Chapter 4 Further Reading: The Myth Graveyard

These resources are organized from most accessible to most technical. Start with whatever matches your current reading level and comfort with research.

On Learning Styles

Willingham, D. T. (2018). Ask the Cognitive Scientist: Learning Styles FAQ Daniel Willingham has spent years translating cognitive science for educators and the public. His writing on learning styles is clear, patient, and thorough — he doesn't mock teachers who believe in them, but he makes the evidence unmistakable. His YouTube video "Learning Styles Don't Exist" is a compact, 8-minute version of the argument and is probably the single best starting point for someone skeptical of the chapter's claims. Willingham's book Why Don't Students Like School? covers learning styles in Chapter 5 along with a broader framework for evidence-based teaching.

Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105–119. The definitive academic treatment. Pashler and colleagues systematically lay out what evidence would be required to confirm the learning styles hypothesis, survey the existing research, and find it wanting. It's written for an academic audience but is more accessible than most journal articles because it was designed to be read by educators as well as researchers. Free to access online. Required reading if you're going to debate this topic with anyone who references "the research" in support of learning styles.

Rogowsky, B. A., Calhoun, B. M., & Tallal, P. (2015). Matching learning style to instructional method: Effects on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(1), 64–78. A study that specifically tested the meshing hypothesis with a rigorous design and found no confirmation. Useful because it's a more recent, well-designed study — the kind skeptics might demand — and it found null results.

On Speed Reading

Rayner, K., Schotter, E. R., Masson, M. E. J., Potter, M. C., & Treiman, R. (2016). So much to read, so little time: How do we read, and can speed reading help? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 17(1), 4–34. The comprehensive scientific review of speed reading claims. This paper goes into detail on the physiology of reading — eye movements, fixation duration, the perceptual span — and evaluates each speed reading technique against the evidence. If you ever hear someone claim that speed reading at 1,000 wpm with full comprehension is possible, this paper is your answer. Also accessible online.

Solan, H. A., & Ficarra, A. (1990). A study of perceptual and verbal skills in disabled and normal readers in grades 4, 6, and 8. Journal of the American Optometric Association. For readers interested in the eye movement research that underlies reading comprehension, this is an entry point into the optometric and perceptual research literature on how reading actually works physically.

On Multitasking

Newport, C. (2016). Deep Work: Rules for Focused Success in a Distracted World. Grand Central Publishing. Newport's popular treatment of the value of extended, distraction-free focus. While not a research monograph, Newport synthesizes the relevant cognitive science effectively and provides actionable frameworks. Chapter 15 of this book draws on Newport's work; Deep Work itself is worth reading.

Leroy, S. (2009). Why is it so hard to do my work? The challenge of attention residue when switching between work tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109(2), 168–181. The original attention residue paper. Shorter and more readable than most organizational behavior research. The finding — that switching tasks leaves cognitive residue that impairs performance on the new task — is one of the most practically important findings for knowledge workers and students.

On Deliberate Practice and Expertise

Ericsson, A., & Pool, R. (2016). Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Ericsson's own popular account of his research, co-written with science writer Robert Pool. This is explicitly and partly a correction of Gladwell's misrepresentation in Outliers. It's engaging, well-paced, and gives you the actual framework — deliberate practice — that the research supports. Essential reading for anyone serious about skill development.

MacNamara, B. N., Hambrick, D. Z., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). Deliberate practice and performance in music, games, sports, education, and professions: A meta-analysis. Psychological Science, 25(8), 1608–1618. The meta-analysis that complicated the "practice explains everything" story. Useful for understanding the limits of deliberate practice claims as well as their genuine validity.

On Brain Myths Broadly

Jarrett, C. (2015). Great Myths of the Brain. John Wiley & Sons. A comprehensive debunking of popular neuroscience myths by a cognitive psychologist and science writer. Covers the left-brain/right-brain myth, the 10% myth, and many others in depth. Accessible, well-referenced, and good-humored.

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 MRI. PLOS ONE, 8(8), e71275. The specific fMRI study discussed in the chapter. Open access, available online. The introduction is worth reading even if you skip the technical sections; it gives good historical context for where the left-brain/right-brain idea came from and why the study was designed as it was.

A Note on Reading This Literature

When you read research on learning myths, notice how often the popular claim and the actual research finding diverge. The original Ericsson research is careful and qualified; Gladwell's retelling is not. The original Sperry split-brain findings are specific and limited; the personality-type mythology is sweeping and unqualified. The skill of tracking what the evidence actually shows — as opposed to what popular accounts say it shows — is exactly the kind of critical thinking that will serve you throughout this book.