Neuromyths: What Learning Science to Ditch & Defend

Did you know you’re only using 10% of your brain right now, as you read this? Or that matching your teaching style to students’ “learning styles” is the secret to classroom success? 😱

If your reaction to these claims is “Yep! I thought so…,” then buckle up, my friend.

Those two statements are categorically WRONG!! And in fact, they are what are increasingly known as neuromyths.

What’s a neuromyth?

According to this resource, the term was coined in 2002 by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to mean:

“a misunderstanding, a misreading and, in some cases, a deliberate warping of the scientifically established facts to make a relevant case for education or for other purposes.”

In recent years, cognitive scientists and other educators have been on an increasingly passionate mission to bust the neuromyths that are negatively impacting student learning.

Ready to make your teaching and coaching practices less boring and more brainy … and accurate to boot?! Keep reading.

Pop Quiz: Are You Falling for Neuromyths?

Before we dive into debunking, let’s see what your relationship is to these common brain “facts.” Grab a pen and tally your score.

Consider these two statements:

1. Humans only use 10% of our brains.

2. Students learn better when taught (or when they study) according to their learning style (visual, auditory, etc.).

3. You’re either a right-brained creative or a left-brained logical thinker.

For each statement give yourself:

• 0 points if, when you first heard this, you knew immediately it wasn’t true

• 1 point if you believed it when you first heard it

• 2 points if you’ve ever shared it with students as a fact to help them learn

I’ll be honest—my score on this mini-quiz is 6 points! 🙈 At some point in my education career, I’ve shared every single one of these “facts” with students. And I did it with the best intentions—I wanted to spark their excitement about their brains and help them learn more effectively.

If you’re feeling brave, share your score in the comments below! I’d love to know I’m not the only one who’s believed and passed on these myths.

The thing is, these three brain “facts” aren’t just harmless myths—they’re distractions that pull us away from the growing body of evidence about what truly works in teaching and learning.

That said, there are also some “golden nuggets” embedded in these neuromyths that might actually be motivating for students. Should we be throwing out the baby with the bathwater just because science can’t find the “evidence” for them?

Let’s unpack it all:

• why these myths have stuck around,

• what’s true instead, and

• the learning strategies that can help us (and our students) make the most of our amazing brains.

In other words: What are the faulty facts we need to ditch? And where are the functional frameworks we should defend?

It might get a little controversial. Let’s dig in.

Myth 1: We Only Use 10% of Our Brains 🧠

This is the granddaddy of all brain myths; it’s been around for ages!

I still remember learning it for the first time in middle school, which was waaaaaay back in the 1980s. It was the first time I ever thought about the brain, and that my choices in life might effect how well my brain functioned. Thus began a life-long fascination about the brain.

The deal is — this “fun fact” is not true! Humans actually use 100% of our brains all the time; the 10% idea is a total myth.

So why then have so many people believed this fact and perpetuated it so widely? Let’s explore the history:

Where It Started:

My (limited) research reveals that we don’t know exactly where the 10% myth originated. Many people erroneously credited Albert Einstein with saying it first, which gave the idea an air of importance.

The myth likely originated from early brain mapping in the late 1800s, when seemingly "inactive" areas of the brain were thought to be unused. In reality, the functions of these areas were simply not yet understood.

Also in the late 1800s, Harvard psychologist William James wrote about the mealleability of the human mind, the ability for individuals to improve themselves, and a claim that humans rarely reach their “full potential.”

It’s easy to see how these ideas, which emerged at a similar time, might have merged to lay claim to the myth that humans only use part of their brain.

The growing pop psychology movement of the 20th century fanned the flames of this myth, and here we are today: many of us believing a brain fact that’s not true.

The Reality:

If the 10% myth is not true, what is? Consider these corrections

• Brain Activity is Constant: Neuroimaging studies (like fMRI) show that virtually all parts of the brain are active at various times, even during simple tasks.

