[en] [en] INTRODUCTION: Understanding brain functioning and intellectual giftedness can be challenging and give rise to various misconceptions. Nonetheless, there seems to be a widespread fascination and appetite for these subjects among the lay public and diverse professionals. The present study is the first to investigate general knowledge about the brain, neuromyths and knowledge about giftedness in a highly multilingual and educated country.
METHODS: Starting from and extending two seminal studies on neuromyths, several novel statements on intellectual giftedness have been included in order to explore knowledge and misconceptions concerning giftedness. Our sample (N = 200) was composed of Luxembourgish education professionals, including students in educational science and cognitive psychology, thus allowing to analyze responses in general and according to training and professional profiles. Specifically, Group 1 consisted of teachers and futures teachers (n = 152). Group 2 consisted of other education professionals and psychology students (n = 48).
RESULTS: Despite the size and the unbalanced distribution of the sample, our findings indicate a good level of general knowledge about the brain and learning (71.3% of correct responses in average) which does, however, not preclude the presence of the typically observed original neuromyths. Thus, we replicate the classical finding that misconceptions on Learning Styles (70% of error rate) and the Multiple Intelligence Theory (71.5% of error rate) are the most represented, both in (future and in-service) teachers and other education professionals. Moreover, the present sample also revealed a high presence of misconceptions on intellectual giftedness.
DISCUSSION: Limitations and future directions are discussed.
Disciplines :
Education & enseignement
Auteur, co-auteur :
SCHMITT PEREIRA, Anna ; University of Luxembourg ; Faculty of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences (FHSE) > Department of Behavioural and Cognitive Sciences (DBCS) > Cognitive Neuroscience Research Laboratory (CNS)
Wollschläger, Rachel ; Luxembourg Centre for Educational Testing (LUCET), Faculty of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences, University of Luxembourg, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg
Blanchette Sarrasin, Jérémie; Département de Didactique, Laboratory for Research in Neuroeducation, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada
Masson, Steve; Département de Didactique, Laboratory for Research in Neuroeducation, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada
FISCHBACH, Antoine ; University of Luxembourg > Faculty of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences (FHSE) > Department of Education and Social Work (DESW) > Teaching and Learning
SCHILTZ, Christine ; University of Luxembourg > Faculty of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences (FHSE) > Department of Behavioural and Cognitive Sciences (DBCS) > Cognitive Science and Assessment
Co-auteurs externes :
yes
Langue du document :
Anglais
Titre :
Neuromyths and knowledge about intellectual giftedness in a highly educated multilingual country.
This research project stems from the PhD of Mrs. Schmitt and received funds from Faculty of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences, University of Luxembourg.
Aubry A. Bourdin B. (2018). Short forms of Wechsler scales assessing the intellectually gifted children using simulation data. Front. Psychol. 9:830. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00830, PMID: 29892253
Babad E. Y. Inbar J. Rosenthal R. (1982). Pygmalion, Galatea, and the golem: investigations of biased and unbiased teachers. J. Educ. Psychol. 74, 459–474. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.74.4.459
Bailey R. P. Madigan D. J. Cope E. Nicholls A. R. (2018). The prevalence of pseudoscientific ideas and neuromyths among sports coaches. Front. Psychol. 9, 1–11. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00641, PMID: 29770115
Battro A. M. Fischer K. W. Léna P. J. (2008). The educated brain: essays in neuroeducation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1–256.
