The Knowledge and Misconceptions of Primary and Secondary School Teachers about the Brain and Their...
100
1 The Knowledge and Misconceptions of Primary and Secondary School Teachers about the Brain and Their Perceptions about Neuroscience in Education: A Mixed Methods Research to Analyse the Situation in Turkey in 2013 by Ozge Karakus A dissertation submitted to the University of Bristol in accordance with the requirements of the Degree of Master of Education in the Graduate School of Education September 2013 16.336
Transcript of The Knowledge and Misconceptions of Primary and Secondary School Teachers about the Brain and Their...
1
The Knowledge and Misconceptions of Primary and Secondary School Teachers about
the Brain and Their Perceptions about Neuroscience in Education: A Mixed Methods
Research to Analyse the Situation in Turkey in 2013
by
Ozge Karakus
A dissertation submitted to the University of Bristol
in accordance with the requirements of the Degree of Master of Education
in the Graduate School of Education
September 2013
16.336
2
Synopsis
This study firstly explores primary and secondary school teachers’ knowledge and their
misconceptions about the brain; secondly, the source of their misconceptions; and finally,
teachers’ perceptions about neuroscience in education in Turkey.
Since the birth of educational neuroscience, the gap between neuroscience and education has
tried to be bridged. Thus there have been some researches done in some countries about
teachers’ knowledge about the brain and their views on the usage of neuroscience in
education. However, the field is new and there is no study among teachers about neuroscience
in education in Turkey.
In this dissertation, in order to fill this gap, a mixed methods approach was taken by using a
questionnaire and interviews. The questionnaire was taken from Dekker et al.’s (2012) paper
and consisted of 32 statements. 15 of these were actually misconceptions about the brain. In
total, 278 primary and secondary school teachers completed the questionnaire; with 6 of them
being interviewed.
Findings from the questionnaires showed that the majority of primary and secondary school
teachers had limited knowledge about the brain, and they generally believed in neuromyths.
These findings were compared with Dekker et al.’s research results. Comparisons showed that
the prevalent neuromyths were mostly the same in all three (UK, Netherlands, Turkey)
countries; furthermore, the level of teachers’ believing in these neuromyths was not
significantly different either.
Findings from the interviews conducted revealed that teachers’ personal experiences were
more influential as being the source of their knowledge and misconceptions about the brain.
Finally, the majority of participants (from questionnaires and interviews) believed in
3
neuroscience's being a necessity in education; however, they highlighted the essentialness for
teachers to be trained in neuroscience.
To conclude, by taking into consideration the prevalence of neuromyths, it is suggested that
training is needed in order to prevent pseudo-scientific applications throughout classrooms in
Turkey.
4
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank those who have supported me throughout the research process.
First of all, I would like to acknowledge my research supervisor Dr. Tim Jay for his support
and guidance. He helped me to realise the missing parts of my dissertation by guiding me with
the right questions and advices.
I would also like to thank Dr. Paul Howard-Jones for introducing educational neuroscience to
me; it was a great opportunity to have been able to listen to the field from someone who had
such a wide knowledge-base.
Special thanks are also due to Sengul Apari, Cagil Kaderoglu and Nahide Murt Bakin for
checking the translations of the questionnaires and interviews throughout the entire research
process.
Most of all, I would like to thank my brother Hasan Can for being on my side, whatever the
time or situation. I will always need his support throughout my life, it means a lot to me.
Mum and dad: your standing behind my decisions makes me more strong and motivated.
Thank you both for your trust.
Finally, special thanks are due to my grand mum for her lovely smile and for her supporting
me at all times.
5
Declaration
I declare that the work in this dissertation was carried out in accordance with the regulations
of the University of Bristol. The work is original except where indicated by special reference
in the text, and no part of the dissertation has been submitted for any other degree.
Any views expressed in the dissertation are those of the author and in no way represent those
of the University of Bristol.
The dissertation has not been presented to any other University for examination either in the
United Kingdom or overseas.
Signed ______________________ Date: _____________
6
Content
Page no
Chapter 1 9
Introduction
1.1 Personal and Intellectual Background 9
1.2 Purpose and Significance of the Research 10
1.3 Research Setting 11
1.4 An Outline of the Structure and the Content of the Study 12
Chapter 2 14
Literature Review
2.1 The Historical Development and Roots of Educational Neuroscience 14
2.2 ‘A Bridge Too Far’ 16
2.3 New Insights 19
2.3.1 What is ‘Brain-Based’ Knowledge? 22
2.4 Neuromyths 22
2.4.1 Are They Really ‘Myths’? 22
2.4.2 How are neuromyths generated? 25
2.4.3 How have neuromyths spread so rapidly? 26
2.5 Significance of Teachers and Their Perceptions about Educational Neuroscience on the
Development of the Field 27
2.6 What is the Situation in Turkey? 31
Chapter 3 34
Methodology
3.1 Epistemological Perspective and Methodological Orientation 34
3.2 Research Design 37
3.3 Questionnaire Design (Participants and Procedure) 39
3.4 Interview Design (Participants and Procedure) 41
3.5 Ethical Considerations 42
3.6 Reliability, Validity and Triangulation 44
7
Chapter 4 47
Presentation of Findings and Their Analysis
4.1 Research Questions 47
4.2 Characteristics and The Context of Schools 48
4.3 Descriptive Statistics about Participants 49
4.4 Findings from Questionnaires 50
4.5 Findings from Interviews 54
Chapter 5 69
Summary and Conclusion
5.1 Summary 69
5.2 Summary of the Findings 70
5.3 Limitations of the Study 71
5.4 Conclusion 72
5.5 Future Research 73
References 74
APPENDIX-1 (Questionnaire) 83
APPENDIX-2 (Results of Pilot Study) 86
APPENDIX-3 (Interview Questions) 88
APPENDIX-4 (Consent Form for Questinnaire) 90
APPENDIX-5 (Consent Form for Interviews) 91
APPENDIX-6 (An Example Transcript) 92
APPENDIX-7 (Table 4.4) 97
APPENDIX-8 (Table 4.5) 98
APPENDIX-9 (Table 4.6) 99
8
Page no
List of Figures
2.1 Educational theories of human development and learning 15
before educational neuroscience
2.2.a Interdisciplinarity and Multidisciplinarity 18
2.2.b The Evolution of Transdisciplinarity 18
3.1 A Framework for Research Design 35
List of tables
4.1 Descriptive Statistics of Participants for Questionnaires 49
4.2 Participants Took Part in Interviews 50
4.3 Total Percentages - from 32 statements - of Correct (C), Incorrect (I) 51
and Do not know (DK) Answers’ of Primary and Secondary School
Teachers from Turkey
4.4 17 General Statements about Brain and Brain Functions with 97
Teacher Answers by Percentages (from Turkey)
4.5 15 Neuromyths about Brain and Brain Functions on Learning 98
with Teachers’ Responses by Percentages
4.6 15 Neuromyths about Brain and Brain Functions about Learning 99
with Teacher Responses from Turkey, UK and Netherlands by percentages
4.7 Teacher Responses about Brain-based Learning Approaches 54
4.8 Some Characteristics of Teachers 55
9
Chapter 1
Introduction
The research area of this study is in neuroscience and education in general. But, more
specifically:
primary and secondary school teachers’ knowledge and misconceptions about the
brain,
the potential source of teachers’ misconceptions,
and their perceptions and views about neuroscience in education
were all investigated among a sample in Turkey.
The aims and significance of the study, the research design, as well as an outline of the
structure and a brief presentation of the chapters will be given in this Introduction. However,
first of all, I shall briefly explain my personal and intellectual background.
1.1 Personal and Intellectual Background
Although I have worked as a counselling psychologist for 4.5 years and given seminars to
students, parents and teachers about effective teaching or learning, I had never considered the
functioning of the brain on behaviours or learning until the "Brain, Mind and Education" unit
which I took in the first semester of this year.
While I had been reading on educational neuroscience, I realised the influence of commercial,
unscientific or unproven applications in education. This reminded me of some baseless
allegations without references or pseudo-scientific explanations about ‘education’ in some
popular science magazines. Besides, when I was a counselling psychologist, I came across
10
many private certificate training courses about behaviour-modification and, according to my
experiences and observations, I can attest to the ineffectiveness of these courses both for
students and teachers. Furthermore, during counselling sessions with parents about their
children, I often had to correct their groundless ‘hearsay’ knowledge about children’s
education which they had taken from the internet or from mass media. Therefore, I decided to
investigate about the misconceptions about the brain and its functions on learning
(neuromyths). Since teachers have a significant role in spreading knowledge in educational
fields -mainly because they communicate with other teachers, parents, administrators and
students-, I decided to focus this study on teachers in particular.
1.2 Purpose and Significance of the Research
The field of educational neuroscience has been emerging rapidly since the 1990s. However,
there have been many discussions about the gap between neuroscience and education since
the birth of the field. Although, there are pessimistic views about the application of
neuroscientific findings to education, the field is gaining ground due to the improvement of
brain-imaging techniques and the efforts of many optimistic neuroscientists, psychologists
and educators.
Teachers’ understanding and perceptions of the field are significant because they are the ones
who use the scientific findings practically in their classrooms. Thus, teachers’ knowledge and
misconceptions about the brain and their views about educational neuroscience have been
investigated for more than a decade in some countries, such as in the UK, the US, Brazil, the
Netherlands, Greece, etc.
On the other hand, educational neuroscience is completely new in Turkey. There is no
research about teachers’ views and knowledge, or about their misconceptions about brain,
11
although baseless allegations are quite prevalent because of the improvement of mass media
in the world. Therefore, the primary aim of the research is to determine the knowledge of
primary and secondary school teachers with regards to the brain and, more specifically,
identifying their beliefs with regards to neuromyths; I shall focus on neuromyths because they
can waste one's time, effort and money. Secondly, specifying the source of neuromyths is
targeted in order to better understand the ways teachers receive their information in that
regard. Finally, as teachers play an important role in education, their perceptions and needs
could generate a basis for grounding the field in Turkey as well.
1.3 Research Setting
14 schools were visited in 2 cities in Turkey: viz., Istanbul and Mersin. In total, 320
questionnaires were distributed as hand-outs; a total of 281 teachers returned the
questionnaires. 3 of these questionnaires, however, were thrown out due to those participants
not answering all of the questions that they were asked. In the end, 278 participants (124
primary and 154 secondary school teachers) participated in this research.
Data from the questionnaires was analysed and the most prevalent neuromyths were identified
for the purpose of the interview questions; 6 of the teachers who filled out the questionnaire
were interviewed.
Detailed explanations about the questionnaire and interviews will be given in Chapter 3
(Methodology).
12
1.4 An Outline of the Structure and the Content of the Study
This dissertation is organised into five main chapters:
The Introduction identifies the area of investigation and particularly examines the ground of
the present study. Moreover, I tried to express my personal and intellectual background in
order to explain the motivation and relevance of the research from my own perspective. This
chapter is also important in that it allows one understand the purpose and significance of the
research is in general.
The literature review (Chapter 2) examines the literature with regards to the topic. It will
attempt to draw a background for educational neuroscience by explaining the historical
development process and the formation process of neuromyths. The gap between
neuroscience and education causes the propagation of neuromyths and, consequently,
neuromyths obstruct bridging "the gap". Therefore, I will particularly mention the generation
of neuromyths, their rapid spreading in many countries, and the justification of their being
called ‘myths’. Finally, the significant role of teachers on the improvement of the field and on
the prevention of neuromyths will be stated with the previous research findings in order to
better examine the situation in Turkey.
In the methodology chapter (Chapter 3), I will justify the epistemological perspective and
methodological orientation of the research. This study is based on a mixed methods research.
Since the field is completely new in Turkey, I used both quantitative and qualitative methods
in order to reach a broader understanding. Furthermore, this chapter includes ethical
considerations and reliability-validity-triangulation issues.
The presentation of the findings and analysis of this study (Chapter 4) involves the presenting
the research questions and connecting them with the research aims, which are presented in
this chapter at the beginning. The context of the schools that participated in this study and the
13
characteristics of the participants in terms of age, sex, branch and education level will be
given; then, the representations and analyses of the findings from the questionnaires and
interviews regarding the research questions will be given.
The Conclusion involves a summary of the literature review with its key concepts and a
summary of the research findings; furthermore, the limitations of the study will be presented,
before a brief conclusion about why educational neuroscience is important and why it should
be improved in Turkey and why teachers’ role is crucial during this improvement process.
14
Chapter 2
Literature Review
Educational neuroscience is a new and rapidly growing research field which brings biology,
cognitive science, developmental science and education together for the purpose of studying
how genetics and brain processes affect learning and teaching (Fischer, Goswami and Geake,
2010). Therefore, it is extremely challenging to summarise the literature of this field as it is
quite interdisciplinary and multifaceted. Nevertheless, this literature review will focus on the
relevant parts which are connected with the topic and aims of the present study.
In this chapter, first the historical development and roots of educational neuroscience will be
mentioned because it is important to generate an understanding about the aims and usefulness
of this field. After that, neuromyths will be defined and explained; moreover, the sources of
those neuromyths will be discussed since it shall be particularly relevant to the aims of this
research. The importance of “teachers” and their perceptions about educational neuroscience
and neuromyths will be explained according to previous researches about teachers’
knowledge and perceptions on educational neuroscience. Finally, the situation in Turkey will
be examined before moving on to the methodology chapter.
2.1 The Historical Development and Roots of Educational Neuroscience
The questions behind why children behave as they do or how children learn have been tried to
understood through an educational perspective for many years, and answers were given in
different ways with different theories, from psychology, sociology, biology to cognition
(Edgar, 2012). It was claimed that the theories from behaviourist and cognitive levels were
dominant before, according to the history and development of learning theories (Volckmar,
15
2011). There is a model below (Figure 2.1), which was built by Nina Volckmar (2011)
through Howard-Jones`s (2011) `level of actions` model, which explains the interactions of
educational research and learning theories in terms of brain-mind-behaviour perspective
before the birth of educational neuroscience.
Figure 2.1: Educational Theories of Human Development and Learning before Educational
Neuroscience
Individual Society
The decade between 1990 and 1999 was declared the Decade of the Brain in the US (Sousa,
2010). This provided rapid developments and researches about the mind, the brain and
education. By taking into consideration previous efforts and explanations on learning, it can
be claimed that the birth of educational neuroscience as a discipline has made a significant
contribution to the field since the 1990s. This can be seen as being propelled by a realisation
about the truth of the functioning of the brain on learning. Because the brain is counted as the
`organ of learning` and since learning is one of the most significant goals of education,
scientists made an inference that brain research might add valuable knowledge to promote
Individual
Constructivism
(Piaget) Socio-
Constructivism
(Vygotsky)
Contextual
Variables
Behaviour
(Scientifically
observable facts) Behaviouristic
Approaches
Mind
(Cognitive Models)
Brain
16
education and that education, in turn, could have something valuable to add to brain research
(Coch and Ansari, 2012).
An important leader in educational neuroscience was the Organization of Economic Co-
Operation and Development (OECD), during that time, which has organised three
international conferences in New York (2000), Granada, Spain (2001) and Tokyo, Japan
(2001) (Ferrari and McBride, 2011). The OECD also held a seven year project from 1999 to
2006 (Learning Science and Brain Research Project) about educational neuroscience in order
to highlight the importance of brain research in education.
Likewise, since the 1990s, there has been growing interest and research (Draganski et al.,
2004; Maguire et al., 2003; Stewart et al., 2003) regarding the role of the brain on learning.
Furthermore, neuroscientific findings have been informing the field of education on brain
development (Sowell et al., 1999). Some examples will be given later in this chapter.
There have been some concerns, however, regarding policymakers’ misinterpreting the
science; though, if that is the case, educational neuroscience could be doing more harm than
good (Hirsh-Pasek and Bruer, 2007).
2.2 ‘A Bridge Too Far’
Almost two decades ago, Bruer (1997), who was one of the strongest critics against
educational neuroscience, argued with regards to the relevance of neuroscience to education.
He concluded, however, that the potential bridge between neuroscience and education is “a
bridge too far”.
This pessimism still continues because transfer of knowledge from neuroscience to education
or from education to neuroscience -i.e. this is a two-way interaction- was not always clear or
17
obvious (Blakemore and Frith, 2005; Goswami, 2009; Coch and Ansari, 2012). The gap
between the two disciplines regarded their differences in vision, philosophy, aims,
methodology, research tools, etc., thereby hindering the improvement of the field. This issue
explains why the OECD report stated that:
‘A neuroscientific perspective on learning adds a new important dimension to the study of
learning in education, and educational knowledge could help direct neuroscience research
towards more relevant areas. Because both fields are well-developed, however, they have
deeply-rooted disciplinary cultures with field-specific methods and language which make it
extremely difficult for experts from one field to use the knowledge from the other (OECD,
2007: 132-133).’
As can be discerned from these explanations regarding bridge issues, educational
neuroscience involves more than one discipline; it combines the knowledge of a variety of
different fields. During efforts made about bridging the gap, several definitions with regards
this combination have been formed. For instance, Szucs and Goswami (2007: 114) define the
term as ‘the combination of cognitive neuroscience and behavioural methods to investigate
the development of mental representations’ (multidisciplinary); while Fischer et al. (2007: 1)
highlighted the term `integration`—‘the integration of diverse disciplines that investigate
human learning and development; to bring together education, biology and cognitive science
to form the new field of mind, brain and education’ (interdisciplinary)—in their definition.
