If you've ever attended a school or training session, you've likely encountered the concept of learning styles. Some claim to be visual learners who need diagrams and pictures, while others identify as kinesthetic learners who require hands-on experience. The VARK model (Visual, Auditory, Read/Write, Kinesthetic) has become deeply ingrained in educational culture. But what if one of the most popular theories in education is actually a myth? Let's explore what learning science really tells us.

What Are Learning Styles?

Learning styles theory suggests that each person has a consistent method of taking in, processing, and remembering information. The theory proposes that by matching teaching methods to individual learning styles, students will achieve better educational outcomes. Visual learners supposedly excel with pictures and diagrams, while auditory learners benefit from spoken information. Kinesthetic learners need hands-on experiences, and reading/writing learners prefer text-based materials.

There are over 70 different classification systems for learning styles, with the VARK model being just one of many. The VARK model is just one among over 70 different classification systems. Other popular frameworks include the Kolb classification, the Felder-Silverman model, and even adaptations of Myers-Briggs personality types for educational contexts.

The Appeal of Learning Styles

The concept of learning styles holds tremendous appeal because it acknowledges individual uniqueness and seems to offer a simple solution to complex educational challenges. By suggesting that personalization is key to effective teaching, it gives both students and teachers a framework for understanding their educational experiences.

This appeal is reflected in its widespread adoption. A survey found that 93% of UK teachers believed that "individuals learn better when they receive information in their preferred Learning Style." In US higher education, 64% of faculty believe teaching to a student's learning style enhances learning, and 72% of institutions teach learning style theory in faculty development programs.

What Does Learning Science Say?

Despite widespread belief in learning styles, research consistently fails to support their effectiveness. The evidence against learning styles is both extensive and conclusive.

"No study has shown that teaching to an identified learning style results in better retention, better learning outcomes or student success." - Based on Pashler et al. (2008)

Lack of Scientific Support

A comprehensive review by Pashler and colleagues in 2008 found no evidence supporting the use of learning styles in education. Coffield's team examined 71 different learning styles classifications and concluded they should not be used in education. Multiple studies across different age groups and educational contexts have failed to demonstrate that matching instruction to learning styles improves any meaningful educational outcomes.

Measurement Issues

The problems with measuring learning styles are significant. Most learning style inventories rely on self-reporting, which is notoriously unreliable. Research shows that people are generally poor judges of their own learning processes, often mistaking preferences for actual effectiveness. These tests actually measure learning preferences rather than genuine learning efficiency—what students like or feel comfortable with, not what actually helps them learn best.

Perhaps most damaging to the theory is evidence that learning "styles" are unstable. They can change over time and across different subjects, suggesting they're more like temporary states than permanent traits.

No Evidence of Improved Outcomes

Studies consistently demonstrate that matching teaching style to supposed learning style doesn't improve retention of information, test scores, long-term learning, or overall academic achievement. Some research even suggests students might perform better when taught in a different modality than their self-identified learning style.

Why Do Learning Styles Persist?

Given the lack of evidence, why do learning styles continue to thrive in education?

Confirmation Bias

Teachers and students tend to seek information that confirms their existing beliefs about how learning works. When educators expect learning styles to be effective, they interpret ordinary variations in student performance as evidence supporting the theory.

The Research-Practice Gap

A perspective article by Philip Newton revealed that 89% of recent research papers in educational databases implicitly or directly endorse learning styles. This creates a misleading message for educators trying to use evidence-based practices.

"The overwhelming majority (89%) of recent research papers implicitly or directly endorse the use of Learning Styles in Higher Education." - Newton (2015)

Institutional Momentum

Educational materials, professional development programs, and teacher training often incorporate learning styles as fundamental concepts. Once embedded in institutional practices, these ideas become difficult to dislodge, even in the face of contradictory evidence.

What Actually Works? Multimodal Learning

While learning styles don't work as claimed, there's strong evidence that teaching in multiple ways does improve learning outcomes. Multimodal learning engages different parts of the brain simultaneously, creating richer neural networks and stronger memory formation. When information is presented through multiple representations, students can make more connections between concepts. We have a PowerPoint presentation hosted on our resources page to addresses important considerations when presenting involves multiple modes.

The key distinction is that multimodal learning presents information in multiple formats to all students, rather than trying to match specific formats to individual learners.

The Dangers of Learning Styles

Beyond being ineffective, promoting learning styles can potentially cause harm:

Pigeon-Holing

When students are labeled as one type of learner, they may avoid subjects they perceive as mismatched with their style. A "visual learner" might shy away from music or language studies, believing they're not suited to their learning style.

Resource Diversion

The time, money, and effort spent on learning styles represents a significant opportunity cost. These resources could be redirected toward evidence-based practices that actually improve student outcomes.

Passive Learning Mindset

Learning styles promote a passive view of education, suggesting that learning is primarily determined by teaching style rather than student effort. This contradicts extensive research showing that active engagement and deliberate practice are crucial for effective learning.

What Should Educators Do Instead?

Rather than focusing on learning styles, educators should embrace evidence-based practices that benefit all students. Use multimodal approaches that present information in various formats. Encourage active learning strategies and focus on teaching methods supported by rigorous research. Help students develop effective study habits and teach metacognitive skills so they understand how they actually learn.

"Learning is an active process that requires engagement, effort, and good strategies – not simply matching your 'style' to a particular teaching method."

Summary

• Despite 93% of teachers believing in learning styles, research shows no evidence that matching teaching to learning styles improves outcomes
• Over 70 different learning style classifications exist, but none have been scientifically validated
• Learning style inventories measure preferences, not actual learning effectiveness
• Students' supposed learning styles are unstable and change across time and subjects
• 89% of recent research papers still endorse learning styles, creating a misleading picture for educators
• Multimodal teaching (using multiple methods for all students) is effective, unlike matching to individual styles
• Focusing on learning styles can pigeon-hole students and divert resources from proven methods
• Active engagement and metacognitive strategies matter more than any supposed learning style

References

Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning Styles and Pedagogy in Post 16 Learning: A Systematic and Critical Review. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre.

Dekker, S., Lee, N. C., Howard-Jones, P., & Jolles, J. (2012). Neuromyths in education: Prevalence and predictors of misconceptions among teachers. Frontiers in Psychology, 3:429.

Newton, P.M. (2015). The Learning Styles Myth is Thriving in Higher Education. Frontiers in Psychology, 6:1908.

Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105-119.

Willingham, D. T., Hughes, E. M., & Dobolyi, D. G. (2015). The scientific status of learning styles theories. Teaching of Psychology, 42(3), 266-271.