What teachers believe about the brain: neuromyths by country

01 Key findings

1. Learning styles is the most believed myth. Pooled across 37 surveys published 2012 to 2026 (20,838 people), 93% (95% CI 91% to 94%) of teachers and trainees agreed that pupils learn better in their preferred learning style; single surveys ranged from 74% (Quebec, Canada, Blanchette Sarrasin et al. 2019) to 100% (Indonesia, Fatmawati et al. 2023).37 surveys, 25 countries
2. About half believe the 10% myth. 46% (95% CI 43% to 49%) agreed that “we only use 10% of our brain” (36 surveys, 21,652 people), from 26% (Turkey, Mercan et al. 2022) to 68% (Peru, Gleichgerrcht et al. 2015).36 surveys, 2012 to 2026
3. Myths about intelligence split. 92% backed multiple intelligences (5 surveys) and 51% the Mozart effect (6 surveys), but only 8% agreed that mental capacity is hereditary and cannot be changed (16 surveys).Pooled, random-effects
4. Neuroscience training helps, unevenly. In a US survey (2014 to 2015), adults with many neuroscience courses believed the 10% myth far less often than 598 educators (14% vs 33%), yet believed in learning styles just as often (78% vs 76%) ^[27].Macdonald et al. 2017, 3,877 people
5. No clear decline. Across surveys published 2012 to 2026, belief in learning styles changed by +1 point per decade (95% CI -4 to +6) and belief in the 10% myth by -5 points (-14 to +4).Meta-regression on publication year

02 Neuromyth statistics to quote

03 What percentage of teachers believe in neuromyths?

Most believe several, and a few myths are believed almost everywhere. Pooled across every survey that asked it, the share of teachers and trainee teachers agreeing ran from 93% for learning styles to 8% for fixed intelligence. Four of the eight myths this study tracks were believed by at least seven in ten; the sugar myth and the Mozart effect split teachers roughly in half, and the 10% myth was believed by just under half.

A neuromyth is a false belief about the brain that grew out of real research, a term the OECD popularised in 2002 ^[42]. Since Dekker and colleagues surveyed 242 teachers in the UK and the Netherlands in 2012 ^[8], researchers have repeated the same statements in country after country. We gathered every survey we could find that prints the share agreeing with each statement and pooled them, myth by myth.

Figure 1

How many teachers believe each neuromyth

Pooled share agreeing, % of teachers and trainee teachers, with the 95% confidence interval. Random-effects meta-analysis of 41 survey samples from 25 countries, 2012 to 2026. Each row pools the surveys that asked that myth (see Figure 2). Enriched environments, the other classic myth, is shown for comparison.

Learning styles93 (91–94)

Multiple intelligences92 (79–97)

Enriched environments89 (84–93)

Brain Gym79 (74–82)

Left/right brain70 (65–75)

Sugar and attention51 (47–55)

Mozart effect51 (30–71)

10% of the brain46 (43–49)

Fixed intelligence8 (6–12)

020406080100

A pooled figure is an average over very different surveys, so the spread matters as much as the middle. Figure 2 shows every survey behind each row: pick a myth to see each one, its sample size and its 95% interval. The dashed line is the 95% prediction interval, the range in which a new survey of teachers would probably land.

Figure 2

Every survey, myth by myth

Share agreeing in each survey (square; area = sample size) with its 95% interval, and the pooled random-effects estimate (diamond). The dashed line is the 95% prediction interval: where a new survey would likely land. Pick a myth.

One survey (size = sample)95% confidence intervalPooled estimate95% prediction interval

Choose a mythLearning styles (37 surveys)Multiple intelligences (5 surveys)Brain Gym (35 surveys)Left/right brain (38 surveys)Mozart effect (6 surveys)Sugar and attention (30 surveys)10% of the brain (36 surveys)Fixed intelligence (16 surveys)Enriched environments (26 surveys)