Baudson T. G. (2016). The mad genius stereotype: still alive and well. Front. Psychol. 7:368. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00368, PMID: 27047409
Baudson T. G. Preckel F. (2013). Teachers’ implicit personality theories about the gifted: an experimental approach. Sch. Psychol. Q. 28, 37–46. doi: 10.1037/spq0000011, PMID: 23356881
Bishop J. C. Rinn A. N. (2020). The potential of misdiagnosis of high IQ youth by practicing mental health professionals: a mixed methods study. High Abil. Stud. 31, 213–243. doi: 10.1080/13598139.2019.1661223
Blanchette Sarrasin J. Riopel M. Masson S. (2019). Neuromyths and their origin among teachers in Quebec. Mind Brain Educ. 13, 100–109. doi: 10.1111/mbe.12193
Brault Foisy L.-M. Matejko A. A. Ansari D. Masson S. (2020). Teachers as orchestrators of neuronal plasticity: effects of teaching practices on the brain. Mind Brain Educ. 14, 415–428. doi: 10.1111/mbe.12257
Brown M. Peterson E. R. Rawlinson C. (2020). Research with gifted adults: what international experts think needs to happen to move the field forward. Roeper Rev. 42, 95–108. doi: 10.1080/02783193.2020.1728797
Carman C. A. (2013). Comparing apples and oranges: fifteen years of definitions of giftedness in research. J. Adv. Acad. 24, 52–70. doi: 10.1177/1932202X12472602
Chandler J. A. Harrel N. Potkonjak T. (2019). Neurolaw today – a systematic review of the recent law and neuroscience literature. Int. J. Law Psychiatry 65:101341. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2018.04.002, PMID: 29747879
Clausen J. Levy N. (2015). Handbook of neuroethics. Dordrecht: Springer, 1–1850.
Coleman L. J. Cross T. L. (1988). Is being gifted a social handicap? J. Educ. Gift. 11, 41–56. doi: 10.1177/016235328801100406
Cross T. L. Coleman L. J. Stewart R. A. (1993). The social cognition of gifted adolescents: an exploration of the stigma of giftedness paradigm. Roeper Rev. 16, 37–40. doi: 10.1080/02783199309553532
Cross J. R. Vaughn C. T. Mammadov S. Cross T. L. Kim M. O’Reilly C. et al. (2019). A Cross-cultural study of the social experience of giftedness. Roeper Rev. 41, 224–242. doi: 10.1080/02783193.2019.1661052
Dai D. Y. (2018). “A history of giftedness: paradigms and paradoxes” in Handbook of giftedness in children: Psychoeducational theory, research, and best practices. ed. Pfeiffer S. I. (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 1–14.
Dai D. Y. (2020). Assessing and accessing high human potential: a brief history of giftedness and what it means to school psychologists. Psychol. Sch. 57, 1514–1527. doi: 10.1002/pits.22346
Dekker S. Lee N. C. Howard-Jones P. Jolles J. (2012). Neuromyths in education: prevalence and predictors of misconceptions among teachers. Front. Psychol. 3:429. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00429, PMID: 23087664
Dersch A.-S. Heyder A. Eitel A. (2022). Exploring the nature of teachers’ math-gender stereotypes: the math-gender misconception questionnaire. Front. Psychol. 13:820254. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.820254, PMID: 35496173
Düvel N. Wolf A. Kopiez R. (2017). Neuromyths in music education: prevalence and predictors of misconceptions among teachers and students. Front. Psychol. 8, 1–12. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00629, PMID: 28484416
European Social Survey. (2014). ESS Round 7 Translation Guidelines. London: ESS ERIC Headquarters, Centre for Comparative Social Surveys, City University London.
Ferreira R. A. Rodríguez C. (2022). Effect of a science of learning course on beliefs in Neuromyths and neuroscience literacy. Brain Sci. 12:811. doi: 10.3390/brainsci12070811, PMID: 35884619
Ferrero M. Garaizar P. Vadillo M. A. (2016). Neuromyths in education: prevalence among spanish teachers and an exploration of cross-cultural variation. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 10, 1–11. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00496, PMID: 27790104
Fuhrer J. Cova F. Gauvrit N. Dieguez S. (2021). Pseudoexpertise: a conceptual and theoretical analysis. Front. Psychol. 12, 1–12. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.732666, PMID: 34858269
Fuller G. N. (2012). Neurophilia: a fascination for neurology—a new syndrome. Pract. Neurol. 12, 276–278. doi: 10.1136/practneurol-2012-000400, PMID: 22976057
Gagné F. (2010). Transforming gifts into talents: the DMGT as a developmental theory1. High Abil. Stud. 15, 119–147. doi: 10.1080/1359813042000314682
Gardner H. (1983). Frames of mind: A theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic books. New York: Basic Books.
