Learning Styles: Lack of Research-Based Evidence

Abstract

Numerous learning styles theories have been developed and applied in K-12 and higher education settings. The idea of learning styles, or differences in how people learn, appeals to many educators as a way of meeting their students’ individual needs. Despite decades of research showing that learning styles theory is a neuromyth, the practice continues. There is no empirical research that shows matching a student’s preferred learning style to instruction produces better learning outcomes. In fact, there is no correlation between learning style and academic performance. Instruments used to determine a learning style are self-reported and unreliable. Focusing on one learning style does students a disservice by preventing them from developing their skills in other areas. The learning styles myth continues due to deep-seated beliefs among educators, commercial enterprises, students, and parents. School administrators, teacher educators, and teachers need to focus on employing research-based approaches instead of using practices for which there is no evidence of positively impacting student learning. There are several research-based practices that more effectively meet students learning needs, such as active learning and culturally responsive teaching.

Full text

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vtch20
The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies,
Issues and Ideas
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vtch20
Learning Styles: Lack of Research-Based Evidence
Gretchen M. Whitman
To cite this article: Gretchen M. Whitman (2023): Learning Styles: Lack of Research-Based
Evidence, The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, DOI:
10.1080/00098655.2023.2203891
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2023.2203891
Published online: 08 May 2023.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data

COMMENT
THE CLEARING HOUSE: A JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL STRATEGIES, ISSUES AND IDEAS
Learning Styles: Lack of Research-Based Evidence
Gretchen M. Whitman
Teacher Education, Columbia College, South Carolina, USA
ABSTRACT
Numerous learning styles theories have been developed and applied in K-12 and higher
education settings. The idea of learning styles, or differences in how people learn, appeals
to many educators as a way of meeting their students’ individual needs. Despite decades
of research showing that learning styles theory is a neuromyth, the practice continues. There
is no empirical research that shows matching a student’s preferred learning style to instruction
produces better learning outcomes. In fact, there is no correlation between learning style
and academic performance. Instruments used to determine a learning style are self-reported
and unreliable. Focusing on one learning style does students a disservice by preventing
them from developing their skills in other areas. The learning styles myth continues due to
deep-seated beliefs among educators, commercial enterprises, students, and parents. School
administrators, teacher educators, and teachers need to focus on employing research-based
approaches instead of using practices for which there is no evidence of positively impacting
student learning. There are several research-based practices that more effectively meet
students learning needs, such as active learning and culturally responsive teaching.
When I started teaching in 1997, I spent time at
the beginning of each school year teaching study
skills to my students. I gave them the learning
styles assessment I had learned about in my
teacher education courses. Each student com-
pleted a questionnaire on which they indicated
how they felt about various learning activities.
Students then tallied up the responses which sup-
posedly corresponded to their learning style. We
discussed a set of study strategies that aligned
with each learning style. When I collected the
forms and looked at students’ responses, it was
obvious that none of my students was 100% one
learning style. I thought, “I have 30 students –
how am I supposed to teach to all these individ-
ual styles?” The papers went in a folder, and I
made a conscious effort to make sure that each
day’s lesson had some components that were
visual, auditory, and kinesthetic. I continued to
do this every year until 2010. Unbeknownst to
me, educational research had been debating the
validity of learning styles theories. In 2014 while
working toward a doctorate in curriculum and
instruction, I read about this debate. I was
embarrassed that I had been using learning styles
inventories for years as proof to parents and
administrators of classroom differentiation.
Learning styles theory
There are dozens of learning styles theories. The
most well-known theories include the Kolb
Experiential Learning Theory, the Gregorc
Learning/Teaching Style Model, the Felder-
Silverman Learning/Teaching Style Model,
Fleming and Mills’ Sensory-Based Learning Styles,
and the Dunn and Dunn Learning Style Model
(Arthurs 2007; Coffield et al. 2004; Hawk and
Shah 2007). Each theory has its own way of cat-
egorizing learners, but all “postulate that students
learn in different ways” (Hawk and Shah 2007,
2). For example, the Kolb Experiential Learning
Theory uses the Kolb Learning Styles Inventory
to categorize learners onto a continuum of learn-
ing modes, while the Gregorc Learning/Teaching
Style Model uses the Gregorc Style Delineator to
classify learners as Concrete-Sequential,
Abstract-Sequential, Abstract-Random, and
Concrete-Random (Hawk and Shah 2007). While
all of the learning styles questionnaires and
© 2023 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
CONTACT Gretchen M. Whitman gwhitman@columbiasc.edu Teacher Education, Columbia College, South Carolina, USA
https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2023.2203891
KEYWORDS
Best practice; learning styles;
myth

