Educational neuromyths in higher education: beliefs about the brain and learning among university faculty members
Educational neuromyths are plausible but unsupported generalizations about the brain that can shape instructional decisions. This cross-sectional study examined their endorsement among 269 participating university faculty members in Ecuador. Recruitment followed a non-probability procedure that was not documented in the available records, so the results describe this sample and are not nationally representative. The Spanish-language survey contained 21 belief statements rated on a 5-point Likert scale. Based on published reviews and meta-analyses, 11 statements were classified as established neuromyths or unsupported general claims, four as evidence-aligned statements, and six as context-dependent or overgeneralized statements that were not scored dichotomously. Item agreement was summarized with Wilson 95% confidence intervals. An exploratory 15-item scientific-alignment indicator and a clustered generalized estimating equation model were also used. Agreement was highest for learning-style matching (90.7%), generalized transfer from brain games (83.3%), hemispheric dominance (75.0%), cross-lateral integration exercises (74.7%), and use of only a small part of the brain (72.8%). Participants endorsed a mean of 6.02 of 11 neuromyths, and 98.1% endorsed at least one, while agreement with four evidence-aligned statements averaged 91.9%. The mean scientific-alignment score was 44.0%. In the exploratory adjusted model, women had higher odds of an aligned response than men (adjusted odds ratio = 1.58, 95% confidence interval [1.17, 2.13]), an exploratory association detected under the primary specification, which did not survive false-discovery-rate correction when neutral responses were excluded, and that requires replication and should not be read as an inherent gender difference; no statistically robust association was detected for experience, academic degree, specialized training, or most information sources, although the absence of a detected association does not establish that these factors are unrelated to alignment. The findings indicate that, in this sample, accurate knowledge and neuromyths can coexist at participant level: the correlation between evidence-aligned knowledge and neuromyth endorsement was weak and positive (Spearman ρ = 0.25, 95% CI [0.13, 0.36]) rather than negative as a deficit account predicts, supporting targeted refutation and evidence-appraisal training rather than generic exposure to neuroscience facts.