Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Neuromythologies in education||Contributor(s):||Geake, John (author)||Publication Date:||2008||DOI:||10.1080/00131880802082518||Handle Link:||https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/2927||Abstract:||Background: Many popular educational programmes claim to be 'brain-based', despite pleas from the neuroscience community that theses neuromyths do not have a basis in scientific evidence about the brain. Purpose: The main aim of this paper is to examine several of the most popular neuromyths in the light of the relevant neuroscientific and educational evidence. Examples of neuromyths include: 10% brain usage, left- and right-brained thinking, VAK learning styles and multiple intelligences. Sources of evidence: The basis for the argument put forward includes a literature review of relevant cognitive neuroscientific studies, often involving neuroimaging, together with several comprehensive education reviews of the brain-based approaches under scrutiny. Main argument: The main elements of the argument are as follows. We use most of our brains most of the time, not some restricted 10% brain usage. This is because our brains are densely interconnected, and we exploit this interconnectivity to enable our primitively evolved primate brains to live in our complex modern human world. Although brain imaging delineates areas of higher (and lower) activation in response to particular tasks, thinking involves coordinated interconnectivity from both sides of the brain, not separate left- and right-brained thinking. High intelligence requires higher levels of inter-hemispheric and other connected activity. The brain's interconnectivity includes the senses, especially vision and hearing. We do not learn by one sense alone, hence VAK learning styles do not reflect how our brains actually learn, nor the individual differences we observe in classrooms. Neuroimaging studies do not support multiple intelligences; in fact, the opposite is true. Through the activity of its frontal cortices, among other areas, the human brain seems to operate with general intelligence, applied to multiple areas of endeavour. Studies of educational effectiveness of applying any of these ideas in the classroom have failed to find any educational benefits. Conclusions: The main conclusions arising from the argument are that teachers should seek independent scientific validation before adopting brain-based products in their classrooms. A more sceptical approach to educational panaceas could contribute to an enhanced professionalism of the field.||Publication Type:||Journal Article||Source of Publication:||Educational Research, 50(2), p. 123-133||Publisher:||Routledge||Place of Publication:||London, United Kingdom||ISSN:||0013-1881||Field of Research (FOR):||130309 Learning Sciences||Peer Reviewed:||Yes||HERDC Category Description:||C1 Refereed Article in a Scholarly Journal||Statistics to Oct 2018:||Visitors: 105
|Appears in Collections:||Journal Article|
School of Education
Files in This Item:
checked on Nov 26, 2018
checked on Jan 12, 2019
Items in Research UNE are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.