By Betsy Hill and Roger Stark
Teachers and students have known since Socrates that learners differ widely in their strengths, interests and how they approach learning. Today’s classrooms may appear more variable than ever, but that variability exists not only between students (inter-learner) but also within each learner (intra-learner). A single student can be strong in one area and struggle in another, and those differences often go unnoticed without a closer look at the cognitive processes that support learning.
It’s tempting to label students simply—A student, B student, “math person,” “language person”—but most students do not fit tidy categories. A high-achieving student may occasionally earn a lower grade in one assignment; an average student may shine in a particular project and struggle in another. These fluctuations reflect the uneven profile of cognitive skills—visual processing, auditory processing, reasoning, memory, attention and executive function—that underlie classroom performance.
Recent research shows that these cognitive skills can explain a large portion of the variability in academic outcomes. In many cases, learning difficulty is not a result of poor instruction or curriculum alone but is tied to specific cognitive strengths and weaknesses. When teachers and students lack tools to see these underlying patterns, it’s easy to misinterpret the cause of success or struggle.
Consider a personal example. I (Betsy Hill) loved languages in high school and learned new vocabulary and grammar quickly, but I struggled with archery and avoided art classes. The common thread in those struggles was not content but a cognitive requirement: both archery and many visual arts demand reliable depth perception and visual-perceptual processing. Because my depth perception was weak, practical tasks on the field or in a studio were difficult, even though my written understanding and verbal skills were strong. My teacher didn’t notice this underlying issue, and most students aren’t aware of which cognitive processes support their successes or cause their challenges.
Understanding those cognitive foundations helps explain why students with different profiles may produce similar surface-level performance while relying on very different processes. Todd Rose, in The End of Average, emphasizes that each person brings a unique combination of strengths and weaknesses to every task. Two students might both complete a lab report successfully, but one may depend on strong memory while the other relies on superior reasoning. Without targeted assessment, these differences remain invisible.
Uneven cognitive profiles make learning unpredictable and often stressful. A student who has sharp skills in some areas but notable weaknesses in others can face unexpected stumbles: certain math problems click instantly while others appear impenetrable; a reading passage might flow smoothly until an unfamiliar word abruptly disrupts comprehension. When students are unaware of the source of these inconsistencies, they may attribute success and failure to luck or effort rather than to specific cognitive strengths and strategies.
For students interested in STEM, identifying and addressing cognitive strengths and weaknesses is particularly important. Spatial perception—the ability to visualize how shapes fit together or how an object looks when rotated—is a core skill for geometry, calculus, physics and interpreting scientific graphs. A student with strong reasoning and memory but weak spatial perception may find aspects of STEM unexpectedly difficult. Many potential engineers drop out after their first year of college not because they lack determination but because they struggle with spatial tasks that could have been strengthened with deliberate training.
Cognitive flexibility is another key skill for STEM and for learning in general. It describes the ability to shift between different ways of thinking, to adopt new perspectives and to change strategies when faced with novel problems. Students with limited cognitive flexibility may read fluently yet stumble on unfamiliar words, or solve predictable math problems easily but freeze on new problem types. Recognizing that cognitive flexibility is the underlying challenge makes such stumbles more understandable and actionable.
When students know their cognitive profile—where their visual memory, verbal memory, spatial skills, attention and flexibility fall relative to each other—learning becomes more predictable and less stressful. They can apply targeted strategies that leverage their strengths and compensate for weaker areas. For example, a student whose strongest skill is visual memory will retain charts, diagrams and images more easily than lists of verbal information. Practical strategies for that student include pairing pictures with vocabulary, studying textbook images deliberately, and redrawing teacher diagrams in notes to reinforce recall.
- Use paired visuals and words (draw a picture on a flashcard rather than only writing a definition).
- Review and annotate images and diagrams in textbooks actively.
- Replicate classroom illustrations and charts in personal notes to strengthen retention.
These techniques are effective for students whose profiles favor visual memory; they would be far less helpful for a student with stronger verbal memory and weaker visual skills. That is why one-size-fits-all study advice is rarely optimal. Tailored strategies based on reliable cognitive assessment help students use their strongest processes to tackle academic tasks and allow teachers and parents to support targeted skill development.
Beyond compensatory strategies, many cognitive skills can be improved with training designed to strengthen working memory, attention, spatial reasoning and cognitive flexibility. When students both understand their cognitive profile and have tools to build weaker skills, their confidence increases, unpredictability decreases, and learning becomes less of a guessing game and more a matter of applying specific strategies and practice.
Giving students insight into their cognitive strengths and weaknesses empowers them to take responsibility for learning. It helps educators design differentiated instruction that respects individual learning profiles and guides students toward academic paths—especially in STEM—where their strengths can be developed and weaknesses addressed.
About the authors
Betsy Hill is President of BrainWare Learning Company, an organization focused on building learning capacity through the practical application of neuroscience. She is an experienced educator who has studied links between neuroscience and education and teaches strategic thinking in an MBA program. She holds a Master of Arts in Teaching and an MBA.
Roger Stark is Co-founder and CEO of BrainWare Learning Company. For the past decade he has promoted broad access to cognitive literacy skills training and assessment, advancing tools for cognitive skills development grounded in decades of clinical collaboration. He led the development of BrainWare SAFARI, a widely researched comprehensive cognitive training program.
This article was originally published by The Learning Counsel, a research institute and news media hub focused on the shift in education toward digital curriculum.