Geake J. G. (2009). The neurobiology of giftedness. Proceedings of the 2009 Hong Kong academy of gifted education conference, 1–20.
Geake J. G. Hansen P. C. (2005). Neural correlates of intelligence as revealed by fMRI of fluid analogies. NeuroImage 26, 555–564. doi: 10.1016/J.NEUROIMAGE.2005.01.035, PMID: 15907312
Gentrup S. Lorenz G. Kristen C. Kogan I. (2020). Self-fulfilling prophecies in the classroom: teacher expectations, teacher feedback and student achievement. Learn. Instr. 66:101296. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101296
Gilger J. W. Talavage T. M. Olulade O. A. (2013). An fMRI study of nonverbally gifted reading disabled adults: has deficit compensation effected gifted potential? Front. Hum. Neurosci. 7:507. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00507, PMID: 24009572
Gini S. Knowland V. Thomas M. S. C. Herwegen J. V. (2021). Neuromyths about neurodevelopmental disorders: misconceptions by educators and the general public. Mind Brain Educ. 15, 289–298. doi: 10.1111/mbe.12303
Gleichgerrcht E. Luttges B. L. Salvarezza F. Campos A. L. (2015). Educational Neuromyths among teachers in Latin America. Mind Brain Educ. 9, 170–178. doi: 10.1111/mbe.12086
Glover G. H. (2011). Overview of functional magnetic resonance imaging. Neurosurg. Clin. N. Am. 22, 133–139. doi: 10.1016/J.NEC.2010.11.001, PMID: 21435566
Gray J. R. Thompson P. M. (2004, 2004). Neurobiology of intelligence: science and ethics. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 5, 471–482. doi: 10.1038/NRN1405
Grégoire J. Schmitt A. (2021). Comparison of four short forms of the French adaptation of the Wechsler adult intelligence scale – fourth edition (WAIS-IV). Eur. Rev. Appl. Psychol. 71:100634. doi: 10.1016/j.erap.2021.100634
Grospietsch F. Lins I. (2021). Review on the prevalence and persistence of Neuromyths in education – where we stand and what is still needed. Front. Educ. 6:665752. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2021.665752
Gunderson E. A. Ramirez G. Levine S. C. Beilock S. L. (2012). The role of parents and teachers in the development of gender-related math attitudes. Sex Roles 66, 153–166. doi: 10.1007/s11199-011-9996-2
Haier R. J. Jung R. E. Yeo R. A. Head K. Alkire M. T. (2004). Structural brain variation and general intelligence. NeuroImage 23, 425–433. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.04.025
Hardiman M. Rinne L. Gregory E. Yarmolinskaya J. (2011, 2011). Neuroethics, Neuroeducation, and classroom teaching: where the brain sciences meet pedagogy. Neuroethics 5, 135–143. doi: 10.1007/S12152-011-9116-6
Heyder A. Bergold S. Steinmayr R. (2018). Teachers’ knowledge about intellectual giftedness: a first look at levels and correlates. Psychol. Learn. Teach. 17, 27–44. doi: 10.1177/1475725717725493
Hook C. J. Farah M. J. (2013). Neuroscience for educators: what are they seeking, and what are they finding? Neuroethics 6, 331–341. doi: 10.1007/s12152-012-9159-3
Horvath J. C. Donoghue G. M. Horton A. J. Lodge J. M. Hattie J. A. C. (2018). On the irrelevance of Neuromyths to teacher effectiveness: comparing neuro-literacy levels amongst award-winning and non-award winning teachers. Front. Psychol. 9:1666. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01666, PMID: 30271361
Howard-Jones P. A. (2014). Neuroscience and education: myths and messages. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 15, 817–824. doi: 10.1038/nrn3817, PMID: 25315391
