Macdonald Kelly, Germine Laura, Anderson Alida, Christodoulou Joanna, McGrath Lauren M
Department of Psychology, University of HoustonHouston, TX, United States.
Department of Psychiatry, McLean Hospital, Harvard Medical SchoolBelmont, MA, United States.
Front Psychol. 2017 Aug 10;8:1314. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01314. eCollection 2017.
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 ( = 598), high neuroscience exposure ( = 234), and the general public ( = 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 ( = 68%), with significantly fewer endorsed by educators ( = 56%), and still fewer endorsed by the high neuroscience exposure group ( = 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.
神经迷思是关于大脑研究及其在教育与学习中的应用的误解。先前的研究表明,这些迷思在教育工作者中可能相当普遍,但对于这些迷思在普通公众或接触神经科学较多的个体中的比例情况,我们了解得较少。本研究首次使用来自美国的大样本,比较教育工作者、普通公众以及接触神经科学较多的个体中神经迷思的流行程度及其预测因素。通过TestMyBrain.org网站上的在线调查收集神经迷思调查的回复和人口统计学数据。我们比较了三组感兴趣人群的表现:教育工作者(n = 598)、接触神经科学较多的人群(n = 234)和普通公众(n = 3045),并分析了神经迷思表现中个体差异的预测因素。在探索性因素分析中,我们发现7个“经典”神经迷思共同构成一个核心组(与学习风格、诵读困难、莫扎特效应、糖对注意力的影响、右脑/左脑学习者以及使用大脑10%相关的项目)。普通公众认可的神经迷思数量最多(68%),教育工作者认可的显著较少(56%),接触神经科学较多的组认可的更少(46%)。所有组中最常被认可的两个神经迷思与学习风格和诵读困难有关。年龄较小、受过研究生教育、接触过神经科学课程以及接触过经过同行评审的科学,这些因素预测了在神经迷思方面更准确的表现。这些发现表明,教育和神经科学方面的培训有助于减少但不能消除对神经迷思的相信。我们讨论了最普遍的神经迷思可能的潜在根源以及对课堂实践的影响。这些实证结果对于为教育工作者开发针对大脑和学习的普遍误解的综合培训模块可能会很有用。