MIND, BRAIN, AND EDUCATION
Misconceptions Regarding
the Brain: The Neuromyths of
Preservice Teachers
Sefa Dndar1 and Nazan Gndz1
ABSTRACT Understanding preservice teachers miscon-
ceptions regarding the brain and neuroscience (neuromyths)
can provide information that helps teachers to apply neuro-
science knowledge in an educational context. The objective
of this study was to investigate these misconceptions. Fol-
lowing preliminary research, a questionnaire comprising 59
challenging assertions in two categories (education and neu-
romyths) was developed as a data collection tool. The nd-
ings identify preservice teachers neuromyths, which were
found to vary by teaching area.
Despite increasing research interest, the human brain
remains to some extent mysterious. The growing volume
of information about the brain, both in the media and
in academic publications, is often accepted uncritically
without ltering or questioning its authenticity. Miscon-
ceptions arising from misreading, misunderstanding, or
misquoting information about the brain and its functions
have been described as neuromyths (Organisation for
Economic Cooperation, and Development, 2002). Geake
(2008) characterized neuromyths as popular descriptions of
brain functions that inform so-called brain-based educa-
tional practices. Samuels (2009) related the development of
neuromyths to gaps between academic elds. The failure to
properly incorporate neuroscience into educational prac-
tices has given rise to a number of such misinterpretations
(Geake, 2008).
Neuromyths are considered a major issue, aecting
both the progress of cognitive neuroscience itself and
1 Department of Primary Mathematics Education, Education Faculty,
Abant Izzet Baysal University,
Address correspondence to Sefa Dndar, Department of Primary
Mathematics Education, Education Faculty, Abant Izzet Baysal Univer- of neuromyths by suggesting that neuroscience knowledge
sity, Bolu, Turkey; e-mail: sefadundar@gmail.com
2016 International Mind, Brain, and Education Society and Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
its application in the eld of education. Although inac-
curate, neuromyths have their basis in original scientic
ndings that have been wrongly interpreted, overgen-
eralized, exaggerated, debased, or oversimplied (Della
Sala, 2007; Howard-Jones, 2010), Pasquinelli (2012) noted
that neuromyths may develop through inaccurate inter-
pretation of experimental results. For instance, research
on cerebral hemispheric dominance and specialization has
prompted the myth that humans can be categorized as either
right-brained or left-brained. As a consequence, training
of various kinds has been developed to help individuals to
use both hemispheres eectively (Geake, 2008; Goswami,
2008). In addition to right- or left-brain learning, other
examples of neuromyths include multi-intelligence, critical
periods for the learning process, the eect of certain types
of nutrients on brain functions, and the belief that we use
only 10% of the brains capacity.
Education and Neuromyths
In the United States, the period 19902000 was referred
to as The Decade of the Brain because of the signif-
icant growth of interest in neuroscience research. These
advances attracted the interest of researchers and practi-
tioners in a number of elds, including education. How-
ever, teachers eorts to incorporate neuroscience ndings
in their educational practices are hindered by the com-
plexity of neuroscience and the diculty of transferring
its ndings to the classroom environment (Ansari, Coch,
& De Smedt, 2011; Devonshire & Dommett, 2010; Jolles
et al., 2005), leading to the emergence of the neuromyths
in question (Coch & Ansari, 2009; Geake & Cooper, 2003;
Howard-Jones, 2008; Howard-Jones, Franey, Mashmoushi,
& Liao, 2009).
The simplication of scientic ndings in the popular
media has contributed to the development and propagation
is readily applicable in classrooms (Beck, 2010; Wallace,
1
 Misconceptions Regarding the Brain

1993). The tendency to believe this oversimplied media That learning styles reect dierent dominances, inform-
information may also indicate that teachers lack adequate ing the use of VAK and dominant forms of perception in
knowledge of the subject, or that they are unable to reect education.
on neuroscience knowledge in a critical way. This sug- That regular and plentiful intake of water improves chil-
gests that neuromyths may in part develop as a conse- drens brain function and test results.
quence of teachers inadequate neuroscience literacy and That IQ is distributed across various types of
critical capacity. This hypothesis nds some support in multi-intelligence (e.g., Della Sala, 2007; Howard-Jones
studies that investigate whether neuromyths are inuenced et al., 2009).
by the number of popular scientic journals, newspapers,
and books an individual reads or reviews. For example, These neuromyths are examined in more detail below.
Howard-Jones et al. (2009) concluded that the average num-
ber of neuromyths was lower among those who read news- We Use Only 10% of Our Brain
papers than among those who do not, but this dierence The idea that we use only 10% of our brains capacity is
proved statistically insignicant. Similarly, while the preva- the most common neuromyth (Wanjek, 2002). The myth
lence of neuromyths was lower among those reading sci- is based on unproven parapsychological claims about the
entic journals than among those who did not, this dif- unused potential of the human mind, or on neuroanatom-
ference was also insignicant. Again, no signicant dier- ical evidence relating to glianeuron or white mattergray
ence was observed in the average occurrence of neuromyths matter ratios (Della Sala, 2007; Lilienfeld, Lynn, Ruscio, &
among teachers according to the number of books they read, Beyerstein, 2011). However, science has failed to conrm any
and Dekker, Lee, Howard-Jones, and Jolles (2012) found such unused region; in patients who experience severe brain
that, like exposure to popular science publications or sci- trauma, for instance, each region of the brain has been shown
entic journals, factors such as gender and age failed to to have a specic function (e.g., Organisation for Economic
account for neuromyths. In a study of neuroscience literacy, Cooperation and Development, 2007).
Herculano-Houzel (2002) concluded that, although there
was some relationship between participants exposure to
scientic journals at university and the number of correct VAK Learning Styles
answers they gave, these reading habits had no such eect Individual variations in academic abilities and prociencies
among high school students, although reading newspapers have generated particular interest in idiosyncratic learning
was found to increase mean correct scores by 9%. styles. Although the evidence linking learning styles to VAK
The existence of neuromyths in the educational eld channels has proved inadequate, this approach has been
has been highlighted in a number of studies (e.g., Ansari widely adopted by educators (Dunn, Dunn, & Price, 1989)
& Coch, 2006; Geake, 2008; Goswami, 2006; Pasquinelli, in determining a childs dominant learning style and edu-
2012; Tardif & Doudin, 2011). Although there has been lit- cating them accordingly (Geake, 2008). According to this
tle research on neuromyths among teachers (Dekker et al., model, visual learners should be shown diagrams, colorful
2012; Howard-Jones et al., 2009), there is some evidence thatpictures, and material that appeal to the eye to help them to
they commonly share three such misconceptions, related to learn and to retain information. Similarly, auditory learners
visual, auditory, and kinesthetic (VAK) learning styles, the favor sounds, and kinesthetic learners move and act upon
role of hemispheric dominance in learning; and the need what they learn; by following these principles, learning out-
for short exercises to maintain integration between left and comes are said to improve (Rato, Abreu, & Castro-Caldas,
right hemispheres (the so-called Brain Gym method). As 2013). Because a students preferred learning style may not
these neuromyths may dier across cultures, more research be immediately clear, some schools attempt to label students
in the classroom. However, the VAK method creates dilem-
is needed to identify and prevent their adoption in particular
countries and regions. mas for teachers, such as what should teachers do with
these students when V and K learners are in music class, A
and K learners are in painting class, and V and A learners
Types of Neuromyth are in handicraft application class? (Geake, 2008). Kayser
According to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation, (2007) noted that the brain will also see when it hears and
and Development (2002), the following are the most promi- touches, that it will hear when it sees, and that individu-
nent neuromyths: als are mainly visual data processors. That being so, it cur-
rently is not possible to dene clear boundaries between
That humans use only 10% of their brain. individual learning styles; indeed, there is no evidence of
That either the left or right cerebral hemisphere is dom- any educational advantage of teaching based on preferred
inant. learning style. As Howard-Jones (2008) pointed out, neither

