Netherlands revealed some interesting differences. For instance the conceptions about the neuromyths on second language learning and plasticity were differentiated between countries. This could show the differences between cultures. There is a need to do distinctive scientific research in Turkey as well.
Here, we report the first survey of teachers’ ideas about the brain in East China (N=238), aimed at identifying the prevalence of “neuromyths” thought to detract from effective classroom practice. Analysis identified many neuromyths popular in Europe (e.g. value in teaching to learning styles, left-brained or right-brained learners and in using only 10% of the brain). However, some important differences with the European data also emerged (e.g. greater belief in the importance of attention and avoiding emotional disruption of thought). An inverse relationship between favouring genetic influence and a belief in a biological limit to student achievement was also observed.
For several decades, myths about the brain - neuromyths - have persisted in schools and colleges, often being used to justify ineffective approaches to teaching. Many of these myths are biased distortions of scientific fact. Cultural conditions, such as differences in terminology and language, have contributed to a 'gap' between neuroscience and education that has shielded these distortions from scrutiny. In recent years, scientific communications across this gap have increased, although the messages are often distorted by the same conditions and biases as those responsible for neuromyths. In the future, the establishment of a new field of inquiry that is dedicated to bridging neuroscience and education may help to inform and to improve these communications.
Background
: Several studies have revealed a common high prevalence of educational neuromyths among teachers from different countries. However, only one intervention aimed at reducing these beliefs among in-service teachers has been reported to date, and it was conducted in a non-naturalistic setting.
Procedure
: In the present study, we administered a survey to measure the prevalence of common neuromyths in a large sample (n=807) of primary and secondary teachers from 203 schools across Catalonia (Spain), and then we evaluated the impact that a 15-hour online course on neuroscience had on a sample of them as compared to a control group.
Main findings
: Results showed an initial distribution of neuromyth beliefs similar to those of previous studies and a large effect of the intervention on reducing their prevalence shortly after the training and in the long term.
Conclusions
: These findings provide evidence that an intervention addressed to in-service teachers that is low-cost and easy to implement can cast corrective effects that persist over time in neuromyth beliefs.
Educational neuromyths are incorrect ideas about the brain and learning. These ideas pose a risk if they impact learner outcomes. The concern about neuromyths has spurred global research, including teacher surveys about their identification. If such research leads to corrective strategies, the potential beneficiaries are teachers, students, and the field of educational neuroscience itself. This research relies on accurate neuromyth measures, and yet the topic of measurement has been largely ignored. In this review, we focus on key measurement issues surrounding the assessment of neuromyths, and we consider measurement improvements. We show that the framing of items, both the fact and neuromyth, must be improved in future research. These changes are vital to realize the potential benefit of educational neuromyth research. We review the history of educational neuromyths and how this concept is applied in empirical research. We focus on the framing of neuromyth survey items, and how this could be improved to support better understanding of neuromyths and their role in teaching and learning.
Neuromyths are distorted ideas from neuroscience about the brain and learning. This critical review synthesized data from nine educational neuromyth studies that: (a) used a specific established measure, (b) were published in English, and (c) sampled qualified (in-service) teachers. The total sample comprised 5,259 teachers from 16 countries on six continents. All studies were cross-sectional and used convenience sampling. A common finding was that most neuromyths were endorsed or strongly endorsed by teachers; however, most of the studies were methodologically limited. For example, six studies used unrepresentative samples. Further, none of the studies closely considered the potential impact of neuromyths on teaching practices and learner outcomes. Future research must address these limitations and answer the challenging and important questions that remain, including prevention strategies.
Background: Including neuroscience concepts in teacher training has continued to gain interest. While many studies advocate for this, little is known about currently published research.
Methods: The framework for a scoping review was followed in order to generate a more comprehensive understanding of current research on neuroscience training for teachers. The present study aims to: (1) describe the scope of existing research; (2) summarize findings; and (3) provide recommendations for future inquiry.
