Continued Educational Neuromyth Belief in Pre- and In-Service Teachers: A Call for De-Implementation Action for School Psychologists
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the breadth and depth of educational neuroscience research and teachers’ interest in neuroscience, teachers often have limited access to reputable sources. As a result, neuromyths–misapplied or over-simplified claims related to brain science–have proliferated. School Psychologists have training in education, applied neuroscience, and evidence-based practices. As such, school psychologists are poised to mitigate the negative impact of teacher neuromyth endorsement. This study examined the endorsement rate of neuromyths by teachers to identify knowledge gaps to inform future training in this area. In-service and preservice teachers from grades K-12 completed an online survey of common neuromyths. Many neuromyths are pernicious and continue to be endorsed by teachers, most commonly related to learning styles and multiple intelligences. These results support the need for increased training in neuroscience for teachers and suggest a desire for factual and useful information about educational neuroscience, which school psychologists can provide in educational contexts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it