Yes, Rose, thanks to neuroplasticity, the brain can always change and improve! Changes in behavior, the environment, or changes caused by injury, cause changes in neuronal pathways and synapses. Brain plasticity is the ability that the brain has to reorganize itself. The brain is not a static organ; it changes throughout life! Isn't it amazing? And isn't it amazing to know that as we teach and our students learn, we are changing their brains?

It happens so that as soon as a new approach appears in education, the fuss around it is really big and the core and the main conception becomes vague. I guess that when we say all these statements are myths, we should just keep in mind that they aren't panacea in modern education. We already know much about our brain and we don't know even more so far. Some of these statements are true in a particular context, some are not and it's because there are a lot of other aspects which influence the effectiveness of teaching and learning.

I was really disappointed that my MA program didn't have a neuroscience component. We were on a campus with a learning and memory center, but we never crossed paths with students or professors from that program. I'm looking forward to bridging the gap in my education and understanding of neuroscience--at least partially.

I thought juggling was good for whole-brain development, so I was surprised about the exercise myth? I was also surprised about rich environment not stimulating the brains of pre-schoolers..?

The most of the statements were recognized as myths! By, I was realy surprised with several of them to be treated as myths:
1. During studying psychology, we were tought about the existence of critical periods throughout the development of certain skills!!
2. Mental capacity is hereditary! - Isn't it? I accept this statement only partially! The mental capacity is the geneticly mximum - that is what we get with genes, but we usually never reach that predisposed maximum because of the influence of many environmental factors. Also, environment could increase our achievements, but never over that maximum!
3. Omega3 and Omega 6 have no influence on academic achievement? That is new to me!! Doctors adwice to take fish oil, rich with omega 3 to increase inteligence, attention, memory...
4. Environments that are rich in stimuli improve the brains of preschool children! This is the myth??
And here is my question: How could I become less vulnerable to the pseudoscientific influence?

The myth that surprised me was about individuals learning better if they receive information in their preferred learning style.

I thought I had heard that it was a good teaching practice to find out how students feel they learn best and then try to use a variety of approaches to meet the learning needs of all students. I'm relieved that it's not necessary, although I still try to approach teaching and learning in a variety of ways to keep students engaged.

That's a good point. I was thinking about that and wondering how Howard Gardner's theory measured up in the myths list.

I was very surprised with some myth about brains,especiialy with learning style and.There are many doubtful points.

These statements can be marked as myths because they are too categorical. I am sure learning styles ahould be catered for, though it would be unwise to go just for one and one only. We should construct our lessons to include visuals, audio and movement, all of them. I see from experience that mental abilities are influenced both by parentage and by the environment, and can be developed with any learner. Many Uni textbooks state these "myths" as facts, are they pseudoscience, too?

Hello, everyone. I'm sorry, but I'd already posted my answer previously here, and it " by a magic trick" (LOL) disappeared!! I've read all the articles and did the brain test. My answers are on my PBworks portfolio. I invite you all to read it, pls. http://flaviauhlmann.pbworks.com/w/page/62531988/FrontPage. If this time it vanishes again (LOL), I ask the NiE organizers to help solve this mystery...All the best to all of you.

I like what Patricia said. There's a lot more involved in teaching and learning. Learning styles is only one aspect. We don't need to be SO concerned with them, although we should plan lessons with those in mind.

"Environments which are rich in stimulus improve the brains of pre-school children." I'm not sure I understand why this statement is a myth. It has been proved that an environment which is rich in stimulus does enhance and strengthen the neural nerwork. I may have missed sth here. 0.o

Like many have already commented, I was surprised at how many of these myths I thought to be true (4 in total). I was even more surprised at this number given that I studied Neuroscience at University and Education is my 'second career'! The most surprising to me was that we don't necessarily learn best through our prefered mode (or strongest intelligence). I look forward to finding out more!

I think I can say that I have read a lot about brain myths, but I still found new ones here, although with some I wouldn't agree. I guess a proper research cannot be conducted just yet. Also we need to take into account many a factors. I may be wrong though, feel free to enlighten me.

Learning styles are something I've just started to uncover. I'm really interested in them and everything I've tried so far in the classroom has helped me... I'm quite shocked they are a myth. And another thing: "All perceptions, thoughts and behaviors result from combinations of signals among neurons" - this is a VERY strong and a very bold claim. Is there research showing how exactly a thought comes to life?

Some of the information about brain (boys and girls brain development, learning styles, learning two languages at the same time) was a bit surprising, and interesting to know it is a myth. Is there any research on how the brain retain information (memorize)?

Just as we have to think critically when exposed to new information about how the brain works, we also have to be critical regarding the Brain Test itself. Learning styles, for instance might not have the influence on learning that many of us seemed to believe it had, but it certainly has an impact on motivation, which is essential for the learners to pay attention at all to the input given. Many of the statements seem surprising, but I believe it is due to the fact that they are expressed through very short and limited sentences. I would like to read more elaborate comments on most of them.

Dear all, the enriched environment myth still seem to be one that causes more discomfort in participants as its concept is so widespread. I'd like to point out to what Denise has posted in the beginning of this thread about it:

"Regarding the enriched environment, Christopher Chabris, in the text "Using Just 10% of Your Brain? Think Again", explains that "This belief might have emerged from evidence that rats raised in cages with amenities like exercise wheels, tunnels and other rats showed better cognitive abilities and improvements in brain structure compared with rats that grew up isolated in bare cages. But such experiments show only that a truly impoverished and unnatural environment leads to poorer developmental outcomes than a more natural environment with opportunities to play and interact. It follows that growing up locked in a closet or otherwise cut off from human contact will impair a child's brain development. It does not follow that "enriching" a child's environment beyond what is already typical—for example, by constant exposure to "Baby Einstein"-type videos—will boost cognitive development."