On the other hand, transdisciplinarity—i.e. the creation of a new field—has been
recommended in order to connect the work on learning ‘across intellectual walls dividing
disciplines' (OECD, 2007: 133).
According to Campbell (2011), transdisciplinarity can provide new philosophical frameworks
and research methodologies, thereby bridging the gap between the two different fields.
Samuels’s (2009) proposal for a collaborative framework is also transdisciplinarity, he
believes that the knowledge yielded from educational neuroscience research would be bigger
18
than the overall knowledge from each field. Figure 2.2.a and Figure 2.2.b show three
perspectives separately:
Figure 2.2.a: Interdisciplinarity and Multidisciplinarity (OECD, 2007: 134)
Figure 2.2.b: The Evolution of Transdisciplinarity (Source: Tokuhama-Espinosa (2011) based
on Hideaki Koizumi (1999) and Boba Samuel’s (2009) concepts of transdisciplinary studies.)
DISCIPLINE 1
DISCIPLINE 3 DISCIPLINE 2
Multidisciplinarity
Inter-disciplinarity
19
Although a transdisciplinary perspective could help to overcome the bridge issue, the
complexity of the relations in education is another difficulty. This is because social and
cultural factors of learning cannot be excluded from the educational context (Schumacher,
2007), not to mention the fact that the science of learning could be prescriptive and
straightforward without taking into account any other factors such as society, culture,
environment or politics (Anderson and Della-Sala, 2012: 4). Relatedly, according to Howard-
Jones (2008), two individuals` interacting during the learning process makes the process more
complex; thus, the brain-mind-behaviour relationship should be taken into consideration with
social communication and interaction together in the educational context.
Despite all of these issues and challenges, from a scientific point-of-view, Campbell (2011)
believes that, under any circumstances, either the multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary or
transdisciplinary way of practising will support the future of education. This is because, if
new roads for experimental design and collaboration can be provided, the significant potential
of educational neuroscience would inform educational philosophy and theory; furthermore, it
has the power of understanding the human condition in order to make a contribution to
education. The "new insights" of educational neuroscience will thus be examined in the next
section.
2.3 New Insights
Educational neuroscience research findings have been already offered new insights related to
brain plasticity (brain plasticity continues throughout life), brain development (from
childhood to adulthood), the importance of memory in learning, the significant role of
working memory in learning new mental processes, etc. (Howard-Jones, 2010). There are
many findings which can be used in classrooms practically. For instance, some findings
20
compiled from Sousa (2010; 2011), Howard-Jones (2010) and OECD`s report (2007) about
neuroscience and education are given below:
'Before it was thought that only infant brains are plastic' (OECD, 2007: 42). However,
neuroscientific findings have shown that the brain retains its plasticity throughout its
lifespan. 'And because plasticity underlies learning, we can learn at any stage of life’
(OECD, 2007: 42).
Movement improves memory and learning (Sibley and Etnier, 2003; Winter et al.,
2006). Many studies have affirmed the positive relationship between physical activity
and school achievement; exercise promotes the growing of developing brains and
prevents the regression of older brains (Zervas et al., 1991; Jensen, 1998; Blakemore,
2003).
Sleep is important for memory because memories are consolidated during sleep
(Marshall and Born, 2007; Capellini et al., 2009; Maquet et al., 2000; Potkin and
Bunney, 2012). 'Regular and sufficient sleep is thus essential for the brain to learn
efficiently' (Howard Jones, 2007: 11).
The regular consumption of caffeinated-drinks or foods (especially cola and chocolate
consumption among children) affects cognitive function negatively. There are
researches which show the long-term effects of regular caffeine consumption, such as
slowing hippocampus-dependent learning and impairing long-term memory (Han et
al., 2007). Caffeine blocks adenosine action, which increases during wakefulness and
declines during sleep; that is why a lack of caffeine may cause fatigue and slowed
thinking if an individual starts to consume regularly (Rogers, 2007).
'When we observe others carrying out actions, some of the same cortical regions are
activated as if we were carrying the actions ourselves' (Howard Jones, 2009: 24).
These are defined as mirror neurons, and they enable us to understand, interpret and
21
learn from other people’s actions and behaviours; this is called imitation learning
(Rizzolatti and Craighero, 2004). This mechanism in humans can show the
significance of teacher behaviours on learning (Schober and Sabitzer, 2013).
Recent discoveries on the structural changes of the brain of a child or an adolescent
(Gogtay et al., 2004; Galvan et al., 2006) can inform teachers about their behaviours.
For instance, an unbalanced developmental process between the socio-emotional
system and the cognitive control system in the brain can explain the suboptimal
choices (risky behaviours) of adolescents (Eshel et al., 2007; Casey et al., 2008;
Steinberg, 2010). Such studies help one to understand a potentially risky and
sometimes even dangerous term of adolescents’ development (Howard Jones, 2010).
As evaluated by some examples, neuroscience helps to prove some previous knowledge about
education and offering new insights. However, according to Howard-Jones (2010), because of
the popularity of this emerging field, not only scientific-base knowledge, but also incorrect
`brain-based` knowledge (pseudo-science) was constituted through neuroscientific findings.
Public interest as well as the popularity of neuroscience has caused some to use unscientific
and uncorroborated `brain-based` knowledge as a marketing strategy, thereby causing the
occurrence of neuromyths in education. Ansari and Coch (2006: 147) mentioned with relation
to this issue that:
'Although there is growing body of peer-reviewed literature and websites that provides clear
and accurate summaries of progress in the cognitive neuroscience of learning, there are at
the same time questionable media reports and numerous other claims about "brain-based
learning" that, in our opinion, often oversimplify, misrepresent, and allow for neuromyths to
flourish.'
22
2.3.1 What is ‘Brain-Based’ Knowledge?
‘The term ‘brain-based’ has been associated with learning theories, principles and products
that posit a link to the brain’s structure or function. (Sylvan and Christodoulou, 2010: 1)’
According to the definition above, there is no harm done of brain-based knowledge or
products to education. Having regard to the uncontrolled global information-network and the
commercialization of education, however, ‘pseudo brain-based’ knowledge, products,
commercials, books, popular magazine articles or etc. become popular and widespread in the
world.
Because this is an integral element of this dissertation, however, the next two sections will
examine in-depth the literature with relation to brain-based knowledge and neuromyths.
2.4 Neuromyths
The OECD’s Brain and Learning project (1999-2006) drew international attention to the
destructive effects of misconceptions, misunderstandings and misusages of scientific facts and
findings of brain research in education (OECD, 2002: 69; Dekker et al., 2012). The
organisation defined "neuromyths" as 'a misconception generated by a misunderstanding, a
misreading or a misquoting of facts scientifically established (by brain research) to make case
for use of brain research in education and in other contexts' (OECD, 2002). Furthermore,
according to Beauchamp and Beauchamps` (2012) literature review, the first problem in
educational neuroscience is seen as being the occurrence of “neuromyths” by scientists in the
field.
2.4.1 Are They Really ‘Myths’?
Since the emergence of neuroscience in education during the early 1990s, commercial ‘brain-
based’ applications and `myths` have increased correspondingly (Howard Jones, 2007). They
23
often have developed without any neuroscientific study. There are few examples about so
called brain-based programmes and neuromyths which shall be examined below:
The first regards the "Brain gym". The'Brain gym promotes the idea that neural mechanism
can be influenced by specific physical exercises' (Howard Jones, 2007: 15). However, even
the terms used are pseudo-scientific, since they are not recognisable in neuroscience and there
is no scientific evidence to prove that concept (Howard Jones, 2007).
Another prevalent ‘brain-based’ programme is learning styles. learning styles [visual, audial
or kinaesthetic (VAK)], are claimed to be based on a valid scientific finding: thus, ‘visual,
auditory and kinaesthetic information is processed in different parts of the brain’; however,
there is some additional information such that ‘these separate structures in the brain are
highly interconnected and there is profound cross-modal activation and transfer of
information between sensory modalities’ (Gilmore et al., 2007). Moreover, researches have
shown that children do not understand more effectively when they are taught with their
preferred learning styles (Coeffield et al.’ 2004); thus, scientists have concluded that those
attempts are wasted-efforts (Kratzig and Arbuthnott, 2006). Therefore, more than one style
should be used for an effective teaching-learning process.
Multiple intelligences theory (Gardner, 1983) and practices have been prevalent and have
been used in classrooms by means of curriculums. However, there is no valid empirical
evidence to support this theory's claims (Allix, 2000; Sternberg and Grigorenko, 2004;
Waterhouse, 2006); besides, cognitive researches have asserted that 'the human brain is
unlikely to function via Gardner’s multiple intelligences because it is unlikely that that each
of Gardner’s intelligences could operate via a different set of neural mechanisms’
(Waterhouse, 2006: 213).
24
As mentioned before, there are prevalent neuromyths on education which have been identified
by the OECD:
That ‘[w]e use 10% of our brain’ is one of the most persistent neuromyths according
to OECD (2002). 'There is absolutely no scientific evidence to suggest that we only
use 10 or any other specific or limited percentage of our brains. On the
contrary, neuroscience findings show that the brain is 100% active' (OECD, 2007:
113).
‘There are critical periods when certain things must be taught and learnt’ is another
common myth. There is a common acceptance in the neuroscience community that
human learning depends on changes in the patterns of connectivity between neurons
(Howard-Jones, 2008: 363). For a long time it was believed that the number of
neurons declines with age. But, with the advent of new brain imaging techniques,
many studies have shown that new neurons occur at any time in a person’s life and
that the brain remains plastic throughout its lifespan (OECD, 2007). Therefore,
learning is possible at any age. It is true that there are some sensitive periods for
learning some certain things. For instance, grammar learning could be an example of
sensitive-period learning because, according to some researches, ‘grammar is learned
faster and easier up to approximately age 16' (OECD, 2007: 111); this does not mean,
however, that grammar cannot be learned after age 16.
The myth that ‘enriched environments [enhance] the brain’s capacity for learning’
occurred first from a scientific research done on rats by Falkenberg et al. (1992).
'Researchers found that neurons in rats, which were raised in an enriched
environment, had formed more connections, i.e. synapses and expressed more proteins
associated with the maintenance of synaptic contacts' (Goswami, 2004: 11); however,
25
according to Goswami (ibid), further research is needed in order to apply this
inference to human learning.
As can be seen from the above examples, the term "neuromyths" is completely valid seeing as
there exist scientific explanations which explain why they are called "myths". Although some
explanations were required in order to critically analyse the sources above, there is a need to
investigate and understand the source of these neuromyths so as to better prevent against their
promulgation as well, especially because neuromyths hamper the development of educational
neuroscience, not to mention the fact that they waste time, effort and money (OECD, 2002).
Indeed, one of the reasons behind why some scientists hesitate when it comes to using
neuroscientific findings about education is because of the existence of these neuromyths in
general (Varma et al., 2008). Thus, I shall next turn to how neuromyths themselves are
generated.
2.4.2 How are neuromyths generated?
Pasquinelli (2012) claims that neuromyths can be generated in three ways:
1. Distortions of scientific facts; e.g. the ‘individual differences can be explained by
hemispheric dominance’ myth is a product of research on hemispheric specialisation
and dominance (Geake, 2008).
2. Neuromyths can be the offspring of scientific hypotheses which have been accepted as
truth before being debunked. For instance, even though the so called Mozart Effect—
which related to Mozart music’s being able to increase a child's IQ scores (Rauscher,
Shaw and Ky, 1993)—has not been replicated, people currently still believe it.
3. Neuromyths can be developed from the misinterpretations of experimental results. For
instance, the research finding that ‘visual, auditory and kinaesthetic (VAK)
information [is] processed in different parts of the brain’ caused the generation of the
26
neuromyth with regards to learning styles which asserts that child learning can be
improved through children’s being classified into different learning styles and being
taught according to those different styles.
Next, we shall examine how neuromyths can spread so rapidly.
2.4.3 How have neuromyths spread so rapidly?
The reason behind the rapid spread of neuromyths is firstly because of neuroscience’s being
alluring to so many different sciences—such as economy, marketing, aesthetics, theology,
law, anthropology and politics—; there is a general optimism that neuroscience's scientific
manner could solve what has not yet been solved and what may be seen as being `chronic`
problems (Anderson and Della Salla, 2012). In other words, knowledge about the brain seems
much more `compelling`, real, scientific and `persuasive`. For instance, it was indicated that
the representation of brain images in an article is more persuasive than other data
representations for readers (Sylvan and Christodoulou, 2010).
Secondly, the gap which causes the existence of neuromyths has also caused the prevalence of
neuromyths at the same time. According to Goswami (2006), the problem about the gap arises
from the miscommunication of neuroscientists with teachers. He claimed that most teachers
expect to be told what works and prefer practical knowledge; conversely, neuroscientists
study neurons and brain functions through brain imaging techniques and make contributions
through what they find from the brain images; furthermore, they are not good at
communication with the society in general.
Because of this same reason—i.e. the different needs and perspectives of neuroscientists and
teachers—, some pseudo-sciences have been created faster than educational neuroscience
knowledge and applications. These pseudo-sciences do not consult experts from neuroscience
or education and do not conduct experiments and, unfortunately, are transformed into easily
27
understandable recipes for teachers to practise in their classrooms. This is why teachers`
perceptions and attitudes on educational neuroscience are so important in terms of the
development of the field—because teachers are the ones that will end up promulgating
knowledge to their students. Therefore, the sooner they are informed about true educational
neuroscience, the better.
2.5 Significance of Teachers and Their Perceptions about Educational Neuroscience on
the Development of the Field
Teaching is a serious and crucial action in terms of the development and maintenance of the
well-being of human beings (Fischer et al., 2010) and the change in brain structure. Sausa
(2011) nicknames teachers ‘brain changers’, which could explain the significance of brain
knowledge on the process of teaching-learning.
As the field of neuroscience in education evolves and brain-based educational products are
developed, it will become important for teachers to be critical consumers; this is because there
is a hunger for `brain-based` knowledge among teachers (Goswami, 2006). Hirsh-Paserk and
Bruer (2007) observed in the ‘Human Early Education and Brain Development Conference’
in Chile-Santiago that 'myths about brain-based pedagogy dominated participants’ (ministers,
educators, scientists) thinking'.
Moreover, it is possible to find a cornucopia of information on brain-based learning on
websites and in popular science magazines. Particularly, teachers` have shown an interest in
learning some practical techniques to use in classrooms and expect to get through some of
their educational problems (Alferink and Farmer-Dougan, 2010). According to Hirsh-Paserk
and Bruer (2007), educational literature is now stocked with books and articles on brain-based
learning practices and a market has grown for brain-based toys, not to mention brain-based
28
consultants visiting school districts. For instance, at a conference which was held by the
Centre for Neuroscience in Education at the University of Cambridge, teachers` reported that
they receive more than 70 e-mails in a year, encouraging them to join courses or training
programmes about brain-based learning (Goswami, 2006).
These courses claim that they offer some `practical` techniques, such as:
- Learning styles: this relates to distinguishing children in terms of their learning styles
(VAK), as well as suggested labelling for children for a successful teaching-learning
process;
- Education via identifying children`s hemispheric dominance suggested that teachers
should find out whether their children are left- or right-brained learners so as to
understand their children’s strengths and weaknesses in terms of their neural ability
(Goswami, 2006);
- In terms of the brain gym: courses assert that enhancing learning is possible through
some body movements; thus, they suggest making accessible all brain areas for better
learning.
These efforts claim to be based on scientific findings about the brain, as mentioned before. On
the contrary, they are based on conclusions that are not supported by existing data and there is
no evidence to show whether or not they are accurate (Alferink and Farmer-Dougan, 2010).
The influence of these neuromyths has been seen as problematic because they cause a waste
of money, time and effort (Dekker et al., 2012). For instance, after the pseudo-scientific
hypothesis regarding the ‘Mozart Effect’ was published, the governor of the State of Georgia
in the US asked for $105.000 for the production and distribution of classical music to new-
borns (Pasquinelli, 2012). That could be one reason why educators’ belief about brain-based
29
approaches is significant; though, as has been shown, those approaches can bring more harm
than benefit.
The commercialisation of these approaches causes these programmes to spread around the
world (Dekker et al., 2012). Goswami (2006) underlines the danger the spreading speed of
these programmes and courses; thus, he insists on the urgency of preventions against the
brain-based industry of almost a decade ago. He claims that informing teachers is important to
stop misapplications in practice. More currently, Paul A. Howard-Jones (as cited in Sparks,
2012) said `in the absence of legitimate neuroscience in education, a neuro-mythology has
arisen in schools`. This statement shows there is still a necessity for preventions.
According to Goswami (2006), progress towards prevention could be made possible by
collaborating with teachers; however, this collaboration should not only be about highlighting
the misuse of scientific findings, but also there is a need to inform teachers about true and
applicable neuroscientific findings, especially since teacher quality is quite significant for a
successful teaching-learning environment. Ansari and Coch (2006) also made a crucial
conclusion that collaboration between neuroscience and education needs to start with teacher
training.
