Citations:edumyth


 * 2020 — Steven C. Pan and Robert A. Bjork, Acquiring an accurate mental model of human learning: Toward an owner's manual. Oxford Handbook of Memory. 2020.
 * «Students’ and instructors’ mental models of human learning are susceptible to flaws other than the human-as-a-computer analogy. These models include other beliefs that might seem highly plausible, even to fairly sophisticated consumers of scientific knowledge, such as: Instruction and training should be geared toward individual “learning styles;” differences in brain hemispheric dominance dictate how effectively one is able to learn (i.e., “left-brained” vs. “right-brained”); humans typically use only 10% of their brain capacity; one can learn to become a highly efficient multitasker; brain training games yield broad improvements in cognitive capabilities, and more. Each of these claims, however, can be categorized as a neuromyth — that is, an unscientific idea about how the brain works (or when discussing learning and education more specifically, an edumyth). None enjoy strong empirical support. In fact, there is substantial evidence to conclude that each of these aforementioned neuromyths is misleading or downright false. Yet such beliefs continue to persist, in some cases for decades.»


 * 2021 — Luc Rousseau, “Neuromyths” and Multiple Intelligences (MI) Theory: A Comment on Gardner. Frontiers in Psychology. 2021
 * «But even with no “neuro” at all, Multiple Intelligences theory would still qualify as a potential source of neuromyths, as any scientific theory could—be it psychological, neurological, or a mix of both. Myths may have nothing to do with the brain, but are, nonetheless, myths. Over time, the term “neuromyth” has become a common umbrella to a wide range of unsubstantiated claims, especially in the education field. Some of those claims clearly evoke the brain (e.g., We only use 10% of our brain), while others do not (e.g., Listening to Mozart's music makes children smarter). Would it be more appropriate to drop the “neuro” prefix and collectively call them “edumyths”? Actually, it does not matter. They are myths.»


 * 2021 — Martyn Stewart, Understanding Learning: Theories and Critique. Routledge. 2021.
 * «Developments in neuroscience have exploded some influential ideas around brain-based learning. While the brain’s hemispheres are known to specialise, there is no evidence to support the popular idea of the intuitive ‘right brain’ or rational ‘left brain’ or the idea we use only 10% of our brain. Similarly discredited is the ‘edumyth’ that the brain’s structure is defined by infancy or by adolescence. While there are sensitive periods for limited aspects of language development in infants, evidence suggests that the brain retains plasticity over its lifetime.»


 * 2023 — Anna Schmitt, Rachel Wollschlger, Jérémie Blanchette Sarrasin, Steve Masson, Antoine Fischbach, Christine Schiltz, Neuromyths and knowledge about intellectual giftedness in a highly educated multilingual country. Frontiers in Psychology. 2023.
 * «And finally, there is item 30 “The high IQ is not the only objective way to measure giftedness, the theory of multiple intelligence must be considered,” an invalid information in terms of cognitive measure and objective giftedness identification. This item is based on the theory of Multiple intelligences (MI) (Gardner, 1983) which is considered as a neuromyth or as an “edumyth” (i.e., education + myth).»