DEBUNKING 4 COMMON NEUROMYTHS: EXPLORING MISCONCEPTIONS IN ‘BRAIN FRIENDLY’ TEACHING
The recent advancement of neuroscience research has brought hope to teachers around the world. It seemed like their many challenges in the classroom were going to be solved with a deep understanding of the brain. In fact, it has been a very profitable business to promote (supposedly) "brain-based" methodologies for teachers and students to learn more and better. However, neuroscientists themselves have warned the teaching community of the lack of practical usage that neuroscience has for education, at least up until now¹. As I discuss in the article "Do you need to know neuroscience to teach well?", it is indeed too early to make direct connections between neuroscientific discoveries and education, since the former is yet too distanced from the reality of learning.
And yet, we see more and more "neuroscience-based" strategies promoted in the educational field. Alarmingly, most of these strategies come from over-simplistic interpretations of neuroscience findings which spread false ideas about the brain and the teaching-learning process². These misconceptions have become so common that they were given the name of neuromyths.
Here are some of the most common neuromyths and why they are false:
1. Left-Brained and Right-Brained Students
You probably have already come across an online survey that claimed to reveal if you are left-brained or right-brained. This idea is also present in schools. It's not uncommon to see courses for teachers suggesting that they should identify each student as left-brained or right-brained to plan appropriate activities for each "type" of student. Supposedly, the left-brained people are more logical, analytical, and orderly; whereas the right-brained people are more emotional, creative, and intuitive. It follows that these courses tell teachers to lean on the inclinations of each "type of brain" to facilitate their learning process. The problem is: this has no scientific evidence whatsoever.
To be completely fair, there is indeed a connection between the hemispheres of the brain (left and right) and laterality. This means that the dominant brain hemisphere of an individual will dictate if the person is right-handed, left-handed, ambidextrous, or if they have what is called cross laterality. However, this is only related to the physical use of body parts such as hands, feet, and eyes. It does not correlate to learning.
There is no scientific proof whatsoever that people have different learning tendencies related to their dominant side of the brain. As a matter of fact, regardless of the individual's dominant brain hemisphere, both left and right hemispheres are extremely important for humans to function properly. More importantly, both hemispheres of the brain are in constant communication, which is essential for it to function as a whole. The corpus callosum is the region of the brain that allows for the connection of the left and right hemispheres of the brain. It is composed of millions of neuronal axons, which transmit information from one hemisphere to the other. These neuronal axons are transmitting information from one side of the brain to the other at all times, this means that both hemispheres work together for the brain to function properly.
Certainly different mental processes are more dependent on one hemisphere than another, such as language. Language is usually more dependent on the left side of the brain, because it is the location of the Wernicke's area, the Broca's area, the Angular Gyrus, and Insular Cortex; all essential areas of the brain for language function. However, despite the left-dominance of the language function, the brain still depends on the communication between its both hemispheres to be able to use language efficiently.
Besides, neuroscience studies show that people that have suffered injuries on the left hemisphere of the brain can develop language function on the right side of the brain as a result³. This indicates that the different brain hemispheres are not completely cemented into certain functions, as the idea of "right-brained or left-brained person" makes us believe. The brain is extremely plastic and can brilliantly adapt to different conditions⁴. This fact contradicts the idea that a "right-brained" individual necessarily has this or that trait for the entirety of their lives, since the brain can rearrange, learn and adapt so efficiently.
Therefore, teaching each student using a limited array of strategies dependent on their "brain lateralization" does not follow any scientific basis. In fact, it goes against the information the recent neuroscientific research has suggested to us. It is much more beneficial to use a variety of teaching strategies with all students than to divide students into specific types, and only use analytical teaching strategies to "left-brained students" and more creative or artsy teaching strategies to "right-brained students". In fact, all students should have experiences with different learning strategies in order to develop all cognitive functions as a whole.
As the neuroscientists Anna Márquez and Marta Tressera⁵ beautifully put it, "the students' brain is prepared to adapt to the demands of their educational surroundings. Thus, if the environment only asks for repetition and memorization of information, the neuroplasticity will allow their brains to adapt and specialize in this type of function. In contrast, if the educational requirements include the development of other complex cognitive functions, such as the ability to solve problems, for decision-making, and for creative thinking, the cerebral plasticity that underlies the learning process will allow students' brains to specialize in these types of functions." (own translation, p. 42).
Thus, categorizing students into "types of brains" and restricting their educational experiences to their "category" will not necessarily help them learn better, but it will surely limit their cognitive and personal development.
