The belief that students learn best when instruction matches students’ preferred modality-specific learning style (i.e., visual, auditory, or kinesthetic) is not supported by empirical research. Yet, the learning styles neuromyth remains pervasive, including within teacher education programs. The purpose of the current study was to explore the extent to which various text-related scaffolds (i.e., purpose for reading, during reading prompts, and refutation text structure) shifted 221 undergraduate teacher candidates’ beliefs and knowledge about the learning styles neuromyth from before reading to after reading, and to investigate the durability of these shifts at a delayed posttest. Across all intervention conditions, teacher candidates demonstrated beliefs change and a shift in pedagogical knowledge immediately after the intervention, with a slight overall shift back to supporting learning styles two months later. Individuals given the purpose of reading to change their beliefs had lower beliefs in learning styles at posttest and greater pedagogical knowledge at delayed posttest, especially when reading a text with more refutational elements. Summarizing during reading had a positive impact on beliefs at posttest. Contrary to previous studies, there were no main effects of refutation text, and no effect of any scaffolds on text comprehension. Findings have implications for the knowledge revision literature, including understanding nuances between teacher candidates’ beliefs and pedagogical knowledge.