One of the most widely believed ideas in education is that students have distinct "learning styles" and learn best when teaching matches their preferred way of learning. The most popular approach is VARK (Visual, Auditory, Reading/writing, Kinesthetic), which suggests that some students are "visual learners" who learn best through diagrams and images, "auditory learners" who learn best through listening, "reading/writing learners" who prefer text-based learning, and "kinesthetic learners" who need hands-on experiences.
The main idea of learning styles theory is what researchers call the "meshing hypothesis" - the belief that the best learning happens when teaching methods match a student's preferred learning style. For example, if a student is identified as a "visual learner," they should receive visual teaching; if they're a "kinesthetic learner," they should receive hands-on teaching. This theory suggests that mismatched teaching (giving visual lessons to a kinesthetic learner) would result in worse learning outcomes.
Several reviews of learning styles research has been done (e.g., Pashler and colleagues in 2008) and found that no studies have ever proven that matching teaching to learning styles actually helps students learn better. One recent study (Rogowsky and colleagues in 2020) found there was no difference in learning between students who received lessons that matched their learning style versus those who received lessons that didn’t align with their preferred style. In fact, all students did better with visual lessons (reading text) than listening lessons (hearing audio), no matter what their stated learning preference was.
Example 1: Geography Lesson
Consider teaching students about the shape and location of Italy. Learning styles theory would suggest:
Visual learners should see a map.
Auditory learners should hear a description.
Kinesthetic learners should trace the shape with their finger.
In reality, research shows that ALL students learn this information better by seeing a map, because the content (where places are located) is naturally visual. The type of material, not the learner's preference, determines the best way to teach it.
Example 2: Math Problems
When teaching long division:
Learning styles theory suggests some students need visual diagrams while others need spoken explanations.
Research shows that math procedures are best learned through worked examples (showing the steps) followed by practice problems, regardless of student preference.
It Feels Right
Learning styles "feel right" because:
People do have preferences for how they like to receive information.
Students clearly learn differently from each other.
The theory seems to offer a simple explanation for why some students struggle.
Misunderstanding Real Differences
Learning styles theory misunderstands several real things about learning:
Ability differences: Some students are better at processing visual information, others at processing spoken information, but this is about what they're good at, not their learning style.
Content matching: Some material works better when presented visually (maps, diagrams) while other material works better when spoken (stories, step-by-step directions).
Preferences vs. what works: Students may prefer certain types of lessons, but what they prefer doesn't always equal what helps them learn best.
Match Teaching Methods to the Material, Not the Student
Location information (geography, geometry) works best with visual presentation for ALL students.
Step-by-step processes (science procedures, math algorithms) work best when breaking down information into clear steps that are given one at a time in spoken or written lessons for ALL students.
Abstract concepts work best when you start with concrete examples before moving to abstract ideas.
Use Multiple Ways of Teaching When It Makes Sense
Rather than matching lessons to student preferences, use multiple ways of presenting information when they really help with the content:
Present information both visually and verbally when both add value.
Use demonstrations combined with explanations for hands-on skills.
Combine text with relevant diagrams for complex information.
Focus on Proven Learning Strategies
Spaced practice: Spread out learning sessions over time instead of cramming.
Testing for learning: Regular quizzes strengthen memory better than just re-reading.
Mixing practice: Mix different types of problems during practice sessions (e.g., instead of practising only addition questions and then subtraction questions, mix different problems together).
Asking why and how: Ask "why" and "how" questions about the material.
Concrete examples: Use specific real examples before teaching abstract ideas.
The learning styles myth is particularly problematic for students with learning differences (e.g., Autism, ADHD, learning and/or sensory challenges) because of:
Wasted Time and Resources: Time spent on learning style tests could be better used on proven interventions that actually help.
Real Individual Differences: Many students do have real individual differences in how they process information, but these are better addressed by understanding their specific strengths and challenges rather than putting them into broad learning style categories.
Sensory Needs: While many students with learning differences may have sensory preferences or sensitivities, these are different from learning styles and need different types of support.
The learning styles myth is one of the most thoroughly disproven theories in education research. Despite decades of studies failing to find supporting evidence, it continues to be popular because it seems like it makes sense. For teachers and parents, especially those supporting students with complex needs, focusing on research-proven practices rather than learning styles will lead to better teaching and improved outcomes.
The important message is not that all students learn the same way as differences in learning are real and important. Rather, the research shows that these differences aren't captured by simple learning style categories. Teaching works best when it matches what the content requires rather than what we think students prefer.
One of the most popular beliefs about the brain is that humans only use 10% of their brain, leaving 90% unused. This myth suggests that if we could somehow use this "unused" brain power, we could become much smarter, develop special mental abilities, or dramatically improve our learning and memory. The idea is often used to sell brain training programs, self-help books, and educational products that claim to "unlock your brain's hidden potential."
Modern brain science completely proves this myth wrong. Brain imaging technology like fMRI and PET scans show that we use almost all of our brain, even during simple tasks like reading or walking. When scientists look at brain activity during sleep, they still see activity across the entire brain. If 90% of the brain were truly unused, damage to these areas wouldn't cause any problems, but in reality, damage to any brain area typically causes serious difficulties. For example, damage to "unused" areas can cause problems with movement, speech, memory, or personality changes.
During simple tasks: When you read this sentence, brain scans show activity in areas for seeing, language, memory, attention, and movement. It's much more than 10% of your brain.
Brain injuries: People who have strokes in supposedly "unused" brain areas often have serious problems with speech, movement, or thinking.
Brain surgery: When doctors touch different brain areas during surgery, nearly every area produces some response - muscle movement, feelings, memories, or emotions.
Evolution: If 90% of our brain served no purpose, evolution would not have kept such an expensive organ (the brain uses about 20% of our body's energy).
