Originally written for SecEd Magazine and published on 19 November 2025.

Last year, I was somewhat bemused to read a directive from a leading initial teacher training (ITT) provider warning one of my mentees to avoid “debunked theories such as Bloom’s taxonomy and Gardner’s learning styles”.

This came as news to me. While Neil Fleming’s (1995) VARK learning styles model and ideas such as “Brain Gym” have been thoroughly discredited, the jury is still out on Bloom’s taxonomy, which has evolved – or mutated –significantly from Benjamin Bloom’s original work (Bloom, 1956).

Moreover, Howard Gardner never actually proposed that his theory of multiple intelligences was equivalent to a learning styles theory (though he did come close; Gardner, 1993). In fact, he later criticised those who attempted to frame his “theory of mind” as an educational approach (Gardner, 1999).

This led to some introspection on my part. Although I wouldn’t advocate the use of Gardner’s ideas in teacher training, do I tell my mentee that the external ITT tutor has, essentially, misunderstood what is debunked and what is disputed? Or do I simply ignore this questionable interpretation of educational theory and just help her jump through the hoops required for qualified teacher status? After all, when she’s actually teaching, will she really need to care one iota about these theories anyway?

Where has this confusion come from?

Over the last decade there has seen a surge in the popularity of busting “edumyths” – claims about learning, teaching and the brain that are purportedly false but widely believed by educators. From books and blogs to conference keynotes and TikTok videos, the effort to dismantle these myths has become something of a cultural movement among teachers and edu-influencers. 

But as this trend grows, and considering the above, I feel we need to ask: Has the concern with edumyths gone so far that it now serves to silence or shut-down debate on contested educational ideas? To the extent, in fact, that even ITT tutors have become confused and uncritical when presented with anything labelled a “myth”.

What are edumyths?

Edumyths refer to widely held but scientifically unsupported beliefs about learning and teaching. Some examples as listed by Williams (2016) include:

• Learning styles: The belief that teaching tailored to an individual’s preferred learning style (e.g. visual, auditory, kinaesthetic) improves learning outcomes.
• Brain Gym: A set of simple physical exercises promoted as boosting learning and cognitive performance.
• Left-brain/right-brain dominance: The idea that some people use one side of their brain more than the other.
• The “10% of the brain” myth: The claim that we only use a small fraction of our brain.

Some of these persist partly because they contain a grain of truth – the brain is lateralised, and learners do vary – yet these elements are frequently oversimplified or misrepresented.

Despite research robustly challenging such beliefs (Pashler et al, 2008; Dekker et al, 2012; Howard-Jones, 2014), they continue to circulate. The intent behind questioning them is entirely laudable, as it generally promotes more evidence-based practice in classrooms.

Similarly, some researchers are concerned with the more specific issue, or term, of neuromyths, which highlight how neuroscience is often misinterpreted by those outside the neuroscientific community (Pasquinelli, 2012). The success of this interdisciplinary engagement depends, among other factors, on accurately representing the science; otherwise, neuroeducation and science-informed policies risk doing more harm than good.

The value of busting edumyths

At its best, the edumyth discourse supports a more scientifically informed profession. Teachers exposed to neuroscience and cognitive psychology are better equipped to evaluate claims about pedagogy. 

For example, Willingham (2009) emphasises the importance of understanding how memory works to inform instructional practices such as retrieval practice, spaced learning, and cognitive load theory.

Efforts to correct misconceptions, such as those led by Deans for Impact (2015), can empower teachers with knowledge to make more effective decisions. Moreover, studies show that almost 50% of teachers still believe in one or more common neuromyths; one international survey, albeit dated, found that more than 90% of educators endorsed at least one (Dekker et al, 2012).

In this context, myth-busting plays an important corrective role. In England, this movement really got going with several popular education books, including Tom Bennett’s Teacher Proof (2013), Daisy Christodoulou’s Seven Myths About Education (2014), and David Didau’s What If Everything You Knew About Education Was Wrong? (2015).

When busting becomes bludgeoning

However, I wonder whether the myth-busting movement may be tipping from helpful correction into counterproductive rigidity.

First, there’s the tone. Too often, edumyth content is delivered with a smug or dismissive attitude, especially in social media spaces where nuance is rare. Teachers who unknowingly apply outdated ideas may be publicly called out rather than supported. This kind of “gotcha” culture discourages professional learning and fosters defensiveness.

Second, some critiques of edumyths risk overreaching. For instance, certain books, articles and blogs have implied that approaches such as critical pedagogy, ideas like Carol Dweck’s Growth Mindset (2006) or frameworks such as Guy Claxton’s Building Learning Power (2002) are themselves educational myths – assertions that are arguably inaccurate and unfair, even though I am not an advocate of the latter.

While it is entirely reasonable to scrutinise and critique these ideas, particularly where flaws or limitations exist (there are many), dismissing them outright as baseless or entirely lacking in empirical or theoretical foundation may understate their complexity.

These approaches are grounded in educational theory and supported by evidence, even if that evidence is contested, limited or context-dependent. To disregard this entirely risks turning myth-busting into ideological gatekeeping rather than constructive critique.

Third, the focus on debunking myths can narrow our understanding of what counts as valid evidence. Education is not a hard science like physics; it involves people, values, cultures and contexts.