Dekker 2012Netherlands · 105 teachers96%90–98

Dekker 2012United Kingdom · 137 teachers93%88–96

Deligiannidi 2015Greece · 217 teachers97%94–99

Gleichgerrcht 2015Argentina · 551 teachers86%83–88

Gleichgerrcht 2015Chile · 598 teachers95%93–97

Gleichgerrcht 2015Other Latin America · 80 teachers86%77–92

Gleichgerrcht 2015Peru · 2,222 teachers91%89–92

Karakus 2015Turkey · 278 teachers97%94–98

Pei 2015China · 238 teachers97%94–98

Ferrero 2016Spain · 284 teachers91%87–94

Macdonald 2017United States · 598 teachers76%72–79

Papadatou-Pastou 2017Greece · 571 trainee teachers94%92–96

Varas-Genestier 2017Chile · 91 teachers91%83–95

Falquez Torres 2018Ecuador · 328 trainee teachers93%90–95

Blanchette Sarrasin 2019Canada (Quebec) · 972 teachers74%71–77

Grospietsch 2019Germany · 550 trainee teachers93%91–95

Zhang 2019China · 253 headteachers93%89–96

Carter 2020Australia · 1,359 trainee teachers77%75–80

Maureira Cid 2021Chile · 440 trainee teachers93%90–95

Painemil 2021Chile · 57 trainee teachers98%91–100

Painemil 2021Spain · 42 trainee teachers93%81–98

Jeyavel 2022India · 503 teachers84%80–87

Makhlouf 2022Algeria · 221 teachers92%88–95

Mercan 2022Israel · 72 teachers99%92–100

Mercan 2022Turkey · 112 teachers97%92–99

Fatmawati 2023Indonesia · 102 teachers100%96–100

Novak-Geiger 2023Austria · 648 trainee teachers97%95–98

Sandoval Grajeda 2023Mexico · 77 trainee teachers97%91–99

Tunga 2023Turkey · 730 teachers97%96–98

Vig 2023Hungary · 822 trainee teachers82%79–85

Luria 2024Israel · 86 teachers93%86–97

Luria 2024Poland · 85 teachers99%94–100

Tinterri 2024Italy · 6,679 teachers90%89–90

Tsang 2024Hong Kong · 64 teachers91%81–96

Kanlı 2025Turkey · 454 teachers93%90–95

Voulgari 2025Greece · 82 teachers99%94–100

Teixeira 2026Brazil · 130 teachers87%80–92

Pooled estimate37 surveys · 20,838 people93%91–94

0%20%40%60%80%100%

% agreeing with the statement

04 What percentage of teachers believe in learning styles?

About nine in ten. Pooled across 37 surveys, 93% (95% CI 91% to 94%) agreed that “individuals learn better when they receive information in their preferred learning style (e.g., auditory, visual, kinesthetic)”. That matches the 89.1% Newton and Salvi found in their 2020 review of 37 studies of 15,405 educators ^[48].

Pupils do have preferences, and most teachers rightly say so. What experiments have not shown is that teaching to a preferred style improves learning: a 2008 review for the Association for Psychological Science found almost no studies designed to test it, and the few that were contradicted it ^[43]. In surveys that also asked the true statement about preferences, many teachers agreed with both, which authors attribute partly to a habit of answering “true” ^[18].

05 Do teachers believe in multiple intelligences?

Yes, most do. Pooled across 5 surveys, 92% (95% CI 79% to 97%) agreed with a statement of Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences. The largest recent study, of 1,257 primary teachers in 11 countries, reported that over 90% agreed with both multiple intelligences and learning styles ^[1].

The surveys word this myth differently, from “children have many types of intelligence” to “the dominant intelligence profile of learners must be considered in teaching”, so the figure is less precise than the others; each survey’s wording is in Figure 2 and the CSV. Gardner proposed several separate intelligences. Tests of the abilities he listed tend to correlate with each other, which is why intelligence researchers speak of a general factor, and reviews find little evidence that teaching to a pupil’s “intelligence profile” helps ^[44]. A 2025 survey of 3,158 Spanish teachers, which asked whether achievement rises when teaching is tailored to each pupil’s predominant intelligence, found an average rating of 3.38 on a 1 to 6 scale, close to the middle, so the share agreeing depends on how the statement is put ^[36]. Our explainer on multiple intelligences theory covers the debate.

06 Do teachers believe we only use 10% of our brain?

About half do. 46% (95% CI 43% to 49%) of teachers and trainees agreed that “we only use 10% of our brain”, pooled across 36 surveys in 25 countries. It is a myth: brain imaging shows activity across the whole brain over a day, and damage to almost any area has effects ^[47].

Figure 3

Teachers who believe we only use 10% of our brain

% agreeing with "We only use 10% of our brain", by country (several surveys in one country are pooled). 24 countries. Most surveys cover one city or region, not a whole country.

60% or more50 to 60%40 to 50%30 to 40%Under 30%One region onlyNo survey found

Single surveys range from 26% (Turkey, Mercan et al. 2022) to 68% (Peru, Gleichgerrcht et al. 2015). Many teachers are simply unsure: where a survey offered a “don’t know” answer, a median of 24% chose it for this statement, against 2% for learning styles. Figure 4 puts every survey on one timeline.