Howard-Jones P. A. Fenton K. D. (2011). The need for interdisciplinary dialogue in developing ethical approaches to Neuroeducational research. Neuroethics 5, 119–134. doi: 10.1007/S12152-011-9101-0
Illes J. Moser M. A. McCormick J. B. Racine E. Blakeslee S. Caplan A. et al. (2009, 2009). Neurotalk: improving the communication of neuroscience research. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 11, 61–69. doi: 10.1038/NRN2773
Jaušovec N. (1996). Differences in EEG alpha activity related to giftedness. Intelligence 23, 159–173. doi: 10.1016/S0160-2896(96)90001-X
Jaušovec N. (2000). Differences in cognitive processes between gifted, intelligent, creative, and average individuals while solving complex problems: an EEG study. Intelligence 28, 213–237. doi: 10.1016/S0160-2896(00)00037-4
Jeyavel S. Pandey V. Rajkumar E. Lakshmana G. (2022). Neuromyths in education: prevalence among south Indian school teachers. Front. Educ.:7:781735. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.781735
Jolles J. Jolles D. D. (2021). On Neuroeducation: why and how to improve neuroscientific literacy in educational professionals. Front. Psychol. 12:752151. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.752151, PMID: 34925156
Jones E. G. Mendell L. M. (1999). Assessing the decade of the brain. Science 284:739. doi: 10.1126/SCIENCE.284.5415.739
Jung R. E. Haier R. J. (2007). The Parieto-frontal integration theory (P-FIT) of intelligence: converging neuroimaging evidence. Behav. Brain Sci. 30, 135–154. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X07001185, PMID: 17655784
Jussim L. Harber K. D. (2005). Teacher expectations and self-fulfilling prophecies: knowns and unknowns, resolved and unresolved controversies. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 9, 131–155. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0902_3, PMID: 15869379
Kuhn T. Blades R. Gottlieb L. Knudsen K. Ashdown C. Martin-Harris L. et al. (2021). Neuroanatomical differences in the memory systems of intellectual giftedness and typical development. Brain Behav. 11:e2348. doi: 10.1002/brb3.2348, PMID: 34651457
Lavrijsen J. Verschueren K. (2023). High cognitive ability and mental health: findings from a large community sample of adolescents. J. Intelligence 11:38. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence11020038, PMID: 36826936
Lee K. H. Choi Y. Y. Gray J. R. Cho S. H. Chae J. H. Lee S. et al. (2006). Neural correlates of superior intelligence: stronger recruitment of posterior parietal cortex. NeuroImage 29, 578–586. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.07.036, PMID: 16122946
Lee T.-W. Wu Y.-T. Yu Y. W.-Y. Wu H.-C. Chen T.-J. (2012). A smarter brain is associated with stronger neural interaction in healthy young females: a resting EEG coherence study. Intelligence 40, 38–48. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2011.11.001
Legrenzi P. Umiltà C. Anderson F. (2011). Neuromania: On the limits of brain science. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1–144.
LUCET (2022). OASYS. Available at: https://oasys4schools.lu/ (Accessed October 4, 2023).
LUSTAT (2022). Population by nationalities in detail on 1st January. Available at: https://lustat.statec.lu/vis?pg=0&df[ds]=release&df[id]=DF_B1113&df[ag]=LU1&df[vs]=1.0&pd=2015%2C2022&dq=.A&lc=en (Accessed September 9, 2023).
