Debunking the Myth: The Truth About Learning Styles

By: Hannah Pangallo (Culyer), PharmD and Zach Woods, PharmD, BCACP

Learning styles refer to the concept that individuals have preferred ways of receiving and processing information. This concept suggests people learn best when taught in a manner that aligns with their preferred style. The widespread belief in learning styles among educators and students has inspired various teaching methods aimed at ensuring success across all modes of learning. Common categories include:

• Visual: Learning through seeing (e.g., diagrams, charts).
• Auditory: Learning through hearing (e.g., lectures, discussions).
• Kinesthetic: Learning through action (e.g., hands-on activities, experiments).

The widespread belief in learning styles has positively shaped academia, inspiring innovative educational practices like differentiated instruction and personalized learning resources. Research shows that approximately 89% of teachers are committed to tailoring instruction to match a student’s preferred learning style,¹  demonstrating a dedication to enhancing student engagement and success. The Pharmacist Inventory of Learning Styles (PILS) helps pharmacists identify their preferred learning methods, enhancing their study efficiency and professional development. By tailoring their learning strategies, pharmacists can improve knowledge retention and collaboration within healthcare teams, ultimately leading to better patient care.

Despite the popularity of learning styles, numerous studies have challenged their validity. A comprehensive review found no evidence that aligning teaching methods with learning styles improves learning outcomes. Similarly, this review argued that learning styles are a myth, lacking scientific support. The consensus in the scientific community is that learning is complex; that it cannot be neatly categorized into distinct styles. As noted by Li², while learning styles have been widely discussed, their validity and usefulness in educational contexts remain contentious, with many researchers advocating for a more nuanced approach to learning preferences rather than rigid categorizations.

Why Does the Myth Persist?

Several factors contribute to the ongoing acceptance of learning styles:

1. Intuitive Appeal: The notion of learning styles resonates with rugged individualism and the desire for individuality tailored experiences, leading individuals to believe they have a preferred, and solely effective, way of learning. However, a student’s learning style may not accurately predict their preferred teaching method or study habits. This aligns with findings which suggest that while students may identify with certain learning styles, their academic performance is influenced by a variety of factors beyond these preferences³. For example, a student who identifies as a visual learner might still benefit significantly from hands-on activities or group discussions, while an auditory learner might find visual aids like diagrams and charts helpful in understanding complex concepts. 
2. Confirmation Bias: Educators and students may selectively identify instances where learning styles seem effective while disregarding contradictory evidence. Anecdotal stories often reinforce this myth. A systematic review examined the prevalence of belief in learning styles among educators. This review analyzed 37 studies involving 15,405 educators from 18 countries, revealing that 89.1% of educators believed in matching instruction to learning styles, despite the lack of empirical evidence supporting its effectiveness. The review also highlighted that this belief has not significantly declined over the years, indicating a persistent confirmation bias in educational practices.

Evidence-Based Alternatives

There are several evidence-based strategies that can enhance learning and may be more pedagogically advantageous, than adapting course content to various learning preferences:

• Active Learning: Engaging students in activities that promote critical thinking and problem-solving, such as group discussions and interactive simulations. Research supports that active learning strategies significantly improve student engagement and retention of information.
• Differentiated Instruction: Tailoring teaching methods to meet diverse student needs based on their abilities and interests, rather than fixed learning styles has been shown to foster a more inclusive learning environment and improve overall academic performance. For example, a teacher might design lessons based on students’ learning styles and group students by shared interest, topic, or ability for assignments. This could involve providing different fiction books for students to critique based on their interests or allowing students to choose their own historical figure to study for a project

By using a variety of teaching methods—combining visual aids, auditory explanations, and hands-on activities—educators can enhance learning for all students, regardless of their perceived or preferred style.

Implications for Educators

Focusing on evidence-based practices allows educators to allocate resources more effectively. Ongoing professional development in research-backed teaching methods can keep educators informed about best practices. As Coffield et al.⁴ noted, understanding the limitations of learning styles can help educators develop more effective instructional strategies that cater to the diverse needs of their students.

In conclusion, while learning styles are a popular concept, they lack scientific backing. It is crucial for educators to critically evaluate their teaching practices and adopt methods supported by research, fostering a shift towards more effective, inclusive, and flexible teaching strategies. It is important to consider the question, “In what ways can we challenge our own assumptions about learning to create more dynamic and effective educational experiences?”

References: 

1. Newton PM, Salvi A. The learning styles myth is thriving in higher education. Front Educ. 2020;5:Article 1. doi:10.3389/feduc.2020.00001
2. Li Y, Chen Y, Zhang Y. The validity of learning styles: A review of the literature. Educ Psychol Rev. 2016;28(4):619-634. doi:10.1007/s10648-015-9328-7
3.  Maya A, Kauffman D, Heller K. The impact of active learning on student engagement and retention. J Educ Psychol. 2021;113(2):345-360. doi:10.1037/edu0000456
4. Coffield F, Moseley D, Hall E, Ecclestone K. Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review. Learning and Skills Research Centre. 2004.
5. Microsoft Copilot. Generated response to prompt: Please help with syntax and grammatical polishing. 2025. Copilot, copilot.microsoft.com.

---

Author Bio(s):

---

Pulses is a scholarly blog supported by a team of pharmacy education scholars.