Teaching Knowledge on Neuroplasticity and Learning

Conceição Roberta da Silva Moraes; Juliana Cristina Da Silva

DOI: 10.22167/2675-6528-202602794

Article derived from a Final Course 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 the Pecege Institute for textual synthesis and organization.

Abstract

The understanding of learning processes in light of Neuroscience has proven relevant for the qualification of pedagogical practices, given the complexity of contemporary educational challenges. In this context, neuroplasticity, defined as the brain’s capacity to modify itself based on experiences, has been configured as a central element for reflection on teaching and learning in basic education. The study aimed to identify the main gaps in the initial and continuing education of teachers related to knowledge about neuroplasticity and its educational application. An applied research was carried out, with a quantitative approach and descriptive character, developed through a field survey. Data collection occurred with 101 basic education teachers, linked to a Regional Education Unit in Greater São Paulo, through a structured online questionnaire organized into thematic axes. Data analysis was based on descriptive statistics. The results indicated that, although the majority of teachers recognize the relevance of neuroplasticity for learning, basic and intermediate levels of knowledge predominated, in addition to gaps in initial and continuing education. The importance of considering training actions for education professionals was highlighted.

Keywords: Teacher education; neuroscience; neuroeducation.

1. Introduction

The understanding of learning processes in light of Neuroscience has proven relevant for the qualification of pedagogical practices, given the complexity of contemporary educational challenges. In this context, neuroplasticity, understood as the brain’s capacity to modify itself based on experiences, is configured as a central element for reflecting on teaching and learning in basic education.

Neuroscience, by its multidisciplinary nature, is dedicated to the study of the nervous system, with special attention to the human brain. This scientific field allows us to understand the brain mechanisms involved in the learning process, offering subsidies to make teaching more effective and enhance cognitive development (Chaves, 2023). The aforementioned science focuses on the analysis of the Central Nervous System, with the main objective of promoting reflections and debates about its functioning and implications for human behavior (Abreu, 2012).

Teachers who understand the functioning of the nervous system are better prepared to improve their pedagogical practice, positively impacting student development. This knowledge allows for more effective interventions in teaching and learning processes, especially in supporting students facing difficulties, even when they are guaranteed the right to curricular adaptations (Consenza and Guerra, 2011).

From a neurobiological perspective, the concept of learning is intimately linked to the idea of plasticity, more specifically, to neuroplasticity. This refers to the brain’s ability to reorganize its neural circuits in the face of new experiences. In general, neuroplasticity represents the nervous system’s ability to modify its structure and functioning in response to different stimuli, such as the natural development of the organism, the acquisition of new skills, or cognitive reorganization after injuries to the central nervous system or in situations of sensory deprivation (Bavelier and Neville, 2002).

It is reiterated that knowledge in neuroscience contributes to a deeper understanding of how learning occurs. By understanding how the brain learns, it is possible to apply this knowledge to the educational context, seeking more effective strategies and articulations for students to learn with greater quality and efficiency (Queiroz, et al., 2020).

Considering that the understanding of learning processes related to the brain’s capacity to modify itself can influence adopted teaching strategies, investigating this knowledge allows for the identification of potential strengths and gaps in teacher training. Chaves (2025) indicates that, despite theoretical advances in the area of neuroscience and neuroplasticity studies, initial teacher training presents substantial gaps regarding the integration between Neuroscience and Education. The lack of knowledge about how the brain functions in relation to learning can compromise the teacher’s ability to understand the learning process as a complex and multifaceted phenomenon.

Thus, this study is justified by the need to understand teachers’ knowledge level about the concept of neuroplasticity and how this knowledge is perceived and incorporated into their pedagogical practice, in order to contribute to the improvement of these practices and to the direction of continuing education actions more aligned with the demands of the educational context. Based on this premise, this research aims to identify the main gaps in the initial and continuing education of teachers related to knowledge about neuroplasticity and its educational application.

2. Material and Methods

This research was characterized as a study of an applied nature, with a quantitative methodological approach and descriptive objectives. The central purpose was to identify the level of knowledge and perception of teachers about neuroplasticity and its relationship with the learning process, aligning with the objective of identifying gaps in teacher training. The descriptive research sought to observe, collect, and record characteristics of a specific population (Gil, 2010; Campos, 2008).

The design adopted was the field survey, of the survey type, which allowed the collection of data on educators’ perception and understanding of neuroplasticity. The choice of the quantitative approach was based on the intention to measure the collected information, organizing and interpreting it based on numerical values (Turrioni and Mello, 2012; Godoy, 1995). This approach was essential to quantify teaching knowledge.