Ma J. Kang H. J. Kim J. Y. Jeong H. S. Im J. J. Namgung E. et al. (2017). Network attributes underlying intellectual giftedness in the developing brain. Sci. Rep. 7:11321. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-11593-3, PMID: 28900176
Macdonald K. Germine L. Anderson A. Christodoulou J. McGrath L. M. (2017). Dispelling the myth: training in education or neuroscience decreases but does not eliminate beliefs in Neuromyths. Front. Psychol. 8:1314. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01314, PMID: 28848461
Mamak K. (2021). Do we need the criminalization of medical fake news? Med. Health Care Philos. 24, 235–245. doi: 10.1007/s11019-020-09996-7, PMID: 33398487
Martin L. T. Burns R. M. Schonlau M. (2010). Mental disorders among gifted and nongifted youth: a selected review of the epidemiologic literature. Gifted Child Quarterly 54, 31–41. doi: 10.1177/0016986209352684
Matheis S. Keller L. K. Kronborg L. Schmitt M. Preckel F. (2019). Do stereotypes strike twice? Giftedness and gender stereotypes in pre-service teachers’ beliefs about student characteristics in Australia. Asia-Pacific J. Teach. Educ. 48, 213–232. doi: 10.1080/1359866X.2019.1576029
Matta M. Gritti E. S. Lang M. (2019). Personality assessment of intellectually gifted adults: a dimensional trait approach. Personal. Individ. Differ. 140, 21–26. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2018.05.009
McGrew K. S. (2009). CHC theory and the human cognitive abilities project: standing on the shoulders of the giants of psychometric intelligence research. Intelligence 37, 1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2008.08.004
Merton R. K. (1948). The self-fulfilling prophecy. Antioch Rev. 8:193. doi: 10.2307/4609267
Mrazik M. Dombrowski S. C. (2010). The neurobiological foundations of giftedness. Roeper Rev. 32, 224–234. doi: 10.1080/02783193.2010.508154
Muntoni F. Retelsdorf J. (2018). Gender-specific teacher expectations in reading—the role of teachers’ gender stereotypes. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 54, 212–220. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.06.012
Muntoni F. Wagner J. Retelsdorf J. (2021). Beware of stereotypes: are classmates’ stereotypes associated with students’ Reading outcomes? Child Dev. 92, 189–204. doi: 10.1111/cdev.13359, PMID: 32100295
Myers T. Carey E. Szucs D. (2017). Cognitive and neural correlates of mathematical giftedness in adults and children: a review. Front. Psychol. 8:1646. doi: 10.3389/FPSYG.2017.01646/BIBTEX, PMID: 29118725
Neubauer A. C. Fink A. (2009). Intelligence and neural efficiency: measures of brain activation versus measures of functional connectivity in the brain. Intelligence 37, 223–229. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2008.10.008
Newton P. M. Najabat-Lattif H. F. Santiago G. Salvi A. (2021). The learning styles Neuromyth is still thriving in medical education. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 15:15. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2021.708540, PMID: 34456698
Newton P. M. Salvi A. (2020). How common is belief in the learning styles Neuromyth, and does it matter? A pragmatic systematic review. Front. Educ. 5:602451. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2020.602451
Novak-Geiger V. (2023). Prevalence of neuromyths among psychology students: small differences to pre-service teachers. Front. Psychol. 14:1139911. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1139911, PMID: 37213389
OCDE. (2007). Understanding the brain: The birth of a learning science. Paris: OECD.
OECD. (2022). Education GPS Luxembourg. Available at: https://gpseducation.oecd.org/CountryProfile?primaryCountry=LUX&treshold=10&topic=EO (Accessed October 4, 2023).
Osman W. Mohamed F. Elhassan M. Shoufan A. (2022). Is YouTube a reliable source of health-related information? A systematic review. BMC Med. Educ. 22:382. doi: 10.1186/s12909-022-03446-z, PMID: 35590410
Papadatou-Pastou M. Gritzali M. Barrable A. (2018). The learning styles educational Neuromyth: lack of agreement between teachers’ judgments, self-assessment, and students’ intelligence. Front. Educ. 3, 1–5. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2018.00105
Papadatou-Pastou M. Haliou E. Vlachos F. (2017). Brain knowledge and the prevalence of neuromyths among prospective teachers in Greece. Front. Psychol. 8:804. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00804, PMID: 28611700
Pasquinelli E. (2012). Neuromyths: why do they exist and persist? Mind Brain Educ. 6, 89–96. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-228X.2012.01141.x
Pei X. Howard-Jones P. A. Zhang S. Liu X. Jin Y. (2015). Teachers’ understanding about the brain in East China. Procedia. Soc. Behav. Sci. 174, 3681–3688. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.1091
Peyre H. Ramus F. Melchior M. Forhan A. Heude B. Gauvrit N. (2016). Emotional, behavioral and social difficulties among high-IQ children during the preschool period: results of the EDEN mother–child cohort. Personal. Individ. Differ. 94, 366–371. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.014
Racine E. Waldman S. Rosenberg J. Illes J. (2010). Contemporary neuroscience in the media. Soc. Sci. Med. 71, 725–733. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.05.017, PMID: 20609506
Reed T. E. Vernon P. A. Johnson A. M. Vernon P. A. (2004). Confirmation of correlation between brain nerve conduction velocity and intelligence level in normal adults. Intelligence 32, 563–572. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2004.07.004
Renzulli J. S. (2005). “The three-ring conception of giftedness: a developmental model for promoting creative productivity” in Conceptions of giftedness. eds. Sternberg R. J. Davidson J. E. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 246–279.
