B. What other educators believe in Neuromyths?

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 and Howard-Jones, 2015; Pei et al., 2015). Ferrero’s findings (Ferrero et al., 2016) showed the presence of cross-cultural differences even for neuromyths with consistent responses across ten countries (UK, Netherlands, Greece, Turkey, Peru, Argentina, Chile, other Latin American countries, China, and Spain). However, as the authors stated, similar widespread misunderstandings can be found in neuromyths in different countries (Dekker et al., 2012; Howard-Jones, 2014; Gleichgerrcht 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.