• Brain Mapping: Extensive brain mapping reveals that different areas are responsible for specific functions like movement, sensation, and cognition, all of which are used regularly.

• Damage to Any Part of the Brain Affects Function: Injury or damage to even small areas of the brain can result in significant impairments, indicating that those regions serve vital roles.

• Evolutionary Perspective: The brain is metabolically expensive and highly evolved, so it wouldn’t make sense for 90% of it to be unused or inactive.

• No "Unused" Areas: Neurological studies and scans show that there are no areas of the brain that are entirely "inactive" or redundant under normal conditions.

• Cognitive Neuroscience Research: Cogsci research continuously reveals new functions and areas of the brain involved in higher-level processes, reinforcing that the whole brain is at work.

Our brains are wonderfully complex and always active. While we can always learn new things, the myth that portions of our brain remain unused is simply untrue.

Would you like to learn more about the myth of 10%? Check out these articles:

• Here is an easy-to-read overview

• Here is a sample curriculum to teach students how to be critical

• Here is a TEDEd video on YouTube.

Myth 2: Learning Styles Are the Key to Better Teaching 🎨📖👂

Raise your hand if you’ve ever asked your students whether they’re visual, auditory, or kinesthetic learners. Now raise your other hand if you’ve ever said something like, “I’m a kinesthetic learner” or “I’m not an auditory learner.”

Are both your hands up? Same here!

Back when I was a middle school teacher, I loved having students take learning styles tests. I even kept a spreadsheet of their results, thinking it would help me teach more effectively by matching my methods to their styles.

And yes, I’ve always identified as a kinesthetic learner—not an auditory one (sitting still and listening to a lecture is my personal version of hell).

While it’s true that I prefer moving while learning and avoid passive listening, it is actually not true that I should always learn following these guidelines.

It turns out that research has long ago debunked the idea that students learn better when taught according to their learning style.

Where it Started:

Back in the 1970s and 1980s, a bunch of big ideas and theories popped up in two different worlds — scientific studies and teacher pedagogy. Each of these ideas might have some merit in their own right, but got a little too simplified when they were applied to students and learning.

In a moment we’ll look at why they’re wrong, but first a list of studies might be interesting to review:

Scientific Studies

• 1971: Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory: Categorized learners into 4 “styles” based on a cycle of experience, reflection, conceptualization, and experimentation (how people learn best). 

• 1978: Dunn & Dunn’s Learning Styles: A framework for tailoring instruction based on physical, environmental, and emotional learning preferences.

• 1979: Gregorc’s Mind Styles : Classified learning preferences into four "mind styles" based on how individuals perceive and process information.

• 1983: Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences: Gardner suggested intelligence consists of multiple modalities, which educators later misinterpreted as supporting tailored "learning styles."

• 1987: Fleming’s VARK: Fleming introduced the VARK framework, classifying learners as Visual, Auditory, Read/Write, or Kinesthetic.

Teacher Training & Pedagogy

Also in the 1970s and 80s there were shifts in teacher training programs that made it more likely for the studies listed above to take hold in the pedagogical imagination of the time. For example:

• 19Constructivist Pedagogy: Emphasis on personalized/active learning made it appealing to tailor teaching to individual learning styles

• Standardization of Teacher Training Programs: Teacher training programs were trying to standardize the skill of teaching, and increasingly included simplified psychological frameworks like learning styles as practical classroom tools.

• Expansion of Professional Development Workshops: Professional development workshops for teachers popularized learning styles as "best practices," often without critical scrutiny.

• Emergence of Educational Publishing and Marketing: Textbook companies and consultants heavily marketed learning styles materials, making them widely adopted despite weak evidence.

• Shift Toward Individualization in Education: A cultural focus on recognizing individual differences in learners aligned with and reinforced the appeal of learning styles.

• Limited Access to Critical Research: Teachers relied on simplified summaries of theories that often misrepresented findings, embedding learning styles into education uncritically.

