The ever-evolving landscape of education continues to be riddled with misconceptions and myths about learning and the way our brains operate. After all, we’re all in search of a quick fix: the ability to learn without actually having to work.
Unfortunately, unlike Keanu in The Matrix, you can’t download karate expertise in a matter of moments. Real learning takes effort. That’s part of the reason why it’s such a rewarding pursuit. If it was easy, we’d all be Einstein-level geniuses.
Raise your hand if you’ve ever believed that your goldfish has better focus than you, or that you’re a “right-brained” person. The world of learning is a hotbed for strange beliefs that lack empirical evidence.
So, how much of what you ‘know’ about learning is actually true?
Fear not, fellow knowledge seekers. The Growth Engineering team is here to help you separate fact from fiction. Our goal is not only to dispel misinformation, but also to light the path towards more research-backed learning approaches.
Ready? Then let the myth busting begin!
The Top 15 Learning Myths
We’ve identified 15 of the most common myths about learning, ready to be debunked with evidence-based insights. We’ll also provide practical strategies to replace these misconceptions with empowering learning truths.
Myth 1: We All Have a ‘Learning Style’
At some stage, you’ve likely heard that people have a dominant learning style (visual, auditory, kinaesthetic, etc.) and that we learn best when instruction caters to it. This concept is based on the VARK model, which sorts learners into four types:
- Visual learners: Who supposedly learn best through images, diagrams, and demonstrations.
- Auditory learners: Who supposedly learn best by listening to lectures, podcasts, or explanations.
- Reading / writing learners: Who supposedly learn best through written text or writing up notes.
- Kinaesthetic learners: Who supposedly learn best by doing and getting hands-on whenever possible.
Note the use of the word ‘supposedly’ here. Despite the fact that 90%+ of us believe in learning styles, there is no evidence that they improve learning outcomes. In truth, we use various methods to learn based on the context and complexity of the material.
This belief is also restrictive. Identifying with a single learning style can be a self-fulfilling prophecy that limits exploration and enables you to avoid responsibility for any lack of progress.
The best we can say is that learners might have preferences for certain learning formats, but that these preferences don’t impact outcomes. As such, while you should embrace variety, don’t waste time chasing this unicorn.
Myth 2: Multitasking Makes Us More Productive
Ever feel like you’re juggling a million tasks at once? We’ve all been there. While around 2.5% of us are ‘supertaskers’ capable of multitasking effectively, the rest of us perform better by focusing on one task at a time.
The myth here is the misconception that we can effectively perform two or more demanding tasks simultaneously, leading to increased productivity. In reality, however, our brains cannot truly multitask.
That’s right. Checking emails during a meeting, or scrolling through TikTok whilst working isn’t effective. When we attempt to multitask, our brains actually rapidly switch attention between tasks. As you might expect, this increases our mental workload and triggers a performance penalty.
As neuropsychologist Cynthia Kubu puts it: “The more we multitask, the less we actually accomplish, because we slowly lose our ability to focus enough to learn”.
Instead of multitasking, we’d recommend focusing on becoming a monotasking maestro. This requires expert time management and the ability to minimise distractions and interruptions. Don’t forget to schedule in short breaks to recharge too.
Myth 3: Younger Learners Are ‘Digital Natives’ Who Learn Differently
The idea that people born into a digital world process information differently, and need training designed differently as a result, has shaped a great deal of L&D spending.
It does not survive examination. Reviewing the evidence, Kirschner and De Bruyckere found “there is no such thing as a digital native who is information-skilled simply because (s)he has never known a world that was not digital”. Familiarity with devices is not the same as skill at finding, judging, or learning from what is on them.
Their second finding matters even more. The multitasking ability attributed to this generation “does not exist” (see above), and designing education that assumes it “hinders rather than helps learning”.
So the practical instruction is the opposite of the myth. Younger learners need the same evidence-based design as everyone else, and probably more help evaluating sources.
Myth 4: Cramming Works
Ever find yourself staying up late before an exam, rushing to absorb as much information as possible? While this is a common scenario, research suggests that intense last-minute studying (aka. cramming or massed study) isn’t the most effective learning strategy.
Cramming’s allure is clear. It fosters a temporary sense of familiarity with the material, and sometimes it even allows us to recall enough information to pass an exam or test. This can lead to the mistaken belief that it’s an effective learning strategy.
In reality, however, much of this information will never make it into our long-term memories. After all, there’s a wide gulf between memorising something and truly understanding it. The forgetting curve is unforgiving.
Cramming also comes with significant drawbacks, like increased stress and anxiety. To ensure optimal performance, prioritise getting a good night’s sleep before the big day. And while you’re at it, why not practise proven learning methods like spaced repetition and retrieval practice?
After all, a University of California study has found that spacing out learning was more effective than cramming for 90% of participants. The catch is what they believed: 72% came away convinced that cramming had worked better.
