Introduction
"I'm a visual learner, so I need diagrams to understand things."
"I'm an auditory learner—I have to hear information to remember it."
"I'm kinesthetic, so I need hands-on activities."
Sound familiar? If you've ever said something like this (or had a teacher tell you this), you're not alone. The learning styles myth is everywhere—in schools, study guides, educational psychology courses, and countless apps promising to optimize learning for your "type." It feels intuitive, even obvious: of course people learn differently! Some of us are visual thinkers, others learn by doing, and some need to hear information out loud.
There's just one problem: it's not supported by science. Decades of research have failed to find evidence that matching instruction to your supposed "learning style" improves learning outcomes. And worse, believing in learning styles might actually be hurting your grades by limiting the best studying techniques you're willing to try.
This isn't about dismissing individual differences—those absolutely exist. But the popular notion that you need to discover your "learning style" and tailor everything to it? That's a myth that needs to die. In this guide, I'll explain why this theory persists despite the evidence against it, what the research actually shows about how to study better for exams, and which study methods work for everyone, regardless of your supposed "style."
Let's break down this comfortable lie.
What Are "Learning Styles" (And Why Do People Believe Them)?
The Theory
The most popular version of learning styles is the VARK model, which categorizes learners into four types:
- Visual learners: Learn best through images, diagrams, charts, and spatial understanding
- Auditory learners: Learn best through listening, lectures, and verbal explanations
- Reading/Writing learners: Learn best through written words, note-taking, and text
- Kinesthetic learners: Learn best through hands-on experience, movement, and physical activity
The claim is straightforward: identify your learning style, match your study methods to that style, and you'll learn more effectively. If you're a visual learner, use lots of diagrams. If you're auditory, listen to lectures or read your notes aloud. If you're kinesthetic, build models or act things out.
Why is this theory so appealing? It explains why some classes feel easier than others (the teaching matched your style!). It gives you an identity and a framework for understanding yourself. And crucially, it provides a convenient explanation when you struggle: "I'm just not an auditory learner, so boring lectures don't work for me." It shifts responsibility from your study habits to the supposed mismatch between teaching method and learning style.
Why It Feels True
Here's the thing: learning styles feel true because there's a kernel of reality buried in the myth, but it's been misinterpreted.
Preference is not the same as effectiveness. You might strongly prefer watching video explanations over reading textbooks. Videos feel easier, more engaging, less tedious. But preference doesn't equal better learning. Research consistently shows that what feels easy often produces weaker learning, while methods that feel harder (like testing yourself) produce stronger retention. Just because you enjoy one format doesn't mean you're actually learning more from it.
Confirmation bias amplifies the illusion. Once you identify as a "visual learner," you start noticing every time a diagram helps you understand something. "See? I knew I was visual!" But you ignore or dismiss all the times you learned perfectly well from reading text, or from someone explaining something verbally, or from practicing a skill. Your brain selectively reinforces the identity you've adopted. If you want to know how to study better for your exams, understanding the confirmation bias is crucial.
There's some truth buried inside—but it's been twisted. Different subjects genuinely benefit from different methods. You can't learn to play piano from a textbook alone—you need to actually practice on a keyboard. You can't understand anatomy without visual representations. But that's not because some people are "kinesthetic learners" or "visual learners"—it's because piano playing is a motor skill and anatomy is spatial information. Everyone needs appropriate methods for the content, regardless of their supposed style.
The learning styles myth takes this reasonable observation (match method to material) and corrupts it into something unsupported (match method to person).
What the Research Actually Shows
The Evidence Against Learning Styles
Here's what decades of rigorous research have found: matching instruction to students' supposed "learning styles" does not improve learning outcomes.
This isn't a controversial or emerging finding—it's been consistently demonstrated for years. Numerous studies have tested the core claim of learning styles theory: if you identify someone's preferred style and teach them accordingly, do they learn better? The answer, again and again, is no.
The most comprehensive review came from psychologists Harold Pashler, Mark McDaniel, Doug Rohrer, and Robert Bjork in 2008. They systematically examined all existing research on learning styles and applied strict criteria: studies needed to actually test whether matching instruction to learning style improved outcomes compared to mismatched instruction. Their conclusion? There was no credible evidence supporting the theory.
What studies actually show is fascinating and frustrating: when students study according to their "preferred style," they feel more confident and report higher satisfaction. They think they're learning better. But when you actually test their knowledge, there's no difference in performance—and sometimes students who used "mismatched" methods actually perform better.
Why the Myth Persists
If the evidence is so clear, why does everyone still believe in learning styles?
Commercial interests play a huge role. Educational products, apps, courses, and assessments are marketed specifically to different "learning styles." There's money in selling people the idea that they need specialized tools for their unique brain. Admitting the theory is bogus would collapse entire product lines.
