Neuroscience beliefs in education among teachers in Argentina and other Latin American countries: predictors and comparisons to experts’ perspectives

IF 3.3 Q2 NEUROSCIENCES
Trends in Neuroscience and Education Pub Date : 2026-03-01 Epub Date: 2026-01-30 DOI:10.1016/j.tine.2026.100279
Marta Cerezo García , Anna Carballo-Márquez , Paul B. Perrin , Bryan R. Christ , Laiene Olabarrieta-Landa , Cristian Y. Logatt Grabner , Juan Carlos Arango-Lasprilla , Esperanza Vergara-Moragues
{"title":"Neuroscience beliefs in education among teachers in Argentina and other Latin American countries: predictors and comparisons to experts’ perspectives","authors":"Marta Cerezo García ,&nbsp;Anna Carballo-Márquez ,&nbsp;Paul B. Perrin ,&nbsp;Bryan R. Christ ,&nbsp;Laiene Olabarrieta-Landa ,&nbsp;Cristian Y. Logatt Grabner ,&nbsp;Juan Carlos Arango-Lasprilla ,&nbsp;Esperanza Vergara-Moragues","doi":"10.1016/j.tine.2026.100279","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Neuroscientific advances applied to education are often susceptible to misinterpretation by teaching professionals. However, the accuracy of neuromyths can change as neuroscientific research advances. The goals of this study were to identify teachers’ beliefs about brain functioning, as well as to examine predictors of scientifically unsupported beliefs and to examine the degree of alignment between teachers’ responses and experts’ perspectives.</div></div><div><h3>Method</h3><div>After a review of the literature, the 58-item Neurobeliefs in Education Questionnaire (NEQ) was created and administered to nine neuroeducation experts and 1,139 teachers from Argentina and other Latin American countries (86.1% women).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Teachers demonstrated high variability in their beliefs about brain functioning, with only 16% of items showing strong agreement among them and 43% showing strong disagreement. In contrast, neuroeducation experts showed greater internal consensus, especially on items supported by strong scientific evidence. When comparing the two groups, 60% of items revealed disagreement, with over a third showing large discrepancies driven by higher teacher endorsement of well-established neuromyths. A regression revealed that preschool teachers and those who had received neuroscience instruction as part of their academic degrees were more likely to endorse neuromyths, while university-level educators and those with neuroscience training outside their degree programs were significantly less likely to do so.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The results support that continuous training in neuroscience and psychology may be a protective factor against endorsement of neuromyths among teachers in Latin America.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":46228,"journal":{"name":"Trends in Neuroscience and Education","volume":"42 ","pages":"Article 100279"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trends in Neuroscience and Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211949326000049","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Neuroscientific advances applied to education are often susceptible to misinterpretation by teaching professionals. However, the accuracy of neuromyths can change as neuroscientific research advances. The goals of this study were to identify teachers’ beliefs about brain functioning, as well as to examine predictors of scientifically unsupported beliefs and to examine the degree of alignment between teachers’ responses and experts’ perspectives.

Method

After a review of the literature, the 58-item Neurobeliefs in Education Questionnaire (NEQ) was created and administered to nine neuroeducation experts and 1,139 teachers from Argentina and other Latin American countries (86.1% women).

Results

Teachers demonstrated high variability in their beliefs about brain functioning, with only 16% of items showing strong agreement among them and 43% showing strong disagreement. In contrast, neuroeducation experts showed greater internal consensus, especially on items supported by strong scientific evidence. When comparing the two groups, 60% of items revealed disagreement, with over a third showing large discrepancies driven by higher teacher endorsement of well-established neuromyths. A regression revealed that preschool teachers and those who had received neuroscience instruction as part of their academic degrees were more likely to endorse neuromyths, while university-level educators and those with neuroscience training outside their degree programs were significantly less likely to do so.

Conclusion

The results support that continuous training in neuroscience and psychology may be a protective factor against endorsement of neuromyths among teachers in Latin America.
阿根廷和其他拉丁美洲国家教师对教育的神经科学信念:与专家观点的预测和比较
将神经科学的进步应用于教育往往容易受到教学专业人员的误解。然而,随着神经科学研究的进展,神经神话的准确性可能会发生变化。本研究的目的是确定教师对大脑功能的信念,以及检查科学上不支持的信念的预测因素,并检查教师的反应与专家观点之间的一致性程度。方法在文献综述的基础上,编制了58项教育神经信念问卷(NEQ),并对来自阿根廷等拉美国家的9名神经教育专家和1139名教师(女性占86.1%)进行了问卷调查。结果教师对大脑功能的看法存在很大差异,只有16%的观点一致,43%的观点不一致。相比之下,神经教育专家表现出更大的内部共识,尤其是在有有力科学证据支持的项目上。当比较两组时,60%的项目显示出分歧,超过三分之一的项目显示出巨大的差异,这是由于教师对公认的神经神话的更高认可。一项回归研究显示,学龄前教师和那些在学位课程中接受过神经科学指导的人更有可能支持神经神话,而大学教育工作者和那些在学位课程之外接受过神经科学培训的人则明显不太可能这样做。结论持续的神经科学和心理学培训可能是拉丁美洲教师不认同神经神话的保护因素。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书