2
 Sefa Dndar and Nazan Gndz
neuroscience nor any other science arms the educational hyponatremia or water poisoning (e.g., Boetzkes et al., 2010;
merits of VAK-based learning over other learning styles. Miyamoto et al., 2012).
Hemispheric Dominance
Another common neuromyth is that individuals predomi-
nantly use either the left or right hemisphere of the brain.
This is based on a misinterpretation of laterality studies;
Goswami (2004) stated that the reference to right- and
left-brain learning processes in Organisation for Economic
Cooperation, and Development (OECD) reports was one of
a number of troubling neuromyths. From a historical per-
spective, studies highlighting anomalies of information pro-
cessing in split-brain patients were the original source of
these misconceptions (Geake, 2008). Subsequently, Singh
and OBoyle (2004) showed that the normal brain was not
composed of two separately operating hemispheres but that
the dierent cognitive characteristics of the left and right
brain were very well-integrated, and that major conicts
between them were very rare. For instance, creative think-
ing, which supposedly reects right brain dominance, actu-
ally requires the integration of characteristics of both hemi-
spheres; these do not operate independently or in isola-
tion, and creative individuals need to use both hemispheres
in developing practical solutions to real problems (Geake,
2008). Another neuromyth related to hemispheric domi-
nance is that grammar is processed in the left hemisphere
while emotional processing occurs in the right. However,
language researchers have rejected the idea that linguistic
processes occur only in the left hemisphere in all humans
(Thierry, Giraud, & Price, 2003). Walsh, Pascual-Leone, and
Kosslyn (2003) insisted that human brain functions and
behaviors may best be explained by the functional connectiv-
ity between cerebral structures rather than by localization.
Plentiful and Regular Water Consumption Improves Brain
Function
Drinking plenty of water to enhance the learning process
has been advocated by some brain-based learning programs.
However, the evidence for this view was overgeneralized, and
the ensuing neuromyth suggests that if a child does not drink
enough water, they should be encouraged to drink more, as
this will promote learning. In general, drinking water is ben-
ecial, as it maintains hydration, but these ndings have been
overinterpreted (e.g., Howard-Jones, 2010). Howard-Jones
et al. (2009) concluded that the advice to drink six to eight
glasses of water a day to prevent brain shrinkage was not sup-
ported by neuroscience. Indeed, the evidence suggests that
eliminating water from the body will constrain brain func-
tions and decrease cognitive performance, and that there is
no positive or direct relationship between enriched learning
and water consumption (Rato et al., 2013). Excessive liquid
consumption may even be harmful, leading in some cases to
Purpose of the Present Study
According to Goswami (2006), the emergence of neu-
romyths can be explained by a lack of communication
between educators and neuroscientists, which complicates
the process of data transmission between the two elds.
A better understanding of preservice teachers opinions
and misconceptions about the brain can contribute to
professional development by developing teachers critical
awareness. The present study was designed to help pre-
service teachers by highlighting these misconceptions and
showing how neuroscience can inform theory in both edu-
cational sciences and practices. The key objective was to
identify common neuromyths among preservice teachers.
METHOD
Research Design
The survey method was selected as the most appropriate
approach. Items compiled from a literature review of pre-
vious studies were translated into Turkish. The resulting
statements were checked by experts, and a 59-assertion neu-
romyth questionnaire was constructed, with three response
options for each assertion (yes, no, or dont know) to capture
the participants views.
Participants
The study participants were preservice classroom teach-
ers (primary school), preservice math teachers (secondary
school), and preservice science teachers (secondary school).
These departments were selected to investigate the eect
of courses dealing with neuroscience (such as biology) on
the development of neuromyths. A review of the univer-
sity educational program found that the biology course was
provided eciently in the science program and at lower lev-
els than in the class teaching program. Although there was
no biology or biology-related content in the math teach-
ing program, it was considered appropriate to include these
teachers, as departmental educational programs are thought
to inuence neuromyths. In total, 2,932 preservice teachers
from six state universities in dierent cities participated in
the study. The participants ranged in age between 17 and 36
(X = 19.95 1.69); of these, 79% were female (n = 2327) and
21% were male (n = 605).
Table 1 summarizes the distribution of participants
according to department, gender, grade level, and mean age
and standard deviations. Fourth-grade preservice teachers
are the largest group (n = 1344); in terms of department,
preservice classroom teachers predominate (n = 1279). The
3
 Misconceptions Regarding the Brain

mean age of preservice math teachers is 19.86 .049 for

1.243

1.142
1.344
1.693
1.27
ss
females and 20.62 .05 for males. The mean age of pre-
service classroom teachers is 20.2 .039 for females and

18.57
19.69
20.61
21.73
19.95
Total
X
20.42 .077 for males. Finally, the mean age of preservice
science teachers is 19.95 .048 for females and 20.67 .099

.099 2,932
.083 894
.195 818
.230 651
.195 569
N
for males.

ss
Data Collection

18.98
20.40
21.03
22.31
20.67
Male
The study used a neuromyth data collection form compris-
X
Preservice science

ing 59 challenging statements related to neuromyths, based

on issues identied in the literature review (e.g., Dekker
Gender

N
50
39
28
39
156
et al., 2012; Herculano-Houzel, 2002; Howard-Jones et al.,
teachers

2009; Karakus, Howard-Jones, & Jay, 2015) (see Table 2).

.083
.089
.105
.103
.048
ss

The original form comprised 75 assertions, reduced to 59

Female

18.26
19.61
20.46
21.48
19.95
on the basis of expert reviews and a pilot study. The orig-
X

inal statements were in English; because the study was to

be conducted in Turkey, these were translated into Turk-
213
186
133
139
671
N

ish, and their validity was checked following translation from

.139
.157
.134
.183
.077

source to target language. Translation from English to Turk-

ss

ish was carried out by three experts (educational instruc-

18.69
19.78
21.07
22.15
20.42
Male

tors) with relevant content knowledge and prociency in

X
Preservice classroom

English, eliminating any need for back-translation into the

source language. The resulting neuromyth form was ana-
Gender

N
76
60
82
44
262

lyzed for Turkish language conformity by two experts in

Turkish language and literature. Some adjustments were
.067
.072
.078
.096
.039
ss
Descriptive Statistics for Participants by Department, Gender, Grade Level, and Mean Age

teacher

made to ensure content integrity. To check item equiva-

Female

18.86
19.71
20.60
21.61
20.20

lences, the form was subsequently administered to ve grad-

X

uate students, each of whom was asked the meaning of each

item. Following translation of the form, 30 English Teaching
.050 1,017
.156 325
.179 285
.197 246
.188 161
N

department students attending the fourth grade in the Fac-

ulty of Education of a state university participated in linguis-
ss

tic equivalence studies based on the bilingual design method

(Hambleton & Bollwark, 1991). The results conrmed a
18.36
20.41
20.84
22.88
20.62
Male
Preservice mathematics

high level of relationship between scores on both forms,

X

and administration of the form to the study participants

then commenced.
Gender

Previous studies that informed the selection of items on

N
61
46
38
42
187

the neuromyth form are listed in Table 2. Items were cate-

.094
.086
.109
.101
.049
teachers

ss

gorized as either educational or general assertions; the rst

Female

25 items are educational, and those between 26 and 59 are

18.29
19.41
20.28
21.47
19.86
X

general.
The educational neuromyths (i.e., the rst 25 items)
169
202
124
144
639
N

were originally identied by the Organisation for Economic

Cooperation, and Development (2002). In categorizing
Second

Fourth
Third
First

these as educational assertions, the inclusion of word

objects such as learning, mental, academic, and success
was taken into account; all other items fell into the cate-
gory of general assertions. Two experts (with educational
Department

doctorates) assisted in performing this categorization.

Class level

The nal shape of the neuromyth form as produced by

Table 1

the researchers reected the views of these two experts,

Total

whose level of consensus was calculated as .96 (Miles &

4
 Sefa Dndar and Nazan Gndz

Table 2
Studies Informing the Selection of Items on the Neuromyth Form

No. Cited from articles No. Cited from articles No. Cited from articles
1 Dekker et al., 2012; Howard-Jones et al., 10 Dekker et al., 2012; Howard-Jones 19 Dekker et al., 2012;
2009; Karakus et al., 2015 et al., 2009; Karakus et al., 2015 Herculano-Houzel, 2002;
Howard-Jones et al., 2009
2 Dekker et al., 2012; Howard-Jones et al., 11 Dekker et al., 2012; Howard-Jones 20 Herculano-Houzel, 2002;
2009; Karakus et al., 2015 et al., 2009; Karakus et al., 2015 Howard-Jones et al., 2009
3 Dekker et al., 2012; Karakus et al., 2015 12 Howard-Jones et al., 2009 21 Herculano-Houzel, 2002;
Howard-Jones et al., 2009
4 Dekker et al., 2012; Howard-Jones et al., 13 Howard-Jones et al., 2009; Karakus 22 Herculano-Houzel, 2002;
2009; Karakus et al., 2015 et al., 2015 Howard-Jones et al., 2009
5 Dekker et al., 2012; Howard-Jones et al., 14 Dekker et al., 2012; Howard-Jones 23 Herculano-Houzel, 2002;
2009; Karakus et al., 2015 et al., 2009 Howard-Jones et al., 2009
6 Dekker et al., 2012; Howard-Jones et al., 15 Dekker et al., 2012; Howard-Jones 24 Herculano-Houzel, 2002;
2009; Karakus et al., 2015 et al., 2009 Howard-Jones et al., 2009
7 Dekker et al., 2012; Howard-Jones et al., 16 Howard-Jones et al., 2009 25 Dekker et al., 2012;
2009; Karakus et al., 2015 Howard-Jones et al., 2009
8 Dekker et al., 2012; Howard-Jones et al., 17 Herculano-Houzel, 2002; 26 Dekker et al., 2012;
2009; Karakus et al., 2015 Howard-Jones et al., 2009 Herculano-Houzel, 2002;
Howard-Jones et al., 2009
9 Dekker et al., 2012; Howard-Jones et al., 18 Herculano-Houzel, 2002; 27 Howard-Jones et al., 2009
2009; Karakus et al., 2015 Howard-Jones et al., 2009
28 Howard-Jones et al., 2009 37 Dekker et al., 2012 46 Herculano-Houzel, 2002
29 Herculano-Houzel, 2002; 38 Dekker et al., 2012 47 Herculano-Houzel, 2002
Howard-Jones et al., 2009
30 Dekker et al., 2012; Herculano-Houzel, 39 Dekker et al., 2012 48 Herculano-Houzel, 2002
2002; Howard-Jones et al., 2009;
Karakus et al., 2015
31 Dekker et al., 2012; Herculano-Houzel, 40 Dekker et al., 2012 49 Herculano-Houzel, 2002
2002; Howard-Jones et al., 2009
32 Dekker et al., 2012; Howard-Jones et al., 41 Dekker et al., 2012 50 Herculano-Houzel, 2002
2009
33 Dekker et al., 2012 42 Dekker et al., 2012 51 Herculano-Houzel, 2002
34 Dekker et al., 2012; Herculano-Houzel, 43 Dekker et al., 2012 52 Herculano-Houzel, 2002
2002
35 Dekker et al., 2012 44 Herculano-Houzel, 2002 53 Herculano-Houzel, 2002
36 Dekker et al., 2012 45 Herculano-Houzel, 2002 54 Herculano-Houzel, 2002
55 Herculano-Houzel, 2002 56 Herculano-Houzel, 2002 57 Herculano-Houzel, 2002
58 Herculano-Houzel, 2002 59 Herculano-Houzel, 2002