You might also want to read further about the myth of "enriched environments" here: http://www.oecd.org/edu/ceri/neuromyth2.htm "

Denise talking about the learning styles myth:
"Individuals do have preferences in the mode through which they receive information, and we teachers must not disregard this. Moreover, we know that the more senses we involve in our lessons, the better. So, playing music, having students sing, move, etc, are all very helpful. Also, it's important to work with a content by approaching it from various perspectives, so that we can give more students more opportunities to learn. The learning brain does like that, and varied input helps neuronal connections to be strengthened, aiding the formation of memories and pathways in the brain. As we will see in the following weeks of this EVO, emotion and cognition are intertwined. Music and emotion are highly connected. That's why they are an important tool in our classrooms. So, yes, let's sing, let's have our students sing, let's have them produce their own songs. What the learning style myth clarifies is that there are no preferred learning style networks in our brain. Here's an example (keeping the different complexities aside, of course) that might help us understand the difference better: I might prefer to wear dresses to pants, while another person might feel more comfortable wearing pants. This doesn't mean, though, that I have a network for dresses in my brain. We receive input through our senses. In general, the sensory input enters our brain and is sent first to an area inside the brain, where it is going to be assessed according to certain parameters, as we will also see later in this EVO. This happens regardless of whether it's a visual or auditory input. We don't learn and understand by merely by seeing, hearing or touching. It takes more than that. We need to go beyond the initial sensory input phase. To learn and understand we need to interpret the input, and this is a much more complex task for the brain than only receiving input from the senses."

Hello - I posted my thoughts on the test and text here: http://verarahde.blogspot.com.br/. I also listed two books on the subject Herbert Puchta recommended in the last BRAZ-TESOL convention.

What surprised me most was the bit about learning styles so, Carla, thank you for this clarification. Yes, it makes sense. Looking forward to learning more about this in the following weeks.

Hi everyone: I was also surprised by the learning style myth, but when I thought it over and the way I teach has to deal what Carla has explained. I also believed that when we teach a language, our activities should let the students organize the information as they prefer. Students know better the way they are able to learn. We build the scaffold to reach the learning goal, but the way the student will build their learning is their choice according to their style.

Most of the myths were merely myths to me before, too, the one that surprised me most was the one that says that Environments that are rich in stimulus improve the brains of pre-school children.

I'm so late commenting due to technical difficulties, so I apologise for that. I agree with previous comments about the "environments rich in stimulus" improving "the brains of pre-school children". I considered the fact that stimulus overload might be confusing for an infant, but I thought a stimulus-rich environment would enhance brain development, so that was surprising to me. I also find the area of learning styles interesting. Yes, using different techniques can foster motivation, but why place so much emphasis on learning styles on teacher training courses such as the CELTA and DELTA, where it's presented as fact rather than theory that hasn't been proven? I feel it would be more beneficial to train teachers to use variety in their lessons with an emphasis on motivation and developing weaker skills, rather than using different learning styles as a mock aim for an activity.

Please, check the comments Denise also made about Learning Styles in the following blog posts:
http://krnhaines.wordpress.com/2013/01/22/learning-styles/#comments
https://space4growth.wordpress.com/2013/01/21/evo-debunks-neuromyths/#comments

what I found really interesting was the fact that male/female brains develop alike. I had several struggles at a single-sex school once since the headmaster was feverishly against mixing students due to the huge gap in development among girls and boys...Interesting material, hope to manage and finish reading them in depth. What a miracle this organ is

It was interesting to take the Brain test and find out that some of the information there is just part of the myths created about the braiin. Regarding this myths I have also read maganizes which publish articles about food that helps the brain. As a teacher I am busy most of the time, but I really think it is necessary to spend some time to learn about neuroscience.

There was nothing particularly surprising for me about the myths. Some are worded in such a way that one can discard them as not true immediately "It has been scientifically proven that ..." or stated as concrete facts and human beings are so variable, so distinct that it is hard to generalize about learning processes or the brain. What seems to be true one day, might be proven false later on by new research, advanced medical equipment, better understanding of the human body, etc. I remember that some time ago it was believed that we are born with a finite number of brain cells and began losing them without new cells being generated in our brain. Later on it was discovered that the brain can create new cells by a process called neurogenesis. It was very interesting, though, to read about common myths about the brain, and to hesitate here and there based more on faulty common sense than proven facts.

Dipping in here very late and benefiting from everyone's comments and insights. Yes, there were a couple of myths that I had accepted from reading popular literature and also from professional development (that learning style myth has been around in ESL/EFL for years). I am particularly interested in this topic because my daughter has a neurological disability (non-verbal learning disability--http://nldontheweb.org/). I've read a lot about NLD; for example, I've read that people with NLD cannot use their brain's right hemisphere normally ("current evidence and theories suggest that early damage [disease, disorder, or dysfunction] of the right cerebral hemisphere and/or diffuse white matter disease, which leaves the left hemisphere [unimodal] system to function on its own, is the contributing cause of the NLD syndrome." From http://nldontheweb.org/nldadvancedreading/nld.html). After reading about all the neuroscientific myths here, I am beginning to wonder if the NLD literature is also infused with unproven myths. There is so much that we do not know about what goes on inside our heads.

I also found some of the brain myths surprising such as learning L1 before L2, hemispheric dominance, critical periods, and learning styles. However, as I read everyone's discussion, many of my questions were answered. Since neuroscience is getting more and more popular in media, I think we, as language professionals, should prepare ourselves to critically analyze such information. This online course is what we really need today! Neuroscience is a very interesting field to delve into :)

I was surprised that many of the myths I had held on to as common sense. I am thankful that the brain is such a complex and dynamic organ and not hampered by the many limitations we place on it in general and in the classroom in particular.