The Myth of the Learning Style: What Cognitive Science Really Tells Us

The idea of learning styles has long appealed to teachers looking to meet the needs of every student. Whether visual, auditory, or kinesthetic, we’ve been taught that identifying a child’s preferred “style” helps unlock their learning potential. But what if this popular belief isn’t just oversimplified, but actually unsupported by science? In the last decade, cognitive psychologists and education researchers have taken a hard look at the learning styles theory.

What the Research Really Says

A comprehensive review by Pashler et al. (2009) and later studies from organizations like Deans for Impact and the Education Endowment Foundation found little to no empirical support for learning styles improving learning. That is, students don’t learn better when instruction matches their self-identified style.

What matters more?

• Cognitive Load: Presenting information clearly and in manageable chunks.

  
  

• Spaced Practice: Revisiting key ideas over time.

  
  

• Dual Coding: Using both words and visuals—not because a student is “visual,” but because it aids memory for all learners.

  
  

• Retrieval Practice: Getting students to recall, not just re-read, information.

  
  

Why the Myth Persists

The idea of learning styles persists for understandable reasons. It feels intuitive. It affirms a commitment to personalization. And it makes us feel we’re reaching every learner.

But while differentiation is essential, it’s time to move away from tailoring instruction to unproven styles—and toward evidence-based teaching that works across the board.

What Teachers Can Do Instead

Here’s how to shift practice without losing your personal touch:

1. Talk about “learning preferences,” not “styles.”

Students may prefer certain ways of learning, but that doesn't mean those ways are more effective. Use preferences to engage learners, not to define them.

2. Use multimodal instruction—strategically.

Present ideas using visuals, speech, and hands-on practice—not to "match styles," but to enhance understanding for all.

3. Explicitly teach study skills.

Many students struggle not because of mismatched styles, but because they haven’t been taught how to learn—how to summarize, test themselves, and manage time. Try resources like The Learning Scientists for free posters and guides.

4. Focus on memory, meaning, and mastery.

Emphasize deep processing, concept connections, and repeated retrieval over surface-level customization.

Great teachers know their students deeply. That knowledge should absolutely shape instruction. But it’s time to ditch the neuromyth that each child has one "right" way to learn.

Instead, let’s personalize by being responsive, flexible, and grounded in science—not fads.

Because real personalization means knowing what works, and for whom, and when.

How might your teaching shift if you prioritized how students best remember, not just how they say they best receive information? Let us know in the comments below.