The intersection of cognitive neuroscience and education has garnered significant attention in recent years, driven by the potential for insights from brain research to inform educational practices [1]. As this interdisciplinary field evolves, researchers explore how insights into brain functions can enhance learning outcomes. However, this growing interest has also spawned the proliferation of neuromyths rooted in misinterpreting or oversimplifying scientific findings [2]. These incorrect preconceptions, also known as "neuromyths," are defined by the OECD [3] as misconceptions generated by a misunderstanding, misreading, or misquoting of scientifically established facts. Such myths frequently result in the erroneous application of brain research in formal educational and adjacent contexts [4,5]. Moreover, these beliefs can perpetuate erroneous notions about learning, impeding educational outcomes and leading to misguided pedagogical strategies [2,6]. In the absence of intervention to dispel these misconceptions, there is a risk that instructional approaches will become ineffective or counterproductive [7,8]. A contributing factor is the insufficient interdisciplinary collaboration between neuroscience and education, which often leads to fragmented and misinterpreted applications of scientific findings [9,10]. The brain’s enigmatic nature has long captivated the public and been subject to commercial exploitation [7]. Various media sources, including films, documentaries, advertisements, social media, and popular literature, have disseminated misleading or oversimplified interpretations of neuroscience research [4,6,11]. The prevalence of neuromyths in formal and informal educational settings poses a significant challenge to educators and stakeholders, who must distinguish accurate scientific knowledge from pseudoscientific beliefs [3]. While educators were not previously expected to critically evaluate neuroscientific claims, today's information-rich landscape requires that teachers be equipped with the skills to critically assess such claims [2,12].

This study seeks to identify neuromyths and their origins through a comprehensive international comparison. An overall understanding could provide a comparative picture, enabling regional diagnostics to be made, local shortcomings to be identified, and better-targeted remedial initiatives to be launched. Although several studies have investigated the prevalence of common neuromyths, large-scale comparative research across diverse national populations is still limited [8,13]. Additionally, while some studies have examined the origins of neuromyths, few have investigated how these misconceptions spread through different sources. The role of formal dissemination sources, such as teacher training programs and academic courses, as well as informal sources, such as the media and peer communication, in spreading neuromyths is particularly under-explored [14,15]. These findings underscore a significant gap in the literature and highlight the need for further investigation into the mechanisms by which neuromyths are transmitted and reinforced in educational contexts. This study, the largest of its kind to date, examines the international prevalence of neuromyths among primary school teachers in 11 countries and eight languages: French, English, Turkish, Greek, Kazakh, Arabic, Malay and Chinese. Participating countries include Belgium, Cameroon, Canada (Quebec), Greece, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Mali, Morocco, Senegal, Taiwan, and Turkey. Two main research questions are explored and analyzed:

Q1- Which neuromyths are believed by primary school teachers? This question seeks to identify and analyze the specific misconceptions that primary school teachers hold about some important brain functions and the learning process. It also provides cross-country comparisons to examine differences in neuromyth beliefs between countries.

Q2- What are the formal and informal sources of these neuromyths among primary school teachers? This question examines the various formal (e.g., undergraduate/graduate education, professional development programs, academic publications, professional experience) and informal (e.g., social media, websites, colleagues or friends, other publications, the movies, television programs, advertisements) sources that influence the dissemination of neuromyth beliefs

Neuromyths emerge through misinterpreted scientific data, incomplete information, reductionist thinking, limited scientific literacy, confirmation bias, and the simplification of complex research findings [2]. A recurring theme in several studies is teachers' widespread belief in neuromyths. For example, Rousseau [16] and Sazaka et al. [15] reported a relatively high and worrying prevalence of neuromyths among teachers, students, and stakeholders. Neuromyths greatly impact teachers' instructional practices and persist as beliefs about learning styles, multiple intelligences, hemispheric dominance and the belief that highly stimulus-rich environments enhance learning, and these misconceptions frequently influence curriculum design and pedagogical approaches despite a lack of empirical support [7,9,17,18]. Bissessar and Youssef [19] reported that over 35 % of teachers confess to incorporating such scientifically unfounded beliefs into their classroom instruction. Despite contradictory scientific evidence, Newton and Miah [20] found that these neuromyths persist among teachers.

Furthermore, research by Hughes et al. [7] and Im et al. [21] suggests that even teacher education programs are largely ineffective in dispelling neuromyths, underscoring the challenge of correcting these pervasive misbeliefs. Commercial interests also play a significant role in perpetuating neuromyths [6,7]. Companies frequently exploit these misconceptions by promoting “brain-based” products and educational programs that lack empirical support, capitalizing on the appeal of neuroscience to educators and the public alike [5,14]. Popular media further amplify the issue by distorting scientific findings to craft sensationalized narratives, contributing to the public misunderstanding of neuroscience [4,6]. A prominent example is the enduring belief in “learning styles,” which remains widely accepted in educational practice despite lacking empirical support [22,23]. Research has also revealed the widespread acceptance of other neuromyths, such as the effectiveness of Brain Gym or the notion that individuals use only 10 % of their brains [7,17]. These misconceptions often stem from the misinterpretation or oversimplification of legitimate scientific research [4,8]. A frequently cited neuromyth in the literature is the belief that short-term motor coordination exercises can enhance brain function by improving communication between the brain’s hemispheres. Despite a lack of empirical support for this claim, this misconception persists among teachers and is often incorporated into classroom practices [5,7,17]. n a large-scale study of 1359 Australian pre-service teachers, Carter et al. [17] found that 56.6 % of participants incorrectly agreed with the statement that 'short-term motor coordination exercises can improve the integration of left and right hemispheric brain function. This finding reflects a broader trend whereby teachers accept scientifically unsupported claims about motor-coordination exercises and cognitive enhancement, potentially leading to ineffective or misguided instructional strategies being implemented.

Similarly, Zhang et al. [24] and Hughes et al. [7] report that many teachers believe that short-term motor coordination exercises can improve thinking and brain development. Zhang et al. [24] conducted a study of 253 head teachers in Gansu Province, China, and found that a large proportion of participants agreed with statements about the cognitive effects of short-term motor coordination exercises. Hughes et al. [7] surveyed 228 in-service teachers in Australia and found that 91 % of participants endorsed the statement that exercises rehearsing coordination skills can improve literacy outcomes. Additionally, 94 % believed that short-term motor coordination exercises enhance integration between the brain's hemispheres.

Neuromyths detract from educational quality by imposing artificial barriers to learning [2]. One of the most prevalent neuromyths is the belief that students learn more effectively when instruction is tailored to their preferred "learning styles," despite a lack of empirical evidence supporting this belief [4,5,9]. Similarly, the notion that intelligence is fixed rather than flexible can negatively impact teachers’ expectations and reduce their support for student growth and achievement [7,25]. Effectively addressing these neuromyths requires educators to develop the ability to critically evaluate and apply neuroscientific evidence [6,10]. Integrating accurate, research-based neuroscience content into teacher education programs is crucial for building resilience against pseudoscientific ideas and improving pedagogical practices [8,14].