Belief in neuromyths is extremely common.

A survey has shown that many educators, and even those with some neuroscience training, believe in neuromyths—common misconceptions about the brain and learning.

The researchers surveyed educators, the public, and people who have completed commercial “neuroscience” courses, to assess their belief in neuromyths. Neuromyths are common misconceptions about brain research, many of which relate to learning and education. They found that belief in neuromyths is extremely common and that training in education and neuroscience helped to reduce these beliefs, but did not eliminate them.

For example, would you rate the following statement as ‘True’ or ‘False’? “A common sign of dyslexia is seeing letters backward.” If you chose ‘True’ then you are in good company - 76% of the public, 59% of educators and 50% of people who have completed neuroscience courses agree with you. The problem is, the statement is false. It’s a neuromyth, and a recent study published in Frontiers in Psychology has shown that these misconceptions are incredibly common.

So, why does it matter if people believe in neuromyths? Many neuromyths relate brain research to education and business learning programs but misinterpret or overstate the original research. They are often oversimplifications, reducing complex issues to just one factor, such as “kids are less attentive after eating sugary snacks”.

For teachers who believe the dyslexia neuromyth above, they might miss an opportunity to get a child with dyslexia appropriate help, if the child doesn’t display letter reversals (I’m dyslexic and I don’t see letters backward. It took years for my condition to be realized). Teachers (and corporate trainers) using educational techniques based on neuromyths will achieve better results by switching to evidence-based methods.

While previous research has shown that belief in neuromyths is worryingly common in other countries, there was little-known about this problem in US educators.  “I encountered neuromyths throughout teacher trainings and saw many teachers using related practices in their classrooms,” says the lead author.

The researchers investigated the prevalence of neuromyths in US educators using an online survey where respondents chose ‘True’ or ‘False’ for a series of questions about common neuromyths (for the full list check out the study. This link is to the full text and the myths are all near the end). They also surveyed the public and people who had studied some neuroscience, to see if this training in had any effect on neuromyth beliefs.

Overall the public believed 68% of the neuromyths, educators 56%, and surprisingly, respondents with neuroscience training endorsed 46%.

“We were surprised at the level of neuromyth endorsement from respondents with neuroscience experience,” say the researchers.

What myths did respondents most commonly believe? The most commonly endorsed myth was “individuals learn better when they receive information in their preferred learning style”. Other common myths were related to the Mozart effect, dyslexia, using 10% of the brain, how sugar affects attention and the role of the left and right hemispheres in learning. “We were surprised to see that these ‘classic’ neuromyths tend to cluster together, meaning that if you believe one myth, you are more likely to believe others,” explained the researchers.

What now? So, how can we dispel these neuromyths and encourage evidence-based corporate and educational practices? “The next steps are to develop training and dissemination approaches,” they explain. “We are considering an online training module for educators to dispel the most prevalent neuromyths. The fact that people tend to believe several myths means that training modules can’t just teach about a single myth, they need to address several simultaneously.”

Quote of the Week:

“Good science follows the data, and there is nothing in any data anywhere that can excuse or justify policies that discriminate against the potential of individuals or that systematically reinforce different roles and status in society for people of any gender or ethnic group.” Editorial in the journal Nature.