The neuro-myths of learning: part one

Our journey into the evidence of how the brain best learns

.

By Kris White, Behavioural Psychology specialist and Trainer at Train (https://train-people.com), and Adelaide Vinay, Anthropologist and Trainer at Train.

Ever heard these expressions?

• We only use 10% of our brain
• It takes 10,000 hours of practice to become world class at anything
• People need two compliments for every piece of constructive feedback
• People are either right or left brained
• People learn best when they’re having fun and are really comfortable
• We all have specific learning styles (visual, auditory etc.) and learn best when information is presented in this way

There’s something deeply satisfying about these simple ‘facts’ doused in conviction. They’re intuitive, catchy and shareable. They ‘feel’ right. That satisfaction drives belief and they, along with many others, have become embedded in our collective understanding of who we are as humans, how our minds work and how we learn.

These statements are tropes — neuro-myths shared through networks without question on origin or source. Tropes get stronger over time, they quickly disguise themselves as evidence. And because they sound true, they don’t get questioned.

Ideas like these influence how individuals think and feel about their own capabilities and potential, and they’ve informed common approaches to teaching, learning, training, and skills development. This is a problem. If we’re intent on getting better at whatever it is that we do, shouldn’t we get clear on how to best do that?

Over a year ago at Train, we started delivering training programs with the aim to design and deliver programs that successfully attach practical capability to people. To increase the probability of these capabilities being truly embedded, it’s essential to understand how — based on the latest evidence — the brain best learns.

We were driven by our frustration at these tropes being thrown around by training sponsors and participants — who used them like reciting psychology-backed evidence. We kept hearing; ‘If I’m not having fun, I can’t learn’ ‘Why aren’t there lollies on the table?’ ‘I need to know every scenario that we’re going to cover before starting an activity, I don’t deal well with surprise’ ‘I’m an auditory learner, I can’t retain written information’.

So, we engaged a range of leading learning experts and delved into the depths of the psychology of learning literature. As it turns out, these catchy, simple statements about how to learn most effectively are frequently overstated, and often just plain wrong.

Let’s take an example — ‘We all have specific learning styles (visual, auditory etc.) and learn best when information is presented in this way’.

Since the beginning of time, humans have tried to classify people in order to simplify things — the human brain is hardwired to avoid complexity and strive for simple answers (see Thinking, Fast and Slow, 2011, Kahneman, D. and Egan, P.). At the same time, the innate desire to belong drives us to seek and adopt identities. People identify with their star sign, their Myers-Briggs type and even the Disney character that best represents them. Subsequently, everything is filtered through this highly simple but satisfying label. Learning is no different; it’s easy to adopt an ‘identity’ of being a particular type of learner and thinker.

The learning style trope is incredibly prevalent. A 2014 UK study “Neuroscience and education: myths and messages” (published in Nature Reviews Neuroscience) suggest that up to 93 per cent of UK teachers believe that teaching to personal learning styles results in better outcomes.

In fact, the evidence does not support this belief.

In a 2009 meta-study, “Learning styles: Concepts and evidence” (published in Psychological Science in the Public Interest), academics in learning psychology challenged this common assumption by carefully examining all existing studies on learning styles. They could not find any correlation between someone’s “learning style”, how they were taught, and how they performed in tests.

Matching a specific teaching method to someone’s “learning style” had absolutely no impact on recall or performance.

Though the idea of ‘learning styles’ is still being perpetuated far and wide, these findings are widely adopted by the academic community. In a 2010 review article “The Enduring Appeal of ‘Learning Styles’” (published in the Australian Council for Educational Research), the author observes:
“we know ‘what works’ and what are the attributes of highly effective teaching but evidence-based practices lack the ‘sound bite’ appeal and easy marketability of learning styles theory.” “rather than being a harmless fad, learning styles theory perpetuates the very stereotyping and harmful teaching practices it is said to combat”.

These neuro-myths aren’t just wrong, they’re also dangerously limiting the human potential for learning and growth. This is fundamental at a time when the ability to develop new capabilities has never been more important; everyone is grappling with new challenges, new ways of working, new technologies and the prospect of multiple careers over a lifetime.

In his latest publication on the challenges of the 21st century, Yuval Noah Harari notes:
“Already today, few employees expect to work in the same job for their entire life. By 2050, not just the idea of ‘a job for life’, but even the idea of a profession for life may seem antediluvian [old-fashioned].”

The time has come to leave the comfortable tropes behind and create a future of learning based on evidence.

Over the coming weeks, Train will be exploring the science behind these training neuro-myths and diving into the evidence for more effective ways to design and deliver training programs that actually build capabilities (rather than just sounding good). For any specific insights, or more information, leave a note in the comments and we’ll get back to you (and we’ll try to answer with hard evidence where it exists).