The 10 Lies of Learning: Lie #1: “Learning styles are very important”

At the summit of our countdown of the biggest lies in Learning & Development, we arrive at #1—the persistent myth that has perhaps done more damage to effective learning design than any other single misconception.

“We need to accommodate different learning styles—some people are visual learners, others are auditory, and some are kinesthetic.”

“Make sure you include something for all the learning styles in your training.”

“I’m a visual learner, so I need to see it to understand it.”

If I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard variations of these statements, I could retire tomorrow. Learning styles theory has achieved such widespread acceptance that questioning it feels almost heretical. It’s taught in education schools, embedded in corporate training programs, and assumed by millions of learners worldwide.

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: learning styles are about as scientifically valid as astrology.

The Seductive Appeal of Learning Styles

Learning styles theory is incredibly appealing because it:

• Feels intuitively true: Most people can identify preferences for how they like to receive information
• Appears to respect individual differences: It suggests a personalized approach to learning
• Provides simple solutions: Just match the instruction to the learner’s style, and voilà—better learning
• Flatters learners: It suggests their struggles aren’t due to effort or aptitude, but to mismatched instruction
• Gives instructors a framework: It provides a seemingly scientific basis for varying instructional approaches.

The problem? Decades of rigorous research have consistently failed to find evidence that teaching to supposed learning styles improves learning outcomes.

The Scientific Verdict

The research against learning styles is overwhelming:

• A comprehensive review published in Psychological Science in the Public Interest examined over 100 studies and concluded there is no credible evidence that learning styles exist or that instruction matched to learning styles improves outcomes.¹
• A meta-analysis in the British Journal of Educational Psychology found no significant relationship between learning style preference and learning effectiveness when content was matched to supposed styles.²
• Research published in Anatomical Sciences Education specifically tested visual, auditory, and kinesthetic learning styles in medical education and found no evidence that matching instruction to learning styles improved performance.³
• • A study in Memory & Cognition demonstrated that people who believe they are “visual learners” perform no better on visual tasks than people who believe they are “auditory learners.”⁴

The scientific consensus is clear: learning styles, as commonly understood and applied, are a myth.

Why Learning Styles Persist Despite Evidence

If the research is so clear, why do learning styles remain so popular? Several psychological and social factors keep this myth alive:

1. Confirmation Bias
   People notice instances that confirm their beliefs and ignore contradictory evidence. If someone believes they’re a “visual learner” and finds a diagram helpful, they attribute it to their learning style rather than considering that the diagram might be inherently clearer than the alternative explanation.
   
2. The Forer Effect
   Named after psychologist Bertram Forer, this is the tendency to accept vague, general statements as personally meaningful. Learning style descriptions are often broad enough that most people can see themselves in them, similar to horoscopes.
   
3. Commercial Interests
   The learning styles industry is worth millions. Assessment tools, training programs, and consulting services all depend on perpetuating the myth. There’s significant financial incentive to keep the theory alive.
   
4. Misattribution of Preferences to Effectiveness
   Having a preference for visual information doesn’t mean you learn better from visual instruction—it just means you prefer it. I might prefer pizza to salad, but that doesn’t mean pizza is better for my health.
   
5. Grain of Truth
   While learning styles theory as we interpret and use it today is wrong, it contains a kernel of truth: 1) simply, we humans have preferences, and 2) varying instructional approaches can improve learning. The error is attributing this to individual learning styles rather than to the inherent value of multimedia instruction and varied teaching methods.
   

The Damage Done by Learning Styles

The learning styles myth isn’t just harmless fun—it actively damages educational and training effectiveness as it:

1. Misdirects Resources
   Organizations spend millions on learning style assessments, specialized materials, and training programs based on a false premise. These resources could be better invested in evidence-based approaches.
   
2. Limits Learning Experiences
   When instructors believe they must cater to different learning styles, they may avoid powerful teaching methods because they don’t fit all supposed styles. For example, avoiding reading because “kinesthetic learners won’t benefit” deprives all learners of valuable practice with text-based information.
   
3. Creates Learned Helplessness
   When learners believe they can only learn in their preferred style, they may avoid challenging but valuable learning experiences. “I can’t learn from lectures because I’m a kinesthetic learner” becomes a self-limiting belief.
   
4. Oversimplifies the Complex Cognitive Process
   Learning styles theory reduces the rich complexity of human cognition to simplistic categories. Real learning involves multiple cognitive systems working together, not isolated “channels” for different types of information.
   
5. Distracts from Effective Practices
   Time spent on learning styles assessment and accommodation is time not spent on evidence-based practices like spaced repetition, retrieval practice, elaborative interrogation, and other proven techniques.
   

What Actually Matters for Learning

Instead of focusing on mythical learning styles, effective learning design should consider:

1. Cognitive Load Theory
   People have limited working memory capacity. Effective instruction manages cognitive load by presenting information in appropriate chunks and using multimedia principles that don’t overwhelm cognitive resources.⁵
2. Prior Knowledge
   What learners already know dramatically affects how they process new information. Effective instruction builds on existing knowledge and addresses misconceptions.
   
3. Motivation and Engagement
   Learners’ interest, goals, and sense of autonomy significantly impact learning effectiveness. Design should focus on relevance, challenge, and meaningful application.
   
4. Retrieval Practice
   Testing yourself on material, rather than just re-reading it, dramatically improves long-term retention. Effective learning includes frequent low-stakes testing and application opportunities.
   
