Ejemplos de neuromitos en la educación superior
Aunque existen muchas descripciones teóricas de neuromitos individuales que delinean ciertos argumentos o contraargumentos individuales, solo algunos de ellos se han descrito sistemáticamente con respecto a su núcleo de verdad, conclusiones erróneas individuales y contraargumentos apropiados.Grospietsch y Mayer, 2018; 2019; 2021a; 2021b; Grospietsch 2019). We selected those that University educators could possibly meet in Higher Education.
1st NEUROMYTH: Learning Styles
Introductory video
“Learning Styles- The Biggest Myth in Education” (14.26’)
Description of the Neuromyth
Torrijos-Muelas M., González-Víllora S., Bodoque-Osma, A. (2021) mention that closely related to education, we can find the neuromyth of the visual, auditory, and kinaesthetic (VAK) learning styles. There are three mythical conclusions about the learning styles. The first erroneous conclusion that can be drawn from this kernel of truth is that there are auditory, visual, haptic and intellectual learning styles, as Vester (1975). The next erroneous conclusion drawn is that people learn better when they obtain information in accordance with their preferred learning style. Finally, the third erroneous yet widely disseminated conclusion is that teachers must diagnose their students’ learning styles and take them into account in instruction. According to Grospietsch y Mayer (2021b), el núcleo de verdad behind this neuromyth is that people differ in the mode in which they prefer to receive information (visually or verbally; e.g., Höffler et al., 2017).
The effects of the Neuromyth on Education
As Torrijos-Muelas M., González-Víllora S., Bodoque-Osma, A. (2021) mention, even there is lack of evidence the neuromyth of the learning styles, it is one of the most deeply rooted belief among teachers, educators, and students. (Rodrigues Rato et al., 2013, Deligiannidi y Howard-Jones, 2015; Papadatou-Pastou et al., 2017, 2018; Varas-Genestier y Ferreira, 2017; Zhang et al., 2019). Los educadores reportan haber sido instruidos sobre la existencia de estilos de aprendizaje durante los cursos de formación organizados por sus escuelas o las autoridades educativas de sus gobiernos (Lethaby y Harries, 2016; Kim y Sankey, 2017; McMahon et al., 2019).
Torrijos-Muelas M., González-Víllora S., Bodoque-Osma, A. (2021) also add that the educators in Higher Education use this neuromyth in their practice, and what is even more dramatic is that when a professor indicated there was no empirical evidence for VAK learning (Rohrer y Pashler, 2012; Grospietsch y Mayer, 2018), 46% afirmó que encontraría beneficios al usarlo en clase (Newton y Miah, 2017). However, previous reports confirm that there is no relation between a student’s self-evaluation about their preferred learning style and the style the teacher attributes to them (Papadatou-Pastou et al., 2018), con <50% de concordancia entre el autoinforme del estudiante y un cuestionario de estilo de aprendizaje (Krätzig and Arbuthnott, 2006). El hecho es que no aprendemos con un solo sentido, y el aprendizaje VAK no explica cómo aprende el cerebro (Geake, 2008; Dekker et al., 2012). Usar esto como una teoría o una explicación válida es solo una enseñanza heurística basada en observaciones (Schwartz, 2015), una simplificación excesiva (Purdy y Morrison, 2009), y una práctica más que cuestionable (Bailey et al., 2018). In line with previous studies, this neuromyth still appears in training, education degrees, universities, or books (Gleichgerrcht et al., 2015; Lethaby y Harries, 2016; Kim y Sankey, 2017; Grospietsch y Mayer, 2018; McMahon et al., 2019; Tan y Amiel, 2019), a veces como una tendencia educativa general (Papadatou-Pastou et al., 2018). Moreover, some educators insist they intend to continue working under this perspective in their classrooms, even knowing that it is a neuromyth (Newton y Miah, 2017; Tan y Amiel, 2019).
How to ‘spot’ Neuromyth –La perspectiva científica
To spot a neuromyth you need to look for scientific evidence. Even it is true that there may be preferences and, perhaps more importantly, that presenting information in multiple sensory modes can support learning, Vester’s model of learning styles is not even logically consistent, because it compares three sensory channels to an ‘intellectual’ learning style (Looß, 2001). Las pruebas de estilos de aprendizaje no son confiables desde una perspectiva de medición y no pueden categorizar con precisión grupos heterogéneos de estudiantes (Coffield et al., 2004; Pashler et al., 2008). Además, no hay evidencia empírica confirming the effectiveness of considering students’ learning styles in instruction (Willingham et al., 2015). Regardless of the mode in which it is presented, information must be meaningfully processed, repeated and elaborated. In addition Howard-Jones, P. A. (2014) mention that if a person feels that they learn best by writing the content down in their own words, this is not because they then see what they have written down, but rather because writing something down in one’s own words serves as an elaboration strategy (Grospietsch y Mayer, 2021b).