Teacher training perpetuates it. Many educators were taught learning styles theory in their certification programs and genuinely believe they're helping students by accommodating different styles. The myth is now embedded in educational institutions, passed down from professors to teachers to students.
It's psychologically comforting. Saying "I'm just not a reading person—I'm a visual learner" feels better than admitting "I haven't developed strong reading comprehension skills yet." Learning styles give you permission to avoid difficult study methods and explain away struggles without taking responsibility. We like explanations that make us feel okay about our limitations.
The Real Individual Differences
Individual differences in learning absolutely exist—but they're not what learning styles theory claims.
Prior knowledge is the biggest factor. If you already know a lot about biology, you'll learn new biology concepts faster and more easily than someone starting from scratch. This has nothing to do with being a "visual" or "auditory" learner—it's about having a foundation to build on.
Working memory capacity varies between people. Some students can hold more information in their mind simultaneously, which helps with complex problem-solving. Others need to break problems into smaller steps. This is a real cognitive difference, but it doesn't map onto learning styles, and it doesn't change which study techniques work.
Interest and motivation matter enormously. You learn better when you care about the material, when it connects to your goals, when you're engaged. A passionate student will outperform a disinterested one regardless of teaching method.
But here's the key: the fundamental techniques that produce effective learning—active recall, spaced repetition, elaboration, interleaving—work for everyone. Your prior knowledge, working memory, and motivation might affect how quickly you learn, but they don't change which methods work best. The neuroscience of memory formation is universal.
What Actually Works: The Evidence-Based Studying Techniques That Work for Everyone
The Truth: Effective Learning Is Universal
Here's the liberating reality: your brain follows the same basic principles as everyone else's. The neural mechanisms for memory formation, consolidation, and retrieval work the same way across all healthy human brains. The techniques that strengthen these processes are consistent and universal.
This doesn't mean everyone learns at the same pace or finds everything equally easy—prior knowledge, interest, and cognitive capacity all vary. But the methods that produce effective learning are the same for everyone. The key is simple: match your study method to what you're learning, not to your supposed "style."
Let's talk about how to actually study better for your exams and the best studying techniques that work for everyone.
Technique 1: Active Recall (For Everyone)
Testing yourself strengthens memory—period. This isn't up for debate. Every time you force your brain to retrieve information from memory, you strengthen the neural pathways associated with that knowledge. This is called retrieval practice, and it works for all humans with functioning memory systems.
It doesn't matter if you "prefer" flashcards over practice problems, or if you think you're "not a testing person." The act of retrieval itself is what builds memory, regardless of format or preference. You can use Anki flashcards, blank paper self-quizzes, practice problems, or explaining concepts out loud—the retrieval is what matters.
Example: Medical students worldwide use spaced repetition software like Anki, regardless of whether they identify as "visual," "auditory," or "kinesthetic" learners. Why? Because it works. Medical school involves memorizing enormous amounts of information, and students who use active recall consistently outperform those who don't. Their supposed learning style becomes irrelevant when grades are on the line.
Technique 2: Spaced Repetition (For Everyone)
The forgetting curve affects everyone the same way. Ebbinghaus discovered over a century ago that humans forget approximately 50% of new information within 24 hours without reinforcement. Reviewing information at strategically increasing intervals (one day, three days, one week, two weeks, etc.) fights the forgetting curve and builds long-term retention. This works for everyone because the underlying neuroscience is universal. Each time you retrieve information right before you're about to forget it, you reset and slow down the forgetting curve.
Your preference for cramming doesn't change the neuroscience. You might like studying everything the night before, but your brain will still forget most of it within a week. Spaced repetition works whether you enjoy it or not.
Technique 3: Elaboration (For Everyone)
Connecting new information to existing knowledge creates stronger memories. This is another universal principle: the more associations you build, the more pathways your brain has to access that information.
Elaboration works whether you do it through writing detailed explanations, talking through concepts with a study partner, or drawing concept maps. The elaboration itself is what matters—the act of asking "why," generating examples, and connecting to prior knowledge. The format is flexible; the principle is universal.
If you prefer to elaborate by drawing diagrams, great. If you prefer to write paragraphs, also great. If you prefer to explain things out loud, perfect. The key is that you're doing the cognitive work of elaboration, not that you're matching your method to some predetermined "style."
Technique 4: Multi-Modal Learning (For Everyone—Yes, Really)
Here's the twist that demolishes learning styles theory: everyone learns better when using multiple modalities.
Research consistently shows that combining reading + diagrams + practice problems produces better learning than any single approach alone. This is true for self-identified "visual learners," "auditory learners," and everyone else. Why? Because different representations of the same information create more neural pathways and associations, making the memory more robust and accessible.
