Neuroscience Knowledge and Endorsement of Neuromyths among Educators: What Is the Scenario in Brazil?

Carregando...
Imagem de Miniatura
Citações na Scopus
4
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2022
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
MDPI
Citação
BRAIN SCIENCES, v.12, n.6, article ID 734, 18p, 2022
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
The field of neuroscience has seen significant growth and interest in recent decades. While neuroscience knowledge can benefit laypeople as well as professionals in many different areas, it may be particularly relevant for educators. With the right information, educators can apply neuroscience-based teaching strategies as well as protect themselves and their students against pseudoscientific ideas and products based on them. Despite rapidly growing sources of available information and courses, studies show that educators in many countries have poor knowledge of brain science and tend to endorse education-related neuromyths. Poor English skills and fewer resources (personal, institutional and governmental) may be additional limitations in Latin America. In order to better understand the scenario in Latin America's largest country, we created an anonymous online survey which was answered by 1634 individuals working in education from all five regions of Brazil. Respondents stated whether they agreed with each statement and reported their level of confidence for each answer. Significant differences in performance were observed across regions, between educators living in capital cities versus the outskirts, between those teaching in private versus public schools, and among educators teaching different levels (pre-school up to college/university). We also observed high endorsement of some key neuromyths, even among groups who performed better overall. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to conduct a detailed analysis of the profile of a large group of educators in Brazil. We discuss our findings in terms of efforts to better understand regional and global limitations and develop methods of addressing these most efficiently.
Palavras-chave
neuroeducation, neuromyths, science education, pseudoscience, fake news, science literacy
Referências
  1. [Anonymous], MINISTERIO SAUDE BRA
  2. Arevalo A, 2022, FRONT HUM NEUROSCI, V16, DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2022.798967
  3. Blackwell LS, 2007, CHILD DEV, V78, P246, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00995.x
  4. Bowers JS, 2016, PSYCHOL REV, V123, P600, DOI 10.1037/rev0000025
  5. Chiou L., 2018, Working Paper Series - National Bureau of Economic Research (Massachusetts)
  6. Crowley SJ, 2007, SLEEP MED, V8, P602, DOI 10.1016/j.sleep.2006.12.002
  7. Dekker S, 2012, FRONT PSYCHOL, V3, DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00429
  8. Dubinsky JM, 2019, NEUROSCIENTIST, V25, P394, DOI 10.1177/1073858419835447
  9. Dubinsky JM, 2013, EDUC RESEARCHER, V42, P317, DOI 10.3102/0013189X13499403
  10. Dubinsky JM, 2010, J NEUROSCI, V30, P8057, DOI 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2322-10.2010
  11. EBC Taxa Cai Levemente, MAS BRAS AIND TEM 11
  12. Feiler JB, 2018, TRENDS NEUROSCI EDUC, V13, P17, DOI 10.1016/j.tine.2018.11.001
  13. Ferrero M, 2016, FRONT HUM NEUROSCI, V10, DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00496
  14. Gleichgerrcht E, 2015, MIND BRAIN EDUC, V9, P170, DOI 10.1111/mbe.12086
  15. Grupo de Midia, 2019, SP MID DAD
  16. Gupta S, 2017, J RES PRACT, V13
  17. Herculano-Houzel S, 2002, NEUROSCIENTIST, V8, P98, DOI 10.1177/107385840200800206
  18. Hermida MJ, 2016, EDUC RES-UK, V58, P457, DOI 10.1080/00131881.2016.1238585
  19. Hirsh-Pasek K, 2007, SCIENCE, V317, P1293, DOI 10.1126/science.1148983
  20. Howard-Jones P.A., 2009, NEUROSCIENCE LITERAC
  21. Howard-Jones PA, 2014, NAT REV NEUROSCI, V15, P817, DOI 10.1038/nrn3817
  22. IBGE, AG BRAS POP BRAS
  23. ibge, 2018, IBGE PESQUISA NACL A
  24. IBGE IBGE, PORT IBGE
  25. Im SH, 2018, PLOS ONE, V13, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0192163
  26. Kirby M, 2011, EDUC RESEARCHER, V40, P56, DOI 10.3102/0013189X11402323
  27. Lavorgna L, 2018, MULT SCLER RELAT DIS, V25, P175, DOI 10.1016/j.msard.2018.07.046
  28. Macdonald K, 2017, FRONT PSYCHOL, V8, DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01314
  29. Markram H, 2013, FUNCT NEUROL, V28, P145, DOI [10.11138/FNeur/2013.28.3.144, 10.11138/FNeur/2013.28.3.145]
  30. Merchant RM, 2018, JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC, V320, P2415, DOI 10.1001/jama.2018.18416
  31. Newton PM, 2015, FRONT PSYCHOL, V6, DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01908
  32. OECD, 2002, UNDERSTANDING BRAIN, DOI [10.1787/9789264174986-en, DOI 10.1787/9789264174986-EN]
  33. Papadatou-Pastou M, 2017, FRONT PSYCHOL, V8, DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00804
  34. Peters MA, 2017, EDUC PHILOS THEORY, V49, P563, DOI 10.1080/00131857.2016.1264114
  35. portal, IGC INDICE GERAL CUR
  36. Rato JR, 2013, EDUC RES-UK, V55, P441, DOI 10.1080/00131881.2013.844947
  37. Roenneberg T, 2007, SLEEP MED REV, V11, P429, DOI 10.1016/j.smrv.2007.07.005
  38. Sousa A., 2017, REV PSICOPEDAG, V34, P320
  39. Strike K. A., 2002, ETHICAL STANDARDS AM
  40. Tardif E, 2015, MIND BRAIN EDUC, V9, P50, DOI 10.1111/mbe.12070
  41. Terrell SR, 2012, QUAL REP, V17, P254
  42. Thomas MSC, 2019, J CHILD PSYCHOL PSYC, V60, P477, DOI 10.1111/jcpp.12973
  43. Torrijos-Muelas M, 2021, FRONT PSYCHOL, V11, DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.591923
  44. Troxel WM, 2017, SLEEP HEALTH, V3, P419, DOI 10.1016/j.sleh.2017.10.001
  45. Wahlstrom K, 2014, EXAMINING IMPACT LAT
  46. Wahlstrom KL, 2017, SLEEP HEALTH, V3, P216, DOI 10.1016/j.sleh.2017.03.002
  47. wearesocial, WE ARE SOCIAL DIGITA
  48. Weisberg DS, 2008, J COGNITIVE NEUROSCI, V20, P470, DOI 10.1162/jocn.2008.20.3.470
  49. Wittmann M, 2006, CHRONOBIOL INT, V23, P497, DOI 10.1080/07420520500545979
  50. Zambo D., 2009, TEACHING ED PSYCHOL, V5, P39