There has been a significant effort to introduce the field to teachers in recent years. The
OECD’s Brain and Learning Project especially drew international attention to neuromyths in
2002 (Hook and Farah, 2012).
It could be a good starting point for the purpose of collaborating and developing the field to
ask teachers their thoughts about educational neuroscience. It is possible to see the
improvement of the field by looking at the researches done and the articles and books written.
There is a huge potential from the neuroscientific side. The problem with this, however, is
firstly that the deficiency in the knowledge that teachers have and their unfounded perceptions
30
about the field; and secondly, is that there still exists insufficient communication between
neuroscientists and educators.
For instance, researches have been started with regards to the perceptions of teachers on the
usage of neuroscientific findings in education in some counties, such as the UK (Pickering
and Jones, 2007; Howard-Jones, Franey, Mashmoushi and Liao, 2009), the Netherlands (a
comparative study with teachers in the UK) (Dekker et al., 2012), Brazil (Bartoszeck and
Bartoszeck, 2012) and the USA (Serpati and Loughan, 2012).
Briefly, the results from all of the above researches were similar. Teachers’ knowledge on
neuroscience was low, despite their interest in educational neuroscience and its findings. For
instance, the majority of participants in the UK were enthusiastic about the knowledge of
brain in educational activities (Pickering and Jones, 2007); a large majority of teachers (94%)
in the US agreed that the neurological underpinnings of learning, cognition and behaviour are
significant information to know in terms of their professions’ efficiency (Serpati and
Loughan, 2012); furthermore, more than 80% (n=163) of Brazilian teachers believed that
better knowledge about educational neuroscience could enhance their teaching abilities and
increase their students’ learning potentials (Bartoszeck and Bartoszeck, 2012).
However, besides this general aura of enthusiasm, the results clearly show that their
knowledge about the brain was quite insufficient. Findings from the comparative study
between the UK and the Netherlands show that teachers agreed with 49% of the neuromyths
which were identified (Dekker, Lee, Howard-Jones and Jolles, 2012) and there was no
significant difference between these countries. Moreover, it was determined in another study
in the UK that most participants (trainee teachers) already believed a range of neuromyths;
thus, the researchers concluded that the brain-based industry had been successful in UK
schools (Howard-Jones, Franey, Mashmoushi and Liao, 2009).
31
Considering these results, it is clear that there is a general enthusiasm for brain research
findings among teachers, which is one of the key issues for bridging the gap, even though
there is a lack of knowledge about brain at the same time.
As mentioned above, there are considerable efforts to develop the field in some countries. The
importance of the field and the hazards of the brain-based learning industry are beyond
argument. Thus, ‘How can the field be improved?’ and ‘How can the bridge between
neuroscience and education be built?’ could be the questions that one needs to answer. We
need to find out the ways to bridge this gap and to use neuroscience more effectively in
classrooms. Thus, the development of this field is needed in all countries, particularly where
the brain-based learning industry has had an effect on education, such as in Turkey. Thus, it
shall be to the situation in Turkey with regards to educational neuroscience that I will now
focus my attention.
2.6 What is the Situation in Turkey?
Unfortunately, there is great enthusiasm for brain-based learning practices (pseudo-science) in
Turkey. It is possible to find a considerable number of websites and articles related to brain-
based learning in the popular science area. Also, courses and training programmes can be
found for teachers which claim to improve one's knowledge about the brain and to teach some
practical and helpful techniques which can be used in classrooms.
On the other hand, there have been minimal efforts in educational neuroscience in academia.
These articles include: “Brain and learning" (Keles and Cepni: 2006) and “Research in
neuroscience and music education: towards knowledge transfer possibilities" (Akyildiz,
2010). However, there have not been any studies about teachers’ knowledge, perceptions or
training.
32
Teacher training is quite important for a successful teaching-learning environment. As Ansari
and Coch (2006) emphasise, teacher education is one of the most effective mechanisms for
improving neuroscience literacy in education. However, the last revision with regards to
teacher education in Turkey was made in 1997 (Cakiroglu and Cakiroglu, 2003; Yuksel,
2012). Thus, in considering the recent developments in Turkey when compared to the
educational research done around the globe and the new findings about education or changing
needs, cultures, behaviours, understandings; the absence of new insights with regards to
teacher training could be a problem in terms of Turkey's developing a successful education
system. For instance, neuromyths and brain-based literature are quite prevalent in the world
because, in recent years, due to new technologies and mass media, knowledge is available for
all, through network access. Nevertheless, there is no awareness about this subject in Turkey.
New developments were made in this regard with the membership negotiations with the
European Union (EU) that it has had since 2009 (Ozmusul, 2012); there has not been any
significant change, however, about teacher education at universities—something which is
pivotal for the standardisation of teacher education. Besides, there exists a concern and
criticism about the effectiveness of decisions and trainings since some academics have found
the developments with the EU membership negotiations unrealistic in terms of how different
the Turkish education system's culture, conditions and infrastructure is compared to European
standards. How realistic are the decisions made by international organizations and the
European Union with regards to education? To what extent can they fit the culture and
conditions of Turkey?
Briefly,
There is a great amount of pseudo-scientific information on the internet and in popular
science magazines; however, there do not exist any preventions regarding
33
neuroscience in education in terms of teachers’ knowledge about both the brain and
neuromyths.
The improvements made by the Turkish Ministry of National Education are connected
with EU policies; however, there are still concerns about the reality and effectiveness
of the improvements in terms of culture and conditions.
In line with these significant points, the progress of educational neuroscience in Turkey has
two stages in order to pass. Firstly, teacher education should be revised in terms of
neuroscience; and secondly, culture and conditions should be taken into consideration when
putting decisions into practice. The aim of the present research is to examine how to establish
a framework for educational neuroscience in Turkey. Moreover, the literature can be
expanded by adding new evidences and results about teachers’ believing neuromyths from
different countries.
34
Chapter 3
Methodology
As Wilfred Carr states:
'Research always conveys a commitment to philosophical beliefs even if this is unintended and
even though it remains implicit and unacknowledged. Researchers cannot evade the
responsibility for critically examining and justifying the philosophical ideas that their
enquiries incorporate. It follows that philosophical reflection and argumentation are central
features of the methods and procedures of educational research' (Carr, 1995: 1)
Briefly, it can be concluded that a study's research methodology reflects the philosophical
position of the researcher and that this philosophical position also determines which research
methodology will be used in the study. The present chapter shall:
Present an understanding about the epistemology of research methodology and a
rationale for the research methods used in this study;
Provide an outline of the research design and describe the methods of the research and
its analysis;
Examine and analyse the ethical issues of the research;
Discuss issues regarding reliability, validity and triangulation.
3.1 Epistemological Perspective and Methodological Orientation
According to Morrison (2007) research enquiry is full of uncertainties and challenges. Thus,
we need to make connections between epistemology and methodology to determine whether
our conclusion is “right” or not. There is a strong, steady and essential link between
epistemology, methodology and method in a research.
35
Epistemology is about the nature and scope of knowledge; moreover it is central for research.
It is important for a researcher to determine and indicate how he/she understands knowledge
about the world (Morrison, 2007: 18); hence, we can say that methodology is affected by
epistemology.
Scott and Morrison (2006:153) specified two questions to show the content of one's
methodology—i.e. they explain "how" the researcher obtains the knowledge as well as "why"
it was obtained. Moreover, they underlined the significance of the "why" question in that it
describes the rationale, or reasons, behind the researcher's using certain methods in order to
collect data. Put briefly, methodology represents a rationale to show the ways and reasons of
the research's techniques. In this respect, when considering the scope of methodology,
Morrison (2007: 19) underlined that 'methodology is much more than techniques or methods
or tools for a research'.
Figure-3.1: A Framework for Research Design (Cresswell, 2003: 5)
Figure 3.1 shows the elements and process of a research design. As can be seen from the
figure, there are three different approaches for research. I have used both quantitative and
qualitative methods (i.e. a mixed methods approach) to research.
Elements of Inquiry
Alternative Knowledge Claims
Approaches to Research Design Processes
Strategies of Inquiry Qualitative of Research
Quantitative Questions, theoretical
Methods Mixed Methods lens, data collection,
Conceptualised by data analysis, write-up
the researcher validation
36
Historically and scientifically, there is a distinct difference between qualitative and
quantitative methods in terms of their epistemology and methodology. Those differences
arose from the positivism-idealism debate of the late 19th
century. At a general level, the
fundamental distinction derives from the question “what is to count as knowledge?” (Smith,
1983). On the one hand, positivists claim that knowledge should be observable and
measurable and that the observer should be neutral to the subject; relativists, on the other
hand, point out that a researcher, as a human being, cannot stand outside the subject and its
world. We are socially bound up with one another; moreover, facts are human interpretations
of reality, which means that they could change according to culture or time (Walliman and
Buckler, 2008).
From the methodological perspective, quantitative research has been affected by positivism
and the application of the scientific method; thus, from this perspective, statistical techniques
could guarantee the quality of the research (Morrison, 2007: 33). Qualitative research, on the
other hand, has been affected by interpretivism in that qualitative researchers concentrate on
detailed observation by trying to make rich and deep descriptions; in other words, they pay
attention to words rather than to numbers (Morrison, 2007: 27).
There has been a debate—or a competition, as it were—between these two philosophical
perspectives. More recently, however, arguments about combining these two approaches have
been supported as being ‘a third methodological movement’ (Morrison, 2007: 28). It is called
the ‘mixed methods research’ approach, which is basically defined as 'the class of research
where the researcher mixes or combines quantitative and qualitative research techniques,
methods, approaches, concepts or language into a single study' (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie,
2004: 17). From this point-of-view, Johnson and Onwuegbuzie believe that, by combining
qualitative and quantitative methods, mixed methods research and its philosophy provide
complete comprehension of the study as well as a ‘workable solution’. The fundamental
37
principle of mixed research is that it considers the strengths and weaknesses of quantitative
and qualitative research, thereby providing a general evaluation (Johnson and Turner, 2003);
further, Tashakkori and Teddlie (1998) claim that the mixed methods approach produces the
most “effectiveness”. More briefly and conspicuously, Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004)
asserted that ‘mixed methods research is a research paradigm whose time has come’.
Mixed methods research is situated in the pragmatist paradigm. Pragmatists believe that
qualitative and quantitative researches both have their advantages and disadvantages; needs,
possibilities and contingencies should be evaluated in order to decide which method will be
more appropriate. Furthermore, they claim that the mixed methods approach is more practical
and offers the opportunity to combine methods; in this way, researchers can find applicable
answers for many of their research questions. They define the mixed methods approach as
being like a bridge between methodologies while also providing for a more pluralistic and
compatibilist approach (Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2011).
In this study, while using the quantitative methods approach (in the form of a questionnaire)
provides a broad perspective about primary and secondary school teachers’ knowledge about
the brain, as well as about the situation regarding neuromyths in Turkey; the qualitative
methods approach (in the form of interviewing a select number of those who answered the
questionnaire) helps us to find out more in detail about the sources of neuromyths, as well as
teachers’ perspectives with regards the use of neuroscience in education.
3.2 Research Design
Vaus (2001: 8) uses an analogy to explain the significance of research design; 'when
constructing a building there is no point ordering materials or setting critical dates for
completion of project stages until we know what sort of building is being constructed'. He
38
continues, saying that, similarly, we cannot start a social research project until we have a
research plan with which to follow. There is an indisputable need for a research design to
obtain the knowledge that we need. A research design involves the issues and explanations
about sampling, method of data collection, data analysing, etc., and all of these points are
closely related with the research questions. By designing a research, a researcher determines
the way the research questions will be answered. In this way, one should try to be as
unambiguous as possible during the research process (Vaus, 2001: 16).
In the present study, the research design mostly depended on the previous researches done
about teachers’ knowledge and perceptions about educational neuroscience in different
countries. Educational neuroscience, however, is a completely new and undiscovered field in
Turkey. Although there are little efforts as mentioned (see Chapter 2, 2.6), there is no research
which examines the broad perspective about the situation of the field in terms of its general
situation or in regards to the neuromyths believed by Turkish teachers. Therefore, it was
firstly a necessity to review the literature with regards to a teachers’ role, knowledge or
perceptions about neuroscience in education in the world. Reviewing the literature helped me
to find the right way for reaching the knowledge more clearly at the beginning because
previous perspectives and experiences provided me with a broader view by noticing the
limitations and results, not to mention comparing those results would enable a standpoint
regarding the situation about neuromyths in practice among teachers in Turkey.
Having outlined the epistemological and methodological perspectives, the process of deciding
the research design of the study and the content of the research design will now be outlined in
two parts: viz. the questionnaire design and the interview design.
39
3.3 Questionnaire Design (Participants and Procedure)
As mentioned before, the mixed methods research was used. For the first part of the study a
questionnaire (see Appendix 1) was conducted. It was used in Dekker et al.’s (2012) paper
before and included 32 statements about the brain and its influence on learning. Among these
32 statements were 15 statements which were defined and accepted as educational
neuromyths by the OECD (2002) such as “we only use 10% of our brains”. The other 17
statements were general scientific information about the brain such as “learning occurs
through modification of the brains’ neural connections”. The participants could answer these
statements by choosing “correct”, “incorrect” or “do not know”.
The questionnaire was personally translated into Turkish. The translation was checked by two
English teachers from Turkey—who were experts in both languages—,as well as one PhD
student from the social sciences in Turkey—whose education language was English—and one
research assistant at Ankara University. Besides this, a pilot study was conducted online
among primary and secondary school teachers in order to see the feedbacks and to correct the
unclear parts of the questions or statements if there were any. 38 teachers participated in the
pilot study (for the results of pilot study see Appendix 2). Many of them responded that they
could understood the questionnaire easily and that they did not find any problematic points. 6
of them gave feedbacks about some ‘unclear’ parts in the statements. The questionnaire was
revised according to these feedbacks. Some parts were changed (whereas the meanings did
not change) in order to prepare more coherent statements and questions.
The participants of the questionnaire were also asked some additional questions—such as age,
sex, level of education (either undergraduate, Masters or PhD) as well as the branch (either
primary or secondary school teacher)—for background information. Moreover, there were 11
questions which were based on a likert scale. They ranked about whether they: read either
scientific or popular scientific articles; or attended conferences, in-service training courses or
40
private certificate courses, so as to be able to investigate the source of neuromyths. Also, they
ranked their interests and their confidences about neuroscience in education. Furthermore,
they indicated whether neuroscience in education is significant or not and whether they need
an in-service training course about the brain and its effect on learning or not. Finally, they
were asked if they heard about multiple intelligences, learning styles or brain gyms.
Data was collected between 2 and 20 April, 2013. Schools were visited individually and
questionnaires were distributed as hand-outs. In total, 320 questionnaires were distributed and
281 participants returned the questionnaires; however, 3 questionnaires were thrown out due
to invalid answering issues. Thus, in the end, 278 participants (124 primary and 154
secondary school teachers) participated in the research. Data was collected from 14 different
primary and secondary schools from two different cities—8 schools in Istanbul and 6 schools
in Mersin. Descriptive statistics about the participants will be given in Chapter 4 (Findings) in
detail.
The data was analysed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version
19.0 for Windows. For all analysis, a statistical threshold of α = 0.05 was used. Percentages
were calculated; independent t-tests were used to compare teachers’ (from Turkey) knowledge
in terms of sex, branch, age and educational level. Regression analysis was performed to
examine the potential predictors of neuromyths (i.e. age, sex or reading popular science
magazines). Results were compared with the results from the UK and the Netherlands in
Dekker et al.’s (2012) paper.
There are some advantages and disadvantages to using questionnaires. According to Cohen et
al. (2000), questionnaires are more economic in terms of time and it is possible to reach many
participants by using questionnaires; moreover, the anonymity provides more reliability due
to honesty issues. On the other hand, misunderstandings and misinterpretations cannot be
41
fixed, and some participants may fill inattentively and thus cannot be understood by the
researcher. Data from interviews provided more in-depth responses and prevented the
misunderstandings. The biggest benefit of mixed methodology research is that the two
different methods’ completing each other in terms of their advantages and disadvantages.
3.4 Interview Design (Participants and Procedure)
For the second part of the study, the participants—i.e. those who filled out the
questionnaire—consisted of 3 primary and 3 secondary school teachers (3 male, 3 female)
(n=6). Data was collected from two different cities (4 participants from Mersin, 2 participants
from Istanbul) as well. A semi-structured interview (for interview questions see Appendix 3)
was used.
The first part of the interview questions were created according to the questionnaire results. 7
statements regarding the neuromyths which were most believed by participants who attended
the first part of the study, were utilised in order to take in-depth responses so as to reach the
sources of the participants’' misconceptions. In the second part of interviews, questions about
their previous knowledge about educational neuroscience (did they hear about them before
and where?); their knowledge on some misconceptions, such as multiple intelligences,
learning styles and brain gyms; and their perception and interest with regards the use of
neuroscientific findings in education were asked.
After the data was collected from all interviews, they were first transcribed. The transcripts
were subsequently read. For each question, a table was organised in order to depict the
answers from the 6 participants all together; in other words, answers were collected separately
for each question. Then, the data was coded with respect to common and salient themes.