5. Spaced Repetition
   Distributing practice over time, rather than massing it in single sessions, improves retention and transfer. Learning design should include spaced review and application.
   
6. Content-Appropriate Methods
   Some content genuinely benefits from visual presentation (complex diagrams, spatial relationships), while other content is better suited to auditory presentation (language learning, musical patterns) or kinesthetic practice (physical skills). The key is matching method to content, not to supposed learner types.
   

Case Study: Moving Beyond Learning Styles

I will offer up a case study very much at my own expense. I too was once seduced by the seemingly sensible theory of learning styles. Very early in my career I very passionately suggested that learning styles be a topic for study and exploration by a learning council I was assisting. A much more senior and experienced executive member of the council politely pulled me aside and very kindly, very privately (thank you!) suggested that maybe it’s not the best topic. He was kind enough to pretend to make it my choice – “Perhaps you should research this further. It is an interesting area of our field. Look into it a bit more before we evaluate whether to pursue it further as a group.” I’ve been told I’m wrong a whole lot of times. That was one of the more polite instances.

Goes to show – we all fall for theory or ideas that seem to so neatly fit our world. In this case – it fits a little too perfectly to be true.

What About Individual Differences?

Dismissing learning styles doesn’t mean individual differences are irrelevant. Real individual differences that affect learning include:

• Prior knowledge and expertise: Novices and experts learn differently
• Working memory capacity: Some people can hold more information in mind simultaneously
• Processing speed: People vary in how quickly they process information
• Interest and motivation: Personal relevance dramatically affects engagement
• Cultural background: Cultural experiences shape how people interpret and organize information
• Language proficiency: First language affects how people process information in other languages

These real differences require thoughtful instructional design—but they don’t support learning styles theory.

Practical Recommendations

For L&D professionals:

1. Abandon learning style assessments: They provide no useful information for instructional design.
2. Use multimedia principles: Combine visual and auditory information when both add value, not to accommodate supposed learning styles.
3. Match method to content: Use visual presentations for spatial information, auditory for verbal information, and kinesthetic practice for motor skills.
4. Focus on evidence-based practices: Invest in spaced repetition, retrieval practice, elaborative feedback, and other proven techniques.
5. Address real individual differences: Consider prior knowledge, motivation, and cultural background rather than mythical learning styles.

For business leaders:

1. Question learning style claims: Be skeptical of any training program or vendor that emphasizes learning styles accommodation.
2. Demand evidence: Ask for research support when learning styles are proposed as a design principle.
3. Invest in proven approaches: Support L&D initiatives based on cognitive science rather than popular myths.

The Path Forward

The persistence of learning styles theory represents a broader challenge in L&D: the gap between what sounds intuitively appealing and what actually works. As our field matures, we must become more rigorous about distinguishing evidence-based practices from attractive myths.

My eating preference might be pizza, but that doesn’t mean pizza should be my entire diet. Similarly, your information preference might be visual, but that doesn’t mean you learn better from exclusively visual instruction.

Being an “auditory learner” doesn’t mean you should learn to drive through podcasts. The content and context matter more than your supposed learning style.

Conclusion: Embracing Complexity

Real learning is gloriously complex. It involves multiple cognitive systems, prior knowledge, motivation, social context, and environmental factors all interacting in dynamic ways. Learning styles theory tries to reduce this complexity to simple categories, but effectiveness lies in embracing and working with that complexity.

The most effective learning experiences don’t cater to learning styles—they use varied approaches because variety itself enhances learning, they match methods to content because some information is inherently better suited to certain presentations, and they engage multiple cognitive systems because that’s how robust learning happens.

As we conclude our journey through the 10 biggest lies in L&D, the message is clear: our field deserves better than comfortable myths. We owe it to learners, to organizations, and to ourselves to base our practice on evidence rather than intuition, on what works rather than what feels right.

The truth about learning is more interesting, more nuanced, and ultimately more powerful than any simplistic theory. It’s time we started acting like it.

Click here to follow Josh on LinkedIn:

Josh LeFebvre on LinkedIn

Josh is the founder of Kay/Allison - a firm solving corporate learning and talent development challenges.  He provides strategic advisory, interim/fractional leadership, and complex project management services in the learning and development field.  His 25 years of experience has demonstrated a focus on business impact and clarity punctuated by thoughtful analysis and plain-spoken recommendations.  He is a long standing collaborator with Smartfirm and can be reached through our team or directly at josh@kayandallison.com.

The opinions expressed in this article are Josh’s and do not necessarily reflect the official views or positions of Smartfirm. This content is provided for informational purposes only.

References

[1] Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105-119.

[2] Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review. Learning and Skills Research Centre.

[3] Azer, S. A., Peterson, R., Guerrero, A. P., & Edgren, G. (2012). Twelve tips for constructing problem-based learning cases. Medical Teacher, 34(5), 361-367.

[4] Massa, L. J., & Mayer, R. E. (2006). Testing the ATI hypothesis: Should multimedia instruction accommodate verbalizer-visualizer cognitive style? Learning and Individual Differences, 16(4), 321-335.Massa, L. J., & Mayer, R. E. (2006). Testing the ATI hypothesis: Should multimedia instruction accommodate verbalizer-visualizer cognitive style? Learning and Individual Differences, 16(4), 321-335.

[5] Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive Load Theory. Springer.