Again, when we lay all this out, It’s easy to see why learning styles caught on—when the push from education pundits was for individualized teaching, the straightforward formula of learning styles must have seemed irresistibly appealing to educators.

The Reality:

Why are learning styles considered a “neuromyth?”

Let me clarify upfront: the concept of learning styles isn’t inherently problematic. After all, everyone has preferences for how they like to learn.

The myth, however, lies in the idea that we learn best when we study according to our preferred style.

Take, for example, the belief that kinesthetic learners learn most effectively when they’re moving their bodies, or that visual learners learn best when they interact with visual information. It seems logical, right? If we engage in learning activities that align with what we enjoy, we should learn better, right?

But actually, research tells a different story.

1. No Improvement to Learning Outcomes. Large-scale studies have shown that tailoring teaching to “learning styles” does not significantly improve learning outcomes and can even hinder student learning.

2. Failed Replication. Additionally, attempts to replicate the effectiveness of learning styles interventions have consistently failed.

3. Evidence-Based Strategies. Today, leading cognitive scientists are debunking the learning styles myth in favor of evidence-based strategies that work for all learners. These strategies include active engagement, spaced retrieval, dual coding, multi-modal learning, and more.

If you're interested in diving deeper into the studies that debunk this neuromyth, here are a few you can explore on your own:

• This Learning Scientists podcast episode on a study comparing learning styles to dual coding.

• Here’s an easy-to-read research round-up.

• Here is the most recent meta-analysis I could find (July 2024), if you’re interested in the fancy research.

Why Do Neuromyths Stick Around?

If the science around these myths is so clear, why do they keep circulating? Why is it so hard to let go of ideas like learning styles or the 10% brain myth?

Here’s why neuromyths are so sticky:

• They Sound Exciting: Who doesn’t love the idea of unlocking hidden brain potential? Myths like this make for great headlines and TED Talks.

• They Feel Empowering: When we believe in things like learning styles, it gives us a sense of control and certainty. It feels good to think we can tailor teaching to match how students “learn best.” As students, we feel seen and understood for our uniqueness.

• They’re Widely Taught: Teacher training programs, professional development sessions, and even popular media often reinforce these myths. It's easy to pass them along when they’re so deeply ingrained in the educational culture.

• Confirmation Bias: We all tend to gravitate toward information that confirms what we already believe, even if it’s not true.

Also… we have a surprisingly emotional relationship to some of these ideas. Read on two hear two examples:

How “Multiple Intelligences Theory” Changed My Life

I first heard about Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences in the 1990s at a staff training at CLIMB Theatre, which was my first education job out of college.

I remember being absolutely blown away by the idea that intelligence isn’t one-size-fits-all. Finally, there was a framework that helped me understand myself better than anything I’d been exposed to before — too bad this was after college, when my poor intellectual self esteem had already taken root.

After hearing a quick summary of the multiple intelligences, I quickly self-assessed that I was strongest in two seemingly opposite approaches:

• interpersonal (connecting with others) and

• intrapersonal (understanding myself).

It was as if everything about me suddenly made sense. For years, I had felt “dumb for a smart person”—someone who didn’t quite fit the mold of traditional academic intelligence.

But Gardner’s work made me realize that I was smart, just in ways that my liberal arts education or intellectual family roots hadn’t helped me recognize.

These two strengths would go on to shape my career and everything I’ve created, including the Anti-Boring Toolkit, which is built in relationship with my coaching clients (interpersonally) and through reflection on my own experiences (intrapersonally).

I’m incredibly grateful to Gardner’s framework to help me understand, and love, myself and my unique way of being “intelligent” in the world.

Was it evidence-based? No. Did it change my life in some profound and wonderful ways? Yes.

Our Emotional Attachments to Learning Styles Frameworks

Here’s another story that illustrates another educator’s emotional attachment to learning styles:

I recently connected with a skilled educator in the world of adult learning. She’s a strong advocate for using the VARK Learning Styles test, and she’s seen firsthand how much her students thrive when she uses the results to inform their study strategies.

