Hey everyone,

Pop quiz

Which of these are scientifically proven strategies/statements for learning?

(Select all that apply… except you can’t really)

A) Visual, Auditory, Kinesthetic learning styles
B) Teaching to a student’s “dominant intelligence” (multiple intelligence)
C) People are left-brained OR right-brained
D) We only use 10% of our brain

If you picked none… congrats.
If you picked any… you’re not alone!

This issue comes a couple weeks after April Fools, but some of the biggest pranks in education were never meant to be jokes.

Let’s explore a few.

Myth #1: Learning Styles

Someone said to me recently, “Try presenting it in their preferred modality.”

This idea largely comes from VARK (Visual, Auditory, Reading, Kinesthetic), developed in the late 80s by Neil Fleming.

This model and theory pigeon-holes learners into a preferred “learning style” (I even gagged typing it, having to passive-aggressively slap quotes on it).

There is plenty of literature debunking this, but a notable one is this 2018 study published in the ASE journal.

The research shows: Even when instruction matches a learner’s “preferred style”… outcomes don’t improve.

Why it’s bad, and actually hurts learners:

• Teachers spend time matching modality instead of improving instruction.
• Students start to believe: “I can’t learn this way.”
• CONTENT should dictate the modality, not the learner!! Some things must be learned visually (notation, graphs), others auditorily (intonation, tone), others kinesthetically (motor skills).
• Learning something in a less-preferred way can actually strengthen retention and transfer. 😲

Myth #2: Multiple Intelligences

Howard Gardner’s 1980s theory suggests:

Students have different types of intelligence, and we should teach to their strongest one.

But even he himself was like:
“Hey… this isn’t a strict instructional model and it’s not learning styles. Please stop.”

And yet… here we are. A blog titled “truth for teachers” slapping it around like the holy grail of learning design.

The National Library of Medicine has a paper where Lynn Waterhouse bashes the HECK out of this one.
​
But the gist of it is…

• There was no empirical evidence
• Testing methods for it are severely flawed
• 40+ years of neuroscience, and none of it supports this organization/split of cognition.

Doubling down on the flaws, she states:
​
“Where Multiple Intelligence intervention studies have reported evidence of enhanced learning, it is likely that learning is actually enhanced by other well-known methods that have been tested and found effective. These include, but are not limited to, the extended repetition of information, greater student attention to novel teaching strategies, increased personal attention from the instructor, and the greater enthusiasm of teachers using new teaching methods.”

(For my returning readers, I hope you've tried SOMETHING from these newsletters, and felt similar enthusiasm.)

Myths 3-6: Rapid Fire

There are so many more.

Left brain vs. Right brain

NOPE: Your brain isn’t a personality split. Complex thinking requires both hemispheres working together. Harvard Health Article on this.​

“Students today can’t focus, keep everything short”

NOPE: Attention isn’t fixed. It expands with well-designed tasks and shrinks with disengagement. My previous issue on Microlearning focuses on this.

“We only use 10% of our brain”

NOPE: Brain activity is widespread, even during simple tasks. MIT hacks this one.

“If learners enjoyed it, it worked”

HUGE GIGA NOPE: This meta-analyses claims about 10% (which is extremely weak) correlation between learner satisfaction and successful transfer.

Strategies to implement from this “Fake News”?

NOPE Yes… actually.

Even myths tend to survive because they orbit something true.

What we should take away:

🎨 Use multiple representations intentionally
​Not because of “learning styles,” but because different formats reveal and transfer different aspects of the content. Be intentional!

👷🏼‍♀️ Build flexible learners
​Help learners adapt, not just live in comfort zones.

✅ Differentiate the right things
​Pace, feedback, and support structures often matter more than modality.

🤖 Leverage tools (like AI) to scale personalization
​I’m planning a “Mr. Combs” agent (Gemini Gem/bot) for marching band this year. My drummers can snap a picture of their music and ask, “How do I read this rhythm?”
It responds using my frameworks, my voice, my approach... freeing me up to focus on nuance, rehearsal decisions, and human connection.

Updates From the Music Room

Another FREE work for string orchestra: Out of the Darkness (Grade 3).

Inspired by the 5 stages of grief, it leans heavily into expressionism. Even the cover art reflects the journey.

The 4 stages of grief (middle colors) that lead to the 5th, acceptance (white), from loss (black). 🤯 Here is a 2 minute video on the inspiration.

New release season is just around the corner for publishers, so expect my next two issues to have new music for band, strings, and choir from my good friends at TUX People’s Music.

Your Thoughts

Which learning myths have you seen or heard people reference around you, and what was its context? Are there any that you used to implement but come to realize is a myth (judgement free zone)?

​Share your thoughts here​

Get Inspired,
Evan

​​Previous Issue: Microlearning, Macro Pitfalls​

​PIXEL Web Links & Socials​