What Are “Learning Styles”?
The theory of learning styles claims that individuals learn best when taught in their preferred sensory mode:
- Visual (seeing)
- Auditory (hearing)
- Kinesthetic (doing)
Despite its popularity, research over the last 40 years shows no reliable evidence that matching teaching to these styles improves learning.
Why It Matters
- Learning styles are a “neuromyth.” Belief in them can misdirect resources and time.
- Cognitive science emphasises effective teaching strategies (e.g. retrieval practice, spaced repetition, and dual coding) over unproven approaches.
- Labels can limit learners. A child told they are a “visual learner” may avoid developing other learning strategies.
Key Risks
- Wasted planning time creating lessons for “styles” instead of focusing on mastery of knowledge.
- Students can underperform due to self-limiting beliefs (“I can’t learn this because I’m not an auditory learner”).
- Neglect of inclusive, research-backed methods like scaffolding or structured practice.
Case Studies
Case Study 1: Moving Beyond Styles in a Secondary Science Department
Context: A school in Manchester had been using learning style inventories for KS3 science classes. Students identified as “visual learners” were only given diagrams or videos.
Issue: Teachers noticed these students struggled with conceptual questions and written explanations, particularly in exams.
Action: The department stopped differentiating by style and instead focused on dual coding (combining words with visuals), retrieval quizzes, and scaffolding tasks.
Outcome: Over two years, GCSE pass rates rose by 14%, and students reported feeling “less boxed in” by labels.
Case Study 2: Primary School and Neurodiverse Pupils
Context: A primary school in Birmingham supported autistic students with “preferred style” worksheets (e.g., mostly visual tasks).
Issue: Teachers found that pupils disengaged during oral activities and reading tasks, believing they “couldn’t learn that way.”
Action: The SENCo introduced Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles. Teachers now present content in multiple formats (visual, text, and oral), encourage small-step mastery, and focus on strengths rather than labels.
Outcome: Students improved in cross-curricular literacy tasks, and teachers reported better engagement and flexibility in learning.
Case Study 3: CPD Redesign for Evidence-Based Practice
Context: A trust of three schools was using CPD sessions based on learning styles inventories.
Action: Leadership replaced these sessions with workshops on cognitive load theory, metacognition, and retrieval practice.
Outcome: After 12 months, classroom observations showed a shift to more efficient planning and assessment, with teachers reporting less workload and higher pupil retention of knowledge.
Good Practice for Design, Planning, and Delivery
SLTs should ensure the following principles:
Design
- Embed Universal Design for Learning (UDL) – multiple means of engagement, representation, and expression.
- Use structured approaches, not style-based differentiation.
Planning
- Plan lessons by learning goals and prior knowledge, not sensory preferences.
- Integrate high-impact strategies like spaced practice and feedback cycles.
Delivery
- Use evidence-based methods (e.g., dual coding, worked examples, retrieval quizzes).
- Encourage metacognition, helping students identify effective strategies.
Leadership Actions
- Audit and revise CPD to remove references to learning styles.
- Train staff in cognitive science principles and inclusive planning.
- Model evidence-based decision making in teaching and curriculum design.
Final Message for Leaders
The intention behind learning styles – personalising learning – is admirable but misinformed. Schools can achieve far better outcomes by embracing research-led, inclusive practices that focus on how learning truly works.