Neuroscience as a Guide in Natural Science Classes in Basic Education

Laura Brochini Burza; Maria Fernanda Celli De Oliveira

DOI: 10.22167/2675-6528-202603181

Article derived from a Course Conclusion Work (TCC), with content based on the student’s original work and adapted to the editorial format of the E&S Magazine with the support of the ResumeAI tool, an artificial intelligence solution developed by Instituto Pecege for textual synthesis and organization.

Summary

Neuroscience is a powerful ally in understanding learning processes, although only one-third of teachers demonstrate familiarity with the subject, highlighting a gap that justifies public policies. In science education, the integration of neuroscience can foster the development of strategies to overcome learning barriers and improve academic performance in Brazil. Previous research had not addressed the use, benefits, and challenges of neuroscience in Brazilian basic education. The research aimed to verify how teachers have used neuroscience as a guide for science classes in basic education, understand the challenges in applying its concepts in teaching, and propose practical solutions, including a didactic sequence. To this end, a qualitative-quantitative, applied, descriptive, and field survey research was conducted with a sample of ten basic education science teachers. An online questionnaire with Likert scales was used to collect socio-demographic data and data on the use or non-use of neuroscience. Data analysis was descriptive, identifying patterns and trends with graphs and statistics. The results indicated that neuroscience was valued, but its practical application is not yet significant. Teachers who used it reported consistent positive impacts, while those who did not use it showed interest but faced training and working condition barriers. Despite the limitations, the study contributed to understanding the relationships between neuroscience and Basic Education, proposing training and collaborative programs between neuroscientists and educators, aiming to empower teachers to judge the quality and applicability of evidence.

Keywords: Learning; Sciences; Education; Basic Education; Neuroscience.

1. Introduction

Neuroscience emerges as a powerful ally in understanding the cognitive and emotional processes that underpin learning, offering significant contributions to educational practice. The application of this knowledge in the pedagogical context fosters a critical review of traditional methodologies, encouraging approaches that respect the particularities of students’ brain functioning (Gkintoni et al., 2023). The integration between neuroscience and education is essential not only for improving teaching strategies but also for the initial and continuing training of teachers, enabling them to interpret and apply scientific knowledge in the classroom critically and effectively (Ferreira, 2025).

This area of science contributes to a better understanding of specific learning challenges, such as reading and writing difficulties (Dias, 2013). Initial teacher training is fundamental for integrating neuroscience into education, promoting a more reflective and scientifically based pedagogical practice, with effective educational policies and environments that enhance cognitive and emotional capacities (Grossi, Oliveira and Aguiar, 2019; Grossi, Oliveira and Fonseca, 2024; Thomas and Arslan, 2025).

The main concepts of neuroscience related to education and learning include neuroplasticity, which is the brain’s ability to modify itself with experience, essential for effective pedagogical practices that value deliberate practice and constant feedback (Chang et al., 2021; Dubinsky et al., 2019; Gholami et al., 2022; Jolles and Jolles, 2021; Tan and Amiel, 2019). Also relevant are learning and memory processes, which support pedagogical strategies for knowledge retention (Azzam and Easteal, 2020); executive functions, such as attention and working memory, crucial for classroom management and student self-regulation (Jolles and Jolles, 2021); and motivation and emotion mechanisms, which stimulate engagement and overcome emotional barriers to learning (Pradeep et al., 2024).

Despite the benefits of neuroeducation, research indicates that a significant portion of educators are still unaware of or misinterpret these concepts, which favors the perpetuation of neuromyths, mistaken beliefs about brain function that negatively influence pedagogical practices (Amran and Sommer, 2025; Hughes et al., 2020). Recent data indicate that only about one-third of teachers demonstrate familiarity with educational neuroscience (Birkbeck-UCL Centre for Educational Neuroscience, 2022), highlighting a significant gap that justifies the urgency of public policies and training programs.

In science education, the integration of neuroscience can favor the development of pedagogical strategies that promote active learning, attention, memory, and students’ motivational engagement (Abdullah et al., 2018; Oliver, 2011; Pereira et al., 2018). This is particularly relevant in the Brazilian context, marked by educational challenges and inequalities, where neuroscience-based practices can contribute to overcoming learning barriers and improving academic performance. However, in Brazil, there is a scarcity of research focused on science education in basic education regarding the use, benefits, and challenges of implementing neuroscience.

