ArticleJournal of Intelligence2024
The Effect of Correcting Neuromyths on Students' and Teachers' Later Reasoning.
Article in Journal of Intelligence, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perceptions and interest in applied educational neuroscience: a diagnostic study of Brazilian teachers.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Mapping perceived training gaps in educational neuroscience among Brazilian teachers.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Students and educators sometimes hold beliefs about intelligence and learning that lack scientific support, often called neuromyths. Neuromyths can be problematic, so it is important to find methods to correct them. Previous findings demonstrate that textual refutations are effective for correcting neuromyths. However, even after correction, erroneous information may continue to influence reasoning. In three experiments, we investigated whether feedback could be used to update students' and educators' beliefs and influence their reasoning about neuromyths. Across all experiments, the results showed that both students and educators held erroneous beliefs about learning and memory that could be updated after receiving feedback. Feedback also increased students', but not teachers', reasoning accuracy. The results demonstrate that feedback can be used to update beliefs in neuromyths, but these beliefs may influence reasoning even after correction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.