Neuromyths in Education
September 28, 2015
Blog #1
Dekker, S., Lee, N. C., Howard-Jones, P., & Jolles, J. (2012). Neuromyths in education: Prevalence and predictors of misconceptions among teachers. Frontiers in Psychology Front. Psychology, 3. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00429
The study by Dekker, Lee, Howard-Jones, and Jolles highlights the vast number of misconceptions that are prevalent among teachers in regards to ‘neuromyths’- myths that are believed to be true due to their links to neuroscience, and their negative effects on teaching practices. The most prevalent myth of their study, “Individuals learn better when they receive information in their preferred learning style (e.g. auditory, visual, kinesthetic)”, was believed by 93% of 242 educators polled from the UK and 96% of teachers from the Netherlands. Even utilizing Willingham’s ‘flip it’ technique, those numbers are strong. Only 4-7% of educators answered the question correctly.
The list of references is strong, with one standing out by Coffield, Moseley and Hall. This reference is a book published in 2004 but it is only available at the University of Bristol, UK, where Dr. Coffield, Dr. Howard-Jones and Dr. Jolles are affiliated. It is the reference that the authors base their statement that “research has shown that children do not process information more effectively when they are educated according to their preferred learning style”. This is the only research they seem to reference supporting their statement but I can not access it easily. It would be nice to trace that research back further and interpret the data myself. The article also mentioned the problematic nature of such neuromyths and the negative effects of wasting money, time and effort on ineffective methods, citing an article by Sylvan and Christodoulou, 2010, that may be worth looking at.
The study about neuromyths was performed and documented by 4 doctors of neuroscience, based in the UK and the Netherlands. I researched all four of the authors of the article and all hold PhDs in Neuroscience and/or Education and they appear to be soundly based in their field and backed by either the University of Bristol, UK or VU University, Amsterdam. The evidence that is shown appears to be well cited, sound and trustworthy. It is concise, and there are many references throughout the large document to support their own findings as well as statements of myths and neuroscience findings. The arguments convinced me, and their study seems well done, with a large pool of educators questioned. I would like to find a similar study done in the United States as opposed to Europe.