Mark ở vũ trụ khácVIMark học AI
Mark ở vũ trụ khác · Another Universe Common Myths · Learning · Training

Common Myths #3: Everyone has a "learning style"

"I'm a visual learner." The most familiar line in every classroom and training room.

The claimpeople learn better when taught in their style: visual, auditory or kinesthetic
Spread bythe VAK model (1979) and the VARK questionnaire (1992)
Short verdictpreferences are real, the benefit of "matching" is not
Main sourcePashler and colleagues, 2008
One-minute recap

Essentials

Preferences are realEveryone has ways of learning they find more comfortable. That part is not wrong.
Matching doesn't helpProperly designed tests find almost no gain from teaching people "in their style".
No crossoverTo believe it, each style must win under its own method. Very few studies show that.
Content picks the formatA map needs a picture, a skill needs practice. For everyone, not by "type".
Still hugely popular93% of UK and 96% of Dutch teachers surveyed believed it.

Source: Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer and Bjork (2008), Psychological Science in the Public Interest 9(3); Mayer (2009), Multimedia Learning; Dekker and colleagues (2012), Frontiers in Psychology 3: 429 (93% and 96%).

Part 1

The question behind the myth

If you ask someone "do you prefer to learn from pictures or words?" and then teach them that way, do they learn more? The experiments' answer: almost never. What should decide how you teach is the content, not the learner's label.

Link 1 · solidPeople have preferencesAsk and they answer at once: I like to watch, to listen, to do.
→
Link 2 · weakA preference is a fixed "type"Dozens of competing models, unreliable measures.
→
Link 3 · brokenMatched teaching works betterProperly designed tests almost never find it.

Source: Pashler and colleagues (2008); Coffield and colleagues (2004), Learning and Skills Research Centre.

Part 2

Where the myth came from

There is no single "first person who said it". There is a chain of models, questionnaires and training courses, each step a little more confident than the last.

1978 · Rita and Kenneth DunnThe book Teaching Students Through Their Individual Learning Styles: teach each child through their own learning style.
1979 · Barbe and Swassing: three "modalities", visual, auditory, kinestheticThe book Teaching Through Modality Strengths and a test to find each person's "most efficient learning mode". The VAK model is usually credited to this group, though some sources trace it earlier.
1984 · David KolbThe book Experiential Learning and the Kolb learning style inventory, still one of the two most used.
1992 · Neil Fleming and Colleen Mills: VARKThey added "read/write" to make four types. The paper's title states its purpose: "Not Another Inventory, Rather a Catalyst for Reflection".
2004 · Coffield and colleagues count 71 models13 major, 58 minor. Many of the instruments have serious weaknesses in reliability.
2006 · Fleming himself is worriedHe wrote that "students and teachers invest more belief in VARK than it warrants" (secondary source).
2008 · Pashler and colleaguesFour cognitive psychologists review all the evidence: not enough basis to build teaching around learning styles.
2012 · Dekker and colleagues93% of UK and 96% of Dutch teachers in the survey still believe it. It is the most-believed brain myth in the study.
2015 · Newton89% of recent research papers on learning styles in higher education still endorse using them.
3/2017 · A letter from about 30 scientists in The GuardianIt calls learning styles a "neuromyth", wasteful and potentially harmful (secondary source).

Source: library catalogues (Dunn and Dunn 1978, Reston; Barbe, Swassing and Milone 1979, Zaner-Bloser); Kolb (1984), Prentice-Hall; Fleming and Mills (1992), To Improve the Academy 11; Coffield and colleagues (2004); Pashler and colleagues (2008); Dekker and colleagues (2012); Newton (2015), Frontiers in Psychology 6: 1908. Fleming's 2006 line and the 2017 letter: secondary sources (press; Centre for Educational Neuroscience, 20 March 2017).

One sentence distorted in four steps. Step 1: I like looking at pictures, a preference. Step 2: I am a visual learner, a label. Step 3: I can only learn from pictures, a limit. Step 4: teaching me with words is teaching me wrong, a demand. 1 · preference"I like lookingat pictures." 2 · label"I am avisual learner." 3 · limit"I can only learnfrom pictures." 4 · demand"Words are thewrong way for me." evidenceno evidence illustrative diagram: each step sounds reasonable, only step 1 has data behind it
The myth wasn't invented from nothing. It starts from something true (everyone has preferences) and slides into a demand nobody tested.Source: the distinction between preference and learning benefit follows Pashler and colleagues (2008) and Knoll and colleagues (2017), British Journal of Psychology 108(3).

It sounds like respecting difference

Who would object to teaching each person their own way? The claim carries a good value, so few people check it.

The feeling of ease is real

Knoll and colleagues (2017): studying "in your style" makes you believe you'll remember more, though you don't.

