Introduction: A Journey to Find Out How We Learn
Tom, a 32-year-old adult learner, decided to return to school to earn his degree in psychology. When he was in middle school, someone told him he was an auditory learner, so he mostly listened to lectures and audiobooks. But when he faced tough subjects like neuroscience or statistics, he struggled. Surprisingly, reading textbooks and taking notes helped him remember things far better than just listening.
Tom began to wonder: Was the idea of a learning style holding him back, or was learning more complex than that?
This isn’t just a question for adults like Tom. Students of all ages ask themselves whether knowing their learning style actually improves their ability to learn. In this article, we will explore the history of learning styles, the science behind them, and practical ways you can use this information to learn more effectively.
What Are the Different Ways People Learn?
The idea of a learning style suggests that each person has a preferred way to absorb, process, and retain information. Some people learn best by seeing (visual learners), others by hearing (auditory learners), or by doing (kinesthetic learners). Some models also include preferences for reading and writing, working with others, or using logical reasoning.
The main claim is that students learn more effectively when teaching matches their preferred style. This is called the meshing hypothesis. While the idea sounds appealing, science shows it isn’t that simple.
People often discover their learning style through quizzes, self-reflection, or teacher observation. These methods are easy to understand but can vary in accuracy. A person’s preferred learning style may also change depending on the subject, task, or learning environment.
A Brief History of Learning Styles
The concept of learning styles has been around for over a century. Teachers and researchers wanted to understand how individual differences affected learning. Key milestones include:
- 1920s–1930s: Early studies explored sensory preferences.
- 1970s–1980s: Kolb introduced the Experiential Learning Theory with four main types: Diverger, Assimilator, Converger, and Accommodator.
- 1987: Honey & Mumford adapted Kolb’s model to Reflector, Theorist, Pragmatist, and Activist.
- 1990s: Neil Fleming created the VARK model (Visual, Auditory, Read/Write, Kinesthetic), which quickly became the most widely recognized framework.
- 2000s–present: Learning style quizzes appeared in schools, online platforms, and corporate training programs.
By the early 2000s, learning style assessments were common in classrooms, corporate training, and self-help books. In the scholarly sphere, dozens of studies examined these models, yet the evidence remained inconsistent.
The Most Popular Models and What They Are Supposed to Be Good At
Although there are many frameworks, the most widely used are VARK, Kolb, and Honey & Mumford. Here’s a table summarizing popular learning styles and what each is said to excel at:
| Learning Style | How They Prefer to Learn | Supposed Strengths |
|---|---|---|
| Visual | Diagrams, charts, videos, spatial layouts | Remembering pictures, understanding spatial relationships |
| Auditory | Listening to lectures, podcasts, discussions | Remembering spoken information, following verbal instructions |
| Read/Write | Reading books, taking notes, writing summaries | Memorizing text, processing written information |
| Kinesthetic | Hands-on activities, experiments, movement | Learning by doing, remembering physical actions |
| Logical/Analytical | Structured reasoning, problem-solving | Organizing information, understanding connections |
| Social/Interpersonal | Group work, collaboration, discussions | Learning through interaction, teamwork skills |
| Solitary/Intrapersonal | Independent study, reflection | Self-motivation, deep understanding of concepts |
Advocates of learning styles suggest tailoring teaching to these categories can improve learning. For instance, a kinesthetic learner might thrive in science labs, while a visual learner might excel with diagrams.
Why the Idea Became So Popular
Belief in learning styles is surprisingly widespread, even though the scientific support is weak:
- 93% of the general public believes in learning styles (Dekker et al., 2012).
- 76% of teachers also endorse the concept (Dekker et al., 2012).
- Globally, belief among educators averages 89.1%, with rates as high as 98% in some countries (Newton, 2020).
The idea remains popular because it:
- Offers a simple explanation for why learning can be difficult.
- Validates individual differences.
- Gives teachers and students a framework to “customize” learning.
In some cultures, an emphasis on personalized education has further strengthened belief in learning styles. Quizzes and online tools made these ideas even more accessible to students and adults alike.
What the Research Actually Says
Despite its popularity, research shows that matching instruction to a learning style does not improve learning outcomes. Key findings include:
- No measurable improvement from matching: Pashler et al. (2008) found “virtually no evidence” supporting the meshing hypothesis.
- Self-reported styles are unreliable: People’s preferences do not predict actual performance (Riener & Willingham, 2010).
- Variety helps everyone: Exposing learners to multiple methods is more effective than sticking to one (Kirschner, 2017).
- Belief persists despite evidence: Over 80% of teachers still support learning styles, even when aware of research (Newton, 2020).
Even in subjects that seem to favor certain learning styles—like anatomy for visual learners—studies show no benefit from matching instruction to preferred styles (Husmann & O’Loughlin, 2019).
Why People Still Think Learning Styles Are Real
Psychology explains why this myth persists:
- Personal experience: Learners notice when a method feels comfortable and assume it is the most effective.
- Confirmation bias: Success with a preferred method reinforces belief in a style.
- Social reinforcement: Teachers, parents, and peers validate these labels.
- Commercial influence: Learning style tests and apps profit from continued belief.
Students and adults alike, including people like Tom, often hold on to the idea that it will make learning easier or faster.
How to Use This Information in Real Life
Even if learning styles aren’t scientifically proven, you can still improve learning by being flexible:
Practical tips for students and adults:
- Mix methods: Use reading, listening, diagrams, and practice activities.
- Match the content: Some material is better suited to certain methods (maps for geography, exercises for math).
- Test yourself in different ways: Writing, speaking, and problem-solving help retrieval.
- Reflect and adapt: Focus on what actually helps you retain information, without labeling yourself.
- Use group and solo learning: Both can be effective, depending on the task.
This approach encourages adaptable and resilient learning instead of rigidly following a single style.
How We Help Learners
At Scholarly Sphere, we provide research-based insights about learning. Our articles on school and adult education help students and adults avoid myths like rigid learning styles. By explaining how the brain learns and giving practical tips, we guide learners to develop strategies that actually work.
Conclusion
The idea of a fixed learning style is appealing, but research shows it has little predictive value. Learning is complex, depending on the material, environment, motivation, and method—not a simple label. Adults and students benefit more from experimenting with multiple strategies and reflecting on what works for them.
Tom, our adult learner, discovered that success came from combining methods—listening, reading, practicing, and reflecting—rather than adhering to one style.
So, now that you know what science says, how will you approach your learning from here?
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://dera.ioe.ac.uk/id/eprint/16347
Dekker, S., Lee, N. C., Howard-Jones, P., & Jolles, J. (2012). Neuromyths in education: Prevalence and predictors of misconceptions among teachers. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 429. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00429
Husmann, P. R., & O’Loughlin, V. D. (2019). Another nail in the coffin for learning styles? Anatomical Sciences Education, 12(1), 6–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1777
Kirschner, P. A. (2017). Stop propagating the learning styles myth. Computers & Education, 106, 166–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.006
Newton, P. M. (2020). The learning styles myth is thriving in higher education. Frontiers in Education, 5, 602451. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.602451
Papadatou-Pastou, M., Gritzali, M., Barrable, A., & Vlachos, F. (2018). The learning styles neuromyth: Prevalence and predictors of misconceptions among educators. Frontiers in Education, 3, 106. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2018.00106
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). 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