Huberman, 1994). When the assertions were discordant, 1, correct answers were scored 2, and dont know responses
categorization was completed by consensus. Aside from were scored 0. Because the concept of neuromyth related to
the assertions related to neuromyths, participants were incorrect responses, the analysis focused on these.
also asked to provide personal information, including their Using descriptive statistics, responses to each item were
age, gender, grade level, department, annual book-reading recorded as percentages and frequencies, and educational
habits, and consumption of popular scientic journals and general neuromyth scores were calculated for each
and daily newspapers. All participants were volunteers, participant. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was
and they were informed that their data would remain used to examine how neuromyth scores diered by depart-
condential.
ment, grade level, and exposure to books, popular scientic
journals, and newspapers. A separate independent-samples
Data Analysis (groups) t-test was used to identify any dierence in neu-
The data were analyzed using a number of statistical romyth scores by gender. If the number of books read
methods. Initially, participants responses were rescored within the year was between 0 and 10, this was coded
according to the answer key; incorrect answers were scored 1; between 11 and 20 was coded 2; between 21 and 30

5
 Misconceptions Regarding the Brain
was coded 3; and 31 or more was coded 4. Journal and
newspaper-reading habits were encoded as follows: 0,
I never read; 1, I sometimes read; and 2, I always read.
Where dierences occurred, Tukey, LSD, and Tamhane
T2 tests were applied to identify the relevant groups.
Eta-squared scores were used in comparisons to determine
eect sizes. According to Cohen (1988), 2 = .01.06 is
considered a small impact; 2 = .06.14 is regarded as a
moderate impact; and 2 = .14 or above is considered a
great impact.
RESULTS
The analysis in Table 3 conrms that neuromyths about
the brain are prevalent among preservice teachers, and that
participants had no knowledge about some of the asser-
tions on the form. This applies in particular to general
assertions (no comment) when compared with educational
assertions. More than 60% accepted the following neu-
romyths: Individuals learn better when they receive infor-
mation in their preferred learning style (97.6%); Dier-
ences in hemispheric dominance (left brain, right brain)
can help explain individual dierences among learners
(78.5%); Omega 3 supplements do not enhance the men-
tal capacity of children in the general population (63.3%);
and There are no critical periods in childhood after which
you cannot learn some things, just sensitive periods when
its easier (70.1%). The teachers also displayed a striking
lack of knowledge (i.e., dont know) in the case of the fol-
lowing assertions: It has been scientically proven that
fatty acid supplements (omega-3 and omega-6) have a pos-
itive eect on academic achievement (43.9%); and Exer-
cises that rehearse co-ordination of motor perception skills
can improve literacy skills (38.7%). Among general asser-
tions, the following neuromyths were also common: Mem-
ory is stored in the brain much like as in a computer.
That is, each memory goes into a tiny piece of the brain
(79.3%); Emotional brain processes interrupt those brain
processes involved with reasoning (43.3%); Children must
acquire their native language before a second language is
learned. If they do not do so, neither language will be fully
acquired (49.2%); The left and right hemisphere of the
brain always work together (48.8%); and When a brain
region is damaged, other parts of the brain can take up
its function (53.2%). The participating teachers were also
ill-informed about the following general assertions: The
brains of boys and girls develop at the same rate (49.2%);
Brain development has nished by the time children reach
secondary school (46.7%); and Learning is not because of
the addition of new cells to the brain (35.5%). The most
prevalent neuromyth was When we sleep, the brain enters
into rest (52.8%).
6
Results by Department and Grade Level
In Table 4, the data show that teachers mean neuromyth
scores for general assertions were higher than for educa-
tional assertions. In each of the three departments, neu-
romyths involving educational assertions were higher at the
rst grade level, declining in the midclasses, and increasing
again in the senior grade; this was also the case for gen-
eral assertions. For preservice science teachers, mean neu-
romyth scores for both educational and general assertions
were higher than for the other two departments (Table 5).
A comparison of neuromyth scores by grade level and
department found no signicant dierence between pre-
service classroom teachers by grade level for educational
and general assertions (F[3, 1275] = 2.337; p > .05, F[3,
1275] = 2.070; p > .05). For math and science departments,
a signicant dierence was found (F[3, 822] = 4.50; p < .05,
F[3, 823] = 26.509; p < .05) between mean neuromyth scores
for educational assertions by grade level. In the mathematics
department, these dierences were between rst and third
grade levels and between third and fourth grade levels and
between the rst and third, rst and fourth, second and
fourth, and third and fourth grade levels in the science
department. Mean neuromyth scores for general assertions
showed a signicant dierence between grade levels in the
mathematics and science departments (F[3, 822] = 7.667;
p < .05, F[3, 823] = 24.932; p < .05). The source of this dif-
ference was found to be the third grade in the mathematics
department and the fourth grade in the science department.
In the mathematics department, class level was moderately
eective as a predictor of dierences in neuromyth scores
for educational and general assertions (2 = .016, 2 = .027);
in the science department, grade level was found to be
eective at a higher level (2 = .088, 2 = .083).
The Eect of Book Reading
The analysis in Table 6 shows that increased book reading
among preservice teachers in the mathematics department
reduced neuromyths in both the educational and general
categories in the third grade, but these increased again in
the fourth grade. The same was found for preservice science
teachers. In contrast, general neuromyths among preservice
classroom teachers were seen to decline.
Table 7 data analysis reveals no signicant dierence in
educational and general neuromyth scores between preser-
vice teachers in dierent departments by book-reading level.
Tables 8 and 9 compare departments on the basis of the neu-
romyth category by book-reading level.
Preservice science teachers who never read believed most
of the educational and general neuromyths (Table 8); the
same was found for those reading the most books. For
other book-reading levels, some variance was found across
departments.
 Sefa Dndar and Nazan Gndz

Table 3
Responses of Preservice Teachers to the Neuromyth Test

A.N. C. Assertions C I DK A
1 Educational Individuals learn better when they receive information in their 97.6 1.1 1.3 I
neuroscience preferred learning style (e.g., auditory, visual, kinesthetic).
2 assertions Environments that are rich in stimulus improve the brains of 81.3 7.3 11.4 C
preschool children.
3 It has been scientically proven that fatty acid supplements (omega-3 51.9 4.2 43.9 I
and omega-6) have a positive eect on academic achievement.
4 Dierences in hemispheric dominance (left brain, right brain) can help 78.5 5.5 16 I
explain individual dierences among learners.
5 Exercises that rehearse co-ordination of motor perception skills can 49.6 11.7 38.7 I
improve literacy skills.
6 Extended rehearsal of some mental processes can change the shape 49.8 15.4 34.8 C
and structure of some parts of the brain.
7 Learning problems associated with developmental dierences in brain 18.9 59.4 21.7 I
function cannot be remediated by education.
8 Individual learners show preferences for the mode in which they 86.8 4.6 8.7 C
receive information (e.g., visual, auditory, kinesthetic).
9 Children are less attentive after consuming sugary drinks and/or 41 23 35.9 I
snacks.
10 Omega-3 supplements do not enhance the mental capacity of children 11.5 63.3 25.2 C
in the general population.
11 There are no critical periods in childhood after which you cannot learn 12 70.1 17.9 C
some things, just sensitive periods when its easier.
12 Vigorous exercise can improve mental function. 79.9 7.8 12.3 C
13 To learn how to do something, it is necessary to pay attention to it. 91.6 4.4 4 C
14 Learning occurs through modication of the brains neural 62.9 9.7 27.5 C
connections.
15 Learning is not because of the addition of new cells to the brain. 34.9 29.6 35.5 C
16 Children must acquire their native language before a second language 49.2 23.1 27.7 I
is learned. If they do not do so neither language will be fully
acquired.
17 The left and right hemisphere of the brain always work together. 20 48.8 31.2 C
18 Brain development has nished by the time children reach secondary 19.9 33.4 46.7 I
school.
19 There are critical periods in childhood after which certain things can 39.5 41.6 18.9 I
no longer be learned
20 Information is stored in the brain in a network of cells distributed 73.1 7.6 19.3 C
throughout the brain.
21 Academic achievement can be aected by skipping breakfast. 60.5 20.7 18.8 C
22 There are sensitive periods in childhood when it is easier to learn 89.4 4.5 6.1 C
things.
23 Any brain region can perform any function. 29 45.9 25.1 I
24 Mental eort raises oxygen consumption by the brain. 66,5 7.9 25.6 C
25 Knowing our brain, we can understand better how our thoughts, our 74.6 7.6 17.8 C
reasoning, and our memories work.
26 General Short bouts of co-ordination exercises can improve integration of left 66.7 3.2 30.1 I
neuroscience and right hemispheric brain function.
27 assertions Regular drinking of caeinated drinks reduces alertness. 29.4 47.8 22.8 C
28 Production of new connections in the brain can continue into old age. 69 11.6 19.4 C
29 Drinking less than six to eight glasses of water a day can cause the 16.2 35.3 48.5 I
brain to shrink.
30 Ones environment can inuence hormone production and, in turn, 58.1 14.5 27.5 C
personality.

