Teacher Practical Guidance:

Matching Teaching to Learning Styles

Category: Assessment & Planning

Rank Order

57

Effect Size

0.43

Achievement Gain %

16

How-To Strategies

BENEFITS

  • The learning‑styles conversation pushed many teachers to move beyond single‑mode lecturing and incorporate multiple modalities (discussion, visuals, hands‑on work, video), which tends to help most learners.

 

  • It also encouraged more varied assessments (projects, presentations, performance tasks) instead of relying only on traditional tests, giving students additional ways to demonstrate understanding.

 

  • Reflecting on “how I learn best” can be a gateway into metacognition—students noticing which strategies and conditions help them focus, remember, and understand.

 

  • When framed as “preferences and strategies” rather than fixed types, learning‑style discussions can help learners plan, monitor, and adjust their study approaches more intentionally.

 

  • Learning‑styles language has helped some students feel that their difficulty with a single mode (e.g., long lectures) is not a personal failure but a mismatch of method and need, which can reduce anxiety and stigma.

 

  • It has nudged schools toward recognizing that one uniform method is unlikely to serve all learners well, opening the door to more inclusive approaches like UDL and strategy instruction.

 

  • High‑quality reviews find no strong evidence that diagnosing and matching instruction to learning styles improves learning outcomes, so it should not be used as a basis for grouping or grading.

 

  • The most productive use is as a starting point for metacognitive and strategy conversations, embedded in broader, evidence‑based design practices (UDL, explicit strategy teaching, formative assessment) rather than as a prescriptive typing system.link

 

 

 

WHAT TO DO

  • Start lessons from UDL principles: build in multiple ways to access content, engage with it, and show learning for all students, rather than assigning modes to “visual” vs. “auditory” learners.

 

  • Treat learner differences as expected variability, and remove barriers at the design level (goals, materials, methods, assessments) instead of trying to match one mode to each student.

 

  • Invite students to reflect on which strategies and formats help them under different conditions (e.g., “When does listening help you? When do diagrams help you?”) without saying they are one fixed type.

 

  • Teach and model trying multiple modalities deliberately (read + listen + sketch), so students expand their repertoire instead of narrowing it to a preferred label.

 

  • Provide a few clear options for tasks and products (e.g., write an explanation, create a labeled diagram, or record a short video), all targeting the same standard, instead of unlimited or loosely connected choices.

 

  • Scaffold choice with checklists or brief conferences so students pick formats that fit both the learning goal and their current strengths/needs, not just comfort.

  • Regularly ask students what helped or got in the way (tools, formats, groupings) and adjust future UDL designs using this feedback.

 

  • Capture your own notes on which options boosted engagement and understanding for different groups so you can refine, not restart, each time. link

 

 

 

CHALLENGES

  • Rigorous reviews find little to no evidence that students learn better when instruction is matched to their preferred learning style (the “meshing hypothesis”).

 

  • Some studies even suggest that one well‑designed approach tends to be optimal for most learners, regardless of their stated style preferences.

 

  • Assigning style labels (“visual learner,” “auditory learner”) can encourage self‑limiting beliefs; students may avoid effective strategies or whole subjects they perceive as a poor fit for “their” style.

 

  • Labels can oversimplify complex, context‑dependent learning processes and reduce students to categories in ways that undermine potential.

 

  • Designing parallel versions of lessons for different styles can consume substantial planning time without demonstrated learning benefits.

 

  • This can displace more effective practices (retrieval practice, explicit strategy teaching, formative assessment, UDL‑aligned design) that have stronger empirical support.

 

  • Learning‑styles models reduce learning to a single dominant sensory channel, even though effective learning usually involves integrating multiple modalities and cognitive processes.

 

  • Focusing on style can promote a view of students as passive recipients of instruction, instead of active learners who can adapt strategies and build new strengths.

  • Because learning‑styles approaches emphasize preference over barrier removal, they can distract from addressing accessibility, language demands, task design, and other structural issues that shape who can participate.

 

  • The continued promotion of learning styles in teacher education and commercial materials keeps a discredited idea in circulation, making it harder for educators to move toward evidence‑based inclusive frameworks like UDL.

 

  • Using learning‑styles language, if at all, is safest as a loose entry point for metacognition and strategy talk, while anchoring actual instructional design in approaches with stronger evidence, such as UDL and the learning sciences. link

 

 

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN UDL & LEARNING STYLES

  • Learning styles matching assumes each student has a stable, preferred style (e.g., visual, auditory, kinesthetic) and that teaching should be tailored to that style for that student.

