Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Misconceptions Regarding
the Brain: The Neuromyths of
Preservice Teachers
Sefa Dndar1 and Nazan Gndz1
ABSTRACT Understanding preservice teachers miscon- its application in the eld of education. Although inac-
ceptions regarding the brain and neuroscience (neuromyths) curate, neuromyths have their basis in original scientic
can provide information that helps teachers to apply neuro- ndings that have been wrongly interpreted, overgen-
science knowledge in an educational context. The objective eralized, exaggerated, debased, or oversimplied (Della
of this study was to investigate these misconceptions. Fol- Sala, 2007; Howard-Jones, 2010), Pasquinelli (2012) noted
lowing preliminary research, a questionnaire comprising 59 that neuromyths may develop through inaccurate inter-
challenging assertions in two categories (education and neu- pretation of experimental results. For instance, research
romyths) was developed as a data collection tool. The nd- on cerebral hemispheric dominance and specialization has
ings identify preservice teachers neuromyths, which were prompted the myth that humans can be categorized as either
found to vary by teaching area. right-brained or left-brained. As a consequence, training
of various kinds has been developed to help individuals to
use both hemispheres eectively (Geake, 2008; Goswami,
Despite increasing research interest, the human brain 2008). In addition to right- or left-brain learning, other
remains to some extent mysterious. The growing volume examples of neuromyths include multi-intelligence, critical
of information about the brain, both in the media and periods for the learning process, the eect of certain types
in academic publications, is often accepted uncritically of nutrients on brain functions, and the belief that we use
without ltering or questioning its authenticity. Miscon- only 10% of the brains capacity.
ceptions arising from misreading, misunderstanding, or
misquoting information about the brain and its functions
Education and Neuromyths
have been described as neuromyths (Organisation for
In the United States, the period 19902000 was referred
Economic Cooperation, and Development, 2002). Geake
to as The Decade of the Brain because of the signif-
(2008) characterized neuromyths as popular descriptions of
icant growth of interest in neuroscience research. These
brain functions that inform so-called brain-based educa-
advances attracted the interest of researchers and practi-
tional practices. Samuels (2009) related the development of
tioners in a number of elds, including education. How-
neuromyths to gaps between academic elds. The failure to
ever, teachers eorts to incorporate neuroscience ndings
properly incorporate neuroscience into educational prac-
in their educational practices are hindered by the com-
tices has given rise to a number of such misinterpretations
plexity of neuroscience and the diculty of transferring
(Geake, 2008). its ndings to the classroom environment (Ansari, Coch,
Neuromyths are considered a major issue, aecting & De Smedt, 2011; Devonshire & Dommett, 2010; Jolles
both the progress of cognitive neuroscience itself and et al., 2005), leading to the emergence of the neuromyths
in question (Coch & Ansari, 2009; Geake & Cooper, 2003;
Howard-Jones, 2008; Howard-Jones, Franey, Mashmoushi,
1 Department of Primary Mathematics Education, Education Faculty, & Liao, 2009).
Abant Izzet Baysal University, The simplication of scientic ndings in the popular
media has contributed to the development and propagation
Address correspondence to Sefa Dndar, Department of Primary
Mathematics Education, Education Faculty, Abant Izzet Baysal Univer- of neuromyths by suggesting that neuroscience knowledge
sity, Bolu, Turkey; e-mail: sefadundar@gmail.com is readily applicable in classrooms (Beck, 2010; Wallace,
2016 International Mind, Brain, and Education Society and Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 1
Misconceptions Regarding the Brain
1993). The tendency to believe this oversimplied media That learning styles reect dierent dominances, inform-
information may also indicate that teachers lack adequate ing the use of VAK and dominant forms of perception in
knowledge of the subject, or that they are unable to reect education.
on neuroscience knowledge in a critical way. This sug- That regular and plentiful intake of water improves chil-
gests that neuromyths may in part develop as a conse- drens brain function and test results.
quence of teachers inadequate neuroscience literacy and That IQ is distributed across various types of
critical capacity. This hypothesis nds some support in multi-intelligence (e.g., Della Sala, 2007; Howard-Jones
studies that investigate whether neuromyths are inuenced et al., 2009).
by the number of popular scientic journals, newspapers,
and books an individual reads or reviews. For example, These neuromyths are examined in more detail below.
Howard-Jones et al. (2009) concluded that the average num-
ber of neuromyths was lower among those who read news- We Use Only 10% of Our Brain
papers than among those who do not, but this dierence The idea that we use only 10% of our brains capacity is
proved statistically insignicant. Similarly, while the preva- the most common neuromyth (Wanjek, 2002). The myth
lence of neuromyths was lower among those reading sci- is based on unproven parapsychological claims about the
entic journals than among those who did not, this dif- unused potential of the human mind, or on neuroanatom-
ference was also insignicant. Again, no signicant dier- ical evidence relating to glianeuron or white mattergray
ence was observed in the average occurrence of neuromyths matter ratios (Della Sala, 2007; Lilienfeld, Lynn, Ruscio, &
among teachers according to the number of books they read, Beyerstein, 2011). However, science has failed to conrm any
and Dekker, Lee, Howard-Jones, and Jolles (2012) found such unused region; in patients who experience severe brain
that, like exposure to popular science publications or sci- trauma, for instance, each region of the brain has been shown
entic journals, factors such as gender and age failed to to have a specic function (e.g., Organisation for Economic
account for neuromyths. In a study of neuroscience literacy, Cooperation and Development, 2007).
