A Comparative Study about High School Teachers’ Neuromyths in Turkey and Israel

Year 2022, , 98 - 108, 01.12.2022

Gamze Mercan , Moanes Hani tibi , Arif Altun , Pınar Köseoğlu

https://doi.org/10.47157/jietp.1141184

Cited By: 2

Abstract

The aim of this study is to determine the neuromyths among Turkish and Israeli high school teachers and compare them across countries. The Educational Neuroscience Data Collection Scale, which was adapted into Turkish by Gülsün and Köseoğlu (2020) from Dekker et al. (2012) with regard to the brain and its functioning, was utilized as the data collection tool. Teachers working in Turkish high schools and teachers working in the Israeli Ministry of Education constituted the study sample. Between June 2019 and December 2020, there were 184 teachers (Turkey:112; Israel: 72) who volunteered to participate in the study. The research model is a relational investigation based on the general screening model. Data analysis included t-test and chi-square tests; when the independent variable was continuous, the t-test was used for independent groups, and when the independent variable was discrete, the chi-square approach was used, in accordance with the assumptions required to make group comparisons. According to the results of the study, there were significant differences between countries about the brain functions and the items related to neuromyths. However, no statistically significant difference was found between the country averages of the items in the data collection tool and the total item. With the intercountry comparison, it is considered that suggestions for eliminating neuromyths of teachers working in countries and suggestions to be made in teacher training programs will be important.

Keywords

Neuromyh, Neuroeducation, Neuroscience, Teachers, Intercountry Comparison

Türkiye ve İsrail’de Görev Yapan Öğretmenlerin Nöromitlerinin Belirlenmesi

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı; Türkiye’de ve İsrail’de görev yapan öğretmenlerin beyin işlevlerini anlamlandırmak amacıyla sahip oldukları doğru bilinen yanlışların (nöromitlerinin) belirlenmesi ve ülkeler arası karşılaştırmalı olarak değerlendirilmesidir. Araştırmanın veri toplama aracı olarak, Dekker Lee, Howard-Jones ve Jolles (2012) tarafından beyin ve işleyişi ile geliştirdikleri 32 maddeden oluşan Gülsün ve Köseoğlu (2020) tarafından Türkçe’ye uyarlaması yapılan Eğitsel Sinirbilime İlişkin Veri Toplama Ölçeği kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın evrenini, Türkiye’de Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB)’na bağlı liselerde görev yapan öğretmenler ve İsrail Eğitim Bakanlığı’nda görev yapan öğretmenlerden oluşmaktadır. Araştırmanın örneklemi Haziran 2019- Aralık 2020 arasında araştırmaya gönüllü olarak katılmayı kabul eden 184 öğretmenden oluşmaktadır. Araştırmanın modeli, genel tarama modelinde ilişkisel bir çalışmadır. Araştırmada elde edilen verilerin analizinde; bağımsız gruplar için t-testi, bağımsız değişkenin kesikli olduğu durumlarda ki-kare yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın sonuçlarına göre; veri toplama aracındaki beyin işlevlerini anlamlandırmalarına ilişkin doğru bilgilere maddeler ile nöromitlere ilişkin maddeler ülkeler arası karşılaştırmada anlamlı farklılıklar saptanmıştır. Ancak veri toplama aracındaki maddelerin ülkelere göre ortalamaları ile toplam madde arasında istatiksel olarak anlamlı fark saptanmamıştır. Yapılan ülkelerarası karşılaştırma ile ülkelerde görev yapan öğretmenlerin sahip oldukları nöromitlerin giderilmesine yönelik öneriler ve öğretmen yetiştirme eğitim programlarında yapılacak önerilerde önemli olacağı düşünülmektedir.
Anahtar sözcükler:

