The brain and the US education system: Perpetuation of neuromyths

ABSTRACT

Misconceptions about the brain and its relation to education are widespread. This can lead to the implementation of ineffective methods and the waste of precious resources. To examine the extent of belief in neuromyths, a survey about the brain in education was conducted. Respondents (n = 169) came from special education (n = 83) and general education (n = 78), and included preservice teachers (n = 34), in-service teachers (n = 63), higher education faculty (n = 39), and educational leaders (n = 33). The survey contained 15 Myths and 18 Facts, and overall, participants were able to correctly identify approximately 66% of all the Facts. On the other hand, on average, respondents responded correctly for only one third of the Myths. The most commonly misidentified Myths were related to motor coordination exercises to improve literacy skills, the right brain-left brain myth, and learning styles. Higher education faculty were able to identify more Myths than any other group. Implications for teacher preparation and ongoing professional learning for teachers and educational leaders are discussed.     

Do 45% of College Students Lack Critical Thinking Skills? Revisiting a Central Conclusion of Academically Adrift

The educational literature, the popular press, and educated laypeople have all echoed a conclusion from the book Academically Adrift by Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa (which has now become received wisdom), namely, that 45% of college students showed no significant gains in critical thinking skills. Similar results were reported by Pascarella, Blaich, Martin, and Hanson after the publication of Arum and Roksa's book in 2011. However, these authors' statistical tests were conducted incorrectly, and therefore this 45% finding is fundamentally untrue. We demonstrate that a correct statistical analysis would have found that far fewer students show significant gains in critical thinking. However, this does not reflect on student learning; instead, it reflects on how hard it is to find a statistically significant result when assessing student change on a student‐by‐student basis. This article discusses valid methods for testing the significance of gain scores of individual students.     

Finding,Serving, and Housing the Homeless: Using Collaborative Research to Prepare Social Work Students for Research and Practice

Social work plays a key role in engaging with clients and communities directly affected by housing insecurity and homelessness, and advocating for the right to safe and affordable housing. This article describes methodologies of the Point-in-Time Count and Homeless Management Information Systems and proposes strategies for integrating additional content around homelessness into the social work curriculum in research courses and beyond. This integration can meet student needs regarding experiential research, as well as agency and community needs for effective collection and use of data. A case example and proposed best practices describe opportunities for university–community collaborations in homelessness research.     

Test-retest stability of the Task and Ego Orientation Questionnaire

Establishing stability, defined as observing minimal measurement error in a test-retest assessment, is vital to validating psychometric tools. Correlational methods, such as Pearson product-moment, intraclass, and kappa are tests of association or consistency, whereas stability or reproducibility (regarded here as synonymous) assesses the agreement between test-retest scores. Indexes of reproducibility using the Task and Ego Orientation in Sport Questionnaire (TEOSQ; Duda & Nicholls, 1992) were investigated using correlational (Pearson product-moment, intraclass, and kappa) methods, repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance, and calculating the proportion of agreement within a referent value of +/-1 as suggested by Nevill, Lane, Kilgour, Bowes, and Whyte (2001). Two hundred thirteen soccer players completed the TEOSQ on two occasions, 1 week apart. Correlation analyses indicated a stronger test-retest correlation for the Ego subscale than the Task subscale. Multivariate analysis of variance indicated stability for ego items but with significant increases in four task items. The proportion of test-retest agreement scores indicated that all ego items reported relatively poor stability statistics with test-retest scores within a range of +/-1, ranging from 82.7-86.9%. By contrast, all task items showed test-retest difference scores ranging from 92.5-99%, although further analysis indicated that four task subscale items increased significantly. Findings illustrated that correlational methods (Pearson product-moment, intraclass, and kappa) are influenced by the range in scores, and calculating the proportion of agreement of test-retest differences with a referent value of +/-1 could provide additional insight into the stability of the questionnaire. It is suggested that the item-by-item proportion of agreement method proposed by Nevill et al. (2001) should be used to supplement existing methods and could be especially helpful in identifying rogue items in the initial stages of psychometric questionnaire validation.