Learning Styles, Left-Brain Learners and Other Neuromyths (Part 1)…

This is the first in a short series of blogs exploring neuromyths, pseudoscience and some of the more questionable ideas that have found their way into education. 

It’s an area I’ve been interested in for a long time, having worked as a primary school teacher and subsequently taught psychology at master’s level. I’ve seen how confidently some of these ideas can be presented to teachers, even when the research behind them is considerably less convincing. 

Those of us of a certain vintage may remember a time in education when knowing whether a child was a visual, auditory or kinaesthetic learner was deemed (by some) almost as important as knowing their name.  

Not too long ago I heard from an assistant head about the pushback they had received for trying to introduce VAK as a key part of planning for teachers following some training they themselves had received. The pushback is a positive sign, but the fact there are still people out there delivering training on this is not so positive.  

VAK isn’t the only neuro-oddity that at one point flourished and now refuses to fully die. I still recall children being encouraged to use both sides of their brains (seriously). Then there was the introduction to Brain Gym, the idea of multiple intelligences, and there was even the suggestion that listening to Mozart might make children more intelligent. 

Not much, or at least, not nearly enough, is done in teacher training to help us cut through the junk to find real, quality, evidence-informed things we can bring in. And, more often than not as teachers, we don’t have time to properly assess every claim we hear made on CPD, or from well-meaning colleagues who heard something that sounded plausible. Rumours of new approaches and cognitive-science-sounding bits and pieces can soon become prevalent before anyone has had time to step back and evaluate them.  

Back in 2012, researchers surveyed 137 teachers in Dorset who had expressed an interest in neuroscience and learning. Among those teachers, 93% believed that children learned more effectively when teaching matched their preferred learning style. Another 91% believed differences between left- and right-brain dominance could explain differences between learners (Dekker et al., 2012). It’s a marker as to just how strongly beliefs in neuromyths and half-thought-through or weakly evidenced claims can become embedded in the psyche of teachers.  

Some neuromyths have proved remarkably difficult to get rid of. A 2024 review found that neuromyths continue to persist among teachers internationally, despite considerable progress in our understanding of the brain (Rousseau, 2024). 

As a former teacher turned psychology in education researcher, I find this both fascinating and frustrating. Teachers are (rightly!) interested in understanding how children learn. This is a wonderful thing, and I encourage anyone in teaching to get more involved in the academic side too. However, teachers are also time-poor. This combination of interest, a desire to get the best for children and the lack of time means that education is a rather attractive market for people selling seemingly simple answers to complicated questions. 

So, let’s look at a few of the most persistent myths, where they came from, and what the evidence actually tells us. 

Are children really visual, auditory or kinaesthetic learners? 

This is probably the most familiar neuromyth of the lot. It might also be my favourite (if that is the right way to put this?) and one I have given talks and lectures on too. 

It’s an idea that is both simple, and also one that we often feel we can see in ourselves. And it is this part that is why learning styles rose so swiftly, and why they have proved so difficult to get rid of. Ask a room full of adults whether they prefer learning by looking at things, listening to explanations or getting involved practically, and plenty will immediately recognise themselves in one of those descriptions. 

This is a common phenomenon, and one that psychology has a name for. Our tendency to recognise ourselves in broad personal descriptions is known as the Barnum effect (or the Forer effect). In a famous experiment published in 1949, Bertram Forer gave students identical personality descriptions, supposedly based on individual assessments. They rated them remarkably accurate (Forer, 1949). 

We also tend to remember experiences that confirm what we already believe about ourselves. Once you’ve decided you’re a visual learner, every occasion when a diagram helps you understand something can feel like further proof. 

The difficulty is that recognising yourself in a description tells us very little about whether the theory behind it is correct. You might genuinely prefer diagrams. Plenty of us do. That still leaves the question of whether teaching matched to that preference actually improves your learning, and researchers have spent years looking for convincing evidence that it does (Pashler et al., 2008). 