Herculano-Houzel (2002) concluded that, although there
was some relationship between participants exposure to
scientic journals at university and the number of correct VAK Learning Styles
answers they gave, these reading habits had no such eect Individual variations in academic abilities and prociencies
among high school students, although reading newspapers have generated particular interest in idiosyncratic learning
was found to increase mean correct scores by 9%. styles. Although the evidence linking learning styles to VAK
The existence of neuromyths in the educational eld channels has proved inadequate, this approach has been
has been highlighted in a number of studies (e.g., Ansari widely adopted by educators (Dunn, Dunn, & Price, 1989)
& Coch, 2006; Geake, 2008; Goswami, 2006; Pasquinelli, in determining a childs dominant learning style and edu-
2012; Tardif & Doudin, 2011). Although there has been lit- cating them accordingly (Geake, 2008). According to this
tle research on neuromyths among teachers (Dekker et al., model, visual learners should be shown diagrams, colorful
2012; Howard-Jones et al., 2009), there is some evidence thatpictures, and material that appeal to the eye to help them to
they commonly share three such misconceptions, related to learn and to retain information. Similarly, auditory learners
visual, auditory, and kinesthetic (VAK) learning styles, the favor sounds, and kinesthetic learners move and act upon
role of hemispheric dominance in learning; and the need what they learn; by following these principles, learning out-
for short exercises to maintain integration between left and comes are said to improve (Rato, Abreu, & Castro-Caldas,
right hemispheres (the so-called Brain Gym method). As 2013). Because a students preferred learning style may not
these neuromyths may dier across cultures, more research be immediately clear, some schools attempt to label students
in the classroom. However, the VAK method creates dilem-
is needed to identify and prevent their adoption in particular
countries and regions. mas for teachers, such as what should teachers do with
these students when V and K learners are in music class, A
and K learners are in painting class, and V and A learners
Types of Neuromyth are in handicraft application class? (Geake, 2008). Kayser
According to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation, (2007) noted that the brain will also see when it hears and
and Development (2002), the following are the most promi- touches, that it will hear when it sees, and that individu-
nent neuromyths: als are mainly visual data processors. That being so, it cur-
rently is not possible to dene clear boundaries between
That humans use only 10% of their brain. individual learning styles; indeed, there is no evidence of
That either the left or right cerebral hemisphere is dom- any educational advantage of teaching based on preferred
inant. learning style. As Howard-Jones (2008) pointed out, neither
2
Sefa Dndar and Nazan Gndz
neuroscience nor any other science arms the educational hyponatremia or water poisoning (e.g., Boetzkes et al., 2010;
merits of VAK-based learning over other learning styles. Miyamoto et al., 2012).
3
Misconceptions Regarding the Brain
1.243
1.142
1.344
1.693
1.27
ss
females and 20.62 .05 for males. The mean age of pre-
service classroom teachers is 20.2 .039 for females and
18.57
19.69
20.61
21.73
19.95
Total
X
20.42 .077 for males. Finally, the mean age of preservice
science teachers is 19.95 .048 for females and 20.67 .099
.099 2,932
.083 894
.195 818
.230 651
.195 569
N
for males.
ss
Data Collection
18.98
20.40
21.03
22.31
20.67
Male
The study used a neuromyth data collection form compris-
X
Preservice science
N
50
39
28
39
156
et al., 2012; Herculano-Houzel, 2002; Howard-Jones et al.,
teachers
18.26
19.61
20.46
21.48
19.95
on the basis of expert reviews and a pilot study. The orig-
X
N
76
60
82
44
262
teacher
18.86
19.71
20.60
21.61
20.20
ss
general.
The educational neuromyths (i.e., the rst 25 items)
169
202
124
144
639
N
Fourth
Third
First
4
Sefa Dndar and Nazan Gndz
Table 2
Studies Informing the Selection of Items on the Neuromyth Form
No. Cited from articles No. Cited from articles No. Cited from articles
1 Dekker et al., 2012; Howard-Jones et al., 10 Dekker et al., 2012; Howard-Jones 19 Dekker et al., 2012;
2009; Karakus et al., 2015 et al., 2009; Karakus et al., 2015 Herculano-Houzel, 2002;
Howard-Jones et al., 2009
2 Dekker et al., 2012; Howard-Jones et al., 11 Dekker et al., 2012; Howard-Jones 20 Herculano-Houzel, 2002;
2009; Karakus et al., 2015 et al., 2009; Karakus et al., 2015 Howard-Jones et al., 2009
3 Dekker et al., 2012; Karakus et al., 2015 12 Howard-Jones et al., 2009 21 Herculano-Houzel, 2002;
Howard-Jones et al., 2009
4 Dekker et al., 2012; Howard-Jones et al., 13 Howard-Jones et al., 2009; Karakus 22 Herculano-Houzel, 2002;
2009; Karakus et al., 2015 et al., 2015 Howard-Jones et al., 2009
5 Dekker et al., 2012; Howard-Jones et al., 14 Dekker et al., 2012; Howard-Jones 23 Herculano-Houzel, 2002;
2009; Karakus et al., 2015 et al., 2009 Howard-Jones et al., 2009
6 Dekker et al., 2012; Howard-Jones et al., 15 Dekker et al., 2012; Howard-Jones 24 Herculano-Houzel, 2002;
2009; Karakus et al., 2015 et al., 2009 Howard-Jones et al., 2009
7 Dekker et al., 2012; Howard-Jones et al., 16 Howard-Jones et al., 2009 25 Dekker et al., 2012;
2009; Karakus et al., 2015 Howard-Jones et al., 2009
8 Dekker et al., 2012; Howard-Jones et al., 17 Herculano-Houzel, 2002; 26 Dekker et al., 2012;
2009; Karakus et al., 2015 Howard-Jones et al., 2009 Herculano-Houzel, 2002;
Howard-Jones et al., 2009
9 Dekker et al., 2012; Howard-Jones et al., 18 Herculano-Houzel, 2002; 27 Howard-Jones et al., 2009
2009; Karakus et al., 2015 Howard-Jones et al., 2009
28 Howard-Jones et al., 2009 37 Dekker et al., 2012 46 Herculano-Houzel, 2002
29 Herculano-Houzel, 2002; 38 Dekker et al., 2012 47 Herculano-Houzel, 2002
Howard-Jones et al., 2009
30 Dekker et al., 2012; Herculano-Houzel, 39 Dekker et al., 2012 48 Herculano-Houzel, 2002
2002; Howard-Jones et al., 2009;
Karakus et al., 2015
31 Dekker et al., 2012; Herculano-Houzel, 40 Dekker et al., 2012 49 Herculano-Houzel, 2002
2002; Howard-Jones et al., 2009
32 Dekker et al., 2012; Howard-Jones et al., 41 Dekker et al., 2012 50 Herculano-Houzel, 2002
2009
33 Dekker et al., 2012 42 Dekker et al., 2012 51 Herculano-Houzel, 2002
34 Dekker et al., 2012; Herculano-Houzel, 43 Dekker et al., 2012 52 Herculano-Houzel, 2002
2002
35 Dekker et al., 2012 44 Herculano-Houzel, 2002 53 Herculano-Houzel, 2002
36 Dekker et al., 2012 45 Herculano-Houzel, 2002 54 Herculano-Houzel, 2002
55 Herculano-Houzel, 2002 56 Herculano-Houzel, 2002 57 Herculano-Houzel, 2002
58 Herculano-Houzel, 2002 59 Herculano-Houzel, 2002
Huberman, 1994). When the assertions were discordant, 1, correct answers were scored 2, and dont know responses
categorization was completed by consensus. Aside from were scored 0. Because the concept of neuromyth related to
the assertions related to neuromyths, participants were incorrect responses, the analysis focused on these.
