Previous studies consistently demonstrate that K-12 educators, both pre-service and in-service, are susceptible to “neuromyths” or misconceptions about the brain and learning [[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]], yet how these beliefs impact their practice is not yet understood. While many argue that educators can greatly benefit from information about the neuroscience of learning [2,4,7], and that belief in neuromyths could be detrimental to teaching [3,[8], [9], [10], [11]], others argue that belief in neuromyths may not negatively impact teaching practice [12,13]. To our knowledge, very little is known about the impact of this knowledge and beliefs on actual teaching practice. Initial studies on the impact of neuroscience training for teachers indicate that introducing teachers to neuroscience concepts is beneficial, potentially enhancing their beliefs, teaching methods, and student performance, but more research is needed in order to make definitive conclusions about the effects of neuroscience training on educators [14]. As it was not feasible for the authors to study teaching methods or student performance in the pre-service teachers’ student teaching assignments, so knowledge of evidence-based teaching and learning principles was used instead. Evidence based principles are believed to have a positive impact on learners [15] and we hypothesize that enhanced knowledge of EBPs in pre-service teachers' will likely lead to improved teaching and learning outcomes during their initial years of teaching, acknowledging the presence of various other factors influencing these outcomes.

This exploratory pilot study investigated pre-service teachers’ knowledge and beliefs related to the brain and learning, and how this correlates with their knowledge of evidence-based teaching and learning principles from the Learning Sciences (see: 16) and Mind, Brain and Education (MBE) (see: 17).

Interest in the brain and learning has grown in recent decades alongside advances in neuroimaging technologies [[18], [19], [20]] . K-12 educators have demonstrated interest in how neuroscience findings might be applied in teaching practice to enhance educational outcomes [7,8], yet educators often hold misconceptions about the brain and learning, known as neuromyths [21]. These misconceptions sometimes stem from misunderstanding, misapplication, or oversimplification of related research [18,21,22]. As early as 2002, the OECD recognized the prominence of neuromyths in education and highlighted the importance of replacing these beliefs with accurate information, to avoid misguided teaching practice [21]. Similar concerns have been expressed by researchers [3,[8], [9], [10], [11]] . A recent systematic review found that multiple factors contribute to neuromyths persistence in education, including educators’ lack of scientific knowledge and use of low-quality information sources, as well as a general gap in communication between teachers and scientists [6].

One of the most prominent neuromyths in education is the belief that students learn best when information is presented in their preferred “learning style” (visual, auditory, kinesthetic, etc) [23]. This may seem intuitive to teachers, as they observe that learners often have different preferences to receive information in specific modalities, so it seems plausible that teaching to identified learning styles could be an effective way to meet learners' needs. However, research shows that although learners may express learning style preferences, adapting our instruction to target these different modalities does not improve learning, and may actually be harmful (see: 23).

The pervasiveness of neuromyths in education is evident globally [8,24] and shows some resistance to change even in the face of scientific evidence [11,25,26]. Belief in neuromyths is fairly consistent among pre-service [[27], [28], [29], [30]], in-service teachers [3,29,31], and faculty in higher education [32]. Some suggest that teachers’ belief in neuromyths can be reduced in part by explicitly exposing the faulty beliefs and intuitions during initial teacher education [11], yet simply providing counterevidence may not be sufficient to shift beliefs. Therefore, there is a need for targeted interventions in teacher education to address these misconceptions [3,[33], [34], [35]] .

There is growing interest in neuroscience professional development programs for in-service teachers [[36], [37], [38]]. Previous studies reported that neuroscience professional development programs have several positive outcomes, including an ability to effectively integrate neuroscience knowledge into teaching strategies, and a positive impact on student engagement and learning [7]. Other studies have found that neuroscience PD can increase teachers’ adaptive expertise [39], and teachers report an enhanced understanding of neuroscience, practical classroom applications and stronger relationships with students based on this knowledge [37]. Some evidence suggests that in-service teachers can also benefit from neuroscience education programs. For example, one neuroscience program for middle school teachers, called “Brain Science on the Move,” found that teachers demonstrated improved neuroscience knowledge, increased self-confidence, and a greater use of inquiry-based teaching methods in their classrooms, following the program [40]. Some of the same researchers later explored the impact of a neuroscience professional development program, “BrainU,” on in-service teachers’ practice, and found that participants improved in several key indicators (for example: “Lesson encouraged students to seek and value alternative modes of investigation or problem solving”) [41]. However, to the best of our knowledge, the association between neuroscience knowledge and teaching practices has not yet been examined with pre-service teachers.