2. Learning Styles
A myth very similar to that of the "left-brained" or "right-brained" types of students is the idea that each person has a specific and cemented learning style. According to the learning styles "program", each individual has a specific learning style that, if used, will allow for more efficient learning. Supposedly, the styles are visual, auditive, and kinesthetic. These styles would correspond to the individual's preferred sensorial channel: the vision, the hearing or the physical movement and sensation. However, there is no empirical proof of real benefits related to this educational practice. In fact, as we already discussed, it seems that science suggests the opposite of the “learning styles” program to teach more effectively.
Yes, people are allowed to have (and people do indeed have) preferences when it comes to learning/studying. Some students are more comfortable reading about a subject while others have an easier time watching a video about said subject. That is not the point I want to discuss. The myth here is the idea that we, teachers, must assign only specific types of activities to certain students and other types of activities to other students.
For example, the learning styles idea suggests that if a classroom is divided into "visual and kinesthetic learners", the teacher would have to plan a type of visual activity (e.g. a video presentation) for the visual learners and a kinesthetic activity (e.g. a moving game) for kinesthetic learners to teach the same subject to the different groups of students.
Don't get me wrong, I am all for planning different activities to teach a single subject, but for completely different reasons than the "learning styles". And here are the reasons why:
In the first place, it is extremely hard to clearly determine a single pure style of learning for each individual for all cognitive functions⁵. In the majority of studies that tried to determine the learning style of individuals, participants would fall in the middle zone, they use different styles of learning for different situations. This means, there is hardly any individual with a "pure" learning style⁶ per se.
Secondly, the real evidence that was truly proven by empirical studies is that a variety of sensorial methods of teaching benefit all students alike. Not restricting oneself to a single sensorial channel, but using a variety of teaching strategies that provokes different sensorial channels is truly beneficial to all students. Of course we should consider and respect the individual students' preferences, but, as teachers, we should always strive for finding more varied ways to make meaningful experiences for the students and to, sometimes, challenge them to go beyond their comfort zone.
In neuroscientific terms, the more neural networks are provoked when learning a subject, the more mental representations related to that subject will be created in the brain, which will make it easier for students to remember it and to relate it to additional new information. This means that, the more varied activities and experiences an individual has to learn/study a subject, the more likely it is that the individual will better assimilate and memorize the knowledge.
In conclusion, do not put your students into boxes of "these will watch videos", "these will make models", "these will read", etc. Offer all your students a variety of ways of thinking and learning. Show them videos, make debates, propose an artistic activity related to the subject, tell a joke, propose fun challenges, take them for a walk outside of the classroom, let them touch, see, hear, imagine, play… Make learning more than just a limiting idea of what each person can or cannot do.
3. We only use 10% of our brain
The idea that we only use 10% of our brain is commonly used in movie plots, such as Lucy (2014) or Limitless (2011), and it's totally fine for a sci-fi story to tell fantastic tales (click here for more movies of this genre). However, in real life, this "tale" is completely false. If we were to use only 10% of our brains we would have extremely serious neurological and cognitive issues.
In fact, there are no obscure zones of the brain that scientists don't yet know about⁶. Many brain functions depend on a series of articulated neural networks that are scattered all around the brain. For most human beings, there is no area of the brain that is never activated, unless there is some neurological issue at place.
As the neuroscientists Anna Márquez and Marta Tressera claim⁵: this myth possibly comes from erroneous interpretation of neuroimaging of the brain. Research reports and articles in the field of neuroscience usually show neuroimaging of the activation of parts of the brain that are under investigation in a specific study. These images only show activation in the areas of interest and it could seem as if the rest of the brain is not functioning, however that is not the case. In fact, the whole brain tends to be active most of the time of a person's life, but the neuroimaging in studies will show only the activation of the areas of interest for the purposes of the investigation.
Of course our brain is extremely plastic and it can change overtime. We can always learn new concepts, information and skills. Maybe if we consider all of humanity's knowledge that there is to know, most people do indeed know less than 10% of it. But, again, this does not mean we only use 10% of our brains, it only means we can always learn more. For most people, all areas of the human brain (or 100% of it) function and are used on a daily basis.
4. Brain Gym
The idea that there are certain exercises or movements that are especially beneficial for the brain can be found in many programs offered around the world. Many famous programs do indeed claim to teach certain motor skills and balance exercises that supposedly help with cerebral organization, focus and other cognitive benefits. Unfortunately, there is no amount of money that can buy a course that teaches you exact movements to make your brain "more effective", or more focused, or more "functional". That is because such a course does not exist.