 

  • UDL assumes all learners vary across context and time, so instruction should be designed from the start with multiple options for everyone, rather than custom‑matching one mode to one person.

 

  • Learning‑styles matching (the “meshing hypothesis”) has repeatedly failed to show that matching modality to a labeled style improves learning outcomes and is widely considered a neuromyth.

 

  • UDL is grounded in learning sciences and cognitive neuroscience and is framed as an inclusive design approach; while the evidence base is still developing, it is recognized in policy (e.g., ESSA) and supported by multiple implementation studies.

 

  • In learning‑styles matching, the teacher often assigns or organizes instruction by style (e.g., “visual learners do this diagram task”) and may fragment the class into style‑based groups.

 

  • In UDL, the teacher designs lessons with multiple representations, engagement options, and expression pathways available to all students in the same environment (e.g., text + video + manipulatives, several product options).

 

  • Learning‑styles models typically start from a fixed profile (you are a visual learner), which can inadvertently pigeonhole students and suggest that other modes are less suitable.

 

  • UDL uses learner profiles more fluidly to inform flexible options, metacognition, and co‑design; students are encouraged to experiment with multiple modalities and build strengths across them. link

 

 

 

WHAT NOT TO DO

  • Do not group or assign work based on labels like “visual,” “auditory,” or “kinesthetic,” or redesign lessons primarily to “match” each student’s supposed style.

 

  • Do not assume that a student will learn best only in their preferred modality; this claim is not supported by evidence and can actually reduce exposure to effective strategies.

 

  • Avoid telling students “you are a _ learner” in ways that sound permanent or deterministic.

 

  • Do not encourage students to reject tasks or subjects because they “don’t fit” their style; this narrows opportunities and fosters self‑limiting beliefs.

 

  • Do not let learning‑styles inventories dictate grouping, tracking, grading, or access to particular courses or teaching methods.

 

  • Do not spend large amounts of planning time creating parallel “style‑based” versions of lessons instead of focusing on evidence‑based practices (UDL, explicit strategy instruction, formative assessment, retrieval practice).

 

  • Avoid using learning styles as a substitute for understanding how memory, attention, prior knowledge, and practice affect learning.

 

  • Do not treat style talk as if it solves equity or accessibility issues; it does not address barriers in curriculum, language demands, or assessment design.link

How-To Resources

ARTICLES

Link – ARTICLE (FillingthePail) UDL is the new learning styles

 

Link – ARTICLE (Australia) Learning styles is not the same as UDL

 

Link – ARTICLE (HMH) UDL vs. differentiated instruction

 

Link – ARTICLE (AFT) Does tailoring instruction help students learn?

 

Link – ARTICLE (Yale) Learning styles as a myth

 

Link – ARTICLE (FacultyFocus) Using metacognition to reframe our thinking on learning styles

 

Link – ARTICLE (Waterloo) Understanding learning styles

 

Link – ARTICLE (Tulane) Learning styles in education

 

Link – ARTICLE (UM) The myth of learning styles

 

Link – ARTICLE (EducationNext) The stubborn myth of learning styles

 

Link – ARTICLE (EduTopia) Using UDL aligned tech tools

 

 

 

RESEARCH / REPORT / GUIDE

Link – RESEARCH (Frontiers) The persistence of matching teaching to learning styles, and recommendations to end it.

 

Link – RESEARCH (PMC) Evidence-based higher education: Is learning styles myth important?

 

 

 

VIDEO

Link – VIDEO (YouTube) Learning styles don’t exist

 

Link – VIDEO (YouTube) Biggest myth in education

 

Link – VIDEO (YouTube) Farewell, learning styles

 

Link – VIDEO (YouTube) Why do we still believe in learning styles

 

 

 

PROGRAMS / CURRICULUM

CAST-developed curriculum projects – UDL Curriculum Toolkit & related projects (DynaBook, Biocomplexity, Foundation Science: Physics). Research projects that used a digital toolkit to build inquiry science and physics modules with embedded UDL scaffolds (multiple representations, supports for vocabulary, note‑taking, audio responses). link

 

CAST PreK–12 Professional Development
Offers online courses and multi‑year partnerships that include model lessons, unit exemplars, and planning tools aligned to the UDL Guidelines across content areas rather than a single commercial curriculum.link

 

Strengthening Inclusive Education through UDL (GCFIL & Michigan State University) – A 30‑hour K–12 certificate program that walks teachers from UDL foundations through curriculum, pedagogy, and a six‑week classroom action‑research project applying UDL in their own context.link

 

LINCS “Universal Design for Learning and Adult Education” modules. For adult ed, but provide video case studies and ready‑to‑use lesson ideas that demonstrate UDL‑designed curriculum and activities. link

 

Most schools do not adopt “a UDL curriculum”; instead, they take existing programs (E/LA, math, science, etc.) and redesign units and assessments using the UDL Guidelines, often supported by PD like CAST courses or state UDL initiatives.

