Learning styles

Dr Michael Noetel
Learning Design
10
 m
UKPSF Dimensions

Teach and/or support learning

How students learn, both generally and within their subject/disciplinary area(s)

Respect individual learners and diverse learning communities

What can I do?

Impact
-1
Quality
4
  • Don’t match teaching to learning styles — it doesn’t improve learning
  • Avoid spending time or money on learning style assessments
  • Focus on evidence-based strategies like those in the INSPIRE toolkit with higher impact ratings instead

    • What is this about?

    Learning styles are the idea that students learn better when instruction matches their preferred way of learning — like being a “visual” or “auditory” learner. Teachers might be encouraged to adjust lessons to match these preferences. While this idea sounds appealing, especially for personalising education, it’s been thoroughly tested and found to lack supporting evidence. That is, just because someone prefers a certain way of learning doesn’t mean they actually learn better that way.

    ‍

    What's the evidence say?

    The strongest evidence comes from Peterson and Meissel (2015), a meta-analysis of 15 studies using Riding’s Cognitive Style Analysis (CSA). This tool categorises learners along two dimensions: verbal–imagery and wholistic–analytic. Peterson and Meissel found no reliable evidence that matching instructional design to these styles improved academic achievement. The average effect sizes were close to zero, and none of the subgroup analyses found meaningful differences. This challenges the matching hypothesis — the idea that tailoring instruction to learning style boosts performance.

    Several systematic reviews back up this conclusion:

    • Cuevas (2015) reviewed 13 studies explicitly testing the matching hypothesis. Only one study offered any support for matching, and that one lacked proper controls. Cuevas concluded that matching learning styles does not improve learning, and that belief in learning styles is not grounded in evidence ➖.
    • Newton and Salvi (2020) examined 37 studies across 15,000 educators. They found widespread belief in learning styles (89% agreement) but highlighted a disconnect between belief and evidence. Many studies showed that educational interventions (e.g., explaining the lack of evidence) could reduce belief by up to 37%. However, no evidence showed that belief led to better outcomes, and in fact, it may waste resources or reinforce limiting views of ability ➖.
    • Coffield et al. (2004) conducted an in-depth review of 71 models, including the popular VARK, Kolb, and Honey & Mumford styles. They found major problems with validity, reliability, and predictive power in nearly all learning styles models. Even well-known tools failed to meet basic psychometric standards, and few had any empirical support for instructional matching ➖.

    Other consistent findings across reviews include:

    • Matching instruction to style does not improve learning (no crossover interaction found)
    • Preferences ≠ best strategies — just because someone likes visual learning doesn’t mean it works better
    • Style-based teaching risks harm — by pigeonholing learners or encouraging fixed mindsets
    • Learning style assessments are unhelpful — they lack reliability and are often commercially motivated

    What's the underlying theory?

    The matching hypothesis suggests people learn best when instruction aligns with their preferred style. For example, a “visual” learner would benefit more from diagrams than text. But this theory fails key scientific tests — such as showing a crossover interaction (i.e., each style learns best in its matching condition and worse in others). Cognitive psychologists also warn that preferences are not the same as effective learning strategies. In fact, strategies that feel easier or preferred (like rereading) often produce less learning than those that feel effortful (like practice testing).

    ‍

    Where does the evidence come from?

    This summary is based on one high-quality meta-analysis and four systematic reviews. The meta-analysis by Peterson & Meissel (2015) had the strongest methods and included 15 studies, but found negligible effects of learning styles. The systematic reviews by Cuevas (2015), Newton & Salvi (2020), and Coffield et al. (2004) consistently report that the evidence for learning styles is absent or negative. These reviews also highlight the popularity of learning styles despite the evidence, and caution against their use in educational policy and practice.

    References

    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. https://www.voced.edu.au/content/ngv%3A13692

    Cuevas, J. (2015). Is learning styles-based instruction effective? A comprehensive analysis of recent research on learning styles. Theory and Research in Education, 13(3), 308–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878515606621

    Newton, P. M., & Salvi, A. (2020). How common is belief in the learning styles neuromyth, and does it matter? A pragmatic systematic review. Frontiers in Education, 5, 602451. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.602451

    Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2009). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x

    Peterson, E. R., & Meissel, K. (2015). The influence of cognitive style on academic achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 44, 306–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.01.002

    Additional Resources

    Hattie, J., O’Leary, T. (2025) Learning styles, preferences, or strategies? An explanation for the resurgence of styles across many meta-analyses. Educational Psychology Review, 37(31). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10002-w

    Dr Michael Noetel

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Browse popular summaries

    Learning Environments

    Artificial Intelligence

    Bespoke AI tools like chatbots help learning, but less is more

    Dr John Mahoney
    Learning Design

    Simulation

    Providing students with opportunities to practice skills in simulated environments can enhance deep learning.

    Dr John Mahoney
    Designing Presentations

    Signalling

    You know what's most important right now - show learners too.

    Dr Michael Noetel
    Learning Environments

    Service-learning and Community engagement

    Helping those who are less fortunate makes for better students and better people.

    Dr John Mahoney
    This is some text inside of a div block.

    Self-regulatory learning

    Learning how to learn improves academic achievement.

    Dr John Mahoney
    Learning Design

    Learning styles

    Tailoring your teaching to the preferred learning style of the student does not increase learning.

    Dr Michael Noetel