Over the past decade, countless studies have looked at the relationship between education and the brain. Most focus on neuromyths (“we only use 10% of our brain”) or on the question of whether insights from cognitive neuroscience are really useful for classroom practice. A new study by Yasin Arslan and colleagues (2025) takes this a step further. They asked how well teachers are actually informed about “educational neuroscience.” More importantly, they explored which factors explain that knowledge.
For this study, 366 teachers in the UK filled out a questionnaire. It included the new Educational Neuroscience Knowledge Test (ENKT), with 18 statements representing neuromyths and 18 representing well-supported neuro-facts. Some were about general cognitive functions (like memory and attention), others about specific educational needs such as dyslexia or ADHD. Teachers had to indicate how much they agreed with each statement. This way, the researchers could measure how much correct knowledge teachers had. Additionally, they assessed whether teachers were able to reject misconceptions. As the authors rightly point out, it’s good to know that sleep matters for learning, but it’s at least as valuable to recognise that “learning styles” is a false claim. In addition, participants reported their experience and whether they had followed any courses or professional development related to the topic.
What the study found
The results are both encouraging and sobering. This is encouraging, as teachers on average scored significantly better than chance. They can, to some extent, distinguish facts from myths. Sobering, because the differences mainly depend on the kind of training they received. A formal education — for instance, university-level modules in educational neuroscience — led to much higher scores. This is unlike short workshops or self-study via books and blogs (and no, that’s not a reason for me to stop writing them). Professional development and informal sources provided some assistance, but it was not nearly enough. Interestingly, years of classroom experience made no difference at all.
The message seems clear. If we want teachers to be better equipped against neuromyths and pseudoscience, we need systematic, formal training. But there are caveats. In this sample, the group of teachers with such training was relatively small and probably also selective. These were people already motivated enough to seek out additional modules. That aspect makes the results less representative. An even bigger question remains unanswered. How much of this knowledge actually trickles down into classroom practice? Knowing that retrieval practice works is one thing; building it consistently into your lessons is another.
What this study mainly shows is that voluntary workshops and scattered initiatives don’t go far enough. If we want to tackle neuromyths, knowledge about cognitive and neuropsychological principles has to become a structural part of teacher education and professional development. At the same time, caution is needed. This shouldn’t become another hype where every new “brain fact” is unquestioningly added to the curriculum. Education is still more complex than anything you can explain with a brain scan.
The real challenge
So yes, formal education helps. The real challenge may not be teaching teachers even more brain facts. Instead, it may be helping them develop a critical professional judgment: what counts as robust evidence, what’s just wishful thinking, and how do you responsibly translate that into your classroom?
Abstract of the study:
Understanding factors which might influence teachers’ knowledge of educational neuroscience is essential for designing effective initial training and professional development programmes. This study assessed teachers’ knowledge using our novel Educational Neuroscience Knowledge Test (ENKT). The validated ENKT provided a structured measure of teachers’ understanding of educational neuroscience. It distinguished between knowledge of general cognitive functions and special educational needs. Test results allowed for an evaluation of teachers’ familiarity with evidence-based concepts in both areas. Findings indicated that formal educational neuroscience training was associated with significantly higher knowledge scores than exposure through continuing professional development (CPD) or informal sources. Implications for teacher training programs and CPD include the need for structured, formal educational neuroscience training. This is crucial for improving teachers’ knowledge of this field and better supporting evidence-informed teaching practices.