Lecture Hall

Learning Styles as a Myth

Students’ learning styles is a long-held myth that does not help to support student learning.

At a Glance

Some key takeaways on learning styles as a myth: 

  • Research indicates that there is no scientific evidence to support the notion that matching content to learning styles enhances learning outcomes.
  • Students may have preferences, but these do not translate into better learning through matched styles.
  • Educators are encouraged to move beyond learning style “neuromyths” and use evidence-based strategies from cognitive and adult learning theories.

What are Learning Styles? 

Have you ever heard a student mention they are more of an auditory learner? Have you ever taken a quiz and learned you are more of a left-brainer versus a right-brainer? Learning styles refer to a range of theories that suggest different ways individuals learn and process information. They propose that we can be categorized based on our “learning style” preferences. For example, a student can identify as a “kinesthetic learner,” which means they prefer hands-on activities and experiential learning experiences. 

Over 70 separate learning-style instruments have been documented in educational literature (Coffield et al. 2004; Pashler 2008)

Some of the more popular learning style theories include:

  • Neil Fleming’s VAK/VARK Model (visual, auditory, reading/writing, and kinesthetic)
  • Honey and Mumford’s Learning Styles (activist, reflector, theorist, and pragmatist)
  • Roger Sperry and Michael Gazzaniga’s Right Brain vs. Left Brain

Learning Styles: A Neuromyth

Although reflecting on how we learn can be a helpful exercise, learning into the neuromyth (Howard-Jones, 2014) can be more harmful than beneficial to students. 

Some issues with learning styles are: 

  • There is no evidence that supports teaching to a person’s specified learning style results in better learning (Alley, et. al., 2023; Cuevas, 2015; Kirschner & van Merriënboer, 2013; Rogowsky et al., 2020)
  • Some students performed better on tasks when taught in a different modality than their self-identified “learning style” (Krätzig & Arbuthnott, 2006; Rogowsky et al., 2020). 
  • Learning styles oversimplify the learning process, which is a much more complex phenomenon. A student may prefer to learn “visually.” Still, that modality may not work best for them to process the information (e.g., you can better learn playing an instrument through hands-on instruction versus just watching someone visually play). A student’s preferred learning style can change based on the subject, over time, and other factors, making it unstable. 
  • The idea that a student has one “fixed” learning style goes against the idea that learning should be flexible and adaptable. Mayer (2004) and Willingham (2005) emphasize the importance of varied instructional approaches and the ability of individuals to adapt their learning strategies in response to task demands and contextual factors. 

Learning Styles Don’t Exist- Willingham 2008

Recommendations

Learning requires complex, often uneven developmental steps, such as building on prior knowledge, forming conceptual structures gradually, and repetition of various types. Therefore, students benefit when instruction provides multiple ways to engage in learning. Alternating modes serve different students’ aptitudes, levels of self-awareness as learners, and cultural backgrounds. 

Instructors should imagine students as neither uniform nor categorized in their learning, but rather as experiencing similar development through diverse personalities and experiences. As such, instructors can incorporate active learning, group work, and equity-minded teaching practices to invite students to engage their full faculties and experience peer learning. Multiple modalities can assist all students, regardless of their preferred learning style. Research shows, for instance, that students learn more deeply from a combination of words and visuals than from words alone. Multimedia presentations encourage active cognitive processing, promoting meaningful learning (Mayer, 2003).

Research shows that students benefit when given opportunities to reflect on assignments, exams, and activities, and that learning outcomes improve when instructors help students think about how they drew connections, digested content, or arrived at conclusions (Kaplan et al., 2013). This process of metacognition helps students think about their thinking, and helps students identify ways to improve their learning and avoid weak habits of thought or study.

Proposed learning styles do not always fit disciplinary norms; for example, writing courses benefit from a significant verbal component, geometry courses from a visual component, and lab classes from an experiential component. Instructors can be aware of predominant presentation styles in their discipline and consider discipline-specific resources to widen their modes of instruction.

Instructors can help students understand the difference between studying styles and learning processes. Students will develop their own preferences for reviewing content, but these practices differ from deeper cognitive processes, such as “chunking,” building on prior knowledge, making conceptual connections, and transferring knowledge. Ambrose et al. (2010) and the National Research Council (2000) offer excellent overviews of these deeper processes and explain why multiple modes of instruction benefit all students.

References and Resources

Alley, S., Plotnikoff, R. C., Duncan, M. J., Short, C. E., Mummery, K., To, Q. G., Schoeppe, S., Rebar, A., & Vandelanotte, C. (2023). Does matching a personally tailored physical activity intervention to participants’ learning style improve intervention effectiveness and engagement? Journal of Health Psychology, 28(10), 889–899.

Ambrose, S., Bridges, M., Lovett, M., DiPietro, M., & Norman, M (2010). How Learning Works: 7 Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review. London, UK: Learning and Skills Research Centre.

Cuevas, J. (2015). Is learning styles-based instruction effective? A comprehensive analysis of recent research on learning styles. Theory and Research in Education, 13(3), 308–333.

Howard-Jones, P. A. (2014). Neuroscience and education: myths and messages. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 15(12), 817–824. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3817

Kaplan, M., Silver, N., Lavaque-Manty, D., and Meizlish, D., eds. (2013). Using Reflection and Metacognition to Improve Student Learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Kirschner, PA. (2017). Stop propagating the learning styles myth. Computers & Education, 106: 166-171

Krätzig, G. P., & Arbuthnott, K. D. (2006). Perceptual learning style and learning proficiency: A test of the hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 238–246.

Mayer, RE. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13(2): 125-139

National Research Council. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: Expanded Edition. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

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

Rogowsky, B. A., Calhoun, B. M., & Tallal, P. (2020). Providing Instruction Based on Students’ Learning Style Preferences Does Not Improve Learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 11.

Willingham, D. T. (2005). Ask the Cognitive Scientist: Do visual, auditory, and kinesthetic learners need visual, auditory, and kinesthetic instruction? American Educator, 29(2). American Federation of Teachers. https://www.aft.org/ae/summer2005/willingham

Willingham, D. T. (2008, July 2). Learning Styles Don’t Exist [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIv9rz2NTUk