Recursos adicionales
2nd NEUROMYTH: el aprendizaje bloqueado es mejor que el intercalado
Descripción del <a class="glossaryLink" aria-describedby="tt" data-cmtooltip="
A neuromyth that has to date largely been addressed in the context of cognitive psychology and ‘desirable difficulties’ (e.g., Bjork y Bjork, 2011; Lipowsky et al., 2015) is the notion that el aprendizaje bloqueado es mejor que el intercalado (Grospietsch y Mayer, 2019). According to Grospietsch (2019), the kernel of truth underlying this neuromyth is that instructional designs in which the learning content is systematically structured facilitate positive learning effects among students (e.g., Hattie, 2009).
Los efectos del <a class="glossaryLink" aria-describedby="tt" data-cmtooltip="
A partir de esto, se concluye erróneamente que los estudiantes se sienten abrumados cuando los temas de instrucción no se enseñan uno tras otro de manera estructurada y secuencial. Por lo tanto, los educadores que creen en este <a class="glossaryLink" aria-describedby="tt" data-cmtooltip="
How to ‘spot’ Learning Styles Neuromyth-La perspectiva científica
From a scientifically accurate perspective, however, students who engage in interleaved learning (mixed, juxtaposed learning of different topics) have better scores on long-term performance tests (after several weeks or months have passed) and develop fewer misconceptions than students who sequentially learn content on one topic after another (e.g., Rohrer y Taylor, 2007; Ziegler y popa, 2014). Research findings on desirable difficulties demonstrate the positive effects on students’ knowledge acquisition of deliberately making learning processes more difficult (e.g., Bjork y Bjork, 2011; Dunlosky et al., 2013; Lipowsky et al., 2015) and that interleaved learning is superior to blocked learning in the long term (e.g., Mayfield y Chase, 2002). Cognitively demanding activities result in slow, not immediately visible learning successes, yet improve long-term retention of what has been learned (e.g., Carvalho y Goldstone, 2014; Bjork y Kroll, 2015).
3d NEUROMYTH: Diferencias de aprendizaje debidas al uso hemisférico
Description of the Neuromyth and Mythical Assumptions
Several theoretical descriptions of the neuromyth regarding diferencias de aprendizaje debido al uso hemisférico also exist (Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económicos [OCDE], 2002; Becker, 2006; Geake, 2008; Alferink y Farmer-Dougan, 2010; Lilienfeld et al., 2010; Lindell y Kidd, 2011; Adey y Dillon, 2012; Jarret, 2014; Tokuhama-Espinosa, 2018). According to Grospietsch (2019), the kernel of truth underlying this neuromyth is that one brain hemisphere is more strongly involved in certain cognitive processes than the other (dominio hemisférico) (e.g., Ocklenburg et al., 2014; Oso et al., 2016). Based on this kernel of truth, it is erroneously concluded that the two brain hemispheres have different strengths and weaknesses.
The effects of the Neuromyth on Education
It is assumed that every learner has a dominant hemisphere that they rely upon more strongly than the other, and that student (cognitive) characteristics are rooted in this ‘hemispheric dominance’ – misinterpreted as the strength of the two hemispheres. For example, analogously to the neuromyth that logic is located in the left hemisphere, creativity in the right (see below), it is allegedly the case that ‘left brain dominant’ learners are more talented in mathematics, while ‘right brain dominant’ learners are better able to complete creative tasks. Ultimately, the erroneous conclusion is drawn that learners cannot complete tasks that misalign with their hemispheric dominance or can do so only with great difficulty; thus, educators need to take into account whether learners are la parte izquierda or la parte derecha del cerebro in their instruction.
How to ‘spot” Neuromyth –La perspectiva científica
From a scientifically accurate perspective, however, it is learners themselves rather than brain hemispheres that possess different strengths and weaknesses rooted in their intelligence, use of learning strategies, interest, motivation, attention, etc. (Gruber, 2018). El dominio hemisférico simplemente significa que uno de los dos hemisferios está más fuertemente involucrado que el otro en un proceso cognitivo específico. Las funciones están lateralizadas sólo hasta cierto punto. En términos generales, la información se almacena en toda la arquitectura de una red neuronal dada y, por lo tanto, en rastros de memoria (engramas) en todo el cerebro. Mientras el cuerpo calloso, la banda de nervios que une los dos hemisferios, permanezca intacto, se produce un intercambio constante de información entre los dos hemisferios, independientemente del tipo de actividad que se realice (Oso et al., 2016).