Indeed, physical exercise has been proven to improve mental health and many mental functions, such as concentration, alertness, memory, mood, etc. Wendy Suzuki is a neuroscientist that, among others, has been committed to researching the brain-changing effects of physical exercise, and her work has confirmed the many benefits of physical exercise for many mental functions and for mental health⁷, such as increased attention, memory, better mood, decrease in anxiety and fatigue, etc (check out her TED talk if you want to know more of the benefits of physical exercise for the brain).
So, if physical exercise is indeed beneficial for the brain, how is brain gym a myth?
The benefits of physical exercise for the brain (and body) are 100% real, however the myth lies in the idea that only certain specific movements and exercises are good for the brain. The fact is that you do not need to buy an expensive program that will teach you the correct movements for your brain to improve, ANY sort of physical exercise will have the same positive impacts on your mental functions and health. Maybe even more so if it is an exercise you enjoy rather than a series of weirdly specific and excruciatingly boring movements.
For the teachers out there: yes, you should absolutely plan activities that involve movement in your classroom and you should absolutely make sure that the school where you work values physical activity and allows enough time for the students to engage in it. But the point is: do not spend your valuable money and time with programs that claim to have discovered the optimal movements for your students' brains, because any movement is optimal movement for the brain. From skipping rope to hide and seek, from dancing to going on walks around the school or parks, you have got a wide array of possible physical exercises you could do by yourself or you could propose to your students that are free of charge and just as beneficial as any other exercise program.
In Sum…
These are only some of the neuromyths we see circulating in informational channels. Unfortunately, there are much more myths being spread online, in institutions, and schools. As a matter of fact, often these myths are created or spread by people with the best of intentions, it is not always spread with a malicious goal of causing disinformation. And that is one more reason why we should always be careful and critical of new information that crosses our way.
The increasing fame of neuroscience is very positive in the sense that it does allow for more people to be informed of very interesting and important findings of this field of research, but it also poses certain risks. Many neuroscience studies end up being superficially or erroneously interpreted by non-experts which leads to the creation and spread of neuromyths such as the ones presented in this article. Be attentive and critical of new information, and do not spend your hard-earned money and your valuable time on programs "for the brain" without investigating a little deeper about what these programs' claim and their theoretical foundations.
And you? Have you seen any other neuromyths circulating out there that weren't mentioned in this article? Comment them below!
If you want to learn more about how neuroscience can TRULY be a tool for education, with real scientific basis from knowledgeable neuroscientists and educators, I highly recommend:
'10 Ideas Clave Neurociencia y Educación: Aportaciones para el Aula' by Anna C. Márquez and Marta P. Tresserra (for Spanish readers).
'Educational Neuroscience: The Basics' by Cathy Rogers and Michael S. C. Thomas
REFERENCES
1 Goswami, U. (2006): "Neuroscience and education: from research to practice?". Natural Review Neuroscience, vol. 7, p. 406–413. DOI:10.1038/nrn1907
2 Morrison, H.; Purdy, N. (2009): "Cognitive neuroscience and education: unravelling the confusion". Oxford Review of Education, vol. 35, p. 99-109. DOI: 10.1080/03054980802404741
3 Sveller C. et. al. (2006): "Relationship between language lateralization and handedness in left-hemispheric partial epilepsy". Neurology, vol. 67. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000244465.74707.42
Thiel, A. et. al. (2006): "From the left to the right: How the brain compensates progressive loss of language function". Brain and Language, vol. 98, p. 57-65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2006.01.007
4 Lövdén, M. et. al. (2013): "Structural brain plasticity in adult learning and development". Neuroscience & Behavioral Reviews, vol. 37, p. 2296-2310. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.02.014.
5 Márquez, A. C.; Tresserra, M. P. (2018): "10 ideas clave neurociencia y educación: Aportaciones para el aula". Editorial GRAÓ, 1st edition.
6 Spinath, B. (2019): "Psicología de la educación". Mente y Cerebro, n. 94, p. 78-82.
7 Basso, J.; Suzuki, W. (2017): "The effects of acute exercise on mood, cognition, neurophysiology, and neurochemical pathways: A review". IOS Press, p. 127-152. DOI: DOI 10.3233/BPL-160040
Lee, Y.; Ashman, T.; Shang A.; Suzuki, W. (2014): "Brief report: effects of exercise and self-affirmation intervention after traumatic brain injury". NeuroRehabilitation, vol. 35, p. 57-65. DOI: 10.3233/NRE-141100