Physiology faculty and student contributions to schoolteacher training in neuroscience: innovations during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Research investigating how the brain develops and learns profoundly impacts education. Understanding the brain mechanisms responsible for learning and memory and the factors that influence them, such as age, environment, emotions, and motivation, can transform educational strategies by contributing to the development of programs that optimize learning. Including neuroscience education in teachers' training requires teaching them a multidisciplinary approach to science, which presents a challenge. Furthermore, the potential educational advances from the incorporation of neuroscience into teachers' training are hindered by significant obstacles such as translating research into the classroom; this includes the spread of neuromyths and the products, practices, and programs based on them. Our group has 9 years of experience in developing courses for training teachers. However, in 2020 the world faced the COVID-19 pandemic, which imposed on society a new way of carrying out its daily activities, including teaching. This study reports the experiences of our group as we developed the ninth edition of the Neuroscience Applied to Education teachers' training in an online format that included synchronous and asynchronous activities. Sixty teachers participated in the course. The synchronous meetings lasted 1.5 h/wk and addressed different themes: neuroscience and education, neuroanatomy, neurophysiology, neurobiology of learning and memory, factors that interfere with learning, and pedagogical innovation. According to the teachers' perceptions, the course was fundamental for them in terms of acquiring new knowledge about neuroscience. Everyone agreed on the possible applicability of the concepts covered to improve their pedagogical practice and teaching environment.NEW & NOTEWORTHY This study reports the experience of developing the ninth edition of the Neuroscience Applied to Education course in an online format that included synchronous and asynchronous activities. Here we show that schoolteachers consider the course important for acquiring new knowledge about neuroscience and the applicability of the concepts covered to improve their pedagogical practice and teaching environment. The online format did not prejudice the experience, and the technologies used were well evaluated.

INTRODUCTION

Neuroscience as a research topic has grown from the study of anatomy, physiology, chemistry, biophysics, and psychology to an interdisciplinary field that encompasses all these aspects to study the nervous system (NS) (1). Research that investigates how the brain develops and learns can profoundly impact education. Understanding the brain mechanisms responsible for learning and memory and the factors that influence them, such as age, environment, emotion, and motivation, can transform educational strategies by developing programs that optimize learning (2, 3).

In the last 20 years, educational neuroscience has advanced widely (4) and has contributed to the theoretical renewal of teacher education, adding essential scientific information for a better understanding of learning (5). The need to inform teachers about learning and memory at the cellular and circuit levels is of great importance for educational neuroscience (4). However, this need does not mean that neuroscientists know how teachers should use this knowledge or that they should dictate the application of this knowledge; however, they can act as a bridge between neuroscientific information and educators. In other words, neuroscience and education should work together. In this sense, it is also essential that scientific discoveries be adequately disseminated to the population, so they can acquire scientific knowledge and realize how present it is in their surroundings.

In our contemporary society that has broad access to information, teachers repeatedly express their desire to better understand how the brain works and how learning occurs (4). The need to understand this is especially important as it affects not only educators but also their students’ performance (6). Including neuroscience in teachers’ formation fundamentally means teaching a multidisciplinary approach to science (7), which represents a challenge. Furthermore, educational advances from the careful application of neuroscience face significant obstacles in translating research into the classroom; this includes the spread of neuromyths and the products, practices, and programs based on them (8).

Educational neuromyths are misconceptions about the mind and brain, especially regarding learning (9). The dissemination of this false information can lead to the use of ineffective and non-evidence-based teaching programs and practices, with serious adverse effects on educational systems and student outcomes around the world (10). To bring teachers closer to neuroscience and correct misconceptions and mistaken concepts related to neuroscience, several research groups in the field are taking actions that aim to expand the frontiers of scientific knowledge (7, 10, 11).

Research centers and programs that combine neuroscience and education are forming around the world, such as the Science of Learning Program (https://solportal.ibe-unesco.org), a joint action of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the International Brain Research Organization (IBRO), which connects neuroscientists from different parts of the world who work in the area and presents technical briefs on relevant neuroscience topics with clear implications for educational policy, teaching, and learning to help develop twenty-first century educational systems on how individuals learn that are supported by concrete evidence. Although the individual approaches in these centers vary, there is a shared appreciation of the difficulty of the challenge ahead, the stark differences in concepts and language between neuroscience and education, and the need for neuroscientists and educators to work together as they attempt to bridge these two disciplines (12).

