Jo Van Herwegen, Associate Professor, Psychology and Human Development, Faculty of Education and Society, UCL, UK
Michael Thomas, Director, Centre for Educational Neuroscience, Birkbeck, University of London, UK
Chloe Marshall, Professor, Psychology and Human Development, Faculty of Education and Society, UCL, UK
Rebecca Gordon, Associate Professor, Psychology and Human Development, Faculty of Education and Society, UCL, UK
Introduction
Neuromyths are widely held misconceptions about how the brain works. They arise from several sources, including the oversimplification of scientific findings from cognitive neuroscience research, the public’s appetite for brain-related news, and pre-held beliefs about the brain (Pasquinelli, 2012). Their myth status means that they are enduring and continue to circulate as scientific truths, even when their claims are repeatedly shown to be false. Some of the most common neuromyths include the beliefs that humans only use 10 per cent of their
Join us or sign in now to view the rest of this page
You're viewing this site as a guest, which only allows you to view a limited amount of content.
To view this page and get access to all our resources, join the Chartered College of Teaching (it's £1 per year for trainee teachers and half price for ECTs) or log in if you're already a member.
Good article in terms of setting informed background about the existence and impact of neuromyths, with some applicability to special ed. However, this is largely confined to high-prevalence SEN encountered in typical mainstream classrooms, and the article leaves unexplored the question of the existence and impact of neuromyths in the special ed sector. The article also touches only tangentially upon the impact of those in senior and policy-making positions subscribing to neuromyths, and ditto those involved in ITE. Lastly, the title creates an expectation that there will be at least a signpost to a resource listing the most common and/or damaging neuromyths and the evidence against them; there isn’t one though. Of course, in an Impact article that is constrained in length, there is only so much that can be squeezed in, but an article like this in my view requires at least a link to a “further resources” page where some of these issues can be addressed or signposted.