Monthly Archives: October 2012

Neuromyths-research: teachers find it hard to recognise pseudoscience

Sanne Dekker, Nikki C. Lee, Paul Howard-Jones and Jelle Jolles published an interesting research article this week about neuromyths. The article doesn’t add something new to our knowledge about those neuromyths but on how teachers find it hard to recognise pseudoscience.

Abstract of the article, that you can download here:

The OECD’s Brain and Learning project (2002) emphasized that many misconceptions about the brain exist among professionals in the field of education. Though these so-called “neuromyths” are loosely based on scientific facts, they may have adverse effects on educational practice. The present study investigated the prevalence and predictors of neuromyths among teachers in selected regions in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. A large observational survey design was used to assess general knowledge of the brain and neuromyths. The sample comprised 242 primary and secondary school teachers who were interested in the neuroscience of learning. It would be of concern if neuromyths were found in this sample, as these teachers may want to use these incorrect interpretations of neuroscience findings in their teaching practice. Participants completed an online survey containing 32 statements about the brain and its influence on learning, of which 15 were neuromyths. Additional data was collected regarding background variables (e.g., age, sex, school type). Results showed that on average, teachers believed 49% of the neuromyths, particularly myths related to commercialized educational programs. Around 70% of the general knowledge statements were answered correctly. Teachers who read popular science magazines achieved higher scores on general knowledge questions. More general knowledge also predicted an increased belief in neuromyths. These findings suggest that teachers who are enthusiastic about the possible application of neuroscience findings in the classroom find it difficult to distinguish pseudoscience from scientific facts. Possessing greater general knowledge about the brain does not appear to protect teachers from believing in neuromyths. This demonstrates the need for enhanced interdisciplinary communication to reduce such misunderstandings in the future and establish a successful collaboration between neuroscience and education.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Education, Myths

HBDI: evidence based and evidence based makes two

Last week I did a presentation on myths about GenY and when I checked the rest of the program, something catched my eye: there was also a session on HBDI.

I didn’t know it all, but when I checked online, I discovered I found a new myth in education…

What is HBDI? HBDI stands for Hermann Brain Dominance Instrument. From Wikipedia we learn that it
is a system that claims to measure and describe thinking preferences in people. It was developed by William “Ned” Herrmann while leading management education at General Electric’s Crotonville facility.

In his brain dominance model, Herrmann identifies four different modes of thinking:

  1. Analytical thinking
    Key words : Auditive,logical, factual, critical, technical and quantitative.
    Preferred activities : collecting data, analysis, understanding how things work, judging ideas based on facts, criteria and logical reasoning.
  2. Sequential thinking
    Key words : safekeeping, structured, organized, complexity or detailed, planned.
    Preferred activities : following directions, detail oriented work, step-by-step problem solving, organization and implementation.
  3. Interpersonal thinking
    Key words : Kinesthetic, emotional, spiritual, sensory, feeling.
    Preferred activities : listening to and expressing ideas, looking for personal meaning, sensory input, and group interaction.
  4. Imaginative thinking
    Key words : Visual, holistic, intuitive, innovative, and conceptual.
    Preferred activities : Looking at the big picture, taking initiative, challenging assumptions, visuals, metaphoric thinking, creative problem solving, long term thinking.

OK… but if you read the article on HBDI.com about the theory behind HBDI, you discover that it is influenced by left-right brain thinking. Wait a minute? That is a neuromyth we already discussed.

But still: there are claims that this theory is evidence based, with over 60 doctoral theses. Victor Bunderson wrote an article to prove this really is a valid method. But… it isn’t. Actually, some smarter people than me have examined the claims and they found:

A lot of people and brands do seem to invest in this program, based on everything I read the past week: I wouldn’t. I’m still open to any peer-reviewed proof and an explanation going beyond 4 colors and brain hemispheres…

1 Comment

Filed under Education, Guest Blog, Myths

My review of ‘Brain Gain’, the new book by Marc Prenzky + his response!

I was asked by Louis Hilgers to write a review on this new book. It was first published on ictnieuws.nl together with a response of Marc Prenzky to my comments, do check it beneath the Dutch version of this review. The response is in English.

Brain Gain - Marc PrenskySome people may think it is strange for me to review the new book by Marc Prensky, because for the past years I have been quite critical about one of the main concepts he coined the digital natives.

But it is not because a concept is refuted, it wasn’t interesting by conception. Don’t expect a ‘rotten tomatoes’-review, en contraire, I have read the book in a benevolent way, despite the title ‘Brain gain’.

Actually the title sets you off on the wrong foot, the book has little or nothing to do with neurology, in the contrary.  Prensky duly notes that we have seen many new discoveries in this field of science, but any neurologist will tell you that we only have touched the surface. He warns us also for going too fast to conclusions and stays away from neurology.

The brain gain Prensky wants to talk about is how technology can facilitate our life and how it can be a natural extension of our thinking and abilities. The central question for the author is how can we optimally combine humans and technology.

The book wants to be an antidote for the negative press technology received during the past years, example given Nicholas Carr telling us how internet is dumbing us down or Sherry Turkle who describes how internet is making us lonelier.

The central concept in the book is ‘digital wisdom’. It would be a mistake to see this word as synonym for media literacy. To wisely handle media is a part of digital wisdom, but now we are developing bionic eyes and ears, Prensky wants to take things further than dealing with Internet or social media.

Digital wisdom has in his vision always 2 components: both how to use technology in a smart way and how to get smarter through technology.

Like in many of his earlier works, Prensky devotes a lot of attention to education and asks a question I also think crucial: he gives a plea for a renewed discussion on the ‘what’ in education. While we often concentrate on the question how technology can change or improve our education, we seldom discuss the influence on the content of the curriculum.

The suggestions Prensky gives will probably provoke a lot of people, such as do children still have to learn how to write or do we still need those old math theorems in an age in which we rather should learn how to code.

I think he takes it too far and is forgetting the task of conserving education still has. To stand on the shoulders of giants, we still need to know those giants. I read in an interview that Presnsky is now working on a book or article on a zero based curriculum. What do we need to learn, when everything can be found on the Internet? By doing this he seems to ignore everything we now know about learning and digital skills, namely that, maybe ironically, need more knowledge for those 21st century skills. In this chapter Prensky shows himself as an anti-Furedi. Still they both think the teacher as most important with technology in a supporting role.

An often-read complaint about Prensky is that he sometimes simplify things to much. Actually, I discovered many nuances in his story, although I sometimes had the feeling he did some cherry picking in his sources. A point of criticism I have is that that Prensky becomes a bit too insistent in the first, more theoretical part through the plenty examples and repetitions.

The questions he raises about the future deliver an excellent starting point for further thinking. Too me, this is an important merit.

Oh, btw, just one more thing. In this book Prensky abandons the metaphor of the digital natives himself. He acknowledges the many research and criticism the concept received and thinks of this concept less useful in present day. I also agree with him on this point ;) .

1 Comment

Filed under Education, Review