## Key Ideas > [!abstract] Core Concepts > > - **Pseudoscientific Claims**: Propositions about brain function that lack research evidence despite seeming plausible > - **Learning Styles Myth**: No evidence supports matching teaching to preferred learning styles; harms students through limited practice > - **Brain Hemisphere Myth**: All cognitive skills employ networks across both brain hemispheres simultaneously ## Definition **Neuromyths**: Propositions about how the brain works that may be supported by psychological theories but lack research evidence, often leading to ineffective educational practices. ## Connected to [[Ability Grouping]] | [[Concrete Pictorial Abstract]] | [[What Research can you Trust]] --- ## Learning styles myth The learning styles myth persists despite overwhelming evidence against it. Its appeal lies in surface plausibility - people do have preferences - but preferences do not constitute learning requirements. ### The false claim Individuals have different learning styles (visual, auditory, kinaesthetic) and teaching should match these preferred styles for optimal learning. ### The research reality Multiple studies have tested whether matching teaching techniques to preferred styles improves learning. None have found supporting evidence. Whilst individual preferences exist, preferences do not translate to improved learning outcomes. Enjoying visual presentations does not mean learning better from them. Presenting material in a single modality based on questionnaires creates weaknesses through lack of practice with other presentation types. Students labelled "kinaesthetic learners" develop difficulties with written material because they have been denied practice with it. This represents a self-fulfilling prophecy rather than an inherent limitation. ### Educational harm The learning styles myth harms students by limiting their development. Students miss opportunities to develop skills in different modalities when teachers avoid certain presentation methods. This reduces challenge and limits student growth. Students develop limiting beliefs about their capabilities based on false labels. Teachers create visual, auditory, and kinaesthetic versions of lessons, tripling preparation time, for an approach with zero evidence of effectiveness. Research explicitly documents: "All those years when teachers were told they needed to produce resources in multiple different formats to help students with different learning styles did nothing more than increase teacher workload and take time away from valuable activity, without improving learning" (Chartered College of Teaching). Time and effort spent on ineffective differentiation strategies waste resources whilst contributing to unsustainable teacher workload. International prevalence is stunning: UK 93%, Turkey 95%, Netherlands 96%, China 97% (Dekker et al., 2012). Despite overwhelming evidence against learning styles (Pashler et al., 2008; Willingham et al., 2015), the myth persists as a designated "neuromyth" by the neuroscience community, yet 89-97% of teachers across countries continue to believe in them. ### Evidence-based alternative Learning styles should be replaced with methods that improve learning for all students. Dual-coding theory shows that everyone thinks with both visual and verbal systems and benefits from using both together. Best practice involves concentrating on finding the optimal modality for each concept being taught, using [[Concrete Pictorial Abstract|multiple representations]] when appropriate for content, and providing practice across different presentation types. ## Left brain vs right brain myth This myth oversimplifies neurological complexity into a false dichotomy. ### The false claim The two brain hemispheres learn differently, with the left brain being logical and analytical whilst the right brain is creative and artistic. ### The research reality Healthy individuals have extensive fibre connections linking both hemispheres. Every cognitive skill investigated through neuroimaging employs brain regions spread across both hemispheres, including language and reading. Even functions with hemisphere preferences require both sides working together. Some functions show hemisphere preferences (language is typically left-hemisphere dominant in right-handed people), but this does not support different learning styles. Preference is not exclusivity. No evidence supports any type of learning being specific to one brain side. ## 10% brain use myth This myth appeals to desires for easy improvement. ### The false claim Humans only use 10% of their brains at any given time, suggesting vast untapped potential. ### The research reality Neuroscience research shows that every brain part has a known function. Brain imaging scans reveal that even simple tasks engage multiple areas across the entire brain. This myth persists through misunderstandings about brain function. Teaching strategies based on "unlocking unused brain potential" lack scientific foundation. ## Critical periods myth Confusing sensitive periods (when learning is easier) with critical periods (when learning is only possible) leads to abandoning learners who missed optimal windows. ### The false claim Specific, narrow critical periods exist in childhood during which certain skills must be learnt, or the opportunity is permanently lost. ### The research reality Whilst sensitive periods exist when the brain is receptive to learning certain skills, learning can occur at any age. The brain remains plastic throughout life. Early learning may be optimal for some skills, but rarely essential with instruction and practice. The adult brain remains capable of learning given appropriate teaching. Instruction for older learners who missed "critical" periods should not be abandoned. Intensive instruction can overcome developmental limitations. The focus should be on quality teaching rather than age-based restrictions. ## Behaviour and learning myths These myths extend reasonable principles into unhelpful extremes. ### "All behaviour caused by unmet need" Considering causes of challenging behaviour can be useful for long-term support strategies. However, this oversimplification turns a useful diagnostic lens into an excuse for abandoning instructional time. Not all needs should be met during instructional time. Attention-seeking behaviour does not require attention during maths lessons. The middle of a lesson is not an appropriate time for psychological diagnosis. ### "Children naturally want to learn" This confuses natural curiosity with motivation to engage in difficult academic work. No evidence supports the view that children naturally want to learn everything. Thinking hard is difficult. Children do not naturally gravitate towards challenging academic subjects. Few children naturally want to learn about abstract concepts like rock properties. ### "Build relationship for behaviour" Whilst relationships matter, framing them as behaviour management tools misunderstands their purpose. Suggesting students only behave for people they like is reductive. Students should behave regardless of relationship status. Respect and dignity should be expected standards. Cover teachers deserve the same behavioural respect as regular teachers. Relationships should be built because they matter, not as behaviour management tools. ## Media myths: the delivery vehicle fallacy Throughout history, each new technology (radio, film, television, computers) was heralded as