Table of Contents
Introduction: The Day I Found the “Answer”
The frustration was a nightly ritual.
My son, Leo, a bright and endlessly curious middle-schooler, would sit at the kitchen table, his shoulders slumped in defeat over a social studies textbook.
He’d read a paragraph three times and still not be able to explain it.
Homework sessions that began with hopeful determination too often ended in tears—his and, sometimes, mine.
It wasn’t a lack of effort; it was a failure to connect.
The information was right there on the page, but it was as if it were written in a language his brain refused to translate.
One evening, deep in a late-night internet spiral of parental desperation, I stumbled upon what felt like a life raft: a “Learning Style Quiz.” The promise was intoxicating.
A simple, 20-question online assessment claimed it could reveal the secret to unlocking my son’s unique brain.1
The questions were disarmingly simple, asking about preferences in everyday scenarios—how he’d assemble furniture or learn a new board game.1
With each click, my hope swelled.
This felt scientific, diagnostic.
The results flashed on the screen: Leo was a “Kinesthetic Learner.” A wave of profound relief washed over me.
The problem wasn’t Leo’s intelligence or his work ethic.
It wasn’t his teachers’ fault.
It was a simple mismatch of method.
The solution seemed tantalizingly easy: just change the style of teaching to match his innate, hands-on nature.4
This single quiz result launched me on a journey to transform my son’s education.
It was a path that would lead me from fervent belief to frustrating confusion, and ultimately to a stunning epiphany that overturned everything I thought I knew about learning.
This is the story of that journey, from the seductive allure of a simple myth to the empowering reality of genuine cognitive science.
Section 1: Down the Rabbit Hole of V-A-R-K
Decoding the Labels of a Viral Theory
Armed with Leo’s “diagnosis,” I dove headfirst into the world of learning styles.
The most prominent model, and the one our quiz was based on, was VARK.
Developed by Neil Fleming in 1992, it’s an acronym that categorizes learners into four primary types.1
It was simple, memorable, and it seemed to explain everything.
- Visual (V): These learners supposedly prefer information presented graphically—through charts, diagrams, and symbolic imagery. According to some sources, a staggering 65% of the population falls into this category.1
- Auditory or Aural (A): These individuals are said to learn best by hearing information, thriving in lectures, discussions, and podcasts.2
- Read/Write (R): This style favors information displayed as words. These learners excel with textbooks, making lists, and taking detailed notes.1
- Kinesthetic (K): These are the “doers.” They learn best through tactile experience, hands-on experiments, and physical movement—by getting their hands dirty and practicing a skill.1
The more I read, the more complex the landscape became.
Beyond VARK, I discovered other models, like David Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle, which sorts people into “Convergers,” “Divergers,” “Assimilators,” and “Accommodators” based on how they perceive and process experiences.6
Other frameworks expanded the list to seven or even eight styles, adding categories like “Logical,” “Social,” and “Solitary”.1
This proliferation of models should have been a red flag.
If the science were settled, why were there over 70 different, often conflicting, instruments for measuring it?.7
But at the time, I saw it as further proof of a rich and complex field, not a sign of its instability.
The Hope of a Personalized Map and the Power of Belief
My initial mission was clear: transform Leo’s learning environment into a kinesthetic paradise.
We traded spelling lists for tracing letters in a tray of sand.
We acted out historical battles with action figures instead of just reading about them.
For a while, it felt revolutionary.
His engagement shot up; he was laughing and participating.
It seemed to be working.
Looking back, I can see I was a classic case study in confirmation bias.
The concept of learning styles is so appealing because it offers a simple, intuitive explanation for a deeply complex problem.5
Once I had the “Kinesthetic Learner” label, I interpreted every ambiguous event as proof.
When Leo finally grasped fractions using LEGO bricks, I didn’t think, “LEGOs are a great tool for explaining this abstract concept to any child.” My immediate thought was, “Aha! Proof! The kinesthetic method works!” As cognitive scientist Daniel Willingham explains, if you already believe the theory, you are likely to interpret what happens as being consistent with it.10
I was filtering reality through the lens of the label I’d been given, seeing only the evidence that confirmed my new belief.
When the Map Leads Nowhere
The initial excitement began to fade.