Many parents and teachers believe that homework always helps students learn better and that more homework leads to better grades and academic success. This belief suggests that students who do homework every night will automatically perform better in school than those who don't, and that the amount of homework should increase as students get older.
Research on homework shows a much more complicated picture. Studies have found that homework can be helpful for older students (high school), but has little benefit for middle school students, and even less for elementary school students. The research shows that the relationship between homework and learning is not as simple as "more homework equals better learning."
Elementary students: Studies show no relationship between homework and academic achievement for students in grades K-5.
Middle school students: Very small benefits, and only when homework is limited to 60-90 minutes per night.
High school students: Some benefits, but only up to about 2 hours per night. After that, more homework actually hurts performance.
Quality vs. quantity: Well-designed homework that reinforces what was taught in class is more important than the amount of time spent.
Takes away time from sleep, family time, and physical activity
Can increase stress and anxiety in children
May reduce motivation and love of learning
Often becomes a source of family conflict
Can widen the gap between students who have help at home and those who don't
Quality over quantity: Short, focused practice that reinforces classroom learning (e.g., 15 minutes practicing math facts that were taught in class that day is better than completing 2 hours of worksheets covering topics not yet taught in class).
Age-appropriate amounts: The "10-minute rule" - roughly 10 minutes per grade level per night (so 20 minutes for 2nd grade, 30 minutes for 3rd grade).
Meaningful practice: Homework that helps students practice what they've learned, not busy work.
Family time: Protecting time for families to spend together, which is crucial for child development.
Adequate sleep: Ensuring children get enough sleep, which is essential for learning and memory.
Many people believe that multitasking - doing two or more things at the same time - makes them more productive and helps them get more done. Students often think they can study effectively while listening to music, watching TV, texting friends, or browsing social media. Parents and teachers sometimes encourage this, believing that today's students are naturally good at multitasking because they grew up with technology.
Research consistently shows that multitasking is a myth. The human brain cannot actually focus on two things at the same time. Instead, what we call "multitasking" is really "task switching" or rapidly jumping back and forth between different activities. This constant switching hurts performance, increases mistakes, and actually takes more time than doing one thing at a time.
Students who multitask while studying have lower grades and take longer to complete their work.
People who try to multitask make more errors and remember less information.
It takes time for the brain to refocus after switching tasks - this "switching cost" adds up quickly.
Multitasking increases stress and mental fatigue.
Students who use media while studying (like texting or social media) perform worse on tests.
Students who text while doing homework take 25% longer to finish and make more mistakes.
People who check email while writing reports produce lower quality work.
Students who listen to music with lyrics while reading comprehend less of what they read.
Drivers who talk on phones (even hands-free) miss important visual information and react more slowly.
Single-tasking: Focus on one activity at a time for better results.
Taking breaks: Work for focused periods, then take short breaks between tasks.
Removing distractions: Put away phones, turn off notifications, and find a quiet space to work.
Batching similar tasks: Do all your reading at once, then all your writing, rather than switching back and forth.
Adults modeling focused behavior: Parents and teachers should avoid checking phones or doing other tasks while helping children with homework or during conversations, showing that focused attention is valued.
References:
Cooper, H., Robinson, J. C., & Patall, E. A. (2006). Does homework improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research, 1987–2003. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 1–62. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543076001001
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
Foerde, K., Knowlton, B. J., & Poldrack, R. A. (2006). Modulation of competing memory systems by distraction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(31), 11778–11783. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0602659103
Furey, W. (2020). The stubborn myth of "learning styles" – State teacher-license prep materials peddle a debunked theory. Education Next, 20(3), 8–12.
Herculano-Houzel, S. (2002). Do you know your brain? A survey on public neuroscience literacy at the closing of the decade of the brain. The Neuroscientist, 8(2), 98–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/107385840200800206
Howard-Jones, P. A. (2014). Neuroscience and education: Myths and messages. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 15(12), 817–824. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3817
Hussman, P., & O'Loughlin, V. D. (2019). Another nail in the coffin for learning styles? Disparities among undergraduate anatomy students' study strategies, class performance, and reported VARK learning styles. Anatomical Sciences Education, 12(1), 6–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1777
Junco, R., & Cotten, S. R. (2012). No A 4 U: The relationship between multitasking and academic performance. Computers & Education, 59(2), 505–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.023
Kohn, A. (2006). The homework myth: Why our kids get too much of a bad thing. Da Capo Press.
Kralovec, E., & Buell, J. (2000). The end of homework: How homework disrupts families, overburdens children, and limits learning. Beacon Press.
Krätzig, G. P., & Arbuthnott, K. D. (2006). Perceptual learning style and learning proficiency: A test of the hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 238–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.238
Lilienfeld, S. O., Lynn, S. J., Ruscio, J., & Beyerstein, B. L. (2010). 50 great myths of popular psychology: Shattering widespread misconceptions about human behavior. Wiley-Blackwell.
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
Ophir, E., Nass, C., & Wagner, A. D. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(37), 15583–15587. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0903620106
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
Rogowsky, B. A., Calhoun, B. M., & Tallal, P. (2020). Providing instruction based on students' learning style preferences does not improve learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 164. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00164
Rosen, L. D., Carrier, L. M., & Cheever, N. A. (2013). Facebook and texting made me do it: Media-induced task-switching while studying. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 948–958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.001
Sana, F., Weston, T., & Cepeda, N. J. (2013). Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning for both users and nearby peers. Computers & Education, 62, 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.003
Trautwein, U. (2007). The homework–achievement relation reconsidered: Differentiating homework time, homework frequency, and homework effort. Learning and Instruction, 17(3), 372–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.02.009