“65% of people are visual learners”, how many times have you heard something like that? Lots, I bet, despite it not being true. I’m not here to shame anyone. I’m here to do something more useful: show my working and get us to focus on evidence we use in our professional lives.
An example of what I’m talking about is my blog investigating the above claim. The short version is that all the articles I found referencing this research related to a so-called paper that isn’t academic, which did reference a research paper, that even the author basically said not to reference as it was out of date.
What can we do to be able to interrogate information better? One way is using the CRAAP model, developed by Sarah Blakeslee at the Meriam Library California State University, Chico. At its most basic it’s looking at the information we have and asking questions:
- How current is the info? We need to evaluate if something is more of less relevant given its age. For instance, something about virtual learning that’s pre-COVID, is it still appropriate today?
- How relevant is this information to our needs at the moment? For example, is it for workplace learning, or actually based on what children do in school?
- We need to interrogate the source of this information. I’m sure we’ve all seen the stories about a particular food being completely healthy and safe, and found out that it was funded by the people with a vested interest in its sales!
- This leads nicely into how correct the information actually is, including can we verify the information, is it unbiased and has it been reviewed by others.
- Lastly, why has someone put so much effort into this – what is their agenda and how does that impact the information we see and how we use it.
We are in a position of influence and authority, so we need to be right. If we aren’t right, others will judge us. If you share about learning styles on LinkedIn, I’m not going to hire you. We do more harm than good, to others and ourselves.
The myths spread at scale because of technology:
- SEO blogs
- LinkedIn posts
- Nice vendor PDFs
- AI chatbots repeating bad inputs
- And more
CRAAP is a human critical thinking skill we can augment with technology. We need to use search engines, Google Scholar, AI etc to find sources and human judgement to interpret quality, context, ethics.
Evidence-informed L&D is about humans using technology well, not outsourcing thinking to it.
Resources
Some common theories you might want to put to the CRAAP test
MBTI
Typical claim: The MBTI assessment is designed to help people identify and gain some understanding around how they take in information and make decisions.
Example one: “Consider having team members complete a short assessment before training. This information will help you craft sessions that directly address varied learning needs and personality strengths.”
Example two: “Myers-Briggs is used to identify individual leadership styles and develop leadership ability through better self-awareness and awareness of others. Using the MBTI effectively can help build emotional intelligence and emotional intelligence has been shown to correlate with leadership ability.”
NLP – Neuro linguistic programming
Typical claim: NLP comprises models, techniques and strategies to help us understand how the language we use influences the way we think and the results we get!
Example one: “The NLP techniques taught on the courses will help you overcome limiting beliefs, fears, and negative patterns that may be holding you back from reaching your full potential. Through the practice of NLP offered alongside our training courses, you can learn how to reframe challenges, set and achieve goals, and cultivate a more positive mindset. This will result in increased resilience, motivation, and overall well-being.”
Example two: “Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a psychological method, and it involves analysing the approaches used by individuals to reach a personal goal. Neuro-Linguistic Programming shows you how to control your mind. Using these mind techniques such as visualisation, you can change the way that you think and feel. NLP tries to modify unconscious biases or limitations of an individual’s map of the world.”
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs
Typical claim: At the very peak of Maslow’s hierarchy are the self-actualization needs. Self-actualizing people are self-aware, concerned with personal growth, less concerned with the opinions of others, and interested in fulfilling their potential.
Example one: “Simply put, Maslow comes before Bloom. We also need to recognise that as learning professionals, there’s only so much we can do to satisfy our learners’ physiological needs. However, we can and should be aware of them and the impact they have on motivation. In turn, this awareness should drive understanding and empathy.”
Example two: “For example, many people will be motivated by an increase in their salary, until they actually receive that salary. Once the person has met that money need, it is less likely to be a constant motivator. In fact, you may now be motivated toward a higher salary or a different goal altogether.”
7% body language / Mehrabian pie chart
Typical claim: Albert Mehrabian’s 7-38-55 Communication model says that 7% of the meaning of feelings and attitudes takes place through the words we use in spoken communications, while 38% takes place through tone and voice and the remaining 55% of communication of these factors take place through the body language we use (specifically our facial expressions).
Example one: “According to the 7-38-55 rule, 93 percent of meaning is communicated non-verbally. Your tone of voice and body language are much more important than what you’re actually saying. If your counterpart’s body language indicates that they are about to lose their bearings, speak calmly and plainly to soothe them and slow the pace of the negotiation.”
Example two: “Body language speaks louder than words. In fact, Albert Mehrabian’s 7%-38%-55% rule states that non-verbal communication covers about 90% of overall messages’ impact. Spoken words influence your audience the least. Your audience judges your physical behavior because it reveals your character and signifies your intent. Align your body language with your message to display authority and influence.”
Left brain / right brain
Typical claim: The left brain is the logical thinking mind, able to solve problems and think of solutions. It’s the analytic and objective side of the brain. Whereas the right brain, sometimes called Gestalt, has to do with feelings. It is the impulsive, intuitive, artistic, and also creative side of the brain. It is driven by our feelings and emotions, our beliefs and the subjective thinking of what we do.
Example one: “The methods of right brain training mainly involve artistic activities and the development of the right brain improves creativity. Left brain development methods often remind us of the lessons we take in schools. Maths, science or grammar classes are usually good to improve the left side of the brain.”
Example two: “We identify how each student learns best. We use the VARK questionnaire and also assess whether learners lean toward left-brain or right-brain thinking. This allows us to adapt teaching styles to suit each individual. This approach helps apprentices develop essential skills more quickly than they would with a one-size-fits-all training method. They understand more, apply their knowledge better, and grow into valuable employees.”
