Researchers recruited volunteers through institutional email from a federal vocational-technical network with campuses in 12 cities across Tocantins. The network contained 816 teachers, of whom 130 completed the online questionnaire between August 12 and September 8, 2024, representing 15.9% of the eligible population. Participants had a mean age of 44.27 years and an average of 16.53 years of teaching experience; 78 were men and 52 were women. An a priori calculation, using a 95% confidence level, a conservative proportion estimate of 50% and an 8% margin of error, estimated that at least 127 participants were required after a finite-population correction. Meeting that threshold supported the statistical adequacy of the sample size, but voluntary participation, uneven representation across campuses and restriction to one state limited how far the findings can be generalized.

The questionnaire combined demographic and professional questions with 32 true-or-false statements. Seven false statements measured neuromyth endorsement, while 18 assessed knowledge of brain structure, function and factors influencing brain activity, five concerned teaching and learning, and two addressed learning disorders. Statement order was randomized for each participant to reduce ordering effects. The investigators used descriptive statistics, analysis of variance and backward multiple linear regression to examine differences and associations. The final neuromyth model accounted for 21.2% of the variation in endorsement, while a separate model explained 17.9% of the variation in brain-knowledge scores. These observational models identified statistical relationships; they did not show that an academic background, information habit or teaching assignment caused beliefs to change.

Teachers performed best on several broad statements about brain capacity and neuroplasticity. The highest accuracy reached 95.38% for an item concerning the brain’s continuous activity and 89.23% for the neuroplasticity item. Nevertheless, some false claims remained widely accepted. Only 25% of participants correctly rejected the assertion that children from birth to three years need exposure to every possible stimulus to maximize later performance, and 36% rejected the claim that brain activity decreases during sleep. Just under half, 49%, rejected the statement that the left and right hemispheres always work together. The mean score on the five teaching-and-learning items was 81%, but responses varied sharply: 96% correctly identified frequent breaks and alternation between theoretical and practical activities as effective strategies, whereas only 39% rejected matching instruction to supposedly creative right-hemisphere and rational left-hemisphere students.

Four of the seven tested neuromyths were accepted by more than half of the participants. The fixed requirement of drinking fewer than six to eight glasses of water per day could cause the brain to shrink was rejected by 86%, and 88% rejected the claim that learning problems associated with developmental differences in brain function cannot be remedied by education. Awareness of the “10% of the brain” claim was divided: 51% correctly rejected it, while the remaining respondents accepted it. A similar split appeared for the idea that sugary drinks and snacks make children less attentive, which was accepted by 51%. The pattern showed that teachers could recognize some familiar myths while endorsing others embedded in more specific statements about child development, sleep, hemispheric specialization and learning.

Regression analysis identified three factors significantly associated with neuromyth endorsement. Greater knowledge about the brain was associated with lower endorsement, with a reported coefficient of β = −0.48. An academic background in human sciences was also associated with less endorsement, at β = −13.38, while being single was associated with more endorsement, at β = 9.78. The study did not establish a causal explanation for the marital-status association. Single respondents were, on average, younger and had less teaching experience, although those differences were not statistically significant, and 19 of the 20 single participants taught at the high-school level. The result is therefore a sample-specific association and does not show that marital status itself changes belief in neuromyths.

The brain-knowledge model produced four significant associations. Teachers who reported seeking scientific information from multiple types of sources had the largest positive association with knowledge, at β = 14.33. Training in health sciences was associated with higher scores, at β = 8.42, and training in human sciences at β = 7.34. By contrast, teaching at the vocational-technical high-school level was associated with lower brain-knowledge scores, at β = −7.18. The health-sciences category consisted only of kinesiology teachers, and the researchers did not collect detailed information about their previous coursework. Brazilian institutions are not uniformly required to include neuroscience content in kinesiology curricula, so the higher scores cannot confidently be attributed to a particular course. Likewise, participants could select several information sources, but the survey did not independently evaluate their quality or determine whether reliable and misleading material were used together.

The study’s authors noted that the results fit a wider but unsettled research picture. Formal educational attainment, neuroscience-related coursework and frequent consultation of reliable scientific information are generally associated with greater neuroscience literacy and reduced neuromyth endorsement, yet previous studies have produced conflicting findings. Additional training has sometimes reduced teachers’ belief in neuromyths but has produced no change in other studies, and greater general brain knowledge has even been associated with stronger myth endorsement in some research. The current sample also had an unusual educational profile. A complete undergraduate degree is the minimum qualification for teaching in Brazilian vocational-technical schools, while a considerable share of participants held master’s or doctoral degrees. Because many teachers taught at several levels, the categories used for high school, undergraduate and postgraduate instruction overlapped. These features limit interpretation of the regression coefficients.

Across the wider literature reviewed by the authors, learning styles stood out as an especially persistent neuromyth, with similarly high endorsement reported in several countries. They noted that the approach lacks empirical support for improving learning and may divert resources and attention from better-supported instruction. Labeling students as visual, auditory or kinesthetic learners can also create unrealistic expectations about which subjects or activities are appropriate for them. The present study did not observe teachers’ classroom practices or measure student outcomes, so it cannot establish that neuromyth beliefs directly changed instruction or harmed students. It also did not test an intervention designed to correct those beliefs. Its evidence is instead a regional snapshot showing that relatively strong performance on a brain-science test did not prevent widespread acceptance of educational neuromyths.

The authors concluded that academic preparation in health or human sciences and active consultation of scientific information were associated with greater brain knowledge, whereas teaching at the high-school level was associated with lower scores. They called for research in other Brazilian regions and emphasized the potential value of continuing education tailored to the misconceptions found in this group. The results identify variables that merit further investigation, but they do not demonstrate that changing a teacher’s qualification, reading habits or teaching level would cause neuromyth endorsement to fall. The most direct finding is that, among the 130 surveyed teachers in Tocantins, substantial general knowledge about the brain coexisted with substantial endorsement of myths about learning styles, hemispheres, brain use and child development.

Subject of Research: Prevalence of neuromyth beliefs and associated factors among Brazilian vocational-technical teachers

Article Title: Exploratory study of protective factors against belief in neuromyths in in-service teachers at Brazilian vocational-technical high school

Article References: Teixeira, D. D., Oliveira, M. A., Sabino-Carvalho, J. L., & de Almeida, A. A. (2026). Exploratory study of protective factors against belief in neuromyths in in-service teachers at Brazilian vocational-technical high school. BMC Medical Education, 26(1), Article 1419. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-026-09601-0

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s12909-026-09601-0

Keywords: neuromyths, brain myths, neuroscience literacy, vocational-technical teachers, learning styles, Brazilian education, teacher training, scientific literacy, brain knowledge, Exploratory, protective, factors