Figure 4

The 10% myth, survey by survey, 2012 to 2026

Each bubble is one survey sample: year published (across) and % agreeing that "we only use 10% of our brain" (up). Bubble area = number of people asked.

TeachersTrainee teachers

People asked1005002k

% agreeing

0%20%40%60%80%100%

Gleichgerrcht 2015 (Peru)Simoes 2022 (Brazil)Carter 2020 (Australia)Vig 2023 (Hungary)Gleichgerrcht 2015 (Chile)Jeyavel 2022 (India)Kanlı 2025 (Turkey)Falquez Torres 2018 (Ecuador)Pei 2015 (China)Mercan 2022 (Turkey)Fatmawati 2023 (Indonesia)Luria 2024 (Poland)Gleichgerrcht 2015 (Latin America)Tsang 2024 (Hong Kong)

20122014201620182020202220242026

Year published

07 Do teachers think intelligence is fixed, or that Mozart makes children smarter?

Few think intelligence is fixed; many believe in the Mozart effect. Only 8% (95% CI 6% to 12%) agreed that “mental capacity is hereditary and cannot be changed by the environment or experience” (16 surveys). They are right to reject it: differences in intelligence are partly heritable, but heritable does not mean fixed. A 2018 meta-analysis of 42 data sets with over 600,000 people found that an extra year of education raises IQ by about 1 to 5 points ^[45] (see does school raise IQ? and growth mindset and intelligence).

The Mozart effect is different: 51% (95% CI 30% to 71%) agreed that listening to classical music makes children smarter or sharpens their reasoning (6 surveys). The 1993 study behind it tested 36 college students on a paper-folding task after ten minutes of Mozart, not children’s intelligence ^[52], and a 2010 meta-analysis of around forty studies found little evidence for a specific Mozart effect ^[46]. More in what the Mozart effect study actually measured and music lessons and IQ.

Belief that the left and right halves of the brain explain how pupils learn sits in between: 70% (95% CI 65% to 75%) (38 surveys). Some functions such as language really are lateralised, but there are no “left-brained” and “right-brained” learners; see what brain scans show and brain myths about intelligence.

08 Which countries' teachers believe the most neuromyths?

Learning styles tops the list almost everywhere; the rest varies by survey. Of the five myths most surveys asked, learning styles is the most believed in 23 of the 25 countries in Figure 5, while agreement with the 10% and sugar myths swings from under a third to over two thirds. Treat country differences with care: almost every survey recruited volunteers online or through schools, so no figure is a national rate.

Figure 5

Neuromyths by country

% of teachers and trainee teachers agreeing. Where a country has several surveys they are pooled. Countries with at least three of the first four myths; empty = not asked. Sorted by the average of the first four.

Few agreeMost agree

StylesStylesBrain GymGymL/RL/R10%10%SugarSugarMIMIFixedFixedGermany93928257United Kingdom9388914857China958279565519Peru9178756856Austria9788824439617Netherlands9682864655Poland9994793666928Indonesia1008184367822Mexico97844410Turkey9680834053965Chile94817742515Algeria92784696Hungary828860486219Hong Kong916958596Argentina8673585631Brazil8785484851Spain9168664135Greece9655664748India8461546460Israel9674513831959Italy9066544746Ecuador937648305816United States76894933503Canada (Quebec)745744Australia7757462758

Figure 6

Pick a country: its teachers against the pooled average

% agreeing with five myths that most surveys asked, against the pooled estimate from all surveys (dashed). 20 countries asked all five.

United KingdomAll surveys (pooled)

Choose a countryArgentinaAustraliaAustriaBrazilChileChinaEcuadorGreeceHungaryIndiaIndonesiaIsraelItalyNetherlandsPeruPolandSpainTurkeyUnited KingdomUnited States

Learning styles93%All 93%Brain Gym88%All 79%Left/right brain91%All 70%10% of the brain48%All 46%Sugar and attention57%All 51%

09 Are neuromyths declining among teachers?

Not clearly. In a meta-regression on the year each survey was published (2012 to 2026), the change per decade in learning styles, the 10% myth and the other common myths had intervals that include zero (Table 1); there are only a handful of surveys per year. Newton and Salvi reached the same conclusion for learning styles in 2020, when 95.4% of trainee teachers still agreed ^[48].

Table 1

Has belief changed since 2012?

Pooled % agreeing in surveys published 2012 to 2016 and 2021 to 2026 (number of surveys), and the change per decade from a meta-regression on the year each survey was published, with its 95% interval. "Clear" = the interval excludes zero.