2G. M. WHITMAN
inventories differ, a common hypothesis emerged
known as meshing– matching classroom instruc-
tion to a student’s identified learning style
(Nancekivell, Shah, and Gelman 2020; Pashler
etal. 2008). The understanding is that if teachers
match their instruction to students’ identified
learning styles, learning outcomes will improve
(Brown and Kaminske 2018).
In K-12 education, the most used learning style
instrument is the VARK questionnaire based on
the theoretical work of Fleming and Mills from
the early 1990s. This self-report questionnaire
contains several “statements that describe a situ-
ation and asks the respondent to pick one or
more of three or four actions that the respondent
would take” (Hawk and Shah 2007, 7). The
response options make up the acronym VARK
– Visual, Auditory, Read/Write, and Kinesthetic.
An example of a question used by educators is:
I prefer a presenter or a teacher who uses:
-handouts, books, or readings
-diagrams, charts, maps or graphs
-demonstrations, models or practical sessions
-question and answer, talk, group discussion, or guest
speakers (VARK, n.d., para. 15).
The VARK model suggests classroom support
activities for each type of learner such as dia-
grams for visual learners, discussions for aural
learners, note-taking for read/write learners, and
role-play for kinesthetic learners (Hawk and
Shah 2007).
Why learning styles are a myth
While there are many theories that support the
concept of learning styles, the research on instru-
ments/interventions based on these theories has
not resulted in positive student outcomes. In fact,
there is no empirical research showing that learn-
ing styles impact student learning or performance
(Brown and Kaminske 2018; Coffield etal. 2004;
Dembo and Howard 2007; English 2021; Kirschner
and van Merriënboer 2013; Newton 2015). Given
the potential number of learning style combina-
tions in a single classroom, it would be impos-
sible to plan instruction for each person. Similarly,
designing a trustworthy research experiment is
not feasible. Pashler et al. (2008) examined the
research literature on learning styles theories and
were unable to identify a single study in which
matching learning styles to instruction produced
reliable results. They concluded that such a study
would have to include identifying students’ learn-
ing styles based on clear definitions and then
randomly placing them in groups to receive spe-
cialized instruction followed by a common assess-
ment. To date, no such study has been successfully
conducted.
Self-report instruments are very common
amongst the range of instruments purported to
measure students’ learning styles. Self-reports are
inconsistent and often do not measure what they
claim to measure (Boysen 2021; Kirschner and
van Merriënboer 2013; Pashler et al. 2008). In
addition, studies have shown that a student’s pref-
erence is not correlated to their learning out-
comes (Kirschner and van Merriënboer 2013).
Just because a student may prefer to learn in a
particular modality, this does not mean that is
the only mode in which learning can and should
occur. Catering to a supposed learning style
denies students the opportunity and confidence
needed to develop skills in other areas (Antoniuk
2019; Coffield etal. 2004; Furey 2020; Gray 2013;
Nancekivell, Shah, and Gelman 2020; Newton
2015). Students need to learn how to develop
skills across all learning modalities to be
well-rounded and adaptable.
One of the most persistent myths about learn-
ing styles theories is that each person learns in
their own way, although research (Brown and
Kaminske 2018) shows that people learn in sim-
ilar ways. Therefore, it is more efficient for teach-
ers to focus on what their students have in
common (Kirschner and van Merriënboer 2013).
The research studies conducted using learning
style inventories show that these do not yield
valid information (Brown and Kaminske 2018;
Pashler etal. 2008; Nancekivell, Shah, and Gelman
2020). Dembo and Howard (2007) succinctly
summarized the entire debate over learning styles:
learning style instruments have not been shown to
be valid and reliable, there is no benet to matching
instruction to preferred learning style, and there is
no evidence that understanding one’s learning style
improves learning and its related outcomes. is

