I’m sorry but… the "learning styles" myth needs to die already.

No, your student is not a "visual learner." Or an "auditory learner." Or a "kinesthetic-scent-triggered-by-smooth-jazz" learner.

Brains don’t work like that. Why does this fallacy keep coming up in some education forum at least once a week despite decades debunking the theory?

There’s zero scientific evidence that teaching people in their so-called “preferred learning style” helps them learn better.

In fact, it often hurts by giving people permission to avoid the real work of processing knowledge deeply, by engaging in an objectively more appropriate exercise for the topic at hand. (Really, is there anyone who learns, say, how to use Excel, more effectively by "watching a video" than by doing an actual spreadsheet project?)

Don’t get me wrong: personalized learning is still awesome. But that just means adjusting the difficulty, pacing, or topic sequence to how well you know something — not whether you "like" podcasts better than diagrams.

What most people call “learning styles” are really just learning preferences. Sure, someone might like to watch a video instead of doing flashcards. But that doesn’t mean it’s going to lead to better learning outcomes.

In fact, the easier or more “comfortable” something feels… the less likely it is to stick.

Real learning = effortful. Uncomfortable. Active. Often annoyingly repetitive. And unfortunately, not optimized around your vibes.

So can we just keep pushing for personalized learning that works, based on science and not zodiac signs?

<braces for hate from the remaining learning styles stans>

Submitted June 22, 2025 at 04:16PM by brainscape_ceo https://ift.tt/nRoPElk