Pre-service teachers likely begin their teacher education with existing misconceptions about the brain and learning [28]. However, pre-service teachers may also encounter educational programs that are based on neuromyths during their first year of school placements [9], which suggests there could be a need to equip pre-service teachers with accurate information about the brain and learning during their teacher education, so they are better prepared to identify neuromyths and misconceptions when they encounter them in practice. One study suggests that pre-service teachers’ knowledge of the brain is predictive of their ability to correctly identify neuromyths [2]. However, studies with in-service teachers suggest the opposite: general knowledge of the brain was found to predict belief in neuromyths [3,33,42], possibly because a high level of interest in the brain could lead teachers to inaccurate sources of information about the brain. Some suggest that teachers may be uniquely susceptible to neuromyths because of their interest in the brain and learning, paired with a lack of training on how to assess the quality of research [11]. While the idea of integrating neuroscience into teacher education is not a novel concept, the study of its effects on teachers and their practice is still in its early stages [14].

Among the limited number of studies focused on pre-service teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about the brain and learning, few directly examine the connection to actual teaching practice. One study found that introducing pre-service teachers in neuroscience concepts significantly increased their neuroscience literacy levels, but did not impact belief in neuromyths [25]. Another study also found that neuromyth beliefs in pre-service teachers are resistant to change, even when scientific evidence is provided [43]. Some suggest that evidence-informed principles of teaching and learning could help pre-service teachers to form more accurate beliefs about the brain and learning, while also addressing belief in neuromyths [27,28] . Ferreira & Rodríguez [27] assessed the impact of a one-year Science of Learning (SoL) course on the neuroscience literacy and neuromyth beliefs of pre-service teachers, and the results indicated that the course led to significant improvements in neuroscience literacy and a reduction in neuromyth beliefs among pre-service teachers, though the effect of the intervention was relatively modest. McMahon and colleagues [28] examined the impact of an initial teacher education program aimed at reducing trainee teachers' belief in neuromyths, and found decreased belief in neuromyths and increased critical thinking about the application of neuroscience in education.

Other recent studies investigated various aspects of neuromyth belief in pre-service teacher populations, such as the relationship between neuroscience literacy and perceptions of neuroscience in education [2], identifying knowledge gaps to inform future interventions [44], and whether first year students and advanced students differ in their ability to identify neuromyths [45]. A robust three year study of over 1000 pre-service teachers examined the prevalence, strength and sources of neuromyth belief among this population, as well as general knowledge of the brain, and concluded with a persuasive call for the integration of neuroscience content in pre-service teacher education [4]. Yet, more research is needed to understand how knowledge and beliefs related to the brain and learning relate to adoption of evidence-based teaching practice, particularly among pre-service teachers who are just beginning their teaching careers.

Evidence based practices in education are broadly defined as “treatment approaches, interventions, and services, which have been systematically researched and shown to make a positive difference in children” [46]. While state and federal regulations often mandate the use of EBPs [47], the interpretation and definition of EBPs can vary significantly among educators [15]. While we recognize that knowledge of EBPs doesn't fully encapsulate a pre-service teacher's overall effectiveness, we consider it a potentially valuable aspect to consider. In principle, a scientific understanding of learning could inform teachers’ decision-making related to underlying learning processes, consequently improving learning outcomes [48,49]. Furthermore, we hypothesize that greater understanding of the brain and learning may correlate with an enhanced grasp of evidence-informed teaching principles, motivating us to initiate an exploration of this potential association using an existing instrument.