THE CLEARING HOUSE: A JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL STRATEGIES, ISSUES AND IDEAS 3
conclusion is based on the lack of well-designed
investigations by researchers who are not committed
to any particular framework, and replicated in numer-
ous educational settings (107).
Why belief in learning styles persists
To “fully debunk” the learning styles myth, one
must understand why people believe they exist
(Nancekivell, Shah, and Gelman 2020, 222). There
are several reasons why people continue to believe
in the use of learning styles. First, people have
a fundamental misunderstanding of how the
human brain works. Findings from a study con-
ducted by Nancekivell, Shah, and Gelman (2020)
showed that people who subscribe to the learning
styles myth are working under the “belief that
learning styles are likely instantiated in the brain
in some way” and that “people generally agreed
with the incorrect statement that those with dif-
ferent learning styles use different brain regions
to learn” (233). Extensive research in cognitive
psychology and neuroscience over the past
50 years has rejected any notion of the existence
of learning styles (Furey 2020). According to
Brown and Kaminske (2018), “the concept of
learning styles has repeatedly been called a neu-
romyth – a misunderstanding of how the brain
functions” (54).
A second reason this myth persists is that teach-
ers, textbook companies, students, and parents
have embraced the notion of learning styles as an
effective way to meet students’ individual needs.
There are currently 13 different learning styles
questionnaires and activities for sale on the web-
site teacherspayteachers.com. In 2017 while I was
collecting data for my dissertation, I observed an
award-winning high school English teacher. She
proudly invited me to observe a lesson in which
she grouped students according to their learning
styles. I have worked in two higher education
settings at opposite ends of the country where
learning styles are included in course objectives
and student teaching lesson plan rubrics. These
instances are well-documented in the literature.
Furey (2020) found references to learning styles
in teacher preparation materials in 29 states and
the District of Columbia. A commonly used
teaching methods book in many universities and
colleges, Methods for Effective Teaching: Meeting
the Needs of All Students, mentions learning styles
repeatedly throughout the text. In one instance
asking preservice teachers, “How might you take
into account students’ varied learning styles?”
(Burden and Byrd 2019, 211). The wide accep-
tance of learning styles theory by students and
parents is also concerning because it shifts the
blame for a lack of learning from the student
to the teacher. Teachers not catering to learning
styles has become an excuse for students who do
not do the work (Clements 2022).
Finally, the myth will persist as long as aca-
demics continue to publish articles touting its
use. One would think that professional journals
should be aware of this debate and refuse to
publish any research based on learning styles.
Unfortunately, a search of academic databases of
scholarly, peer-reviewed journals recently yielded
hundreds of articles published between 2018 and
2022 – all promoting the use of learning styles
in some form or another. Articles from the field
of computer sciences (i.e., Kiong et al. 2022;
Pardamean et al. 2022) present ways of using
artificial intelligence to identify learning styles
and then find matching computerized learning
activities. Other disciplines such as nursing and
pharmacology (i.e., Blevins 2021; Mangold etal.
2018; Stanley etal. 2021) are calling on universi-
ties to implement learning styles in the classroom.
Multiple educational researchers (i.e., Al-Seghayer
2021; Feng, Iriarte, and Valencia 2020; Oğuzhan
and Gamze 2021; Nugraha, Putri, and Sholihin
2020) primarily in China, Southeast Asia, the
Middle East, and South America are also pro-
moting the use of learning styles theory.
Moving past learning styles
Thankfully there is no longer a need to categorize
learners’ styles or preferences. Given the sheer
number of learning style combinations, it was
impossible to identify them, let alone teach to
them in a classroom filled with 25-30 students.
Teachers who were educated in the late 1990s
and early 2000s were likely taught the merits of
learning styles. It is therefore incumbent on
school administrators, department chairs, and
teacher educators from partnering institutions to