Contributing to the transformation of education systems, our research group has been developing for 9 years the teachers’ training course on neuroscience applied to education, aimed at schoolteachers from the city of Uruguaiana, RS, Brazil. Until 2019, all the courses were performed with a face-to-face approach. Theoretical-practical classes were prepared and monitored by a team of university faculties and students (graduate and undergraduate), highlighting the important social role of the university to the community. By involving active methodologies and investigative practices with workshops, case studies, and experiences, among others, in a dialectical-dialogical methodological perspective, we attempted to promote the intense participation of teachers in pedagogical proposals with neuroscience support. As reported in previous publications, the course significantly impacted teachers’ professional practice (13, 14).

However, in 2020 the world faced the COVID-19 pandemic, which imposed on society a new way of carrying out its daily activities, including teaching activities (15); thus, we had two options: not offer the course or propose an online edition. Despite the characteristics of the activities that we developed in the previous editions of the course that made an online course challenging, we opted for the second option. Considering that evaluating the impact of continuing education training in neuroeducation is fundamental to broadening the knowledge on a given subject, which enables the continuous updating of the professional, we chose to report the experience of developing the ninth edition of the Neuroscience Applied to Education teachers’ training in an online format.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Participants and the General Structure of the Course

The ninth edition of the Neuroscience Applied to Education teachers’ training course was developed entirely online, lasting 5 weeks (with 3 synchronous meetings of 1.5 h and asynchronous activities per week) between October and November 2020. The course was announced through the social networks of the POPNEURO Program (the name of the course promoter group), such as Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/gpfis.neurociencianaescola) and Instagram (https://www.instagram.com/programapopneuro/), and the university website. In addition, the course had a website on which general information could be found (https://gpfisunipampa2.wixsite.com/meusite). Registration for participation in the program required filling out an online form on Google Docs that included questions addressing the teacher’s previous contact with neuroscience, their motivations for participating in the course, and their perspectives about it. The course was offered to schoolteachers who had not participated in previous editions of the course or in Neuroscience Applied to Education, another formative opportunity coordinated by our group. Participation in the course did not require training in specific areas and prior knowledge in subjects related to neuroscience. A maximum number of participants was imposed to provide a welcoming and interactive environment.

The course had 60 spots, and we received a total of 127 registrations in 1 month. The first 60 registrants who fulfilled the prerequisites were able to participate in the course, and the rest were added to a list of substitutes, called up if one of those selected dropped out. The characteristics of the registrants, considering education and teaching, are described in Table 1. Among the participants, 56 were women and 4 were men, with a mean age of 38 ± 8.48 yr.

Table 1.

Characteristics of the teachers registered in the IX Course on Neuroscience Applied to Education, considering their initial formation and current teaching practice

Teachers’ Initial Formation	%	Current Professional Practice Area	%	Characteristics of the School in Which the Teacher Acts	%	Teaching Experience Time, yr	%
Pedagogy	50	Special education	3.3	Public—municipal	60	<1	11.6
Language teacher	13.3	Kindergarten	25	Public—state	16.7	1–5	16.7
Physical education	6.7	Elementary school	38.3	Private	20	6–10	35
Administration	6.7	Middle school	21.7	Public—municipal and state	3.3	>10	36.7
Biological sciences and nature science	6.7	High school	5
History and geography	6.6	Management/school coordination	6.7
Philosophy	1.7
Special education	6.6
Mathematics	1.7

n = 60 registrants.

The course proposal included activities performed during October and November 2020, totaling 20 h. This proposal was approved by the Institutional Outreach Committee (Institutional Review Board no. 10/016.20), and all participants agreed to participate and provided informed consent by Googleforms.

Course Design

The course included synchronous and asynchronous activities. The synchronous meetings lasted 1.5 h, except for the weeks in which two content topics were discussed, when they lasted 3 h, carried out on the online web conference platform Google Meet (Table 2). The meetings were conducted by members of the POPNEURO group, including university faculty and students (graduate and undergraduate). We tried to offer a welcoming and interactive virtual environment, where the participants could interact both with the organizing committee and with the other teachers via a chat or WhatsApp group, and we always tried to keep them motivated during the course.

Table 2.