4th NEUROMYTH: La lógica se encuentra en el hemisferio izquierdo, la creatividad en el derecho.
Introductory Videos
| Neuromyths-Concerning the Left and the Right Brain https://www.technologynetworks.com/neuroscience/videos/neuromyths-concerning-the-left-and-the-right-314796 | English Language , 2019 |
| Left Brain vs Right Brain myth https://www.technologynetworks.com/neuroscience/videos/the-left-brain-vs-right-brain-myth-290665 | English Language , 2017 |
Descripción del <a class="glossaryLink" aria-describedby="tt" data-cmtooltip="
The neuromyth is that la lógica se encuentra en el hemisferio izquierdo, la creatividad en el derecho (e.g., Hinés, 1991) According to Grospietsch y Mayer (2019), the kernel of truth underlying this neuromyth is that the cerebrum contains two hemispheres that are not completely identical from an anatomical or functional perspective (asimetría hemisférica; e.g., Jäncke, 2013; Ocklenburg et al., 2014).
Los efectos del <a class="glossaryLink" aria-describedby="tt" data-cmtooltip="
Torrijos-Muelas M., González-Víllora S., Bodoque-Osma, A. (2021) mention that educators who believe in this Neuromyth, with 41.7% of references among the studies, have the idea that each hemisphere works autonomously and has a different function. Hence, students’ left hemisphere is responsible for intellectual, rational, verbal and analytical thinking, while the right hemisphere is responsible for creative, intuitive and non-verbal thought processes. Accordingly they can organize the learning activities.
How to ‘spot’ this Neuromyth –La perspectiva científica
From a scientifically accurate perspective, however, the two hemispheres are linked to one another via the corpus collosum, as mentioned above (Bloom y Hynd, 2005). Trabajan juntos en todas las tareas de procesamiento (Singh and O’Boyle, 2004), como puede ilustrarse con el ejemplo del lenguaje: el hemisferio izquierdo es predominante en muchos pero no en todos los procesos verbales. Algunos componentes del lenguaje se procesan en el hemisferio derecho, incluida la entonación y la lectura entre líneas (Lai et al., 2015). Por lo tanto, el proceso no está completamente lateralizado (Nielsen et al., 2013).
How to ‘spot’ Learning Styles Neuromyth- La perspectiva científica
In our own attempts to translate these findings into classroom learning games, we have encountered new potential for neuromyths. This has partly been a matter of language. For example, educators’ understanding of the term ‘motivation’ extends well beyond its common usage in neuroscience (that is, motivation as a short-term visceral desire to approach); it also includes motivation towards longer-term goals such as a university career.
5th NEUROMYTH: the eficacia de Brain Gym
Introductory Video:
Supuestos míticos
A further neuromyth related to the relationship between the brain hemispheres concerns the eficacia de Brain Gym (Becker, 2006; Hyatt, 2007; Stephenson, 2009; Howard Jones, 2010; Adey y Dillon, 2012; Tokuhama-Espinosa, 2018). According to Grospietsch y Mayer (2021a), the kernel of truth underlying this neuromyth is that a crossed neural pathway links the left hemisphere of the brain to the right side of the body and vice versa (e.g., De Lussanet y Osse, 2012; Kinsbourne, 2013).
Conclusiones míticas
Based on this kernel of truth, it is erroneously concluded that motor problems during cross-body coordination exercises result from a lack of coordination between the two hemispheres. Learning difficulties are also said to result from a lack of cooperation between the two hemispheres. it is further erroneously concluded that cooperation between the two hemispheres can be improved by increasing the number of synaptic connections between them and that cross-body coordination exercises can improve one’s mental abilities. Ultimately, it is claimed that ‘Brain Gym’ programs available for sale can prevent learning difficulties, improve students’ learning or creativity, and even raise their intelligence.
La perspectiva científica
Sin embargo, desde una perspectiva científicamente precisa, los dos hemisferios cerebrales están constantemente intercambiando información en coordinación entre sí, siempre que el cuerpo calloso, la banda de nervios que une los dos hemisferios, permanezca intacto (Blais et al., 2018). En cambio, las dificultades de aprendizaje son atribuibles a diferencias en la capacidad de la memoria de trabajo o en la velocidad de procesamiento (Willcutt et al., 2013). También pueden ser causados por falta de atención, condiciones motivacionales desfavorables o déficits en el uso de estrategias de aprendizaje (Creß and Friedrich, 2000; Grube y Ricken, 2016). No podemos influir conscientemente en dónde surgen las sinapsis, y su formación no es un hecho único. Se forman nuevos enlaces sinápticos durante todos y cada uno de los procesos cognitivos (Zheng et al., 2013). While coordination exercises can improve students’ physical fitness levels and motor skills, they do not improve their cognitive performance (Cancela et al., 2015). Cualquier mejora cognitiva percibida subjetiva u objetivamente resulta de la interrupción del aprendizaje/mejora de la circulación que acompaña a tales ejercicios (Budde et al., 2008).