While Leo was more engaged in our hands-on projects, his grades stagnated.
The “kinesthetic” approach, which worked for some subjects, proved impractical and limiting for others.
How do you “kinesthetically” learn the nuances of the Bill of Rights? How do you physically act out the rules of grammar? The simple map I thought I had was failing us in complex terrain.
The original frustration returned, now compounded by a deep and unsettling confusion.
This failure became my turning point.
The very thing that had first drawn me in—the simplicity of the VARK model—now seemed suspect.
The sheer number of competing theories was no longer a sign of a rich field of study but a symptom of a lack of consensus.
My journey shifted from one of enthusiastic application to one of critical inquiry.
I had to know if this map was real, or if I had been following a ghost.
Section 2: The Myth Unravels: When “Common Sense” Fails the Scientific Test
My deeper dive into the research led me to the work of cognitive scientists who had been scrutinizing these theories for decades.
What I found dismantled the entire learning styles edifice, piece by piece.
The Critical Distinction: Learning Preference vs. Learning Ability
The first major epiphany came from understanding the crucial difference between a style and an ability.11
- Ability refers to how well you can do something. Some people have better spatial reasoning; others have a better ear for music. These differences in ability are real, measurable, and not controversial.12
- Style, in the context of these theories, refers to the way you prefer to receive information. You might like looking at pictures, but that doesn’t mean you actually learn better that way.11
The learning styles theory gains its intuitive power by conflating these two distinct concepts.
It takes the obvious truth that people have different abilities—for example, that some are better at visual tasks and others at verbal tasks—and incorrectly extrapolates that any topic can be translated into any modality to suit a learner’s “style”.4
Cognitive science shows this is false.
As Willingham puts it, verbal and visual thinking are fundamentally different in the brain, not fungible or interchangeable.13
The nature of the task dictates the optimal ability, not the learner’s preference.
The Gold-Standard Experiment That Falsified a Theory
The smoking gun came in the form of a landmark 2008 review by a team of psychologists led by Harold Pashler.
They weren’t just looking for studies; they were looking for studies with a very specific, rigorous design—the only kind that could truly validate the central claim of learning styles, known as the “meshing hypothesis”.8
To prove the theory, an experiment must follow these steps:
- Assess learners and categorize them by their supposed style (e.g., Visual vs. Auditory).
- Randomly assign learners from each style group to receive instruction in different formats. For example, half the Visual learners would get visual instruction, while the other half would get auditory instruction.
- Give all participants the same final test on the material.
- The theory is only supported if a specific crossover interaction is observed: Visual learners must perform better with visual methods, AND Auditory learners must perform better with auditory methods.8
Pashler’s conclusion was devastating.
The vast majority of studies promoting learning styles had not used this essential methodology.
Of the few that did, the results were overwhelmingly negative, flatly contradicting the meshing hypothesis.8
People did not learn better when the instruction was tailored to their self-reported preference.
The Real Driver of Learning: Meaning, Not Modality
This led to the final, crucial piece of the puzzle: why does the theory fail? Because our brains are not wired to store most academic knowledge as a sensory trace.
Our brains are wired to prioritize meaning.4
The lightbulb didn’t just go on; it exploded.
I had been obsessed with the delivery system for information—Leo’s eyes, ears, and hands.
I never once considered the cargo.
The goal was never for him to have a perfect kinesthetic memory of a science experiment; it was for him to understand the meaning of the scientific principle the experiment demonstrated.
I was focusing on the envelope, not the letter inside.
The following table crystallizes this fundamental shift in understanding.