Given the foregoing, the investigation into the application of neuroscience in science education in Brazil is fundamental for educational innovation and for improving the quality of teaching. This research aims to contribute to identifying gaps and challenges, supporting the development of formative and pedagogical policies that value neuroscientific knowledge as an essential resource for the development of more effective and inclusive educational practices in science education. The general objective of this study is to verify how teachers use neuroscience (knowledge and practices on neural plasticity, functioning of memory and learning mechanisms, executive functions, motivation and emotion, active learning, recognition of neuromyths) as a guide for natural science classes in basic education and how it is applied in practice, in addition to elucidating and understanding the reasons why some teachers do not apply neuroscience concepts (mentioned above) in their teaching and planning, proposing practical solutions and an adaptable didactic sequence for those who do not yet use neuroscience in their classes.

2. Material and Methods

The present study was characterized as a mixed-methods research, combining qualitative and quantitative elements. Regarding objectives, it was classified as applied research, aiming at the proposition of practical solutions for an educational problem. In relation to procedures, a descriptive nature was adopted, with the purpose of describing the characteristics of a population or phenomenon, and a field survey (

research

), which involved collecting data directly from participants in their natural environment, through a questionnaire.

The unit of analysis was composed of basic education science teachers. The participant sample totaled ten teachers (N=10), selected from the general non-clinical population. Volunteers were not remunerated for their participation and were recruited through online social networks, including platforms such as Facebook and Instagram, as well as via email communication. This process aimed to reach teachers interested in the topic of neuroscience and education.

Data collection was carried out using an online questionnaire, developed on the Google Forms platform. The instrument was structured in three distinct parts to address the different aspects of the research objective. This organization allowed for a systematic collection of information, from the participants’ profile to their perceptions and practices related to neuroscience in the educational context.

The first part of the questionnaire consisted of a socio-demographic survey, which included questions about participants’ age, teaching experience, and subjects taught. The second part presented a dichotomous question: “Do you consciously and actively use neuroscience concepts in your classes?”, with “Yes” or “No” response options. The answer to this question directed the participant to one of the subsequent sections of the questionnaire.

For the faculty members who answered “Yes” to the question about the use of neuroscience, the section “I use neuroscience concepts in my daily life as a faculty member” was presented. This section consisted of a Likert-type questionnaire, with a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 meant “completely disagree” and 5 “completely agree”. The statements evaluated aspects such as the aid of neuroscience in lesson planning, the positive effects of active learning, the consideration of motivation/emotion, and the use of neuroscience as a guide for science lesson planning.

For participants who indicated “No” to using neuroscience concepts, the section presented was “I do not use neuroscience concepts in my daily life as a teacher”. Similarly, this part also employed a Likert-type questionnaire, with the same scale from 1 to 5. The statements investigated the belief in the potential of neuroeducation and the perceived barriers to deepening knowledge in neuroscience, such as lack of time for study.

The questionnaire was administered online, allowing participants to respond at their preferred time and location. Before data collection began, the Free and Informed Consent Form (CLE) was provided, and participation in the research was conditioned on electronic agreement to its terms. The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee (CEP), under number CAAE n° 93153425.7.0000.9927, ensuring adherence to ethical principles.

The analysis of the collected data was performed descriptively, with the objective of summarizing the set of information and identifying patterns and trends. For this purpose, graphs and descriptive statistics, such as mean, median, and standard deviation, were used, employing the Microsoft Excel software. After the analysis and completion of the work, all collected data were permanently deleted, ensuring the privacy and security of the participants.

As part of the procedures to propose practical solutions, an adaptable didactic sequence was developed for teaching natural sciences in basic education. This material was conceived to assist teachers who do not yet apply neuroscience concepts in their classes and planning, providing a practical resource for integrating this knowledge. The creation of the didactic sequence aligned with the objective of offering alternatives applicable to the educational reality.

3. Results and Discussion

This investigation sought to understand the application of neuroscience in science teaching in basic education, identifying usage patterns, perceived benefits, challenges faced, and the prevalence of neuromyths among teachers. The results obtained, from a sample of ten teachers, revealed a complex scenario, where neuroscience is valued, but its practical integration still faces significant barriers. The detailed analysis of the data allowed for a panorama of educators’ relationship with neuroscientific concepts, providing subsidies for the proposition of practical and formative solutions aimed at improving the quality of science teaching in Brazil, according to the study’s general objective.

