Table of Contents
The Search for a Silver Bullet
Introduction: The Day I Realized I Was Failing My Brightest Students
My name is Dr. Anya Sharma, and for the last 15 years, I’ve dedicated my life to education.
I started my career with the kind of boundless optimism that only a new teacher possesses, armed with a degree, a passion for my subject, and a collection of what I was told were “proven” teaching methods.
But the reality of the classroom was far more complex than any textbook had prepared me for.
I remember standing in front of my third-year class, a room buzzing with bright, capable students, and feeling a profound sense of frustration.
Despite my best efforts, a significant number of them were disengaged.
Some stared out the window, others doodled, and a few were just quietly lost.
The traditional classroom structure, with its neat rows and teacher-centric lectures, felt like a blunt instrument.1
I was delivering a single, standardized lesson, but I was facing 30 unique individuals.
This one-size-fits-all approach was clearly failing.2
It created a passive learning environment where students were expected to absorb information rather than actively engage with it, leading to a predictable drop in motivation and participation.4
I saw students with immense potential struggle to connect with the material, their confidence slowly eroding.
The disconnect was palpable, and it was my core professional pain point: I was working harder than ever, yet I wasn’t reaching them.
It was during this period of professional soul-searching that I first encountered the concept of “learning styles.” It arrived like a bolt of lightning.
The idea that students had innate, individual ways of learning—Visual, Auditory, Kinesthetic—was intoxicating.
It promised a simple, elegant key to unlock each student’s potential.6
Suddenly, the disengagement in my classroom wasn’t a sign of my failure, but a puzzle I could solve.
All I needed was the right tool to identify each student’s “style,” and I could tailor my teaching to their unique frequency.
The allure of this idea was powerful; it wasn’t just about pedagogy.
It tapped into my deep-seated desire as an educator to truly
see and connect with each student, to feel effective in the face of overwhelming complexity.
The learning styles questionnaire, I believed, was the silver bullet I had been searching for.
The Seductive Promise: Exploring the World of Learning Styles Questionnaires
My initial enthusiasm led me down a rabbit hole of research and resources, all centered on the user’s very query: finding a “learning style questionnaire for students pdf.” I wanted a tangible tool, something I could put in my students’ hands that would give us a clear map for their learning journey.
I quickly discovered that the landscape of learning style theories was vast, with over 70 different models proposed over the years.7
However, a few dominant theories stood O.T.
The most popular and accessible was Neil Fleming’s VARK model, an acronym for Visual, Auditory, Read/Write, and Kinesthetic.9
The premise was straightforward:
- Visual (V) learners prefer information presented in charts, diagrams, maps, and other graphic forms.10
- Auditory (A) learners learn best through listening, such as in lectures, discussions, and podcasts.10
- Read/Write (R) learners have a strong preference for information displayed as words, thriving on textbooks, articles, and taking detailed notes.10
- Kinesthetic (K) learners are the hands-on learners, needing to experience and do things to learn effectively, through experiments, physical models, and real-life applications.10
What made VARK particularly appealing was its acknowledgment of multimodality.
Research using the VARK questionnaire found that a majority of students—around 61% in one study—don’t fit neatly into a single category but have bimodal, trimodal, or even quadrimodal preferences.9
This resonated with my own observations of students’ varied behaviors.
Another influential framework I explored was David Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory.
This model is more process-oriented, suggesting that learning is a four-stage cycle:
- Concrete Experience (CE): Having a hands-on experience.
- Reflective Observation (RO): Reflecting on that experience from different perspectives.
- Abstract Conceptualization (AC): Forming new ideas or theories based on those reflections.
- Active Experimentation (AE): Using those new theories to solve problems and make decisions.11
Based on which stages a person prefers, Kolb’s model identifies four learning styles: Diverging (feeling and watching), Assimilating (thinking and watching), Converging (thinking and doing), and Accommodating (feeling and doing).13
This felt more nuanced than VARK, focusing not just on sensory input but on the entire cognitive process of transforming experience into knowledge.14
Eager to apply these ideas, I developed a tool for my students.
While you can download it below, I’ve reframed it from a rigid “questionnaire” to what it truly is: a Learning Preferences Self-Reflection Tool.
This is a critical distinction.
This tool, based on VARK-style questions 15, asks students about their preferred ways to receive and process information.
