Jacy inni pedagodzy wierzą w neuromity? Dowody badawcze

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 i in., 2021).  Ferrero i in. (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 i Howard-Jones, 2015; Pei i in., 2015). Ferrero’s findings (Ferrero i in., 2016) wykazało obecność różnic międzykulturowych nawet w przypadku neuromitów ze spójnymi odpowiedziami w dziesięciu krajach (Wielka Brytania, Holandia, Grecja, Turcja, Peru, Argentyna, Chile, inne kraje Ameryki Łacińskiej, Chiny i Hiszpania). Jednak, jak stwierdzili autorzy, podobne powszechne nieporozumienia można znaleźć w neuromitach w różnych krajach (Dekker i in., 2012; Howard-Jones, 2014; Gleichgerrcht i in., 2015; Ferrero i in., 2016; Bailey i in., 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.