Participant Profile

The study sample consisted of ten science teachers working in basic education, with ages ranging from 24 to 51 years, demonstrating an age diversity among the participants. The teaching experience time also proved to be quite heterogeneous, ranging from teachers at the beginning of their careers, with only one year of practice, to professionals with vast experience, totaling 32 years of teaching. The average teaching time was 12.9 years, with a standard deviation of 10.5 years, indicating the presence of a diverse group in terms of professional experience.

Regarding academic background, 60% of participants stated they hold a graduate course, and all of them indicated having a history of continuing education in the area of Natural Sciences. This data suggests a profile of teachers engaged in the enhancement of their knowledge in their field of practice, which is a relevant factor for the discussion on the incorporation of new pedagogical approaches. All respondents expressed agreement with the Free and Informed Consent Form, ensuring the study’s compliance with ethical research principles.

Conscious Use of Neuroscience Concepts in Teaching Practice

When investigating whether teachers consciously and actively use neuroscience concepts in their classes, the research revealed an equitable division among participants. Half of the sample, corresponding to five teachers, stated they actively incorporate these concepts into their pedagogical practices, while the other five declared they do not. This distribution suggests that, despite the growing visibility of neuroscience in the educational field, its systematic application in teaching routines has not yet predominantly consolidated within the Brazilian educational context.

The more in-depth analysis of the data, which included the correlation between the use of neuroscience and specific training in the area, indicated that, among the five teachers who use neuroscience, three had specific training in neuroscience, such as short courses or specializations. On the other hand, among the five who do not use it, two also reported having some training in the area. This finding is crucial, as it suggests that training in neuroscience, by itself, is not a direct predictor of the conscious application of these concepts in the classroom, pointing to the need for more targeted and practical training.

Faculty Using Neuroscience Concepts

The five instructors who claimed to use neuroscience concepts demonstrated a highly positive perception of the benefits of this integration. Likert scale analyses revealed high agreement regarding the effectiveness of neuroscience in pedagogical planning and practice. The item “Neuroscience helps me plan my classes” obtained a mean of 4.2 on a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 represents complete agreement, indicating that these teachers perceive neuroscience as a valuable resource for structuring their didactic activities.

The perception of positive impact was even more accentuated regarding “active learning”, which obtained the highest average, of 4.8. This result underlines the belief that neuroscience validates and enhances methodologies that place the student as the protagonist in the knowledge construction process. Furthermore, items related to “student well-being” and “improvement of planning” also presented averages of 4.2, reinforcing the view that neuroscience contributes to a more effective and welcoming learning environment, aligned with literature that highlights the importance of emotional engagement (Pradeep et al., 2024).

The neuroscientific concepts most frequently mobilized by these teachers included motivation and emotion, executive functions, neuroplasticity, and mechanisms of memory and learning. This selection of themes is in line with the scientific literature, which identifies them as pillars for understanding the learning processes at the mechanical and synaptic levels (Dubinsky et al., 2019; Schwartz et al., 2019). The appreciation of these aspects by teachers who use neuroscience suggests a more intentional pedagogical practice aligned with knowledge about brain function, seeking to optimize the teaching-learning process.

Faculty Who Do Not Use Neuroscience Concepts

The five teachers who declared not to use neuroscience concepts in their classes, although they do not actively apply them, demonstrated a generally favorable attitude towards the potential of neuroeducation. The average of 3.6 on the Likert scale for the question about belief in the potential of neuroeducation indicates that there is a recognition of the area’s relevance, even among those who do not incorporate it into their practice. This interest, however, is accompanied by a series of barriers that prevent the transposition of theoretical knowledge into pedagogical action.

The main barriers identified were lack of study time, with an average of 3.2, and absence of institutional incentive, with an average of 3.0. These factors point to structural and management challenges that hinder the deepening and application of neuroscience in the teaching routine. Other significant barriers included the perception that the teaching methodologies already used conflicted with the precepts of neuroscience (average of 2.6) and insecurity regarding the practical application of neuroscientific knowledge (average of 2.6).

Less frequently, teachers who do not use neuroscience mentioned the lack of usefulness in science classes (average of 2.4), lack of adequate training (average of 2.0), or disbelief in the benefits of neuroscience in education (average of 2.0). This data suggests that the non-use of neuroscience is not, for the most part, due to a conceptual rejection of the field, but rather to structural, institutional, and formative limitations. This scenario reinforces the existence of a mismatch between teachers’ interest and the objective conditions for implementing neuroscience-based pedagogical practices (Ching et al., 2020; Schwartz et al., 2019).

