The idea that training should adapt to individual learning styles is one of the most persistent and misleading beliefs in corporate learning. It sounds inclusive and intuitive. After all, who wouldn’t want to improve learning by tailoring it to each person’s preferences? But the truth about learning styles is this: matching training delivery to a learner’s preferred style doesn’t actually lead to better outcomes.
What does work? Matching the learning method to the content itself.
In other words, people don’t learn better because the content is delivered in their preferred way. They learn better when the content is taught in the most appropriate modality for that material. Think about learning to drive a car. You don’t get far reading a manual alone. You have to practice. Or consider learning data visualization. The visuals can’t just be verbally described, they have to be seen to be understood.
This shift in thinking has major implications for how businesses design training, evaluate learning effectiveness, and partner with managed learning service providers. In this article, we’ll break down the learning styles myth, explore what the research really says, and show you how to apply this insight to real workplace learning.
Where the Learning Styles Myth Came From — and Why It’s Stuck
The concept of learning styles — visual, auditory, kinesthetic, and beyond — gained popularity in the 1970s and 80s. That’s when education theorists began promoting the idea that people learn best when instruction aligns with their preferred mode of input. It was a compelling narrative. It suggested that if we could just figure out how someone learns best, we could personalize training and see better results.
Corporate training departments and academic institutions alike ran with it. Trainers were encouraged to design courses with something for “every type of learner.” Assessments were built around learning styles. It all sounded progressive, and it’s still deeply embedded in many organizations’ training strategies today.
This widespread belief has become one of the most enduring components of the learning styles myth, even though the research tells a different story.
In a widely cited 2008 meta-analysis published in Psychological Science in the Public Interest, researchers including Harold Pashler evaluated dozens of studies and found no credible evidence that matching instruction to learning style preferences leads to better learning outcomes (Pashler et al., 2008).
Despite this, the belief persists. Why? Because it feels right. Trainers want to be inclusive, and learners like the idea that they have a “type.” The language of learning styles is easy to adopt and tough to challenge without sounding insensitive. But for training and HR leaders focused on results, it’s critical to move past what feels right and focus on what works.
Understanding helps training leaders move away from well-meaning but ineffective personalization. Instead it guides them toward evidence-based strategies that actually improve learning outcomes.
What Research Says Is the Truth about Learning Styles
The learning styles myth has persisted for decades, but modern research shows that learning is associated with how the brain processes different types of information. Rather than tailoring instruction to an individual’s preferred style, the evidence supports modality appropriateness. That’s matching the training method to the nature of the content being taught.
Cognitive psychologist Daniel Willingham has emphasized that people don’t have fixed learning styles, and catering to preference doesn’t improve results. Instead, we all learn best when the delivery format aligns with the task. (Willingham, 2009)
Here’s how that looks in practice:
- Visual training works best when the content is inherently visual — like diagrams, dashboards, or layouts. This also includes reading, which relies on visual processing and is ideal for materials like SOPs, policies, or documentation.
- Auditory delivery is most effective when speech, tone, or verbal expression is central — like coaching scenarios, leadership development, or customer service de-escalation.
- Kinesthetic learning is essential when physical activity, sequencing, or muscle memory is involved — such as operating machinery, learning a safety protocol, or roleplaying a sales pitch.
Some learning models, like VARK, also separate reading/writing into a separate category rather than including it within the visual category. Since reading and writing require the processing of visual signals and are integrated into most corporate training formats already, we won’t treat it as a separate category in this blog. We’ll refer to the three modalities above that most often influence workplace training outcomes.
Related Factors: Dual Coding Theory and Cognitive Load
Two cognitive science concepts help explain why modality matters more than learner preference.
Dual Coding Theory
This theory suggests that people learn better when content is presented in both verbal and visual formats. For example, pairing spoken instructions with a process diagram helps reinforce understanding and improve recall. This isn’t about catering to a “visual learner,” but rather activating multiple channels in the brain to strengthen memory and application. (Paivio, 1986)
Cognitive Load Theory
This theory refers to how much mental effort is required to process new information. Choosing the wrong modality (e.g., explaining a visual process without visuals) increases mental strain and reduces retention. Aligning the format with the content reduces this load and improves learning efficiency.
Together, these theories reinforce the truth about learning styles. Effective learning happens when the content and style work together, not when content is adapted to match a learner label.