Results: Limited studies and methodological issues prevent strong conclusions from being drawn about the impact of this training although most results are promising.
Conclusions: This scoping review provides the first comprehensive summary of the existing research on neuroscience training for teachers and discusses a number of considerations for improving future research in this area.
Background: The current COVID-19 pandemic and proliferation of misinformation regarding science highlights the importance of improving general science literacy. The continued preponderance of neuromyths among educators is of concern, especially in lower- and middle-income countries.
Method: Using an adapted questionnaire, a cross-sectional survey was conducted among teachers in a small island developing state in the Caribbean.
Results: Two-thirds of the sample were unable to recognise at least 50% of the myths. Regression analysis demonstrated that higher scores in brain knowledge and exposure to prior teacher-training increased belief in neuromyths. On the other hand, specific in-service training pertaining to educational neuroscience improved scores.
Conclusion: Neuromyths are prevalent among teachers and appear to inform their teaching practice. Further research needs to be conducted to explore not just the prevalence of these myths but in what ways they may be impacting teaching and learning outcomes in the classroom.
The term neuromyths refers to misconceptions about learning and the brain. Educator neuromyths may result in inappropriate instruction, labelling of learners, and wasted resources. To date, little research has considered the sources of these beliefs. We surveyed 1359 Australian preservice educators (M = 22.7, SD = 5.7 years) about their sources of information for 15 neuromyth and 17 general brain knowledge statements. Consistent with previous studies, neuromyth beliefs were prevalent. Predictors of neuromyth accuracy included general brain knowledge and completion of university classes addressing neuromyths, although effects were modest. Depending on the belief, participants relied on general knowledge, academic staff, school staff, and popular media. Recommendations for teacher education are presented.
Background
It is not well understood whether qualified teachers believe neuromyths, and whether this affects their practice and learner outcomes.
Method
A standardised survey was administered to practising teachers (N = 228) to determine whether or not they believe fictional (neuromyth) or factual statements about the brain, the confidence in those beliefs, and their application.
Results
Although factual knowledge was high, seven neuromyths were believed by >50% of the sample. Participants who endorsed neuromyths were generally more confident in their answers than those who identified the myths. Key neuromyths appear to be incorporated into classrooms.
Conclusion
Australian teachers, like their overseas counterparts, have some neuroscience awareness but are susceptible to neuromyths. A stronger partnership with neuroscientists would addresss the complex problem of disentangling brain facts from fictions, and provide better support for teachers. This study uncovered psychometric weaknesses in the commonly used neuromyth measure that future research should address.
Neuromyths have been discussed to detrimentally affect educational practice but the evidence for this assumption is still very scarce. We investigated whether 255 student-teachers’ beliefs in neuromyths are related to their academic achievement (overall grade point averages and 1st year practical courses). Believing or rejecting neuromyths that make no direct assumptions about learners’ educability was not related to academic achievement. Believing in neuromyths that explicitly deny the educability of learners was only marginally related to academic achievement. We conclude that self-reported beliefs in neuromyths do not differentiate between high and low achieving initial teacher education students.
The objective of this study was to evaluate brain knowledge and the prevalence of neuromyths among teachers in Morocco. We aimed also predicting factors that may improve teachers' brain knowledge and widespread of neuromyths. An online questionnaire was sent to a large population of Moroccan teachers. The questionnaire contains 32 questions, 20 of them are designed to assess teachers' knowledge about the brain and the remaining 12 questions are neuromyths. The mean score of brain knowledge was (64.34% (SD = 27.9%)) and the mean score of neuromyths was (66.56% (SD= 25.73%)). Besides, 50% of teachers were unable to correctly answer seven out of the 20 brain knowledge questions. Moreover, half of the teachers believed in 9 out of the 12 neuromyths. Knowledge about the brain was the foremost predictor of neuromyths. The study disclosed a real lack of brain knowledge with a widespread of neuromyths among teachers in Morocco.
