Dispelling Educational Neuromyths: A Review of In‐Service Teacher Professional Development Interventions
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
ABSTRACT Despite considerable progress made in educational neuroscience, neuromyths persist in the teaching profession, hampering translational endeavors. The initial wave of interventions designed to dispel educational neuromyths was predominantly directed at preservice teachers. More recent work in the field, reviewed here, has shifted its focus primarily to in‐service teacher professional development interventions. We discuss various interventional approaches, including refutation texts embedded into a brief training in foundational neuroscience, personalized refutation texts, insightful reflections upon science of learning key concepts (e.g., brain plasticity), and immersive experiences within research groups, highlighting their strengths and limitations. The evolving nature of scientific knowledge, the imperative to respect educators' personal and professional sensitivities, as well as challenges posed by conceptual change, are also addressed. This narrative review underscores the need to bring neuromyth investigations into the classroom environment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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