Keywords

Nöromit, Nöroeğitim, Nörobilim, Öğretmenler, Ülkeler arası

References

• Alpar, R. (2011). Çok değişkenli istatistiksel yöntemler. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
• Bas, T. (2001). Anket, nasıl hazırlanır, nasıl uygulanır, nasıl değerlendirilir (How to design and develop survey tools). Ankara: Seçkin Yayınevi.
• Brodnax, M., R. (2004). Brain compatible for learning (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Indiana University, Indiana.
• Buyukozturk, S., Cokluk, O., & Koklu, N. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için istatistik (6. Basım). Ankara: Pegem A Yayınevi.
• Caine, R. N. & Caine, G. (1995). Reinventing schools through brain- based learning. Educational Leaderhip, 32 (7), 43-48.
• Caine, R. N., Caine, G., McClintic, C., & Klimek, K. (2009). 12 brain/mind learning principles in action (2. Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
• Caine, R., & Caine, G. (1997). Unleashing the power of perceptual change: The potential of brain-based teaching. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
• Crockard, A. (1996). Confessions of a brain surgeon. New Scientist, 2061, 68.
• Dekker, H. D., & Kim, J. A. (2022). Mechanisms of propagation and factors contributing to beliefs in neuromyths. In Learning Styles, Classroom Instruction, and Student Achievement (pp. 21-37). Springer, Cham.
• 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, 429.
• Deligiannidi, K., & Howard-Jones, P. A. (2015). The neuroscience literacy of teachers in Greece. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Science, 174, 3909–3915.
• Descombe, M. (2010). Ground rules for social reasearch: Guidelines for good practice. Berkshire: Open University Press.
• Diamond, M., & Hopson, J. (1998). Magic trees of the mind: How to nurture your child's intelligence, creativity, and healthy emotions from birth through adolescence. New York: Dutton.
• Dündar, S., & Gündüz, N.(2016). Misconceptions regarding the brain: The neuromyths of preservice teachers. Mind, Brain, and Education, 10(4), 212-232.
• Düvel, N., Wolf, A., & Kopiez, R. (2017). Neuromyths in music education: Prevalence and predictors of misconceptions among teachers and students. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 629.
• Ferreira, R. A., & Rodríguez, C. (2022). Effect of a science of learning course on beliefs in neuromyths and neuroscience literacy. Brain Sciences, 12(7), 811.
• Ferrero, M., Garaizar, P., & Vadillo, M. A. (2016). Neuromyths in education: Prevalence among Spanish teachers and an exploration of cross-curricular variation. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10(496), 1-11.
• 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.
• Geake, J. (2005). Educational neuroscience and neuroscientific education: In search of the mutual middle-way. Research Intelligence: News from the British Educational Research Association, 92, 10–13.
• Geake, J. (2008). Neuromythologies in education. Educational Research, 50, 123–133.
• Geake, J., & Cooper, P. (2003). Cognitive neuroscience: Implications for education? Westminster Studies in Education, 26(1), 7–20.
• Gleichgerrcht, E., Luttges, B. L., Salvarezza, F., & Campos, A. L. (2015). Educational Neuromyths among teachers in Latin America. Mind, Brain, and Education, 9(3), 170–178.
• Goswami, U. (2006). Neuroscience and education: From research to practice? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 7, 406-413.
• Goswami, U. (2010). Reading, dyslexia and the brain. In P. Howard-Jones (Ed.), Education and neuroscience: Evidence, theory and practical application (pp. 16–29). Routledge.
• Grospietsch, F., & Lins, I. (2021). Review on the prevalence and persistence of neuromyths in education–where we stand and what ıs still needed. ın frontiers in education (Vol. 6, p. 665752). Frontiers Media SA.
• Gülsün, Y., & Koseoglu, P. (2020). Determining biology teachers' neuromyths and knowledge about brain functions. Education and Science, 45 (204), 303-316.
• Hermida, M. J., Segretin, M. S., Soni Garcia, A., & Lipina, S. J. (2016). Conceptions and misconceptions about neuroscience in preschool teachers: A study from Argentina. Educational Research, 58(4), 457–472.
• Howard-Jones Pasquinelli, E. (2012). Neuromyths: Why do they exist and persist?. Mind, Brain, and Education, 6, 89–96.
• Howard-Jones, P. A. (2010). Education and neuroscience: Evidence, theory and practical application. London: Routledge.
• Howard-Jones, P. A. (2014). Neuroscience and education: Myths and messages. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 15(12), 817–824.
• Howard-Jones, P., Pollard, A., Blakemore, S. J., Rogers, P., Goswami, U., Butterworth, B., Taylor, E., Williamon, A., Morton, J., & Kauffman, L. (2007). Neuroscience and education: Issues and opportunities. A commentary by the teaching and learning research programme. Teaching and Learning Research Programme and Economic & Social Research Council.
• Jensen, E. (2000). Brain based leaning (2.Edition). San Diego, CA USA: The Brain Store.
• Jensen, E. (2008). Brain-based learning: The new paradigm of teaching. Corwin Press.
• Karakus, O., Howard-Jones, P. A., & Jay, T. (2015). Primary and Secondary school teachers’ knowledge and misconceptions about the brain in Turkey. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences, 174, 1933–1940.
• Karakuş, Ö. (2013). 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. Unpublished master thesis, University of Bristol, UK.
• Karasar, N. (2005). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi (17. Baskı). Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
• Mizell, H. (2010). Why professional development matters. Oxford: Learning Forward.
• Neve, C. ,D., Hart, L. ,A., & Thomas, E. ,C. (1986). Huge learning jumps show potency of brain-based instruction. Phi Delta Kappan, 143-148.
• OECD (2002). Understanding the brain: Towards a new learning science. Paris: OECD Publishing.
• Ozdamar, K. (1999). Paket programlar ile istatistiksel veri analizi. Eskişehir: Kaan Kitabevi.
• Papadatou-Pastou, M., Haliou, E., & Vlachos, F. (2017). Brain knowledge and the prevalence of neuromyths among prospective teachers in Greece. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1-13.
• Pávová, A., & Valent, M. (2020, Aralık). Neuropedagogical knowledge in further education and counselling for teachers. 10th International Adult Education Conference. Univerzita Karlova Pedagogická Fakulta, Prague.
• Pei, X., Howard-Jones, P. A., Zhang, S., Liu, X., & Jin, Y. (2015). Teachers’ understanding about the brain in east China. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 3681–3688.
• Pickering, S. J., & Howard-Jones, P. A. (2007). Educators’ views of the role of Neuroscience in Education: A study of UK and International perspectives. Mind, Brain and Education, 1(3), 109-113.
• Rato, J. R., Abreu, A. M., & Castro-Caldas, A. (2013). Neuromyths in education: What is fact and what is fiction for Portuguese teachers?. Educational Research, 55(4), 441-453.
• Sousa, D. A. (2006). How the brain learns (3. Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
• Sylvan, L. J., & Chrlstodoulou, J. 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.
• Sylwester, B. (1995). A celebration of neurons: An educator’s guide to the human brain. Alexandra, VA: ASCD.
• Willis, J. (2009). What brain research suggests for teaching reading strategies. Educational Forum, 73(4), 333-346.
• Wilmes, B„ Harrington, L., Kohler-Evans, P., & Sumpter, D. (2008). Coming to our senses: Incorporating brain research results into classroom instruction. Chula Vista, 128, 659-666.
• Wolfe, P. (2001). Brain matters: Translating research into classroom practice. VA: ASCD, Alexandria.
• Wolraich, M. L., Wilson, D. B., & White, J. W. (1995). The effect of sugar on behavior or cognition in children: A meta-analysis. Jama, 274(20), 1617-1621.