Quick test, catchy label

A few minutes of questions, one label. Easy to sell as a workshop, easy to put in a file.

Source: Knoll, Otani, Skeel and Van Horn (2017), British Journal of Psychology 108(3): 544–563.

Post 1

Where the myth came from

VAK 1979VARK 199271 models93% of teachers
Post 2

What the evidence says

crossover testaudiobook vs e-text426 students2024 meta-analysis
Post 3

Work lesson

content picks the format5-day onboardingmeasure with tests
Part 3

What the evidence says

One idea, one picture. Figures marked "illustrative" show the idea, not measured data.

The crossover test: what you'd need to see

crossover interactionPashler 2008
Two illustrative charts. Left, what you'd need to see to believe in learning styles: visual-preferring people do better with pictures, verbal-preferring people do better with words, and the lines cross. Right, what experiments usually find: parallel lines, one method better for both groups, or no difference. needed: the lines cross usually found: no crossing taught with picturestaught with words test score visualverbal taught with picturestaught with words visualverbalone method wins for both groups illustrative diagram
Seeing "visual people learn well from pictures" is not enough. Pictures might help everyone. To prove learning styles, you must randomly assign people of each style to both methods and see the lines cross. Pashler and colleagues wrote that they "found virtually no evidence" for this interaction, and several properly designed studies pointed the other way.Source: Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer and Bjork (2008), Psychological Science in the Public Interest 9(3): 105–119.

Audiobook or e-text: "auditory learners" do no better

audiobook vs e-textRogowsky 2015, 2020
A two by two table. Rows: prefers listening, prefers reading. Columns: learned by audiobook, learned by e-text. All four cells show roughly equal: no significant difference between matched and mismatched cells. learned by audiobooklearned by e-text prefers listeningprefers reading matchedscore ≈ mismatchedscore ≈ mismatchedscore ≈ matchedscore ≈ tested at once and after 2 weeks: no significant link between preference and method
Same book passage, two ways to learn it, random assignment. College-educated adults had their listening or reading preference measured, then learned from an audiobook or an e-text. In 2020 the team repeated it with 125 fifth graders and found similar results.Source: Rogowsky, Calhoun and Tallal (2015), Journal of Educational Psychology 107(1): 64–78; Rogowsky, Calhoun and Tallal (2020), Frontiers in Psychology 11: 164 (n = 125).

426 students: most didn't study "in their style", and grades didn't depend on style

VARK vs gradesHusmann and O'Loughlin 2019
426 anatomy students took the VARK questionnaire. About 67 percent did not study in line with their style. Course grades did not correlate with scores in any VARK category. 426 anatomy students took VARK ~67% did not study "in their style" ~33% course grade × score in V, A, R, K:no correlation
What did relate to grades were specific study habits, such as practising with the microscope, not the label. The authors called the results "strong evidence" that learning styles should not be promoted.Source: Husmann and O'Loughlin (2019), Anatomical Sciences Education 12(1): 6–19 (426 students, no correlation). The ~67% share and the quote: secondary source, BPS Research Digest.

Learning "in your style" feels easier, but you don't remember more

judgements of learningKnoll 2017
Two illustrative pairs of bars. First pair, how much you think you'll remember: higher when studying in your preferred style. Second pair, how much you actually recall when tested: equal. "I'll remember this"actual recall on test your styleother style your styleother style illustrative diagram
This is why the myth survives. Verbal-preferring people predicted they'd remember words better, visual-preferring people predicted they'd remember pictures better. But preference scores were unrelated to what they actually recalled. The feeling that "this way sinks in" is real; it just isn't evidence.Source: Knoll, Otani, Skeel and Van Horn (2017), British Journal of Psychology 108(3): 544–563.

The 2024 meta-analysis: a small effect, rarely in the right shape

meta-analysisClinton-Lisell and Litzinger 2024
The 2024 meta-analysis: 21 studies, 1,712 participants. Overall benefit of matched instruction g equals 0.31, small. Only 26 percent of learning outcome measures showed a crossover pattern. 21studies 1,712participants g = 0.31overall benefit, small 26%show crossover 26%74% of outcome measures: no crossover the authors: too small and too infrequent to adopt widely; many low-quality studies
This is where the sources don't fully agree. The latest meta-analysis does find a small benefit from matching, so "completely debunked" overstates it. But only about a quarter of outcomes show the crossover the hypothesis needs, and the authors don't recommend adopting it. In 2025 papers were still debating why some meta-analyses find an effect.Source: Clinton-Lisell and Litzinger (2024), Frontiers in Psychology 15: 1428732 (21 studies, 1,712 people, g = 0.31, 26%); Educational Psychology Review (2025), "Learning Styles, Preferences, or Strategies?".