4G. M. WHITMAN
spread the word about the learning styles myth.
To fill this vacuum in beliefs, teachers should
rely on active learning (Boysen 2021; Antoniuk
2019) and other research-based best practices
throughout each lesson. (Antoniuk 2019; Boysen
2021; Brown and Kaminske 2018; Clements 2022;
Dembo and Howard 2007; Newton 2015; Wise
2022). According to research (i.e., Antoniuk 2019;
Boysen 2021; Brown and Kaminske 2018; Furey
2020; Hammond 2015; Clements 2022; Wise
2022) these practices should include:
1. Cooperative learning.
2. Oering students choices.
3. Constructive and timely feedback.
4. Promoting a growth mindset.
5. Varying the learning activities.
6. Assessing prior knowledge and building
bridges to new information.
7. Developing and fostering strong relation-
ships between students and teachers.
8. Incorporating student interest into lessons
and making learning relevant to students’
lives outside of the classroom.
9. Dual coding – “using pictures side by side
with text” (Brown and Kaminske 2018, 54).
10. A focus on students’ metacognition – help-
ing students to think about the way they
think and learn.
11. Culturally Responsive Teaching. Zaretta
Hammond (2015) denes this as:
e process of using familiar cultural information
and processes to scaold learning. Emphasizes com-
munal orientation. Focused on relationships, cognitive
scaolding, and critical social awareness (156).
In the current school climate where teachers
feel overworked, it is hard to expect teachers to
spend their free time reading up on the latest
educational research. It remains to be seen what
other theories currently embraced by teachers
will end up being challenged, but this possibility
underscores the need for all teachers to keep
abreast of current educational research.
Conclusion
Despite being discredited decades ago, the learn-
ing styles myth is still believed by many in and
outside the field of education (Newton and Miah
2017). Despite an abundance of research debunk-
ing the use of learning styles, the practice is prev-
alent in both K-12 and higher education, with
multiple parties endorsing the use. Best prac-
tices in teaching need to be based on empirical
research. When it comes to learning styles there
is a lack of reliable, valid instruments and studies
that can be replicated to indicate that matching
learning styles to teaching methods improves
learner outcomes. In fact, research (i.e., Brown
and Kaminske 2018; English 2021; Kirschner and
van Merriënboer 2013; Newton 2015) argues that
people don’t have distinct learning styles, do not
know how to determine what is best for their own
learning, and put themselves at a disadvantage
when they claim to have a dominant learning
style. There are several research-based teaching
approaches that can easily fill the time and energy
saved after purging learning styles from the class-
room. Continuing to promote unsupported theo-
ries hurts the credibility of educators at all levels,
therefore it is in our best interest to stay up to
date on educational theories and practices.
References
Al-Seghayer, K. 2021. Characteristics of Saudi EFL learners’
learning styles. English Language Teaching 14 (7):82–94.
doi: 10.5539/elt.v14n7p82.
Antoniuk, A. 2019. Learning styles: Moving forward from
the myth. Canadian Journal for New Scholars in Education
10 (2):85–92.
Arthurs, J. B. 2007. A juggling act in the classroom:
Managing different learning styles. Teaching and
Learning in Nursing 2 (1):2–7. doi: 10.1016/j.teln.
2006.10.002.
Blevins, S. 2021. Learning styles: e impact on education.
Nurses as Educators 30 (4):285–6.
Boysen, G. A. 2021. Lessons (not) learned: e troubling
similarities between learning styles and universal design
for learning. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in
Psychology 2021:1–15. doi: 10.1037/stl0000280.
Brown, A. M., and A. N. Kaminske. 2018. Five teaching
and learning myths debunked: A guide for teachers. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Burden, P. R., and D. M. Byrd. 2019. Methods for eective
teaching: Meeting the needs of all students. New York,
NY: Pearson.
Clements, J. 2022. Update the dots before connecting them:
Learning styles in the 21st century. Learning Assistance
Review 27 (1):191–217.