Myth	Surveys	2012 to 2016	2021 to 2026	Change per decade	Clear change?
Learning styles	37	94% (10)	94% (19)	+1 point (-4 to +6)	no
Brain Gym	35	78% (10)	79% (18)	+1 point (-9 to +12)	no
Left/right brain	38	76% (10)	69% (20)	-7 points (-19 to +5)	no
Sugar and attention	30	49% (10)	52% (15)	+1 point (-9 to +12)	no
10% of the brain	36	52% (10)	45% (19)	-5 points (-14 to +4)	no
Fixed intelligence	16		8% (12)	+1 point (-10 to +12)	no
Enriched environments	26	92% (10)	86% (11)	-7 points (-17 to +2)	no

Figure 7

Which myths lead, by period

Rank of each myth by pooled share agreeing in surveys published in each period (1 = most believed). Only myths asked in all three periods.

2012 to 20162012-162017 to 20202017-202021 to 20262021-26

Learning styles 1Enriched environments 2Brain Gym 3Left/right brain 4Sugar and attention 610% of the brain 5

1 Learning styles2 Enriched environments3 Brain Gym4 Left/right brain5 Sugar and attention6 10% of the brain

Countries surveyed more than once do not show a clear direction either: the later survey came out higher about as often as lower, and the samples differ (working teachers one year, trainees or headteachers another). The cleanest comparison is Greece, where working teachers were asked the same core statements nine years apart: 97% agreed with learning styles in 2015 and 99% of primary teachers in 2024, and the left-brain/right-brain myth went from 71% to 72% ^[40].

10 Does neuroscience training stop teachers believing neuromyths?

It helps a little, but knowing more about the brain is no guarantee. In the first of these surveys, teachers who knew more general facts about the brain believed more myths, not fewer ^[8], a result repeated in Spain ^[14]. This is sometimes called the neuromyth paradox: enthusiasm for brain science draws teachers to popular sources that mix facts with myths.

Formal neuroscience does better. In a US survey of 3,877 adults, those with many university neuroscience courses believed fewer myths than educators, but unevenly (Figure 8): the gap was large for the 10% and left-brain myths and absent for learning styles ^[27]. Among educators, taking many neuroscience courses meant believing about 1.3 fewer of 7 myths. Teaching the myths directly works best: in studies Newton and Salvi reviewed, belief in matching teaching to learning styles fell from 78.4% to 37.1% after such lessons ^[48].

Figure 8

Educators vs people who took many neuroscience courses

United States, 2014 to 2015: % who called each myth true. 598 educators and 234 adults (not educators) who had taken many university neuroscience courses. Sorted by the gap.

EducatorsMany neuroscience courses

10% of the brain14%33%

Left/right brain32%49%

Mozart effect43%55%

Sugar and attention39%50%

Brain Gym81%89%

Fixed intelligence1%3%

Learning styles76%78%

020406080100

Of the 23 papers we read that tested it (including some not pooled above), 6 found that more brain knowledge or neuroscience exposure went with more myth belief, 8 with less, and 9 found no clear link or a mixed one (Table 2).