You don't need to limit yourself to your supposed "style"—in fact, doing so actively hurts your learning. The student who only watches videos because they're a "visual learner" is learning less effectively than the student who watches videos and reads and does practice problems and explains concepts to friends.
Use multiple modalities regardless of preference. That's what the research says works.
Match Method to Material, Not to "Style"
The real insight isn't about matching methods to people—it's about matching methods to content.
Learning anatomy? Everyone benefits from diagrams and 3D models because anatomy is inherently spatial information. You can't fully understand the position of organs from text alone—not because you're a "visual learner," but because the content is spatial.
Learning a language? Everyone benefits from speaking practice because language includes motor components (pronunciation, accent) and auditory discrimination (hearing differences between sounds). You need to actually speak and listen—not because you're "auditory" or "kinesthetic," but because that's what language learning requires.
Learning history? Everyone benefits from timelines and narrative because history is sequential and causal. Understanding chronology and cause-effect relationships helps all students, regardless of supposed style.
The content determines the best approach. Your identity as a "visual" or "auditory" learner is irrelevant.
What About Lectures?
Regardless of your supposed "learning style," capturing lecture content efficiently helps everyone. The challenge isn't that some students are "auditory learners" who thrive in lectures while others struggle—it's that lectures bombard everyone with information faster than you can process and record it.
Tools like Notigo let you focus on understanding in the moment while ensuring you don't miss key points. Instead of frantically transcribing (which prevents thinking), you can actively engage with the material—asking questions, making connections, flagging confusion—while the AI handles comprehensive capture. Active engagement during lectures benefits all students, not just supposed "auditory learners."
The goal isn't to accommodate your "style." It's to free up cognitive resources so you can actually learn.
How to Actually Study Better
Stop Limiting Yourself
If you've been avoiding certain study methods because they "don't fit your learning style," it's time to stop. Maybe you've skipped practice problems because you're a "visual learner," or avoided reading textbooks because you're "auditory." This self-imposed limitation is holding you back.
The best studying techniques work for everyone. The research is clear: active recall, spaced repetition, elaboration, and multi-modal learning produce results regardless of your supposed style. Your preference doesn't override neuroscience. Try the methods that work, even if they feel uncomfortable at first.
Use Multiple Methods
When figuring out how to study for exams, don't rely exclusively on one format. Don't study only with videos because you think you're a "visual learner," or only with lectures because you think you're "auditory."
The best study methods combine multiple approaches: reading the textbook, working through practice problems, explaining concepts in your own words, drawing diagrams, testing yourself with flashcards, and discussing with peers. This variety isn't a compromise—it's optimal. Different representations create more neural pathways, making information more robust and accessible.
Focus on What Actually Matters
When you want to know how to study better, focus on the factors that actually influence learning:
Prior knowledge: Build on what you already know. Connect new concepts to existing understanding through elaboration.
Effort: Effortful retrieval builds memory. If studying feels easy, you're probably not learning much. Embrace the struggle.
Consistency: Daily practice beats binge sessions. Spaced repetition requires showing up regularly, not cramming once.
Understanding: Deep processing (asking why, generating examples, explaining concepts) beats surface-level review (re-reading, highlighting).
These are the best study methods because they align with how human memory actually works—not with arbitrary "learning style" categories that have no scientific basis.
Stop asking "What's my learning style?" Start asking "What does the research say works?"
Conclusion: Free Yourself from the Myth
Learning styles gave you permission to avoid certain study methods. "I can't learn from reading—I'm a visual learner." "Practice problems don't work for me—I'm more auditory." These statements feel like self-awareness, but they're actually self-imposed limitations based on a theory with zero scientific support.
The truth is more liberating: the techniques that work are universal and proven. Active recall strengthens memory for everyone. Spaced repetition fights the forgetting curve for all brains. Elaboration creates deeper understanding regardless of preference. Multi-modal learning beats single-format studying for every student.
You're not limited by your "style"—you're only limited by using ineffective techniques. The moment you stop identifying as a particular type of learner and start using evidence-based methods, your grades will improve. It's that simple.
Stop asking "What's my learning style?" Start asking "What does the research say works?"
This week, try one evidence-based technique you've been avoiding because it didn't fit your supposed style. Test yourself instead of re-reading. Use spaced repetition instead of cramming. Work through practice problems even if you "prefer" videos. You might be surprised by how well these methods work once you actually give them a chance.
For an in-depth guide on how to implement these techniques—including active recall, spaced repetition, and building a complete study system—check out our complete guide to studying better. And if you want to capture lectures more efficiently so you can focus on actually learning instead of transcribing, try Notigo for free. Because regardless of your supposed learning style, freeing up mental bandwidth to think during class helps everyone learn better.