Myth 5: You’re Either Left-Brained or Right-Brained
Are certain abilities innate and unchangeable? According to the left brain vs right brain myth, our brains are divided into two distinct hemispheres with completely separate functions. As a result:
- Left-brain dominant people are supposedly more logical, analytical, and better at subjects like maths and science.
- Right-brain dominant people are supposedly more creative, artistic, and intuitive.
There’s just one problem with this theory: neuroscience actively disproves it. Our brains work as an integrated whole, drawing from both sides for complex tasks. As a result, our abilities and talents are not predetermined in this sense.
This is another limiting belief. You’re not naturally bad at something based on a dominant brain hemisphere. In fact, our brains are highly adaptable. If we apply the right learning strategies then we can improve our skills in a variety of areas.
Hungry for proof? Researchers at the University of Utah scanned 1,011 brains aged 7 to 29, looking for exactly this pattern. They found none. Their data was “not consistent with” people having globally stronger left-brained or right-brained networks.
Myth 6: Learning Gets Harder With Age
You can’t teach an old dog new tricks. Or can you? This refers to the misconception that our learning ability significantly declines after a certain age, making it difficult or impossible for older adults to learn new things.
Well, we’ve got good news. Neuroscience research shows us that it’s never too late to learn. Neuroplasticity means that our brains retain the ability to adapt, learn, and form new neural connections throughout life.
While some cognitive functions naturally slow as we age, this does not mean learning stops. In fact, research reported in Scientific American suggests that with the right conditions, older adults can achieve cognitive performances comparable to people decades younger.
As it happens, older brains might be better at meeting some learning challenges than younger ones. After all, the older you get the more experiences you can call upon. This context provides a rich cognitive reserve that enables learners to adapt as they grow.
The key takeaway? Embrace lifelong learning! Whether you’re 20, 40, 60 or 80, stay curious, challenge your mind and keep exploring. After all, your brain has a remarkable capacity to learn and grow throughout life.
Myth 7: Our Attention Span is Shorter Than a Goldfish’s
Ever wonder if humans truly have an attention span shorter than a goldfish’s? Well, 50% of us believe this to be the case, despite this meaning that our focus would only last a few seconds.
However, this comparison is a bit fishy. While a 2015 Microsoft Canada marketing report investigated changes in human attention, it did not claim our attention span is shorter than a goldfish’s. And research largely contradicts this widely held belief.
This is similar to the unfounded suggestion that students can only focus on a lecture for 10 to 15 minutes.
It’s important to understand that human attention is not a singular, fixed entity. In fact, there are several types of attention, such as sustained attention, selective attention, and divided attention, each with its own capabilities and limitations.
The danger here is that we might start to prioritise short-term attention grabs over deeper learning and understanding. While microlearning has its role, we should strive to foster engagement through relevant and stimulating learning experiences and effective communication.
Myth 8: If Learners Enjoy It, They’re Learning
Every L&D team has run a session that scored brilliantly on the feedback form. That score tells you less than you would hope.
Alliger and colleagues pooled the training evaluation literature and found the average correlation between learner reactions of any type and immediate learning was just 0.08 (essentially no relationship). Broken down further, how much learners enjoyed the training correlated 0.02 with what they actually learned.
Their conclusion was blunt: “training reactions should not be used blindly as a surrogate for the assessment of learning of training content”.
None of which makes enjoyment worthless. People who dislike training stop turning up. But satisfaction measures attendance and reputation, not capability. Treating a high score as evidence of learning is how organisations end up with popular programmes that change nothing.
Myth 9: The More You Add, The Better It Works
The instinct is understandable. A dry module gets background video, a funny anecdote, some atmospheric music, a few striking images. It feels more engaging, and it usually is.
It also makes people learn less. Interesting material that does not serve the learning objective has a name in the research: seductive details. The research about this phenomenon is consistent. Reviewing the evidence, Sundararajan and Adesope concluded that “including seductive details in learning material can hinder learning”.
This is not a fringe result. In the largest synthesis of multimedia design research available, covering 29 reviews, 1,189 studies, and 78,177 participants, removing seductive details was among the principles with robust evidence behind it.
The test is simple. Is it interesting? And is it serving the learning objective? Anything that fails the second question is costing you retention, however well it performs on a feedback form.
Myth 10: 10,000 Hours of Practice Leads to Mastery
Malcolm Gladwell’s book Outliers popularised the notion that 10,000 hours of deliberate practice are necessary to achieve mastery in any field. The researcher whose work he drew on disagrees.
Anders Ericsson studied the violinists the rule came from, and has spent years correcting what was made of it. The figure “was only an average”, he writes, and “half of the ten violinists in that group hadn’t actually accumulated ten thousand hours at that age”.
As he notes: “there is nothing special or magical about ten thousand hours”.
The rule emphasises the wrong variable, too. Not all practice is equal, and accumulating hours of mindless repetition gets you nowhere. Deliberate practice targets specific weaknesses. Time served does not.