Synchronous and asynchronous activities proposed in the online Neuroscience Applied to Education course, considering each thematic addressed

Week	Thematic	Synchronous Content and Recourses (1.5-3 h/wk)	Asynchronous Activity
1	Introduction to Neuroscience	Introduction to the theme and aim of the course, core concepts, and history of the group involved in organizing the course	The participants were invited to read an article and share their impressions on Padlet.
		Presentation of the online tools used in the activities: Google Meet, Mentimeter, Lt platform, Padlet, and Mentimeter
	Neuroanatomy	The nervous system’s organization (central and peripheral nervous system) and general functions	Review lesson about the content on the Lt platform (Fig. 1)
		The participants were asked to be prepared for interactive questions on these topics through the Mentimeter at the synchronous meeting by Google Meet.	Example of Lt activity: Challenge—Make a colorful drawing or concept map with the brain lobes or cells of the nervous system and post it on Instagram tagging @propramapopneuro.
2	Neurophysiology	The cells of the nervous system and their main functions; the action potential, chemical and electrical synapses, and the role of neurotransmitters; main aspects of the nervous system’s complex functions, highlighting some of them, such as language and lateralization, reading, and numeracy	Review lesson about the content on the Lt platform (Fig. 1)Example of Lt activity: Based on an illustration, using virtual cards, indicate the parts of a neuron and the direction of an action potential.
		The participants were asked to be prepared for interactive questions on these topics through the Mentimeter at the synchronous meeting by Google Meet.
	Neurobiology of Learning and Memory	Learning, memory, and the main regions of the nervous system are involved in these processes.	Review lesson about the content on the Lt platform (Fig. 1)
		The participants were asked to be prepared for interactive questions on these topics through the Mentimeter at the synchronous meeting by Google Meet. After the theoretical explanation, an interactive game (“Neuroquiz”) was proposed to the participants with the Mentimeter.	Example of Lt activity: Essay question—After a discussion about that in the online meeting, do you believe that the process of reconsolidation is important for student learning? Why do you think so?
3	Factors that Interfere with Learning and Memory	Factors that can interfere with learning and memory: emotions, sleep, attention, motivation, context, and methods	Review lesson about the content on the Lt platform (Fig. 1).
		The participants were asked to be prepared for interactive questions on these topics through the Mentimeter at the synchronous meeting by Google Meet. After the theoretical explanation, the participants should use the Google Meet chat to answer a practical activity question, relating it to attention. After watching a video, the participants were asked: “Can you identify all the changes that occur in the video? Yes? No?”	Example of Lt activity: Essay Question—Considering the role of motivation, context, and teaching methods in the learning process, along with what was discussed during the course, describe what “your” ideal teaching plan would look like for learning in your students’ context.
		Since it is expected that most of them were not able to identify changes, we asked: “In your opinion, why couldn't you identify all the changes in the video?”
4/5	Pedagogical Innovation and Neuroscience	Neuroscience applied to education concepts from a perspective of pedagogical innovation, considering educational practices	Papers were shared in Padlet. A letter, using the knowledge obtained in the course was produced by the participants to synthesize their view of pedagogical innovation and neuroscience relationship.
		A video was shown to the participants as a reflection and introduction to the asynchronous activity. During a presentation, the participants were stimulated to correlate neuroscience and education concepts to improve the teaching-learning process.
		Between the two meetings, the participants were asked to construct a letter describing their perspective on neuroscience’s contribution to pedagogical innovation. In the second meeting, a reading round and a collective discussion of the results of the motivational letter were made.

The synchronous meetings were conducted as lectures with an interactive format. We began each meeting with an introduction, using interactive questions (by Mentimeter) to verify the participants’ previous knowledge about the theme, and then presented the content with slides in PowerPoint or Canva presentation (sharing the screen). The participants were asked to be attentive so that they could answer any question by accessing Mentimeter during the class. The questions used during the class tried to apply the neuroscience knowledge to the teachers’ classroom practice.

At the end of the synchronous meeting, the participants received an orientation about the asynchronous activities, which basically involved revision activities on the theme studied in the synchronous meeting. The asynchronous activities were carried out with web-based applications/teaching platforms that allow interactive activities, such as quizzes and the construction of materials in the Cloud, to improve engagement in online activities. All the online platforms used were presented to the teachers in the first meeting so that they could know the platforms and answer questions about them.

Except for the first and the last theme taught, we used the Lt platform (https://www.adinstruments.com/lt) in the asynchronous activities (Fig. 1 and Table 2), which allowed content creation and had self-evaluation tools for the students. Our course in Lt included lessons with interactive activities to be completed, multiple-choice questions, open questions, complementary videos and audios, and other recourses. A critical characteristic of this interactive tool is that it has the option of programming immediate feedback to the user, which allows self-evaluation and better comprehension of the contents. The Lt activities were to be finished by the next meeting. Lt is a paid platform but was available for free during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Figure 1.