While analysing the data, firstly, the general context was explained for each question and then
42
different comments, examples or explanations from each participant were inserted into the
Findings chapter (i.e. Chapter 4).
3.5 Ethical Considerations
Ethical considerations can change according to the researcher’s disciplinary, ideological or
socio-cultural background (Busher and James, 2007); however, I considered the ethical codes
which were included in the ethical form of the University of Bristol which we had to have
filled in before beginning the research; moreover, I also adhered to the codes which have been
developed by The British Psychological Society (2009) throughout the entire research
process. Ethical considerations will be explained according to the items below:
1. Information given to participants / Debriefing / Informed consent
- Voluntariness
- Anonymity
- Confidentiality
- Participant's right of withdrawal
- Safety and well-being of participants/ researchers
2. Data analysis
3. Data Protection
The British Psychological Society (2009) states that researchers should inform participants
about everything which might affect their attendance. Thus, informed consent forms, which
had detailed information, were prepared for both the questionnaire (Appendix 4) and the
interview (Appendix 5). They were prepared in English and then translated into Turkish. All
43
essential information that should have been given to the participants was clearly indicated in
the consent forms.
In the consent forms, firstly, the content and the aim of the research were explained; also,
brief instructions about the structure of the questionnaire and interview were briefly provided.
Then, their rights as participants were stated. Voluntariness and their right to withdrawal were
highlighted; the anonymity and confidentiality of the data obtained were guaranteed.
Additionally, interviewees were informed about the recording process—i.e. that the
interviews were taped—as well as the transcription process—i.e. that two languages were
used during the data collection process and that, thus, the transcription of the interviews were
required in order to be checked by experts in the two languages for approval.
While distributing the questionnaires, person-to-person, voluntariness and their right to
withdraw were underlined. During the interviews, additional explanations were made about
the aim of the research and the information in consent form was repeated, such as
confidentiality and anonymity. Having a little conversation before starting provided to create
a mutual-trust environment and to make the participants more relaxed. By means of those
additional explanations, the safety and well-being of participants were tried to be assured.
Data analysis is another significant issue for ethical procedures. It was thought that, since
analysing the data from the interviews could be required, a translation check for approval by
an expert in both languages became necessary. Thus, transcriptions (all parts which were used
in the Findings section) were check by an English teacher from Turkey.
Finally, data storage and protection were also other important confidentiality issues; thus, all
data has been encrypted in my laptop and I have put all questionnaires in a safe in my room in
the UK.
Now I shall mention issues about reliability, validity and triangulation.
44
3.6 Reliability, Validity and Triangulation
Bush (2007: 102) highlighted that ‘there is no perfect truth’ according to Lincoln and
Denzin’s (1998) claim, which is that ‘research could always have been better grounded, the
subjects more representative, the researcher more knowledgeable, the research instruments
better formulated, and so on..’
However, a focus on reliability, validity and triangulation could satisfy both researchers and
readers (Bush, 2007). In other words, the authenticity of an educational research (quantitative
or qualitative) can be evaluated through procedures used which also address the reliability,
validity and triangulation issues.
With simple definitions: reliability shows the consistency of data, meaning that it analyses
whether the same results will be obtained if the same procedure is followed (Walliman and
Buckler, 2008); while validity addresses the accuracy of the results, illustrating the
representativeness of the data (Walliman & Buckler, 2008); and triangulation is the
application of several methods to compare many sources of evidence in order to check the
accuracy of the information (Gray, 2009).
Bush (2007) pointed out that reliability and validity are two fundamental issues to provide
authenticity, and triangulation is essentially important for the purpose of cross-checking data
in order to ensure validity.
However, these three terms are not interdependent. As Robson (2002: 101) indicates,
reliability can be provided without validity; further, Bush (2007: 102) notes that reliability
may be achieved by decreasing validity; thus, triangulation is significant in that it is certain
with regards to validity and authenticity in general.
45
The reliability of the quantitative data was checked through semi-structured interviewing.
This was done by utilising 7 statements from the questionnaire which were used to get
detailed explanations from participants about the origins in their believing in neuromyths.
Bush (2007: 94-96), on the other hand, claims that semi-structured interviews may limit the
extent for reliability while increasing validity. There are two types of validity: internal
validity and external validity (Bush, 2007: 98). According to Cohen and Manion (1994: 99),
even if participants do not fill the questionnaire accurately, validity can be checked by
interviewing. Internal validity was checked with methodological triangulation as well.
Briefly, triangulation provides the balance between reliability and validity. Mixed methods
research, similar to data triangulation (using more than one data) and methodological
triangulation (combining qualitative and quantitative research), were used in this research in
order to ensure the enhancement on reliability and validity (Gray, 2009).
Lastly, external validity refers to the generalisability of the research. According to Yin (as
cited in Briggs and Coleman, 2007), the generalisability problem can be overcome by
replicating the research in other, similar setting. The questionnaire used for the present
research was taken from Dekker et al.’s (2012) paper. They also conducted a similar research
in the UK and the Netherlands among teachers. Although there were differences—i.e. their
participants were teachers who were interested in educational neuroscience—the settings were
similar.
On the other hand, although survey results may contribute to greater confidence in the
generalisability of results from a positivist perspective (Jick, 1979); it is neither possible nor
necessary to generalise the results from an interpretivist perspective since they reject to
generalise the results as an aim (Schofield, 2002: 173) and claim that every topic has its own
meaning, structure and sense of order.
46
This study is based on the mixed methods research approach. The aim of this study involves
making contributions and interpretations about the knowledge and misconceptions of primary
and secondary school teachers in Turkey; however, no claims are made for generalisability.
47
Chapter 4
Presentation of Findings and Their Analysis
This chapter involves the representation and analysis of findings from this study's
questionnaires and interviews. All the data collected will be analysed according to the
research questions. This chapter will present:
Research questions;
Characteristics and the context of the schools;
Descriptive statistics about participants;
Research findings from quantitative data (questionnaires) and their analysis;
Research findings from qualitative data (interviews) and their analysis.
4.1 Research Questions
As highlighted before, the purpose of this research was appropriate for the mixed methods
research approach because neuroscience in education is a completely new field in Turkey;
thus, I tried to find both statistical answers and detailed, in-depth answers, as far as possible,
to my research questions. I tried to analyse the situation in terms of teachers’ general
knowledge about the brain and their beliefs regarding neuromyths, at the same time trying to
compare the results with the results from different countries, such as the UK and the
Netherlands. In light of this information, my research questions are:
1. What is the primary and secondary school teachers’ general knowledge about the brain
in Turkey? and What is the difference between the UK, the Netherlands and Turkey in
terms of teachers’ knowledge about the brain?
48
2. What is the situation of neuromyths in Turkey? And what is the difference between
the UK, the Netherlands and Turkey in terms of teachers’ believing in such
neuromyths?
3. What are primary and secondary school teachers’ sources of knowledge about
neuromyths?
4. What do teachers’ think about the usage of neuroscience in education? Do they find it
necessary to use neuroscientific findings in education?
4.2 Characteristics and The Context of Schools
Questionnaires were conducted at 14 different schools in 2 cities, viz. Mersin and Istanbul. 6
people who completed the first part (questionnaires) of the research were chosen from 2
schools (one in Istanbul, one in Mersin). As a part of research ethics, research participants’
confidentiality and anonymity were assured; thus, in order to ensure this, school names will
not be used.
There is no data about the representativeness of cities in terms of education, schools or
teachers; however, Istanbul is the most crowded and mixed city in terms of the structure of the
population. Although Mersin is much smaller and less crowded than Istanbul, the diversity of
its population is similar with that of Istanbul due to its migration-receiving potential (Kleff,
2007).
The features of these schools are also significant in terms of the representativeness of the
general population because the physical infrastructure of the schools—which is dependent on
the socio-economic status of the region and its students—determines the conditions of the
schools which affect the quality of education, in Turkey. Public education spending as a share
of gross domestic product (GDP) was 3.8% in 2010 in Turkey, which is averagely 5.8%
49
among OECD countries and which should be 6% in developing countries according to a
UNESCO report (www.unicef.org.tr). Moreover, the overpopulation of formal education
students in Turkey should be taken into account for a more realistic evaluation. 8 (4 of them
in Mersin, 5 of them in Istanbul) schools were located in low socio-economical regions while
5 (2 of them in Mersin, 3 of them in Istanbul) were located in middle and high socio-
economical regions. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected from both types of
schools (i.e. with relation to their socio-economical region).
4.3 Descriptive Statistics about Participants
The research participants were primary and secondary school teachers. 278 teachers, whose
ages ranged between 23 and 64, participated in the study. The average age of the participants
was 36. 51.8% of the participants were female and 48.2% were male. Table 4.1 below shows
the descriptive statistics of the participants in percentages in terms of the branch of education
they work in (primary or secondary school teacher), their education level (university, Masters
or PhD), and their gender.
Table 4.1: Descriptive statistics of participants for questionnaire.
Female (Overall percentage: 51.8%) Male (Overall percentage: 48.2%)
Primary school Secondary school Primary school Secondary school
Uni. Masters PhD Uni. Masters PhD Uni. Masters PhD Uni. Masters PhD
98.2% 1.8% - 87.5% 22.5% - 100% - - 81% 16% 3%
For the second part of study, there were 6 interviewees whose experience level for teaching
changed between 1.5 to 21 years. Table 4.2 shows the features of participants.
50
Table 4.2: Participants who took part in interviews.
Female (n=3) Male (n=3)
Primary school Secondary school Primary school Secondary school
1 2 2 1
4.4 Findings from Questionnaires
The findings of research questions 1 and 2 will be presented in this section. Research
questions 1 and 2 will draw upon the survey, while the 3rd
and 4th
questions will be answered
through both the questionnaire results and interview findings.
Also it should be noted that, the aim of this research is not for the purpose of comparing
teachers from Turkey with teachers’ from the UK or the Netherlands; however, comparing
these results could give a more clear idea and provide a background with which to interpret
the findings. Therefore, the research's results will be compared with previous findings.
Research question 1: What is the primary and secondary school teachers’ general knowledge
about the brain in Turkey? And what is the difference between the UK, the Netherlands and
Turkey in terms of teachers’ general knowledge about the brain?
First of all, ‘correct’, ‘incorrect’ and ‘do not know’ responses were counted up for each
participant and their average scores. ‘Incorrect’ answers: M=11.29 SD=2.77; for ‘Do not
know’ answers: M=7.13, SD= 4.15 were calculated among the sample. On average,
participants' answer correctly 14.56 statements out of 32; they had 11.29 wrong answers and
7.13 did not know the responses. Results are shown by percentages for the sample in Table
4.3 below:
51
Table 4.3: Total Percentages - from 32 statements - of Correct (C), Incorrect (I) and Do not
know (DK) Answers of Primary and Secondary School Teachers from Turkey.
Correct responses Incorrect responses Do not know responses
Tota
l
Per
cen
tages
of
C,I
an
d D
K
an
swer
s’
By percentages
M=43.92%
SD= 9.7
By percentages
M=35.3%
SD=8.66
By percentages
M=22.8%
SD=12.96
The total percentages of answers of primary and secondary school teachers’ for 17 general
statements about general knowledge on the brain can be seen in Table 4.4 as Appendix-7
(see pp.97). Statements are given with correct answers in brackets; it is possible to compare
the correct answers and teachers’ average responses—by percentages—from the table. Thus,
each statement can be judged on its own merit.
Independent t-tests between groups (age, sex, branch, education level) showed that teacher
characteristics’ did not relate to their general knowledge. On the whole, teachers’ average
score from Turkey on general knowledge according to 17 general statements (M=56.9%
correct, SD=25.7) was lower than teachers’ average score from UK (M = 67% correct, SD =
13.5) and the Netherlands (M = 73% correct, SD = 12.7) (Dekker et al., 2012). This result
supports concerns (OECD, 2002; Goswami, 2004) about teachers’ having insufficient
knowledge about the brain in general, which, in turn, causes the prevalence of neuromyths at
the same time. Besides the last revision of teacher education was done in 1997 in Turkey, this
result could show a need to revise teacher education with respect to the developments in
educational research internationally; furthermore, it shows that education is affected by mass
media tools unwittingly.
52
Research Question 2: What is the situation of neuromyths in Turkey? And what is the
difference between the UK, the Netherlands and Turkey in terms of teachers believing in such
neuromyths?
In order to understand the general situation about neuromyths in Turkey, 15 neuromyths are
given with their correct answers in brackets and with the percentages of teachers’ responses in
Table 4.5 as Appendix-8 (see pp.98).
As can be seen from Table 4.5, the first nine assertions (neuromyths) received over 50 per
cent agreement. The results of these nine assertions can be termed as "misconceptions" and
which are widely believed and being used by primary and secondary school teachers in
Turkey currently, by considering the sample (n=278) of the present research.
According to the OECD’s report (2002), neuromyths are gaining wide currency and there are
concerns about the prevalence of neuromyths being spread to the rest of the world rapidly.
Thus, one of the purposes of this research is finding out the similarities and differences
between countries in terms of the prevalence of neuromyths which are believed and used by
"teachers" in education.
Teacher responses on neuromyths from three countries can be seen in Table 4.6 as Appendix
9 (see pp.99).
The analysis of the teacher responses for each neuromyth indicates many variations between
countries. For instance, the neuromyth about second language learning, viz. "Children must
acquire their native language before a second language is learned. If they do not do so
neither language will be fully acquired" was agreed upon by 58.3% of teachers in Turkey,
while it was believed by only 7% teachers of teachers in the UK and by 36% of teachers in the
Netherlands.
53
On the other hand, there were six assertions which can be seen with bold fonts in red in
Table 4.6 (pp.99) which are the most prevalent neuromyths (because they received over 50
per cent agreement from all three countries). This was especially prevalent with regards to the
neuromyths concerning learning styles (i.e. "Individuals learn better when they receive
information in their preferred learning style (e.g., auditory, visual, kinaesthetic)";
hemispheric dominance (i.e. "Differences in hemispheric dominance (left brain, right brain)
can help explain individual differences amongst learners"); and a possible integration of the
left and right hemispheres of the brain by means of exercises (i.e. "Short bouts of co-
ordination exercises can improve integration of left and right hemispheric brain function") all
received over 70 per cent agreement from all three countries. Overall, in Turkey, teachers
agreed with 53.02% (SD=27.80) of the neuromyths. This statistic is lower in the UK (49%)
and the Netherlands (49%) (Dekker et al., 2012). However, the similar level of teachers’
agreement on neuromyths in all three countries could show the prevalence of neuromyths in
general. In other words, although general knowledge was higher in the UK and the
Netherlands than in Turkey, the percentages of believing in neuromyths were similar. These
results could strongly validate the concerns about the prevalence of neuromyths across the
globe (OECD, 2002; Dekker et al., 2012).
Another research finding regards brain-based learning approaches (multiple intelligences,
learning styles and brain gyms), which are also related with neuromyths because they are
being used without valid evidences. Table 4.7 below shows the percentages of all of the three
countries with regards to teachers' encountering brain-based learning approaches.
54
Table 4.7: Teacher Responses about Brain-based Learning Approaches (Statistics about the
UK and the Netherland were taken from Dekker et al.’s (2012) research).
Turkey UK Netherlands
Yes (%) Yes (%) Yes (%)
Have you heard about multiple intelligences before? 77.7 71 67
Have you heard about learning styles (VAK) before? 80.6 98 64
Have you heard about brain gym before? 50 82 8
These differences between the encountering percentages of countries might be due to the
differences between countries regarding to the development of brain-based marketing
(Pasquinelli, 2012; Dekker et al., 2012). For instance, brain gym was not common in the
Netherlands and Turkey when compared to the UK. This situation links the different
marketing progress and process of brain-based knowledge in countries.
4.5 Findings from Interviews
Findings for the 3rd
and 4th
research questions will be presented in this section. As explained
before, the 3rd
and 4th
research questions will be answered through both questionnaire results
and interview findings.
Research Question 3: What are primary and secondary school teachers’ sources of
knowledge about neuromyths?
55
Table-4.8: Some Characteristics of Teachers
Always
%
Generally
%
Sometimes
%
Rarely
%
Never
%
Did
n
ot
rep
ly %
Do you read scientific articles? 3.6 21.9 41.4 23 5 5
Do you attend conferences? 2.5 9.7 41.4 33.5 6.1 6.8
Do you read popular science magazines? 17.6 43.9 25.2 10.1 1.4 1.8
Do you attend in-service training courses? 7.2 28.1 39.6 18 1.8 5.4
Do you attend private certificate courses? 2.2 11.5 38.1 27.7 11.5 9
Once a
week
Once a
month
Once in 3
months
Once
a year
Never
Did
not
rep
ly %
Do you read popular science magazines? 2.9 39.6 32.7 12.2 10.8 1.8
Table 4.8 shows some characteristics of teachers who participated in the study. There is a
difference between the percentages of reading ‘scientific articles’ and ‘popular science
magazines’; teachers indicated that they prefer to read popular science magazines
(always=17.6%, generally=43.9%) more than scientific articles (always=3.6%,
generally=21.9%). The majority of teachers sometimes (41.4%) attends conferences; also, the
majority sometimes (39.6%) attends in-service training courses; moreover, the majority
sometimes (38.1%) attends private certificate courses. There were not any significant
differences between genders, ages and branches in general; however, statistics showed that
females attend conferences (t=2.229,df=257,p=.027) and in-service training courses
(t=2.023,df=261,p=.044) more than males. Also primary school teachers read popular science
magazines more than secondary school teachers (t=2.125,df=271,p=.034); furthermore,
primary school teachers attend in-service training courses more than secondary school
teachers (t=-2.104,df=261,p= .036).