After much research, we discover virtually no convincing evidence that matching teaching to a person’s preferred learning style improves learning. In fact, several studies using appropriate experimental methods produced findings that contradicted the theory. Pashler and colleagues concluded that there was no adequate evidence to justify using learning-style assessments in schools (Pashler et al., 2008).  

You can genuinely prefer diagrams or practical activities. The research simply hasn’t established that teaching you according to that preference will help you learn more effectively. 

The EEF now specifically warns about assigning learning-style labels to primary-aged children because their preferences and approaches to learning are still developing. This is the bit where what was an interesting but poorly supported idea actually gains the potential to be harmful. Tell a child often enough that they’re a kinaesthetic learner and they may eventually believe that listening to an explanation or reading a text simply isn’t for them. 

There are perfectly good reasons to use diagrams, practical equipment, spoken explanations and written examples. A physical representation may help children understand something that is difficult to explain abstractly. A diagram may be helpful for understanding fractions or the structure of a word problem. The choice of which to use and how to teach a particular thing should come from the content being taught and what will help children understand it. 

What about left-brained and right-brained learners? 

Now, I myself have never actually seen this in schools. However, I am reliably informed by colleagues that they have seen this in CPD training sessions. It might well be another myth spread because of the Barnum effect, where we recognise something of ourselves in this concept… 

The idea is: Left-brained people are logical, analytical and good with numbers. Right-brained people are creative, artistic and intuitive. 

It is an appealing idea, especially if you’ve ever wanted a scientific explanation for why somebody enjoys painting but dislikes spreadsheets. 

There is (sort of) some neuroscience lying underneath the myth. As with many conspiracies, the bit that makes it persuasive is that there is at least a kernel of some truth to it. The issue is that the little kernel of truth is then expanded upon to the point of being a little ridiculous. Certain brain functions really are more strongly associated with particular regions or hemispheres. Language processing, for example, is often predominantly left-lateralised (although functional neuroimaging studies are now finding that the right hemisphere also plays a role in diverse language functions). 

However, this does not mean individual children can meaningfully be divided into left-brained and right-brained learners. 

A study involving brain imaging data from more than 1,000 people found no evidence for the popular idea that individuals have globally dominant left- or right-brain networks corresponding to different cognitive personalities (Nielsen et al., 2013). 

Did Brain Gym actually work? 

Brain Gym annoyed me more than it had any right to.  

The idea of turning some physical movements into an extraordinarily ambitious explanation of how learning works was ridiculous from the off. 

This one is a specific programme that involved exercises such as cross-crawling, where children touch opposite hands and knees, and other movements said to improve communication between different parts of the brain. The proposed benefits included improvements in attention, reading and learning. 

In the same 2012 study mentioned earlier, 82% of the participating UK teachers reported having encountered Brain Gym in schools (Dekker et al., 2012). 

This is a shame, as the whole thing was pseudoscience rubbish. 

Research reviewing its theoretical foundations and supporting studies found no scientific basis for the claims being made (Hyatt, 2007). 

We do not have good evidence that crossing your arms or touching opposite knees improves communication between brain hemispheres in a way that makes children better readers or mathematicians. 

Now, I have no objection to children getting up and moving around. A short movement break can be an entirely sensible thing to do. Children sitting all day is definitely not a good idea. And hey, if children enjoy a short physical activity and return to their work more settled, fine. Keep doing it if it’s useful. But don’t expect it to magically improve literacy. 

For now, we will wrap up there. But there’s way more ground to cover, so stay tuned for part 2, coming soon! 

References 

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, Article 429. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00429 

Education Endowment Foundation. (2025). Learning styles. Teaching and Learning Toolkit. https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/teaching-learning-toolkit/learning-styles 

Forer, B. R. (1949). The fallacy of personal validation: A classroom demonstration of gullibility. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44(1), 118–123. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0059240 

Hyatt, K. J. (2007). Brain Gym: Building stronger brains or wishful thinking? Remedial and Special Education, 28(2), 117–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325070280020201 

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), Article e71275. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0071275 

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 

Rousseau, L. (2024). Dispelling educational neuromyths: A review of in-service teacher professional development interventions. Mind, Brain, and Education, 18(3), 270–287. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12414