For example: “If you were learning a new skill, would you prefer to (a) watch a demonstration, (b) listen to an explanation, (c) read a manual, or (d) try it yourself?” However, it also includes crucial reflection prompts:
Why do you prefer this method? Can you think of a time when a different method worked better for you? The introduction to the PDF now carries a disclaimer I wish I had understood years ago: this is a tool to start a conversation about learning, not a scientific diagnostic instrument.
It explicitly notes that while understanding preferences is a useful starting point for dialogue, a wealth of research shows that rigidly matching teaching to these preferences has little to no effect on learning outcomes.
It was a seed of doubt that, for me, would soon grow into a full-blown paradigm shift.
The Paradigm Collapse
The Cracks in the Foundation: A Story of Failure and the Troubling Science
The initial excitement of using learning styles in my classroom was quickly tempered by a humbling and painful experience.
It centered on a student I’ll call Leo.
Leo was brilliant, articulate, and a leader in every class discussion.
His insights were sharp, his arguments persuasive.
By any auditory measure, he was a star.
But when it came to written assignments, he fell apart.
His essays were disorganized, his arguments underdeveloped, and his grades were plummeting.
Armed with my new knowledge, I diagnosed him as a classic “Auditory/Kinesthetic” learner.
I gave him options for oral reports and hands-on projects, where he excelled.
But the core curriculum demanded strong writing skills, and for those assignments, I doubled down on traditional methods, assuming he just needed more practice in his “weaker” area.
I pushed him to outline, to draft, to rewrite.
The result was a disaster.
He didn’t improve; he withdrew.
The light in his eyes dimmed, his confidence shattered, and the easy rapport we once had became strained.
I wasn’t helping him; I was reinforcing his belief that he was simply “bad at writing.” My attempt to use the learning styles “key” had not unlocked his potential; it had locked him in a box, and I felt like I had failed him completely.
That failure sent me back to the research, this time with a more critical eye.
What I found was staggering.
The entire foundation of learning styles theory, particularly the idea that we should match our teaching to a student’s style, rests on what researchers call the “meshing hypothesis” or “matching hypothesis”.17
And this central pillar of the theory has been systematically and repeatedly debunked.19
Study after study has found no significant evidence that students learn better when the teaching modality is matched to their self-identified learning style.6
In fact, some research has shockingly found that students can perform
better when taught in a modality that is not their stated preference, likely because it forces them to engage with the material more deeply and in a novel way.19
The problems run even deeper.
The very questionnaires used to diagnose these styles are scientifically questionable.
They often lack reliability (the same person can get different results on different days) and validity (they don’t actually measure learning aptitude, but rather a fleeting preference).22
As one group of researchers noted, these instruments are often based on self-reports, and humans are generally poor and inaccurate judges of their own learning processes.19
The most damning indictment, however, was the danger of labeling, something I had experienced firsthand with Leo.
The American Psychological Association has warned that the belief in learning styles can be actively detrimental.24
By telling a student “You are a visual learner,” we risk creating a fixed mindset that discourages them from developing crucial skills in other areas.
It gives them an excuse to disengage (“I can’t learn this, it’s not visual”) and leads educators to waste precious time and resources on ineffective strategies that don’t benefit anyone.8
I had fallen into this exact trap.
To clarify the chasm between popular belief and scientific consensus, I’ve summarized the key points in the table below.
Table 1: Deconstructing the Learning Styles Myth
| Common Belief About Learning Styles | The Scientific Reality & Evidence |
| “Matching teaching to a student’s style improves learning.” | The “Meshing Hypothesis” is a myth. Decades of research show no significant learning gains from this practice. 19 |
| “Students have one, stable learning style.” | Styles are unstable and most people are multimodal. Preferences change over time and depending on the subject matter. Most people (over 60%) show a preference for multiple modes. 9 |
| “Learning style questionnaires are valid diagnostic tools.” | The instruments are generally unreliable and unvalidated. They often measure preference, not aptitude, and self-reports on learning are notoriously inaccurate. 22 |
| “Labeling a student with a learning style is helpful.” | Labeling can be harmful. It can create a fixed mindset, discourage effort in weaker modalities, and lead to wasted educational resources. 22 |
The Epiphany: A Student Isn’t a Radio Station, They’re a Sound Mixing Board
Reeling from my experience with Leo and the weight of the scientific evidence, I felt lost.
If learning styles were a myth, what was the alternative? Was every student just a blank slate? My own classroom experience told me that wasn’t true either.
Students are different.
They do have preferences.
The problem wasn’t the observation; it was the framework.
The epiphany came not in a library, but late one night while reflecting on Leo.
I realized I had been asking the wrong question entirely.
I was asking, “What is Leo’s style?” as if he were a single, fixed entity.