Table 2

What each survey found about brain knowledge and training

Survey	Direction	What the paper reports
Dekker et al. (2012) [8]	More knowledge, more myths	Teachers with more general knowledge about the brain believed more neuromyths
Ferrero et al. (2016) [14]	More knowledge, more myths	More correct general brain answers went with more myths (B = 0.31); reading scientific journals went with fewer (B = -0.92), educational magazines with more (B = 0.52)
Macdonald et al. (2017) [27]	Training or knowledge, fewer myths	Among 598 educators, many neuroscience courses (about 1.3 fewer of 7 myths) and reading peer-reviewed journals predicted fewer myths
Papadatou-Pastou et al. (2017) [30]	Training or knowledge, fewer myths	Trainees who got more general brain statements wrong believed more myths (beta = 0.34)
Düvel et al. (2017) [10]	Training or knowledge, fewer myths	Reading more books, journals and websites on educational neuroscience predicted better discrimination of myths (beta = 0.249)
Varas-Genestier and Ferreira (2017) [39]	More knowledge, more myths	More general neuroscience knowledge correlated with more myth belief (r = 0.16)
Falquez Torres and Ocampo Alvarado (2018) [13]	No clear link	General knowledge did not predict myth belief (beta = -.022)
Im et al. (2018) [21]	No clear link	An educational psychology course raised neuroscience literacy but did not reduce belief in neuromyths
Grospietsch and Mayer (2019) [17]	No clear link	Myth endorsement was largely independent of professional knowledge
Zhang et al. (2019) [41]	No clear link	No correlation between myth scores and general neuroscience knowledge (r = -0.052)
McMahon et al. (2019) [28]	Training or knowledge, fewer myths	A modified teacher-training course improved trainees’ accuracy on neuromyths
Carter et al. (2020) [5]	Training or knowledge, fewer myths	More general brain knowledge predicted more accurate answers on the myths (beta = .42)
Maureira Cid et al. (2021) [7]	No clear link	Readers of scientific texts knew more about the brain but believed the myths just as often
Chojak et al. (2021) [32]	More knowledge, more myths	Greater self-reported neurobiology knowledge went with more myth belief
Tunga and Çağıltay (2023) [38]	Training or knowledge, fewer myths	More general brain knowledge predicted fewer myths (beta = -.30)
Vig et al. (2023) [19]	No clear link	General brain knowledge was not associated with myth errors
Sandoval Grajeda et al. (2023) [29]	More knowledge, more myths	Trainees who seemed to know more about the brain made more errors on the myths (no statistics given)
Tsang et al. (2024) [18]	Training or knowledge, fewer myths	Accuracy on myths correlated with accuracy on brain facts (r = .46)
Kanlı (2025) [15]	More knowledge, more myths	More general brain knowledge predicted more myth belief (beta = .378)
Zambrano et al. (2025) [11]	Mixed	Greater brain knowledge predicted more belief in neuromyths but less belief in instructional myths (abstract)
Teixeira et al. (2026) [4]	Training or knowledge, fewer myths	More brain knowledge went with less myth belief (beta = -0.48)
von Hausen et al. (2026) [6]	No clear link	General brain knowledge did not predict overall accuracy on the myths (OR = 1.003)
García et al. (2026) [26]	Mixed	Neuroscience training outside the degree was protective; neuroscience taught inside the degree went with more myths (abstract)

11 Why do the surveys disagree so much?

Different people, different questions and different answer options. For each myth asked in at least five surveys, 93% to 99% of the variation between survey results reflects real differences rather than chance (I-squared). Figure 9 shows the spread: learning styles is high in every survey, while the 10% and sugar myths cover much of the scale.

Figure 9

How much the surveys disagree, myth by myth

Each dot is one survey sample. The shaded shape shows where the results cluster (drawn when a myth has at least 8 surveys); the navy tick is the median survey and the orange diamond the pooled estimate.

Spread (density)One surveyMedianPooled estimate

Learning styles37 surveys93%

Multiple intelligences5 surveys95%

Enriched environments26 surveys91%

Brain Gym35 surveys80%

Left/right brain38 surveys71%

Sugar and attention30 surveys51%

Mozart effect6 surveys45%

10% of the brain36 surveys46%

Fixed intelligence16 surveys7%

0%20%40%60%80%100%

% agreeing in each survey

Three things move the numbers. Who is asked: trainee teachers agreed a little less often than working teachers with most myths (left/right brain 66% against 72%). Wording: it matters most for multiple intelligences. “Don’t know”: where it was offered, a median of 25% chose it for the sugar statement and 24% for the 10% statement, but only 2% for learning styles: teachers are confident about learning styles and much less sure about the sugar and 10% claims. Table 3 reruns the pooling on subsets of the surveys: for the five myths asked in 30 or more surveys, the pooled share moves by 5 points at most. Each figure is still an average over volunteers, not a census.

Table 3

The pooled share under different rules

Pooled % agreeing (number of survey samples in brackets). The same random-effects model, run on subsets of the surveys. With "don't know" = surveys that offered that answer; Paper itself = leaves out figures taken from a review table or an abstract.

Myth	All	Teachers	Trainees	With "don't know"	Paper itself	n of 100+
Learning styles	93% (37)	93% (27)	93% (10)	94% (29)	93% (28)	92% (27)
Multiple intelligences	92% (5)	96% (4)	61% (1)	92% (5)	92% (5)	91% (3)
Brain Gym	79% (35)	80% (26)	74% (9)	77% (29)	80% (27)	79% (26)
Left/right brain	70% (38)	72% (28)	66% (10)	71% (29)	71% (29)	71% (28)
Mozart effect	51% (6)	62% (4)	29% (2)	61% (3)	51% (6)	54% (5)
Sugar and attention	51% (30)	51% (23)	52% (7)	52% (25)	52% (22)	52% (23)
10% of the brain	46% (36)	47% (26)	43% (10)	46% (28)	44% (27)	46% (27)
Fixed intelligence	8% (16)	7% (11)	10% (5)	8% (12)	8% (16)	8% (10)
Enriched environments	89% (26)	90% (19)	86% (7)	89% (24)	87% (19)	90% (19)

12 Every survey, in one table

One row per survey sample, with who was asked and the share agreeing with each myth. The CSV (CC BY 4.0) has one row per survey and myth, with the exact wording, the share who disagreed or said “don’t know”, the 95% interval and the table in the paper where each number is printed.