The true kernel: format matters, but by content

content modalityMayer 2009 · Willingham 2005
Choosing format by content. Things with a shape, like maps, processes, org charts: pictures with explanation. Hands-on skills, like using software or talking to customers: practice with feedback. Pronunciation and tone: listening. Reasoning and policy: reading with examples. For everyone. if the content is…teach it with… maps, processes, org charts pictures + explanation using software, talking to customers practice + instant feedback pronunciation, tone on calls listen to a model + say it back reasoning, policy, contracts read + examples + self-quiz
The right question is "what shape is this content?", not "what type is this person?". Mayer sums up many experiments: "people learn better from words and pictures than from words alone", for learners in general. Willingham concludes that what matters is the content's best format, not the student's strongest modality.Source: Mayer (2009), Multimedia Learning, Cambridge University Press, chapter "Multimedia Principle"; Willingham (2005, 2018), "Ask the Cognitive Scientist", American Educator. The table is Mark's example based on these sources.
Part 4

Fact check: Solid, Caution, False

10 common versions of the myth, checked against the original sources. Click each row to see why.

SOLIDPeople have their own preferences for taking in information

You can measure them by asking, and they shape how learning feels (Knoll and colleagues, 2017). Pashler and colleagues (2008) don't deny preferences; they show preferences don't prove a benefit from matching.

SOLIDWords plus pictures usually beat words alone

Mayer's multimedia principle (2009), for learners in general, not split by "type". This is the true part the myth borrows to sound reasonable.

SOLIDBeginners and experts need different teaching

Detailed step-by-step guidance helps novices but can slow down people who already know the material (the expertise reversal effect, Kalyuga and colleagues, Educational Psychologist, 2003). The difference here is prior knowledge, not "visual or auditory".

CAUTION"Some studies found matched teaching works"

True: the 2024 meta-analysis found a small benefit (g = 0.31) across 21 studies. But only 26% of measures showed crossover, study quality was low, and the authors themselves don't recommend wide adoption.

CAUTION"Taking the VARK quiz helps you understand yourself"

Fleming and Mills (1992) made VARK as "a catalyst for reflection", and thinking about how you learn can be useful. But using the result as a diagnosis to choose how to learn has no supporting evidence, and Fleming himself worried people believe VARK too much (secondary source).

CAUTION"Learning with more senses makes it stick"

Often true when the format fits the content (words with pictures, practice for skills). Piling on channels that don't fit can just add clutter. And if it's true, it's true for everyone, which is a reason to drop learning styles, not to support them.

FALSETeaching in someone's style makes them learn better

The core of the myth. Pashler and colleagues (2008) found virtually no evidence; Rogowsky and colleagues (2015, 2020) tested it properly with adults and fifth graders and found no difference.

FALSEEveryone belongs to one of three (or four) fixed types

Coffield and colleagues (2004) counted 71 models that sort people in different ways, many with unreliable measures. Of Husmann and O'Loughlin's 426 students (2019), most didn't study in their own style.

FALSEYou should avoid ways of learning that "aren't your style"

This is the harmful part: a self-described "auditory learner" who skips the diagram misses what the diagram holds. The 2017 letter from about 30 scientists called this approach wasteful and potentially damaging (secondary source).

FALSE"It's a finding of neuroscience"

Learning styles are on the list of "neuromyths" in Dekker and colleagues (2012), and the most believed one in that survey. Knowing more about the brain in general didn't protect teachers from it.

Part 5

Assessing the myth

Scores are Mark's assessment based on the sources in Part 8, not figures from a study.

How wrong
4/5
How persistent
5/5
How harmful
3/5
The true kernel
  • People do have preferences
  • Format matters, by content
  • Learners differ in prior knowledge
The false part
  • Matched teaching doesn't improve learning
  • People don't sort into 3–4 fixed types
  • Labels can make people avoid useful methods

A kind idea with one broken link: respecting learners' preferences is good, but using preferences to decide how to teach has no evidence behind it.

More: why Mark didn't give 5/5 for wrongness

The 2024 meta-analysis does find a small effect, and in 2025 papers were still debating why. Saying "learning styles are complete nonsense" goes beyond the evidence. More precisely: after more than 40 years, the matching hypothesis still hasn't passed the test it set for itself.

Harm is 3/5 because the cost is mostly money, time and opportunity: three versions of every material, split classes, and people who limit themselves with a label.

Part 6

Work lesson: design training around the content

For onboarding new hires, internal training, or teaching yourself a new skill.