What This Looks Like in the Workplace
Despite its popularity, the learning styles myth doesn’t hold up when you examine how effective training works in real business settings. When performance and skill development are the goals, learning design should be based on what the content requires, not individual preference.
Here’s how this plays out in the workplace:
Kinesthetic Learning: When Hands-On Practice Drives Results
Kinesthetic learning is essential for physical or experiential tasks. Employees can’t master forklift operation, CPR, or safety procedures by reading a manual alone. They need practice. Similarly, customer service or sales training is more effective when employees rehearse live roleplays or simulations, helping them build confidence and routine through experience.
Visual Learning: Making Complex Information Click
Visual instruction is the best fit when learners need to interpret information spatially, symbolically, or through patterns. This includes reading data dashboards, navigating UX/UI mockups, or following process flows. Visual formats are also critical in areas like design, brand standards, and even instructional materials. On its own, basic documentation rarely builds deep understanding. Well-designed visuals add the needed clarity.
Auditory Learning: Strengthening Communication Skills
Auditory formats are ideal for content that relies on speech, tone, or verbal interaction. In leadership development, coaching, and sales training, hearing how something should sound — and practicing aloud — reinforces both understanding and delivery. Listening to real-world examples or participating in facilitated discussions is far more impactful than reading about what to say.
Mixed Modality: Building Fluency Across Business Functions
Many business-critical topics require a blend of formats. Onboarding, compliance, DEI, and project management are just a few areas that benefit from mixed modality training — combining visuals, text, audio, and hands-on elements.
Systems training is another great example. Teaching someone to use a CRM or ERP platform effectively requires more than a slide deck. Employees need visual walkthroughs to understand the interface, written steps for reference, and kinesthetic practice using the tool. This type of blended design aligns with dual coding theory, which supports learning through both verbal and visual input. It also manages cognitive load by reducing unnecessary mental effort.
When training is aligned with content rather than personal learning styles, it becomes more relevant, efficient, and impactful.
Implications for Learning & Development Leaders
For training to deliver real business value, L&D leaders need to understand the real truth about learning styles and shift the conversation. It’s not about asking, “How can we develop in multiple learning styles to make everyone feel accommodated?” The better question is:
“What’s the most effective way to teach this specific content so it sticks?”
This shift has several important implications for your learning strategy:
Design Training Around Tasks, Not Types
When developing programs, start by analyzing the skill or knowledge being taught. Then select the format that best supports it. Is this a process that needs to be practiced? A visual system to be understood? A set of interpersonal skills to be roleplayed?
Focus On Performance-Driven Design
Rather than tailoring training to how people think they learn best, invest in strategies proven to improve retention, application, and behavior change — like scenario-based learning, guided practice, spaced repetition, and feedback loops. These methods directly support learning transfer and measurable outcomes.
Use Modality Variety Strategically
Blending visual, auditory, and kinesthetic elements can improve learning. Not because you’re “covering all learning styles,” but because you’re engaging multiple cognitive pathways. The key is to use each modality when it supports the content, not just to make sure you cover them all.
Partner With Providers Who Use Evidence-Based Approaches
In addition to offering scale and convenience, managed learning services should bring instructional design expertise that’s grounded in how people actually learn. That means using principles like dual coding, managing cognitive load, and aligning modality with task complexity.
Ultimately, this approach leads to smarter training design, better engagement, and stronger on-the-job performance. These are the outcomes that matter most to business leaders and learners alike.
Conclusion
The truth about learning styles is clear: training is most effective when the method matches the material, not when it’s tailored to personal preferences. The best learning happens when the delivery supports both how the brain processes information and how people apply it on the job.
For L&D and HR leaders, that means prioritizing training strategies that are grounded in real-world performance, cognitive science, and practical outcomes. Whether you’re rolling out a new system, developing future leaders, or building a more inclusive culture, how you deliver the content matters just as much as what you deliver.
At TopTalent Learning, we specialize in creating and delivering learning solutions that work because they’re built around how people actually learn. Our managed learning services combine expert instructional design, scalable training support, and access to over 55,000 business and technical courses to help your teams build skills that stick.
Explore our Managed Learning Services or browse our training catalog to see how we can support your training strategy.
Return to Blog Home page.