Table 4

Every survey sample in the analysis

Click a column heading to sort. % agreeing with each myth; empty = not asked. * = the paper could not be read and its figures are taken from a later paper that tabulated them (Ferrero et al. 2016; Voulgari et al. 2025 for Quebec). † = figures from the abstract (book chapter). The CSV adds each survey's exact wording, the % who disagreed or said "don't know", the 95% interval and where in the paper each number is printed.

Survey	Country	Who	People	Recruited	Answer format	Styles	MI	Gym	L/R	Mozart	Sugar	10%	Fixed	Enrich
Dekker et al. (2012) [8]	Netherlands	Teachers	105	Volunteers	true / false / don’t know	96		82	86		55	46		56
Dekker et al. (2012) [8]	United Kingdom	Teachers	137	Volunteers	true / false / don’t know	93		88	91		57	48		95
Deligiannidi and Howard-Jones (2015) * [9]	Greece	Teachers	217	Not stated	true / false / don’t know	97		56	71		48	45		97
Gleichgerrcht et al. (2015) * [16]	Argentina	Teachers	551	Volunteers	true / false / don’t know	86		73	58		31	56		88
Gleichgerrcht et al. (2015) * [16]	Chile	Teachers	598	Volunteers	true / false / don’t know	95		81	81		52	42		99
Gleichgerrcht et al. (2015) * [16]	Other Latin America	Teachers	80	Volunteers	true / false / don’t know	86		88	73		55	60		98
Gleichgerrcht et al. (2015) * [16]	Peru	Teachers	2,222	Volunteers	true / false / don’t know	91		78	75		56	68		91
Karakus et al. (2015) * [25]	Turkey	Teachers	278	Not stated	true / false / don’t know	97		72	79		44	50		87
Pei et al. (2015) * [31]	China	Teachers	238	Not stated	true / false / don’t know	97		84	71		62	59		89
Ferrero et al. (2016) [14]	Spain	Teachers	284	Volunteers	true / false / don’t know	91		77	67		34	44		94
Düvel et al. (2017) [10]	Germany	Teachers	91	Volunteers	two choices, no “don’t know”					32
Düvel et al. (2017) [10]	Germany	Trainee teachers	125	Volunteers	two choices, no “don’t know”					35
Macdonald et al. (2017) [27]	United States	Teachers	598	Volunteers	two choices, no “don’t know”	76		89	49	55	50	33	3
Papadatou-Pastou et al. (2017) [30]	Greece	Trainee teachers	573	Volunteers	true / false / don’t know	94		37	55			47		90
Varas-Genestier and Ferreira (2017) [39]	Chile	Teachers	91	Volunteers	two choices, no “don’t know”	91		90	86		58		4	91
Falquez Torres and Ocampo Alvarado (2018) [13]	Ecuador	Trainee teachers	328	Volunteers	true / false / don’t know	93		76	48		58	30	16	93
Blanchette Sarrasin et al. (2019) * [35]	Canada (Quebec)	Teachers	972	Not stated	agree-disagree scale	74			57			44
Grospietsch and Mayer (2019) [17]	Germany	Trainee teachers	550	Whole class or cohort	agree-disagree scale	93		92	82			57
Zhang et al. (2019) [41]	China	Headteachers	253	Whole class or cohort	agree-disagree scale	93		79	86		48	52	19	85
Carter et al. (2020) [5]	Australia	Trainee teachers	1,359	Whole class or cohort	true / false / don’t know	77		57	46	24	58	27		81
Maureira Cid et al. (2021) [7]	Chile	Trainee teachers	440	Volunteers	true / false / don’t know	93		78	67		47	42	5	93
Painemil et al. (2021) [12]	Chile	Trainee teachers	57	Volunteers	true / false / don’t know	98		75	70		51	56		88
Painemil et al. (2021) [12]	Spain	Trainee teachers	42	Volunteers	true / false / don’t know	93		55	60		41	33		83
Jeyavel et al. (2022) [22]	India	Teachers	503	Volunteers	true / false / don’t know	84		61	54		60	64
Makhlouf (2022) [2]	Algeria	Teachers	221	Volunteers	true / false / don’t know	92	96		78			46
Mercan et al. (2022) [37]	Israel	Teachers	72	Volunteers	true / false / don’t know	99		85	53		42	31	13	97
Mercan et al. (2022) [37]	Turkey	Teachers	112	Volunteers	true / false / don’t know	97		83	86		58	26	6	93
Simoes et al. (2022) [3]	Brazil	Teachers and trainees	1,634	Volunteers	two choices, no “don’t know”				36			48
Fatmawati et al. (2023) [23]	Indonesia	Teachers	102	Volunteers	true / false / don’t know	100		81	84	87	78	36	22	98
Novak-Geiger (2023) [34]	Austria	Trainee teachers	648	Not stated	true / false / don’t know	97	61	88	82		39	44	7	57
Sandoval Grajeda et al. (2023) [29]	Mexico	Trainee teachers	77	Whole class or cohort	two choices, no “don’t know”	97			84			44	10
Tunga and Çağıltay (2023) [38]	Turkey	Teachers	730	Not stated	true / false / don’t know	97	96	84	88	65	64		2	91
Vig et al. (2023) [19]	Hungary	Trainee teachers	822	Volunteers	agree-disagree scale + “don’t know”	82		81	60		62	48	19
Luria et al. (2024) [33]	Israel	Teachers	86	Volunteers	true / false / don’t know	93	95	61	49		22	44	6	61
Luria et al. (2024) [33]	Poland	Teachers	85	Volunteers	true / false / don’t know	99	92	94	79		66	37	8	39
Tinterri et al. (2024) † [24]	Italy	Teachers	6,679	Not stated	not stated	90		66	54		47	47
Tsang et al. (2024) [18]	Hong Kong	Teachers	64	Volunteers	true / false / don’t know	91		69	58			59	6
Kanlı (2025) [15]	Turkey	Teachers	454	Volunteers	true / false / don’t know	93		80	79		46	43	7	91
Voulgari et al. (2025) [40]	Greece	Teachers	82	Volunteers	true / false / don’t know	99		72	72			50
Kälbli et al. (2026) [20]	Hungary	Teachers	734	Volunteers	agree-disagree scale + “don’t know”			93
Teixeira et al. (2026) [4]	Brazil	Teachers	130	Volunteers	two choices, no “don’t know”	87		85	62		51	49