Table 1: The Learning Styles Myth vs. Cognitive Reality
| The Popular Claim (What the Quizzes Tell You) | The Cognitive Reality (What the Science Says) |
| “Visual learners learn best with pictures and diagrams.” | “Learning from visuals depends on the content. Everyone learns the anatomy of a heart better from a labeled diagram because the information is inherently spatial and visual.” 4 |
| “Auditory learners learn best from lectures and discussions.” | “Learning from audio depends on the content. Everyone learns the correct pronunciation of a foreign word better by hearing it because the information is inherently auditory.” 4 |
| “Kinesthetic learners learn best with hands-on activities.” | “Learning from doing depends on the content. Everyone learns to tie a shoelace or play a guitar chord better by physically doing it because the skill is inherently procedural and motor-based.” 3 |
| “Matching teaching to a student’s ‘style’ boosts learning and is the key to success.” | “There is no credible scientific evidence for this ‘meshing hypothesis.’ Using a variety of teaching methods is beneficial for all learners because it improves engagement and presents information in multiple ways, not because it caters to fixed ‘styles’.” 8 |
Section 3: The Hidden Harm of a Harmless-Sounding Label
My initial belief was that even if learning styles weren’t scientifically sound, they were harmless.
This, I discovered, was perhaps the most dangerous misconception of all.
The theory doesn’t just fail to help; it can actively cause harm.
The Prison of the Label and the Fixed Mindset
With a sickening lurch, I realized that in trying to help Leo, I had been harming him.
I had handed him a perfect, pre-packaged excuse for any academic struggle.
The label became a cage.
- Fostering a Fixed Mindset: The theory encourages a deterministic view of learning. When Leo found a book difficult, the label “kinesthetic” whispered, “This isn’t for you.” It teaches students that their ability to learn is a fixed characteristic they are born with, rather than a muscle they can build through effort and strategy. This undermines resilience.20
- Pigeonholing and Limiting Potential: The labels can dissuade students from pursuing subjects or careers that don’t seem to “match” their diagnosed style. A “kinesthetic” learner might be discouraged from pursuing writing or a “visual” learner from music, thereby closing doors to their own potential.7
- Wasting Precious Resources: The belief in learning styles leads schools, teachers, and parents to misallocate precious time, money, and effort on developing style-specific materials and training, diverting resources from evidence-based practices that actually work.7
- Creating Passive Learners: Perhaps most insidiously, the myth implies that learning is something done to a student. It suggests that if they aren’t learning, it’s because the teacher isn’t using the right “style,” which removes the student’s agency and responsibility in their own education.14
The Paradoxical Insight: Doing the Right Thing for the Wrong Reason
This raised a difficult question: if the theory is so wrong, why do so many dedicated, experienced teachers believe in it and report positive results? The research points to a fascinating irony.
In their effort to cater to Visual, Auditory, and Kinesthetic learners, these teachers naturally incorporate a variety of instructional methods—they use diagrams, hold discussions, assign group work, and plan hands-on projects.14
This multimodal approach is, in fact, an evidence-based best practice that benefits all students.
It keeps them engaged, presents information through different channels, and requires them to integrate knowledge in new ways.9
The great irony is that the teachers who embraced this myth were often among the most dedicated.
They were doing the right thing—varying their instruction—but for the wrong reason.
The benefit arose from the variety itself, not from the flawed premise of matching a style.
The goal, I realized, wasn’t to abandon the practice of using diverse teaching methods.
It was to understand
why it truly works and ground that practice in solid science.
Section 4: A New Toolkit: Building a Better Learner
We threw out the quiz results.
We stopped talking about Leo’s “style.” Instead, we started asking a much better question: “What is the best strategy for learning this specific thing?” We were moving from a fixed label to a flexible toolkit, one built on the real science of how learning happens.
Principle 1: Match the Method to the Material, Not the Learner
This is the direct, logical counter-proposal to the learning styles myth.
Championed by researchers like Daniel Willingham, it states that the first question should always be about the nature of the content itself.4
The modality of instruction should be chosen because the information is best conveyed that way for
everyone.
To learn the geography of a Civil War battle, use a map (visual).
To understand the emotional power of a political speech, listen to it and analyze the text (auditory/verbal).
To learn how to build an electrical circuit, physically assemble it (procedural).9
Principle 2: Learn with Words and Pictures (Dual Coding)
I discovered the work of Allan Paivio, whose Dual Coding Theory explains that our brains process information through two distinct channels: a verbal channel for language (logogens) and a non-verbal channel for images and sensory information (imagens).23
When we present information using both channels simultaneously—for example, a diagram of the water cycle paired with a clear verbal explanation—we create two interconnected memory traces.