The right question was, “What does Leo’s unique brain need to process this specific task?” I had been trying to treat him like a simple radio, capable of tuning into only one station at a time—Auditory, Visual, or Kinesthetic.
When I broadcasted on the “wrong” frequency for a task (like the Read/Write frequency for an essay), all he got was static.
This model was simple, but it was profoundly wrong.
That’s when a new, more powerful analogy clicked into place.
A student’s mind isn’t a radio.
It’s a professional sound mixing board in a recording studio.
Think about it.
A mixing board doesn’t have one channel; it has dozens.
There’s a fader for vocals, another for drums, another for bass, another for guitar.
Similarly, a student’s brain has countless channels for processing information: a Visual channel, an Auditory channel, a Read/Write channel, and a Kinesthetic channel, to be sure.
But it also has a Social-Collaborative channel, a Logical-Sequential channel, an Abstract-Conceptual channel, a Rhythmic channel, an Emotional-Connection channel, and many more.
Learning a new “song”—whether it’s a concept in physics, a historical event, or a mathematical formula—requires a unique mix.
A science lab might require the Kinesthetic and Collaborative faders to be turned way up.
Writing a history essay might need the Read/Write and Logical-Sequential faders to be dominant.
Solving a complex math problem might demand a high level on the Abstract-Conceptual channel.
This reframed my role as an educator completely.
I wasn’t a DJ trying to find the one station my audience liked.
My new job was to be a Sound Engineer.
My role was twofold:
- To design a rich learning environment—the “studio”—that gave students access to every single channel on their board.
- To teach each student—the “artist”—how to use their entire board, how to create different mixes for different songs, and, crucially, how to strengthen the channels that were currently weak or distorted.
This new mental model was liberating because it resolved the central conflict of the learning styles debate.
It acknowledged the undeniable truth that different learning modalities and preferences exist (the channels on the board) while completely rejecting the rigid, disproven idea of matching instruction to a single, fixed style (the radio station).
The focus shifted from a static, deterministic label to a dynamic, empowering process.
My goal was no longer to categorize Leo, but to equip him.
The Sound Engineer’s Toolkit: A Practical Framework for Personalized Learning
Embracing my new role as a “Sound Engineer” meant throwing out the simple, one-page questionnaire and building a comprehensive toolkit.
I found the perfect blueprint in the principles of Personalized Learning, a framework that aligns perfectly with the sound mixing board analogy.
It’s not about finding a single style, but about understanding the whole learner and providing the flexibility, tools, and support they need to create their own successful learning “mix.” The framework I now use is built on four core principles, which I call the “Sound Engineer’s Toolkit.”
Principle 1: Know the Artist (Learner Profiles & Data-Driven Decisions)
Before a sound engineer can mix a great record, they must understand the artist deeply—their voice, their range, their goals, their unique sound.
In education, this means building a rich, holistic profile of each student that goes far beyond a simple VARK label.
This aligns with the personalized learning principles of creating Learner Profiles and making Data-Driven Decisions.25
The goal is to gather data not just for grades, but for understanding.
This requires a shift in practice:
- Go Beyond Academic Data: While test scores are a data point, they are only one. I now make a concerted effort to understand each student’s interests, passions, cultural background, and personal motivations.26 Simple surveys or one-on-one conversations can reveal that a student who is disengaged in history class is a passionate gamer who loves strategy—a hook I can use to connect them to military history.
- Use Formative Assessments Daily: Instead of relying solely on big, summative tests, I use a constant stream of low-stakes, formative assessments. These are quick “sound checks” to see where the class is. Tools like exit tickets (a quick question at the end of class), classroom polls, and think-pair-share discussions give me real-time data on student understanding without the pressure of a grade.28
- Involve Students in the Data: The most powerful shift is making students partners in this process. I use student-led conferences where learners review their own work and data, reflect on their progress, and set their own goals. This builds metacognition and ownership, turning them from passive recipients of instruction into active drivers of their own learning.25 The “Learning Preferences” tool I shared earlier becomes a fantastic conversation starter in this context.
Principle 2: Design the Studio (Flexible Content, Tools & Environments)
A world-class recording studio isn’t just a single microphone in a quiet room.
It’s an environment filled with a variety of instruments, microphones, acoustic spaces, and digital tools, allowing the artist to create any sound they can imagine.
Our classrooms should be the same.
This principle embodies the personalized learning concept of providing Flexible Content and Tools within a Flexible Learning Environment.25
It’s about giving every student access to every channel on their mixing board.