13 How we found and pooled the surveys

1. 01

   Search

   Every work in OpenAlex with “neuromyths” in its title or abstract (516) and every Europe PMC record matching “neuromyth*” (236), merged to 674, plus the studies listed in three reviews ^{[49] [48] [50]}. 251 looked like surveys of teachers; we read every one that reports myth-by-myth results.

2. 02

   Rules

   In: a survey of working or trainee school teachers (preschool to secondary), published 2012 or later, that prints the share agreeing with at least one of our statements for a defined sample. Out: university faculty, the general public, counsellors, and samples that cannot be separated from them.

3. 03

   Reading

   Every number was copied from the paper’s own table or text, or computed from the counts it prints, never from news coverage. Two kinds of exception are flagged in the data and tested in Table 3: five papers we could not open whose figures a later paper printed in a table (Gleichgerrcht et al., Karakus et al., Deligiannidi and Howard-Jones and Pei et al. via Ferrero et al. 2016; Blanchette Sarrasin et al. via Voulgari et al. 2025), and one book chapter we could read only in its abstract (Tinterri et al. 2024, 6,679 Italian teachers).

4. 04

   Matching

   Each statement was matched to one myth by its wording, using the Dekker et al. (2012) item where a survey asked several versions. “Agree” means the respondent called the false statement true, or agreed on a scale.

5. 05

   Pooling

   For each myth, a random-effects meta-analysis of proportions: logit-transformed shares, between-survey variance by restricted maximum likelihood, a 95% confidence interval and a 95% prediction interval ^[51]. Several surveys in one country are pooled the same way.

6. 06

   Trend

   A mixed-effects meta-regression of each myth’s logit share on the year of publication, converted to percentage points per decade at the pooled level.

7. 07

   Check

   A separate script, written independently, recomputed every pooled estimate, interval, country value and figure from the CSV.

