Neuromyths that persist in schools

Among recent sciences, neuroscience is the most fascinating and complicated. Logical, since they literally study the driving force behind human thought and action: the brain. Society would like to believe that the majority of its actions can be explained by a cerebral mechanism or a malfunction in some part of the brain. As a result, the education system takes a keen interest in everything to do with the cortex, to see how its discoveries can transform learning methods and generate cohorts of geniuses.

Inevitably, this obsession with our grey matter leads, as we've already mentioned, to excesses. It's very easy to propagate myths. There's a fine line between science and pseudoscience. BrainGym in the UK is a case in point.

The BrainGym example

What is BrainGym? It's an educational program that claims to be revolutionary. It is based on "scientific studies" which demonstrate that specific physical exercises activate certain "dormant" areas of the brain, promoting learning and the development of intelligence. Naturally, a program that claims to be able to improve children's intelligence has attracted the attention of many schools in Great Britain who have signed up to the program, even though it requires the purchase of equipment worth several thousand pounds. But what is this amount compared to the possibility of a truly better success rate in one's school?

The problem is that BrainGym's claims have no scientific basis, says Sense about science, an organization that has been working for the past 10 years to get the media to broadcast scientific studies that actually demonstrate what they're saying. While physical activity is highly beneficial for children, it does not awaken "dormant areas" of the brain. Cognitive scientists have happily debunked every one of BrainGym's pseudoscientific arguments. And yet, despite their work and a government report which effectively shows that there is no concrete evidence of the program's benefits, some 180 schools in the UK continue to adhere to it and, consequently, to throw good money after bad.

False or abstract theories

The BrainGym case is just one example of the many that continue to promote fanciful interpretations of scientific research. In fact, at the start of 2014, Sense about Science listed all the neuromyths circulating in educational establishments. For example, although we've known for some years that the two hemispheres of the brain work simultaneously, the idea of the two hemispheres (the rational and the emotional) working separately is still popular with the general public, including teachers.

The same goes for the supposed theory of visual, auditory and kinaesthetic learners, which is still very much alive in classrooms, despite the fact that many brain specialists have been rejecting the notion of innate learning styles for some years now. A recent study shows that 93% of teachers in England still believe that children learn best when they are taught according to their own style.

The theory of multiple intelligences is also extremely criticized by the organization, which sees no rigorous studies demonstrating the effectiveness of programs stimulating different intelligences. However, some experiments have produced positive effects, such as increased motivation or higher marks. But, according to the members of Sense about Science and those of the government organization that inspects schools (Ofsted), such feedback raises questions. Are they not part of the Hawthorne or Pygmalion effect? It's very easy for learners to improve their results, or at least be more motivated to learn, knowing that they're at the heart of a process of experimentation.

For Science about Sense, it would be important for real verification protocols to be put in place to deal with neuromyths and the teaching methods that stem from them. The aim is to put a stop to the application of erroneous approaches or approaches based on allegations unsupported by facts. So there's work to be done to separate the undeniable discoveries of neuroscience from the simplistic applications that sometimes follow. But how can impartial verification protocols be established? And will public authorities be prepared to invest large sums of money to do so?

Illustration: Yuttasak Jannarong, shutterstock

References

Ball, Philip. "The neuromyths of the classrooms." Prospect Magazine. Last updated March 3, 2014. http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ball/do-our-brains-make-us-do-it-neuroscienc/#.UzyjlaKSby2.

Buch, Prateek. "Neuromyths and why they persist in the classroom." Sense about Science. Last updated January 7, 2014. http://www.senseaboutscience.org/blog.php/77/neuromyths-and-why-they-persist-in-the-classroom.

Decker, Sanne, Nikki C. Lee, Paul Howard-Jones, and Jelle Jones. "Neuromyths in Education: Prevalence and Predictors of Misconceptions among Teachers." National Center for Biotechnology Information. Last updated October 18, 2012. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3475349/.

Roberge, Alexandre. "When Neuroscience is Made to Say Anything." Thot Cursus. Last updated June 5, 2013. http://cursus.edu/dossiers-articles/articles/20058/quand-fait-dire-importe-quoi-aux/#.UzykwqKSby0.

Strauss, Valerie. "The Answer Sheet - Willingham: Left/right brain theory is bunk." The Washington Post. Last updated: September 20, 2010. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/daniel-willingham/willingham-the-leftright-brain.html.