Rinn A. Bishop J. (2015). Gifted adults. Gifted Child Quarterly 59, 213–235. doi: 10.1177/0016986215600795
Robertson S. G. Pfeiffer S. I. Taylor N. (2011). Serving the gifted: a national survey of school psychologists: gifted-school psychology National Survey. Psychol. Schs. 48, 786–799. doi: 10.1002/pits.20590
Rosenthal R. Jacobson L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. Urban Rev. 3, 16–20. doi: 10.1007/BF02322211
Rousseau L. (2021). “Neuromyths” and multiple intelligences (MI) theory: a comment on Gardner, 2020. Front. Psychol. 12:3301. doi: 10.3389/FPSYG.2021.720706/BIBTEX
Ruhaak A. E. Cook B. G. (2018). The prevalence of educational Neuromyths among pre-service special education teachers. Mind Brain Educ. 12, 155–161. doi: 10.1111/mbe.12181
Ruiz-Martin H. Portero-Tresserra M. Martínez-Molina A. Ferrero M. (2022). Tenacious educational neuromyths: prevalence among teachers and an intervention. Trends Neurosci. Educ. 29:100192. doi: 10.1016/j.tine.2022.100192, PMID: 36470620
Shaw P. Greenstein D. Lerch J. Clasen L. Lenroot R. Gogtay N. et al. (2006). Intellectual ability and cortical development in children and adolescents. Nature 440, 676–679. doi: 10.1038/nature04513
Shevchenko V. Labouret G. Guez A. Côté S. Heude B. Peyre H. et al. (2023). Relations between intelligence index score discrepancies and psychopathology symptoms in the EDEN mother-child birth cohort. Intelligence 98:101753. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2023.101753
Singh H. O’Boyle M. W. (2004). Interhemispheric interaction during global-local processing in mathematically gifted adolescents, average-ability youth, and college students. Neuropsychology 18, 371–377. doi: 10.1037/0894-4105.18.2.371, PMID: 15099159
Spearman C. (1904). “General intelligence,” objectively determined and measured. Am. J. Psychol. 15:201. doi: 10.2307/1412107
STATEC (2020). Luxembourg in figures 2020. Luxembourg: STATEC.