also asked to provide personal information, including their Using descriptive statistics, responses to each item were
age, gender, grade level, department, annual book-reading recorded as percentages and frequencies, and educational
habits, and consumption of popular scientic journals and general neuromyth scores were calculated for each
and daily newspapers. All participants were volunteers, participant. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was
and they were informed that their data would remain used to examine how neuromyth scores diered by depart-
condential.
ment, grade level, and exposure to books, popular scientic
journals, and newspapers. A separate independent-samples
Data Analysis (groups) t-test was used to identify any dierence in neu-
The data were analyzed using a number of statistical romyth scores by gender. If the number of books read
methods. Initially, participants responses were rescored within the year was between 0 and 10, this was coded
according to the answer key; incorrect answers were scored 1; between 11 and 20 was coded 2; between 21 and 30
5
Misconceptions Regarding the Brain
was coded 3; and 31 or more was coded 4. Journal and Results by Department and Grade Level
newspaper-reading habits were encoded as follows: 0, In Table 4, the data show that teachers mean neuromyth
I never read; 1, I sometimes read; and 2, I always read. scores for general assertions were higher than for educa-
Where dierences occurred, Tukey, LSD, and Tamhane tional assertions. In each of the three departments, neu-
T2 tests were applied to identify the relevant groups. romyths involving educational assertions were higher at the
Eta-squared scores were used in comparisons to determine rst grade level, declining in the midclasses, and increasing
eect sizes. According to Cohen (1988), 2 = .01.06 is again in the senior grade; this was also the case for gen-
considered a small impact; 2 = .06.14 is regarded as a eral assertions. For preservice science teachers, mean neu-
moderate impact; and 2 = .14 or above is considered a romyth scores for both educational and general assertions
great impact. were higher than for the other two departments (Table 5).
A comparison of neuromyth scores by grade level and
department found no signicant dierence between pre-
RESULTS service classroom teachers by grade level for educational
and general assertions (F[3, 1275] = 2.337; p > .05, F[3,
The analysis in Table 3 conrms that neuromyths about 1275] = 2.070; p > .05). For math and science departments,
the brain are prevalent among preservice teachers, and that a signicant dierence was found (F[3, 822] = 4.50; p < .05,
participants had no knowledge about some of the asser- F[3, 823] = 26.509; p < .05) between mean neuromyth scores
tions on the form. This applies in particular to general for educational assertions by grade level. In the mathematics
assertions (no comment) when compared with educational department, these dierences were between rst and third
assertions. More than 60% accepted the following neu- grade levels and between third and fourth grade levels and
romyths: Individuals learn better when they receive infor- between the rst and third, rst and fourth, second and
mation in their preferred learning style (97.6%); Dier- fourth, and third and fourth grade levels in the science
ences in hemispheric dominance (left brain, right brain) department. Mean neuromyth scores for general assertions
can help explain individual dierences among learners showed a signicant dierence between grade levels in the
(78.5%); Omega 3 supplements do not enhance the men- mathematics and science departments (F[3, 822] = 7.667;
tal capacity of children in the general population (63.3%); p < .05, F[3, 823] = 24.932; p < .05). The source of this dif-
and There are no critical periods in childhood after which ference was found to be the third grade in the mathematics
you cannot learn some things, just sensitive periods when department and the fourth grade in the science department.
its easier (70.1%). The teachers also displayed a striking In the mathematics department, class level was moderately
lack of knowledge (i.e., dont know) in the case of the fol- eective as a predictor of dierences in neuromyth scores
lowing assertions: It has been scientically proven that for educational and general assertions (2 = .016, 2 = .027);
fatty acid supplements (omega-3 and omega-6) have a pos- in the science department, grade level was found to be
itive eect on academic achievement (43.9%); and Exer- eective at a higher level (2 = .088, 2 = .083).
cises that rehearse co-ordination of motor perception skills
can improve literacy skills (38.7%). Among general asser-
tions, the following neuromyths were also common: Mem- The Eect of Book Reading
ory is stored in the brain much like as in a computer. The analysis in Table 6 shows that increased book reading
That is, each memory goes into a tiny piece of the brain among preservice teachers in the mathematics department
(79.3%); Emotional brain processes interrupt those brain reduced neuromyths in both the educational and general
processes involved with reasoning (43.3%); Children must categories in the third grade, but these increased again in
acquire their native language before a second language is the fourth grade. The same was found for preservice science
learned. If they do not do so, neither language will be fully teachers. In contrast, general neuromyths among preservice
acquired (49.2%); The left and right hemisphere of the classroom teachers were seen to decline.
brain always work together (48.8%); and When a brain Table 7 data analysis reveals no signicant dierence in
region is damaged, other parts of the brain can take up educational and general neuromyth scores between preser-
its function (53.2%). The participating teachers were also vice teachers in dierent departments by book-reading level.
ill-informed about the following general assertions: The Tables 8 and 9 compare departments on the basis of the neu-
brains of boys and girls develop at the same rate (49.2%); romyth category by book-reading level.
Brain development has nished by the time children reach Preservice science teachers who never read believed most
secondary school (46.7%); and Learning is not because of of the educational and general neuromyths (Table 8); the
the addition of new cells to the brain (35.5%). The most same was found for those reading the most books. For
prevalent neuromyth was When we sleep, the brain enters other book-reading levels, some variance was found across
into rest (52.8%). departments.
6
Sefa Dndar and Nazan Gndz
Table 3
Responses of Preservice Teachers to the Neuromyth Test
A.N. C. Assertions C I DK A
1 Educational Individuals learn better when they receive information in their 97.6 1.1 1.3 I
neuroscience preferred learning style (e.g., auditory, visual, kinesthetic).
2 assertions Environments that are rich in stimulus improve the brains of 81.3 7.3 11.4 C
preschool children.
3 It has been scientically proven that fatty acid supplements (omega-3 51.9 4.2 43.9 I
and omega-6) have a positive eect on academic achievement.
4 Dierences in hemispheric dominance (left brain, right brain) can help 78.5 5.5 16 I
explain individual dierences among learners.
5 Exercises that rehearse co-ordination of motor perception skills can 49.6 11.7 38.7 I
improve literacy skills.