This “double-barrels” learning, making recall far more robust because we have two ways to access the information.26
This isn’t about adding decorative clipart; it’s about using meaningful infographics, annotated diagrams, timelines, and graphic organizers that work in concert with text or speech to clarify meaning.24
Principle 3: Pull Knowledge Out, Don’t Just Push It In (Retrieval Practice)
One of the most powerful shifts in our approach was embracing what scientists call “retrieval practice” or the “testing effect.” The act of actively trying to recall information from memory is a potent form of study itself.
It strengthens neural pathways far more effectively than passively re-reading, highlighting, or reviewing notes.29
This effortful recall creates “desirable difficulties”—the mental struggle is not a sign of failure, but a sign that deep, durable learning is occurring.29
We started using simple, powerful strategies:
- Low-stakes Quizzing: Frequent, ungraded quizzes just to practice pulling facts from memory.29
- Flashcards (Done Right): Forcing ourselves to say the answer out loud before flipping the card, and keeping mastered cards in the deck to be reviewed again later.32
- Brain Dumps: At the end of a study session, Leo would take a blank sheet of paper and write down everything he could remember about the topic without looking at his notes.29
Principle 4: Space It Out and Mix It Up (Spaced Repetition & Interleaving)
Finally, we learned to manage the timing and order of our practice.
- Spaced Repetition: Based on Hermann Ebbinghaus’s 19th-century discovery of the “forgetting curve,” this principle states that we remember things better when we review them at increasing intervals over time.33 Instead of cramming, we would revisit a topic for a short period the next day, then a few days later, then a week later. This strategic interruption of the forgetting process builds strong, long-term memories.34
- Interleaving: This involves mixing up different but related skills in a single practice session, as opposed to “blocking” (practicing one skill over and over).35 For math, instead of a worksheet with 50 multiplication problems, we used one with a mix of multiplication, division, addition, and subtraction. While it feels harder in the moment, interleaving forces the brain to constantly discriminate between concepts, leading to a more flexible and deeper understanding that can be applied in new situations.
Conclusion: The Freedom of Being a Learner, Not a Label
The journey with Leo didn’t end with a magic bullet.
Replacing the “learning style” conversation with a “learning strategy” conversation required more effort and active engagement from both of us.
But the results were real, lasting, and profound.
The struggle didn’t disappear, but it became productive—a sign of progress, not a signal of failure.
His confidence grew not from being catered to, but from mastering difficult things with effective tools.
My quest began with the seductive promise of a simple label, a quick fix for a complex problem.
It ended with the empowering reality of a strategic toolkit.
The initial goal was to find a way to eliminate the struggle of learning.
The final, crucial insight was that embracing the right kind of struggle—the “desirable difficulty” of retrieval, spacing, and active engagement—is the only path to genuine mastery.31
The most insidious aspect of the learning styles myth is that it robs us of our agency.
It suggests learning is a passive process, something that happens to us if only the external conditions are right.
The truth is the opposite.
Learning is an active, effortful, and deeply personal construction.
By abandoning the restrictive boxes of V-A-R-K and embracing the evidence-based principles of cognitive science, we reclaim our power.
You are not a “Visual Learner” or a “Kinesthetic Learner.” You are a learner, equipped with a powerful, adaptable brain and a toolkit of strategies to unlock its full potential.
Now, let’s get to work.
