Addressing neuromyths about learning difficulties

Executive summary

• It is estimated to 10-20% of students in every classroom have learning difficulties.
• Neuromyths about learning difficulties can lead to ineffective practice and stigma.
• To address neuromyths related to learning difficulties teachers require continued access to co-created training between teachers and scientists about the complexity of learning difficulties as revealed by cognitive neuroscience.

Introduction

It is estimated that around 10-20% of students may experience some form of learning difficulty or learning disability. This can include conditions such as dyslexia, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and others. Although not all of these students have intellectual disabilities, many of these them have been found to have lower educational outcomes compared to their peers (Tuckett et al., 2022). As many of these students attend mainstream schools, there is a need for educators to support the diverse needs of all students in their classrooms. However, recent research has shown that teachers and members of the lay public endorse a number of neuromyths related to various learning difficulties (Bei et al., 2024; Gini et al., 2021; MacDonald et al. 2017).

Neuromyths can be defined as incorrect beliefs about how the brain develops or learns. These incorrect beliefs often occur through a misunderstanding, a misreading, or a misquoting of neuroscience research and how this knowledge is applied in education and other contexts. Their myth status means they are enduring and continue to circulate as scientifically based truths, even when their claims are repeatedly shown to be false (Howard-Jones, 2014).

Neuromyths have grown in popularity, despite the best efforts of educational neuroscience, an emerging field that aims to use robust research findings related to the neural mechanisms of learning to design evidence-based guidelines for educational practices (Fischer et al., 2010). Wilst it can be argued that neuromyths are merely teething problems in the translation from educational neuroscience to practitioners, which is evidenced by the finding that neuromyths related to the general brain have been decreasing (Gini et al., 2021), neuromyths can provide an insight into where and why misunderstanding about learning difficulties occur.

Neuromyths related to learning difficulties seem to cluster around over-simplistic single-cause explanations (for example, dyslexia is caused by visual stress and thus results in letter-reversals), and over-generalisations (i.e., all children with ADHD are hyperactive) of how learning is compromised by the learning difficulties and what might be potential solutions (MacDonald et al., 2017).

Factors influencing the endorsement of neuromyths related to learning difficulties

Although teachers across the globe are often found to endorse similar incorrect beliefs about learning difficulties as members of the lay public (Gini et al., 2021; Armstrong-Gallegos et al., 2024), there are many factors (such as years of experience, higest level of education achieved, exposure to peer-reviewed science) that impact on whether incorrect beliefs are endorsed and these seem to be similar across different countries around the world (see Grospietsch & Lins, 2021). For example, accessing information about the brain and exposure to neuroscience courses have been found to be a protective factor and related to more correct beliefs (Gini et al., 2021; MacDonald et al., 2017). In addition, having access to specific training and knowledge about learning difficulties so that teachers have more understanding and familiarity with different learning needs impacts on the endorsement of neuromyths (Papadatou-Pastou et al., 2017; Armstrong-Gallegos et al., 2024).

Impact of neuromyths about learning difficulties

The endorsement of neuromyths can result in significant issues when it comes to learning difficulties, in that it can lead to incorrect labelling, incorrect support being provided or even stigma (Washburn et al., 2017; Gini et al., 2021). For example, as noted one frequently endorsed neuromyth is that students with dyslexia make letter reversals (i.e. confusing letters b and d) due to visual stress. Although some children with dyslexia may exhibit letter reversals, it is not considered a defining characteristic of dyslexia as also typically developing children often reverse letters or show ‘mirror writing’. Therefore, if letter or word reversal is thought to be a primary indicator of dyslexia and a child does not demonstrate this behaviour, they may not be suspected of having dyslexia. Instead, their difficulties with literacy development might be mistakenly attributed to lower intelligence or perceived laziness. Similarly, incorrect attributions about causes of learning difficulties do not only lead to incorrect labelling but also incorrect support being provided. For example, many educators are convinced that visual overlays or coloured overlays (a transparent coloured sheet or filter placed over text to reduce visual discomfort and improve reading fluency) may help individuals with dyslexia read (Gini et al., 2021; Bei et al., 2024; Armstrong-Gallegos et al., 2023), despite this being questioned by research as most individuals with dyslexia do not experience any visual stress (Henderson et al., 2013).