6 Extended rehearsal of some mental processes can change the shape 49.8 15.4 34.8 C
and structure of some parts of the brain.
7 Learning problems associated with developmental dierences in brain 18.9 59.4 21.7 I
function cannot be remediated by education.
8 Individual learners show preferences for the mode in which they 86.8 4.6 8.7 C
receive information (e.g., visual, auditory, kinesthetic).
9 Children are less attentive after consuming sugary drinks and/or 41 23 35.9 I
snacks.
10 Omega-3 supplements do not enhance the mental capacity of children 11.5 63.3 25.2 C
in the general population.
11 There are no critical periods in childhood after which you cannot learn 12 70.1 17.9 C
some things, just sensitive periods when its easier.
12 Vigorous exercise can improve mental function. 79.9 7.8 12.3 C
13 To learn how to do something, it is necessary to pay attention to it. 91.6 4.4 4 C
14 Learning occurs through modication of the brains neural 62.9 9.7 27.5 C
connections.
15 Learning is not because of the addition of new cells to the brain. 34.9 29.6 35.5 C
16 Children must acquire their native language before a second language 49.2 23.1 27.7 I
is learned. If they do not do so neither language will be fully
acquired.
17 The left and right hemisphere of the brain always work together. 20 48.8 31.2 C
18 Brain development has nished by the time children reach secondary 19.9 33.4 46.7 I
school.
19 There are critical periods in childhood after which certain things can 39.5 41.6 18.9 I
no longer be learned
20 Information is stored in the brain in a network of cells distributed 73.1 7.6 19.3 C
throughout the brain.
21 Academic achievement can be aected by skipping breakfast. 60.5 20.7 18.8 C
22 There are sensitive periods in childhood when it is easier to learn 89.4 4.5 6.1 C
things.
23 Any brain region can perform any function. 29 45.9 25.1 I
24 Mental eort raises oxygen consumption by the brain. 66,5 7.9 25.6 C
25 Knowing our brain, we can understand better how our thoughts, our 74.6 7.6 17.8 C
reasoning, and our memories work.
26 General Short bouts of co-ordination exercises can improve integration of left 66.7 3.2 30.1 I
neuroscience and right hemispheric brain function.
27 assertions Regular drinking of caeinated drinks reduces alertness. 29.4 47.8 22.8 C
28 Production of new connections in the brain can continue into old age. 69 11.6 19.4 C
29 Drinking less than six to eight glasses of water a day can cause the 16.2 35.3 48.5 I
brain to shrink.
30 Ones environment can inuence hormone production and, in turn, 58.1 14.5 27.5 C
personality.
7
Misconceptions Regarding the Brain
Table 3
continued
A = correct answer; A.N. = assertion number; C. = category; C = correct; I = incorrect; DK = I dont know.
8
Sefa Dndar and Nazan Gndz
Table 4
Descriptive Statistics for Neuromyth Form Scores of Preservice Teachers by Department and Grade Level
Table 5
Comparison of Neuromyth Scores by Grade Level and Department
9
Misconceptions Regarding the Brain
Table 6
Descriptive Statistics for Book-Reading Status by Department and Neuromyth Category
Table 7
Comparison of Neuromyth Scores Among Preservice Teachers by Book Reading
10
Sefa Dndar and Nazan Gndz
Table 8
Neuromyth Scores by Book-Reading Level and Department
In relation to educational neuromyths, Table 9 reports a Reading popular scientic journals inuences the devel-
signicant dierence between departments among partici- opment of neuromyths in preservice teachers (Table 11).
pants who rarely read books (Level 1) (F[2, 2211] = 9.067; Specically, journal reading is associated with a signicant
p < .05). In the educational category, reading books at a lower dierence in educational neuromyth scores among preser-
level rarely inuenced the dierence among departments vice mathematics and science teachers, but no dierence was
(2 = .008). Other levels of book reading did not result in observed in the case of preservice classroom teachers. Sep-
dierences among departments. When the source of the dif- arately, reading journals was found to have a low level of
ference seen in the level of rare book reading (Level 1) was eect size on educational assertions for preservice mathe-
examined (Tamhane T2 test result), it was found that it was matics and science teachers (2 = .007, 2 = .025). For gen-
seen among the preservice teachers Science and Mathemat- eral neuromyths, a signicant dierence was observed for
ics, and Science and Class teachers. science and preservice classroom teachers, but there was
no dierence for preservice mathematics teachers. Read-
The Eect of Reading Popular Scientic Journals ing journals was found to have a low level of eect on
The analysis in Table 10 shows that, among mathematics general assertions (2 = .02, 2 = .006). For preservice sci-
and preservice science teachers, reading popular scientic ence teachers, dierences in educational neuromyths favor
journals increases educational neuromyths while reducing those who always read as compared to those who some-
those in the general category. For preservice classroom times read, and favor those who never read when com-
teachers, however, both educational and general neuromyth pared with those who sometimes read. For preservice class-
scores were found to decline. room teachers, however, the dierences favor those who
11
Misconceptions Regarding the Brain
Table 9
Comparison of Neuromyth Scores by Department and Book Reading
Table 10
Neuromyth Scores by Level of Exposure to Popular Scientic Journals and by Department
Department Category Scale N Mean Standard deviation Standard error Levene statistic df1 df2 Sig.
Preservice Education Never 53 4.81 1.881 .258 2.444 2 823 .087
mathematics Sometimes 49 5.89 2.671 .381
teachers Always 724 5.46 2.257 .083
Total 826 5.45 2.268 .078
General Never 53 9.22 3.079 .423 .489 2 823 .613
Sometimes 49 10.26 3.219 .459
Always 724 9.08 3.347 .124
Total 826 9.16 3.331 .115
Preservice Education Never 53 4.94 2.413 .331 3.993 2 824 .019
science Sometimes 92 6.97 3.331 .347
teachers Always 682 5.78 2.662 .101
Total 827 5.86 2.762 .096
General Never 53 9.35 4.420 .607 2.171 2 824 .115
Sometimes 92 10.97 4.092 .426
Always 682 9.24 3.695 .141
Total 827 9.44 3.824 .133
Preservice Education Never 62 6.09 2.653 .336 .518 2 1,276 .596
classroom Sometimes 69 5.81 2.579 .310
teachers Always 1,148 5.43 2.361 .069
Total 1,279 5.48 2.392 .066
General Never 62 9.46 3.687 .468 .906 2 1,276 .404
Sometimes 69 10.21 3.338 .401
Always 1,148 9.08 3.280 .096
Total 1,279 9.16 3.312 .092
12
Sefa Dndar and Nazan Gndz
Table 11
Comparison of Neuromyth Scores by Exposure to Popular Scientic Journals
always read when compared with those who sometimes neuromyths declined. The neuromyth scores of preservice
read. teachers in the other two departments were also seen to
The analyses reported in Table 12 found that the educa- vary with newspaper reading. The scores of preservice class-
tional and general neuromyth scores of the preservice class- room teachers were found to decline as newspaper reading
room teachers who never read any journals proved to be increased only for general neuromyths.
