Happy New Year to all our readers. Our first blog of 2025 begins with a short challenge. 

Can you think of any myths that have been debunked over the course of history? If you’re stuck for ideas, here’s a few prompts. Does lightning not strike the same place twice? Is the North star really the brightest star in the night sky? And do mice actually love cheese?

These are some of the many myths that have been debunked or reframed by scientists with the use of evidence. Evidence is very important in helping us to clarify any misconceptions. Studies show that around 1000 lightning strikes happen globally every second and the Empire State Building was once used as a laboratory precisely because it was struck by lightning around 100 times in one year. In reality, there are multiple lightning strikes which find the path of least resistance between the clouds and the ground. Another misconception or myth is that Polaris, the North Star, is the brightest start, but it is not. Sirius, meaning scorching, is the brightest star in the Northern hemisphere. Research has also shown that mice will eat cheese but, when given a choice, they are more likely to favour a sweeter food over it. This myth originated in medieval times when refrigerators had not been invented. Then, cheese was wrapped in cloth or wax and rodents were able to find this food source more easily. 

Education has had its fair share of myths and misconceptions too. And, as we learn more and more about how the brain works, we are able to use evidence to put aside those neuromyths that inhibit learning and then design our classrooms, curricula and lessons to foster learning. Many myths in education have come from distortions of science. And many distortions can be shielded from scrutiny unless we, as educators, are engaged in a continual process of ongoing professional development. Wishful thinking too can fuel myths, which means that we develop a set of beliefs based on what we think/hope is happening rather than on what is actually happening. As educators, it’s important to be vigilant about myths, misconceptions and wishful thinking. Let’s take a look at three myth busters when it comes to studying and study skills. 

MYTH ONE: A student learns best when s/he is taught in their preferred learning style. 

This might come as a shock but we need you to read this carefully and to take the time to consider the evidence concerning the following – learners DO NOT have different learning styles. This myth is one of the most influential worldwide. 

The assumption behind this myth seems to be based on the various regions of the cortex which play crucial roles in brain processing, involving visual (V), auditory (A) and sensory (or kinaesthetic) (K) information. As the myth goes, students learn best when they receive information in these forms according to which part of the cortex works better. The immediate questions that spring to mind about this myth are:  how would a student know which part of his/her cortex works best?; how reliable would this judgement be, either when conducted by them and/or with us, as educators? And, given that we all mature as learners, wouldn’t the various parts of the brain cortex improve/change in their effectiveness over time? Now, you can begin to see some cracks emerging in this myth. 

The VAK model is the one that is cited most commonly in this scenario. As the theory goes, if you score highest in a particular category, you are deemed to have a predominant learning style. No doubt you have heard someone say, “I am an auditory learner.” Where you see this in use, either as a model or as a personal assumption, be cautious. The brain’s interconnectivity challenges its veracity. Evidence is very strong and points to the fact that we use ALL of our senses to learn new information, even though we might feel, intuitively, that one sense is dominant or more effective than others. Controlled laboratory studies and educational research show that we are multi-sensory learners. Presenting information in multiple sensory modes enhances learning.

MYTH TWO: Highlighting material helps students to learn and remember informationEverybody loves a highlighter! It’s like having a revision comfort blanket. Highlighting is also used while reading but there is little reliable evidence to indicate its effectiveness. When it comes to highlighters, proceed with caution. Students are attracted to the bright colours (and sometimes even the various smells) but highlighters are often misused.

Highlighters are less effective as a study strategy for a range of reasons. Often students don’t know which details are important or precisely what to highlight, and why. In those scenarios, the highlighter is used randomly. The reliance on highlighters can also prevent the use of other productive study strategies. When misused, highlighting offers no benefit beyond a close reading of the text, because students don’t process the material deeply. Sometimes the colour of the highlighter may even block out words and make it more difficult to read the content, never mind commit this to memory and then recall it when required. And, where students use highlighter colour coding systems, these can sometimes create more confusion than clarity, unless the student has already identified the main themes and subthemes or codes contained in the text. 

Highlighting can and should be used only as a first step towards identifying important information. But students will not magically remember what they have highlighted, especially if it’s 80 per cent of the entire text. Therefore, when used in combination with other study strategies, such as mnemonics, retrieval or interleaved practices, highlighting can be a much more effective tool. The key is not the highlighting itself but rather what students do afterwards with the highlighted material is much more important. Students have to actively engage with the highlighted material in order to complete the four stages of learning, which we covered in our first blog in this series. And, lastly:

MYTH THREE: Rereading is an effective study strategy 

Rereading notes is one of the most common strategies for studying. Students will reread notes, usually recognise the information (because they have read it before) and, on the basis of this recognition, convince themselves that they know the information. Students may also spend a lot of time rereading. Then, they move on to something else. 

The issue in this is that rereading is a passive and ineffective strategy. Much like highlighting, it creates a false sense of understanding because of the repeated exposure to information. It is also very time consuming, especially if the student’s notes are unconcise and poorly structured. For these reasons, the student should actively engage in a process of retrieving information, from memory, without the aid of a text or notes. 

By all means encourage your child or student to reread their notes. After a break, invite them to recall the information from memory without the aid of notes or textbooks. Recall is much more challenging and more effective. It is also a more efficient use of time because it is proven to aid knowledge retention. 

Here’s to a year of myth busting in education.