Teachers often face situations that require them to apply knowledge about the mind and brain to education. Past studies have indicated that even if teachers show interest in cognitive neuroscience, they show high rates of adhesion to neuromyths. In the most commonly used questionnaire, however, respondents do not compare neuromyths and correct information based on neuroscience. The present study proposes a multiple‐choice questionnaire that presents scenarios occurring in school. The most commonly used and the new questionnaire were administered to 174 Italian teachers. In the most commonly used questionnaire, teachers generally had the same likelihood of accepting neuromyths as the literature reports. In the new questionnaire, the levels of both general knowledge and beliefs about neuromyths were significantly lower. Moreover, it suggests that teachers' adhesion to neuromyths in realistic situations does not match their explicit beliefs. Thus, the present research proposes that the use of questions based on feasible scenarios is a useful method to assess neuromyths.
Initial teacher education (ITE) offers an underutilized opportunity for bridging the gap between neuroscience research and educational practice. This article reports on innovations embedded within an ITE program to support trainee teachers to recognize and challenge the persistence of neuromyths. Education researchers, neuroscientists, and psychologists collaboratively applied design‐based research to create, improve, and reflect on original neuroeducational teaching/learning resources for university‐based primary (elementary) ITE trainees. Encouragingly, pre and postsurveys showed reductions in trainees' beliefs in neuromyths and a shift to responses showing uncertainty that suggested their beliefs became unsettled. The most persistent neuromyths were those regarding fish oils, left brain/right brain, and learning styles/visual, auditory, or kinaesthetic (VAK). Trainees retained their initial interest in knowledge about the brain and education, gained confidence, and became more critical about applying the learning sciences in educational contexts.
Previous studies have revealed that “neuromyths,” which are misconceptions about the brain, show a high prevalence among teachers in different countries. However, little is known about the origin of these ideas; that is to say, the sources that may influence their presence among teachers. This research aims to identify the prevalence of five frequent neuromyths among teachers in Quebec (belief in neuromyths and reported practices) and the reported sources of these beliefs (e.g., reading popular science texts). A total of 972 teachers from Quebec responded to an online questionnaire. Results show a lower prevalence than previous studies (although it remains high), and that the main sources cited by participants are related to cognitive biases and university training. To our knowledge, this study is the first to report data supporting the idea that cognitive biases are related to the prevalence of neuromyths.
Neuroscientific knowledge has undeniably gained interest among educators worldwide. However, not all “brain facts” believed by teachers are supported by science. This study sought to evaluate the belief in these so-called neuromyths among 3,451 Latin American teachers. We found that, consistent with prior research among teachers in other geographic areas, teachers in Latin America hold major misconceptions about neuroscience, especially as it relates to factual information about its structure and functioning. Differences across South American nations were observed with moderate and slight effect sizes for general knowledge of the brain and neuromyths, respectively. Teachers working in higher education had slightly superior performance. Teachers at all levels who reported knowing more about the brain, however, were more likely to believe invalid assertions known as neuromyths. These results shed light on trends in the field of education, hoping to encourage the development of strategies aimed at correcting the use of science as it relates to education. The implications regarding teaching practice, policy, and teacher training are discussed.
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.
Neuroeducation—a recent approach to educational policy—claims that a bridge should be established between education and mind‐brain sciences, with the double aim of devising educational methods that work and of understanding why they work. The success of this encounter depends, among other conditions, on getting the science right; otherwise, neuroeducation and science‐informed policies risk doing more harm than good. On several occasions, the cognitive and brain sciences have been misunderstood, and misused: neuromyths—the misconceptions about the mind and brain functioning—have blossomed, thus raising both theoretical and pragmatic concerns. This article addresses the origin, persistence, and potential side‐effects of neuromyths in education. The hypothesis is put forward that the persistence of neuromyths is sustained by specific cultural conditions, such as the circulation of pieces of information about the brain and the appetite for brain news, but has its roots in deeper cognitive intuitions.