Štěpánová K. Vavrečka M. Durdiaková J. Lhotská L. (2015). Differences of EEG signal between gifted and average adolescents. Clin. Neurophysiol. 126:e45. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2014.10.201
Sternberg R. J. (2005). WICS: a model of giftedness in leadership. Roeper Rev. 28, 37–44. doi: 10.1080/02783190509554335
Suprano I. Delon-Martin C. Kocevar G. Stamile C. Hannoun S. Achard S. et al. (2019). Topological modification of brain networks organization in children with high intelligence quotient: a resting-state fMRI study. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 13:241. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2019.00241, PMID: 31354458
Suprano I. Kocevar G. Stamile C. Hannoun S. Fourneret P. Revol O. et al. (2020). White matter microarchitecture and structural network integrity correlate with children intelligence quotient. Sci. Rep. 10, 20722–20711. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-76528-x, PMID: 33244043
Swiatek M. A. (2002). Social coping among gifted elementary school students. J. Educ. Gift. 26, 65–86. doi: 10.1177/016235320202600104
Szumski G. Karwowski M. (2019). Exploring the Pygmalion effect: the role of teacher expectations, academic self-concept, and class context in students’ math achievement. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 59:101787. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101787
Torrijos-Muelas M. González-Víllora S. Bodoque-Osma A. R. (2021). The persistence of Neuromyths in the educational settings: a systematic review. Front. Psychol. 11:591923. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.591923, PMID: 33510675
Tovazzi A. Giovannini S. Basso D. (2020). A new method for evaluating knowledge, beliefs, and Neuromyths about the mind and brain among Italian teachers. Mind Brain Educ. 14, 187–198. doi: 10.1111/mbe.12249
van Dijk W. Lane H. B. (2020). The brain and the US education system: perpetuation of neuromyths. Exceptionality 28, 16–29. doi: 10.1080/09362835.2018.1480954
Van Viersen S. De Bree E. H. Kalee L. Kroesbergen E. H. De Jong P. F. (2017). Foreign language reading and spelling in gifted students with dyslexia in secondary education. Read. Writ. 30, 1173–1192. doi: 10.1007/s11145-016-9717-x, PMID: 28603383
Wang M.-T. Degol J. L. (2017). Gender gap in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): current knowledge, implications for practice, policy, and future directions. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 29, 119–140. doi: 10.1007/s10648-015-9355-x, PMID: 28458499
Warne R. T. (2016). Five reasons to put the g Back into giftedness: an argument for applying the Cattell–horn–Carroll theory of intelligence to gifted education research and practice. Gift. Child Quart. 60, 3–15. doi: 10.1177/0016986215605360
Warne R. T. Burningham C. (2019). Spearman’s g found in 31 non-Western nations: strong evidence that g is a universal phenomenon. Psychol. Bull. 145, 237–272. doi: 10.1037/bul0000184, PMID: 30640496
Warne R. T. Burton J. Z. (2020). Beliefs about human intelligence in a sample of teachers and nonteachers. J. Educ. Gift. 43, 143–166. doi: 10.1177/0162353220912010
Waterhouse L. (2006a). Inadequate evidence for multiple intelligences, Mozart effect, and emotional intelligence theories. Educ. Psychol. 41, 247–255. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep4104_5
Waterhouse L. (2006b). Multiple intelligences, the Mozart effect, and emotional intelligence: a critical review. Educ. Psychol. 41, 207–225. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep4104_1
Wechsler D. (2014). Wechsler intelligence scale for children (WISC–V). 5th Edn. London: Pearson.
Weisberg D. S. Keil F. C. Goodstein J. Rawson E. Gray J. R. (2008). The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 20, 470–477. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2008.20040, PMID: 18004955
Wilcox G. Morett L. M. Hawes Z. Dommett E. J. (2021). Why educational neuroscience needs educational and school psychology to effectively translate neuroscience to educational practice. Front. Psychol. 11:618449. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.618449, PMID: 33519642
Williams C. M. Peyre H. Labouret G. Fassaya J. Guzmán García A. Gauvrit N. et al. (2022). High intelligence is not associated with a greater propensity for mental health disorders. Eur. Psychiatry 66:e3. doi: 10.1192/j.eurpsy.2022.2343, PMID: 36396607
Winner E. (2000). The origins and ends of giftedness. Am. Psychol. 55, 159–169. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.159, PMID: 11392860
Wolter I. Braun E. Hannover B. (2015). Reading is for girls!? The negative impact of preschool teachers’ traditional gender role attitudes on boys’ reading related motivation and skills. Front. Psychol. 6:1267. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01267, PMID: 26379592
Zaboski B. A. Kranzler J. H. Gage N. A. (2018). Meta-analysis of the relationship between academic achievement and broad abilities of the Cattell-horn-Carroll theory. J. Sch. Psychol. 71, 42–56. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2018.10.001, PMID: 30463669
Zhang R. Jiang Y. Dang B. Zhou A. (2019). Neuromyths in Chinese classrooms: evidence from headmasters in an underdeveloped region of China. Front. Educ. 4, 4–9. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2019.00008