She’s unapologetically passionate about this approach, despite the widespread belief that learning styles are a debunked myth.

In a recent Art of Motivating Students Summit chat lounge, she posted this reflection:

“I see results every day. It is not even about belief… I love research, but I don’t need it to validate the students I serve, who thrive from high school to college.

I’m confused why my colleagues are unnerved about my lived professional experience, which has high impact and high value to the students I serve—every. single. day.

No one has yet to say, 'Wow, that’s impressive,' or ‘Good work,’ or even, ‘How do you make that happen?’

My mind will remain unchanged. And my practice will remain unchanged."

I have genuine compassion for her perspective. This educator has relied on what works for her students, and it must feel maddening to have her lived experience and expertise questioned by those dismissing her approach as “not evidence-based.” It’s also unfortunate that her successes with students haven’t been fully acknowledged by her colleagues.

I resonate with her insistence that her expertise and lived experience matters. This is especially poignant when I consider how Western culture often uses the concept of “science” to overshadow (dare I say, “colonize?”) alternative ways of knowing.

As I explored her strategies further, I came to understand the thoughtful, metacognitive way she uses the VARK test results to coach students. Her success stems not in spite of, but because of her intentional use of learning styles as a starting point to help students reflect on and engage with their own learning.

What Benefits Are There to Learning Styles, Even If They’re Not Evidence-Based?

The two stories above have caused me to be more measured in my zeal about debunking neuromyths, and especially “learning styles.”

Although it’s controversial to say in my “science of learning” circles, I see some genuinely positive aspects to learning styles, especially when used thoughtfully.

Here are a few ways that I’ve seen them be successful in helping students become more effective, self-motivated learners:

• Motivation: Taking a test to identify our “style” can be exciting and energizing. Who doesn’t love a quiz that promises to reveal something new about themselves?

• Belonging: Discovering your “style” can create a sense of belonging. It reassures us that the way our brain works isn’t weird, different, or “wrong,” but rather something shared with others who think and learn similarly.

• Strengths-Based: Finding out that I’m a “visual” learner or that I have an “interpersonal” intelligence highlights my strengths. In a world where education often emphasizes what we’re not good at, it’s refreshing to focus on what makes us unique and capable.

• Toolbox Affirming: Learning Styles quizzes often introduce students to strategies they might never have considered. This opens the door to building a personal toolbox of metacognitive strategies to enhance learning—and the best part is that some of these strategies feel fun and natural because they align with our preferences.

• Anti-Procrastination: Evidence-based learning practices, like retrieval practice, can feel unpleasant—especially at first. Why would you want to get started if it’s going to make you feel bad? Leaning on learning preferences can ease this hurdle. Not excited to quiz yourself on vocabulary? Start by drawing pictures of the toughest words, if that feels fun for you. Then move to retrieval practice once you’ve warmed up. Knowing our preferences is important in an anti-procrastination toolbox.

• Metacognition, Monitoring, and Critical Self-Awareness: Many students haven’t ever thought about themselves as learners, and are resistant to being expected to think meaningfully about their own thinking. A learning styles assessment can be a palatable introduction to learning about metacognition. It can also be fun to “test” the results in actual practice… to learn what does and doesn’t work in their learning and time/task management.

These are just a few positives of taking a thoughtful approach to learning styles. Did I miss anything? Do you see it differently? I’d love to hear your thoughts—feel free to share in the comments below!

Ok, So Why Debunk Neuromyths If They Can Be Helpful?

I hope I’ve made the case that learning styles assessments can be valuable tools when used thoughtfully with students.

That said, it’s important to approach them with caution. An over-reliance on learning styles without fully understanding the myth can have unintended consequences.

Here are a few key concerns:

• Overburdened Teaching: Tailoring instruction to multiple learning styles in a single classroom is time-consuming and often impractical. Educators are already stretched thin, and adopting approaches that are proven less effective than other strategies wastes valuable time and resources.