56
At the bottom of Table 4.8, there is another statistic about how often teachers read popular
science magazines; the majority indicated that they read them once a month (39.6%) or once
in every three months (32.7%). There was no significant difference between genders, ages or
branches for this question. Those variations do not show any significant differences between
groups (age, sex. branch, education level) according to the Independent-Samples T-test results
between groups regarding their general knowledge and misconceptions.
Regression analyses were performed for percentage of myths (dependent variable) with age,
sex, branch, education level, reading popular science, reading scientific journals, in-service
training, and percentage of correct answers on general assertions to examine which factors are
predictors of neuromyths. They show that belief in neuromyths was predicted as being
significant for those who had general knowledge about the brain (β=.138,t=2.31,p=.022),
which was similarly predicted in the UK and the Netherlands (β=.24,t=3.39,p=.001) (Dekker
et al., 2012). This result shows that the ones who have higher levels of general knowledge
about the brain tend to believe in neuromyths more. Moreover, according to these analyses,
attending in-service courses was an effective indicator for believing in neuromyths (β=-.13,t=-
2.114,p=.035). The other factors of age, sex, branch, education level; or reading popular
science magazines, reading scientific journals, attending private certificate courses or
conferences were not predicted as being of any significance for believing in neuromyths.
The above findings are some of the statistics which were obtained from the quantitative data
and which which shows the potential predictors of belief in neuromyths. These results could
give us a general outlook to understand the origins of neuromyths; however, there is a need to
have more detailed information so as to interpret the situation more accurately. One of the
purposes of interviews is to understand the sources of misconceptions, as mentioned before.
Therefore, the first 7 neuromyths (as seen in Table 4.4 at pp.97), which were believed by the
57
majority of participants, were chosen to be used in the interview part of the research. Instead
of using the 7th
and 8th
most prevalent neuromyths; the 9th
—"we only use 10% of our brain"—
was used by taking into consideration its prevalence according to the OECD (2002).
Therefore, 7 neuromyths were asked about to all interviewees in the first part of the
interviews (for interview questions see Appendix-3). These findings will be presented now
(for an example transcript, see Appendix 6).
Neuromyth 1: "Individuals learn better when they receive information in their preferred
learning style (VAK)".
All six of the interviewees strongly agreed with this statement. They were also asked where
they received this knowledge from:
Interviewees 1 and 2 underlined that their ‘self’ experiences as students from their school
years were important for their coming to that conclusion. For instance, interviewee 2 gave the
following example:
‘When I was at university, I had many observations I realised that some of my friends could
understand by writing while some of them could understand by listening. I could understand
by watching and imitating behaviours.’
Interviewee 3 indicated that he is an audial learner:
‘I believe that my audial memory is really strong. I am interested in this knowledge currently
and I learned the reaches of the Kizilirmak (Red River) and the Yesilirmak (Green River)
reaches (Kizilirmak and Yesilirmak are rivers in Turkey which have many reaches) by coding
them into a song. That is why I believe individuals learn in different ways in terms of their
learning styles.’
When he was asked about where he got this information, he highlighted that he did not read
anything about it but rather that he had just heard this information from some friends who
learned something by coding it to a song.
58
Interviewees 4, 5 and 6 told me that they concluded that this statement was true based on their
observations in their classrooms. They all underlined that all students have different learning
styles and it is possible to observe this in classrooms; that is why it is important to consider
students' learning styles.
Interviewee 6 stated clearly that she/he learned this information at university in the ‘Teaching
methods and styles’ class.
These responses show that interviewees in general—except interviewee 6—came to believe
neuromyth-1 by either coming to that conclusion from their personal own
experiences/observations or that they concluded that this information was true based solely
upon hearsay evidences.
Neuromyth 2: "Environments that are rich in stimulus improve the brains of pre-school
children".
All six of the participants strongly agreed with this statement.
Interviewees 1 and 4 evaluated the information in terms of a generation gap; they used their
previous knowledge, experiences and observations in order to deduce that this neuromyth was
true.
Interviewee 1:
‘I remember my childhood; we grew up in a poorer environment with fewer stimuli. I have 3
kids; and my parents also feel the same thing more strongly when they compare their
childhood and today's kids. Nowadays, there are lots of opportunities due to technological
improvements in comparison to the past. So they learn fast and they are more informed.’
59
Interviewee 4:
‘I agreed. When I compare my current students and my students from previous years I can
easily discern the difference between them in terms of their perception levels. My students
from previous years were learning more slowly and their vocabulary was poorer than my
present students. Nowadays, visual stimuli and early education are more effective than in past
times. So students start primary school more equipped.’
Interviewees 2 and 5 underlined the effect of socio-economic status differences when they
used their previous knowledge, experiences and observations to deduce the truth of the
neuromyth.
Interviewee 2:
‘From my experiences I can say that the environment which kids grow up in is important for
their mental development.’
Interviewee 5:
‘It is not the same for a child who attends a school from lower socio-economical environment
and a school from upper class environment in terms of the environment and stimulus they
have. That is why; I think socio-economical environment of a child is significant. According
to my observations, I can say environmental differences in terms of family education, school
conditioning and opportunities are effective for pre-school childdren.’
Interviewee 2 interprets this information through his/her neuroscientific knowledge from
university:
‘The mind works with its full capacity till 7 years old and then this capacity starts to
decrease; therefore, I think that the more they are stimulated, the more their brain can
improve.’
Interviewee 6 concluded according to a research result:
‘I think both nature and nurture is important; however, I read an article which says children
who go to nursery class are more successful than children who do not go to nursery class. So
I think that the environment and education they have are very important.’
60
Thus, except for interviewees 2 and 6, all participants based their knowledge on experiences
and observations. Interviewees 2 and 6 came to their conclusions through what they learned at
university or what they read.
Neuromyth 3: "Differences in hemispheric dominance can help to explain individual
differences among learners"
1 interviewee agreed with this statement, while 2 of them did not agree and 3 of them
indicated that they were not sure about the accuracy of the information.
Interviewees 1 and 5 thought that this was scientific information, although they did not
remember the source of their knowledge; however, while interviewee 1 agreed with the
statement, interviewee 5 was not sure and did criticise the statement.
Interviewee 1:
‘As I know this was proven scientifically and I think it makes sense. For example, whatever a
child takes as knowledge from family or from school, the capacity is limited to his/her
intelligence. As far as I know, verbal and mathematical intelligence depends on this
difference.’
Interviewee 5:
‘From a scientific perspective, it seems that hemispheric dominance explains individual
differences; but I never observe this, because it is impossible to observe. I can say that there
are differences between children in terms of their verbal and mathematical ability but I am
not sure whether it can be explained through hemispheric dominance. For example, some
children are successful in all fields, so how would we explain this through-hemispheric
dominance?’
Interviewees 2 and 3 stated that they heard but they were not sure about the accuracy and also
they could not remember the source
Interviewees 4 and 6 strongly disagreed. Interviewee 4 concluded through his/her own
experiences while interviewee 6 answered through a book that she/he had read.
61
Interviewee 4:
‘We cannot explain this by hemispheric dominance. There are lots of effects of individual
differences such as family, school, environment or socio-economic status.’
Interviewee 6:
‘I read a book which says that this statement is completely wrong. It says that our brain can
develop from every field and that we have that capacity. Also it said that the right and left
hemispheres always work together—that the brain works as a whole.’
Thus, their responses varied for this statement. In general, 4 of them did not remember their
source of knowledge; one of them answered through experiences and finally interviewee 6,
who gave the right response, answered through a book which he/she had read before.
Neuromyth 4: "It has been scientifically proven that fatty acid supplements (omega-3,
omega-6) have a positive effect on academic achievement."
Interviewees 1 and 4 accepted this statement, while 2 and 3 disagreed; interviewee 5 was not
sure and interviewee 6 had no idea about the information.
Interviewees 1 and 4 claimed that a healthy diet has a positive relationship both on brain
development and academic achievement from their own experiences and observations.
Interviewee 1:
‘When I was a teacher in Aladag (it is a county in northern Turkey), due to an iodine
deficiency, 80-90% of people had iodine-deficiency-related-goitre. And children’s perception
of knowledge and mental development were low; therefore, I can conclude through my own
observations that omega-3 or omega-6 could have a positive effect on academic
achievement.’
62
Interviewee 4:
‘I observed from my students that lacking a healthy diet causes difficulty in learning and that
they learn slower. I used omega-3 and omega-6 for my children as well. I read this
information from somewhere—I do not remember.’
In addition, both of them also emphasised that they saw many advertisements about the
effects of omega-3 and omega-6 on academic achievement.
Interviewees 2 and 3 looked at the subject from a different stand point, concluding from their
previous knowledge and experiences.
Interviewee 2:
‘So how will we explain the achievement of children who have low-income families, who are
living in the country-side? For example, in my village, there are many children who are
successful academically and yet do not take any supplements like omega-3 or omega-6.’
Interviewee 3:
‘So that means every children can be successful academically if they take omega-3 and
omega-6; but we know that it will not be like that; therefore it does not make any sense.’
Interviewee 5, on the other hand, mentioned a book which he/she read. According to that
book, fatty acid supplements have positive effects on achievement, but he/she was still not
sure about the accuracy of that information.
For this neuromyth, two of participants mentioned advertisements of omega-3 and omega-6
which shows the effect and prevalence of brain-based marketing in Turkey.
63
Neuromyth 5: "Short bouts of co-ordination exercises can improve integration of left and
right hemispheric brain function"
All six of the interviewees were in agreement with this statement. Each of them gave some
examples:
Interviewee 3:
‘As I know, if we use our right hand, in general, the our left part of our brain works more or
vice versa; that is why we should support our students using their other hands’
Interviewee 4:
‘Sometimes I stop teaching during lessons and tell a story and I want them to draw that
story—whatever they imagine according to the story—on a piece of paper. It is a short
activity but I think it works and it strengthens the link between the two hemispheres; because,
according to my observations, their drawings improved over time after these kinds of
exercises.’
Interviewee 6:
‘Yes, I agree. I read that in a book. It says some activities, such as crosswords or walking
backward, can help to establish the link between the neurons again.’
For this neuromyth, I observed that the interviewees –except interviewee 6- in general were
not quite sure about the source from whence they got their knowledge, but they all tried
different types of exercises in their classrooms in order to improve the integration between the
left and right hemispheres in their students.
Neuromyth 6: "We only use 10% of our brains"
All of the interviewees have heard this statement before, but nobody, except interviewee 6,
was not sure where they received this information. Interviewees 1 and 5 were in agreement;
interviewee 6 strongly disagreed; and, while interviewee 2 was not sure, interviewee 3
64
thought that ‘we can use more than 10%’; contrariwise, interviewee 4 stated that ‘we are
using less than 10%’.
Interviewee 2:
‘I cannot show evidence if I disagree. But I heard something from a TV programme; it was
said that human beings have a high capacity but that we cannot use it all.’
Interviewee 3 thought that we can use more than 10%, claiming that the ‘brain is a kind of
muscle; if we exercise it, we can enhance it and use more of it. But I do not think we can use
more than 50%’. He was not sure, however, from which source he received this knowledge.
Interviewee 4 claimed that we use less than 10%, giving the following example to support his
claim:
‘I read from somewhere that in Russia, people can heal diseases with brain/mental power or
that they can move objects with brain power. But I am not sure where I read it. So, if we can
use our brain's full capacity, we can achieve lots of things, as with the Russian example’
Only interviewee 6 strongly disagreed with this statement:
‘No, this is definitely wrong information; as I read, our brains work as a whole. It has been
already proven scientifically. I read that in the book which I mentioned before.’
Neuromyth 7: "There are critical periods in childhood after which certain things can no
longer be learned."
5 of the interviewees agreed, with only one of them not accepting this information. The ones
who agreed also highlighted that certain things could be thought after critical periods but that
it takes time and that they cannot learn those behaviours completely after the period has
passed.
65
Interviewee 3 disagreed with this consensus, adding that, according to his/her experiences:
‘That would mean a child who could not learn how to write and read in the first grade,
cannot learn later; I do not think so. That child can learn but it would take that child more
time.’
Conversely, interviewee 4 gave the same example, though adding through his/her experiences
that:
‘There is a threshold for all behaviours. For example, I had a student who mingled letters ‘v’
and ‘u’ with each other in the first grade; I could not change the behaviour for more than 2
years. It is really hard to change the behaviour after critical periods have passed.’
The other interviewees (1, 2, 5 and 6) gave similar examples, such as toilet training, (they
stated that after a period, it is hard to change the behaviour).
Interviewee 6 gave an example from a scientific article that he/she had heard about at
university:
‘One of my teachers at university mentioned about a research which was about a child who
had not communicated with anybody and had been kept during critical periods from learning
certain things. Consequently, the child could not learn how to write and read and his/her
level did not reach the same as his/her age group.’
For this neuromyth, they used their experiences from classrooms or their personal lives to
respond to this statement, except for interviewee 6.
At this point, additional information should be given. Interviewee 6 had graduated 1.5 years
ago from university; thus, it can be claimed that that is why his/her responses were based on
books, articles and knowledge from university in general. Other participants, on the other
hand, mainly answered through their own experiences and observations.
Briefly, it can be concluded that for many statements, they came to the conclusion through
their experiences/observations; secondly they indicated that they did not remember the source
of knowledge; one may conclude that this means that, sometimes,
66
"hearsay" knowledge could have affected their practices and thoughts. This findings can
support Goswami’s (2006) and OECD’s (2007) concerns about the propagation of
neuromyths and moreover Sylvan and Christodoulou’s (2010) offer about teachers’ being
critical while using the knowledge about brain due to pseudo-scientific brain-based
applications.
However, it is not possible to evaluate the sources they gave as sources for their believing in
neuromyths in general. It was thought that the comments that they made gave some clues
about the reasons behind their misconceptions. In order to obtain clearer responses about what
the sources were for their knowledge, the questions below were asked:
Question: "How do you improve yourself with regards to your profession?" (N.B.
there is no response for this question from interviewee 1)
Mainly, the interviewees told me that they searched the internet and that they share
information and experiences with their colleagues. One of them mentioned attending in-
service training courses, two of them indicated that they read books, and only one of them
mentioned anything about reading scientific articles.
Research Question 4: What do teachers think about the usage of neuroscience in education?
Do they find it necessary to use neuroscientific findings in education?
First of all, the interviewees were asked whether they heard about neuroscience in education
before, or not.
Question: Have you heard about neuroscience in education at university?
67
5 of interviewees responded “no”, with only one of them (interviewee 5) mentioning that they
had had a class about ‘learning’ and that they had been given information briefly about the
role of the brain and its functions on learning during class.
Question: Have you heard about neuroscience and education in conferences, in-
service training courses or seminars after starting work?
All 6 of the interviewees stated that they were not informed about neuroscience after they
started work.
After talking about their previous experiences, it was obvious that they had not heard about
educational neuroscience, neither at university nor in their work-related experience. These
findings are related with the current situation of educational neuroscience in Turkey. It is a
completely new field and teachers generally did not have knowledge about this emerging field
until the 1990s.
The next question was about their perceptions about the field.
Question: What do you think? Is neuroscientific knowledge significant for teachers?
And do they need training for this?
Firstly, I will present the data from the questionnaire which was specifically about teachers’
perceptions (with regards the significance of field); confidence (about brain knowledge); and
need (for in-service training courses about neuroscience in education).
93.2% of the sample (n=259) agreed about the significance of neuroscience in education.
Furthermore, 90.3% stated that they are interested in receiving further knowledge about the
brain and its relationship to education. For more in-depth responses and data triangulation,
these same questions were asked during the interviews:
68
All of them definitely agreed about the significance of neuroscientific knowledge in
education. This result is consistent with previous results made by other researches; Pickering
and Howard-Jones (2007) reported in a similar setting that the majority of teachers rated the
role of the brain as being either very important or important. In another study conducted in the
US, Serpati and Loughan (2012) stated that 94% (n=221) of teachers agreed that it is
significant to know about the neurological underpinnings of learning, cognition and
behaviour.
As regards the second part of the question (do you need a training?), 83.2% (n=277) stated in
the questionnaires that they either “do not trust”, “trust little” or “averagely trust” their
knowledge about the brain; thus, 71.6% (n=275) indicated that they need an in-service
training course so as to learn more about the brain and its functions on learning. Similarly, all
of interviewees said that teachers’ knowledge on educational neuroscience is quite
inadequate; therefore, training is crucial for all teachers.
69
Chapter 5
Summary and Conclusion
This chapter concludes the literature review by bringing together potential key issues in
accordance with the findings of the research. It shall be divided into the following sections:
A brief summary of the literature review;
A summary of the findings;
The limitations of the study;
Conclusion;
Future research.