Here are some practical strategies to build a flexible “studio”:
- Offer Multiple Pathways to Content: For any given topic, I now provide multiple ways for students to access the core information. For a lesson on the American Revolution, a student might choose to watch a documentary, listen to a podcast interview with a historian, read a chapter in the textbook, or interact with a digital timeline.28 This isn’t about catering to a fixed “style”; it’s about providing choice and redundancy. Research shows that combining modalities, such as words and visuals, benefits
all learners by creating stronger, more resilient memories.20 - Embrace Flexible Seating: The traditional grid of desks is designed for compliance, not learning. My classroom now has zones: a quiet corner with beanbags for independent reading, clusters of desks for collaboration, and standing desks for students who need to move.4 This allows students to choose the physical environment that best supports their focus and energy for a specific task.
- Leverage Technology Thoughtfully: Technology can be a powerful amplifier for personalization. I use adaptive learning software that adjusts the difficulty of practice problems based on a student’s performance, providing real-time support and extension.25 I also encourage students to use creative tools to demonstrate their learning. Instead of a five-paragraph essay, perhaps they can create a podcast, a short documentary, an infographic, or a website. This gives them agency and allows them to leverage their unique strengths.28
Principle 3: The Live Mix (Targeted, Multi-Modal Instruction)
This is the art of teaching itself—the “live mix.” It’s the moment-to-moment process of listening to your students, watching them work, and adjusting the faders to create a balanced, powerful, and clear “song.” This is the principle of Targeted Instruction in action.25
It reclaims the most useful kernel of truth from the learning styles debate: using a variety of sensory modalities in teaching is highly effective.
The critical difference is that we do it for
everyone and for the benefit of the content, not to match a supposed style of the learner.
This is what the “live mix” looks like in my classroom:
- Flexible, Small-Group Instruction: The data I gather daily allows me to move away from constant whole-group lectures. I can pull a small, flexible group of students who are struggling with a specific concept for a targeted mini-lesson. At the same time, another group might be working collaboratively on a challenge problem, while others work independently on a digital playlist of activities.26 These groups are fluid; they change from day to day based on the data.
- Intentionally Multi-Sensory Lessons: I now design every lesson to intentionally engage multiple “channels.” A lesson on Shakespeare’s Macbeth might involve: reading a key soliloquy (Read/Write), listening to a professional actor perform it (Auditory), analyzing different film versions of the scene (Visual), and then getting up to block out the scene and physically embody the characters’ motivations (Kinesthetic/Collaborative).32 This rich, multi-modal approach creates more entry points for all students and leads to deeper, more lasting understanding.
- Project-Based Learning (PBL): PBL is the ultimate “sound engineering” environment. It allows students to engage with a complex, real-world problem over an extended period. This naturally requires them to use a wide variety of skills and modalities—research, collaboration, design, writing, presenting—and gives them significant choice in how they approach the task and what they create as a final product.29
Principle 4: The Playback Session (Student Reflection & Ownership)
After a recording session, the engineer and artist don’t just move on.
They go into the control room for the “playback session.” They listen back, discuss what worked and what didn’t, and decide what to try next.
The ultimate goal is for the artist to internalize this process, to become their own producer.
This is the final, and perhaps most important, principle of personalized learning: fostering Student Reflection and Ownership.25
Our job as “sound engineers” is to eventually make ourselves obsolete by teaching our students how to manage their own learning.
Here’s how to facilitate the “playback session”:
- Make Goal-Setting a Habit: I work with every student to set their own short-term and long-term learning goals, based on their data, interests, and our curriculum standards.27 This simple act shifts the locus of control from me to them.
- Build in Constant Reflection: Reflection isn’t an afterthought; it’s woven into the fabric of my classroom. At the end of a project, I ask students to reflect: “What learning strategy worked best for you on this assignment? What was the biggest challenge? What ‘mix’ will you try for the next project?”.30 This builds the metacognitive muscles they need to become independent, lifelong learners.
- Offer Choice in Assessment: Where possible, I give students a voice in how they demonstrate their mastery. Can they prove their understanding of cellular respiration by acing a test, building a detailed 3D model, creating an animated video explaining the process, or writing a research paper?.28 When students have agency over the “what” and “how” of their learning, their engagement and ownership skyrocket.
To make this framework as practical as possible, I’ve organized these strategies into a single toolkit.