Addressing neuromyths about learning difficulties

Seeing the impact neuromyths can have on identification, teaching support, and stigma for those with learning difficulties, it is important to examine how neuromyths can be addressed. Current evidence suggests that an integrated approach is required.

While the existing literature has shown that elevated neuroscience knowledge may be a protective factor against neuromyths endorsement, integrating more neuroscience into teacher education alone seems not sufficient, as most pre-service teachers already enter the profession with misconceptions about students with learning difficulties and some of these are rooted in personal experience and belief systems (Ferrero et al., 2016). As such, incorrect beliefs about learning difficulties need to be targeted explicitly. Indeed, refutation lectures and briefings that directly address neuromyths seem to provide some short-term effect on more correct information being endorsed (McMahon et al., 2019).

As a result, there have been a number of toolkits that have been produced that help to address neruomyths related to learning difficulties (see for example, http://www.educationalneuroscience.org.uk/neurosense-resources/). Yet, there is contradictory evidence on whether the impact of these refutational exercises have a lasting effect (Ferrero et al., 2020; Lithander et al., 2021). One explanation that has been provided is that refutation texts do not work to change people’s beliefs and thus, the impact will only have short-term effects (Newton & Salvi, 2020). In addition, teachers and lay people are required to be intuitive thinkers and rely on anecdotal sources of evidence as they often do not have access to the latest science or refutation actitivies (Menz et al., 2021).

Moving forward

Given that neuromyths concerning learning challenges often stem from deeply ingrained personal beliefs formed prior to teachers’ professional training, and considering that new evidence from educational neuroscience is constantly emerging and improving our knowledge on how children learn (especially for those with learning difficulties), a proactive strategy is essential. This approach necessitates the development of co-produced courses by experts in educational neuroscience and teachers encompassing educational neuroscience and learning mechanisms. Policy makers could facilitate this progression through making these courses part of initial teacher training, as this will foster bi-directional communication and establish a shared language between scientists and educators. By providing teachers with comprehensive insights into general learning mechanisms and specific learning difficulties, the creation of new neuromyths can be prevented as these courses would establish a foundation of understanding that would enable teachers to make more effective use of the typically limited exposure they have to research findings. Moreover, enhancing teachers’ understanding of how, why, and when children learn, alongside detailed information on learning difficulties, will empower them to engage in critical thinking and discern between truths and falsehoods that might be exaggerbated through social media (see for example, false information that spread during the COVID-19 pandemic via social media). Finally, integrating training on cognitive biases and research methodologies into these courses will enable teachers to effectively evaluate evidence.

Although such approaches seem to have some success (Im et al., 2018), just providing teachers with more knowledge might not affect their teaching and it is important to ensure there is translation from knowledge to teaching practice. One way to achieve translation from knowledge into practice that can be facilitated by policy makers would be to allow trained mentors and expert colleagues to work directly with educators (see for example Early Career Framework, Department for Education in the UK). Collaborative mentoring opportunities would enable a heightened emphasis on addressing teachers’ most pressing inquiries and providing tailored support. Furthermore, they would facilitate a closer alignment between the insights generated by scientists and teaching practices.

Conclusion

Neuromyths related to learning difficulties have the tendency to rely on a single fact or explanation for learning difficulties, and seem to underestimate the complexity of learning and how cognitive skills come together over development (MacDonald et al., 2017). Addressing these neuromyths would require teachers to obtain a better understanding of educational neuroscience but also learning difficulties through specific co-produced courses and to have guidance in the form of mentorships that can translate knowledge into specific teaching practices and address teachers’ most pressing needs. Although these solutions might not eliminate beliefs in neuromyths, they will reduce their impact by  providing teachers with the knowledge and skills to evaluate and apply evidence from educational neuroscience.