Belief in Neuromyths

The investigation into adherence to neuromyths revealed varying levels of misconceptions among participants. The “learning styles” neuromyth, which posits that students learn best when taught according to their preferred style (visual, auditory, etc.), showed the highest average agreement, at 4.5. This finding is particularly relevant, as scientific literature widely refutes the effectiveness of this approach (Coch, 2018; Jolles & Jolles, 2021), indicating a persistence of pseudoscientific beliefs in the educational environment.

Other investigated neuromyths included the belief that exercises like Brain Gym improve literacy or cognitive abilities, which obtained an average of 3.3. The idea that we only use 10% of our brain had an average of 2.5, while the belief in hemispheric predominance (left or right side of the brain determining abilities) obtained the lowest average, 2.0. When comparing groups, it was found that the prevalence of neuromyths was significantly lower among teachers who use neuroscience in the classroom, compared to those who do not.

These results point to a paradoxical coexistence between neuroscience training and adherence to pseudoscientific beliefs, especially in the absence of critical and in-depth training (Ching et al., 2020). Mere contact with or interest in neuroscience does not guarantee correct pedagogical application nor the reduction of neuromyths, particularly when training is not systematic and evidence-based (Im et al., 2018; Privitera, 2021). High adherence to the learning styles myth is a clear example of how intuitively plausible, yet scientifically unfounded, information can perpetuate itself (Coch, 2018; Pashler et al., 2009).

Correlation Analysis

Pearson correlation analyses between the key study variables revealed the absence of statistically significant linear associations. The correlation between neuroscience training and the conscious use of these concepts in the classroom was null (r = 0.00), indicating that having specific training in the area does not directly translate into a higher probability of practical application. This means that, regardless of whether they had training or not, the proportion of teachers who use and do not use neuroscience was identical in the investigated sample.

Similarly, the correlation between neuroscience training and belief in neuromyths was practically non-existent (r = 0.013). This result suggests that specific neuroscience training, as perceived by the participants, was not effective in reducing adherence to pseudoscientific beliefs. Such findings corroborate the literature indicating that mere contact with neuroscience does not guarantee its pedagogical application nor the demystification of mistaken beliefs, especially if the training is not critical, systematic, and evidence-based (Im et al., 2018; Privitera, 2021).

Discussion and Critical Analysis

The balanced distribution between teachers who use and do not use neuroscience in basic education corroborates studies that point to neuroeducation as an expanding field, but still lacking formal integration into teacher training curricula (Ching et al., 2020; Privitera, 2021). The observation that teachers who apply neuroscientific concepts have specific prior training reinforces the importance of explicit and directed training, rather than relying solely on teaching experience, for acquiring knowledge about brain function (Dubinsky et al., 2019; Schwartz et al., 2019).

The high agreement of teachers with the benefits of active learning (average of 4.2) and with the use of neuroscience in pedagogical planning (average of 4.0) supports the understanding of neuroscience as a “biological why” that validates student-centered practices (Schwartz et al., 2019). The appreciation of motivation and emotion (average of 4.0) is aligned with the concept of emotional seal or emotional marking, which postulates that emotional states directly modulate the consolidation of long-term memory (Immordino-Yang & Gotlieb, 2017; Wolfe, 2006).

The barriers reported by teachers who do not use neuroscience, such as lack of time, training, and institutional support, may reflect the existence of a “translation gap” or a “bridge too far” between scientific production and pedagogical practice (Bruer, 1997; Clement & Lovat, 2011). Insecurity regarding practical application reinforces the thesis that the direct transposition of laboratory findings to the classroom is perceived as complex, inadequate, and lacking pedagogical mediation (Ching et al., 2020; Kaygısız, 2022). This highlights the need for training programs that not only convey information but also empower teachers to adapt and apply this knowledge in a contextualized manner.

The persistence of neuromyths, such as “learning styles” (average of 4.5), even among teachers with some neuroscience training, highlights the inadequacy of current training to promote critical neuroscientific literacy. This phenomenon is described in the literature as a paradox, where teachers interested in the brain may be more susceptible to pseudoscientific information from non-academic sources (Dekker et al., 2012; Jolles & Jolles, 2021). The lower acceptance of myths like “using 10% of the brain” (average of 2.5) and “hemispheric dominance” (average of 2.0) suggests some success of debunking campaigns, but still points to the need for continuous efforts (Howard-Jones, 2014).