THE CLEARING HOUSE: A JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL STRATEGIES, ISSUES AND IDEAS 5
Coeld, F., D. Moseley, E. Hall, and K. Ecclestone. 2004.
Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A system-
atic and critical review. London, UK: Learning and Skills
Research Centre. http://www.voced.edu.au/content/ngv13692.
Coeld, F., D. Moseley, E. Hall, and K. Ecclestone. 2004.
Should we be using learning styles? what research has
to say to practice. Learning & Skills Research Centre,
London. http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/64981.
Dembo, M. H., and K. Howard. 2007. Advice about the
use of learning styles: A major myth in education. Journal
of College Reading and Learning 37 (2):101–9. doi:
10.1080/10790195.2007.10850200.
English, A. 2021. Assessing the role of exposure to learning
styles theory on K-12 teachers. Teacher Education
Quarterly 2021:78–96.
Feng, Y., F. Iriarte, and J. Valencia. 2020. Relationship
between learning styles, learning strategies and academ-
ic performance of Chinese students who learn Spanish
as a foreign language. The Asia-Pacific Education
Researcher 29 (5):431–40. doi: 10.1007/s40299-019-
00496-8.
Furey, W. 2020. e stubborn myth of “learning styles”.
Education Next 2020:9–12.
Gray, J. 2013. Mind warp. New Humanist 2013:20–2.
Hammond, Z. 2015. Culturally responsive teaching & the
brain. ousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Hawk, T. F., and A. J. Shah. 2007. Using learning style
instruments to enhance student learning. Decision Sciences
Journal of Innovative Education 5 (1):1–19. doi: 10.1111/j.
1540-4609.2007.00125.x.
Kirschner, P. A., and J. G. van Merriënboer. 2013. Do learn-
ers really know best? Urban legends in education.
Educational Psychologist 48 (3):169–83. doi: 10.1080/
00461520.2013.804395.
Kiong, T. T., R. I. Hamid, N. M. Ngadiran, N. S. Rusly, F. N.
Puad, M. N. Azman, and N. Azid. 2022. Needs analysis for
module development of communication skills based on
learning styles for vocational college students. Journal of
Higher Education eory and Practice 22 (5):30–44.
Mangold, K., K. L. Kunze, M. M. Quinonez, L. M. Taylor,
and A. J. Tenison. 2018. Learning style preferences in
practicing nurses. Journal for Nurses in Professional
Development,34 (4):212–8. doi: 10.1097/NND.
0000000000000462.
Nancekivell, S. E., P. Shah, and S. A. Gelman. 2020. Maybe
they’re born with it, or maybe it’s experience: Toward a
deeper understanding of the learning style myth. Journal
of Educational Psychology 112 (2):221–35. doi: 10.1037/
edu0000366.
Newton, P. M. 2015. e learning styles myth is thriving
in higher education. Frontiers in Psychology 6:1–5. doi:
10.3389/fpsyg.2015.0190.
Newton, P. M., and M. Miah. 2017. Evidence-based higher
education – Is the learning styles ‘myth’ important?
Frontiers in Psychology 8:1–9. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.0044.
Nugraha, I., N. K. Putri, and H. Sholihin. 2020. An anal-
ysis of the relationship between students’ scientic atti-
tude and students’ learning style in junior high school.
Journal of Science Learning 3 (3):185–95. doi: 10.17509/
jsl.v3i3.22873.
Oğuzhan, Ö., and H. Gamze. 2021. Examining the relation-
ship between prospective preschool teachers’ self-ecacy
beliefs in science education and learning styles. Science
Education International 32 (4):292–301. doi: 10.33828/sei.
v32.i4.3.
Pashler, H., M. McDaniel, D. Rohrer, and R. Bjork. 2008.
Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological
Science in the Public Interest 9 (3):105–19. doi: 10.1111/j.
1539-6053.2009.01038.x.
Pardamean, B., T. Suparyanto, T. W. Cenggoro, D. Sudigyo,
and A. Anugrahana. 2022. AI-based learning style pre-
diction in online learning for primary education. IEEE
Access 10:35725–35. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3160177.
Stanley, E. R., A. Haord, R. Naseman, J. Li, M. Worley,
and B. Mehta. 2021. Assessment of pharmacy technician
learning preferences and implications for training.
American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy 78
(Supplement_1):S16–S25. doi: 10.1093/ajhp/zxaa362.
VARK. n.d. VARK learning style questionnaire. Accessed
October 12, 2022. https://vark-learn.com/the-vark-
questionnaire/
Wise, A. L. 2022. Should we dismiss learning styles in
instruction? COABE Journal: e Resource for Adult
Education 11 (1):64–70.