• Perpetuating Misinformation: Neuromyths mislead educators, spreading outdated practices and eroding trust in research-backed methods. This makes it harder for teachers to embrace evidence-based strategies that truly improve learning.

• Inequitable Practices: Focusing on learning styles can inadvertently overlook the unique needs of neurodiverse students while neglecting universally effective strategies that benefit all learners.

• Limited Learning Approaches: In my coaching experience, students who identify with a specific learning style—like being a “visual learner”—often avoid exploring other methods, restricting their growth and limiting their ability to adapt to different learning environments and strategies.

• What Have I Missed? Do you have any other concerns? I’d love to hear them in the comments below.

By moving away from outdated and unsupported ideas, we can embrace research-backed practices that empower all students to thrive.

Our ultimate goal is to create a learning environment that builds trust in science, fosters innovation, and equips students with the skills they need to succeed—while helping them better understand themselves as learners, so they can take charge of their education for life.

From Myths to Mastery: Sharing Accurate Brain Science with Students

Instead of perpetuating misconceptions about how the brain works, let’s share accurate information with students and teach them strategies to apply that knowledge in their learning and lives.

Here are the best practices we advocate for in the Anti-Boring Learning Lab courses:

• Shift the Language: Use “learning preferences” instead of “learning styles.” Help students see this as a way to identify what motivates them and makes learning feel more natural—not as a fixed trait.

• Teach About Neuromyths: Students love debunking myths! Share ideas like the 10% brain myth and the outdated concept of learning styles. Admit if you once believed these ideas too, and invite them to consider why science has moved on. This creates a chance for critical thinking and self-discovery.

• Use Preferences as a Starting Point: Validate students’ preferences, but frame them as a stepping stone for exploring a wide range of study strategies.

• Teach Evidence-Based Techniques: Regardless of whether you discuss preferences, focus on proven methods like retrieval practice and active engagement. We offer a free course through our Visitor’s Center to help educators teach the science of learning effectively—check it out!

• Build a Toolbox of Metacognitive Strategies: Encourage students to see learning strategies as tools they can add to and adapt over time. For example, we teach a “Study Senses” mini-lecture, which emphasizes using multiple modes of learning for deeper retention.

• Encourage Students to Experiment: Science can often serve as a powerful motivator for students; knowing why a strategy is supposed to work can go a long way in inspiring action instead of apathy. But you know what’s even more motivating? Proving to yourself, through your own efforts, that a strategy actually works. Whether I’m teaching how to study effectively with retrieval practice or showing how to make studying more enjoyable, my role as a coach-and-teacher is ultimately to help students learn how to experiment effectively on themselves. To become self-scientists!

The transition from learning styles to evidence-based teaching isn’t always linear. Many of us—myself included—once found clarity and comfort in these older ideas. But growth comes from challenging outdated beliefs, embracing better ones, and modeling for students how to balance scientific evidence with proof from our own lives.

Whether you still appreciate the VARK test or are ready to let it go, one truth remains: the best teaching starts with understanding your students’ unique needs and strengths, then equipping them with tools to succeed. That’s a journey worth taking together.

Ready for a Deeper Dive Into Using the Science of Learning to Motivate Students?

If you’re curious about exploring the science behind these strategies and learning more about how to incorporate them into your teaching, I invite you to check out my free course "Unlock Student Learning" in the Visitor’s Center. This course is designed to help you understand the science of learning so you can empower your students with strategies that truly work.

Let’s kick neuromyths to the curb and start using research-backed strategies that make learning exciting and effective!

Wait! What About Left and Right Brains?!

Oh, you savvy reader! Did you notice that, at the top of this post, we also introduced the neuromyth that humans are either right-brained creatives or left-brained logical thinkers? This article got a bit long, so I decided at the last minute to leave that one out of the detailed discussion. However, if you’d like to explore further why that is a neuromyth, check out this YouTube video.