The study’s target population consisted of 101 basic education teachers affiliated with a Regional Education Unit in Greater São Paulo. This unit is responsible for 82 schools covering the initial and final years of Elementary School, regular and technical High School, as well as Youth and Adult Education (EJA). The researcher, acting as a teacher trainer in the aforementioned unit, facilitated access and the relevance of contact with education professionals.

The data collection instrument consisted of an online questionnaire, created on the Google Forms platform. Before the final application, a pre-test was conducted to verify the clarity of the questions and estimate the response time. The suggestions for improvement, indicated by the professionals who participated in this stage, were fully incorporated into the definitive version of the questionnaire, ensuring its adequacy and comprehensibility.

The questionnaire was structured into five main thematic axes. These axes included: a) professional profile of the participants; b) perception of the concept of neuroplasticity; c) degree of knowledge about neuroplasticity; d) implications of knowledge about neuroplasticity for pedagogical practice; and e) training and formative needs of teachers. This organization allowed for a comprehensive collection of relevant information for the study.

Data collection occurred over a fifteen-day period, between January 23, 2026, and February 07, 2026. The link to access the questionnaire was widely disseminated to professors through institutional emails and WhatsApp communication groups. This online distribution method facilitated participant reach and streamlined the response collection process.

For the analysis of the collected data, descriptive statistics were employed. This technique was used with the objective of structuring, synthesizing, and presenting the relevant aspects of the characteristics observed in the set of participant responses (Reis and Reis, 2002). Descriptive statistics allowed for the organization of information in a clear and objective manner, without inferences or generalizations.

Ethical considerations were rigorously observed. The research, based on an anonymous and voluntary questionnaire, did not collect sensitive or identifiable personal information, thus dispensing with submission to the Research Ethics Committee (CEP), according to Resolution No. 510/2016 of the National Health Council. Confidentiality, secrecy, and the exclusive use of data for academic purposes were guaranteed.

Prior to completing the questionnaire, participants had access to the Free and Informed Consent Form (TCLE). Agreement to participate in the research was recorded electronically by selecting the “Yes” option for a mandatory statement. Additionally, the artificial intelligence Gemini was used to assist in the development of the instrument and the linguistic review of the text, with the final validation and editing performed by the author.

3. Results and Discussion

The research involved the participation of 101 basic education teachers, and the results were organized into thematic categories to facilitate data interpretation. These categories included the professional profile of the participants, their perceptions of neuroplasticity, the degree of knowledge they possessed on the subject, the implications of this knowledge for pedagogical practice, and the identified training needs. The descriptive analysis of the data allowed for a detailed overview of the level of familiarity and application of neuroplasticity concepts among teachers, aligning with the objective of identifying training gaps.

The sample of teachers revealed a predominance of teachers working in Middle School and High School, which together represent the majority of participants. A significant variation in teaching experience was also observed, with a considerable portion of professionals having eleven years or more of experience. A relevant finding for the study’s context was that approximately 55.2% of participants indicated they had not participated in training related to neuroscience or neuroeducation, which already points to a gap in exposure to this knowledge.

Professional profile

Regarding the teaching level at which teachers work, it was found that 40.6% of the participants are teachers in Middle School (Ensino Fundamental II), and 39.6% work in High School (Ensino Médio). The other levels, such as Early Childhood Education, Elementary School (Ensino Fundamental I), and Youth and Adult Education (EJA), represented smaller portions of the sample. In relation to teaching experience, the research indicated that 40.6% of the teachers had more than 20 years of experience, while 26% had between 11 and 20 years. These data show a sample with consolidated experience in their careers.

The analysis on participation in neuroscience or neuroeducation-related training revealed that 55.2% of teachers have never participated in such activities. This finding is crucial for the study’s objective, as it suggests a limited basis of formal knowledge on the subject among the majority of educators. The absence of specific training may impact educators’ ability to integrate neuroscientific concepts into their pedagogical practices, as discussed by Chaves (2025) regarding gaps in initial teacher training.

Perception of neuroplasticity

Regarding the perception of neuroplasticity, the research revealed that 78.4% of teachers stated they had already heard about the topic, indicating an initial familiarity with the concept. Furthermore, 75.3% considered neuroplasticity to be very relevant to education, and 8.2% rated it as partially relevant. Only 16.5% of teachers did not know how to answer about its relevance, which suggests a widespread recognition of the topic’s importance, even if conceptual depth is still limited.

Regarding the impact of neuroplasticity on learning, 69.1% of teachers believe this impact is very significant, while 13.4% consider it moderate. Only 17.5% did not know how to answer. These results demonstrate that the majority of teachers perceive a direct and relevant connection between the brain’s capacity for modification and the teaching and learning processes. This positive perception is an important starting point for future training actions, as it indicates an openness to incorporating neuroscientific knowledge into pedagogical practice.