5.1 Summary
Neuroscience adds a new perspective to the field of education. However, it is challenging to
bridge the gap between those deeply-rooted fields in terms of the strong differences of their
respective methodologies and language in general. Besides, the gap generates certain
neuromyths and brain-based literature which are quite damaging to the bridging of this
inherent gap. Firstly, they waste time, effort and money; secondly, they hinder the
improvement of educational neuroscience as a discipline. More generally, they could block
scientific research in education. In order to prevent this situation, teachers should be
informed, especially since they are the end users of scientific research; what is more,
deleterious brain-based literature is gaining wide currency in education in many countries.
Although there are some efforts in some countries to inform teachers about educational
neuroscience, such as the UK, the Netherlands, Brazil and the US; there have been no studies
conducted about the field, particularly in relation to the perceptions and knowledge of
70
teachers’ in Turkey. Therefore, a framework is needed for a more science-based education so
as to protect the Turkish education system from neuromyths. As Goswami (2006) and Ansari
and Coch (2006) highlight, teachers have a significant and fundamental role in educational
neuroscience; thus, teacher training is crucial. By considering these purposes, a research
setting was created. 278 teachers completed the questionnaire and 6 were interviewed later for
more in-depth responses. Findings from the questionnaire and interviews were presented and
analysed in detail in Chapter 4.
5.2 Summary of the Findings
The questionnaire results showed that primary and secondary school teachers in Turkey
(based on a sample of n=278) believe (53.02%) in neuromyths in general. Especially, 9
neuromyths out of the 15 identified generated more than 50% agreement, with 5 of these 9
being believed by more than 70% of participants.
Although teachers’ general knowledge on the brain and its functioning are higher in the UK
and the Netherlands than in Turkey, the percentages were not significantly different regarding
people believing in neuromyths; this reflects the reality of concerns with regards to the
prevalence of neuromyths in many countries (OECD, 2002).
Those interviewed were not sure about the source from which they gained their knowledge
about the misconceptions about the brain, in general. They stated that, while responding to
neuromyths, their sources of knowledge were based on either personal
experiences/observations or teaching experiences, mainly.
93.2% of the questionnaire participants and all of the interviewees agreed about the
significance of neuroscience in education; furthermore, 71.6% of participants and all of the
interviewees stated that training is crucial for all teachers.
71
5.3 Limitations of the Study
Educational neuroscience is a new field in Turkey. In considering the newness of the field, a
mixed methods research approach (questionnaire and interviews) was chosen because it
provides a broader overview. However, both quantitative and qualitative researches have
certain limitations, and this study is no exception.
I handed out the questionnaires and visited the schools personally in order to give an
opportunity for teachers to clarify any points they did not understand; however,
because of the time issue (they tried to fill the questionnaires during their break times),
some participants might have not been able to ask me any questions.
The questionnaire sample (n=278) was quite wide; however, it was not large enough
when considering the total number of primary and secondary school teachers
(551.802) in Turkey (according to 2013 Turkish National Statistics).
During the interviews, I did not give information about neuromyths and did not say
that some of the statements given had pseudo-scientific information; thus, they might
have accepted the statements I gave as scientific and true. That is why they might have
tried to answer positively. However, this is a remote possibility because there are
examples that interviewees did not agree with all of the statements.
The interview sample size was small (n=6). So, although interview findings provided
in-depth explanations, it is crucial to remember that this study’s interview findings
cannot be generalised to a wider population.
This study has strengths, significances and limitations, as has been seen. I would now like to
conclude my research with some key points in accordance with the previous literature and
current findings.
72
5.4 Conclusion
As mentioned in the literature review, the first problem identified by the scientists in the field
of educational neuroscience is the promulgation of neuromyths, especially since neuromyths
hinder further development in the field. Furthermore, the OECD drew international attention
to the fact that neuromyths waste time, effort and money in the educational field. The present
research results proved the prevalence of neuromyths among primary and secondary school
teachers in Turkey, as is also the case for the UK, the Netherlands, and many other countries.
Although there are some scientists and educators who do not support the necessity of
neuroscience in education, it is obvious that unscientific applications, especially brain-based
marketing practices, could damage education in many aspects. To hinder neuroscientific
knowledge on education could cause pseudo-scientific applications and the occurrence of
baseless and ungrounded information. This is due to the fact that ‘knowledge and its
manifestations are no longer "out there", to be acquired from a centre, mastered and applied'
(Deakin Crick, 2007: 135). Due to new technologies and mass media, knowledge is available
for all through network access.
Therefore, awareness is crucial to prevent the prevalence of neuromyths and brain-based
marketing applications.
To summarise the key points of this research:
Teachers have not heard about neuroscience in education before, there have not been
any studies about educational neuroscience in academia, and there are only a few
articles which were based on knowledge from different researches from different
countries in Turkey;
Primary and secondary school teachers have limited knowledge about the brain and its
functions in general in Turkey;
73
However, brain-based marketing has been very effective in Turkey and neuromyths
are as prevalent in that country as in any other country;
Teachers believe more than half of neuromyths and they do not trust their knowledge
about the brain and its functions regarding the learning process; however, there are no
training courses or programmes or even concerns about its unscientific applications in
Turkey;
Nevertheless, teachers believe that they need training in order to better understand the
brain.
5.5 Future Research
The harm of neuromyths is obvious. This study showed, however, that primary and secondary
school teachers in Turkey (as well as elsewhere) lacked knowledge about the brain and its
functions in general and that most of them believed in many neuromyths. Even though they
have not heard about neuroscience in education, they mostly knew about the brain-based,
pseudo-scientific information. In considering the efficacy of brain-based marketing in
education due to the improvement of mass media, the field should be grounded better in order
to prevent baseless information from keeping education in its clutches.
As highlighted before, the significance of this research is about its being the first study among
teachers in Turkey about neuroscience in education, as well as their believing in neuromyths.
It is hoped that this study has demonstrated the importance of the field, as well as providing a
beginning for this field in Turkey.
74
References
Akyıldız, O. (2010). Research in Neuroscience and Music Education: Towards Knowledge
Transfer Possibilities. Paper in International Conference on New Trends in Education and
Their Implications, Antalya-Turkey. Retrieved from:
http://www.iconte.org/FileUpload/ks59689/File/176.pdf
Allix, N.M. (2000). The Theory of Multiple Intelligences: A Case of Missing Cognitive
Matter. Australian Journal of Education - Special Issue on Education and Cognition -
Naturalistic Explorations Into the Nature of Mind and Learning. 44 (3), 272-293.
Alferink, L.A. & Farmer-Dougan, V. (2010). Brain-(not) Based Education: Dangers of
Misunderstanding and Misapplication of Neuroscience Research. Exceptionallity, 18, 42-52.
Anderson, M. & Della-Sala, S. (2012). Neuroscience in Education: An (opinionated)
Intoduction. In S. Della-Salla, M. Anderson (Eds.), Neuroscience in Education: The Good,
The Bad and The Ugly (pp. 3-12). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Ansari, D. & Coch, D. (2006). Bridges over Troubled Waters: Education and Cognitive
Neuroscience. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(4), 146-151.
Bartoszeck, A.B & Bartoszeck, F.K. (2012). How In-Service Teachers Perceive Neuroscience
as Connected to Education: An Exploratory Study. European Journal of Educational
Research, 1(4), 301-319.
Beauchamp, M. & Beauchamp, C. (2012). Understanding the Neuroscience and Education
Connection: Themes Emerging From a Review of the Literature. In S. Della-Salla, M.
Anderson (Eds.), Neuroscience in Education: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly (pp. 13-30).
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Blakemore, C.L. (2003). Movement is Essential to Learning. Journal of Physical Education,
Recreation & Dance, 74, 22-25.
Blakemore, S.J & Frith, U. (2005). The Learning Brain: Lessons for Education: a Précis.
Developmental Science. 8(5), 459-471.
75
Bruer, J. (1997). Education and the Brain: A Bridge too Far. Educational Researcher, 26(8),
4-16.
Bush, T. (2007). Authenticity in Research-Reliability, Validity and Triangulation. In A.R.J.
Briggs, M. Coleman (Eds.) Research Methods in Educational Leadership and Management
(2nd
Edition) (pp. 91-105). London: SAGE Publications.
Busher, H. & James, N. (2007). Ethics and Access in Research Education. In A. Briggs, M.
Coleman (Eds.) Research in Educational Management (pp. 106-122). London: Paul
Chapman.
Cakiroglu, E. & Cakiroglu, J. (2003). Reflections on Teacher Education in Turkey. European
Journal of Teacher Education, 26(2), 253-264.
Campbell, S.R. (2011). Educational Neuroscience: Motivations, Methodology and
Implications. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(1), 7-16.
Capellini, I., McNamara, P., Preston, B.T., Nunn, C.L. & Barton, R.A. (2009). Does Sleep
Play a Role in Memory Consolidation? A Comparative Test. PLoS ONE, 4(2).
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004609
Carr, W. (1995). Philosophy and Educational Research. Paper presented at the British
Educational Research Association/ECER Conference. Bath, UK, 5 – 7 September, 1995.
Casey, B.J. & Getz, S. & Galvan, A. (2008). The Adolescent Brain. Developmental Review,
28, 62-77.
Coch, D. & Ansari, D. (2012). Constructing Connection: The Evolving Field of Mind, Brain
and Education. In S. Della-Salla, M. Anderson (Eds.), Neuroscience in Education: The Good,
The Bad and The Ugly (pp. 33-46). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E. & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning Styles and Pedagogy in
Post-16 Learning. A Systematic and Critical Review. London: Learning and Skills Research
Centre.
Cohen, L. & Manion, L. (1994). Research Methods in Education (4th
Edition). London:
Routledge.
76
Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2011). Research Methods in Education (7th
Edition).
New York: Routledge.
Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research Design (2nd
Edition). California: SAGE Publications.
Deakin Crick, R. (2007). Learning How to Learn: The Dynamic Assessment of Learning
Power. Curriculum Journal, 18:2, 135-153.
Dekker, S., Lee, N.C., Howard-Jones, P. & Jolles, J. (2012). Neuromyths in Education:
Prevalence and Predictors of Misconceptions among Teachers. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1-
8.
Draganski, B., Gaser, C., Kempermann, G., Kuhn, H.G., Winkler, J., Büchel, C. & May, A.
(2004). Temporal and Spatial Dynamics of Brain Structure Changes during Extensive
Learning. The Journal of Neuroscience, 26(23), 6314-6317.
Edgar, D.W. (2012). Learning Theories and Historical Events Affecting Instructional Design
in Education: Recitation Literacy toward Extraction Literacy Practices. SAGE Open, 2(4), 1-9.
Eshel, N., Nelson, E.E., Blair, J., Pine, D.S. & Ernst, M. (2007). Neural Substrates of Choice
Selection in Adults and Adolescents: Development of the Ventrolateral Prefrontal and
Anterior Cingulate Cortices. National Institutes of Health, 45(6), 1270-1279.
Falkenberg, T., Mohammed, A.K., Henriksonn, B., Persson, H., Winblad, B. & Lindefors, N.
(1992). Increased Expression of Brain-Derieved Neurotrophic Factor mRNA in Rat
Hippocampus is Associated with Improved Spatial Memory and Enriched Environment.
Neuroscience Letters, 138(1), 153-156.
Ferrari, M. & McBride, H. (2011). Mind, Brain and Education: The Birth of a New Science.
Learning Landscapes, 5(1), 85-100.
Fischer, K.W., Daniel, D.B., Immordino-Yang, M.H., Stern, E., Battro, A. & Koizumi, H.
(2007). Why Mind, Brain and Education? Why now? Mind, Brain and Education, 1(1), 1-2.
Fisher, K.W., Goswami, U. & Geake, J. (2010). The Future of Educational Neuroscience.
Mind, Brain and Education, 4, 68-80.
77
Galvan, A., Hare, T.A., Parra, C.E., Penn, J., Voss, H., Glover, G. & Casey, B.J. (2006).
Earlier Development of the Accumbens Relative to Orbitofrontal Cortex might Underlie Risk-
Taking Behaviour in Adolescents. The Journal of Neuroscience, 26(25), 6885-6892.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind. New York: Basic Books.
Geake, J. (2008). Neuromythologies in Education. Educational Research, 50, 123-133.
Gilmore, C. K., McCarthy, S. E., & Spelke, E. S. (2007). Symbolic Arithmetic Knowledge
without Instruction. Nature, 447, 589–592.
Gogtay, N., Giedd, J.N., Lusk, L., Hayashi, K.M., Greenstein, D., Vaituzis, A.C., ...
Thompson, P.M. (2004). Dynamic Mapping of Human Cortical Development during
Childhood through Early Adulthood. The National Academy of Science, 101, 8174-8179.
Goswami, U. (2004). Annual review: Neuroscience and Education. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 74, 1-14.
Goswami, U. (2006). Neuroscience and Education: From Research to Practice? Nature
Reviews Neuroscience, pp. 2-6. doi: 10.1038/nrn1907
Goswami, U. (2009). Mind, Brain, and Literacy: Biomarkers as Usable Knowledge for
Education. Mind, Brain and Education, 3(3), 176-184.
Gray, D.E. (2009). Doing Research in the Real World (2nd
Edition). London: SAGE
Publications.
Han, M., Park, K., Baek, S., Kim, B., Kim, J., Kim, H. & Oh, S. (2007). Inhibitory Effects of
Caffeine on Hippocampal Neurogenesis and Function. Biochemical and Biophysical Research
Communications, 356, 976–980.
Hirsh-Pasek, K. & Bruer, J. (2007). The Brain/Education Barrier. Science, 317, pp.1293.
Hook, C.J. & Farah, M.J. (2012). Neuroscience for Educators: What are They Seeking? And
What are They Finding? Neuroethics. doi: 10.1007/s12152-012-9159-3
Howard-Jones, P. (2007). Neuroscience and Education: Issues and Opportunities: A
Commentary by the Teaching and Learning Research Programme. London: ESCR.
78
Howard-Jones, P. (2008). Education and Neuroscience. Educational Research, 50(2), 119-
122.
Howard-Jones, P. (2008). Philosophical Challenges for Researchers at the Interface between
Neuroscience and Education. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 42(3-4), 361-380.
Howard-Jones, P. (2009). Neuroscience, Learning and Technology (14-19). Becta. Retrieved
from:http://www.education.gov.uk/complexneeds/modules/Module-4.3-Insights-from-
neuroscience/All/downloads/m15p630c/becta_2009_deeplearningneuroscience.litrev.pdf
Howard-Jones, P., Franey, L., Mashmoushi, R. & Liao, Yen-Chun (2009). The Neuroscience
Literacy of Trainee Teachers: Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association
Annual Conference, University of Manchester. Education-Line. Retrieved from:
http://70.33.241.170/~neuro647/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Literacy.pdf
Howard-Jones, P. (2010). Introducing Neuroeducational Research. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Howard-Jones, P. (2011). A Multiperspective Approach to Neuroeducational Research.
Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(1), 24-30.
Jensen, E. (1998). Teaching with the Brain in Mind. Alexandria, VA: Association of
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Jick, T.D. (1979). Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4). Retrieved from:
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2392366?uid=2&uid=4&sid=21102573453221
Johnson, R.B. & Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004). Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm
Whose Time Has Come. Educational Researcher, 33, 14-26.
Johnson, L.B. & Turner, L.A. (2003). Data Collection Strategies in Mixed Methods Research.
In A. Tashakkori., C. Teddlie (Eds.). Handbook of Mixed methods in Social and Behavioural
Research (pp. 297-319). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Keles, E. & Cepni, S. (2006). Brain and Learning. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 3(2),
66-82.
79
Kleff, H.G. (2007). The Turkish Interior Migration. Retrieved from:
http://migrationeducation.de/27.1.html?&rid=91&cHash=e9359cf8a6f23fc45ddf877c0ae365f
8
Koizumi, H. (1999). A Practical Approach towards Trans-disciplinary Studies for the 21st
Century. Jornal of Seizon and Life Science, 9, 5–24.
Krätzig, G. P. & Arbuthnott, K. D. (2006). Perceptual Learning Style and Learning
Proficiency: A Test of the Hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 238–246.
Lagemann, E.C. (2000). An Elusive Science: The Troubling History of Education Research.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lincoln, Y. & Denzin, N. (1998). The Fifth Moment. In N. Denzin, Y. Lincoln (Eds.) The
Landscape of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Maguire E.A., Spiers H.J., Good C.D., Hartley T., Frackowiak R.S. & Burgess N. (2003)
Navigation Expertise and the Human Hippocampus: A Structural Brain Imaging Analysis.
Hippocampus, 13, 250 –259.
Marshall, L. & Born, J. (2007). The Contribution of Sleep to Hippocampus-dependent
Memory Consolidation. Trends in Cognitive Science, 11(10), 442–450.
doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2007.09.001
Maquet, P., Laureys, S., Peigneux, P., Fuchs, S., Petiau, C., Phillips, ...Cleeremans, A. (2000)
Experience-Dependent Changes in Cerebral Activation During Human REM Sleep. Nature
Neuroscience, 3, 831–836.
Morrison, M. (2007). What do We Mean by Educational Research? In A.R.J. Briggs, M.
