General knowledge of the human brain is important for special and rehabilitation pedagogues working in the field of education. In the last twenty years, there has been a considerable advancement of neuroscientific findings regarding brain and learning as well as commonly endorsed misconceptions such as neuromyths. Misconceptions about the brain and neuromyths can have a negative effect on educational practice. That is why it is important for special and rehabilitation pedagogues to distinguish neuroscientific facts from neuromyths and other misconceptions about the brain and learning.
In the empirical part of this master's thesis, a specially designed questionnaire was used to discover relevant sources about the brain and learning used by participants in the study. The second purpose of the study was to investigate general knowledge about the brain alongside the prevalence of neuromyths regarding the human brain and learning among (pre-service) special and rehabilitation pedagogues. The third purpose of the study to identify how are sources about the brain and learning connected to general brain-related knowledge and the prevalence of neuromyths. The fourth purpose of the study was to determine which so-called “brain-based” neuro-educational programmes lacking scientific evidence, as well as scientifically-approved neuro-educational programmes, (pre-service) special and rehabilitation pedagogues use in their everyday practice and what they think about their effectiveness. We surveyed two groups of university students of Special and Rehabilitation Pedagogy, namely 38 first year undergraduate students and 25 first year postgraduate students studying at the Faculty of Education in the University of Ljubljana, alongside 58 practicing special and rehabilitation pedagogues.
The results have shown that the majority (more than 50 %) of participants gain their knowledge about brain and learning via the internet. Our results have demonstrated considerable knowledge of newer neuroscientific findings as well as the acceptance of three neuromyths in the majority (more than 50 %) of participants from all three groups. Said three neuromyths were: Individuals learn better when they receive information in their preferred learning style (e.g. auditory, visual, kinaesthetic); differences in hemispheric dominance (left brain, right brain) can help explain individual differences amongst learners, and exercises that rehearse co-ordination of motor-perception skills can improve literacy skills. There were also differences established amongst the three groups regarding two neuroscientific findings and two neuromyths. Knowledge of newer neuroscientific findings was most frequently connected with gaining information about the brain and learning through the internet, whereas knowledge of neuromyths was most frequently connected with gaining information in primary and/or secondary schools. The majority (more than 50 %) of participants most frequently use non-scientific neuro-educational programme by the name of VAK approach (based on the neuromyth “Individuals learn better when they receive information in their preferred learning style (e.g., auditory, visual, kinaesthetic”) which they also deem effective. When it comes to scientifically proven neuro-educational programmes the majority of participants most frequently use Sensory integration therapy, which they also deem effective. The findings of this study can assist with planning study programmes as well as additional educational programmes focusing on neuro-educational themes, which should be based on neuroscientific findings and facts about the brain and learning to guide educational practice.
|