References

Armstrong-Gallegos, S., Van Herwegen, J., & Ipinza, V. F. (2023). Neuromyths about neurodevelopmental disorders in Chilean teachers. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 100218.

Bei, E., Argiropoulos, D., Van Herwegen, J., Incognito, O., Menichetti, L., Tarchi, C., & Pecini, C. (2024). Neuromyths: Misconceptions about neurodevelopment by Italian teachers. Trends in Neuroscience and Education.

Ferrero, M., Garaizar, P., & Vadillo, M. A. (2016). Neuromyths in Education: Prevalence among Spanish Teachers and an Exploration of Cross-Cultural Variation. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00496

Ferrero, M., Hardwicke, T. E., Konstantinidis, E., & Vadillo, M. A. (2020). The effectiveness of refutation texts to correct misconceptions among educators. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 26(3), 411–421. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000258

Fischer, K.W., Goswami, U. & Geake, J. (2010). The Future of Educational Neuroscience. Mind, Brain, and Education, 4(2), 68–80.

Gini, S., Knowland, V., Thomas, M.S.C. & Van Herwegen, J. (2021). Neuromyths about neurodevelopmental disorders: Misconceptions by educators and the general public. Mind, Brain & Education 15(4), 289-298.

Grospietsch, F., & Lins, I. (2021). Review on the Prevalence and Persistence of Neuromyths in Education – Where We Stand and What Is Still Needed. Frontiers in Education, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.665752

Henderson, L. M., Tsogka, N., & Snowling, M. J. (2013). Questioning the benefits that coloured overlays can have for reading in students with and without dyslexia. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 13(1), 57-65.

Howard-Jones, P. A. (2014). Neuroscience and Education: Myths and Messages. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 15, 817. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3817

Im, S. H., Cho, J. Y., Dubinsky, J. M., & Varma, S. (2018). Taking an educational psychology course improves neuroscience literacy but does not reduce belief in neuromyths. PloS one, 13(2), e0192163.

Lithander, M. P. G., Geraci, L., Karaca, M., & Rydberg, J. (2021). Correcting neuromyths: A comparison of different types of refutations. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 10(4), 577–588. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0101862

Macdonald. K., Germine, L., Anderson, A., Christodoulou, J. & McGrath, L.M. (2017). Dispelling the Myth: Training in Education or Neuroscience Decreases but Does Not Eliminate Beliefs in Neuromyths. Frontiers in Psychology 8, 1314.

Menz, C., Spinath, B., Hendriks, F., & Seifried, E. (2021). Reducing educational psychological misconceptions: How effective are standard lectures, refutation lectures, and instruction in information evaluation strategies? Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000269

McMahon, K., Yeh, C. S. H., and Etchells, P. J. (2019). The Impact of a Modified Initial Teacher Education on Challenging Trainees’ Understanding of Neuromyths. Mind, Brain and Education, 13 (4), 288–297. doi:10.1111/mbe.12219

Newton, P. M., & Salvi, A. (2020). How common is belief in the learning styles neuromyth, and does it matter? A pragmatic systematic review. Frontiers in Education 5, 270.

Papadatou-Pastou, M., Haliou, E., & Vlachos, F. (2017). Brain Knowledge and the Prevalence of Neuromyths among Prospective Teachers in Greece. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00804

Tuckett, S., Hunt, E., Robinson, D., & Cruikshanks, R. (2022). Covid-19 and disadvantage gaps in England 2021. Education Policy Institute: https://epi.org.uk/ [Last accessed 2/03/2024].

Washburn, E., Binks-Cantrell, E. & Joshi, R.M. (2014). What Do Preservice Teachers from the USA and the UK Know about Dyslexia? Dyslexia (Chichester, England), 20(1): 1–18.