higher than those of the other departments, whereas in those Educational and general neuromyth scores for the
who sometimes or always read journals, the educational and departments in question are seen to vary according to
general neuromyth scores of the preservice science teachers newspaper-reading levels (Table 15). While newspaper
proved to be high. reading made no dierence to the neuromyths of preservice
The analysis in Table 13 shows a signicant dierence in math teachers, it accounted for a signicant dierence
educational neuromyth scores among departments accord- in educational neuromyths in the department of science
ing to popular scientic journal reading level; no signicant teaching and in general neuromyths in the department of
dierence was observed for general neuromyths. Diering classroom teaching. Reading newspapers was found to have
journal reading level had dierential eects on educational a low level of eect (2 = .009) on the development of educa-
neuromyths; reading no journal at all had a moderate eect tional neuromyths among preservice science teachers, and
(2 = .06) on the neuromyth score dierence among depart- again at a lower level (2 = .007) on the development of gen-
ments; reading journals from time to time had a moderate eral neuromyths among preservice classroom teachers. The
eect (2 = .035); and reading journals all the time had a observed dierence in educational neuromyths in science
lower level of eect (2 = .004). Educational neuromyths favored those who always read newspapers as compared to
among preservice teachers who never read journals were those who read newspapers occasionally.
highest among preservice classroom teachers; for those The analysis in Table 16 shows that among preservice
reading journals occasionally, and for those who always read teachers who never read newspapers, educational neu-
journals, prevalence was highest among preservice science romyths are lowest among preservice mathematics teachers
teachers. while general neuromyths are lowest among preservice sci-
ence teachers. Among those who always read the newspaper,
neuromyths in both educational and general categories are
The Eect of Newspaper Reading lowest among preservice classroom teachers. It can also
Neuromyth scores are inuenced by newspaper reading and be seen that among those who always read the newspaper,
department attended (Table 14). Among preservice mathe- neuromyths are highest among preservice science teachers.
matics teachers, as newspaper-reading level increased, edu- Total scores for educational neuromyths indicate that these
cational neuromyths appeared to increase while general are higher among those who never read the newspaper than
13
Misconceptions Regarding the Brain
Table 12
Neuromyth Scores of Preservice Teachers by Journal Reading
Table 13
Comparison of Neuromyth Scores of Preservice Teachers by Journal Reading by Department
Sum of Mean
Magazine squares df square F Sig. Eect size (2 )
Never Education Between groups 58.631 2 29.316 5.279 .006 .06
Within groups 916.363 165 5.554
Total 974.994 167
General Between groups 1.664 2 .832 .059 .943
Within groups 2,338.907 165 14.175
Total 2,340.571 167
Sometimes Education Between groups 66.317 2 33.159 3.803 .024 .035
Within groups 1,804.997 207 8.720
Total 1,871.314 209
General Between groups 28.449 2 14.224 1.059 .349
Within groups 2,779.247 207 13.426
Total 2,807.695 209
Always Education Between groups 59.889 2 29.944 5.123 .006 .004
Within groups 14,911.225 2,551 5.845
Total 14,971.114 2,553
General Between groups 13.606 2 6.803 .583 .558
Within groups 29,748.270 2,551 11.661
Total 29,761.876 2,553
14
Sefa Dndar and Nazan Gndz
Table 14
Neuromyth Scores of Preservice Teachers by Newspaper Reading
Table 15
Comparison of Neuromyth Scores by Newspaper Reading
15
Misconceptions Regarding the Brain
Table 16
Neuromyth Scores by Newspaper Reading
among those who always read it, but lower than among neuromyths. The results indicate dierences between males
those who sometimes read. Total scores for general neu- and females in respect of educational neuromyths.
romyths show that these decline as newspaper reading The analysis in Table 19 shows a signicant gender dier-
increases. ence between the mathematics and science departments in
The analysis in Table 17 shows no signicant dier- educational neuromyths, with males scoring better in both
ence in general neuromyth scores across departments by departments. While there was a signicant gender dierence
newspaper-reading level. However, with the exception of in general neuromyths in the science department, this dif-
those who never read newspapers, there was a signicant ference was insignicant in the mathematics department. In
dierence among departments in educational neuromyths the department of classroom teaching, neuromyth scores did
between those who sometimes read and those who always not dier by gender in either category.
read newspapers. While reading the newspaper occasionally
had a moderate eect (2 = .018) on educational neuromyth
scores, it had a lower eect (2 = .003) than reading the DISCUSSION
newspaper all the time. However, educational neuromyths
were more prevalent among preservice science teachers who The present ndings report data analyses of the prevalence
read newspapers occasionally. of neuromyths among preservice teachers at universities in
Turkey. The study reports how these neuromyths change
according to several factors. The analysis of the responses for
The Eect of Gender each item shows that, as in other countries, prevalent neu-
For the purpose of examining whether or not the genders romyths in Turkey include those related to learning styles,
of the preservice teachers had aected their neuromyth hemispheric dominance, and enhancement of mental capac-
scores, the data were subjected to the independent-samples ity by certain nutrients. In particular, preservice teachers can
(groups) t-test; the results are presented in Table 18. be said to adopt neuromyths in the educational eld. For
Educational neuromyths diered signicantly by gender, instance, the assertion Individuals learn better when they
with males scoring better overall (Table 18). However, there receive information in their preferred learning style (e.g.,
was no signicant gender dierence in relation to general auditory, visual, kinesthetic) suggests that students learn
16
Sefa Dndar and Nazan Gndz
Table 17
Comparison of Neuromyth Scores by Newspaper Reading
Table 18
Neuromyth Scores of Preservice Teachers by Gender
Table 19
The Inuence of Gender on Neuromyths by Department
17
Misconceptions Regarding the Brain
better through their dominant learning style, and that chil- than six to eight glasses of water a day can cause the brain
dren should be allowed to choose the style that appeals to to shrink is a neuromyth (Howard-Jones et al., 2009). As
them. However, Kayser (2007) noted that when the brain to whether omega-3 supplement has a potentially positive
sees, it also hears and touchesfor example, those who can- eect, while positive results were found within the general
not see form mental spatial maps in the same way as those population, no scientically valid evidence was found in sup-
who can (Kriegseis, Hennighausen, Rsler, & Rder, 2006). port of that argument (Howard-Jones et al., 2009). Neverthe-
To do this, they use auditory and tactile inputs, which are less, most preservice teachers stated that these items were
used as if they were visual. It follows that it is incorrect to true, on the basis that nutrients like omega-3 are considered
sharply delineate individual learning styles, and that there to boost childrens attention.
