The second most common neuromyth in education is the idea that learning occurs differently in

the left and right brains. We dispel this myth in this post by separating fact from fiction. In fact,
each hemisphere has dominance in the processing of particular cognitive functions. Individual
traits and learning capacities, however, cannot be divided between the left and right brains. Any
sort of learning requires the entire brain, but there are also significant individual variances in the
hemisphere specialization of any given function. The hallmark of effective teaching is engaging
each student's entire brain rather than categorizing or adjusting teachings to their left or right
brain (Dajung et al., 2022).

According to modern scholars (Maslova et al., 2020, as cited by Tyurina and Stavkova 2020),
one of the key causes of the global planetary crisis, and specifically the latest learning system, is
the violation of nature's guiding principles in the process of perception and cognition of the
world. This violation is influenced by the benefits of rational and logical thinking development
and the inadequate advancement of metaphorical, spiritual, and intuitive thinking in the modern
school of all.

We examine recent curricula claiming to be based on neuroscience research, discuss the

implications of such misinterpretations for special education, show how neuroscience actually
supports many traditional teaching methods, and suggest ways to foster a more accurate
understanding of neuroscience research and its potential for application in the special education
classroom ( Alferink, L. A., & Farmer-Dougan, V., 2010)

In order to ensure the execution of high-quality teachings, teachers play a crucial role. As a
result, in order to get pupils interested in the material being taught, teachers must be able to
design an engaging learning experience. The benefits of the VARK (Visual, Aural, Reading or
Writing, and Kinesthetic) model as an efficient learning style. (Othman, N., & Amiruddin, M. H.,
2010).

Research on the neurophysiological mechanisms behind innovation has produced conflicting

findings over the past 20 years. Although left-hemisphere dominance has also been documented,
the majority of studies point to right-hemisphere dominance in innovative thinking. In order to
determine how creative thinking relates to relative hemisphere dominance, the current study is a
meta-analytic evaluation of the related literature. The investigation was conducted using a
non-parametric vote-counting methodology, and Cramer's phi effect-size estimations indicate
that the right hemisphere is relatively more dominant during creative thought. According to
moderator analyses, no distinction was seen in the predominant right-hemispheric activity for
verbal versus figurative activities, holistic versus analytical tasks, or context-dependent versus
context-independent tasks. (Mihov, K. M., Denzler, M., & Förster, J., 2010).