6th NEUROMYTH: Aprender mientras dormimos
Introductory video
Los mitos comunes comprometen el buen sueño https://www.technologynetworks.com/neuroscience/news/common-myths-compromise-good-sleep-318406
Description of the Neuromyth and Mythical Assumptions
The neuromyth on aprendiendo mientras duermes is theoretically described much more rarely compared to the aforementioned neuromyths (Centro de Investigación e Innovación Educativa [CERI], y Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económicos [OCDE], 2007; Lilienfeld et al., 2010; Tokuhama-Espinosa, 2018). Basado en el núcleo de la verdad (Grospietsch y Mayer, 2019) procesos de reestructuración (consolidación) nocturnos en el cerebro y pueden conducir a nuevos conocimientos.
The effects of the Neuromyth on Education
Los estudiantes pueden aprender contenido completamente nuevo mientras duermen; pueden utilizar el tiempo que pasan durmiendo para aprender exponiéndose a estímulos acústicos. Esto conduce a la recomendación de que los alumnos reproduzcan archivos de audio (por ejemplo, palabras de vocabulario en un nuevo idioma) mientras duermen.
How to ‘spot’ Learning Styles Neuromyth -The Scientific Perspective
Sin embargo, desde una perspectiva científicamente precisa, la información se codifica cuando una persona está despierta y se consolida mientras duerme. Ambos procesos son necesarios para almacenar conocimientos en la memoria a largo plazo, es decir, para aprender ( Gais y Born, 2004 ). no es posible aprender nuevos contenidos mientras uno duerme ( Stickgold, 2012 ). La codificación de nueva información durante el sueño perturbaría el proceso de consolidación de la información ( Gais y Born, 2004 ). Durante el sueño, el cerebro está relativamente aislado del mundo exterior ( Muzet, 2007 ), aunque puede reaccionar a las entradas sensoriales como los olores. modificando la intensidad de la respiración ( Stickgold, 2012 ), posibilitando el condicionamiento (Arzi et al., 2012 ).
Multiple Intelligence Theory. IS IT A NEUROMYTH???
Descripción del <a class="glossaryLink" aria-describedby="tt" data-cmtooltip="
Multiple Intelligences theory has proved popular with teachers as a welcome argument against intelligence quotient (IQ)-based education. MI theory posits that every individual has, at their disposal, a lleno intellectual profile of eight intelligences. From one individual to another, some intelligences exhibit low, some exhibit average, and some others exhibit strong biopsychological potentials. We need to take into consideration that Jardinero (2020) argues that MI theory does not qualify as a neuromyth.
Los efectos del <a class="glossaryLink" aria-describedby="tt" data-cmtooltip="
A large-scale survey conducted in Quebec, Canada, by Blanchette Sarrasin et al. (2019) revealed that 68% of teachers somewhat or strongly agreed (rating of 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale) with the following neuromyth statement: Students have a predominant intelligence profile, for example logico-mathematical, musical, or interpersonal, which must be considered in teaching. This is not an idiosyncratic case in the field (see tabla 1). In another survey conducted in Spain, Ferrero et al. (2020) reported that teachers gave an average rating of 4.47 [on a 5-point scale, from 1 (definitely false) to 5 (definitely true)] to a closely similar neuromyth statement: Adapting teaching methods to the “multiple intelligences” of students leads to better learning. The believe in this neuromyth encourages educators to characterize learners in terms of a small number of relatively independent ‘intelligences’ — for example, linguistic, musical and interpersonal. Consider that Gardner and his research team spent an entire decade, through the Spectrum Project, contemplating the hypothesis—embedded into the opening survey statement—that matching modes of instruction to MI intelligence profiles promotes learning. When taken for granted, such an unproven research hypothesis is considered as a false belief—a neuromyth derived from MI theory.
La perspectiva científica
Sin embargo, la complejidad de procesamiento general del cerebro hace que sea poco probable que se pueda usar algo parecido a la teoría de las Inteligencias Múltiples para describirlo, y no parece ni preciso ni útil reducir la amplia gama de diferencias individuales complejas a niveles neurales y cognitivos a un nivel limitado. número de capacidades.
Rousseac Luk (2020) argues that the neuro-mythological part of Multiple Intelligences theory (that is, its relation to neuroscience) is difficult to test, not least because the task for Multiple Intelligences theorists of defining the types and number of intelligences remains a work in progress.
Spanish 
English 
Greek 
Polish 
Bulgarian 
Dutch