is no evidence of any educational advantage in teaching or The item We mostly only use 10% of our brains
learning through the preferred learning style. The prevalence was deemed true by a majority of participants, align-
of this neuromyth among preservice teachers is likely to ing preservice teachers in Turkey with the ndings of
aect their professional development and to misdirect their earlier studies elsewhere (Dekker et al., 2012; Geake,
teaching approach. 2008; Howard-Jones et al., 2009; Karakus et al., 2015;
Another prevalent neuromyth among preservice teachers Pasquinelli, 2012). This neuromyth is thought to result
is Dierences in hemispheric dominance (left brain, right from ideas about the unused potential of the human mind
brain) can help to explain individual dierences among (unproven parapsychological arguments) or from neu-
learners. This misconception is based on clinical research roanatomical evidence related to glianeuron ratios or
on split-brain patients in the 1960s. Subsequently, the white mattergray matter ratios (Della Sala, 2007; Lilien-
results were oversimplied to suggest that, because the feld et al., 2011). This idea originally gained momentum
left brain operated analytically and the right brain holisti- following a radio interview with Albert Einstein in the
cally, students should be taught separately in the classroom 1920s. Prior to World War II, at a time when some Amer-
according to hemispheric dominance. In fact, all these ican companies advertising a home-care manual sought
claims were found to be wrong (Geake, 2005), as most to persuade their customers by inventing this 10% gure,
cerebral functions involve both hemispheres. While it is the myth achieved wide circulation (Geake, 2008). Later,
true that one hemisphere may be more active during cer- toward the end of the twentieth century, it was adopted by
tain tasks (Karakus et al., 2015), the separation of humans some enthusiastic educators, which inuenced educational
into right- and left-brained is a misinterpretation, and environments.
there is no reliable evidence that hemispheric dominance Other prevalent neuromyths among preservice teachers
is of direct relevance to teaching and learning activities. included Exercises that rehearse co-ordination of motor
Indeed, performance and learning aspects of most daily perception skills can improve literacy skills and Short
tasks require the involvement of both hemispheres (Karakus bouts of co-ordination exercises can improve integration of
et al., 2015). In addition, Singh and OBoyle (2004) noted left and right hemispheric brain function. Here, the con-
that the brain was not composed of two hemispheres oper- tention was that motor perceptual abilities would improve
ating separately, and that dierent cognitive characteristics when certain exercises were performed, stimulating certain
in the left and the right brain were quite well-integrated. parts of the brain (Geake, 2005). This so-called Brain Gym
Walsh et al. (2003) further asserted that cerebral func- approach recommends a series of exercises to enrich aca-
tions and behaviors could best be explained in terms of demic and other learning abilities. The method is thought to
the connectivity between cerebral structures rather than have its origins in contested earlier theories such as Ortons
by localization. mixed cerebral dominance, perceptual motor training, and
Items related to nutrients and consumption of water neurological remodeling (Tardif, Doudin, & Meylan, 2015).
were among the most popular behavior-related neuromyths, However, apart from their lack of theoretical infrastructure,
including It has been scientically proven that fatty acid these theories also lacked empirical validation (Tardif et al.,
supplements (omega-3 and omega-6) have a positive eect 2015), reducing any proposed applications to the status of
on academic achievement. Separately, most participants neuromyth.
answered dont know for Drinking water fewer than six to The present study also established that many preservice
eight glasses a day causes the brain to shrink. According teachers neuromyths relate to the item Children must
to the Brain Gym approach, drinking water promotes learn- acquire their native language before a second language
ing. In fact, drinking water is considered benecial because it is learned. If they do not do so neither language will be
maintains hydration within the body (Howard-Jones, 2008); fully acquired. It appears likely that this neuromyth has
there is also evidence that eliminating water from the body developed in Turkey because of the prevailing attitude
will slow down cerebral functions (Rato et al., 2013), but to multilingualism. About 10 languages are spoken in
generalizing this information to suggest that Drinking less Turkey, and although most people speak Turkish, many
18
Sefa Dndar and Nazan Gndz
dierent races and languages are represented (Karakus mathematics teachers declined from the rst grade toward
et al., 2015). the third grade but increased again in the fourth grade, which
In line with the ndings of Karakus et al. (2015), about may be because preservice teachers practices in the senior
70% of study participants were found to subscribe to the grade involved some knowledge of neuroscience, which they
neuromyth There are no critical periods in childhood after applied in their classes.
which you cannot learn some things, just sensitive periods Similarly, neuromyths in the department of science
when its easier. Neuroscience research shows that there are showed a decline from the rst grade toward the third
periods for the learning process that are sensitive rather than grade, but a relatively higher neuromyth score was found
critical, during which learning can be eciently achieved. among fourth grade preservice teachers. It also emerged
In general terms, then, the present study conrmed the that the educational neuromyth scores of preservice science
prevalence of certain neuromyths among participating pre- teachers who had successfully completed biology courses
service teachers. Of these, the general misconceptions were proved higher than those who did not take such a course.
more problematic than the educational ones. For instance, The nding that the neuromyth scores of teachers in the
participants were found to have almost no knowledge of the rst grade proved high may reect the fact that they had just
assertion The electroencephalogram gives a measure of the passed their university preparation exam (LYS), or that they
development of each brain region, which fell into the cate- had taken more biology courses. While there was also no
gory of general assertions. The fact that preservice teachers signicant dierence among grade levels for math or science
appear to lack further information may be explained by the teachers in the fourth grade, the high mean educational neu-
fact that this item entails technical knowledge. Alternatively, romyth scores of preservice classroom teachers may indicate
it may be that more comments were made on the educa- that they were exposed to certain informationrelated for
tional assertions because of participants sense of identity as instance to neuroscience practices integrated into edu-
educators. cation, or the use of 10% of the brain, or hemispheric
The analysis also considered whether or not the neu- dominancereinforced by an increased tendency to believe
romyths of preservice teachers varied by departmentin such information during their probationary period.
