Myths and famous claims
Do learning styles exist?
What is documented
Teaching to a preferred learning style, such as visual or auditory, has not been shown to improve learning. A major 2008 review found virtually no evidence for it and concluded there is no adequate evidence base for using learning-styles assessments in general education.
Want your own number? The test is 25 visual puzzles, about 12 minutes, no sign-up.
The myth
The idea is that each learner has a style, often described as visual, auditory or kinesthetic, and that people learn best when teaching is delivered in their style. A visual learner should get diagrams, an auditory learner should get spoken explanations, and so on.
The short verdict
People may prefer one format over another, but the payoff from matching teaching to a preference has not been demonstrated. A 2008 review in Psychological Science in the Public Interest by Harold Pashler, Mark McDaniel, Doug Rohrer and Robert Bjork found virtually no evidence that teaching to a student's preferred learning style improves learning (Pashler et al. 2008).
What the evidence shows
The specific claim is what the reviewers call the "meshing hypothesis": that instruction works best when it matches a learner's preferred format (Pashler et al., 2008). Testing it properly needs a particular design. Learners are sorted by style, each group is taught in more than one way, and the matched method should win for each group. The reviewers found virtually no evidence for that kind of interaction, and several properly designed studies flatly contradicted the meshing hypothesis.
Their conclusion was that there is no adequate evidence base to justify learning-styles assessments in general education. They also added a fair caution: many versions of learning styles have simply not been tested (Pashler et al., 2008). The verdict is about the evidence, not a proof that no style could ever matter.
Try one · Pattern Recognition
Which tile comes next?
Tap the option you think is right, or show the answer.
Show the answer
The missing tile shows a very large solid arrow pointing down (option 3).
How to solve it
- Compare neighboring tiles and name what changes each time.
- From tile to tile, the arrow turns a quarter turn clockwise.
- The fill cycles solid, hatched and outline, then starts again.
- Everything else stays the same from tile to tile.
- The last tile shows a very large outlined arrow pointing right. Apply each change once more.
- So the missing tile shows a very large solid arrow pointing down.
That was 1 puzzle. The full test has 25.
Why it persists
The idea is intuitive and flattering, and it is very widely held. In a 2012 survey of 242 UK and Dutch teachers interested in neuroscience, 93% of the UK teachers and 96% of the Dutch teachers endorsed the learning-styles statement (Dekker et al., 2012). The same survey found that teachers with more general knowledge about the brain were more likely, not less, to believe neuromyths.
Learning styles also travels with a related idea, Howard Gardner's multiple intelligences. The two are not the same, but a 2006 critical review concluded that multiple intelligences theory, the Mozart effect and emotional intelligence theory lack adequate empirical support and should not be the basis for educational practice (Waterhouse, 2006). The page on multiple intelligences covers that theory on its own terms.
How to judge a learning-styles claim
- Does it only show that people have preferences, or does it show that matching teaching to them improves learning?
- Were learners of different styles each taught in more than one way, so the matched method could be compared?
- Was learning measured with the same test for everyone, rather than by how the lesson felt?
What is actually true
- Many versions of learning styles have not been tested, so the honest verdict is no adequate evidence, not proven impossible.
- Matching teaching to a preferred style has not been shown to improve learning.
- Some things do reliably build ability. A meta-analysis of more than 600,000 participants found that each additional year of education raises IQ by about 1 to 5 points (Ritchie & Tucker-Drob, 2018).
For what does and does not raise intelligence, see can you raise intelligence. Related myths include left brain vs right brain and the Mozart effect.
Sources
- Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105-119. doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x
- Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105-119. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26162104/
- 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. doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00429
- Waterhouse, L. (2006). Multiple intelligences, the Mozart effect, and emotional intelligence: A critical review. Educational Psychologist, 41(4), 207-225. doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4104_1
- Ritchie, S. J., & Tucker-Drob, E. M. (2018). How much does education improve intelligence? A meta-analysis. Psychological Science, 29(8), 1358-1369. doi.org/10.1177/0956797618774253