As the field of neuroscience advances, so does our understanding of what works in teaching and learning. The best recent example of this? The reading movement. Our knowledge of how children's brains learn to read has increased, and it has led to a revolution in how to teach children to read.
And reading isn't the only example. Since the early 2000s, as MRIs became increasingly common, scientists have identified a number of common "neuromyths," or persistent misconceptions in how the brain and learning works. These include:
When science advances the field of teaching, teachers need to not only learn new or more effective teaching strategies; they must also unlearn those that don't work. How do teachers unlearn these myths, particularly those who have built their teaching practices around them? And why is it so difficult?
New research by Luc Rousseau, a psychology researcher from Laurentian University, offers insights based on a literature review of in-service professional development initiatives. Rousseau looks at four types of interventions to dispel "neuromyths"—including which interventions worked, which didn't, and why.
What didn't work
Refutation texts: Teachers read materials that debunked the teaching strategies that aren't supported by science and were provided information on what is accurate. Though they initially changed their minds about disproven teaching practices, within a few months, teachers' beliefs in the debunked practices returned. Why? Simply providing research that essentially tells teachers they have built a skill set and classroom practices on something that is wrong can cause cognitive dissonance; it can be perceived as a threat to a teacher's professional integrity. Psychology research shows this is likely to elicit anger or blaming of external factors rather than encouraging reflection and change. Additionally, it strips teachers of their current practices without offering an alternative, leaving teachers to return to instructional techniques that are familiar to them.
Personalized refutation texts: Teachers responded to a survey on which teaching practices they believed to be most effective. Then they were given customized readings based on their responses. For example, when teachers got a response right, their knowledge was celebrated. When they got it wrong (i.e., indicated a belief in an ineffective teaching practice), they were invited to explore the research that proves that practice isn't effective. While this strategy led teachers to change their minds initially, the researchers didn't track the staying power of the intervention. Additionally, the author asserts that this approach likely elicited feelings of guilt, which is unethical. The purpose of professional development is to empower teachers, not to shame them.
What did work
Promoting self-reflection: Teachers learned about "science of learning" concepts and then considered how these concepts could enrich their classroom practices. This approach encourages teachers to view themselves as expert professionals in the ever-evolving field of learning, framing their work as making scientific progress rather than fostering guilt about what they had done wrong. This intervention led to an increase in teachers' perceptions of usefulness of the proven concepts and—simultaneously—a decrease in the perceived usefulness of those that are not based in research. The change remained in effect for many in the study 2–3 months later.
Where the research may go next
Cultivating a scientific mindset:
Researchers wanted to acknowledge that training in neuroscience only goes so far; we must teach educators how to distinguish between "good" and "bad" science. Education is a field where intuitive thinking is highly valued, allowing debunked practices to persist because teachers have anecdotal evidence for their effectiveness. Additionally, the evolving field of neuroscience leads teachers to distrust evidence-based recommendations, because they worry the evidence base will change again, swinging the pendulum back in some cases. Some researchers argue that the field needs to cultivate a scientific mindset in teachers that will allow them to grow and adapt as research evolves. This hypothesis lacks rigorous testing, suggesting a future area for research.
What does it all mean?
While this body of research is relatively nascent, it suggests that a combination of practices is likely to be most effective: emphasizing basic neuroscience knowledge, providing professional development that empowers teachers with current research, and offering alternatives for teaching strategies that can replace those that have been debunked. It also points to the need to provide teachers with appropriate emotional support while surfacing deeply held false beliefs. As it turns out, the science of unlearning is just as complicated as the science of learning.
And reading isn't the only example. Since the early 2000s, as MRIs became increasingly common, scientists have identified a number of common "neuromyths," or persistent misconceptions in how the brain and learning works. These include:
- The notion that individuals are more "right brained" (more creative, better at spatial awareness) versus "left brained" (more analytical, better at languages).
- The "Mozart effect," which is the belief that listening to classical music can increase cognitive capabilities.
- The common belief that individuals are VAK (visual, auditory, or kinesthetic) learners, which purports that people can be classified into three learning styles depending on whether they absorb more information by seeing, hearing, or doing.
When science advances the field of teaching, teachers need to not only learn new or more effective teaching strategies; they must also unlearn those that don't work. How do teachers unlearn these myths, particularly those who have built their teaching practices around them? And why is it so difficult?
New research by Luc Rousseau, a psychology researcher from Laurentian University, offers insights based on a literature review of in-service professional development initiatives. Rousseau looks at four types of interventions to dispel "neuromyths"—including which interventions worked, which didn't, and why.
What didn't work
Refutation texts: Teachers read materials that debunked the teaching strategies that aren't supported by science and were provided information on what is accurate. Though they initially changed their minds about disproven teaching practices, within a few months, teachers' beliefs in the debunked practices returned. Why? Simply providing research that essentially tells teachers they have built a skill set and classroom practices on something that is wrong can cause cognitive dissonance; it can be perceived as a threat to a teacher's professional integrity. Psychology research shows this is likely to elicit anger or blaming of external factors rather than encouraging reflection and change. Additionally, it strips teachers of their current practices without offering an alternative, leaving teachers to return to instructional techniques that are familiar to them.
Personalized refutation texts: Teachers responded to a survey on which teaching practices they believed to be most effective. Then they were given customized readings based on their responses. For example, when teachers got a response right, their knowledge was celebrated. When they got it wrong (i.e., indicated a belief in an ineffective teaching practice), they were invited to explore the research that proves that practice isn't effective. While this strategy led teachers to change their minds initially, the researchers didn't track the staying power of the intervention. Additionally, the author asserts that this approach likely elicited feelings of guilt, which is unethical. The purpose of professional development is to empower teachers, not to shame them.
What did work
Promoting self-reflection: Teachers learned about "science of learning" concepts and then considered how these concepts could enrich their classroom practices. This approach encourages teachers to view themselves as expert professionals in the ever-evolving field of learning, framing their work as making scientific progress rather than fostering guilt about what they had done wrong. This intervention led to an increase in teachers' perceptions of usefulness of the proven concepts and—simultaneously—a decrease in the perceived usefulness of those that are not based in research. The change remained in effect for many in the study 2–3 months later.
Where the research may go next
Cultivating a scientific mindset:
Researchers wanted to acknowledge that training in neuroscience only goes so far; we must teach educators how to distinguish between "good" and "bad" science. Education is a field where intuitive thinking is highly valued, allowing debunked practices to persist because teachers have anecdotal evidence for their effectiveness. Additionally, the evolving field of neuroscience leads teachers to distrust evidence-based recommendations, because they worry the evidence base will change again, swinging the pendulum back in some cases. Some researchers argue that the field needs to cultivate a scientific mindset in teachers that will allow them to grow and adapt as research evolves. This hypothesis lacks rigorous testing, suggesting a future area for research.
What does it all mean?
While this body of research is relatively nascent, it suggests that a combination of practices is likely to be most effective: emphasizing basic neuroscience knowledge, providing professional development that empowers teachers with current research, and offering alternatives for teaching strategies that can replace those that have been debunked. It also points to the need to provide teachers with appropriate emotional support while surfacing deeply held false beliefs. As it turns out, the science of unlearning is just as complicated as the science of learning.