this case, the departments of class teaching (for primary Sources of information such as books, popular science
school courses) and the departments of mathematics and journals, and newspapers can also be seen to aect the
science teaching (for secondary school courses). While neu- neuromyth scores of preservice teachers. For example,
roscience is more closely associated with biology, these the popular media may inuence the development and
three were considered most convenient for present pur- prevalence of myths by popularizing neuroscience ndings
poses in terms of the integration of these concepts into and suggest that these are easily applied in the classroom
classes. Although preservice math teachers do not deal (Beck, 2010; Wallace, 1993). The present analysis of preser-
explicitly with neuroscience during their university edu- vice teachers educational and general neuromyth scores
cation, they engage quite intensively with such subjects in each department in relation to the number of books
in preparing for university exams. Indeed, the analysis by they read found no signicant dierences. This may be
department revealed that the preservice science teachers because the books read by preservice teachers are not
recorded the highest levels of both educational and gen- neuroscience-related; indeed, not every book boosts the
eral neuromyths, followed by class teachers and preservice neuroscience literacy of preservice teachers. In general, the
mathematics teachers. This striking nding may reect the present ndings align with those of Howard-Jones et al.
fact that neuroscience is categorized as one of the physi- (2009). However, it was observed that as book reading
cal sciences, and that teachers involved in the subject pay increased, educational neuromyth scores declined.
more attention to neuroscience data and practices consid- The analysis of book-reading levels found that, as for the
ered applicable in the educational eld, so adopting these in change in neuromyth scores by department, there was a
the course of their professional development. signicant dierence only in educational neuromyth scores
Neuromyth scores in each department were also exam- among those that read few books, most negatively for pre-
ined according to grade levels. Dierences in both educa- service science teachers. This eect size was at rather a small
tional and general neuromyth scores among grade levels eect. In relation to reading popular scientic journals, no
proved signicant in the departments of mathematics and signicant dierence was found in general neuromyth scores
science. In class teaching, however, no signicant dier- in the department of math teaching. In the departments of
ence was found in educational and general neuromyth scores science and class teaching, there were signicant dierences
among grade levels. The dierence by grade level had a mod- in favor of those that always read as compared to those
erate eect size in the department of mathematics teach- that sometimes read. The eect size of these dierences
ing, but was eective at a high level in science teaching. was small. While signicant dierences were observed
It was concluded that the neuromyth scores of preservice in the educational neuromyth scores of preservice math
19
Misconceptions Regarding the Brain
and science teachers according to journal reading level, Analysis of how neuromyth scores diered according to
no such dierence was found among preservice classroom the gender of preservice teachers showed that the neu-
teachers. Interestingly, those who never read popular scien- romyth scores of females were lower than those of males
tic journals subscribed to signicantly fewer educational for both educational and general assertions. This dierence
neuromyths than those who read journals sometimes or was signicant for educational neuromyth scores but not
always. In other words, whereas those who followed popular for general assertions. The neuromyth scores of female pre-
scientic journals returned lower general neuromyth scores service teachers may reect their greater curiosity about
of levels, their educational neuromyth scores were at higher neuroscience ndings. Contrary to the present ndings,
levels. Dekker et al. (2012) and Karakus et al. (2015) found that
On that basis, we may conclude that reading popular gender had no eect on neuromyths. However, the sam-
scientic journals has a positive (if small eect) eect on pling approach used here may explain why female preser-
minimizing general neuromyths and boosting neuroscience vice teachers neuromyth scores were lower. In relation to
literacy. However, those preservice teachers who read pop- department attended, a signicant gender dierence in edu-
ular scientic journals may still subscribe to neuromyths cational neuromyth scores was observed for math and sci-
if they simplify neuroscience data and practice them in ence teachers, but there was no such dierence among
the classroom without thinking critically. While there was class teachers. For general neuromyths, a signicant dif-
a signicant dierence in educational neuromyth scores ference between genders was found only among science
across departments according to journal reading level, no teachers.
signicant dierence was found in general neuromyths.
It can be concluded that, among those who never read
journals, preservice class teachers have higher educational CONCLUSION
neuromyth scores than those in other departments. Among
those who sometimes or always read, preservice science The present ndings conrm the prevalence of neuromyths
teachers have higher neuromyth scores than those in the among preservice teachers. Neuromyth scores were found
other departments. The eect size of these dierences, to vary by department and were generally more preva-
however, is moderate in those who never read and lower in lent among preservice science teachers. It also emerged
the others. Among those who sometimes read popular sci- that rst- and fourth-grade preservice teachers subscribed
entic journals, both educational and general neuromyths to more neuromyths. Neuromyth scores did not vary
were found to be at higher levels than among those who with book-reading level, but did vary with journal and
never or always read. newspaper-reading levels. In terms of gender dierences,
males exhibited more educational neuromyths than females.
Similarly, there were no signicant dierences in gen-
These results provide important guidance to limit the mis-
eral neuromyth scores in the departments of mathemat-
application of brain-based ideas in the educational practices
ics and science according to newspaper-reading level, but
of preservice teachers. The study identied misconceptions
in the department of class teaching those who constantly
about neuroscience as adopted by preservice teachers; future
read newspapers were observed to have signicantly lower
research should analyze these data in greater depth, and
neuromyth scores when compared to those who sometimes
incorporate necessary training to assist preservice teachers
or never read. In relation to educational neuromyths, pre-
in avoiding these myths. Greater access to information about
service science teachers who always read newspapers were
the brain may not completely reduce neuromyths among
found to have signicantly lower neuromyth scores than
preservice teachers, but further interdisciplinary studies
those who sometimes read. It was concluded that these
can help to minimize these myths. It is clearly dicult to
dierences had small size eect size. Howard-Jones et al.
integrate neuroscience into the educational sciences, but
(2009) found that those who read newspapers had lower
there is reason to hope that serious advances can be made
neuromyth averages than those who did not, and that those
in educational neuroscience through the combined eorts
who read scientic journals had lower neuromyth averages
of experts in both elds.
than those who did not. In line with the present ndings,
they concluded that the number of books read had no eect
on the development of neuromyths. However, Dekker et al. REFERENCES
(2012) concluded that reading popular scientic journals
Ansari, D., & Coch, D. (2006). Bridges over troubled waters: Educa-
was not an eective variable on the information regarding
tion and cognitive neuroscience. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,
neuroscience. In addition, Herculano-Houzel (2002) con- 10(4), 146151.
cluded that reading books, popular scientic journals, and Ansari, D., Coch, D., & De Smedt, B. (2011). Connecting education
newspapers were neuromyth-minimizing variables, which and cognitive neuroscience: Where will the journey take us?
again aligns with the present results. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(1), 3742.