7
 Misconceptions Regarding the Brain

Table 3
continued

A.N. C. Assertions C I DK. A

31 Performance in activities such as playing the piano improves as 65.2 22.4 12.3 C
a function of hours spent practicing.
32 Hormones inuence the bodys internal state, and not their 17.8 65.7 16.4 I
personality.
33 Memory is stored in the brain much like as in a computer. That 79.3 7.2 13.5 I
is, each memory goes into a tiny piece of the brain.
34 Memory is stored in networks of cells distributed throughout 61.4 8.4 30.2 C
the brain.
35 Keeping a phone number in memory until dialing, recalling 34.8 33.9 31.3 I
recent events and distant experiences, all use the same
memory system.
36 When we sleep, the brain shuts down. 12.4 75.9 11.7 I
37 Brain activity depends entirely on the external environment: 30.5 49.8 19.7 I
with no senses stimulated, we do not see, hear, or feel
anything.
38 Emotional brain processes interrupt those brain processes 43.3 27.4 29.3 I
involved with reasoning.
39 Cognitive abilities are inherited and cannot be modied by the 20 58.6 21.5 I
environment or by life experience.
40 We mostly only use 10% of our brains. 42.2 26.6 31.2 I
41 We use our brains 24 hr a day. 6. 18.4 19.6 C
42 Boys have bigger brains than girls. 20.8 41.9 37.2 C
43 When a brain region is damaged, other parts of the brain can 14.5 53.2 32.4 C
take up its function.
44 The brains of boys and girls develop at the same rate. 18.5 32.3 49.2 I
45 Normal development of the human brain involves the birth and 69.4 6.5 24 C
death of brain cells.
46 Mental capacity is hereditary and cannot be changed by the 21.4 63 15.6 I
environment or experience.
47 The brain is the body organ that consumes the most oxygen. 49.3 9.9 40.8 C
48 The human brain stops growing at the end of adolescence. 18.1 40.4 41.5 I
49 People who lost sight at an early age hear better than people 60.6 11.1 28.3 C
with normal vision.
50 The electroencephalogram gives a measure of the development 19.5 8.2 72.3 I
of each brain region.
51 In the majority of right-handed people, speech is a specialty of 43.7 7.6 48.6 C
the left brain hemisphere.
52 Dreaming is important to learning because during this sleep 50.3 21.2 28.4 C
phase we consolidate what we learn.
53 Dreaming occurs any time during sleep. 61.7 21.7 16.6 I
54 When we sleep, the brain enters into rest. 52.8 27.6 19.6 I
55 Language is inborn; even if raised in solitary, human beings will 26.3 45.6 28 I
speak.
56 Drugs such as cocaine are addictive and aect the mind because 83.4 6.6 10 C
they alter the chemical balance of the brain.
57 There is no single real world; each of us creates his own real 75.5 8.9 15.6 C
world from the experience of the world.
58 The brain works like a computer, that is, with data collection, 83.7 6.4 9.8 C
processing, and exit of decisions.
59 With more knowledge about our brain, we can improve our 80.6 5.5 13.9 C
quality of life.

A = correct answer; A.N. = assertion number; C. = category; C = correct; I = incorrect; DK = I dont know.

8
 Sefa Dndar and Nazan Gndz

Table 4
Descriptive Statistics for Neuromyth Form Scores of Preservice Teachers by Department and Grade Level

Standard Standard Levene

Department Grade level Category N Mean deviation error statistic df1 df2 Sig.
Preservice mathematics First Education 230 5.73 2.123 .140 Education .530 3 822 .662
teachers General 230 9.72 3.171 .209
Second Education 248 5.27 2.302 .146
General 248 9.12 3.441 .218
Third Education 162 5.02 2.329 .183
General 162 8.15 3.265 .256 General .561 3 822 .641
Fourth Education 186 5.70 2.278 .167
General 186 9.40 3.255 .238
Total Education 826 5.45 2.268 .078
General 826 9.16 3.331 .115
Preservice science First Education 263 5.67 2.297 .141 Education 18.175 3 823 .000
teachers General 263 9.04 3.120 .192
Second Education 225 5.52 2.256 .150
General 225 8.98 3.668 .244
Third Education 161 5.00 2.419 190
General 161 8.47 3.565 .281 General 11.119 3 823 .000
Fourth Education 178 7.36 3.594 .269
General 178 11.51 4.431 .332
Total Education 827 5.86 2.762 .096
General 827 9.44 3.824 .133
Preservice classroom First Education 401 5.45 2.286 .114 Education 1.640 3 1,275 .178
teachers General 401 9.18 3.173 .158
Second Education 345 5.23 2.304 .124
General 345 8.95 3.356 .180
Third Education 328 5.65 2.461 .135
General 328 9.04 3.484 .192 General .388 3 1,275 .762
Fourth Education 205 5.68 2.593 .181
General 205 9.64 3.193 .223
Total Education 1,279 5.48 2.392 .066
General 1,279 9.16 3.312 .092

Table 5
Comparison of Neuromyth Scores by Grade Level and Department

Department Category Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig. Eect size (2 )

Preservice mathematics Education Between groups 68.580 3 22.860 4.500 .004 .016
teachers Within groups 4,175.885 822 5.080
Total 4,244.465 825
General Between groups 249.242 3 83.081 7.667 .000 .027
Within groups 8,907.703 822 10.837
Total 9,156.944 825
Preservice science Education Between groups 555.422 3 185.141 26.509 .000 .088
teachers Within groups 5,747.946 823 6.984
Total 6,303.369 826
General Between groups 1,006.611 3 335.537 24.932 .000 .083
Within groups 11,075.955 823 13.458
Total 12,082.566 826
Preservice classroom Education Between groups 39.993 3 13.331 2.337 .072
teachers Within groups 7,273.396 1,275 5.705
Total 7,313.389 1,278
General Between groups 67.964 3 22.655 2.070 .102
Within groups 13,955.534 1,275 10.946
Total 14,023.498 1,278

9
 Misconceptions Regarding the Brain

Table 6
Descriptive Statistics for Book-Reading Status by Department and Neuromyth Category

Book-reading Standard Standard Levene

Category level N Mean deviation error statistic df1 df2 Sig.
Preservice Education 1 643 5.44 2.29 .090 .524 3 822 .666
mathematics 2 142 5.57 2.12 .178
teacher 3 23 4.86 2.13 .445
4 18 5.27 2.49 .587
Total 826 5.45 2.26 .078
General 1 643 9.18 3.30 .130 .482 3 822 .695
2 142 9.08 3.49 .293
3 23 8.95 3.53 .737
4 18 9.33 2.78 .656
Total 826 9.16 3.33 .115
Preservice science Education 1 663 5.97 2.86 .111 2.10 3 823 .099
teacher 2 118 5.47 2.31 .213
3 29 5.17 2.12 .394
4 17 5.52 2.15 .522
Total 827 5.86 2.76 .096
General 1 663 9.54 3.89 .151 .703 3 823 .550
2 118 8.94 3.50 .322
3 29 9.20 3.38 .628
4 17 9.76 3.94 .956
Total 827 9.44 3.82 .133
Preservice classroom Education 1 908 5.49 2.43 .081 1.439 3 1,275 .230
teacher 2 256 5.46 2.26 .141
3 73 5.57 2.33 .273
4 42 5.14 2.23 .345
Total 1,279 5.48 2.39 .066
General 1 908 9.24 3.33 .110 .232 3 1,275 .874
2 256 8.99 3.25 .203
3 73 8.97 3.34 .392
4 42 8.80 3.18 .491
Total 1,279 9.16 3.31 .092

Table 7
Comparison of Neuromyth Scores Among Preservice Teachers by Book Reading

Department Category Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.

Preservice Education Between groups 10.342 3 3.447 .669 .571
mathematics Within groups 4,234.123 822 5.151
teachers Total 4,244.465 825
General Between groups 2.772 3 .924 .083 .969
Within groups 9,154.173 822 11.136
Total 9,156.944 825
Preservice Education Between groups 41.958 3 13.986 1.838 .139
science Within groups 6,261.411 823 7.608
teachers Total 6,303.369 826
General Between groups 38.363 3 12.788 .874 .454
Within groups 12,044.203 823 14.635
Total 12,082.566 826
Preservice Education Between groups 5.678 3 1.893 .330 .804
classroom Within groups 7,307.711 1,275 5.732
teachers Total 7,313.389 1,278
General Between groups 20.420 3 6.807 .620 .602
Within groups 14,003.078 1,275 10.983
Total 14,023.498 1,278

10
 Sefa Dndar and Nazan Gndz

Table 8
Neuromyth Scores by Book-Reading Level and Department

Standard Standard Levene

Book level Category Department N Mean deviation error statistic df1 df2 Sig.
1 Education Math teacher 643 5.44 2.298 .090 8.152 2 2,211 .000
Science teacher 663 5.97 2.864 .111
Classroom teacher 908 5.49 2.439 .080
Total 2,214 5.62 2.545 .054
General Math teacher 643 9.18 3.307 .130 13.020 2 2,211 .000
Science teacher 663 9.54 3.894 .151
Classroom teacher 908 9.24 3.333 .110
Total 2,214 9.31 3.505 .074
2 Education Math teacher 142 5.57 2.125 .178 .200 2 513 .819
Science teacher 118 5.47 2.319 .213
Classroom teacher 256 5.46 2.266 .141
Total 516 5.49 2.236 .098
General Math teacher 142 9.08 3.495 .293 .616 2 513 .540
Science teacher 118 8.94 3.500 .322
Classroom teacher 256 8.99 3.252 .203
Total 516 9.00 3.371 .148
3 Education Math teacher 23 4.86 2.138 .445 .039 2 122 .962
Science teacher 29 5.17 2.122 .394
Classroom teacher 73 5.57 2.338 .273
Total 125 5.35 2.254 .201
General Math teacher 23 8.95 3.535 .737 .004 2 122 .996
Science teacher 29 9.20 3.384 .628
Classroom teacher 73 8.97 3.349 .392
Total 125 9.02 3.366 .301
4 Education Math teacher 18 5.27 2.492 .587 .493 2 74 .613
Science teacher 17 5.52 2.154 .522
Classroom teacher 42 5.14 2.236 .345
Total 77 5.25 2.256 .257
General Math teacher 18 9.33 2.786 .656 .846 2 74 .433
Science teacher 17 9.76 3.945 .956
Classroom teacher 42 8.80 3.187 .491
Total 77 9.14 3.263 .371