Works cited
- Learning Style Quizzes: Find Out How You Learn Best, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://raccoongang.com/blog/different-types-learners-quizzes-you-can-take-online/
- What Are the Different Learning Styles? – Blog PrepScholar, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://blog.prepscholar.com/learning-styles-quiz
- The VARK Learning Styles: Definition and Types – Verywell Mind, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://www.verywellmind.com/vark-learning-styles-2795156
- Ask the Cognitive Scientist: Do Visual, Auditory, and Kinesthetic …, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://www.aft.org/ae/summer2005/willingham
- Debunking the Myth of Learning Styles – Science L.E.A.F, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://scienceleaf.com/debunking-the-myth-of-learning-styles/
- Kolb’s Learning Styles & Experiential Learning Cycle, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://www.simplypsychology.org/learning-kolb.html
- Evidence-Based Higher Education – Is the Learning Styles ‘Myth’ Important? – PMC, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5366351/
- Learning styles: wheres the evidence?, accessed on August 9, 2025, http://uweb.cas.usf.edu/~drohrer/pdfs/Rohrer&Pashler2012MedEd.pdf
- 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
- Learning Styles Don’t Exist – YouTube, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIv9rz2NTUk
- Ask the Cognitive Scientist: Does Tailoring Instruction to “Learning Styles” Help Students Learn? – American Federation of Teachers, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://www.aft.org/ae/summer2018/willingham
- Daniel Willingham’s Learning Styles FAQ – Daniel Willingham–Science & Education, accessed on August 9, 2025, http://www.danielwillingham.com/learning-styles-faq.html
- How many people believe learning styles theories are right? And why? – Daniel Willingham–Science & Education, accessed on August 9, 2025, http://www.danielwillingham.com/daniel-willingham-science-and-education-blog/how-many-people-believe-learning-styles-theories-are-right-and-why
- Roundup on Research: The Myth of ‘Learning Styles’ | Online Teaching, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://onlineteaching.umich.edu/articles/the-myth-of-learning-styles/
- Learning Styles – Concepts and Evidence – Appalachian State University, accessed on August 9, 2025, http://www.appstate.edu/~bromanfulksj/Pashler%20et%20al%20-%20Learning%20Styles.pdf
- (PDF) Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence – ResearchGate, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233600402_Learning_Styles_Concepts_and_Evidence
- The concept of different “learning styles” is one of the greatest neuroscience myths – Reddit, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/psychology/comments/6xwhit/the_concept_of_different_learning_styles_is_one/
- Differentiating learning by ‘learning style’ might not be so wise – Christensen Institute, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://www.christenseninstitute.org/blog/differentiating-learning-by-learning-style-might-not-be-so-wise/
- (PDF) The Myth of Learning Styles – ResearchGate, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249039450_The_Myth_of_Learning_Styles
- Tackling the ‘learning styles’ myth – Teacher Magazine, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://www.teachermagazine.com/au_en/articles/tackling-the-learning-styles-myth
- Four reasons to avoid ‘learning styles’ – and one alternative | British Council, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://www.britishcouncil.org/voices-magazine/four-reasons-avoid-learning-styles-one-alternative
- Willingham: No evidence exists for learning style theories, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://laplab.ucsd.edu/news/voices-washingtonpost-com.pdf
- How Dual Coding Can Increase Student Learning: A Guide For Teachers, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://thirdspacelearning.com/blog/dual-coding/
- Dual Coding: Exploring opportunities to deliver learning content in NOW | Nottingham Trent University, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://www.ntu.ac.uk/about-us/teaching/academic-development-and-quality/cadq-blogs/dual-coding-exploring-opportunities-to-deliver-learning-content-in-now
- Dual-coding theory – Wikipedia, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-coding_theory
- Dual Coding Theory: The Complete Guide for Teachers – Education Corner, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://www.educationcorner.com/dual-coding-theory/
- Unlocking Paivio’s Dual Coding Theory, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/paivio-dual-coding-theory-ultimate-guide
- Dual Coding – Weekly Teaching Note | NYIT, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://site.nyit.edu/ctl/blog/dual_coding
- Using Retrieval Practice to Increase Student Learning, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://ctl.wustl.edu/resources/using-retrieval-practice-to-increase-student-learning/
- Retrieval Practice and Why It Works | Edmentum, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://www.edmentum.com/articles/retrieval-practice/
- What is retrieval practice?, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://www.retrievalpractice.org/why-it-works
- Retrieval Practice: The Most Powerful Learning Strategy You’re Not …, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://www.cultofpedagogy.com/retrieval-practice/
- Spaced repetition: Science-backed secret to long-term … – Voovo, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://www.voovostudy.com/study-blog/the-art-of-learning-the-power-of-spaced-repetition
- The right time to learn: mechanisms and optimization of spaced learning – PMC, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5126970/
- Interleaving: Boost learning by mixing it up – Retrieval Practice.org, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://www.retrievalpractice.org/interleaving
- Myth of Learning Styles — and Why You Should Still Design for Them – PCMA, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://www.pcma.org/adam-grant-myth-learning-styles/