20
Sefa Dndar and Nazan Gndz
Beck, D. M. (2010). The appeal of the brain in the popular press. about the brain in Turkey. Procedia: Social and Behavioral
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 762766. Sciences, 174, 19331940.
Boetzkes, S., Van Hoeck, K., Verbrugghe, W., Ramet, J., Woj- Kayser, C. (2007). Listening with your eyes. Scientic American
ciechowski, M., & Jorens, P. G. (2010). Two unusual pediatric Mind, 18(2), 2429.
cases of dilutional hyponatremia. Pediatric Emergency Care, Kriegseis, A., Hennighausen, E., Rsler, F., & Rder, B. (2006).
26, 503505. Reduced EEG alpha activity over parieto-occipital brain areas
Coch, D., & Ansari, D. (2009). Thinking about mechanisms is cru- in congenitally blind adults. Clinical Neurophysiology, 117,
cial to connecting neuroscience and education. Cortex, 45, 15601573.
546547. Lilienfeld, S. O., Lynn, S. J., Ruscio, J., & Beyerstein, B. L. (2011).
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sci- 50 great myths of popular psychology: Shattering widespread
ences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. misconceptions about human behavior. Chichester, UK:
Dekker, S., Lee, N. C., Howard-Jones, P., & Jolles, J. (2012). Neu- Wiley-Blackwell.
romyths in education: Prevalence and predictors of miscon- Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis:
ceptions among teachers. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 429. An expanded sourcebook. London, UK: Sage.
doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00429 Miyamoto, K., Ichikawa, J., Okuya, M., Tsuboi, T., Hirao, J. I., &
Della Sala, S. (2007). Tall tales about the mind and brain: Separating Arisaka, O. (2012). Too little water or too much: Hypona-
fact from ction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. tremia due to excess uid intake. Acta Paediatrica, 101(9),
Devonshire, I. M., & Dommett, E. J. (2010). Neuroscience: Viable e390e391.
applications in education? The Neuroscientist, 16(4), 349356. Organisation for Economic Cooperation, and Development (2002).
Dunn, R. S., Dunn, K. J., & Price, G. E. (1989). Learning style Understanding the brain: Towards a new learning science.
inventory (LSI). Lawrence, KS: Price Systems Incorporated. Paris, France: OECD.
Geake, J. (2005). Educational neuroscience and neuroscience edu- Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2007).
cation: In search of a mutual middle-way. Research Intelli- Understanding the brain: The birth of a learning science. Paris,
gence, 92, 1013. France: OECD.
Geake, J. (2008). Neuromythologies in education. Educational Pasquinelli, E. (2012). Neuromyths: Why do they exist and persist?
Research, 50(2), 123133. Mind, Brain, and Education, 6, 8996.
Geake, J., & Cooper, P. (2003). Cognitive neuroscience: Implications Rato, J. R., Abreu, A. M., & Castro-Caldas, A. (2013). Neuromyths
for education? Westminster Studies in Education, 26(1), 720. in education: What is fact and what is ction for Portuguese
Goswami, U. (2004). Neuroscience and education. British Journal teachers? Educational Research, 55, 441453.
of Educational Psychology, 74(1), 114. Samuels, B. M. (2009). Can the dierences between education and
Goswami, U. (2006). Neuroscience and education: From research neuroscience be overcome by mind, brain, and education?
to practice? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 7(5), 406413. Mind, Brain, and Education, 3, 4555.
Goswami, U. (2008). Principles of learning, implications for teach- Singh, H., & OBoyle, M. W. (2004). Interhemispheric interac-
ing: A cognitive neuroscience perspective. Journal of Philoso- tion during globallocal processing in mathematically gifted
phy of Education, 42, 381399. adolescents, average-ability youth, and college students. Neu-
Hambleton, R. K., & Bollwark, J. (1991). Adapting tests for use in ropsychology, 18(2), 371377.
dierent cultures: Technical issues and methods. Bulletin of Tardif, E., & Doudin, P. (2011). Neurosciences cognitives et du-
the International Testing Commission, 18, 332. cation: Le dbut dune collaboration. Revue des Hautes coles
Herculano-Houzel, S. (2002). Do you know your brain? A survey on pdagogiques, 12, 95116.
public neuroscience literacy at the closing of the decade of the Tardif, W., Doudin, P. A., & Meylan, N. (2015). Neuromyths among
brain. The Neuroscientist, 8(2), 98110. teachers and student teachers. Mind, Brain, and Education, 9,
Howard-Jones, P. (2008). Philosophical challenges for researchers 5059.
at the interface between neuroscience and education. Journal Thierry, G., Giraud, A.-L., & Price, C. (2003). Hemispheric disso-
of Philosophy of Education, 42, 361380. ciation in access to the human semantic system. Neuron, 38,
Howard-Jones, P. (2010). Introducing neuroeducational research: 499506.
Neuroscience, education and the brain from contexts to prac- Wallace, M. (1993). Discourse of derision: The role of the mass
tice. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. media within the education policy process. Journal of Educa-
Howard-Jones, P., Franey, L., Mashmoushi, R., & Liao, Y.-C. (2009, tion Policy, 8, 321337.
September). The neuroscience literacy of trainee teachers. Walsh, V., Pascual-Leone, A., & Kosslyn, S. M. (2003). Transcranial
Paper presented at the British Educational Research Associa- magnetic stimulation: A neurochronometrics of mind. Cam-
tion Annual Conference, 139, University of Manchester. bridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jolles, J., De Groot, R. H. M., Van Benthem, J., Dekkers, H., De Wanjek, C. (2002). 10 percent misconception, 90 percent misdi-
Glopper, C., Uijlings, H., & Wol-Albers, A. (2005). Brain rection: The brain at work. In C. Wanjek (Ed.), Bad medicine:
lessons. Maastricht, The Netherlands: Neuropsych Publishers. Misconceptions and misuses revealed, from distance healing to
Karakus, O., Howard-Jones, P. A., & Jay, T. (2015). Primary and vitamin O. New York, NY: Wiley.
secondary school teachers knowledge and misconceptions
21