Neuromyths among Teachers and Student Teachers.

By Eric Tardif, P. Doudin, N. Meylan. 2015

106 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/38a604b845cbab4e9628081838b43f03c3e1f53b

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

1. Priti Shah
2. Susan A. Gelman
3. Shaylene E. Nancekivell

In Statistics and Probability

1. Priti Shah
2. Susan A. Gelman
3. Shaylene E. Nancekivell

Citations in the corpus

• How Common Is Belief in the Learning Styles Neuromyth, and Does It Matter? A Pragmatic Systematic Review (2020, background): “Two samples (Tardif et al., 2015; van Dijk and Lane, 2018) contained a mix of trainee and qualified teachers and were excluded from this analysis.”
• Maybe they’re born with it, or maybe it’s experience: Toward a deeper understanding of the learning style myth. (2020, methodology): “Teachers and instructors spend time and effort matching lessons to students’ perceived learning styles (Newton & Miah, 2017; Scott, 2010; Tardif et al., 2015), even though usually all students would benefit from receiving information in multiple ways (e.”