In relation to educational neuromyths, Table 9 reports a
signicant dierence between departments among partici-
pants who rarely read books (Level 1) (F[2, 2211] = 9.067;
p < .05). In the educational category, reading books at a lower
level rarely inuenced the dierence among departments
(2 = .008). Other levels of book reading did not result in
dierences among departments. When the source of the dif-
ference seen in the level of rare book reading (Level 1) was
examined (Tamhane T2 test result), it was found that it was
seen among the preservice teachers Science and Mathemat-
ics, and Science and Class teachers.
The Eect of Reading Popular Scientic Journals
The analysis in Table 10 shows that, among mathematics
and preservice science teachers, reading popular scientic
journals increases educational neuromyths while reducing
those in the general category. For preservice classroom
teachers, however, both educational and general neuromyth
scores were found to decline.
Reading popular scientic journals inuences the devel-
opment of neuromyths in preservice teachers (Table 11).
Specically, journal reading is associated with a signicant
dierence in educational neuromyth scores among preser-
vice mathematics and science teachers, but no dierence was
observed in the case of preservice classroom teachers. Sep-
arately, reading journals was found to have a low level of
eect size on educational assertions for preservice mathe-
matics and science teachers (2 = .007, 2 = .025). For gen-
eral neuromyths, a signicant dierence was observed for
science and preservice classroom teachers, but there was
no dierence for preservice mathematics teachers. Read-
ing journals was found to have a low level of eect on
general assertions (2 = .02, 2 = .006). For preservice sci-
ence teachers, dierences in educational neuromyths favor
those who always read as compared to those who some-
times read, and favor those who never read when com-
pared with those who sometimes read. For preservice class-
room teachers, however, the dierences favor those who

11
 Misconceptions Regarding the Brain

Table 9
Comparison of Neuromyth Scores by Department and Book Reading

Book level Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig. Eect size (2 )

1 Education Between groups 116.638 2 58.319 9.067 .000 .008
Within groups 14,221.704 2,211 6.432
Total 14,338.341 2,213
General Between groups 48.992 2 24.496 1.995 .136
Within groups 27,146.582 2,211 12.278
Total 27,195.574 2,213
2 Education Between groups 1.029 2 .514 .102 .903
Within groups 2,575.970 513 5.021
Total 2,576.998 515
General Between groups 1.275 2 .637 .056 .946
Within groups 5,853.677 513 11.411
Total 5,854.952 515
3 Education Between groups 9.930 2 4.965 .976 .380
Within groups 620.582 122 5.087
Total 630.512 124
General Between groups 1.268 2 .634 .055 .946
Within groups 1,403.660 122 11.505
Total 1,404.928 124
4 Education Between groups 1.816 2 .908 .175 .840
Within groups 384.989 74 5.203
Total 386.805 76
General Between groups 11.894 2 5.947 .552 .578
Within groups 797.535 74 10.778
Total 809.429 76

Table 10
Neuromyth Scores by Level of Exposure to Popular Scientic Journals and by Department

Department Category Scale N Mean Standard deviation Standard error Levene statistic df1 df2 Sig.
Preservice Education Never 53 4.81 1.881 .258 2.444 2 823 .087
mathematics Sometimes 49 5.89 2.671 .381
teachers Always 724 5.46 2.257 .083
Total 826 5.45 2.268 .078
General Never 53 9.22 3.079 .423 .489 2 823 .613
Sometimes 49 10.26 3.219 .459
Always 724 9.08 3.347 .124
Total 826 9.16 3.331 .115
Preservice Education Never 53 4.94 2.413 .331 3.993 2 824 .019
science Sometimes 92 6.97 3.331 .347
teachers Always 682 5.78 2.662 .101
Total 827 5.86 2.762 .096
General Never 53 9.35 4.420 .607 2.171 2 824 .115
Sometimes 92 10.97 4.092 .426
Always 682 9.24 3.695 .141
Total 827 9.44 3.824 .133
Preservice Education Never 62 6.09 2.653 .336 .518 2 1,276 .596
classroom Sometimes 69 5.81 2.579 .310
teachers Always 1,148 5.43 2.361 .069
Total 1,279 5.48 2.392 .066
General Never 62 9.46 3.687 .468 .906 2 1,276 .404
Sometimes 69 10.21 3.338 .401
Always 1,148 9.08 3.280 .096
Total 1,279 9.16 3.312 .092

12
 Sefa Dndar and Nazan Gndz

Table 11
Comparison of Neuromyth Scores by Exposure to Popular Scientic Journals

Department Category Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig. Eect size (2 )

Preservice Education Between groups 31.657 2 15.829 3.092 .046 .007
mathematics Within groups 4,212.807 823 5.119
teachers Total 4,244.465 825
General Between groups 63.768 2 31.884 2.886 .056
Within groups 9,093.177 823 11.049
Total 9,156.944 825
Preservice science Education Between groups 162.987 2 81.493 10.936 .000 .025
teachers Within groups 6,140.382 824 7.452
Total 6,303.369 826
General Between groups 242.796 2 121.398 8.449 .000 .02
Within groups 11,839.770 824 14.369
Total 12,082.566 826
Preservice classroom Education Between groups 33.993 2 16.997 2.979 .051
teachers Within groups 7,279.395 1,276 5.705
Total 7,313.389 1,278
General Between groups 90.020 2 45.010 4.122 .016 .006
Within groups 13,933.478 1,276 10.920
Total 14,023.498 1,278

always read when compared with those who sometimes
read.
The analyses reported in Table 12 found that the educa-
tional and general neuromyth scores of the preservice class-
room teachers who never read any journals proved to be
higher than those of the other departments, whereas in those
who sometimes or always read journals, the educational and
general neuromyth scores of the preservice science teachers
proved to be high.
The analysis in Table 13 shows a signicant dierence in
educational neuromyth scores among departments accord-
ing to popular scientic journal reading level; no signicant
dierence was observed for general neuromyths. Diering
journal reading level had dierential eects on educational
neuromyths; reading no journal at all had a moderate eect
(2 = .06) on the neuromyth score dierence among depart-
ments; reading journals from time to time had a moderate
eect (2 = .035); and reading journals all the time had a
lower level of eect (2 = .004). Educational neuromyths
among preservice teachers who never read journals were
highest among preservice classroom teachers; for those
reading journals occasionally, and for those who always read
journals, prevalence was highest among preservice science
teachers.
The Eect of Newspaper Reading
Neuromyth scores are inuenced by newspaper reading and
department attended (Table 14). Among preservice mathe-
matics teachers, as newspaper-reading level increased, edu-
cational neuromyths appeared to increase while general
neuromyths declined. The neuromyth scores of preservice
teachers in the other two departments were also seen to
vary with newspaper reading. The scores of preservice class-
room teachers were found to decline as newspaper reading
increased only for general neuromyths.
Educational and general neuromyth scores for the
departments in question are seen to vary according to
newspaper-reading levels (Table 15). While newspaper
reading made no dierence to the neuromyths of preservice
math teachers, it accounted for a signicant dierence
in educational neuromyths in the department of science
teaching and in general neuromyths in the department of
classroom teaching. Reading newspapers was found to have
a low level of eect (2 = .009) on the development of educa-
tional neuromyths among preservice science teachers, and
again at a lower level (2 = .007) on the development of gen-
eral neuromyths among preservice classroom teachers. The
observed dierence in educational neuromyths in science
favored those who always read newspapers as compared to
those who read newspapers occasionally.
The analysis in Table 16 shows that among preservice
teachers who never read newspapers, educational neu-
romyths are lowest among preservice mathematics teachers
while general neuromyths are lowest among preservice sci-
ence teachers. Among those who always read the newspaper,
neuromyths in both educational and general categories are
lowest among preservice classroom teachers. It can also
be seen that among those who always read the newspaper,
neuromyths are highest among preservice science teachers.
Total scores for educational neuromyths indicate that these
are higher among those who never read the newspaper than

13
 Misconceptions Regarding the Brain

Table 12
Neuromyth Scores of Preservice Teachers by Journal Reading

Standard Standard Levene

Magazines category N Mean deviation error statistic df1 df2 Sig.
Never Education Mathematics 53 4.81 1.881 .258 .838 2 165 .435
Science 53 4.94 2.413 .331
Classroom 62 6.09 2.653 .336
Total 168 5.32 2.416 .186
General Mathematics 53 9.22 3.079 .423 3.374 2 165 .037
Science 53 9.35 4.420 .607
Classroom 62 9.46 3.687 .468
Total 168 9.35 3.743 .288
Sometimes Education Mathematics 49 5.89 2.671 .381 1.777 2 207 .172
Science 92 6.97 3.331 .347
Classroom 69 5.81 2.579 .310
Total 210 6.34 2.992 .206
General Mathematics 49 10.26 3.219 .459 3.057 2 207 .049
Science 92 10.97 4.092 .426
Classroom 69 10.21 3.338 .401
Total 210 10.56 3.665 .252
Always Education Mathematics 724 5.46 2.257 .083 4.824 2 2,551 .008
Science 682 5.78 2.662 .101
Classroom 1,148 5.43 2.361 .069
Total 2,554 5.53 2.421 .047
General Mathematics 724 9.08 3.347 .124 7.872 2 2,551 .000
Science 682 9.24 3.695 .141
Classroom 1,148 9.08 3.280 .096
Total 2,554 9.12 3.414 .067

