Prateek Buch has blogged about some commonly-used neuromyth-based teaching methods and the evidence behind them, asking why they persist in the classroom when there’s little or no supporting evidence. He also talks about this literature review by the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) we mentioned earlier on.

He discusses many topics we have blogged about (left-right brain thinking, learning styles, brain gym and is really also harsh on multiple intelligences). But he also focuses on the question why these neuromyths persist:

It could be because of how teachers access information about classroom methods: according to the Wellcome Trust survey, teachers interested in using neuroscience in the classroom most commonly come across neuromyth-based methods by word-of-mouth – from their institutions (53%), individual colleagues (41%), and from training providers (30%), who are often linked to those promoting neuromyths. If more teachers who are interested in how the brain works asked for evidence behind teaching methods – or better yet, took part in trials – it would be easier to identify neuromyths. The far lower percentage of teachers finding out about supposedly brain-based methods directly from conferences (9%), academic journals (5%) and even educational media (17%) indicates that teachers need to be equipped to ask for reliable evidence on using brain-based teaching methods in the classroom. –

See more at: http://www.senseaboutscience.org/blog.php/77/neuromyths-and-why-they-persist-in-the-classroom#sthash.BDnjAjU8.dpuf