Myth 11: The Learning Pyramid is Accurate
The learning pyramid is a popular, but ultimately unsubstantiated, model that visually categorises the effectiveness of various learning methods. Brazenly, it even assigns specific percentages (with suspiciously round numbers) to each category.
It suggests that we remember:
- 10% of what we read
- 20% of what we hear
- 30% of what we see
- 50% of what we see and hear
- 70% of what we say and write
- 90% of what we do
If only learning were that simple. The learning pyramid appears to be a distorted interpretation of Edgar Dale’s Cone of Experience. Dale’s model categorised learning experiences by their level of ‘concreteness’. Crucially, however, he never included any numerical values or percentages within his concept.
Indeed, these claims lack scientific backing. Research shows that learning effectiveness depends on various factors, not just the method used. As such, we should focus on combining different methods and driving engagement wherever possible.
Myth 12: Learning Happens 70:20:10
The most quoted numbers in corporate learning are also the least sourced. The claim is that:
- 70% of learning comes from experience.
- 20% of learning comes from other people.
- 10% of learning comes from formal training.
But if you ask where the figures come from the trail forks. Most L&D writing links it to interview work from 1988 by the Center for Creative Leadership. The ratio above is a later summary of this work, written for people planning careers, rather than for people testing a hypothesis.
Alan Clardy examined five separate research traditions that appear to support the ratio and found “the evidential basis for the 70% rule is weak”. He concluded that it “needs to be set aside”.
The direction is sound. Formal training really is a small part of how people become capable. However, the proportions are folklore, and a ratio nobody can source is a poor basis for splitting a budget.
Myth 13: We Only Use 10% of Our Brains
The myth that we only use 10% of our brain’s capacity resonates with many, perhaps due to the human desire to unlock our full potential. The origin of this myth is thought to be William James’s work on energy reserves in 1907.
Movies like Limitless (2011) and Lucy (2014) have taken this concept and run with it. Apparently unleashing 100% of our brains will imbue us with superpowers and psychokinetic abilities.
Of course, the 10% myth is completely debunked by science. fMRI scans show that virtually all brain regions are active during various tasks. Indeed, something as simple as clenching and unclenching your hands requires activity in far more than a tenth of your brain.
As neurologist Barry Gordon puts it, “we use virtually every part of the brain, and [most of] the brain is active almost all the time”.
In reality, your brain is a remarkably complex and adaptable organ. While different brain regions have specific functions, they work together to enable learning, thinking, feeling, and task completion.
Myth 14: Your Intelligence is ‘Fixed’
The belief that intelligence is set at birth is both wrong and unusually damaging, because it tells people effort is pointless before they have made any.
The evidence runs strongly the other way. Ritchie and Tucker-Drob pooled 142 effect sizes from 42 datasets covering more than 600,000 people and found that each additional year of education raises intelligence by roughly one to five IQ points.
The effects held across the lifespan and across every category of cognitive ability they examined. Their conclusion: education is “the most consistent, robust, and durable method yet to be identified for raising intelligence”.
Believing intelligence to be malleable is accurate. However, running interventions designed to instil that belief is a different proposition. Macnamara and Burgoyne reviewed 63 growth mindset studies and found an overall effect of 0.05, small enough to be indistinguishable from nothing.
So tell people their intelligence can change, because it can. Just don’t expect a growth mindset workshop to do it. Education does that.
Myth 15: Failure Is the Greatest Teacher
Nobody needs persuading that mistakes are survivable any more. The pendulum has swung, and “fail fast” is on a slide in most organisations. As Yoda puts it, “the greatest teacher, failure is”.
The research is less romantic. Failure is not automatically instructive. It’s what happens next that decides whether it teaches anything at all.
A 2019 study in Nature examined this at unusual scale, analysing 776,721 grant applications to the US National Institutes of Health, 46 years of venture capital investments, and 170,350 terrorist attacks.
Everyone in the study had already failed. The question was who eventually got there and who never did. The difference lay in how they responded. Those who eventually succeeded made targeted changes to the specific things that had gone wrong. Those who did not made broad, unfocused revisions.
So the honest version is narrower than the slogan. Mistakes create the opportunity to learn. Extracting the lesson is a separate act, and it’s the one that decides whether the failure was worth anything.
Final Words
The realm of learning is mired with strange and unfounded claims. This highlights our desire for simple explanations and quick solutions. Regrettably, many of these popular beliefs are unhelpful and may even hinder your learning experience.
In reality, learning is a complex and individual process. What works for one person may not be effective for another.
By debunking these learning myths we can cut through the noise and reach a more enlightened and informed perspective. This empowers us to critically evaluate information, take on new challenges and embrace an evidence-based approach to learning.
And you can achieve all that without a single learning style questionnaire. Pretty liberating, isn’t it?
Ready to transform learning from dull to dynamic? Download our 50+ page guidebook, ‘The Science of Learner Engagement’, for research-backed insights and strategies to boost engagement.