Examples of the ADInstruments Lt platform interactive activities. A: interactive activity about neuroanatomy: conceptualizing the afferent and efferent pathways of the nervous system (NS). In this interactive question, the user could drag the option to the empty box and complete the image, in addition to marking the corresponding option, as shown in the example. B: interactive activity of NS cells: the main parts of a neuron and their functions. The main goal was to recall how a neuron is constituted and indicate in the figure what corresponds to each part of the neuron, dragging the correct answer into the corresponding gaps; the direction of the action potential is highlighted. C: multiple-choice question about learning and memory: the emphasis was on working on the mechanisms involved in memory persistence, emphasizing which memories are easier to evoke (recall) and the role of emotional awareness. D: activity in which the teacher was asked to write about his ideal teaching plan for learning in the context of his students; it is expected that the teacher considers the role of motivation, context, and teaching methods in the learning process, according to what was discussed during the course.

For the reading and sharing activities proposed for the first and the last theme worked, we used the Padlet platform (https://pt-br.padlet.com), which allows users to share collaborative boards and murals. For this purpose, we created a virtual library for the course (https://padlet.com/gpfisunipampa/6li4ri1nekh21obv), where teachers could have access to several scientific articles in the area of neuroeducation, such as “The neurobiological base of learning in the context of the Freire thematic research,” “Neuroscience and education: from research to practice?,” and “Neuroscience and education: prime time to build the bridge,” among others. We use the free version of Padlet, which is compatible with several file formats, including text, image, video, and links. Considering the new regimes of hybrid work and study or home office, this type of software has gained even more strength with the pandemic.

Course Evaluation

To measure the participants’ previous knowledge about neuroscience, as well as to understand their expectations regarding the course offered, we applied a questionnaire that we asked participants to answer before the beginning of the course. At the end of the course, a new questionnaire was given to the participants to check their perception of learning, as well as the evolution of their level of knowledge regarding neuroscience applied to education. This questionnaire also assessed how much the course helped the participants to remain active in their activities during the pandemic period. Both questionnaires were administered with an online form (Google Forms). The results obtained are presented as the mean and standard deviation and relative (%) and absolute (n) frequency and were analyzed with the chi-square (χ2) test or one-way ANOVA. The differences were considered statistically significant when P < 0.05.

RESULTS

Before the course, most participants classified their self-perceived knowledge about topics related to neuroscience applied to education as limited (56.7%; n = 34), despite showing interest in the subject and seeking to keep themselves updated. When we asked about the sources of information they used to be updated in this subject, most of them said they used to read websites and social networks (84.4%; n = 34). However, 15.4% (n = 26) reported the practice of learning through scientific articles. We also asked them about their initial motivation and perspective on the course; most of them (90%, n = 54) revealed that they were looking for professional improvement and deepening their knowledge related to neuroeducation, in addition to curiosity and interest in the subject.

Considering the total number of participants (n = 60), 46.6% (n = 27) of the registered teachers answered the final evaluation questionnaire, whose results are described in Table 3.

Table 3.

Evaluation of the course by the teachers who completed the course

		Yes	No	Partially	χ2 Test to Test Adherence	P Value
1	Do you consider that the course in the online format was delivered using quality interactive multimedia resources?	100% (n = 27)
2	Did the classes and discussions generated in the course stimulate new ideas for your teaching field?	100% (n = 27)
3	Were the topics covered in the classes relevant to your professional practice?	96.3% (n = 26)	0	3.7% (n = 1)	23,148	>0.001
4	Did you have any difficulty accessing/participating in the activities?	3.7% (n = 1)	85.2% (n = 23)	11.1% (n = 3)	32,889	>0.001
5	Were you able to participate in the interactive activities, such as meet chat, Mentimeter, Google Forms, and Padlet?	92.6% (n = 25)	0	7.4% (n = 2)	19,593	>0.001
6	Did you participate in the class by making contributions and asking questions via chat or orally?	77.8% (n = 21)	22.2% (n = 6)	0	8,333	0.005
7	Do you think that asynchronous activities contributed to the learning consolidation of the content covered during synchronous activities?	96.3% (n = 26)	0	3.7% (n = 1)	23,148	>0.001
8	Did you feel motivated to do the proposed activities?	92.6% (n = 25)	0	7.4% (n = 2)	19,593	>0.001
9	Were the examples used understandable, relevant, and consistent with the main concepts and objectives of the course?	100% (n = 27)
10	Was the vocabulary used in the presentations accurate, being “translated” and explained when necessary?	88.9% (n = 24)	0	11.1% (n = 3)	16,333	>0.001
11	Would you recommend the course to your colleagues?	100% (n = 27)
12	Considering your experience with the Applied Neuroscience for Education course, would you participate in other online courses?	96.3% (n = 26)	3.7% (n = 1)	0	23,148	>0.001
13	Did the course meet your expectations?	100% (n = 27)

