Acceso usuarios
Giusseppe Geraldes Sarmiento Peralta, Pedro Severino González, Cristián Expósito, Milagros Salazar
Los neuromitos limitan la calidad de las evidencias conceptuales y empíricas de la neurociencia y en tal sentido, tienen un importante impacto en la aplicación del conocimiento neurocientífico en la universidad. La responsabilidad social y las políticas educativas pueden influenciar sustancialmente en su abordaje. La relación entre neurociencia y educación ha encauzado una profunda reflexión conceptual, epistemológica, metodológica y empírica. El presente artículo tiene por objeto identificar la presencia de neuromitos en estudiantes de universidades públicas y privadas de Perú. El diseño del estudio es de tipo cuantitativo de carácter descriptivo-correlacional de tipo cuantitativo y de corte transeccional. Se administró el Cuestionario de prevalencia de neuromitos desarrollado a 505 estudiantes con el fin de evaluar su creencia en neuromitos. Como resultado del estudio, se encontraron diferencias estadísticamente significativas según sexo, procedencia, universidad y exposición al conocimiento neurocientífico. Es necesario que futuras investigaciones consideren alcances multicéntricos tanto a nivel regional como internacional, que utilicen análisis multivariados que permitan llegar a explicaciones causales e interactuar con otros constructos como el pensamiento complejo, la transdisciplina, la conciencia sostenible y la responsabilidad social corporativa. Finalmente, sería valioso realizar investigaciones experimentales para determinar el efecto de los programas educativos de formación en neurociencias sobre la presencia de neuromitos. Una investigación longitudinal que examine el rumbo y el impacto de las políticas educativas enfocadas en la difusión de la evidencia neurocientífica, la capacitación docente, el aseguramiento de la calidad y la erradicación de los neuromitos contribuiría a abordar los neuromitos con mayor relevancia y de forma más afectiva.
Neuromyths limit the quality of the conceptual and empirical evidence of neuroscience, in this sense; they have an important impact on the application of neuroscientific knowledge in the university. Social responsibility and educational policies can substantially influence its approach. The relationship between neuroscience and education has channeled a deep conceptual, epistemological, methodological and empirical reflection. Due to its transdisciplinary nature, this phenomenon has raised a series of challenges at various levels to achieve the integration of these disciplines (Wilcox et al., 2021). This process has generated the ingrained presence of false beliefs about brain functioning that have transcended into public opinion despite having been invalidated by their field of knowledge: the neuromyths (Palláres-Domínguez, 2016).
From this point, University Social Responsibility, understood as a model, philosophy, principle and policy focused on the consolidation of a sustainably aware educational community with its strategic partners (Severino-González et al., 2021a), enables a perspective from the pedagogical axis that facilitates socially referenced, evidence-based learning as a framework for action to dissolve neuromyths.
This article aims to identify the presence of neuromyths in students from public and private universities in Peru. The study design is quantitative, descriptive-correlational in nature (Hernández-Sampieri and Mendoza, 2018), and cross-sectional (Pardinas, 2012), since the single self-application of a questionnaire with closed answers is used for the collection of information: The Developed Neuromyths Prevalence. The questionnaire was administered to 505 students in order to assess their beliefs in neuromyths.
As a result of the study, statistically significant differences were found according to gender, origin, university and exposure to neuroscientific knowledge. From the theoretical analysis it is concluded that: (1) the epistemological approach of neuromyths deserves to recognize its complex, highly adaptable and deeply rooted nature within the Latin American scenario; (2) this recognition opens the way to become aware of the subordinate existence of neuromyths from neuroscientific evidence, a situation that resembles a parasitic relationship which transcends conditions such as sex or the university of origin; (3) the eradication of the incessant growth of neuromyths requires focusing on them from a complex, integrative and radically disruptive theoretical architecture, but with solid scientific foundations; and (4) informational neuroscience based on Informational Sociobiological Theory is presented as an option with latent possibilities, given its transdisciplinary nature and for the ease of translating its theoretical postulates into university educational practice.
Likewise, various practical scopes are proposed: 1) commit from the university senior management economic and responsibility funds for the application of strategies for quality assurance and prevention of neuromyths; 2) implement a permanent training program for the faculty on positive evidence of the application of neuroscience in education, in particular informational neuroscience, from the training of trainers approach, in order to ensure the widest possible scope; 3) carry out campaigns on the positive effects of neuroscience in education and the negative effects of neuromyths in order to sensitize the university community; and 4) promote the gradual incorporation of neuroscience courses in the university curriculum.
It is recommended that future research considers multicentric scopes both regionally and internationally using multivariate analyzes that allow reaching causal explanations and interaction with other constructs such as complex thinking, transdiscipline and sustainable consciousness. Finally, it would be valuable to carry out experimental research in order to determine the effect of educational neuroscience training programs on the presence of neuromyths. Longitudinal research that examines the course and impact of educational policies focused on the dissemination of neuroscientific evidence and the eradication of neuromyths would contribute to addressing neuromyths with greater relevance.