Coleman (Eds.) Research Methods in Educational Leadership and Management (2nd
Edition)
(pp. 13-36). London: SAGE Publications.
OECD (2002). Understanding the Brain: Towards a New Learning Science. Paris: OECD
Publications.
OECD (2007). Understanding the Brain: Birth of a New Learning Science. Paris: OECD.
Ozmusul, M. (2012). Developments in Turkish Education System towards International
Dimension. International Journal Social Science & Education, 2(3), 345-361.
80
Pasquinelli, E. (2012). Neuromyths: Why Do They Exist and Persist? Mind, Brain and
Education, 6(2), 89-96.
Pickering, S. J. & Howard-Jones, P. (2007). Educators’ Views on the Role of Neuroscience in
Education: Findings from a Study of UK and International Perspectives. Mind, Brain and
Education, 1, 109–113.
Potkin, K.T. & Bunney, W.E. (2012). Sleep Improves Memory: The Effect of Sleep on Long
Term Memory in Early Adolescence. PLoS ONE 7(8). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0042191
Rauscher, F., Shaw, G. & Ky, K. (1993). Music and Spatial Task Performance. Nature, 365,
611.
Rizzolatti, G. & Craighero, L. (2004). The Mirror Neuron System. Annual Review of
Neuroscience, 27, 169-92.
Rogers, P.J. (2007). Caffeine, Mood and Mental Performance in Everyday Life. Nutrition
Bulletin, 32, 84-89.
Robson, C. (2002). Real World Research (2nd
Edition). West Sussex, UK: Wiley.
Samuels, B. M. (2009). Can differences between education and neuroscience be overcome by
Mind, Brain, and Education? Mind, Brain, and Education, 3(1), 45-53.
Schober, P. & Sabitzer, B. (2013). Mirror Neurons for Education. In IATED (Hrsg):
Proceedings CD 7th
International Technology, Education and Development Conference,
Valencia (Spain), 4th
-8th
of March 2013. Barcelona: International Association of Technology,
Education and Development (IATED), (pp. 40-45).
Schofield, J.W. (2002). Increasing the Generalizability of Qualitative Research. In M.
Huberman, M.B. Miles (Eds.), The Qualitative Researcher’s Companion (pp. 171-204).
Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.
Schumacher, R. (2007). The Brain is not Enough: Potential and Limits in Integrating
Neuroscience and Pedagogy. Analyse & Kritik, 29(1), 38–46.
Scott, D. & Morrison, M. (2006). Key Ideas in Educational Research. London: Continuum.
Serpati, L. & Loughan, A.R. (2012). Teacher Perceptions of Neuroeducation: A Mixed
Methods Survey of Teachers in the United States. Mind, Brain and Education, 6(3), 174-176.
81
Sibley, B.A. & Etnier, J.L. (2003). The Relationship Between Physical Activity and
Cognition in Children: A Meta-Analysis. Pediatric Exercise Science, 15, 243-256.
Smith, J. K. (1983). Quantitative versus Qualitative Research: An Attempt to Clarify the
Issue. Educational Researcher, 12, 6–13.
Sousa, D. (2010). How Science Met Pedagogy. In D. Sousa (Ed.), Mind, Braind and
Education: Neuroscience Implications for the Classrooms (pp. 9-24). Bloomington, US:
Solution Tree Press.
Sousa, D. (2011). Mind, Brain, and Education: The Impact of Educational Neuroscience on
the Science of Teaching. Learning Landscapes, 5(1), 37-43.
Sowell, E.R., Thopmson, P.M., Tessner, K.D. & Toga, A.W. (1999). Mapping Continued
Brain Growth and Grey Matter Density Reduction in Dorsal Frontal Cortex: Inverse
Relationships During Postadolescent Brain Maturation. The Journal of Neuroscience, 21(22),
8819-8829.
Sparks, S. (2012, June). Teachers Need Lessons in Neuroscience, Experts Say. Education
Week, 31, 16-17. Retrieved from:
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/06/06/33teachers.h31.html
Steinberg, L. (2010). A Dual Systems Model of Adolescent Risk-Taking. Developmental
Psychobiology, 52, 216-224.
Sternberg, R.J. & Grigorenko, E.L. (2004). Successful Intelligence in the Classroom. Theory
into Practice, The Ohio State University, 43(3), 274-280.
Stewart, L., Henson, R., Kampe, K., Walsh, V., Turner, R. & Frith, U. (2003). Brain Changes
after Learning to Read and Play Music. Neuroimage, 20, 71-83.
Sylvan, L.J. & Christodoulou, A. (2010). Understanding the Role of Neuroscience in Brain
Based Products: A Guide for Educators and Consumers. Mind, Brain and Education, 4(1), 1-
7.
Szucs, D. & Goswami, U. (2007). Educational neuroscience: Defining a New Discipline for
the Study of Mental Representations. Mind, Brain and Education, 1(3), 114-124.
82
Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative and
Quantitative Approaches. Applied Social Research Method Series (Volume 46). Thousand
Oaks, California: Sage.
The British Psychological Society (2009). Codes of Ethics and Conduct. Retrieved from:
http://www.bps.org.uk/system/files/documents/code_of_ethics_and_conduct.pdf
Tokuhama-Espinosa, T. (2011). Why Mind, Brain, and Education Science is the "New"
Brain-Based Education. New Horizons for Learning, 9(1). Retrieved from
http://education.jhu.edu/PD/newhorizons/Journals/Winter2011/Tokuhama1
Turkish National Statistics about Teacher Numbers (March, 2013). Retrieved from:
http://kamudan.com/iste-turkiyedeki-ogretmen-ve-ogrenci-sayilari-9620.html
UNESCO Report. Children in Formal Education. Retrieved from:
http://www.unicef.org.tr/tr/content/detail/56/children-in-the-formal-education-system-2.html
Varma, S., McCandliss, B.D. & Schwartz, D.L. (2008). Scientific and Pragmatic Challenges
for Bridging Education and Neuroscience. Educational Researcher, 37(3), 140-152.
Vaus, D. (2001). Research Design in Social Research. London: SAGE Publications.
Volckmar, N. (2011). Educational Neuroscience: A Critical Discourse Analysis. Trondheim,
Norway: Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
Walliman, N. & Buckler, S. (2008). Your Dissertation in Education. London: SAGE
Publications.
Waterhouse, L. (2006). Multiple Intelligences, Mozart Effect and Emotional Intelligences: A
Critical Review. 41(4), 207-225.
Winter, B., Breitenstein, C., Mooren, F.C., Voelker, K., Fobker, M., Lechtermann, A., ...
Knecht, S. (2006). High Impact Running Improves Learning. Neurobiology of Learning and
Memory, 87, 597-609.
Yuksel, I. (2012). The Current Developments in Teacher Education in Turkey on the
Threshold of European Union. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(8),
49-56.
83
Zervas, Y., Apostolos, D. & Klissouras, V. (1991). Influence of Physical Exertion on Mental
Performance with Reference to Training. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 72, 1215–1221.
APPENDIX-1
QUESTIONNAIRE
PART 1
84
1-Year of birth :
2-Gender : Female / Male (Please circle)
3-Phase : Primary / Secondary (Please circle)
4-Educational Level : University / Postgraduate / PHD (Please circle)
5-Where do you get the information about your profession?
Always Mostly Occasionally Rarely Never
Academic journals
Conferences
Scientific web magazines
In-service training
(private) Certificate programs
(If there is) Other.....................
6-Do you read popular science magazines? (Please circle)
No Once a week Once a month Once in three months Once a year Never
7- Are in-service training courses useful?
Yes / Sometimes / No
8-Are you interested in to have scientific knowledge about brain and its influence on learning?
Yes / Not sure / No
9-Do you think, is it valuable to have scientific knowledge on brain, and its influence on learning for your teaching
practice? Yes / Not sure / No
10- How confident you are about your knowledge on brain?
Do not trust 1 2 3 4 5
11-Do you think that you need an in-service training course to understand about brain and its effect on learning?
Yes / Not sure / No
12-Which one is the most effective on a child’s academic achievement? Please put an order from the most effective (1)
to least effective (4)(write the numbers to boxes from 1 to 3 or 4, You do not have to state an “Other”).
School education Genes Home environment Other (if there is, please state)………………
13-Which (if any) of these approaches to learning have you come across in schools)? (Please tick)
Multiple Intelligences Learning Styles (e.g. VAK) Brain Gym
85
T F D
1 We use our brains 24 h a day
2 Children must acquire their native language before a second language is learned. If they do not do so neither language will be fully
acquired.
3 Boys have bigger brains than girls.
4 If pupils do not drink sufficient amounts of water (6–8 glasses a day) their brains shrink
5 It has been scientifically proven that fatty acid supplements (omega-3 and omega-6) have a positive effect on academic achievement.
6 When a brain region is damaged other parts of the brain can take up its function
7 We only use 10% of our brain.
8 The left and right hemispheres of the brain always work together.
9 Differences in hemispheric dominance (left brain, right brain) can help to explain individual differences amongst learners.
10 The brains of boys and girls develop at the same rate.
11 Brain development has finished by the time children reach secondary school.
12 There are critical periods in childhood after which certain things can no longer be learned.
13 Information is stored in the brain in a network of cells distributed throughout the brain.
14 Learning is not due to the addition of new cells to the brain
15 Individuals learn better when they receive information in their preferred learning style (e.g., auditory, visual, kinesthetic).
16 Learning occurs through modification of the brains’ neural connections.
17 Academic achievement can be affected by skipping breakfast.
18 Normal development of the human brain involves the birth and death of brain cells.
19 Mental capacity is hereditary and cannot be changed by the environment or experience.
20 Vigorous exercise can improve mental function.
21 Environments that are rich in stimulus improve the brains of pre-school children.
22 Children are less attentive after consuming sugary drinks and/or snacks.
23 Circadian rhythms (“body-clock”) shift during adolescence, causing pupils to be tired during the first lessons of the school day
24 Regular drinking of caffeinated drinks reduces alertness.
25 Exercises that rehearse co-ordination of motor-perception skills can improve literacy skills.
26 Extended rehearsal of some mental processes can change the shape and structure of some parts of the brain.
27 Individual learners show preferences for the mode in which they receive information (e.g., visual, auditory, kinesthetic)
28 Learning problems associated with developmental differences in brain function cannot be remediated by education.
29 Production of new connections in the brain can continue into old age.
30 Short bouts of co-ordination exercises can improve integration of left and right hemispheric brain function
31 There are sensitive periods in childhood when it’s easier to learn things.
32 When we sleep, the brain shuts down.
86
APPENDIX-2
RESULTS OF PILOT STUDY
Descriptive Statistics (n=38):
Average Age : 32
Gender : 54% Female, 46% Male
Branch : 29% Secondary School Teacher, 71% Primary School Teacher
Education Level: 88% Undergraduate, 12% Masters
Part-1 (General Questions about Their Attitudes)
1- Do you read scientific journals? 3% Always, 77% Sometimes, 20% Never
2- Do you follow the latest developments about your profession? If so, do you try to
apply these knowledge to the classroom?
11% Always, 71% Sometimes, 17% Never
3- Do you attend in-service training courses?11%Always,47% Sometimes,14% Never
4- Do you think that in-service training courses are useful? 57% Yes, 43% No
5- Do you read popular science magazines?11% Always,69% Sometimes,20% Never
6- Do you think that the knowledge about brain and its functions is important for a
teacher? 100% Yes
7- Have you heard multiple intelligences before? (36% Yes)
8- Have you heard learning styles before (visual, auditory, kinaesthetic)? (42% yes)
9- Have you heard brain gym before? (22% yes)
87
T% F% D%
1 We use our brains 24 h a day 71 17 11
2 Children must acquire their native language before a second language is learned. If they do not do so neither language will be fully
acquired.
60 29 11
3 Boys have bigger brains than girls. 31 34 34
4 If pupils do not drink sufficient amounts of water (6–8 glasses a day) their brains shrink 26 23 51
5 It has been scientifically proven that fatty acid supplements (omega-3 and omega-6) have a positive effect on academic achievement. 83 0 17
6 When a brain region is damaged other parts of the brain can take up its function 9 51 40
7 We only use 10% of our brain. 46 29 26
8 The left and right hemispheres of the brain always work together. 29 46 26
9 Differences in hemispheric dominance (left brain, right brain) can help to explain individual differences amongst learners. 83 3 14
10 The brains of boys and girls develop at the same rate. 26 34 40
11 Brain development has finished by the time children reach secondary school. 6 71 23
12 There are critical periods in childhood after which certain things can no longer be learned. 65 24 12
13 Information is stored in the brain in a network of cells distributed throughout the brain. 54 6 40
14 Learning is not due to the addition of new cells to the brain 40 31 29
15 Individuals learn better when they receive information in their preferred learning style (e.g., auditory, visual, kinesthetic). 100 0 0
16 Learning occurs through modification of the brains’ neural connections. 54 6 40
17 Academic achievement can be affected by skipping breakfast. 91 3 6
18 Normal development of the human brain involves the birth and death of brain cells. 51 3 46
19 Mental capacity is hereditary and cannot be changed by the environment or experience. 14 77 9
20 Vigorous exercise can improve mental function. 37 43 20
21 Environments that are rich in stimulus improve the brains of pre-school children. 91 6 3
22 Children are less attentive after consuming sugary drinks and/or snacks. 31 20 49
23 Circadian rhythms (“body-clock”) shift during adolescence, causing pupils to be tired during the first lessons of the school day 46 11 43
24 Regular drinking of caffeinated drinks reduces alertness. 43 31 26
25 Exercises that rehearse co-ordination of motor-perception skills can improve literacy skills. 65 12 24
26 Extended rehearsal of some mental processes can change the shape and structure of some parts of the brain. 53 6 41
27 Individual learners show preferences for the mode in which they receive information (e.g., visual, auditory, kinesthetic) 97 0 3
28 Learning problems associated with developmental differences in brain function cannot be remediated by education. 20 60 20
29 Production of new connections in the brain can continue into old age. 49 6 46
30 Short bouts of co-ordination exercises can improve integration of left and right hemispheric brain function 74 3 23
31 There are sensitive periods in childhood when it’s easier to learn things. 100 0 0
32 When we sleep, the brain shuts down. 3 89 9
Part-2 (Responses to the Statements in the Questionnaire by Percentages) For the Pilot Study
88
APPENDIX-3
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Part-1 (Questions about Neuromyths)
7 Prevalent Neuromyths from the Questionnaire results were asked in the first part of
interviews:
1- ‘Individuals learn better when they receive information in their preferred learning style
(visual, auditory, kinaesthetic).’
2- ‘Environments that are rich in stimulus improve the brains of pre-school children.’
3- Differences in hemispheric dominance can help to explain individual differences
amongst learners.’
4- ‘It has been scientifically proven that fatty acid supplements (omeg-3, omega-6) have
a positive effect on academic achievement.’
5- ‘Shourt bouts of co-ordination exercises can improve integration of left and right
hemispheric brain function.’
6- ‘We only use 10% of our brains.’
7- ‘There are critical periods in childhood after which certain things can no longer be
learned.’
After each neuromyth one or two additional questions (depends on the responses) were asked
for in-depth responses:
Why you agree/disagree?
Why do you think like that?
Where did you get this information?
If they say ‘do not know’: Can I ask you to make a guess with your knowledge? Or
With ‘do not know answer you mean you have not come across before or you have but
you still do not know?
What did you know before about this statement to reach that conclusion?
Do you have any examples? Can you give an example?
Final Question about Neuromyths: How each statement affects the practice in the
classroom? Are they useful and do you apply these statements in practice in your classroom?
89
Part-2 (General Questions)
Have you ever come across neuroscience in education at university?
Have you ever come across neuroscience in education after you become a teacher at
in-service training courses or conferences?
Are you interested in learning for your profession more and how do you improve
yourself about your profession?
Do you think that it is important for teachers to know about the brain? Why/Why not?
Do you think, currently, is there enough training courses for teachers about this area?
Are you feel confident to your knowledge about brain and its functions on learning?
Have you heard about multiple intelligences before? If so, where?
Have you heard about learning styles before? If so, where?
Have you heard about brain gym before? If so, where?
90
APPENDIX-4
CONSENT FORM FOR QUESTIONNAIRE
Supervisor: Tim Jay Name of the School: Graduate School of Education
Researcher: Ozge Karakus Contact e mail:[email protected]
I am conducting a survey on Neuroscience in Education for my master dissertation. I want to define “The
knowledge of primary and secondary school teachers about brain and also their perceptions about the
application of neuroscientific research findings in educational field, in Turkey”. Your voluntary participation is
requested.
The questionnaire will take approximately 15 minutes. There are 2 parts; in the 1st part, you will be asked to
answer some questions about yourself (such as your year of birth, sex, and educational level) and also some
questions about your attitudes in terms of your profession. In the 2nd
part, there are 32 questions about brain, you
will be asked to mark either “T for True”, “F for False” or “D for Don’t Know” for each one.
Your name will not be wanted or recorded; your responses will be anonymous. The data will not be seen by
anybody except the researcher. Again, your participation is voluntary and you may choose not to answer all of
the questions on the questionnaire even after signing the consent; you have the right of withdrawal. However,
because of the anonymity of collecting data, you cannot withdrawal, once you pass the questionnaire in to the
researcher.