A five-day onboarding plan built around content. Day 1: org chart and processes, taught with pictures and explanation. Day 2: try a real task with a buddy. Day 3: answer questions about rules from memory, no rereading. Day 4: redo day 2's task alone and get feedback. Day 5: short test and Q&A. day 1 · picturesorg chart,processes, systems day 2 · try ita real taskwith a buddy day 3 · self-quizrules, termsanswer from memory day 4 · redoday 2's task, aloneget feedback day 5 · measureshort testthen ask how it felt No "learning style quiz" step. Everyone follows the same path.
Each day picks its format from what has to be learned. Day 3 uses self-testing instead of rereading because active recall beats rereading for long-term memory (Roediger and Karpicke, Psychological Science, 2006). The plan is Mark's example; adjust it to your job.Source: Roediger and Karpicke (2006), "Test-enhanced learning", Psychological Science 17(3); Mayer (2009).
Ask about the content, not the person"Does this have a shape? Is it a skill or knowledge?" instead of "What's your learning style?".
Drop the style quiz from onboardingDon't write "visual learner" in files, don't split classes by label, don't make three versions of materials.
Use preferences for motivation, not designLetting people listen to a recording on the commute is fine, as long as they still look at the diagram.
Measure with tests, not feelings"This way sinks in" is not evidence (Knoll, 2017). Test a week later to find out.
There is no adequate evidence base to justify incorporating learning style assessments into general educational practice.Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer and Bjork (2008), Psychological Science in the Public Interest 9(3), p. 105.
Part 7

Further reading

Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer and Bjork, "Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence" (2008)The original. Read the section on the crossover test: short and very clear.
Daniel Willingham, "Ask the Cognitive Scientist", American Educator (2005, 2018)Written for teachers, easy to read, with examples of "the format of the content".
Richard Mayer, Multimedia Learning (2009)If you make training slides or videos, this is the book to have.
Common Myths #04: "Only 7% of communication is words"A famous number that its own researcher had to correct.
Part 8

Sources

Original papers first. Wherever only a secondary source exists, it is flagged next to the figure.

  1. H. Pashler, M. McDaniel, D. Rohrer and R. Bjork, "Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence", Psychological Science in the Public Interest 9(3): 105–119, 2008. sagepub.com
  2. B. Rogowsky, B. Calhoun and P. Tallal, "Matching Learning Style to Instructional Method: Effects on Comprehension", Journal of Educational Psychology 107(1): 64–78, 2015. eric.ed.gov
  3. B. Rogowsky, B. Calhoun and P. Tallal, "Providing Instruction Based on Students' Learning Style Preferences Does Not Improve Learning", Frontiers in Psychology 11: 164, 2020 (n = 125 fifth graders). frontiersin.org
  4. P. Husmann and V. O'Loughlin, "Another Nail in the Coffin for Learning Styles?", Anatomical Sciences Education 12(1): 6–19, 2019 (426 students). wiley.com. The ~67% share: BPS Research Digest (secondary source).
  5. A. Knoll, H. Otani, R. Skeel and K. R. Van Horn, "Learning style, judgements of learning, and learning of verbal and visual information", British Journal of Psychology 108(3): 544–563, 2017.
  6. A. Clinton-Lisell and C. Litzinger, "Is it really a neuromyth? A meta-analysis of the learning styles matching hypothesis", Frontiers in Psychology 15: 1428732, 2024 (21 studies, 1,712 people, g = 0.31, 26%). frontiersin.org
  7. F. Coffield, D. Moseley, E. Hall and K. Ecclestone, Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review, Learning and Skills Research Centre, 2004 (71 models; a report, not a peer-reviewed paper).
  8. S. Dekker, N. Lee, P. Howard-Jones and J. Jolles, "Neuromyths in education: Prevalence and predictors of misconceptions among teachers", Frontiers in Psychology 3: 429, 2012 (242 teachers; 93% UK, 96% Netherlands). frontiersin.org
  9. P. Newton, "The Learning Styles Myth is Thriving in Higher Education", Frontiers in Psychology 6: 1908, 2015 (89%). frontiersin.org
  10. N. Fleming and C. Mills, "Not Another Inventory, Rather a Catalyst for Reflection", To Improve the Academy 11: 137, 1992. W. Barbe, R. Swassing and M. Milone, Teaching Through Modality Strengths, Zaner-Bloser, 1979. R. Dunn and K. Dunn, Teaching Students Through Their Individual Learning Styles, Reston, 1978. D. Kolb, Experiential Learning, Prentice-Hall, 1984.
  11. R. Mayer, Multimedia Learning, Cambridge University Press, 2009. D. Willingham, "Ask the Cognitive Scientist", American Educator, 2005 and 2018. H. Roediger and J. Karpicke, "Test-enhanced learning", Psychological Science 17(3), 2006. S. Kalyuga, P. Ayres, P. Chandler and J. Sweller, "The expertise reversal effect", Educational Psychologist 38(1), 2003.
  12. Secondary sources: the March 2017 letter in The Guardian (Centre for Educational Neuroscience, 20 March 2017); Fleming's 2006 line (via press coverage); BPS Research Digest on Husmann and O'Loughlin.