Table 5

Surveys we read but left out, and why

Survey	Why it is not pooled
Canbulat and Kiriktas (2017)	Prints only three short labels with percentages for teachers and candidates combined, no statement wording; its 20% for learning styles is out of line with every other survey and cannot be checked
von Hausen et al. (2026)	Per-statement results appear only in a bar chart, not as printed numbers
Zambrano et al. (2025)	Full text behind a CAPTCHA; the abstract names the top myths but gives no per-myth percentages
Sisman et al. (2025)	Full text behind a bot check; the abstract gives only the order of the top three myths
Grospietsch and Mayer (2018)	Course sample at the same university and lab as Grospietsch and Mayer 2019, probably overlapping; the larger 2019 sample is used
Hennes et al. (2024)	Full text behind a bot check; the abstract gives no percentages
Hermida et al. (2016)	Paywalled; the repository copy did not respond
Horvath et al. (2018)	Award-winning teachers from the UK, US and Australia pooled together (not split by country); the comparison group re-uses older published samples
Khramova et al. (2023)	Full text behind a bot check; the abstract gives no per-myth percentages
Csányi et al. (2025)	Full text behind a CAPTCHA and the accepted version on SSRN behind a bot check; no per-myth percentages in the abstract (its Brain Gym figures appear in the paper on the same sample, Kalbli et al. 2026, which we do use)
Adıgüzel et al. (2025)	Questionnaire validation study: no agreement percentages
Im et al. (2018)	Prints only the myths that at least half of either group believed, so lower values are missing and pooling them would bias the average upward (kept for the training question)
Kim and Sankey (2018)	Paywalled; no copy found
Krammer et al. (2019)	Behind a bot check; its Austrian sample enters through the re-analysis by Novak-Geiger 2023, which prints the per-myth table
García et al. (2026)	Full text behind a CAPTCHA and the repository copy did not respond; the abstract gives no per-myth percentages
Lethaby and Harries (2016)	Paywalled; the percentages circulate only second-hand
McMahon et al. (2019)	The only readable copy (the accepted manuscript) has no tables, so no per-myth percentages
Morandín Ahuerma et al. (2024)	Only the abstract could be read, and its figures pool students, the public and teachers
Janati Idrissi et al. (2020)	Full text behind a CAPTCHA (ScienceDirect); the abstract gives no per-myth percentages
Papadatou-Pastou et al. (2021)	Qualitative study of how 123 Greek educators define learning styles (Papadatou-Pastou et al. 2021); no agreement percentages
Boyle and Lyddy (2024)	Full text behind a bot check; the abstract gives no percentages
Papadatou-Pastou et al. (2018)	19 teachers answering an open-ended question, not a yes/no statement
Chojak et al. (2021)	Same 85 Polish teachers as the Polish sample in Luria, Chojak and Shalom 2024 (identical figures); counted once
Opre et al. (2025)	Full text behind a CAPTCHA; the abstract gives no percentages
Todor and Igna (2026)	Paper paywalled; the public raw data has no statement wording, so items cannot be matched to myths
Poljšak Škraban et al. (2018)	The Slovenian digital library did not respond
Fernández et al. (2025)	Prints only average ratings on a 1-6 scale, not the share agreeing (quoted in the text instead)
Tovazzi et al. (2020)	Full text behind a bot check; the abstract gives no per-myth percentages
“France’s First Look at Neuromyths: Prevalence and Adhesion in Pre-Service Teachers” (2026)	Listed in OpenAlex without a DOI or a link; could not be located
Bei, Argiropoulos, Van Herwegen and Incognito (2024), Italy, 820 teachers	Mainly myths about neurodevelopmental disorders; full text behind a CAPTCHA and the repository copy behind a bot check, not read
Adiguzel et al. (2025), 11 countries, 1,257 primary teachers	Only the abstract could be read (ScienceDirect CAPTCHA, SSRN bot check); no per-country table. Its headline (over 90% agree with learning styles and multiple intelligences) is quoted in the text
Popa (2025), Romania, 1,625 teachers, Educatia 21	Found late; the PDF link returns 404, so its numbers were not read

Neuromyth

A false belief about the brain that grew out of real research, usually by oversimplifying it. The OECD popularised the term in 2002 ^[42].

Learning styles

The idea that each pupil learns best through one sense or mode (visual, auditory or kinesthetic, “VAK”) and should be taught that way. Preferences exist; a benefit from matching has not been shown ^[43].

Multiple intelligences

Howard Gardner’s 1983 theory that people have several separate intelligences (linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, spatial and others) instead of one general ability.

Brain Gym

A commercial programme of simple movements, such as touching the left knee with the right hand, sold as a way to connect the two halves of the brain.

Random-effects meta-analysis

A way to average results from several studies that assumes each study measures a slightly different true value, so the pooled interval allows for real differences between surveys.

Prediction interval

The range where the result of one new survey would probably fall. It is wider than the confidence interval, which describes the average.