n = 27 course participantes; relative (%) and absolute (n) frequency of responses.

There was consensus among the participants that the online course employed quality multimedia and interactive resources and relevant examples, consistent with the main concepts and objectives of the course (Table 3; question 1). According to their initial expectations, the lessons and discussions generated in the course stimulated new ideas for their work areas and were considered relevant to their professional practice (Table 3; questions 2 and 3).

Most of the teachers who participated in the course affirmed that they had not had any difficulty in the course activities. However, they indicated that they sometimes experienced technical problems, such as personal internet connection problems during synchronous activities and challenges due to unfamiliarity with the Lt platform in the first weeks (Table 3; question 4). Regarding the interactive activities, such as the use of Google Meet chat, Mentimeter, Padlet, and Google Forms, most of the teachers stated that they did not have any difficulties using them (Table 3; question 5). Teachers mentioned that they could contribute during the activities and ask questions via chat or orally (Table 3; question 6). Moreover, they considered that the asynchronous activities contributed to the consolidation of the content covered during synchronous activities, motivating them to perform the proposed activities (Table 3; questions 7 and 8). The teachers affirmed that the examples used to contextualize neuroscience in the educational context during the course were understandable, relevant, and consistent with the main objectives of the course (Table 3; question 9); additionally, they affirmed that the vocabulary used by the speakers was accurate and, when necessary, the specific neuroscience terms were “translated” from neuroscience to education vocabulary (Table 3; question 10).

Regarding the different online teaching tools used, the teachers quantified each of the tools’ contribution degrees, using a scale from 0 to 10 (where 0 means does not contribute and 10 means contributes a lot; Fig. 2). The results obtained are expressed as the mean and standard deviation. The teachers stated that all the online tools had a great contribution to their learning experience, and the tools received good evaluations: 9.55 ± 1.36 for Google Meet, 9.40 ± 1.47 for Google Forms, 9.55 ± 1.39 for Lt, 9.44 ± 1.47 for Mentimeter, and 9.40 ± 1.52 for Padlet; there was no significant difference in the platform evaluations (P > 0.05; one-way ANOVA). On the other hand, despite the teachers considering the platforms’ contributions relevant, some of them experienced difficulties in asynchronous activities; the difficulty level was 5.14 ± 2.55. All the teachers (n = 27) said they were able to follow the themes discussed in the synchronous meetings and participated in the asynchronous activities.

Figure 2.

Teachers’ evaluation of the contribution of the main online teaching tool/platforms used during the course. Data are presented as medians ± SD (n = 27 course participants; one-way ANOVA; P > 0.05).

To evaluate whether the course helped the participating teachers acquire knowledge of the proposed themes, we requested an attribution of the level of self-perceived knowledge on the theme of each meeting, using a scale of 0 to 10 (0 was poor knowledge, and 10 was excellent; Fig. 3). The mean and standard deviation values obtained were, respectively, 9.0 ± 1.63 for “Introduction to Neuroscience,” 8.66 ± 1.77 for “Neuroanatomy” and “Neurophysiology,” 8.85 ± 1.72 for “Neurobiology of Learning and Memory,” 9.07 ± 1.59 for “Factors that Influence Memory,” and 8.92 ± 1.73 for “Pedagogical Innovation and Neuroscience.” There was no significant difference in the level of sef-perceived knowledge between the different themes/meetings (P > 0.05; one-way ANOVA).

Figure 3.

Teachers’ self-perception of their knowledge about the neuroscience topics addressed during the course. A scale from 1 (low) to 10 (high) was used, and teachers were asked to self-declare their perceived knowledge level. Data are presented as medians ± SD (n = 27 course participants; one-way ANOVA; P > 0.05).

