Page 148 - Rižnar, Igor, and Klemen Kavčič (ed.). 2017. Connecting Higher Education Institutions with Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. Koper: University of Primorska Press
P. 148
Igor Rižnar
the fact that a growing corpus of neuroscience evidence already exists,
which can help assess the performance and impact of various educa-
tional approaches.
Learning/Teaching Myths (Why Worry)
Among the common misconceptions about how we learn and think, the
following should be mentioned: people use only 10 of their brains, de-
bunked by Boyd (2008), people are preferentially ‘right-brained’ or ‘left-
brained’ in the use of their brains, debunked by Nielson et al. (2013),
and students have different language styles, debunked by Pasher et al.
(2008). As of October 2015 ProQuest social science journals search re-
veals 808 results for the search on ‘learning+style,’ of which the major-
ity speak positively about the concept of different learning styles and
only a few question its validity. No wonder why neuromyths are still
widely believed. In my profession, there are charlatans, who would try
to convince desperate language learners that they should start learn-
ing a language by listening to a foreign language while they sleep. It is
true that we are not certain what the sleeping brain is doing (most likely
processing information, consolidating memories and the like), but it is
certainly not firing the way the conscious brain does.
The history of teaching/learning myths is a long one. Even the Teach-
ingEnglish website published by the British Council and the bb c (2014)
states: ‘Your students will be more successful if you match your teaching
style to their learning styles’ – this includes, they claim, being: right- or
left-brained, analytic vs. dynamic, and visual vs. auditory.
Over the past few years, there seems to have been an insidious pan-
demic of nonsense neuroscientific claims creeping into the education
system. In 2013, the Wellcome Trust (2014) commissioned a series of
surveys of parents and teachers, asking about various types of edu-
cational tools or teaching methods, and the extent to which they be-
lieve they have a basis in neuroscience. Worryingly, 76 of teachers re-
sponded that they used learning styles in their teaching, and a further
19 responded that they either use, or intend to use, left brain/right
brain distinctions to help inform learning methods. Both of these ap-
proaches have been thoroughly debunked, and have no place in either
neuroscience or education.
Biases Galore (On Every Street)
Both beginners and seasoned teachers are prone to a number of biases,
as a general ‘law of least effort’ applies to teachers as mush as to other
146
the fact that a growing corpus of neuroscience evidence already exists,
which can help assess the performance and impact of various educa-
tional approaches.
Learning/Teaching Myths (Why Worry)
Among the common misconceptions about how we learn and think, the
following should be mentioned: people use only 10 of their brains, de-
bunked by Boyd (2008), people are preferentially ‘right-brained’ or ‘left-
brained’ in the use of their brains, debunked by Nielson et al. (2013),
and students have different language styles, debunked by Pasher et al.
(2008). As of October 2015 ProQuest social science journals search re-
veals 808 results for the search on ‘learning+style,’ of which the major-
ity speak positively about the concept of different learning styles and
only a few question its validity. No wonder why neuromyths are still
widely believed. In my profession, there are charlatans, who would try
to convince desperate language learners that they should start learn-
ing a language by listening to a foreign language while they sleep. It is
true that we are not certain what the sleeping brain is doing (most likely
processing information, consolidating memories and the like), but it is
certainly not firing the way the conscious brain does.
The history of teaching/learning myths is a long one. Even the Teach-
ingEnglish website published by the British Council and the bb c (2014)
states: ‘Your students will be more successful if you match your teaching
style to their learning styles’ – this includes, they claim, being: right- or
left-brained, analytic vs. dynamic, and visual vs. auditory.
Over the past few years, there seems to have been an insidious pan-
demic of nonsense neuroscientific claims creeping into the education
system. In 2013, the Wellcome Trust (2014) commissioned a series of
surveys of parents and teachers, asking about various types of edu-
cational tools or teaching methods, and the extent to which they be-
lieve they have a basis in neuroscience. Worryingly, 76 of teachers re-
sponded that they used learning styles in their teaching, and a further
19 responded that they either use, or intend to use, left brain/right
brain distinctions to help inform learning methods. Both of these ap-
proaches have been thoroughly debunked, and have no place in either
neuroscience or education.
Biases Galore (On Every Street)
Both beginners and seasoned teachers are prone to a number of biases,
as a general ‘law of least effort’ applies to teachers as mush as to other
146