To propose practical solutions for teachers who do not yet use neuroscience, the study developed an adaptable didactic sequence for Elementary School 1, with the theme “Neuroscience: how does the brain work?”. This sequence, detailed in the appendix of the original work, uses classroom and laboratory space, integrating concepts and practices of neuroeducation to teach students about the nervous system, learning mechanisms, and neuroplasticity. The structure is based on the National Common Curricular Base (BNCC) and includes instructions and application tips for teachers, aiming to reduce the challenge of incorporating neuroscience into science planning and classes.

The proposed didactic sequence addresses themes such as neurodiversity, the construction of intelligence through neuroplasticity, active processing, metacognitive reflection, and senses and perception. It emphasizes the importance of a student-centered approach that values deliberate practice, positive emotional feedback, and multimodal memory consolidation. The booklet, which accompanies the sequence, offers complementary resources and detailed lesson plans, seeking to empower the teacher as a “brain transformer,” capable of designing sensory and cognitive experiences that shape students’ neural architecture.

In summary, the results indicate that neuroscience is widely valued by the participating teachers, although its practical application is restricted to half of the sample. Teachers who use it report positive impacts on planning and student engagement, while those who do not use it show interest but face structural and formative barriers. The absence of correlation between training and conscious use, as well as the persistence of neuromyths, highlight the need for training programs that promote critical and practical neuroscientific literacy, such as the proposed didactic sequence, contributing to the understanding of the relationships between neuroscience, teacher training, and pedagogical practice in Basic Education and responding to the study’s objective of verifying and proposing solutions for the application of neuroscience in science teaching.

4. Conclusion

The present investigation sought to verify how basic education science teachers used neuroscience as a guide for their classes and the challenges faced in applying its concepts. It was found that, although neuroscience is highly valued by teachers, its practical application was still restricted to half of the sample. Teachers who incorporated neuroscientific concepts reported consistent positive impacts on pedagogical planning and student engagement, highlighting the relevance of active learning, motivation and emotion, executive functions, neuroplasticity, and memory mechanisms. On the other hand, teachers who did not use it showed interest but faced significant barriers, such as lack of time for study, absence of institutional incentives, and insecurity regarding practical application. The persistence of neuromyths, such as that of learning styles, was also identified, although to a lesser extent among those who applied neuroscience. The main contribution of the study lies in the proposal of an adaptable didactic sequence for Elementary School 1, with the theme “Neuroscience: how the brain works?”, aiming to empower teachers to integrate this knowledge in a practical and grounded way within the National Common Curricular Base, overcoming the identified challenges.

The study’s limitations included the small sample size and reliance on self-reported data, which may influence the generalizability of the findings. However, the results showed internal consistency and alignment with specialized literature, serving as a basis for understanding the relationships between neuroscience, teacher training, and pedagogical practice in Basic Education. It is suggested that future research expand the sample and explore complementary methodologies to deepen the investigation into the effectiveness of training programs that promote critical neuroscientific literacy and the demystification of mistaken beliefs, especially in science teaching, a field still little addressed in the Brazilian context.

Bibliographic References

DIAS, M. 2013. O papel da consciência fonológica nas dificuldades específicas de leitura e escrita (DELE): na perspetiva dos docentes do 1.º CEB. Dissertação de Mestrado em Ciências da Educação. Escola Superior de Educação João de Deus, Lisboa, Portugal.

FERREIRA, L. S. 2025. Uma análise das contribuições da neurociência no processo educativo e a formação do professor. Revista Ibero-Americana de Humanidades, Ciências e Educação 11(8): art. 20767. DOI: 10.51891/rease.v11i8.20767.

GKINTONI, E.; DIMAKOS, I.; HALKIOPOULOS, C.; ANTONOPOULOU, H. 2023. Contributions of neuroscience to educational praxis: a systematic review. Emerging Science Journal 7: art. 12. DOI: 10.28991/ESJ-2023-SIED2-012.

GROSSI, M. G. R.; OLIVEIRA, E. S.; AGUIAR, F. A. 2019. A neurociência na formação inicial de professores: uma investigação científica. Ensino em Re-Vista 26(3): 871-895. DOI: 10.14393/ER-v26n3a2

Article originating from a Final Coursework on Neuroscience and Learning in Education

To learn more about the course, click here and access the MBX Academy platform