Table 13
Comparison of Neuromyth Scores of Preservice Teachers by Journal Reading by Department

Sum of Mean
Magazine squares df square F Sig. Eect size (2 )
Never Education Between groups 58.631 2 29.316 5.279 .006 .06
Within groups 916.363 165 5.554
Total 974.994 167
General Between groups 1.664 2 .832 .059 .943
Within groups 2,338.907 165 14.175
Total 2,340.571 167
Sometimes Education Between groups 66.317 2 33.159 3.803 .024 .035
Within groups 1,804.997 207 8.720
Total 1,871.314 209
General Between groups 28.449 2 14.224 1.059 .349
Within groups 2,779.247 207 13.426
Total 2,807.695 209
Always Education Between groups 59.889 2 29.944 5.123 .006 .004
Within groups 14,911.225 2,551 5.845
Total 14,971.114 2,553
General Between groups 13.606 2 6.803 .583 .558
Within groups 29,748.270 2,551 11.661
Total 29,761.876 2,553

14
 Sefa Dndar and Nazan Gndz

Table 14
Neuromyth Scores of Preservice Teachers by Newspaper Reading

Standard Standard Levene

Department N Mean deviation error statistic df1 df2 Sig.
Preservice Education Never 50 5.36 2.173 .307 .782 2 823 .458
mathematics Sometimes 224 5.44 2.387 .159
teachers Always 552 5.46 2.230 .094
Total 826 5.45 2.268 .078
General Never 50 9.74 3.250 .459 .177 2 823 .838
Sometimes 224 9.12 3.291 .219
Always 552 9.13 3.356 .142
Total 826 9.16 3.331 .115
Preservice science Education Never 60 5.63 2.583 .333 3.011 2 824 .050
teachers Sometimes 211 6.33 3.035 .208
Always 556 5.71 2.654 .112
Total 827 5.86 2.762 .096
General Never 60 9.53 3.877 .500 .142 2 824 .867
Sometimes 211 9.91 3.962 .272
Always 556 9.26 3.756 .159
Total 827 9.44 3.824 .133
Preservice Education Never 64 5.68 2.335 .291 .863 2 1,276 .422
classroom Sometimes 300 5.74 2.300 .132
teachers Always 915 5.38 2.420 .080
Total 1,279 5.48 2.392 .066
General Never 64 9.96 2.782 .347 1.470 2 1,276 .230
Sometimes 300 9.50 3.460 .199
Always 915 8.99 3.283 .108
Total 1,279 9.16 3.312 .092

Table 15
Comparison of Neuromyth Scores by Newspaper Reading

Sum of Mean Eect

Department squares df square F Sig. size (2 )
Preservice Education Between groups .465 2 .232 .045 .956
mathematics Within groups 4,244.000 823 5.157
teachers Total 4,244.465 825
General Between groups 17.470 2 8.735 .787 .456
Within groups 9,139.474 823 11.105
Total 9,156,944 825
Preservice Education Between groups 62.796 2 31.398 4.146 .016 .009
science Within groups 6,240.573 824 7.574
teachers Total 6,303.369 826
General Between groups 66.817 2 33.408 2.291 .102
Within groups 12,015.749 824 14.582
Total 12,082.566 826
Preservice Education Between groups 31.333 2 15.666 2.745 .065
classroom Within groups 7,282.056 1,276 5.707
teachers Total 7,313.389 1,278
General Between groups 101.588 2 50.794 4.655 .010 .007
Within groups 13,921.910 1,276 10.911
Total 14,023.498 1,278

15
 Misconceptions Regarding the Brain

Table 16
Neuromyth Scores by Newspaper Reading

Standard Standard Levene

Newspaper N Mean deviation error statistic df1 df2 Sig.
Never Education Mathematics 50 5.36 2,173 .307 1.725 2 171 .181
Science 60 5.63 2,583 .333
Classroom 64 5.68 2.335 .291
Total 174 5.57 2.370 .179
General Mathematics 50 9.74 3.250 .459 2.760 2 171 .066
Science 60 9.53 3.877 .500
Classroom 64 9.96 2.782 .347
Total 174 9.75 3.312 .251
Sometimes Education Mathematics 224 5.44 2.387 .159 8.324 2 732 .000
Science 211 6.33 3.035 .208
Classroom 300 5.74 2.300 .132
Total 735 5.82 2.577 .095
General Mathematics 224 9.12 3.291 .219 3.529 2 732 .030
Science 211 9.91 3.962 .272
Classroom 300 9.50 3.460 .199
Total 735 9.50 3.571 .131
Always Education Mathematics 552 5.46 2.230 .094 3.347 2 2,020 .035
Science 556 5.71 2.654 .112
Classroom 915 5.38 2.420 .080
Total 2,023 5.49 2.440 .054
General Mathematics 552 9.13 3.356 .142 8.630 2 2,020 .000
Science 556 9.26 3.756 .159
Classroom 915 8.99 3.283 .108
Total 2,023 9.10 3.439 .076

among those who always read it, but lower than among
those who sometimes read. Total scores for general neu-
romyths show that these decline as newspaper reading
increases.
The analysis in Table 17 shows no signicant dier-
ence in general neuromyth scores across departments by
newspaper-reading level. However, with the exception of
those who never read newspapers, there was a signicant
dierence among departments in educational neuromyths
between those who sometimes read and those who always
read newspapers. While reading the newspaper occasionally
had a moderate eect (2 = .018) on educational neuromyth
scores, it had a lower eect (2 = .003) than reading the
newspaper all the time. However, educational neuromyths
were more prevalent among preservice science teachers who
read newspapers occasionally.
The Eect of Gender
For the purpose of examining whether or not the genders
of the preservice teachers had aected their neuromyth
scores, the data were subjected to the independent-samples
(groups) t-test; the results are presented in Table 18.
Educational neuromyths diered signicantly by gender,
with males scoring better overall (Table 18). However, there
was no signicant gender dierence in relation to general
neuromyths. The results indicate dierences between males
and females in respect of educational neuromyths.
The analysis in Table 19 shows a signicant gender dier-
ence between the mathematics and science departments in
educational neuromyths, with males scoring better in both
departments. While there was a signicant gender dierence
in general neuromyths in the science department, this dif-
ference was insignicant in the mathematics department. In
the department of classroom teaching, neuromyth scores did
not dier by gender in either category.
DISCUSSION
The present ndings report data analyses of the prevalence
of neuromyths among preservice teachers at universities in
Turkey. The study reports how these neuromyths change
according to several factors. The analysis of the responses for
each item shows that, as in other countries, prevalent neu-
romyths in Turkey include those related to learning styles,
hemispheric dominance, and enhancement of mental capac-
ity by certain nutrients. In particular, preservice teachers can
be said to adopt neuromyths in the educational eld. For
instance, the assertion Individuals learn better when they
receive information in their preferred learning style (e.g.,
auditory, visual, kinesthetic) suggests that students learn

16
 Sefa Dndar and Nazan Gndz

Table 17
Comparison of Neuromyth Scores by Newspaper Reading

Sum of Mean Eect

Newspaper squares df square F Sig. size (2 )
Never Education Between groups 3.325 2 1.663 .293 .746
Within groups 969.203 171 5.668
Total 972.529 173
General Between groups 5.883 2 2.941 .266 .767
Within groups 1,892.491 171 11.067
Total 1,898.374 173
Sometimes Education Between groups 89.466 2 44.733 6.839 .001 .018
Within groups 4,788.186 732 6.541
Total 4,877.652 734
General Between groups 67.833 2 33.916 2.671 .070
Within groups 9,293.876 732 12.697
Total 9,361.709 734
Always Education Between groups 38.475 2 19.237 3.236 .040 .003
Within groups 12,009.240 2,020 5.945
Total 12,047.714 2,022
General Between groups 25.017 2 12.508 1.058 .347
Within groups 23,890.767 2,020 11.827
Total 23,915.783 2,022

Table 18
Neuromyth Scores of Preservice Teachers by Gender

Standard Sig. Mean

Gender N Mean deviation t df (two-tailed) dierence
Education Female 2,327 5.49 2.40 3.84 2,930 .000 .432
Male 605 5.92 2.70
General Female 2,327 9.20 3.38 1.20 2,930 .230 .190
Male 605 9.39 3.77

Table 19
The Inuence of Gender on Neuromyths by Department

Standard Sig. Mean

Gender N Mean deviation t df (two-tailed) dierence
Preservice mathematics Education Female 639 5.35 2.20 2.233 824 .026 .420
teachers
Male 187 5.77 2.45
General Female 639 9.14 3.20 .318 824 .750 .088
Male 187 9.23 3.72
Preservice science Education Female 671 5.69 2.60 3.688 825 .000 .898
teachers
Male 156 6.59 3.26
General Female 671 9.30 3.70 2.237 825 .026 .758
Male 156 10.03 4.26
Preservice classroom Education Female 1,017 5.44 2.37 1.141 1,277 .254 .189
teachers
Male 262 5.63 2.45
General Female 1,017 9.17 3.28 .280 1,277 .779 .064
Male 262 9.11 3.43

