Neuromyths: Misconceptions about neurodevelopment by Italian teachers.

IF 3.4 Q2 NEUROSCIENCES
Eva Bei , Dimitris Argiropoulos , Jo Van Herwegen , Oriana Incognito , Laura Menichetti , Christian Tarchi , Chiara Pecini
{"title":"Neuromyths: Misconceptions about neurodevelopment by Italian teachers.","authors":"Eva Bei ,&nbsp;Dimitris Argiropoulos ,&nbsp;Jo Van Herwegen ,&nbsp;Oriana Incognito ,&nbsp;Laura Menichetti ,&nbsp;Christian Tarchi ,&nbsp;Chiara Pecini","doi":"10.1016/j.tine.2023.100219","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Background: Neuromyths are commonly held misconceptions about the brain, often generated by a misunderstanding of scientifically established facts. To date, limited research has explored the pervalence of neuromyths about neurodevelopmental disorders in the teacher population. Method: The current study investigated the prevalence of teachers’ general and neurodevelopmental neuromyths among 820 Italian teachers. Results: Italian teachers correctly identified 73% of general neuromyths and 70% of neurodevelopmental neuromyths. The difference between general and neurodevelopmental neuromyths endorsement was significant. Frequency of accessing relevant information emerged as a protective factor. A mediation analysis showed that higher need for cognition was significantly associated with a higher frequency of accessing relevant information about the brain, which in turn led to lower endorsement of neuromyths. Conclusion: In line with our findings, we suggest that teachers can benefit from neuroeducation initiatives aimed to enhance neuroscience literacy in both the initial education and continuous professional development of teachers.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46228,"journal":{"name":"Trends in Neuroscience and Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211949323000224/pdfft?md5=1bdbae9e8bdcd7451db7fe706f795354&pid=1-s2.0-S2211949323000224-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trends in Neuroscience and Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211949323000224","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Neuromyths are commonly held misconceptions about the brain, often generated by a misunderstanding of scientifically established facts. To date, limited research has explored the pervalence of neuromyths about neurodevelopmental disorders in the teacher population. Method: The current study investigated the prevalence of teachers’ general and neurodevelopmental neuromyths among 820 Italian teachers. Results: Italian teachers correctly identified 73% of general neuromyths and 70% of neurodevelopmental neuromyths. The difference between general and neurodevelopmental neuromyths endorsement was significant. Frequency of accessing relevant information emerged as a protective factor. A mediation analysis showed that higher need for cognition was significantly associated with a higher frequency of accessing relevant information about the brain, which in turn led to lower endorsement of neuromyths. Conclusion: In line with our findings, we suggest that teachers can benefit from neuroeducation initiatives aimed to enhance neuroscience literacy in both the initial education and continuous professional development of teachers.

神经神话:意大利教师对神经发育的误解。
背景:神经神话是对大脑的普遍误解,通常是由于对科学事实的误解而产生的。迄今为止,有限的研究已经探索了教师群体中关于神经发育障碍的神经神话的持久性。方法:对820名意大利教师的一般神经神话和神经发育性神经神话进行调查。结果:意大利教师正确识别了73%的一般神经误区和70%的神经发展性神经误区。一般和神经发育神经神话背书之间的差异是显著的。获取相关信息的频率成为一个保护因素。一项中介分析表明,更高的认知需求与更高的访问大脑相关信息的频率显著相关,这反过来又导致更低的神经神话认可。结论:根据我们的研究结果,我们建议教师可以从旨在提高教师初级教育和持续专业发展的神经科学素养的神经教育举措中受益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
6.10%
发文量
22
审稿时长
65 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信