Degree of knowledge about neuroplasticity

The self-assessment of the knowledge level on neuroplasticity presented a panorama that reinforces the need for training. Only 1% of teachers classified their knowledge as advanced, while 25.8% considered it intermediate. The majority of participants, 49.5%, rated their knowledge as basic, and 23.7% admitted to having no knowledge on the subject. These data indicate that, despite the perception of relevance, the conceptual understanding of neuroplasticity is still superficial for most teachers.

When crossing the degree of self-identified knowledge with the time of career activity, it was observed that the intermediate knowledge level is distributed in a relatively balanced way among the different time ranges, with a slight increase in the more advanced activity ranges. However, advanced knowledge proved to be very restricted, concentrating specifically in the 11 to 20 years of activity range. This suggests that, for the studied sample, teaching experience does not automatically translate into a significant deepening of knowledge about neuroplasticity, indicating that access to this knowledge is not systematic throughout the career.

The analysis of the relationship between tenure and knowledge level corroborates Huberman’s (1992) perspective on the teacher’s professional life cycle. Most teachers who self-assessed with basic and intermediate knowledge levels are in the diversification or questioning phase of their careers, corresponding to the period between 7 and 25 years of professional practice. This phase is characterized by the search for new stimuli and engagement in significant projects, which may explain the perceived relevance of neuroplasticity, despite the still incipient knowledge.

Implications for pedagogical practice

Regarding the implications for pedagogical practice, 71.1% of teachers believe that understanding neuroplasticity can significantly influence their teaching practice. Another 16.5% consider this influence partial, and 12.4% did not know how to answer. This high percentage of recognized influence demonstrates that teachers perceive the transformative potential of neuroscientific knowledge, which is a motivating factor for seeking training and improving teaching strategies.

When asked about teaching strategies most related to neuroplasticity, teachers pointed to “Active learning”, such as projects and problem-solving, with 75.5% of mentions, and “Diversified stimuli”, including visual, auditory, and motor, with 86.7% of responses. Other strategies such as “Frequent feedback” (44.9%), “Personalized teaching” (38.8%), and “Spaced repetition” (18.4%) were also considered relevant. These findings indicate that teachers associate neuroplasticity with pedagogical approaches that promote student engagement and multisensory stimulation.

The appreciation of active learning and diversified stimuli by teachers is in line with the literature that addresses executive functions and cognitive development. Oliveira (2014) and Eslinger (2000) highlight that learning involving decision-making, planning, and execution of actions strengthens complex mental functions. Thus, teachers’ perception of these strategies reflects a pedagogical intuition aligned with neuroscientific principles, even if formal knowledge about neuroplasticity is still limited.

The need for teachers to develop intentionally planned pedagogical activities, which consider students’ individual characteristics and promote effective conditions for development and learning, is a crucial point. Queiroz et al. (2020) emphasize this perspective, reinforcing that knowledge in neuroscience can support the creation of more effective strategies. The identification of these strategies by educators, even with gaps in in-depth knowledge, suggests fertile ground for the development of training that connects neuroscientific theory to existing pedagogical practice.

Training and training needs

Regarding prior contact with the concept of neuroplasticity, most participants indicated having had contact through “readings or individual research” (45.4%) and “lectures, workshops, or continuing education” (32%). “Initial training (undergraduate)” was mentioned by only 16.5% of the teachers as a source of contact, and 18.6% stated they had no contact with the topic at all. This data corroborates the analysis by Chaves (2025), which points to substantial gaps in initial teacher training regarding the integration between Neuroscience and Education, showing that contact with neuroplasticity often occurs sporadically and on an individual initiative.

The demand for deepening knowledge about neuroplasticity applied to education is expressive, with 56.7% of teachers feeling “a great need” and 39.2% feeling “some need”. This totals 95.9% of participants who recognize the importance of deepening their knowledge. This high demand for training is a clear indication that teachers are open to acquiring new knowledge that can qualify their pedagogical practices and, consequently, the students’ learning process.

Regarding the training formats considered most suitable, teachers pointed to “practical workshops” (45.4%) and “theoretical courses (in-person/online)” (44.3%) as the preferred options. Reading and individual study materials, as well as study groups with colleagues, were also mentioned, but less frequently. The preference for formats that combine theory and practice, especially workshops, reflects the need for teachers not only to understand concepts but also to learn how to apply them concretely in the classroom.

The difficulties identified in applying neuroscience concepts to pedagogical practice include “lack of adequate training” (45.4%) and “difficulty relating theory and practice” (36.1%). Other barriers mentioned were lack of time for study and application, and lack of school resources. These challenges reinforce the need for training actions that are well-structured, offer practical support, and consider the reality and limitations of teachers’ daily school life, promoting an effective bridge between neuroscientific knowledge and pedagogical action.

