Welke andere docenten geloven in Neuromyths? Onderzoek bewijzen

In the past decade, numerous surveys have been conducted in more than 20 countries around the world to measure the prevalence of neuromyth beliefs among educators (Torrijos-Muelas et al., 2021).  Ferrero et al. (2016) conducted an exhaustive meta-analysis to report cultural influence in the prevalence of 12 neuromyths among teachers, as some others had previously suggested (Pasquinelli, 2012; Howard Jones, 2014; Deligiannidi en Howard-Jones, 2015; Pei et al., 2015). Ferrero’s findings (Ferrero et al., 2016) toonde de aanwezigheid van interculturele verschillen aan, zelfs voor neuromythen met consistente reacties in tien landen (VK, Nederland, Griekenland, Turkije, Peru, Argentinië, Chili, andere Latijns-Amerikaanse landen, China en Spanje). Zoals de auteurs echter stelden, kunnen vergelijkbare wijdverspreide misverstanden worden gevonden in neuromythen in verschillende landen (Dekker et al., 2012; Howard Jones, 2014; Gleichgercht et al., 2015; Ferrero et al., 2016; Bailey et al., 2018). Since 2016, much more scientific information about neuromyths has become available, given the significant and exponential advance of neuroeducation. Howard-Jones, P. A. (2014) mention that   teachers in countries with very different cultures have revealed similarly high levels of belief in several neuromyths (TABLE 1). This prevalence may reflect the fact that neuro-science is rarely included in the training of teachers, who are therefore ill-prepared to be critical of ideas and educational programmes that claim a neuroscientific basis.