 

 

DIGITAL

Immersive Reader (Microsoft), Read&Write, Snap&Read – Read text aloud, adjust speed, change background/font, translate, and highlight—supporting decoding, comprehension, and language access. link

 

Clusive (CAST) – Free digital reading environment with adjustable text, vocabulary supports, and built‑in comprehension tools, designed explicitly with UDL in mind.link

 

UDL Curriculum Toolkit / Corgi (CAST projects)
Environments built to embed scaffolds—checklists, note‑taking, vocabulary pop‑ups, multimodal materials—directly into tasks, modeling UDL‑aligned lesson design.link

 

Kami / PDF & web annotators –Let students highlight, comment, draw, and add text boxes or voice notes on PDFs/web pages to make reading more active and flexible.link

References

Ay (2017). The Effect of Learning Types/Styles on Student Achievement. (book)

 

Black C. (2016). Science/Fiction HOW LEARNING STYLES BECAME A MYTH. Available at: http://carolblack.org/science-fiction/

 

Dekker S., Lee N. C., Howard-Jones P., Jolles J. (2012). Neuromyths in education: prevalence and predictors of misconceptions among teachers. Front. Psychol. 3:429

 

Dunn, Griggs, Olson, Beasley & Gorman (1995). A meta-analytic validation of the Dunn and Dunn model of learning-style preferences. Journal of Educational Research.

 

Erdem & Kaf (2023). Effect of learning styles on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Türk Akademik Yayinlar Dergisi.

 

Geake J. (2008). Neuromythologies in education. Educ. Res. 50 123–133.

 

Howard-Jones P. A. (2014). Neuroscience and education: myths and messages. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 15 817–824. 1

 

Kanadli (2016). A meta-analysis on the effect of instructional designs based on the learning styles models on academic achievement, attitude and retention. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice.

 

Lovelace (2005). Meta-Analysis of Experimental Research Based on the Dunn and Dunn Model. Journal of Educational Research.

 

Newton PM, Miah M. (2017).  Evidence-Based Higher Education – Is the Learning Styles ‘Myth’ Important? Front Psychol. Mar 27;8:444

 

Ostovar (2023). Meta-Analysis of the Relationship between Learning Styles and Students’ Academic Achievement. Journal of Instruction and Evaluation.

 

Pashler H., McDaniel M., Rohrer D., Bjork R. (2008). Learning styles: concepts and evidence. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 9 105–119.

 

Riener C., Willingham D. (2010). The myth of learning styles.Change 42 32–35.

 

Tamir (1985). Meta-Analysis of Cognitive Preferences and Learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.

 

Willingham D. T., Hughes E. M., Dobolyi D. G. (2015). The scientific status of learning styles theories. Teach. Psychol. 42 266–271.

Matching Teaching to Learning Styles

 

DEFINITION

Where different forms of teaching are correlated to the students’ preferred style of learning (e.g., kinesthetic (movement), visual, auditory, and tactile) for a specific task.link

 

DATA

  • 13 Meta analysis reviews

  • 654 Research studies

  • 63,000 Students in studies

  • 5 Confidence level link

 

QUOTES

 

In this approach, teachers first identify learners’ supposed styles (such as visual, auditory, reading/writing, or kinesthetic) and then try to align their instructional modality to that style in the belief that learning will be optimized when the two are “matched.” This belief is often called the meshing hypothesis—the claim that matching an individual’s preferred learning style with a corresponding teaching style improves performance and that non‑matching harms it. link

 

 

They found that matching the type of instruction to learning style did not make a difference on students’ comprehension of material. Furthermore, certain teaching strategies are best suited for all learners depending on the material that is being taught. link

Using learning‑styles language, if at all, is safest as a loose entry point for metacognition and strategy talk, while anchoring actual instructional design in approaches with stronger evidence, such as UDL and the learning sciences. link