17
 Misconceptions Regarding the Brain
better through their dominant learning style, and that chil-
dren should be allowed to choose the style that appeals to
them. However, Kayser (2007) noted that when the brain
sees, it also hears and touchesfor example, those who can-
not see form mental spatial maps in the same way as those
who can (Kriegseis, Hennighausen, Rsler, & Rder, 2006).
To do this, they use auditory and tactile inputs, which are
used as if they were visual. It follows that it is incorrect to
sharply delineate individual learning styles, and that there
is no evidence of any educational advantage in teaching or
learning through the preferred learning style. The prevalence
of this neuromyth among preservice teachers is likely to
aect their professional development and to misdirect their
teaching approach.
Another prevalent neuromyth among preservice teachers
is Dierences in hemispheric dominance (left brain, right
brain) can help to explain individual dierences among
learners. This misconception is based on clinical research
on split-brain patients in the 1960s. Subsequently, the
results were oversimplied to suggest that, because the
left brain operated analytically and the right brain holisti-
cally, students should be taught separately in the classroom
according to hemispheric dominance. In fact, all these
claims were found to be wrong (Geake, 2005), as most
cerebral functions involve both hemispheres. While it is
true that one hemisphere may be more active during cer-
tain tasks (Karakus et al., 2015), the separation of humans
into right- and left-brained is a misinterpretation, and
there is no reliable evidence that hemispheric dominance
is of direct relevance to teaching and learning activities.
Indeed, performance and learning aspects of most daily
tasks require the involvement of both hemispheres (Karakus
et al., 2015). In addition, Singh and OBoyle (2004) noted
that the brain was not composed of two hemispheres oper-
ating separately, and that dierent cognitive characteristics
in the left and the right brain were quite well-integrated.
Walsh et al. (2003) further asserted that cerebral func-
tions and behaviors could best be explained in terms of
the connectivity between cerebral structures rather than
by localization.
Items related to nutrients and consumption of water
were among the most popular behavior-related neuromyths,
including It has been scientically proven that fatty acid
supplements (omega-3 and omega-6) have a positive eect
on academic achievement. Separately, most participants
answered dont know for Drinking water fewer than six to
eight glasses a day causes the brain to shrink. According
to the Brain Gym approach, drinking water promotes learn-
ing. In fact, drinking water is considered benecial because it
maintains hydration within the body (Howard-Jones, 2008);
there is also evidence that eliminating water from the body
will slow down cerebral functions (Rato et al., 2013), but
generalizing this information to suggest that Drinking less
18
than six to eight glasses of water a day can cause the brain
to shrink is a neuromyth (Howard-Jones et al., 2009). As
to whether omega-3 supplement has a potentially positive
eect, while positive results were found within the general
population, no scientically valid evidence was found in sup-
port of that argument (Howard-Jones et al., 2009). Neverthe-
less, most preservice teachers stated that these items were
true, on the basis that nutrients like omega-3 are considered
to boost childrens attention.
The item We mostly only use 10% of our brains
was deemed true by a majority of participants, align-
ing preservice teachers in Turkey with the ndings of
earlier studies elsewhere (Dekker et al., 2012; Geake,
2008; Howard-Jones et al., 2009; Karakus et al., 2015;
Pasquinelli, 2012). This neuromyth is thought to result
from ideas about the unused potential of the human mind
(unproven parapsychological arguments) or from neu-
roanatomical evidence related to glianeuron ratios or
white mattergray matter ratios (Della Sala, 2007; Lilien-
feld et al., 2011). This idea originally gained momentum
following a radio interview with Albert Einstein in the
1920s. Prior to World War II, at a time when some Amer-
ican companies advertising a home-care manual sought
to persuade their customers by inventing this 10% gure,
the myth achieved wide circulation (Geake, 2008). Later,
toward the end of the twentieth century, it was adopted by
some enthusiastic educators, which inuenced educational
environments.
Other prevalent neuromyths among preservice teachers
included Exercises that rehearse co-ordination of motor
perception skills can improve literacy skills and Short
bouts of co-ordination exercises can improve integration of
left and right hemispheric brain function. Here, the con-
tention was that motor perceptual abilities would improve
when certain exercises were performed, stimulating certain
parts of the brain (Geake, 2005). This so-called Brain Gym
approach recommends a series of exercises to enrich aca-
demic and other learning abilities. The method is thought to
have its origins in contested earlier theories such as Ortons
mixed cerebral dominance, perceptual motor training, and
neurological remodeling (Tardif, Doudin, & Meylan, 2015).
However, apart from their lack of theoretical infrastructure,
these theories also lacked empirical validation (Tardif et al.,
2015), reducing any proposed applications to the status of
neuromyth.
The present study also established that many preservice
teachers neuromyths relate to the item Children must
acquire their native language before a second language
is learned. If they do not do so neither language will be
fully acquired. It appears likely that this neuromyth has
developed in Turkey because of the prevailing attitude
to multilingualism. About 10 languages are spoken in
Turkey, and although most people speak Turkish, many
 Sefa Dndar and Nazan Gndz
dierent races and languages are represented (Karakus
et al., 2015).
In line with the ndings of Karakus et al. (2015), about
70% of study participants were found to subscribe to the
neuromyth There are no critical periods in childhood after
which you cannot learn some things, just sensitive periods
when its easier. Neuroscience research shows that there are
periods for the learning process that are sensitive rather than
critical, during which learning can be eciently achieved.
In general terms, then, the present study conrmed the
prevalence of certain neuromyths among participating pre-
service teachers. Of these, the general misconceptions were
more problematic than the educational ones. For instance,
participants were found to have almost no knowledge of the
assertion The electroencephalogram gives a measure of the
development of each brain region, which fell into the cate-
gory of general assertions. The fact that preservice teachers
appear to lack further information may be explained by the
fact that this item entails technical knowledge. Alternatively,
it may be that more comments were made on the educa-
tional assertions because of participants sense of identity as
educators.
The analysis also considered whether or not the neu-
romyths of preservice teachers varied by departmentin
this case, the departments of class teaching (for primary
school courses) and the departments of mathematics and
science teaching (for secondary school courses). While neu-
roscience is more closely associated with biology, these
three were considered most convenient for present pur-
poses in terms of the integration of these concepts into
classes. Although preservice math teachers do not deal
explicitly with neuroscience during their university edu-
cation, they engage quite intensively with such subjects
in preparing for university exams. Indeed, the analysis by
department revealed that the preservice science teachers
recorded the highest levels of both educational and gen-
eral neuromyths, followed by class teachers and preservice
mathematics teachers. This striking nding may reect the
fact that neuroscience is categorized as one of the physi-
cal sciences, and that teachers involved in the subject pay
more attention to neuroscience data and practices consid-
ered applicable in the educational eld, so adopting these in
the course of their professional development.
Neuromyth scores in each department were also exam-
ined according to grade levels. Dierences in both educa-
tional and general neuromyth scores among grade levels
proved signicant in the departments of mathematics and
science. In class teaching, however, no signicant dier-
ence was found in educational and general neuromyth scores
among grade levels. The dierence by grade level had a mod-
erate eect size in the department of mathematics teach-
ing, but was eective at a high level in science teaching.
It was concluded that the neuromyth scores of preservice
mathematics teachers declined from the rst grade toward
the third grade but increased again in the fourth grade, which
may be because preservice teachers practices in the senior
grade involved some knowledge of neuroscience, which they
applied in their classes.
Similarly, neuromyths in the department of science
showed a decline from the rst grade toward the third
grade, but a relatively higher neuromyth score was found
among fourth grade preservice teachers. It also emerged
that the educational neuromyth scores of preservice science
teachers who had successfully completed biology courses
proved higher than those who did not take such a course.
The nding that the neuromyth scores of teachers in the
rst grade proved high may reect the fact that they had just
passed their university preparation exam (LYS), or that they
had taken more biology courses. While there was also no
signicant dierence among grade levels for math or science
teachers in the fourth grade, the high mean educational neu-
romyth scores of preservice classroom teachers may indicate
that they were exposed to certain informationrelated for
instance to neuroscience practices integrated into edu-
cation, or the use of 10% of the brain, or hemispheric
dominancereinforced by an increased tendency to believe
such information during their probationary period.
Sources of information such as books, popular science
journals, and newspapers can also be seen to aect the
neuromyth scores of preservice teachers. For example,
the popular media may inuence the development and
prevalence of myths by popularizing neuroscience ndings
and suggest that these are easily applied in the classroom
(Beck, 2010; Wallace, 1993). The present analysis of preser-
vice teachers educational and general neuromyth scores
in each department in relation to the number of books
they read found no signicant dierences. This may be
because the books read by preservice teachers are not
neuroscience-related; indeed, not every book boosts the
neuroscience literacy of preservice teachers. In general, the
present ndings align with those of Howard-Jones et al.
(2009). However, it was observed that as book reading
increased, educational neuromyth scores declined.
The analysis of book-reading levels found that, as for the
change in neuromyth scores by department, there was a
signicant dierence only in educational neuromyth scores
among those that read few books, most negatively for pre-
service science teachers. This eect size was at rather a small
eect. In relation to reading popular scientic journals, no
signicant dierence was found in general neuromyth scores
in the department of math teaching. In the departments of
science and class teaching, there were signicant dierences
in favor of those that always read as compared to those