Among the positive elements of this online edition of our training, the use of new technologies and class dynamics were the most cited by the teachers (59.2% of participants; Fig. 4); the most-cited negative point was the short duration of the course (48.1% of participants; Fig. 4). Other points were also mentioned, as shown in Fig. 4. Some teachers also provided testimonials on how they expected the training to impact their teaching practice. Below, we highlight some of them:

Figure 4.

Positive (A) and negative aspects (B) of the IX Course on Neuroscience Applied to Education cited by the participants (N = 27). Data are presented as the relative frequency of responses (%; n = 27 course participants).

“Pedagogical innovation! It is possible to teach and enable learning for all students by relating with neuroscience!”

“All the knowledge was essential; the topic about pedagogical innovations with neuroscience made me think a lot about teaching practice. It is fundamental to innovate, and yes, it is possible to propose neuroscience-based practice in the classroom. About learning and memory, I found it is fundamental for the teacher to have this contact and knowledge.”

“I am impressed by how much neuroscience approaches education and learning!”

Finally, we asked whether the teachers would participate in other online courses considering their experience with this edition of the Neuroscience Applied to Education course. Unanimously, 100% of them said they would participate and recommend the course to their colleagues (Table 3; questions 11 and 12).

DISCUSSION

The inclusion of neuroscience in teachers’ training can contribute to the school environment and students’ learning. The understanding of the brain’s organization and functions, its development throughout life, as well as the responses of the nervous system (NS) to pedagogical interventions and how the use of information and communication technologies can contribute to the educator’s daily life with the learner are of great importance (16).

There is a growing interest in applying neuroscientific findings to educational theory, practice, and policy. Many educators are optimistic about better understanding the processes involved in learning and the delivery of instruction (17). However, the inclusion of neuroscience-related topics in educators’ initial training is still minimal and thus insufficiently impacts teachers’ practices (18). Neuroscience literacy is fundamental for educators to understand the brain’s functioning mechanism and, with this knowledge, promote teaching strategies that optimize the learning, implementing better teaching activities (19, 20). Another aspect to consider is that the understanding of physiological data, such as heart rate, breathing, and pupil contraction/dilation, can help teachers judge the physical discomfort, fear, or reluctance of students (21).

The inclusion of neuroscience in teacher education and its consideration in the school organization is important, and it brings contributions both to the school community and to neuroscientists. Understanding the neurobiology of learning and memory and assessing prior knowledge by building a smart classroom culture where constructive explanations and interpretations are practiced to recognize misconceptions moves teachers toward student-centered practices. Moreover, understanding physiological factors, along with social, environmental, and other factors, helps teachers to understand performance problems, failure, dropout, or evasion and to visualize insights into possible strategies to avoid such situations. Combining environmental stimuli with students’ experiences to favor learning is fundamental (22). Good conduct of the teaching and learning process contributes to the activation process of cortical areas, stimulating neuroplasticity. It is also important that students have some basic knowledge about brain physiology to develop lifelong learning skills so that they can enrich their own scientific knowledge.

In our course, we emphasize the importance of understanding some basic concepts of the anatomy, physiology, and neurobiological mechanisms of the brain, which allows, for example, the understanding of how emotional and social factors influence it. Before the course, we verified that most of the teachers (56.7%) classified their neuroscience knowledge as limited; on the other hand, in the final evaluation teachers who completed the course stated that their knowledge of the different neuroscience topics addressed in the course was between 8.8 and 9.07, which makes us infer that their knowledge improved.

Although teachers hope to use neuroscience research findings to change the teaching process, it is undeniable that teachers’ practical level and understanding of neuroeducation are still limited. This fact makes us reflect on how we need to communicate the neuroscience knowledge that is relevant to education in a way that the public can understand and use this to guide their practice. In addition to trying to do this in our course, we intended to use different teaching tools to support the teachers in finding the learning objectives, customize the content according to the group of participants, and facilitate inclusion by adopting different ways of representing the same concept.

New learning technologies, tools, and platforms can provide new ways of enhancement and generate better experiences (23). With the conditions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic, it is even more critical to seek new technologies and conduct professional development to improve educational quality, promote reform, and rebuild education (24). Online platforms for teacher training in the neuroscience of learning have already been used in several places (12), including by our group, in 2020. They are important resources with the potential for quality teaching and learning. In addition, the integration of technologies into teaching practice contributes to participants being directed on the path to becoming effective autonomous lifelong learners (25).

