Research scientists continue to examine the theory in response to the thriving industry marketing learning-styles assessments and interventions to educators, despite the dearth of evidence suggesting an impact. Then there’s the education community, where students’ learning styles remains a popular idea and pedagogical priority. In these fields, believing in learning styles has been compared to believing in fortunetelling. The fields of cognitive psychology and neuroscience consider them a “neuromyth” and disavow the practice of matching instruction to individuals’ preferred learning styles to promote learning. Since the 1970s, however, systematic research reviews and meta-analyses examining the validity of learning styles and their application to education have come to the same conclusion: despite the intuitive appeal, there is little to no empirical evidence that learning styles are real. It is also true that individuals have differences in abilities and preferences.

For example, it is true that different types of information are processed in different parts of the brain. Like many misconceptions about learning and the brain, the belief in learning styles stems from an incorrect interpretation of valid research findings and scientifically established facts.

The assumption that students have distinct learning styles and learn best through these channels has influenced teacher practice for decades-despite a lack of evidence that such styles even exist (see “ Unlocking the Science of How Kids Think,” features, Summer 2018). The most frequently referenced styles are visual, auditory, and kinesthetic, which assume that some individuals learn best by looking at pictures, others learn best by listening, and still others learn best through hands-on activities. Has anyone ever told you “I’m a visual learner?” It’s a common statement, based on a belief in learning styles. It is important to ensure that educators are prepared with accurate insights into learning, instead of with myths. Education and teacher preparation are better when they are informed by empirical evidence than when they operate in disregard of it. The idea of “learning styles” is persistent and popular in the field, in part because many teachers don’t know the science that disproves it. Yet teacher candidates are consistently directed to keep these pseudoscientific style categories in mind. There is no evidence that designing lessons that appeal to different learning styles accelerates student learning. The presence of such content promotes an incorrect theory. My work builds on earlier research showing the prevalence of the idea in textbooks and teacher trainings across the United States. Right?Īctually, my research shows that in 29 states, government-distributed test-preparation materials on high-stakes certification exams include the debunked theory of “learning styles,” which holds that matching instruction to students’ preferred mode of learning-seeing, listening, or physically engaging in content-aligned activities, for example-is beneficial. But it’s hard to dispute the idea that, if there is going to be such a test, then the questions should be based on the best evidence we have about how children learn. Reasonable people may disagree about whether teachers should have to pass licensing tests of instructional knowledge before getting a job in a classroom.

Aural learning style definition