1. ECC 2012-13
The risk of Neuromyths
POLICY-MAKING NEEDS (TO GET) SCIENCE (RIGHT)
OVERVIEW ON NEUROMYTHS
Origin
Characteristics
REASONS
Communication shortcomings
Neurophilia
Cognitive illusions and biases
INTEREST
2. ECC 2012
2012-13
• Rauscher, Shaw, Ky, 1993:
• effects of listening Mozart
Sonata for Two Pianos in
D Major (K.448)
• on adult spatial
capacities
• 8-9 points increase on IQ
scale
• Short term effects
• Failed to be confirmed
by other laboratories
3. ECC 2012
2012-13
The central finding of the
present paper however, is
certainly the noticeably higher
overall effect in studies
performed by Rauscher and
colleagues than in studies
performed by other researchers,
indicating systematically
moderating effects of lab
affiliation. On the whole, there is
little evidence left for a specific,
performance-enhancing Mozart
effect. (Pietschnig, et al, 2010)
4. ECC 2012-13
Mr. Miller, a Democrat, proposed as
part of his $12.5 billion state budget on
Tuesday to spend $105,000 to make
music available to each of the
approximately 100,000 children born in
Georgia each year.
‘‘No one questions that listening to
music at a very early age affects the
spatial, temporal reasoning that
underlies math and engineering and
even chess,'' the Governor said today.
''Having that infant listen to soothing
music helps those trillions of brain
connections to develop.’
6. ECC 2012
2012-13
Origins of neuromyths
1. Distortions of scientific
facts, undue simplifications
2. Offspring of scientific
hypotheses that have been
held true for a while, and
then abandoned because of
the emergence of new
evidence
3. Use of scientific jargon with
no scientific reference, even
loose
8. ECC 2012
2012-13
1. Distortions of scientific
facts, undue simplifications
2. Offspring of scientific
hypotheses that have been
held true for a while, and
then abandoned because of
the emergence of new
evidence
3. Use of scientific jargon with
no scientific reference, even
loose
10. ECC 2012
2012-13
1. Distortions of scientific
facts, undue simplifications
2. offspring of scientific
hypotheses that have been
held true for a while, and
then abandoned because of
the emergence of new
evidence
3. Use of scientific jargon with
no scientific reference, even
loose
14. ECC 2012
2012-13
Characteristics of neuromyths
¤ A. Neuromyths have a special
relationship with the science of the
brain
¤ develop in a climate of
neurophilia: the appetite for brain
facts
¤ develop in a period of
development of brain research
¤ B. are diffused and resilient to
change
¤ C. are affected by explicit instruction
about myths (Kowalski & Taylor 2009)
18. ECC 2012
2012-13
Memorable stories
¤ Stories that stick
¤ Concern people
¤ Have mystery
¤ Involve the search for
causes
¤ Are emotional
¤ Have a moral
¤ (Why not using them in
education?)
19. ECC 2012-13
The risk of Neuromyths
POLICY-MAKING NEEDS (TO GET) SCIENCE (RIGHT)
OVERVIEW ON NEUROMYTHS
Origin
Characteristics
REASONS
Communication shortcomings
Neurophilia
Cognitive illusions and biases
INTEREST
20. ECC 2012-13
Reasons
1. Communication
shortcomings
a. Placebic
information
b. Sensationalism
c. Missing information
23. ECC 2012-13
Persistence in memory of false
information
There are many hypotheses in science,
which are wrong, that’s perfectly on
right, that’s the opportunity of finding
out what’s right. Science is a self-
correcting process. For being
accepted, ideas must survive the most
rigorous standards of evidence and
scrutiny.
(Carl Sagan: Cosmos)
Seifert 2002
26. ECC 2012-13
¤ (Weisberg 2008)
¤ The neuroscience studies that we see in the news are regularly
accompanied by pictures of the brain, showing colorfully
"glowing" bits of neural tissue.
¤ As humans, we are highly visual creatures, accustomed to relying
on the fact that what we see is actually happening in the world.
¤ Looking at these brain pictures often gives us the feeling that we
have a window into the brain and that we can actually see what
the brain is doing. But this is simply not accurate. An fMRI scanner is
not a window or even a microscope; the output that it provides is
not really a picture of the brain, at least not in the way that the
output of a camera is a picture of a face.
27. ECC 2012
2012-13
¤ All brains are shaped and organized slightly differently, just like
other parts of the body. My brain might be slightly smaller than
yours, or my hippocampus located slightly more to the left. This
means that a scan of my brain and a scan of your brain would not
overlap exactly.