Over-emphasising scientific or tightly controlled studies risks sidelining the equally important roles of teacher expertise, pupil voice and local knowledge (Biesta, 2024).

Finally, much of the evidence used to justify the theories, approaches and strategies advocated by prominent myth-busters can – and should – also be critically examined. In many cases, these claims to authority rest on reductionist methodologies which, while extremely valuable in educational discourse and practice, are not always context-sensitive or inclusive of the complex realities faced by teachers in actual classrooms (Wrigley & McCusker, 2019).

The rise of the edu-influencer

The myth-busting phenomenon is also entangled with the rise of edu-influencers – teachers, consultants or even academics who build personal brands on social media or blogging platforms as well as through regular appearances at popular education conferences. While many share valuable insights, others may prioritise visibility over complexity.

This raises questions about whose voices dominate the narrative. Are experienced teachers with strong results and engaging lessons to be considered pedagogically backward if they incorporate out-dated or contested teaching strategies? Should they be prevented from sharing their ideas with novice teachers?

Such dynamics risk creating a culture where evidence-based practice becomes a rhetorical weapon rather than a shared goal. The fear of being publicly corrected may discourage experimentation, collaboration or even reflective practice.

A more balanced approach

So, how can we retain the useful aspects of edumyth-busting without falling into the trap of arrogance or oversimplifying the more complex and contested terrain of educational research, theory and practice?

1 – Respect context and complexity: Educational decisions are never made in a vacuum. A practice that lacks strong evidence may still work in specific situations or serve a symbolic, motivational or relational purpose. Rather than dismissing strategies outright, we should ask: “In what context might this be useful?” and “What outcomes are we actually trying to achieve?”

2 – Develop critical research literacy: Developing critical research literacy – knowing how to ask good questions about claims (Thomas & Pring, 2004) – empowers teachers to analyse and evaluate pedagogical strategies and techniques promoted by others online, in training, and in discussions with colleagues.

3 – Value multiple forms of evidence: Laboratory experiments, randomised control trials and meta-analyses are powerful, but they are not the only way to know what works. Teacher reflection, action research and qualitative studies all contribute to a rich understanding of educational practice.

4 – Promote a culture of inquiry, not certainty: Teachers should feel safe to explore ideas, test new strategies and revise their thinking. Myth-busting should be a conversation starter, not a conversation ender.

Final thoughts

Edumyths can lead to wasteful or ineffective practices, and efforts to dispel them have enhanced educational awareness. While I am by no means suggesting a return to ideas such as VARK or Brain Gym, the current climate of myth-busting, particularly on social media and among consultants, can at times overreach, conflating legitimate disagreement and debate with dismissive “debunking”.

Education is not about winning arguments. It’s about improving learning. And improving learning requires humility, curiosity and trust – not just in the research, but in the educators working at the coalface of complexity every day.

So yes, let’s continue to challenge bad ideas. But let’s also challenge ourselves to do this in a way that builds bridges, not barriers.

• Andrew Jones is assistant headteacher at The Reach Free School in Hertfordshire. He has been a teacher for 22 years. Find his previous contributions to SecEd via www.sec-ed.co.uk/authors/andrew-jones

Further information & references

• Biesta: Taking education seriously: The on-going challenge, Educational Theory (74,3), 2024: https://doi.org/10.1111/edth.12646
• Bloom (ed): Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals, Handbook I: Cognitive domain, David McKay, 1956.
• Claxton: Building Learning Power: Helping young people become better learners, TLO Limited, 2002.
• Deans for Impact: The Science of Learning, 2015: www.deansforimpact.org/files/assets/thescienceoflearning.pdf
• Dekker et al: Neuromyths in education: Prevalence and predictors of misconceptions among teachers, Frontiers in Psychology (3), 2012: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00429
• Dweck: Mindset: The new psychology of success, Random House, 2006.
• Fleming: I’m different; not dumb: Modes of presentation (VARK) in the tertiary classroom. In Higher Education: Blending tradition and technology, HERDSA, Lynn & Zelmer (eds), 1995.
• Gardner: Multiple Intelligences: The theory in practice, Basic Books, 1993.
• Gardner: Intelligence Reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century, Basic Books, 1999.
• Howard-Jones: Neuroscience and education: Myths and messages, Nature Reviews Neuroscience (15,12), 2014: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3817
• Pashler et al: Learning styles: Concepts and evidence, Psychological Science in the Public Interest (9,3), 2008: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x
• Pasquinelli: Neuromyths: Why do they exist and persist?, Mind, Brain, and Education (6,2), 2012: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-228X.2012.01141.x
• Thomas & Pring: Evidence-based Practice in Education, Open University Press, 2004.
• Williams: Why urban myths about education are so persistent and how to tackle them, The Conversation, March 2016: https://theconversation.com/why-urban-myths-about-education-are-so-persistent-and-how-to-tackle-them-60680
• Willingham: Why Don’t Students Like School? A cognitive scientist answers questions about how the mind works and what it means for the classroom, Jossey‑Bass, 2009.
• Wrigley & McCusker: Evidence‑based teaching: A simple view of “science”, Educational Research and Evaluation (25, 1-2), 2019: https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2019.1617992