transforming education. Thomas Edison claimed in 1913 that "the motion picture is destined to revolutionise our educational system and that in a few years it will supplant largely, if not entirely, the use of textbooks." Similar claims followed for each new medium. Clark (1983) examined whether the medium of instruction (television, computers, books) affects learning outcomes or whether instructional methods matter more than delivery medium. His key finding was that "media are mere vehicles that deliver instruction but do not influence student achievement any more than the truck that delivers our groceries causes changes in our nutrition." ### The research reality Meta-analyses of media comparison studies show that media do not influence learning under any conditions. When achievement changes follow introduction of a new medium, the change stems from curricular reform or different instructional methods that accompanied the medium, not the medium itself. The content and instructional method determine learning outcomes, not the delivery vehicle. Any method can be delivered through various media. What matters is the quality of instructional design, not whether content is delivered via computer, video, or textbook. Focusing on medium rather than method misdirects resources and attention. ### Educational implications Investment in technology should focus on how it enables better instructional methods, not on technology for its own sake. The question is not "Will iPads improve learning?" but "What instructional methods will we use with iPads, and are those methods effective?" Technology can provide access, enable certain practices, or increase efficiency, but the medium itself does not cause learning. Pedagogical decisions matter more than technological ones (Clark, 1983). ## Identifying and avoiding neuromyths Neuromyths share common characteristics. Oversimplified brain claims reduce complex neuroscience to simple teaching rules. Preference confusion mistakes learning preferences for learning requirements. Universal "one-size-fits-all" approaches base themselves on supposed brain science. Commercial promotion sells products based on "brain-based learning" claims. Evidence-based alternatives exist. Use practices supported by educational research. Apply critical evaluation to claimed "brain science" through [[What Research can you Trust|research evaluation methods]]. Provide learning opportunities based on content requirements. Address student needs through proven instructional methods rather than learning style labels. ## Technology and media myths ### The medium is not the message A persistent belief holds that the medium of instruction (television, computers, tablets, books) affects learning outcomes. Throughout history, each new technology has been heralded as transforming education. Thomas Edison claimed in 1913 that "the motion picture is destined to revolutionise our educational system and that in a few years it will supplant largely, if not entirely, the use of textbooks." Similar claims followed for radio, film, television, and computers. Research examining whether the medium of instruction affects learning outcomes shows that media do not influence learning under any conditions (Clark, 1983). Meta-analyses of media comparison studies demonstrate that when achievement changes follow introduction of a new medium, the change stems from curricular reform or different instructional methods that accompanied the medium, not the medium itself. The content and instructional method determine learning outcomes, not the delivery vehicle. Any effective instructional method can be delivered through various media. What matters is the quality of instructional design, not whether content is delivered via computer, video, or textbook. Clark (1983) used an analogy: "Media are mere vehicles that deliver instruction but do not influence student achievement any more than the truck that delivers our groceries causes changes in our nutrition." Focusing on medium rather than method misdirects resources and attention. Investment in technology should focus on how it enables better instructional methods, not on technology for its own sake. The question is not "Will iPads improve learning?" but "What instructional methods will we use with iPads, and are those methods effective?" Technology can provide access, enable certain practices, or increase efficiency, but the medium itself does not cause learning. Pedagogical decisions matter more than technological ones (Clark, 1983). ## References Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. *Psychological Bulletin*, 117(3), 497-529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497 Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. *Review of Educational Research*, 53(4), 445-459. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543053004445 Dekker, S., Lee, N. C., Howard-Jones, P., & Jolles, J. (2012). Neuromyths in education: Prevalence and predictors of misconceptions among teachers. *Frontiers in Psychology*, 3, 429. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00429 Geary, D. C. (2007). Educating the evolved mind: Conceptual foundations for an evolutionary educational psychology. In J. S. Carlson & J. R. Levin (Eds.), *Psychological perspectives on contemporary educational issues* (pp. 1-99). Information Age Publishing. Gazzaniga, M. S. (2000). Cerebral specialization and interhemispheric communication: Does the corpus callosum enable the human condition? *Brain*, 123(7), 1293-1326. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/123.7.1293 Howard-Jones, P. A. (2014). Neuroscience and education: Myths and messages. *Nature Reviews Neuroscience*, 15(12), 817-824. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3817 Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. *Educational Psychologist*, 41(2), 75-86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1 Maguire, E. A., Gadian, D. G., Johnsrude, I. S., Good, C. D., Ashburner, J., Frackowiak, R. S., & Frith, C. D. (2000). Navigation-related structural change in the hippocampi of taxi drivers. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*, 97(8), 4398-4403. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.070039597 Nielsen, J. A., Zielinski, B. A., Ferguson, M. A., Lainhart, J. E., & Anderson, J. S. (2013). An evaluation of the left-brain vs. right-brain hypothesis with resting state functional connectivity magnetic resonance imaging. *PLOS ONE*, 8(8), e71275. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0071275 Paivio, A. (1986). *Mental representations: A dual coding approach*. Oxford University Press. Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. *Psychological Science in the Public Interest*, 9(3), 105-119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x Riener, C., & Willingham, D. (2010). The myth of learning styles. *Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning*, 42(5), 32-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2010.503139 Rosenberg, M. B. (2003). *Nonviolent communication: A language of life*. PuddleDancer Press. Willingham, D. T. (2009). *Why don't students like school? A cognitive scientist answers questions about how the mind works and what it means for the classroom*. Jossey-Bass. Willingham, D. T., Hughes, E. M., & Dobolyi, D. G. (2015). The scientific status of learning styles theories. *Teaching of Psychology*, 42(3), 266-271. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628315589505