Learning Style: A Persistent Myth that Mitigates L&D
In learning and development circles, it is common to hear the following phrases:
“We need to adjust this for our visual learners.” “She’s a more kinesthetic type, so let’s build an activity.” “We want to have a comprehensive coverage of all learning styles.”
It sounds thoughtful – even learner-centric. But there’s a problem. It does not improve learning outcomes.
The idea of “learning style” – individuals learn better when individuals meet their personal tastes – has existed for decades. However, research has repeatedly shown that this approach is not supported by scientific evidence. Worse, continuing to use it reduces the impact on the program, waste design time, and L&D reliability within your business. If L&D is serious about driving performance and business outcomes, stop designing for preferences and start designing how people actually learn.
What the research really says
The “learning style hypothesis” suggests that people prefer learning methods such as visual, auditory, and kinesthetics, and their instructions should match those preferences for optimal learning. However, this idea was unbearable under scrutiny.
In 2008, a major review led by cognitive psychologist Harold Pashler concluded that “there is no valid evidence base that incorporates the assessment of learning styles into general educational practices.” Subsequent meta-analysis and replication support this. People certainly have preferences, but adapting instructions to suit these preferences has no measurable effect on learning performance.
Here’s why:
Priority styles do not necessarily reflect cognitive strength. To match instructions to style does not improve understanding or retention. The type of content, not the learner’s preference, should promote educational modality.
For example, learning to repair an engine can benefit from visual diagrams and practical operation, regardless of the learner’s “style.” Though preferences can affect engagement, they do not affect learning effectiveness.
Why the myth of learning style persists
Despite widespread exposure, learning styles have been mentioned in training requests, e-learning designs, and even university programs. So why does myth endure?
It feels intuitive
Since everyone has preferences, it is easy to assume that those preferences need to determine learning. But as coaches know, comfort doesn’t always lead to growth. Show personalization
In an age of learner-centered design, organizations want to show that they are adapting to their individual needs. Learning styles seem like an easy way to “check the box” even if you miss a mark. It’s easy to understand
Compared to models such as cognitive load theory and search practice, the learning style is simple and catchy. This simplicity makes it easier to explain to stakeholders, even if they are inaccurate.
Unfortunately, continuing to rely on learning styles creates a sense of false personalization, while diverting energy from evidence-based L&D practices that truly improve learning outcomes.
Actual cost of designing a learning style L&D
While learning styles may seem harmless, they cost you:
1. Design inefficiency
Teaching designers create multiple redundant formats for each “style”, which can lead to bloated development timelines and unnecessary complexity.
2. Reduced the impact on education
Rather than tailoring content to task requirements or cognitive processes, designers spend time adapting it to their preferences and undermine its effectiveness.
3. Incorrect resource
Efforts need to justify style assessment, tailored materials design, and choices that do not have proven learning profit margins.
4. Professional reliability has decreased
L&D aims to increase strategic influence and therefore must be research-based. Sticking to exposing the model is justified in the eyes of executives, business partners and learning-savvy employees.
What to do instead: Six Evidence-Based Principles
Droping learning styles does not mean ignoring learner diversity. That means designing in a way that has been proven to enhance retention, understanding and transfer. Here are six options to promote real impact.
1. Cognitive load design
Overloading working memory prevents learning. Split content into manageable chunks, reducing unrelated factors, and strategically use visual and auditory inputs (not based on learner preferences).
2. Use dual coding and modality principles
Combining visuals and narration to improve understanding (you can split your attention rather than text or narration). Use modalities based on content type, EG, process animation, and text for definition. It’s not a personal preference.
3. Prior knowledge will be prioritized
Adjust difficulty and support based on what learners already know. Beginners need to work. Experts benefit from problem solving. This leads to better performance results than style matching can be done before.
4. Supports active search and interval practice
Use quizzes, scenario branches, and actual reflections to encourage memory acquisition. The interval between learning and review sessions dramatically increases retention.
5. Create psychological relevances
Connects learning to learner context, identity, and roles. Motivation and meaning fuel attention and transfer, far more than modality alignment.
6. Designed for not only engagement but also transfer
Real-world practice, feedback, and reinforcement are more important than style fit. Design cues, habit loops, and manager follow-ups for sustained behavioral change.
How to disengage organizations from mythology
When you move your team or organization away from your learning style, you may need more than just a memo. Here are some practical strategies to manage that shift:
1. Educate stakeholders
Share articles or infographics supported by short evidence describing your research. Avoid embarrassing things. Focus on showing better alternatives.
2. Audit existing programs
Identify where your learning style is embedded in intake, template, or e-learning builds. Replace it with questions about context, barriers, and performance conditions.
3. Use a business language
Frame your argument in terms of efficiency, effectiveness, and return on effort. Stakeholders respond to outcomes, not theory.
4. Pilot shifts for one program
Redesign the course with cognitive science principles. Measure and share results widely. The actual examples are more convincing than academic quotes.
Final Thought: L&D deserves better
Learning and development is evolving. The seating at the strategy table depends on reliability, evidence and outcomes. If we continue to rely on myths like learning styles, we receive a false message about our discipline.
Good news? Moving past obsolete models opens up space for innovation that comes from science rather than habits. A good learning design doesn’t meet your tastes. It’s about people actually learning, changing and growing. And that’s where L&D shines brightest.
