The buzzword brain-based learning emerged in the 1970s and
continues to fascinate teachers and learners in schools and universities
today. However, what interested teachers often fail to realize is that brain-based or brain-friendly learning
can not only be a plausible concept, but also a myth when applied
incorrectly. Numerous empirical studies reveal a high degree of support
for misconceptions about learning and the brain, known as
neuromyths, among both pre-service and in-service teachers. When applied
in the classroom, these myths can waste the educational system’s money,
time and effort. Even though the neuromyths issue has been known for
two decades and the topic remains a focus of constant research, even
today, the research discourse barely goes beyond replicating the
earliest research findings. This review article provides an overview of
the theoretical and empirical state of research on neuromyths. As part
of this, ten neuromyths on the subject of learning and memory
will be described in terms of content and the results of prior studies
on neuromyths will be summarized. The overview of the theoretical and
empirical state of research serves as a basis for highlighting
controversies, fundamental concepts, issues and problems, current
research gaps and potential developments in the field. Topics discussed
include whether controversial research findings on correlations with
endorsement of neuromyths are merely a methodological artefact, and why
contradictions exist between the theoretical and empirical state of
research. In addition, three central research gaps will be identified:
First, studies should be conducted on whether and to what extent the
endorsement of neuromyths really deprives teachers and students of
opportunities to spend the education system’s money, time and effort on
more effective theories and methods. Second, there is too little work on
developing and evaluating intervention approaches to combat neuromyths.
Third, a standard scientific methodology or guidelines for determining
new neuromyths are lacking. As desirable future developments in the
field, more work educating people on neuromyths, uniform vocabulary, and
interdisciplinary cooperation are highlighted. This contributes to
answering the question of to what extent interweaving neuroscience,
educational science and cognitive psychology can contribute to reducing
the prevalence of neuromyths in education.