Have you ever asked your students if they're visual, auditory, or kinesthetic learners? Have you even adjusted your lessons to match those preferences—maybe added more diagrams, more discussion, or hands-on activities to “fit” each type? If so, you're not alone. The idea of tailoring teaching to learning styles is one of the most widespread beliefs in education. It feels right. It shows care. It makes intuitive sense: after all, don’t we all learn differently? But here's the surprising twist—research tells a very different story.
Despite its popularity, the learning styles theory doesn’t hold up when put to the test. Decades of studies, including those discussed in Urban Myths about Learning and Education, have found no significant evidence that matching instruction to a student’s preferred learning style improves outcomes (Willingham, 2009; Pashler et al., 2008). What feels helpful may in fact be a distraction. And the most recent findings only reinforce this. In a comprehensive 2025 review, Hattie and O’Leary examined 17 meta-analyses involving over 100,000 students. Their conclusion? The effect size of tailoring teaching to learning styles is virtually zero. It makes little to no difference.
So why is the myth still going strong? Probably because it reflects something we care deeply about: recognizing students as individuals. But as Hattie points out, putting students into boxes based on "style" risks overlooking what actually works—teaching them how to learn. Strategies like retrieval practice, elaboration, summarizing, and metacognitive reflection have far stronger evidence behind them. These aren’t just teaching tricks—they’re tools that help students become more effective learners across any context.
So next time you feel tempted to match your materials to a “learning style,” ask instead: How can I help students build learning strategies that last? That small shift could make a big difference.