In a previous study, our group reported that technology improves learning outcomes in neuroscience; however, this study addressed the use of these tools (Lt, Mentimeter, among others) with undergraduate students (26). Here, we demonstrated that these resources are also helpful to promote teacher training in neuroscience since the teachers’ evaluation of the online course was positive. In our meetings, we tried to guide the participants and select the best tools and appropriate practices based on clear learning objectives. We observed that the teachers did not have a preference for the online resources used, even though some of them reported some degree of difficulty with the Lt platform. However, although these technologies provide powerful tools, it is essential to highlight that they are just tools and optimization of the learning environment still depends on the teacher (26).

Our results reveal that the availability of an online course related to neuroeducation is a possible alternative to in-person training that is easy to access and participate in. Therefore, it is important to highlight that our course was designed to provide teachers with neuroscience concepts and their application in teaching practice through multimodal strategies to stimulate participation through scientific-based information. The idea was to stimulate teachers to consider scientific evidence and reliable information sources when they are looking for neuroscience information, avoiding, in this sense, neuromyth dissemination. Additionally, the course contemplates the participation of teachers from all over Brazil, and it should be considered that teachers previously evaluated their knowledge on the theme as limited.

This was our first experience in offering this course, which was formatted for schoolteachers, in an online format. We tried to use different platforms and teaching tools to help teachers understand and relate concepts of neuroscience applied to education. According to their reports, we assume that we have achieved these goals. However, it is important to highlight that a limiting factor in the evaluation here is that we did not apply questionnaires to directly quantify the participants’ neuroscience knowledge before and after the course and we asked about their self-perception of it. Even though we only asked self-perception questions, our data are in line with the results that we found in a previous edition of our face-to-face course (13), when teachers considered that the course provided important contributions to effective learning in school, highlighting that some of the topics and methodologies used were unknown by them before the course.

The impacts measured in this online edition of our course corroborate those found in another prepandemic face-to-face edition (14), when the teachers’ self-perceived knowledge of neuroscience themes increased significantly. Those data are similar to the results obtained in this study, so it is important to emphasize that the teachers considered this course format appropriate and would participate in another online course. We believe that the objective of the course, which was to promote the training of schoolteachers in neuroscience, was achieved.

It is important to highlight that actions such as this are beneficial not only for the course attendees but also for all those involved in promoting the course, including undergraduate and graduate students. These activities allow students to be involved in all stages of the course organization, and with this, they experience new ways of learning beyond what is offered in the university classroom. Furthermore, several concepts related to brain functions and to factors that can guarantee or contribute to the maintenance or improvement of mental health, if disseminated among teachers, students, and the community in general, can contribute to a better quality of life, health, and education. This possibility is especially relevant currently, in a time where the mental health of those involved in the educational process is affected because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Conclusions

This was the first edition of the Neuroscience Applied to Education course, designed by faculties for schoolteachers, offered in an online format. The theme and aspects of the course were considered important and valuable for teaching practice, and the participating teachers accepted the online form and the virtual tools well. Although we did not provide a direct measure of the training contribution to teachers’ neuroscience knowledge, we did measure their perception regarding the knowledge they gained and the course’s contribution to their teaching practice, which is an important aspect to consider. These results will help plan future editions of this type of course, and the suggestions obtained in the feedback, such as those requesting that the duration of the course be longer, will be especially helpful.

GRANTS

The reported course was supported by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do RS (FAPERGS)/Brazil, Pró-Reitoria de Extensão (PROEXT) from Federal University of Pampa/RS, and Brazilian Physiological Society. A.L.T.T. was supported by the Federal University of Pampa/Brazil and Instituto Sua Ciência/Brazil. P.M.S. was supported by CAPES/Brazil. P.B.M.-C. was supported by CNPq/Brazil and the Federal University of Pampa/Brazil.

DISCLOSURES

No conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, are declared by the authors.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

A.T.T. and P.B.M.-C. conceived and designed research; A.T.T. and P.B.M.-C. performed experiments; A.T.T. and P.M.S. analyzed data; A.T.T., P.M.S., and P.B.M.-C. interpreted results of experiments; A.T.T. prepared figures; A.T.T. and P.B.M.-C. drafted manuscript; A.T.T., P.M.S., and P.B.M.-C. edited and revised manuscript; A.T.T., P.M.S., and P.B.M.-C. approved final version of manuscript.