F. Additional Resources

Faculty of Psychology & Educational Sciences, master thesis. In this master thesis, a survey was conducted among 597 participants: 173 Flemish teachers, 258 students Educational Sciences (Educational neuroscience, Catholic University Leuven), 101 students Postgraduate Special Education (University College Leuven) and 65 employees of the Student Guidance Centre.  The results show that an average of 6.74 of the 19 neuromyths (35.47%) is believed across all groups. The most prevalent neuromyths are related to left-brain/right-brain thinking and the use ofdifferent learning styles (auditory/visual). However, statements about neuromyths are believedsignificantly less often when compared with the average myth score (M = 7.35, 49%) from the international study by Dekker et al. (2012).Striking is the significant difference in belief in neuromyths between the students Educational Sciences and teachers. The results showed that the group of students believes significantly fewer neuromyths than the group of teachers (p < .001). This difference might be explained by the Educational

Neuroscience course in which the students are enrolled.

This research also shows that a positive correlation is initially found between the myth score and the score on the knowledge one has about the brain. This positive correlation implies that the more knowledge you have about the brain, the more likely you believe in neuromyths. A multiple regressionanalysis revealed that the knowledge score proved to be the best predictor of the number of myths believed by the different groups. This conclusion is in line with the international study by Dekker et al. Campana concludes that his research demonstrates the need for transparent communication between neuroscience and education.

The purpose of this international, non-experimental study was threefold. First, this study examined the awareness of neuromyths and general knowledge about the brain in higher education among instructors, instructional designers, and administrators who work with professional development (referred to as administrators) in two- and four year institutions of higher education (IHE) across on-campus, blended/hybrid, and online programs. Second, this study examined the awareness of evidence-based practices from the learning sciences and Mind (psychology), Brain (neuroscience) and Education (pedagogy and didactics; MBE) science, among these different professional groups within higher education. Third, this study examined predictors of awareness of (a) neuromyths and general knowledge about the brain, and (b) evidence-based practices in higher education. A total of 1,290 surveys were completed, of which 929 met the criteria for inclusion, which is described in Section Five: Methodology. Respondents included fulltime instructors (33%; n = 305), part-time instructors (13%; n = 122), instructional designers (26%; n = 239), and administrators involved in professional development (18%; n = 172). Ten percent (n = 91) selected “other”

Key Findings

Correct responses to the 23 statements, which included neuromyths and general information about the brain, ranged from 11% to 94% for instructors, instructional designers, and administrators.

Neuromyths to which respondents were most susceptible included:

• Listening to classical music increases reasoning ability.
• A primary indicator of dyslexia is seeing letters backwards.
• Individuals learn better when they receive information in their preferred learning styles (e.g., auditory, visual, kinesthetic).
• Some of us are “left-brained” and some are “right-brained” due to hemispheric dominance, and this helps explain differences in how we learn.
• We only use 10% of our brain.

Instructional designers had greater awareness of neuromyths, knowledge about the brain, and evidence-based practices than instructors and administrators.

There were no significant differences in (a) awareness of neuromyths and knowledge about the brain,

Reading journals related to neuroscience, psychology, and MBE science increased awareness of (a) neuromyths and general information about the brain, and (b) evidence-based practices.

Professional development is a predictor of awareness of (a) neuromyths and general knowledge about the brain, and (b)

evidence-based practices among education instructors, instructional designers, and administrators.