Why Learning Styles Still Haunt Us

The myth of learning styles is a persistent ghost in the halls of post-secondary education. This ghost—the belief that students learn better when they receive instruction tailored to their self-reported "predominant" modality (whether visual, auditory, or kinesthetic)—continues to haunt course design, assessment, and student engagement.

Despite decades of extensive research, there is little convincing evidence that aligning instructional approaches to students’ personal preferences improves learning, retention, or academic achievement (Alley et al., 2023; Husmann & O’Laughlin, 2018; Willingham et al., 2015).

Still, the learning styles narrative remains remarkably difficult to dispel.

Understanding the Disconnect

Why does a concept with insufficient empirical backing remain so popular among both students and instructors?

Part of the appeal lies in human intuition. Students naturally hold personal preferences about how they like to study or engage with information. When an instructor validates those preferences, it feels supportive and personalized. The idea that matching teaching style to learning style optimizes performance sounds logical on the surface.

But learning preferences and learning styles are not the same thing. Students may prefer to read, listen, watch, or practice when learning something new, and those preferences can influence motivation and engagement. The learning styles claim goes further: it assumes that students can be classified into distinct learner types and that they learn more effectively when instruction is matched to those types. 

Systematic reviews and rigorous experimental studies, though, consistently show that while students may prefer a specific modality, that preference does not translate into better performance or deeper processing when tested under controlled conditions (Pashler et al., 2008). In fact, placing too much emphasis on preferred styles can inadvertently lead students to avoid challenging formats essential for mastering complex concepts.

Learning Outcome Dictates the Modality

Effective teaching depends fundamentally on what students are learning and why they need to learn it, not on self-assessed preferences. The nature of the content and the intended learning outcomes help determine the most effective way to represent and engage with it:

• Visual representation—such as diagrams, graphs, coordinate planes, and step-by-step symbolic notation—can help make abstract mathematical relationships concrete.
• Critical listening, attention to musical detail, and discussion that links notation to historical and cultural context help students develop analytical and interpretive skills in music history.
• Hands-on practice is essential for developing procedural and psychomotor skills in nursing education, while simulations and case-based learning can support clinical decision-making in real-world settings.
• Textual analysis, attention to linguistic nuance, and reflective dialogue help students develop critical comprehension and interpretation skills in literature and language studies.

What to Do Instead

Rather than attempting to diagnose and cater to individual learning styles, instructors can focus on approaches that support learning, respond to learner variability, and reduce unnecessary barriers. Grounded in cognitive science and educational research, here are a few practical strategies for course design and instructional practice: 

1. Focus on the Learning Outcome

Ask yourself: What do students need to know, do, or value, and which approach will best help them get there? If you are teaching a complex process, use a flowchart or demonstration. If you are teaching critical analysis, engage students in structured discussion or written synthesis. Let the learning outcome guide the modality.

It is also worth reflecting on your own learning preferences. You may naturally gravitate toward approaches that work well for you, and these preferences can influence how we structure learning for students. Being aware of them can help you distinguish between what feels familiar or effective to you and what will best support your students' learning.

2. Normalize Productive Struggle

Help students recognize that their preferred learning style is not necessarily the most effective for every task. Learning can be challenging, particularly when students are asked to think or work in unfamiliar ways. Encouraging students to work through visual, auditory, and hands-on tasks builds adaptability and resilience.

3. Design for Active Engagement Across Modalities

Instead of asking students how they prefer to learn, focus on designing high-impact practices that encourage students to engage actively and meaningfully with the content, the instructor, and their peers. Incorporate varied active learning techniques—such as diagram construction, group problem-solving, and peer instruction—to maintain high engagement and reinforce learning from multiple angles.

Moving Forward

Putting the ghost of learning styles to rest does not mean ignoring differences among students. It means making instructional decisions based on what students are learning, focusing on the approaches that best support that learning, and the barriers that may prevent students from participating fully. The Universal Design for Learning Guidelines provide a useful framework for making these decisions while recognizing the variability among learners. By providing meaningful opportunities to engage with ideas in different ways, instructors can help empower students to become adaptable, deep-thinking, responsible lifelong learners.