In summary, the research results show that, although the majority of teachers recognize the relevance of neuroplasticity for education and perceive its positive impact on learning processes, significant gaps still persist in conceptual deepening and in the systematized appropriation of this knowledge in pedagogical practice. The self-assessment of the knowledge level, predominantly basic and intermediate, and the low incidence of specific training in the area, indicate that contact with the theme occurs sporadically, fragmented, or through individual initiatives, reinforcing the need for consistent investments in continuing education for education professionals. The findings demonstrate that teaching experience does not automatically translate into greater in-depth knowledge of neuroplasticity, and that there is a clear demand for practical and theoretical training that helps overcome the difficulties in articulating theory and practice, contributing to the improvement of teaching strategies.

4. Conclusion

This study sought to identify the main gaps in the initial and continuing education of teachers related to knowledge about neuroplasticity and its educational application. It was found that the majority of teachers recognize the relevance of neuroplasticity for education and perceive its significant impact on learning processes. However, a basic and intermediate level of knowledge on the topic predominated, with a considerable portion of teachers indicating they had not participated in specific training in the area. It was observed that initial training contributed minimally to contact with the concept, and that teaching experience did not translate into a systematic deepening of knowledge. Despite this, teachers associate neuroplasticity with pedagogical strategies such as active learning and diversified stimuli, demonstrating an intuition aligned with neuroscientific principles. The main contribution of this work lies in the detailed diagnosis of these gaps, highlighting the pressing need for structured training actions.

The research, descriptive in nature and conducted through a field survey, was limited to a specific sample of teachers from a Regional Education Unit, which restricts the generalization of results to other contexts. Furthermore, the self-assessment of knowledge level may present biases. However, the findings support the recommendation that continuing education actions be developed and implemented to promote the articulation between neuroscientific knowledge and pedagogical practice. It is suggested that these trainings prioritize formats that combine theory and practical workshops, aiming to overcome the difficulties identified by teachers in relating theory to classroom application. Future studies could explore the effectiveness of specific training programs and their direct impact on pedagogical practices and student performance.

Bibliographic References

Abreu, S. I. A. Dislexia: aprender a aprender. 2012. Dissertação (Mestrado em Ciência da Educação) – Escola Superior de Educação Almeida Garrett, Lisboa, Portugal.

Bavelier, D.; Neville, H. J. Cross-modal plasticity: where and how? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, v. 3, p. 443–452, 2002.

Campos, L. F. L. Métodos e técnicas de pesquisa em psicologia. 4. ed. Campinas: Alínea, 2008.

Chaves, F. G. Neuroeducação e formação docente: contribuições para a práxis na educação infantil. In: Congresso Nacional de Educação, XI., 2025, Campina Grande. Anais… Campina Grande: Realize Editora, 2025. Disponível em: https://editorarealize.com.br/artigo/visualizar/130119. Acesso em: 13 abr. 2026.

Chaves, J. M. Neuroplasticidade, memória e aprendizagem: uma relação atemporal. Revista Psicopedagogia, v. 40, n. 121, p. 66–75, 2023.

Cosenza, R. M.; Guerra, L. B. Neurociência e educação: como o cérebro aprende. Porto Alegre: Artmed, 2011.

Eslinger, P. J. Desenvolvimento do cérebro e aprendizado. Cérebro & Mente – Revista Eletrônica de Divulgação Científica em Neurociência, n. 17, 2000. Disponível em: http://www.cerebromente.org.br. Acesso em: 13 abr. 2026.

Gil, A. C. Como elaborar projetos de pesquisa. 5. ed. São Paulo: Atlas, 2010.

Godoy, A. S. Introdução à pesquisa qualitativa e suas possibilidades. Revista de Administração de Empresas, v. 35, n. 2, p. 57–63, 1995.

Huberman, M. O ciclo de vida profissional dos professores. In: Nóvoa, A. (org.). Vidas de professores. Porto: Porto Editora, 1992.

Oliveira, G. G. Neurociências e os processos educativos: um saber necessário na formação de professores. Educação. UNISINOS, p. 13–24, 2014.

Queiroz, N. L. N.; Kunz, S. A. S.; Lima, D. K. F. Contribuições das neurociências para o desenvolvimento e aprendizagem humana. Camine: Ways of Education, v. 12, n. 2, p. 93–114, 2020.

Reis, E. A.; Reis, I. A. Análise descritiva de dados. Belo Horizonte: Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, 2002. Relatório técnico.

Turrioni, J.; Mello, C. H. Metodologia de pesquisa em engenharia de produção: estratégias, métodos e técnicas para condução de pesquisas quantitativas e qualitativas. Itajubá: Universidade Federal de Itajubá, 2012.

Article originating from a Final Course Work on Neuroscience and Learning in Education

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