The idea of “learning styles” — that individuals learn best when material is matched to a preferred sensory mode such as visual, auditory, or kinesthetic — has become deeply embedded in education and staff development. It is appealing, intuitive, and feels respectful of learner individuality. However, despite its popularity, the evidence base supporting learning-style–matched instruction is weak, and relying on it too heavily can unintentionally limit both teachers and learners.

A major problem is lack of consistent definitions. Across the literature there are more than 70 different learning-style models, often measuring different constructs entirely (preferences, personality traits, cognitive processes, study habits). Coffield and colleagues (2004) concluded that many models lacked reliability and validity, meaning they did not consistently measure what they claimed to measure. If we cannot reliably identify someone’s “style,” building teaching around it becomes questionable.

Perhaps the most important critique is that matching teaching to learning styles has not been shown to improve outcomes. Pashler et al. (2008) reviewed the research and found no convincing evidence that learners taught in their preferred style perform better than those taught in other ways. For an idea so widely promoted, the absence of supportive evidence is striking. More recent reviews have reached similar conclusions: people believe in learning styles, but belief alone does not make the strategy effective (Rohrer & Pashler, 2012).

There is also a risk of self-labelling and lowered expectations. When learners are told, for example, “You’re a visual learner,” they may conclude that reading, discussion, or hands-on practice are “not for them.” In healthcare education — where practitioners must interpret text guidelines, communicate verbally, and perform psychomotor skills — this narrowing is unhelpful and potentially unsafe. Adults are adaptable learners; they benefit from strengthening multiple modalities rather than retreating to one.

Importantly, research suggests that people still learn effectively even when instruction is not aligned to a supposed style. Humans process information through integrated sensory and cognitive systems. A nurse who prefers diagrams can still learn effectively from case discussion; a practitioner who likes hands-on practice still benefits from reading. The key determinants of learning appear to be prior knowledge, quality of instructional design, opportunities for practice, and feedback — not style matching.

This does not mean the entire conversation is useless. Preferences are real, and acknowledging them can support engagement, autonomy, and motivation. The educational mistake is moving from “preference matters sometimes” to “learning only happens when style is matched.” A more defensible approach is multimodal teaching: present core ideas in varied ways, connect them to authentic practice, and provide chances to apply and reflect. This aligns well with principles from adult learning, cognitive psychology, and mastery learning.

In short, learning styles remain popular largely because they feel personalised and easy to explain. But the evidence indicates that teaching narrowly to styles is neither necessary nor particularly effective. Rather than diagnosing learners into categories, educators — especially in clinical fields — are better served by focusing on clear objectives, active practice, spaced repetition, feedback, and reflection. People can (and do) learn in many ways — sometimes especially when the task stretches them beyond their comfort or “style.”

References

Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review.

Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105–119.

Rohrer, D., & Pashler, H. (2012). Learning styles: Where’s the evidence? Medical Education, 46(7), 634–635.

Dekker, S., Lee, N. C., Howard-Jones, P., & Jolles, J. (2012). Neuromyths in education. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 429.