Neuromyths are inaccurate or flawed notions about how the brain works. Surveys show that many teachers and administrators still believe that one or more neuromyths are correct; in fact, some colleges actively promote them on their websites. This can lead to flawed teaching methods, wasted time and money on training and technologies that don’t work or work poorly, and mindsets that actually undermine student confidence and success. Because of this, it is important to know what the neuromyths are and to understand the truth about them.
It is worth noting that neuromyths often arise from valid published research. In some cases, they are simply the result of an oversimplification of that research. In others, they come from mistaking correlation for causation or effect for cause. The fact is, we still don’t understand the brain all that well. But simple answers to complex problems, which is what many neuromyths are, are usually wrong or at least inadequate. As I often tell my students, everything is complicated; to get to the truth, we have to embrace the complexity.
I’m going to start this multi-part series by talking about “learning styles,” which is probably the most enthusiastically adopted and beloved neuromyth of them all. The idea is that people have individual styles in which they best learn. There are competing theories of styles and how they should be used, but the styles commonly include auditory, visual, kinesthetic, and read/write. These theories became popular in the 1970s. Common components of this myth include the ideas that people can easily be tested to identify their optimal learning style, that teachers should adapt their teaching to use those styles, and that students will learn better as a result.*
Today, if you Google “learning styles,” you will find many colleges that offer quizzes to allow students to determine their own learning style. And some teacher training still advises surveying or quizzing students to find out their learning styles so you can adapt your teaching to suit students. According to a 2016 survey, “67 percent of teacher-preparation programs required students to incorporate learning styles into lesson-planning assignments, and 59 percent of textbooks advised taking students’ learning styles into account.” And in a 2017 survey of 598 educators, “76 percent agreed that ‘individuals learn better when they receive information in their preferred learning style,’ and 71 percent agreed that ‘children have learning styles that are dominated by particular senses’” (Furey). Aside from the fact that this is wildly impractical—most groups of students will have every learning style represented, and you can’t realistically teach every topic in every learning style—it will also not actually increase learning.
Learning styles are in many ways a highly appealing idea. And there is a kernel of truth to them: students often do have differences in how they prefer to be taught. But these preferences don’t influence how well students actually learn when presented with curricula tailored to their style (Knoll, Otani, Skeel, and Van Horn).
This raises the question: why are students frequently aware of having a preferred learning style? Usually because they’ve been taught by the education system to recognize the concept. This is particularly problematic because a belief in learning styles can be limiting for students. For example, one study showed that “visual word” learners—those who prefer reading, essentially—performed best on all kinds of tests. Therefore, the authors concluded, “Educators may actually be doing a disservice to auditory learners by continually accommodating their auditory learning style, rather than focusing on strengthening their visual word skills” (Rogowsky, Calhoun, and Tallal). And, of course, if students believe they can’t learn well except through their preferred learning style, they may not try as hard when presented with material in a different mode. At the least, they will find it harder than it needs to be.
What should you do, then? First and foremost, use the mode that will best allow you to teach the content. Use a mix of modes to help students stay focused and engaged. Return to key concepts to help reinforce learning. And please don’t teach or refer to learning styles. It won’t help your students, your colleagues, or yourself to promote this neuromyth.
* It is essential to note that people with disabilities, including learning disabilities, sometimes have specific needs that must be identified and accommodated to promote learning. Please consult with your school’s accessibility office for more information and seek out science-based information about best practices. Please also see material about accessibility elsewhere on this site.
References
Furey, William. “The Stubborn Myth of ‘Learning Styles.’” Education Next, vol. 20, no. 3, Summer 2020.
Knoll, Abby R., Hajime Otani, Reid L. Skeel, and K. Roger Van Horn. “Learning Style, Judgements of Learning, and Learning of Verbal and Visual Information.” British Journal of Psychology vol. 108, pp. 544–563, 2017. DOI:10.1111/bjop.12214
Rogowsky, Beth, Barbara Calhoun, and Paula Tallal. “Matching Learning Style to Instructional Method: Effects on Comprehension.” Journal of Educational Psychology vol. 107, no. 1, pp, 64-78, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037478