7 second attention span
Typical claim: The average human attention span is only 8.25 seconds, which is less than the goldfish’s 9-second attention span.
Example one: “The average attention span for the notoriously ill-focused goldfish is nine seconds, but according to a new study from Microsoft Corp., people now generally lose concentration after eight seconds, highlighting the affects of an increasingly digitalized lifestyle on the brain… Microsoft found that since the year 2000 (or about when the mobile revolution began) the average attention span dropped from 12 seconds to eight seconds.”
Example two: “We, on the other hand, are limited to 8 seconds before we get distracted. It’s not just our genetic makeup, but tech distractions and emotional factors that steal our mental focus. Even the design of your online training course can put employees’ attention spans to the test.”
The Learning Pyramid / % knowledge retention
Typical claim: The learning pyramid is an illustration that identifies the seven methods of learning, and the effectiveness of each method in terms of knowledge retention. These percentages were borne from extensive research by the National Training Laboratories Institute.
Example one: “The pyramid outlines several common learning methods and the average retention rates linked with each:
- Lecture (5%) – Traditional, one-way teaching where information is delivered to an audience.
- Reading (10%) – Slightly better, but still passive.
- Audio-visual (20%) – The use of videos, slides, or media to support learning.
- Demonstration (30%) – Showing how something is done in practice.
- Discussion (50%) – Actively engaging in dialogue, challenging, and reinforcing ideas.
- Practice by Doing (75%) – Applying knowledge directly, hands-on.
- Teaching Others (90%) – The most powerful of all; explaining something to someone else forces you to master it deeply.”
Example two: “Mastering effective learning is the key to self-development and growth. When you understand the principles behind the Learning Pyramid, you can enhance your skills, improve learning efficiency, and achieve continuous improvement.”
Balanced approach resource
This resource is a summary from ChatGPT, as I was doing my research it created this cheat sheet. As a reminder, take AI resources with a pinch of salt and do remember to double check everything!
MBTI
Core issue: Popular, feels insightful, but shaky as a scientific tool.
- Problems with reliability (type switches), validity, dichotomies that don’t fit trait research; limited predictive power. PMC+2Prosper+2
- Often sold as if “evidence-based psychometrics”. That fails CRAAP on Authority/Accuracy/Purpose.
- Balanced L&D line: If used at all, position as a conversation starter, not a diagnostic of talent or potential, and be honest about the limits.
NLP
Core issue: Strong claims, weak evidence.
- Multiple reviews and meta-analyses find no robust evidence for NLP’s core mechanisms; widely labelled pseudoscience. PMC+3Wikipedia+3CentAUR+3
- Fails CRAAP on Authority/Accuracy; Purpose often commercial.
- L&D line: Treat with high caution. If someone wants to use it, ask, “Show me the peer-reviewed evidence for outcomes beyond placebo and good facilitation.”
Maslow’s hierarchy
Nuance needed (good example to show CRAAP isn’t just “ban things”).
- Original work: based on limited, qualitative observations; the famous pyramid wasn’t Maslow’s own graphic. psychclassics.yorku.ca+1
- Modern research: human needs are not strictly linear; people pursue multiple needs simultaneously; updated models exist. ScienceDirect+2PositivePsychology.com+2
- CRAAP verdict: Partial pass on Relevance/Purpose as a metaphor; weak on Accuracy as a literal rule.
- L&D line: You can use it as a loose lens in context, but don’t treat it as a validated, staged operating system for humans.
7% body language (Mehrabian)
Core issue: Correct study, wildly wrong generalisation.
- Mehrabian’s 7-38-55 finding only applied to very specific conditions (brief, ambiguous messages about feelings where channels conflicted). Not all communication. Wikipedia+1
- Training claims like “93% of communication is body language and tone” fail Accuracy and Purpose (often drama to sell).
- L&D line: Teach nuance: non-verbal matters, especially for emotion, but words absolutely do count.
Left/right brain people
Core issue: Neuromyth.
- People are not left-brained vs right-brained; both hemispheres are heavily interconnected and active in most tasks. deansforimpact.org+2educationalneuroscience.org.uk+2
- Fails CRAAP on Accuracy/Authority when presented as learning design guidance.
- L&D line: Drop it. Use it as a fun example of why we like simple stories more than complex reality.
7-second / goldfish attention span
Core issue: Catchy nonsense.
- The “8 seconds vs goldfish” stat is not based on robust evidence; heavily critiqued. Attention is contextual and trainable, not capped at 7 seconds. unplugged.rest+3TIME+3Forbes+3
- Fails Currency/Accuracy.
- L&D line: Instead of repeating it, say: “Design for relevance and interaction; people pay attention to what matters.”
Learning Pyramid / “10–90% retention”
Core issue: Invented numbers dressed as science.
- The classic “we remember 10% read, 20% hear… 90% teach” figures have no solid primary study behind them; origins are messy and misattributed.
- Fails Accuracy/Authority/Purpose: precise percentages with no evidence, often used to sell “activity-based” solutions.
- L&D line: Ditch the numbers. Say instead: “Active methods like retrieval, discussion and practice tend to beat passive listening. Let’s choose methods based on the goal and evidence, not a fake pyramid.”
We only use 10% of our brain
Core issue: Neuromyth.
- Modern neuroscience shows widespread brain activity across tasks; there is no “90% unused” chunk waiting to be unlocked.
- Fails Currency/Accuracy/Authority: outdated pop-psych line, not supported by contemporary research.
- L&D line: Drop it completely. If you want a hook, use: “People often underuse their skills and opportunities, not their brain tissue. Our job is to design environments that help more of their capability show up in performance.”
