Neuromyths

An article called Experimental Subjects in the Economist of June 2nd caught my eye. The sub-title read Neuroscience can transform education—if scientists talk to teachers. It seems that in their impatience for practical guidelines to arise from neuroscience research, teachers are turning increasingly to vendors offering them 'brain-based learning' packages containing what Usha Goswami refers to as 'alarming amounts of misinformation'. Apparently teachers receive up to 70 mailshots a year encouraging them to attend courses on brain-based learning.

So what sort of 'neuromyths' are these courses peddling? Here's a couple:

1. "Pigeon-holing children as 'visual', 'auditory' or 'kinaesthetic' learners. Some teachers are so keen that they give each child a 'V', 'A' or 'K' badge to prompt adults to communicate accordingly. In reality, we all use each style, and which is most appropriate depends on what is being learnt as well as personality."
2. Identifying children as either 'left-brained' or 'right-brained', on the basis that individuals prefer one type of processing over another. "Teachers are advised to ensure that their classroom practice is automatically 'left and right-brain balanced' to avoid a mismatch between learner preference and learning experience. This neuromyth probably stems from an over-literal interpretation of hemispheric specialization."

It's alarming to find that pop psychology is infiltrating schools as well as l&d departments. It seems that every teacher and trainer just can't wait to pigeon-hole their subjects as one type or another. As I claimed in my posting this morning, Back to School, learners simply refuse to be categorised according to such simplistic models. Learners are flexible and adaptable and can make decent progress with any instructional approach, given that it's appropriate to the topic and our level of prior knowledge, and that most importantly, it's done well.