¤ But research studies require responses from multiple participants
to ensure that the phenomenon under study is general, not
subject-dependent. To solve the difficult problem of comparing
the spatial structure of many brains when each of these structures
is different, scientists have developed technical methods for
standardizing each brain picture to fit a common template.
28. ECC 2012-13
¤ Another difference between brain images and photographs is that
fMRI technology does not measure brain activation directly. Those
glowing brain pictures are not actually pictures of a glowing brain.
The way that those pictures are created involves several steps of
analysis and hence are several steps removed from the brain itself.
¤ What fMRI scanners actually measure-and only indirectly at that-is
the amount of blood flow to a given brain area, a reliable
correlate of neural activity. To create a picture of brain activation
from measures of blood flow, scientists first calculate the
difference between the amount of blood flow in an area during
one task and the amount of blood flow in the same area during a
related task or a rest state.
¤ Using a grid superimposed over the brain picture, they then
perform statistical tests to see whether the difference in the two
amounts of blood flow in each grid square is unlikely to be due to
chance. Colors are assigned to the grid squares based on degree
of statistical significance.
¤ What we see when we look at the colored splotches in brain
pictures are thus patches of statistical significance, not of
activation itself
29. ECC 2012
2012-13
2. Neurophilia and the
promotion of private agendas
• Public interest
• Newspapers,
projects & reports
• Private agendas
• Commercial
products
• Proliferation of neuro-
labels
34. ECC 2012-13
Education and the brain: 2
approaches
1. studies in education, the 2. Neuroscience as a body of
mind and brain should hatch knowledge that can be
a new interdisciplinary field of searched in order to find
research, and devise new guidelines and/or easy fixes
ways for translating for education (Dennison &
knowledge and evidence into Dennison, 2010; Dunn & Dunn,
the design of instructional 1978)
methods that work (Fischer, et
al., 2007; Fischer, Goswami,
Geake, 2010).
35. ECC 2012-13
The risk of Neuromyths
POLICY-MAKING NEEDS (TO GET) SCIENCE (RIGHT)
OVERVIEW ON NEUROMYTHS
Origin
Characteristics
REASONS
Communication shortcomings
Neurophilia
Cognitive illusions and biases
INTEREST
36. ECC 2012-13
Interest
¤ Ethical implications ¤ Cognitive implications
(because of the encounter ¤ Like illusions and other
between science and misconceptions,
applications) neuromyths reveal the
¤ Money spent on phony functioning of our mind
interventions = money ¤ when we come in
not spent on effective contact with applied
interventions science
¤ Interference with the
understanding of the
real processes
¤ Misuse of science
39. ECC 2012-13
Neuromyths in education
¤ No studies about the
diffusion of neuromyths
among educators
¤ But at least two flawed
approaches are diffused,
which incorporate
neuromyths
¤ Brain Gym
¤ VAK Learning Styles
42. ECC 2012-13
¤ why do neuromyths persist ¤ urge of application
independently of their
falsity and poor ¤ lack of neuroscience education in
applicative value? the course of educators’ initial and
professional training
¤ neurophilia can thus favor the myth
that the translation of brain science
into applications is just
straightforward
43. ECC 2012
¤ Practical implications ¤ Role for immediate
¤ Instruction (general) application of cognitive
sciences (theory)
¤ Instruction (specific)
¤ Preventing mistakes
¤ Decisions based on
based on having the
research (science-
science wrong
informed and
evidence-based) ¤ Debunking neuromyths
¤ Collaboration between
educators and scientists
44. ECC 2012
¤ There is growing evidence that people hold beliefs how they
learn that are faulty in various ways, which frequently lead
people to manage their own learning and teach others in
non-optimal ways. This fact makes it clear that research –
not intuition or standard practices – needs to be the
foundation for upgrading teaching and learning. If
education is to be transformed into an evidence-based
field, it is important not only to identify teaching techniques
that have experimental support but also to identify widely
held beliefs that affect the choices made by educational
practitioners but that lack empirical support
¤ (Pashler et al. 2009)
45. ECC 2012
Questions
¤ BRAIN GYM/VAK LS
¤ Comment reasons why educators might embrace Brain
Gym/VAK LS
¤ Comment reasons why they should not
¤ Neuromyths: fight or flight?
¤ How?
¤ List neuromyths that might affect education
