Reflect

Last week, Facebook’s CEO, Mark Zuckerburg, faced accusations that his companies were aware of inherent harm caused by some of its own products, but kept going regardless. When the findings don’t suit us as individuals, or even as companies, it is convenient to ignore them.

What constitutes research ‘evidence’ is worth reflecting on. Googling a question and having the internet drum up an answer won’t cut it. When searching for the evidence relating to a particular question, sources should be highly credible, and authors should have applied rigorous methodologies and analyses. Credible research should always be subject to peer review. Reputable researchers steer away from ever saying that their assertions are entirely concrete and are more likely to suggest that their findings merely build on previous studies and add to an emerging picture. There are nearly always caveats and limitations accompanying well-executed research, which need to be digested and understood.

However, in staying attuned to research evidence, over time and upon reading, the gist emerges; a sense that there is perhaps, all things considered, and weighing everything up, a sensible approach to take or a particular guide to follow that might just lead to more optimal outcomes.

Motivate

How many times have you heard the statements, “students use only 10% of their brains” or “students have different learning styles”? Whilst such statements are pervasive and commonly circulated, they are not backed up by scientific evidence.

So why do neuromyths continue and where do they originate from? They originate from a variety of processes, including the oversimplification of scientific results, sensationalism, and the omission of important information (Tardif et al., 2015).

Why should we care about their prevalence? Well, if educators or parents rely on neuromyths when designing strategies to help support children, there is little chance that such approaches will work. As such, children and young people will be denied the opportunity to be helped optimally and therefore, denied the chance to thrive.

Take this example: research shows that one in two people believe that children with dyslexia see letters backwards (letter-reversals, where b becomes d) (MacDonald, 2017). A study from 2014 found that the vast majority of UK teachers (91%) believe dyslexia to include visual perception difficulties, including letter reversals (Washburn et al., 2014). However, researchers have long discounted the view that all children with dyslexia see letters backwards (Wolff and Melngailis, 1996). Whilst it is true that children with dyslexia do make letter reversals in their writing, so do their typically developing peers.

Myths can steer us unhelpfully off course and ultimately stop children obtaining a diagnosis. In the case of the example above, parents and teachers might hesitate to refer a child for dyslexia assessment, if what they consider to be key characteristics are not present (in this case, letter reversals).

Support

Take something that parents do with young children regularly; play with them. If you knew that ‘block play’ (playing with bricks or construction toys) with your toddler could enhance their physical development, spatial awareness, creativity and even their future maths skills, wouldn’t you do more of it? If you knew that ‘pretend play’ with your toddler could be a helpful way for them to develop important social-emotional skills and enhance your own mental health, wouldn’t you set aside time for it?

As children grow, challenges within parenting can escalate, but research evidence is there, like a lighthouse in the dark, revealing pathways that promote proactivity, are time-efficient and are much more likely to lead our children towards the outcomes we are all wishing for.