It is aimed to finish the report of the study until October-2013. If you want to be informed about the results or if
you have any questions pertaining to this study, please do not hesitate to contact with me by the e-mail address
above.
If you are willing to participate, please sign the “participant’s agreement” part below.
Thank you for your assistance.
Participant’s Agreement
I read the explanations about the study and my rights as a participant, above. I know that my participation is
voluntary and anonymous; I have the right of withdrawal, however once I fill and give back the questionnaire, I
cannot withdrawal because of the anonymity; the data will not be seen and used except the researcher and this
study; there is an e-mail address which I can use if I want to ask any questions and want to learn the results. I am
informed about the process and willing to participate through the information given.
Participant Signature____________________________
Date ___________________
91
APPENDIX-5 CONSENT FORM FOR INTERVIEWS
Supervisor: Tim Jay Name of the School: Graduate School of Education
Researcher: Ozge Karakus Contact e mail: [email protected]
I am conducting a study on Teachers’ Perception about Neuroscience in Education for my Masters
dissertation. I want to define “The knowledge of primary and secondary school teachers about brain
and also their perceptions about the application of neuroscientific research findings in educational
field, in Turkey”. Your voluntary participation is requested.
I would like to record the interview, if you are willing, and also use some parts as a source in the
dissertation report, after transcription of the record. Your responses will be anonymous. Please feel
free to say as much or as little as you want. You can decide not to answer any question, or to stop the
interview any time you want; moreover you have the right to withdraw data from the study before the
submission of the report.
The interview will be in Turkish, however as I will prepare the report in English, I will have to
translate your words from Turkish to English; thus I need to receive an approval from an expert on
both languages. That means an expert in both languages will also read some parts of your comments
and answers except me; but they will not see the names of participants. Besides this, all the
information will be kept confidential. I will keep the data in a secure place. The tapes and transcripts
will become the property of only this project.
This interview is designed to learn first-hand information about this topic. Upon completion of this
project and after the evaluation of the dissertation and the results will be announced, approximately by
the end of October, all data will be destroyed. If you would like, I can inform you about the results,
you can contact by e-mail address above.
Participant’s Agreement:
I am aware that my participation in this interview is voluntary. If, for any reason, at any time, I wish
to stop the interview, I may do so without having to give an explanation. I understand the intent and
purpose of this research.
I am aware the data will be used for a Masters dissertation. I have the right to review, comment on,
and withdraw information prior to the paper’s submission. The data gathered in this study are
confidential and anonymous with respect to my personal identity unless I indicate otherwise. I grant
permission for the use of this information for the master dissertation.
I have read the above form, and, with the understanding that I can withdraw at any time, and for
whatever reason, I consent to participate in today’s interview.
Participant’s signature Date
---------------------------- --------------------------------
92
APPENDIX-6
An Example Transcript
Interview 4
Interviewee: A primary school teacher with twenty-year experience
Interviewer: Thank you for participating this study. You read the consent form, would you
like to ask anything that you want me to explain?
Interviewee: No, thanks. I understand everything.
Interviewer: Well, as you read in the consent form, this study is about neuroscience in
education and this interview will last approximately 20 minutes. In the first part of interview I
will read and ask you 7 statements about brain and its functions, so plase answer either agree,
disagree or do not know. Then I will ask some additional questions about each statement to
understand the reasons behind your responses. Is it clear, can we start?
Interviewee: Yes.
Interviewer: The first one is: ‘Individuals learn better when they receive information in their
preferred learning style (visual, auditory, kinaesthetic).’ Did you hear before? And do you
agree/disagree?
Interviewee: Yes, I heard and I agree.
Interviewer: Why you agree?
Interviewee: Can I give an example?
Interviewer: Yes, sure. You can give examples or share your experiences/observations.
Interviewee: Last year, a new student who could not learned reading-writing in the first year
of his studies, came to my classroom. I was teaching to the first year students and I gave
special attention to him. However I could not teach reading and writing. My own students
who had just started the school, learned in two months. 3 Students out of 40 could not learn.
Then I realised, I just teach visually with visual tools, and if you teach with different
perspectives and tools (i.e. visual, auditory), students can learn through one way which suits
their learning style. However, it is hard to realise children’s learning style quickly, it takes
93
time, sometimes more than a month or two. You need to observe well. It is true, children can
learn better through their learning styles. I can also give example from myself, I can
understand better visually.
Interviewer: Ok, I see. So can we say your experiences and observations in the classroom
provide the knowledge to reach that conclusion?
Interviewee: Yes.
Interviewer: Second one is: ‘Environments that are rich in stimulus improve the brains of
pre-school children.’ Do you agree/disagree?
Interviewee: Yes, agree. For example, when I compare my current students and my students
from previous years I can easily discern the difference between them in terms of their
perception levels. My students from previous years were learning more slowly and their
vocabulary was poorer than my present students. Nowadays, visual stimuli and early
education are more effective than in past times. So students start primary school more
equipped.
Interviewer: Yes this is an important observation, so again you answer through your
experiences, right?
Interviewee: Yes.
Interviewer: The third statement is: ‘Differences in hemispheric dominance can help to
explain individual differences amongst learners.’ Do you agree/disagree?
Interviewee: Yes I heard but I do not remember, what were the abilities of right and left
brain? What was the difference?
Interviewer: It is claimed that the left brain is more ‘logical’ and the right brain is more
‘creative’. Do you think that is true? And this can explain our individual differences?
Interviewee: No, this is not enough to explain our individual differences, I think; I do not
agree. We cannot explain just according to left-right brain differences.
Interviewer: So, what else are important?
94
Interviewee: Environment is quite important, such as school environment. It is not the same a
child’s studying in the city centre and country side. Also, there are different factors like
family, so I do not think so.
Interviewer: Ok, so you do not think that hemispheric dominance can explain individual
differences?
Interviewee: No, I do not agree, it cannot. Not alone, there are other factors which are
significant.
Interviewer: What do you think for the questions I asked so far? Did you answer through
your experiences or you read from somewhere or you learn at university, in general?
Interviewee: For the second statement, I can say that I went a training course about children
with mental retardation, they did mention about individual differences regarding right-left
brain. However, experiences are more important I think because you can compare and justify
your knowledge through your experiences.
Interviewer: I see. The next one is: ‘It has been scientifically proven that fatty acid
supplements (omeg-3, omega-6) have a positive effect on academic achievement.’ Do you
agree?
Interviewee: Yes, I agree.
Interviewer: What did you know before about this statement to reach that conclusion?
Interviewee: I observed from my students that lacking a healthy diet cause difficulty in
learning and that they learn slower. I used omega-3 and omega-6 for my children as well.
Interviewer: Where did you get this information? Did you read from somewhere?
Interviewee: Yes, I read this information from somewhere but I do not remember where.
However, it is easy and possible to come across that information in several websites on the
internet. There are advertisements about omega-3 and omega-6 as well.
Interviewer: Ok. The fifth statement is: ‘Shourt bouts of co-ordination exercises can improve
integration of left and right hemispheric brain function.’ Do you agree/disagree?
Interviewee: Yes, I think it is possible. For example, sometimes I stop teaching during
lessons and tell a story and I want them to draw that story—whatever they imagine according
95
to the story—on a piece of paper. It is a short activity but I think it works and it strengthens
the link between the two hemispheres; because, according to my observations, their drawings
improved over time after these kinds of exercises.
Interviewer: The next one is: ‘We only use 10% of our brains.’ Have you heard before? Do
you agree?
Interviewee: Frankly speaking, I think we use less than 10%. Because I read from
somewhere that in Russia, people can heal diseases with brain/mental power or that they can
move objects with brain power. But I am not sure where I read it. So, if we can use our brain's
full capacity, we can achieve lots of things, such as moving the objects by brain power as with
the Russian example.
Interviewer: The last one is: ‘There are critical periods in childhood after which certain
things can no longer be learned.’ Do you agree/disagree?
Interviewee: Yes, I agree. There is a threshold for all behaviours. If a child could not learn
how to read and write in the first grade, that child cannot learn that behaviour completely,
later. Shall I give an example?
Interviewer: Sure.
Interviewee: For example, I had a student who mingled letters ‘v’ and ‘u’ with each other in
the first grade; I could not change the behaviour for more than 2 years. It is really hard to
change the behaviour after critical periods have passed.or for example if you could not teach
how to they wash their hands and how often they should wash, in the first year, it becomes
much more difficult to teach in the second or third year.
Interviewer: Ok, thank you. Now there are some general questions in the second part of
interview. We talked about 7 statements and what do you think, how each statement affects
the practice in the classroom? Do you use that knowledge (statements) in practice?
Interviewee: Yes, I can say, I use all of them. Especially when I start to teach to first year
students; I try to apply this knowledge to the classroom.
Interviewer: Have you ever come across with neuroscience in education (i.e. brain, its
functions on behaviours and learning) at the university?
96
Interviewee: Partially, but did not get in-detail information. So, I can say, no I have not come
across.
Interviewer: So, have you ever come across with neuroscience in education after you became
a teacher (i.e. among in-service training courses or conferences)?
Interviewee: No.
Interviewer: Are you interested in learning for your profession more? And how do you do
that? How do you improve yourself regarding your profession?
Interviewee: Generally, I try to attend in-service training courses. I read a lot. I like to learn
more about my job. Moreover I talk with my colleagues, we always share our experiences.
Interviewer: Do you think that it is important for teachers to know about brain?
Interviewee: Yes, definitely.
Interviewer: Well, do you think teachers need to be trained about this field?
Interviewee: Yes, definitely we need. The brain is the most important organ with relation to
learning. This field can bring a new perspective to education.
Interviewer: Have you heard about multiple intelligences before? And where?
Interviewee: Yes, I heard in a seminar. It was kind of in-service training session.
Interviewer: Have you heard about learning styles before? And where?
Interviewee: Yes, I heard in the course which was about children with mental retardation.
Interviewer: Well lastly, have you heard about brain gym before?
Interviewee: No I have not.
Interviewer: Ok thank you very much. This is the end of the interview. Thank you for your
sparing time and participation.
97
APPENDIX-7
Table 4.4: 17 General Statements (13 Correct, 4 Incorrect) about Brain with Their Correct
Answers in Brackets and Teachers’ Answers (from Turkey) by Percentages (C = Correct, I =
Incorrect, D.K = Do not Know).
17 General Statements in the Questionnaire Teachers’ Responses
C % I % D.K%
1-We use our brains 24 h a day. (Correct) 79.5 13.7 6.8
2-Boys have bigger brains than girls. (Correct) 40.6 29.5 29.9
3-When a brain region is damaged other parts of the brain can take
up its function. (Correct)
11.2 69.1 19.8
4-The left and right hemispheres of the brain always work together.
(Correct)
23.4 53.2 23.4
5-The brains of boys and girls develop at the same rate. (Incorrect) 25.5 45.3 29.1
6-Brain development has finished by the time children reach
secondary school. (Incorrect)
8.6 74.8 16.5
7-Information is stored in the brain in a network of cells distributed
throughout the brain. (Correct)
60.8 7.2 3.2
8-Learning is not due to the addition of new cells to the brain.
(Correct)
25.9 36.3 37.8
9-Learning occurs through modification of the brains’ neural
connections. (Correct)
44.6 11.9 43.5
10-Academic achievement can be affected by skipping breakfast.
(Correct)
94.6 2.5 2.9
11-Normal development of the human brain involves the birth and
death of brain cells. (Correct)
57.2 13.7 29.1
12-Mental capacity is hereditary and cannot be changed by the
environment or experience. (Incorrect)
12.6 82 5.4
13-Vigorous exercise can improve mental function. (Correct) 52.2 26.3 21.6
14-Circadian rhythms (“body-clock”) shift during adolescence,
causing pupils to be tired during the first lessons of the school day.
(Correct)
50.7 11.2 38.1
15-Production of new connections in the brain can continue into old
age. (Correct)
39.6 16.2 44.2
16-There are sensitive periods in childhood when it’s easier to learn
things. (Correct)
97.1 0.7 2.2
17-When we sleep, the brain shuts down. (Incorrect) 4.3 88.1 7.6
98
APPENDIX-8
Table-4.5: 15 Neuromyths with Correct Answers in Brackets and Teachers’ Responses by
Percentages (sorted by prevalence–from the most common to the least) (C = Correct, I =
Incorrect, D.K = Do not Know).
15 Neuromyths in the Questionnaire Teachers’ Responses
C % I % D.K%
1 - Individuals learn better when they receive information in their
preferred learning style (e.g., auditory, visual, kinaesthetic). (Incorrect)
97.1 1.1 1.8
2 - Environments that are rich in stimulus improve the brains of pre-
school children. (Incorrect)
86.7 6.8 6.5
3 -It has been scientifically proven that fatty acid supplements (omega-
3 and omega-6) have a positive effect on academic achievement.
(Incorrect)
79.1 3.6 17.3
4 - Differences in hemispheric dominance (left brain, right brain) can
help explain individual differences amongst learners. (Incorrect)
78.8 5.4 15.8
5 - Short bouts of co-ordination exercises can improve integration of
left and right hemispheric brain function. (Incorrect)
72.3 2.9 24.8
6 - There are critical periods in childhood after which certain things
can no longer be learned. (Incorrect)
67.3 26.6 6.1
7 - Children must acquire their native language before a second
language is learned. If they do not do so neither language will be fully
acquired. (Incorrect)
58.3 32.4 9.4
8 - Exercises that rehearse co-ordination of motor-perception skills can
improve literacy skills. (Incorrect)
56.8 15.8 27.3
9 - We only use 10% of our brain. (Incorrect) 50.4 31.3 18.3
10 -Regular drinking of caffeinated drinks reduces alertness. (Correct) 45.7 34.9 19.4
11 -Children are less attentive after consuming sugary drinks and/or
snacks. (Incorrect)
43.9 22.3 33.8
12 -Extended rehearsal of some mental processes can change the shape
and structure of some parts of the brain. (Correct)
39.9 20.9 39.2
13 -If pupils do not drink sufficient amounts of water (=6–8 glasses a
day) their brains shrink. (Incorrect)
24.8 35.6 39.6
14 -Learning problems associated with developmental differences in
brain function cannot be remediated by education. (Incorrect)
21.6 64.7 13.7
15 -Individual learners show preferences for the mode in which they
receive information (e.g., visual, auditory, kinaesthetic). (Correct)
94.6 2.5 2.9
99
APPENDIX-9
Table 4.6: 15 Neuromyths about the Brain and Brain Functions about Learning with Correct Answers
in Brackets and Teachers’ Responses from Turkey, The UK and the Netherlands by Percentages (C =
Correct, I = Incorrect, D.K = Do not Know).
15 Neuromyths in the Questionnaire
Turkey UK Netherlands
C% I% D.K% C% I% D.K% C% I% D.K%
1-Individuals learn better when they receive
information in their preferred learning
style (e.g., auditory, visual, kinaesthetic).
(Incorrect)
97.1 1.1 1.8 93 4 3 96 3 1
2-Environments that are rich in stimulus
improve the brains of pre-school children.
(Incorrect)
86.7 6.8 6.5 95 1 4 56 29 15
3-It has been scientifically proven that fatty
acid supplements (omega-3 and omega-6) have
a positive effect on academic achievement.
(Incorrect)
79.1 3.6 17.3 69 12 20 54 16 30
4-Differences in hemispheric dominance (left
brain, right brain) can help explain individual
differences amongst learners. (Incorrect)
78.8 5.4 15.8 91 3 6 86 4 11
5-Short bouts of co-ordination exercises can
improve integration of left and right
hemispheric brain function. (Incorrect)
72.3 2.9 24.8 88 0 12 82 5 13
6-There are critical periods in childhood after
which certain things can no longer be learned.
(Incorrect)
67.3 26.6 6.1 33 53 14 52 38 10
7-Children must acquire their native language
before a second language is learned. If they do
not do so neither language will be fully
acquired. (Incorrect)
58.3 32.4 9.4 7 82 11 36 61 3
8-Exercises that rehearse co-ordination of
motor-perception skills can improve literacy
skills. (Incorrect)
56.8 15.8 27.3 78 3 19 63 11 27
9-We only use 10% of our brain. (Incorrect) 50.4 31.3 18.3 48 26 26 46 42 12
10-Regular drinking of caffeinated drinks
reduces alertness. (Correct)
45.7 34.9 19.4 39 26 35 41 36 23
11-Children are less attentive after consuming
sugary drinks and/or snacks. (Incorrect)
43.9 22.3 33.8 57 24 20 55 24 21
12-Extended rehearsal of some mental
processes can change the shape and structure
of some parts of the brain. (Correct)
39.9 20.9 39.2 69 6 26 58 14 28
13-If pupils do not drink sufficient amounts of
water (=6–8 glasses a day) their brains shrink.
(Incorrect)
24.8 35.6 39.6 29 46 26 16 49 35
14-Learning problems associated with
developmental differences in brain function
cannot be remediated by education. (Incorrect)
21.6 64.7 13.7 16 69 15 19 62 19
15-Individual learners show preferences for
the mode in which they receive
information(e.g., visual, auditory, kinaesthetic).
(Correct)
94.6 2.5 2.9 95 4 2 82 13 5
100