Table 2: The Personalized Learning Toolkit: From Principle to Practice
| Personalized Learning Principle | The ‘Sound Engineer’ Analogy | Practical Classroom Strategies | |
| Data-Driven Decisions 25 | Know the Artist | – Use formative assessments (exit tickets, polls) daily.- Conduct student-led conferences to review progress.- Create “learner profiles” that include interests and goals, not just grades.26 | |
| Flexible Content & Tools 25 | Design the Studio | – Provide content in multiple formats (video, text, audio).- Use flexible seating arrangements.- Offer a “playlist” of activities for students to choose from.28 | |
| Targeted Instruction 25 | The Live Mix | – Use data to form flexible, small groups for remediation or extension.- Design multi-sensory lessons that engage V, A, R, and K modalities for all students.32 | – Implement project-based learning with real-world connections.29 |
| Student Reflection & Ownership 25 | The Playback Session | – Teach students to set and track their own learning goals.- Incorporate regular self-reflection prompts.- Offer choice in how students demonstrate mastery (e.g., essay, presentation, project).28 |
The Resolution
From Theory to Practice: Leo’s Turnaround Story
So, what happened to Leo? After my epiphany, I threw out his “auditory learner” label and sat down with him for a real conversation.
I introduced him to the idea of the sound mixing board.
We talked about it not as a weakness, but as a technical challenge.
The “song” he needed to produce was a well-structured essay, and that “mix” required the Read/Write and Logical-Sequential channels to be strong.
His natural tendency was to crank up the Auditory and Collaborative channels, which was great for discussions but wasn’t working for this specific task.
So, we became co-engineers of his learning process.
We designed a new “mix” specifically for essay writing:
- Auditory Input: He used text-to-speech software to listen to the source articles and his own drafts. This leveraged his auditory strength as an entry point, reducing the initial cognitive load of reading dense text.
- Visual Structure: Before writing a single sentence, he used a large graphic organizer to visually map out his argument, using colors and shapes to connect his thesis, main points, and evidence. This turned the abstract structure of an essay into a concrete, visual artifact.
- Collaborative Rehearsal: He “talked out” his thesis and topic sentences with a partner, getting immediate verbal feedback before committing them to paper. This allowed him to rehearse his ideas in a low-stakes, auditory environment.
- Kinesthetic Process: We broke the essay down into smaller, manageable chunks. He treated each paragraph like a separate building block, focusing on one at a time. This project-based approach made the overwhelming task feel more tangible and less intimidating.
The result was transformative.
His first essay using this new process was not just better; it was excellent.
But more importantly, the change in Leo himself was profound.
The frustration and anxiety were replaced by a quiet confidence.
He hadn’t just written a good essay; he had learned how to write a good essay.
He now had a set of strategies—a new “mix”—he could apply to any writing task.
He had gone from being a victim of his supposed learning style to the producer of his own learning.
Conclusion: Your Journey from Questionnaire to Master Educator
My journey with Leo taught me the most important lesson of my career.
The search for a simple “learning style questionnaire” is born from a noble desire to help our students.
We want a key, a map, a simple solution to the beautiful complexity of the human mind.
But the evidence is clear: those simple labels are a dead end.
They are scientifically unsound and can be actively harmful, limiting both our teaching and our students’ potential.
The real path forward is both more challenging and infinitely more rewarding.
It requires us to trade the simple, alluring myth of the questionnaire for the sophisticated, dynamic art of personalized learning.
It asks us to stop being fortune-tellers who label a child’s destiny and start being master “sound engineers” of learning.
This means knowing our students—our “artists”—on a deep and holistic level.
It means designing rich, flexible “studios” where every student has access to a full range of tools and modalities.
Most of all, it means working alongside them in the “live mix” of the classroom, guiding them, supporting them, and empowering them to become the confident, capable producers of their own intellectual lives.
Ditching the questionnaire isn’t about abandoning our students’ individuality; it’s about finally having a framework powerful enough to truly honor it.