that sometimes read. The eect size of these dierences
was small. While signicant dierences were observed
in the educational neuromyth scores of preservice math
19
 Misconceptions Regarding the Brain
and science teachers according to journal reading level,
no such dierence was found among preservice classroom
teachers. Interestingly, those who never read popular scien-
tic journals subscribed to signicantly fewer educational
neuromyths than those who read journals sometimes or
always. In other words, whereas those who followed popular
scientic journals returned lower general neuromyth scores
of levels, their educational neuromyth scores were at higher
levels.
On that basis, we may conclude that reading popular
scientic journals has a positive (if small eect) eect on
minimizing general neuromyths and boosting neuroscience
literacy. However, those preservice teachers who read pop-
ular scientic journals may still subscribe to neuromyths
if they simplify neuroscience data and practice them in
the classroom without thinking critically. While there was
a signicant dierence in educational neuromyth scores
across departments according to journal reading level, no
signicant dierence was found in general neuromyths.
It can be concluded that, among those who never read
journals, preservice class teachers have higher educational
neuromyth scores than those in other departments. Among
those who sometimes or always read, preservice science
teachers have higher neuromyth scores than those in the
other departments. The eect size of these dierences,
however, is moderate in those who never read and lower in
the others. Among those who sometimes read popular sci-
entic journals, both educational and general neuromyths
were found to be at higher levels than among those who
never or always read.
Similarly, there were no signicant dierences in gen-
eral neuromyth scores in the departments of mathemat-
ics and science according to newspaper-reading level, but
in the department of class teaching those who constantly
read newspapers were observed to have signicantly lower
neuromyth scores when compared to those who sometimes
or never read. In relation to educational neuromyths, pre-
service science teachers who always read newspapers were
found to have signicantly lower neuromyth scores than
those who sometimes read. It was concluded that these
dierences had small size eect size. Howard-Jones et al.
(2009) found that those who read newspapers had lower
neuromyth averages than those who did not, and that those
who read scientic journals had lower neuromyth averages
than those who did not. In line with the present ndings,
they concluded that the number of books read had no eect
on the development of neuromyths. However, Dekker et al.
(2012) concluded that reading popular scientic journals
was not an eective variable on the information regarding
neuroscience. In addition, Herculano-Houzel (2002) con-
cluded that reading books, popular scientic journals, and
newspapers were neuromyth-minimizing variables, which
again aligns with the present results.
20
Analysis of how neuromyth scores diered according to
the gender of preservice teachers showed that the neu-
romyth scores of females were lower than those of males
for both educational and general assertions. This dierence
was signicant for educational neuromyth scores but not
for general assertions. The neuromyth scores of female pre-
service teachers may reect their greater curiosity about
neuroscience ndings. Contrary to the present ndings,
Dekker et al. (2012) and Karakus et al. (2015) found that
gender had no eect on neuromyths. However, the sam-
pling approach used here may explain why female preser-
vice teachers neuromyth scores were lower. In relation to
department attended, a signicant gender dierence in edu-
cational neuromyth scores was observed for math and sci-
ence teachers, but there was no such dierence among
class teachers. For general neuromyths, a signicant dif-
ference between genders was found only among science
teachers.
CONCLUSION
The present ndings conrm the prevalence of neuromyths
among preservice teachers. Neuromyth scores were found
to vary by department and were generally more preva-
lent among preservice science teachers. It also emerged
that rst- and fourth-grade preservice teachers subscribed
to more neuromyths. Neuromyth scores did not vary
with book-reading level, but did vary with journal and
newspaper-reading levels. In terms of gender dierences,
males exhibited more educational neuromyths than females.
These results provide important guidance to limit the mis-
application of brain-based ideas in the educational practices
of preservice teachers. The study identied misconceptions
about neuroscience as adopted by preservice teachers; future
research should analyze these data in greater depth, and
incorporate necessary training to assist preservice teachers
in avoiding these myths. Greater access to information about
the brain may not completely reduce neuromyths among
preservice teachers, but further interdisciplinary studies
can help to minimize these myths. It is clearly dicult to
integrate neuroscience into the educational sciences, but
there is reason to hope that serious advances can be made
in educational neuroscience through the combined eorts
of experts in both elds.
REFERENCES
Ansari, D., & Coch, D. (2006). Bridges over troubled waters: Educa-
tion and cognitive neuroscience. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,
10(4), 146151.
Ansari, D., Coch, D., & De Smedt, B. (2011). Connecting education
and cognitive neuroscience: Where will the journey take us?
Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(1), 3742.
 Sefa Dndar and Nazan Gndz
Beck, D. M. (2010). The appeal of the brain in the popular press.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 762766.
Boetzkes, S., Van Hoeck, K., Verbrugghe, W., Ramet, J., Woj-
ciechowski, M., & Jorens, P. G. (2010). Two unusual pediatric
cases of dilutional hyponatremia. Pediatric Emergency Care,
26, 503505.
Coch, D., & Ansari, D. (2009). Thinking about mechanisms is cru-
cial to connecting neuroscience and education. Cortex, 45,
546547.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sci-
ences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dekker, S., Lee, N. C., Howard-Jones, P., & Jolles, J. (2012). Neu-
romyths in education: Prevalence and predictors of miscon-
ceptions among teachers. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 429.
doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00429
Della Sala, S. (2007). Tall tales about the mind and brain: Separating
fact from ction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Devonshire, I. M., & Dommett, E. J. (2010). Neuroscience: Viable
applications in education? The Neuroscientist, 16(4), 349356.
Dunn, R. S., Dunn, K. J., & Price, G. E. (1989). Learning style
inventory (LSI). Lawrence, KS: Price Systems Incorporated.
Geake, J. (2005). Educational neuroscience and neuroscience edu-
cation: In search of a mutual middle-way. Research Intelli-
gence, 92, 1013.
Geake, J. (2008). Neuromythologies in education. Educational
Research, 50(2), 123133.
Geake, J., & Cooper, P. (2003). Cognitive neuroscience: Implications
for education? Westminster Studies in Education, 26(1), 720.
Goswami, U. (2004). Neuroscience and education. British Journal
of Educational Psychology, 74(1), 114.
Goswami, U. (2006). Neuroscience and education: From research
to practice? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 7(5), 406413.
Goswami, U. (2008). Principles of learning, implications for teach-
ing: A cognitive neuroscience perspective. Journal of Philoso-
phy of Education, 42, 381399.
Hambleton, R. K., & Bollwark, J. (1991). Adapting tests for use in
dierent cultures: Technical issues and methods. Bulletin of
the International Testing Commission, 18, 332.
Herculano-Houzel, S. (2002). Do you know your brain? A survey on
public neuroscience literacy at the closing of the decade of the
brain. The Neuroscientist, 8(2), 98110.
Howard-Jones, P. (2008). Philosophical challenges for researchers
at the interface between neuroscience and education. Journal
of Philosophy of Education, 42, 361380.
Howard-Jones, P. (2010). Introducing neuroeducational research:
Neuroscience, education and the brain from contexts to prac-
tice. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Howard-Jones, P., Franey, L., Mashmoushi, R., & Liao, Y.-C. (2009,
September). The neuroscience literacy of trainee teachers.
Paper presented at the British Educational Research Associa-
tion Annual Conference, 139, University of Manchester.
Jolles, J., De Groot, R. H. M., Van Benthem, J., Dekkers, H., De
Glopper, C., Uijlings, H., & Wol-Albers, A. (2005). Brain
lessons. Maastricht, The Netherlands: Neuropsych Publishers.
Karakus, O., Howard-Jones, P. A., & Jay, T. (2015). Primary and
secondary school teachers knowledge and misconceptions
about the brain in Turkey. Procedia: Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 174, 19331940.
Kayser, C. (2007). Listening with your eyes. Scientic American
Mind, 18(2), 2429.
Kriegseis, A., Hennighausen, E., Rsler, F., & Rder, B. (2006).
Reduced EEG alpha activity over parieto-occipital brain areas
in congenitally blind adults. Clinical Neurophysiology, 117,
15601573.
Lilienfeld, S. O., Lynn, S. J., Ruscio, J., & Beyerstein, B. L. (2011).
50 great myths of popular psychology: Shattering widespread
misconceptions about human behavior. Chichester, UK:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis:
An expanded sourcebook. London, UK: Sage.
Miyamoto, K., Ichikawa, J., Okuya, M., Tsuboi, T., Hirao, J. I., &
Arisaka, O. (2012). Too little water or too much: Hypona-
tremia due to excess uid intake. Acta Paediatrica, 101(9),
e390e391.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation, and Development (2002).
Understanding the brain: Towards a new learning science.
Paris, France: OECD.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2007).
Understanding the brain: The birth of a learning science. Paris,
France: OECD.
Pasquinelli, E. (2012). Neuromyths: Why do they exist and persist?
Mind, Brain, and Education, 6, 8996.
Rato, J. R., Abreu, A. M., & Castro-Caldas, A. (2013). Neuromyths
in education: What is fact and what is ction for Portuguese
teachers? Educational Research, 55, 441453.
Samuels, B. M. (2009). Can the dierences between education and
neuroscience be overcome by mind, brain, and education?
Mind, Brain, and Education, 3, 4555.
Singh, H., & OBoyle, M. W. (2004). Interhemispheric interac-
tion during globallocal processing in mathematically gifted
adolescents, average-ability youth, and college students. Neu-
ropsychology, 18(2), 371377.
Tardif, E., & Doudin, P. (2011). Neurosciences cognitives et du-
cation: Le dbut dune collaboration. Revue des Hautes coles
pdagogiques, 12, 95116.
Tardif, W., Doudin, P. A., & Meylan, N. (2015). Neuromyths among
teachers and student teachers. Mind, Brain, and Education, 9,
5059.
Thierry, G., Giraud, A.-L., & Price, C. (2003). Hemispheric disso-
ciation in access to the human semantic system. Neuron, 38,
499506.
Wallace, M. (1993). Discourse of derision: The role of the mass
media within the education policy process. Journal of Educa-
tion Policy, 8, 321337.
Walsh, V., Pascual-Leone, A., & Kosslyn, S. M. (2003). Transcranial
magnetic stimulation: A neurochronometrics of mind. Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wanjek, C. (2002). 10 percent misconception, 90 percent misdi-
rection: The brain at work. In C. Wanjek (Ed.), Bad medicine:
Misconceptions and misuses revealed, from distance healing to
vitamin O. New York, NY: Wiley.
21