Key ideas
Core concepts
- Neuromyths are propositions about brain function that lack research evidence despite seeming plausible.
- No evidence supports matching teaching to preferred learning styles; the practice harms students by limiting their exposure to other modalities. Every cognitive skill investigated employs networks across both brain hemispheres, and the medium of instruction does not itself influence learning.
Neuromyths are propositions about how the brain works that may be supported by psychological theories but lack research evidence. They often lead to ineffective educational practices.
Connected to
Ability Grouping | Concrete Pictorial Abstract | What Research Can You Trust
Learning styles
The most widespread neuromyth claims that individuals have different learning styles (visual, auditory, kinaesthetic) and that teaching should match these preferred styles for optimal learning. Its appeal lies in surface plausibility. People do have preferences, but preferences do not constitute learning requirements.
Multiple studies have tested whether matching teaching techniques to preferred styles improves learning. None have found supporting evidence. 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 is a self-fulfilling prophecy rather than an inherent limitation.
The myth harms students by limiting their development. Students miss opportunities to develop skills in different modalities when teachers avoid certain presentation methods, which reduces challenge and limits growth, and they 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. As the Chartered College of Teaching puts it: “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.” Time and effort spent on ineffective differentiation strategies waste resources whilst contributing to unsustainable teacher workload.
Belief in the myth is high across countries: 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), and its designation as a neuromyth by the neuroscience community, 89-97% of teachers across countries continue to believe in them.
The alternative is to use 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 concentrates on finding the optimal modality for each concept being taught, using multiple representations when appropriate for content, and providing practice across different presentation types.
Left brain versus right brain
This myth claims the two hemispheres learn differently, the left brain being logical and analytical whilst the right brain is creative and artistic. It oversimplifies neurological complexity into a false dichotomy.
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. Some functions show hemisphere preferences (language is typically left-hemisphere dominant in right-handed people), but preference is not exclusivity, and even functions with hemisphere preferences require both sides working together. No evidence supports any type of learning being specific to one brain side.
The 10% brain
The claim that humans only use 10% of their brains at any given time, suggesting vast untapped potential, appeals to desires for easy improvement. Neuroscience has established that every brain part has a known function, and brain imaging scans reveal that even simple tasks engage multiple areas across the entire brain. The myth persists through misunderstandings about brain function. Teaching strategies based on “unlocking unused brain potential” lack scientific foundation.
Critical periods
The myth holds that specific, narrow critical periods exist in childhood during which certain skills must be learnt, or the opportunity is permanently lost. It confuses sensitive periods (when learning is easier) with critical periods (when learning is only possible), and can lead to abandoning learners who missed optimal windows.
Sensitive periods do exist when the brain is receptive to learning certain skills, but learning can occur at any age. The brain remains plastic throughout life. Early learning may be optimal for some skills, yet it is rarely essential given instruction and practice. Instruction for older learners who missed “critical” periods should not be abandoned: intensive instruction can overcome developmental limitations, and the focus should be on quality teaching rather than age-based restrictions.
Behaviour myths
Some myths extend reasonable principles into unhelpful extremes.
“All behaviour is caused by unmet need.” Considering causes of challenging behaviour can be useful for long-term support strategies, but 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, and 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, and children do not naturally gravitate towards challenging academic subjects. Few children naturally want to learn about abstract concepts like rock properties.
“Build the relationship for behaviour.” Relationships matter, but 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, and cover teachers deserve the same behavioural respect as regular teachers. Relationships should be built because they matter, not as behaviour management tools.
The delivery vehicle fallacy
A persistent belief holds that the medium of instruction (television, computers, tablets, books) affects learning outcomes. Throughout history, each new technology (radio, film, television, computers) was heralded as the future of 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 affects learning outcomes or whether instructional methods matter more than delivery medium. His conclusion: “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.” Meta-analyses of media comparison studies found that media do not influence learning under any conditions (Clark, 1983). 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.
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).
Spotting a neuromyth
Neuromyths share common characteristics: oversimplified brain claims that reduce complex neuroscience to simple teaching rules, preference confusion that mistakes learning preferences for learning requirements, universal “one-size-fits-all” approaches based on supposed brain science, and commercial promotion selling products on “brain-based learning” claims.
Evidence-based alternatives exist. Use practices supported by educational research, apply critical evaluation to claimed “brain science” through research evaluation methods, provide learning opportunities based on content requirements, and address student needs through proven instructional methods rather than learning style labels.
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