Works cited
- Addressing the Challenges of a Traditional Classroom Structure – Ideal School, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://idealschool.education/2021/05/07/problems-with-traditional-classroom-structures/
- Individualized Programs: Why One-Size-Fits-All Doesn’t Work, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://www.milestoneachievements.com/post/individualized-programs-why-one-size-fits-all-doesn-t-work
- Differentiated Learning: Why “One Size Fits All” Doesn’t Work In Education – Whitby School, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://www.whitbyschool.org/passionforlearning/differentiated-learning-why-one-size-fits-all-doesnt-work-in-education
- Common Classroom Challenges in the Traditional Classroom, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://www.studentcenteredworld.com/classroom-challenges/
- Challenges and Best Practices in classroom and student engagement at University of the Arts London – The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://www.qaa.ac.uk/news-events/blog/challenges-and-best-practices-in-classroom-and-student-engagement-at-university-of-the-arts-london
- The VARK Learning Styles: Definition and Types – Verywell Mind, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://www.verywellmind.com/vark-learning-styles-2795156
- Learning styles – Wikipedia, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_styles
- Is it time we ditch learning styles? – Oxbridge, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://oxbridgehomelearning.uk/blog/is-it-time-we-ditch-learning-styles/
- The Learning Styles and the Preferred Teaching—Learning Strategies of First Year Medical Students – PMC, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3708205/
- Top 4 Learning Style Models – Debates Surrounding Them – Edumentors, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://edumentors.co.uk/blog/top-4-learning-style-models-debates-surrounding-them/
- Kolb’s experiential learning – Wikipedia, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolb%27s_experiential_learning
- Kolb’s Learning Styles & Experiential Learning Cycle – Simply Psychology, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://www.simplypsychology.org/learning-kolb.html
- Kolb’s Learning Styles – BusinessBalls, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://www.businessballs.com/self-awareness/kolbs-learning-styles/
- Experiential learning—a systematic review and revision of Kolb’s model – ResearchSPAce, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://researchspace.bathspa.ac.uk/13077/1/13077.pdf
- The VARK Questionnaire (Version 7.8), accessed on August 9, 2025, https://www.uab.edu/students/academics/images/academic-success-center/vark-questionnaire.pdf
- VARK+Questionnaire.pdf – ResearchGate, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andrija_Kozina2/post/Is_there_any_validated_questionnaire_to_measure_students_learning_styles/attachment/59d6408e79197b807799cbdc/AS:431495853678594@1479888036474/download/VARK+Questionnaire.pdf
- OPINION: USES, MISUSES, AND VALIDITY OF LEARNING STYLES* Richard M. Felder North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC ABSTRACT, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://engr.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/drive/1tKCP5oEAV5VV4Yb97j-IG_geuBxCQqB6/2020-AEE%20Learning%20Styles%20Opinion%20Piece.pdf
- Is it really a neuromyth? A meta-analysis of the learning styles matching hypothesis – PMC, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11270031/
- Roundup on Research: The Myth of ‘Learning Styles’ | Online …, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://onlineteaching.umich.edu/articles/the-myth-of-learning-styles/
- Learning Styles as a Myth | Poorvu Center for Teaching and Learning – Yale University, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://poorvucenter.yale.edu/teaching/teaching-resource-library/learning-styles-as-a-myth
- The lingering ‘learning styles’ myth – Evidence Based Education, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://evidencebased.education/the-lingering-learning-styles-myth/
- VARK Strengths and Weaknesses – Paving the Way, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://tracyharringtonatkinson.com/vark-strengths-and-weaknesses/
- Are Learning Styles Just a Fallacy?, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://www.psy.gla.ac.uk/~steve/courses/ceredocs/oldwikis/8.Arelearningstylesafallacy.pdf
- Belief in learning styles myth may be detrimental, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2019/05/learning-styles-myth
- The Core Four of Personalized Learning: – Ed Elements, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://www.edelements.com/hubfs/Core_Four/Education_Elements_Core_Four_White_Paper.pdf
- A Complete Guide to Personalized Learning in K-12 Education (2025) – PowerSchool, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://www.powerschool.com/blog/complete-guide-personalized-learning-k12-education/
- Personalized Learning | EBSCO Research Starters, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/education/personalized-learning
- Top 9 strategies to support personalized learning | RingCentral Blog, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://www.ringcentral.com/us/en/blog/top-9-strategies-to-support-personalized-learning/
- Personalized Learning: A Comprehensive Educator’s Guide – SmartLab Learning, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://www.smartlablearning.com/personalized-learning/
- 8 Personalized Learning Strategies to Integrate | Steelcase, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://www.steelcase.com/research/articles/guide-personalized-learning-experiences-strategies/
- Overcoming 8 Challenges of Student Engagement – Teacher Tech with Alice Keeler, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://alicekeeler.com/2023/05/15/overcoming-8-challenges-of-student-engagement/
- One response to the ‘learning styles’ debate | British Council, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://www.britishcouncil.org/voices-magazine/response-learning-styles-debate
- Facilitating and assessing student engagement in the classroom …, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://www.colorado.edu/center/teaching-learning/2023/01/23/facilitating-and-assessing-student-engagement-classroom
