Distinguishing neuroscience from neuromyth in early childhood education

Neuroscience is increasingly recognised as a valuable source of insight for teaching and learning in early childhood, yet not all information circulating in education is accurate. Some widely held ideas, known as neuromyths, are misconceptions or misinterpretations of brain science and therefore it is important that teachers can distinguish the myths from neuroscience, especially if these myths currently inform their teaching practice. Neuroliteracy involves understanding how the brain develops, learns, and functions, and can help teachers distinguish between fact and myth.

Professor Kate Williams from the University of the Sunshine Coast and her colleagues surveyed 524 early childhood educators across Australia, to find out about their neuroliteracy, and specifically their ability to identify neuromyths and neurofacts. The findings of the survey showed that many early childhood educators were unable to distinguish popular neuromyths from facts, but they were keen for high quality information based on neuroscience to inform their teaching.

In our webinar, Kate identified common neuromyths relevant to early childhood education, while at the same time explaining what neuroscience can tell us about how the brain learns. The myths explored in the webinar include:

Neuroscience does not suggest there are critical periods in childhood in which certain things must be learned. While there are sensitive periods for development when it is easier to learn particular things, learning outside of these sensitive periods is not impossible. Humans are always capable of new learning across the life span.

There is no evidence from neuroscience that sugary drinks and snacks typically make children less attentive. It is true that good nutrition overall is very effective in supporting brain development, however there is no need to avoid sugar if the overall diet is balanced.

It is a neuromyth that emotional brain processes override brain processes involved with reasoning. The brain does not have on or off switches for particular areas in the brain, so when children are overwhelmed with emotion, their ability to self-regulate is not switched off and inaccessible. This idea is based on a theory developed in the 1960s around the three-part brain, which suggested that, because of the way they evolved, humans have three separate and disconnected parts to their brains: a lizard brain, an early mammal emotional brain, and a late mammal brain capable of complex cognition. This theory is now completely debunked. What is now understood is that during intense emotional or traumatic experiences, the brain will move its resources and focus away from the areas associated with regulation, but the ability to self-regulate will not be completely switched off. However it is important to recognise that when a child is dysregulated, their cognitive resources are elsewhere and this is not a good time for learning.

Differences between learners cannot be explained by a dominance in their left brain or right brain. This is an idea developed in the 1950s, suggesting that some personality traits are an effect of a left-brain or right-brain dominance. It is true that some brain functions are associated more with the right (spatial reasoning) or left (language) part of the brain, but this doesn’t mean that children will therefore be more inclined to particular areas of learning. Where children have interests for particular learning, this is due to interest and not to a dominant area of the brain. It is important to challenge this narrative which might cut off particular areas of learning for some children perceived as left- or right-brain dominant.

There is no support in neuroscience that excessive stimuli are needed to support children’s brain development in early childhood. Children require positive interactions with adults and opportunities to explore their environment to develop capable brains. Children deprived of interaction and exploration definitely demonstrate poor cognitive and overall development, and from this finding an idea has been developed that the more stimulus children receive, the better their brains will develop. However, there is no evidence that adding more stimuli after a baseline of positive interactions and sufficient environmental exploration supports greater brain development. This means that teachers do not need to spend time increasing stimuli in early childhood settings, in terms of an excess of toys, room decorations, and displays, and that relational aspects of the environment are more important. In fact, some children may struggle with that extra sensory input.

There is no evidence for the effectiveness of engaging in bilateral movements that cross the midline for literacy or numeracy learning, despite what well-packaged ‘brain gym’ programmes have led teachers to believe. Neuroscience does show complex coordinated movements support children to develop general cognitive skills such as executive function skills. Complex movement and rhythm activities, such as those in which children have to remember instructions, reverse instructions, or inhibit an obvious reaction and do something different, have positive effects for self-regulation and executive function. Aerobic exercise in general supports cognitive function.

Neuroscience demonstrates the importance of nighttime sleep for consolidating learning. Experiments show that what people learn just before going to bed is better retained than what is learned during the day. Sleep, particularly consolidated sleep at night, is essential for all cognitive function and for learning, as well as for health and wellbeing. This can mean that daytime naps for children older than three years old are detrimental, especially if they impact on the quality of their nighttime sleep.

Neuroscience shows children with learning problems associated with developmental differences in brain function are still able to learn and overcome differences. Although some kinds of learning (such as toilet training, or learning to read) are not possible before certain areas of the brain develop, the brain is highly adaptable and can develop across the life span and compensate for damage caused by injuries (in early development differences might be due to traumatic births or minor brain injuries, for example). Learning difficulties can be remediated through intervention and support.

Neuroscience does demonstrate that extended rehearsal of some mental processes can change the shape and structure of parts of the brain. For example, choir musicians and childhood musicians who rehearse regularly show different structures and functions and increased grey matter in their brain scans. This is the nature of learning, which means that experience, practice, and rehearsal are important in early childhood pedagogy.

Neuroscience does not support ideas that children should acquire their native language before a second language. There is no research evidence to suggest that learning two or more languages sequentially is any better than learning two or more languages concurrently. Very young children can develop multiple languages simultaneously with no long term impact on any of their language skills at all. In fact, there are benefits from multilingualism, in that multilingual people, like musicians, have brains with positive structural and functional differences in areas such as executive function.

A caveat: Neuroscience facts need to be translated for pedagogy and curriculum. Teachers need to employ neuroscience with reference to their practice wisdom and practice knowledge, and decide what it all means for the children they teach.

Further resources

Cesario, J., Johnson, D. J., & Eisthen, H. (2020). Your brain is not an onion with a tiny reptile inside. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29 (3). https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0963721420917687

McKay, S. (2020, June 24). Rethinking the Reptilian Brain. https://drsarahmckay.com/rethinking-the-reptilian-brain/

Williams, K. E., Burr, T., L’Estrange, L., & Walsh, K. (2025). Early childhood educators’ use of neuroscience: Knowledge, attitudes, self-efficacy and professional learning.Trends in Neuroscience and Education 38, 100247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2025.100247