False Assumption Registry

Learning Styles Improve Instruction Outcomes

False Assumption: Matching teaching methods to students' preferred learning styles such as visual, auditory, or kinesthetic enhances learning outcomes.

Summaries Written by FARAgent (AI) on February 09, 2026 · Pending Verification

For decades, schools were told that children were "visual, auditory, or kinesthetic learners," and that good teaching meant finding each student's style and matching instruction to it. The idea had a ready-made appeal. It sounded humane, scientific, and modern. Early advocates such as Rita and Kenneth Dunn in the 1970s, followed by modality schemes like Barbe and Swassing's in the 1980s, turned it into inventories, workshops, and teacher-training doctrine. By the 1990s and 2000s, "learning styles" had become classroom common sense, repeated in education schools, district policies, and commercial products as if it were settled fact.

The trouble was simple: the central claim did not hold up when tested. To prove the theory, researchers needed to show a crossover effect, that students identified as, say, visual learners learned better from visual instruction while auditory learners learned better from auditory instruction. Study after study failed to show that pattern. Reviews by cognitive scientists, especially Pashler and colleagues in 2008 and 2009, found no adequate evidence for the matching hypothesis, and critics such as Paul Kirschner and Daniel Willingham kept pointing out that what matters is usually the content being taught, not a student's declared preference. Geometry diagrams help because geometry is visual; pronunciation helps because sound matters. That is not a learning style.

The belief nevertheless lingered, because it flatters teachers, reassures students, and gives ordinary differences in ability or habit a scientific label. Schools kept sorting children into categories and excusing weak reading, listening, or note-taking as matters of "style." The present expert consensus is clear: matching instruction to supposed learning styles does not improve learning outcomes, and the theory was wrong. Researchers still study preferences and study strategies, but the old claim that each student has a teaching mode that must be matched has been discarded by most cognitive scientists and by a growing share of education research as well.

Status: Mainstream now strongly agrees this assumption was false
People Involved
  • Rita Dunn and Kenneth Dunn were the most consequential architects of the learning styles industry. Their Learning Style Inventory, developed in 1975, categorized learners by physiological and perceptual preferences and became the basis for a commercial and academic enterprise that outlasted most of its critics. The 1995 meta-analysis bearing their names reported an effect size of 0.76, a number cited in teacher training programs and professional development workshops for years afterward. [3][5] The Dunn and Dunn model was eventually assessed by Coffield and colleagues in 2004, who found it among the least reliable and valid of the major frameworks reviewed, but by then it had already shaped a generation of classroom practice. [8]
  • Neil Fleming, a New Zealand educator, created the VARK questionnaire in 1992 as an expansion of earlier modality models, sorting learners into visual, aural, read/write, and kinesthetic categories. Fleming was candid that the instrument was designed to stimulate reflection rather than to meet formal validity standards, a position that did not prevent it from becoming one of the most widely used self-assessment tools in education. [3][20] The VARK model shaped classroom practices across multiple countries and became a fixture in teacher training curricula, its four-letter acronym functioning as a kind of shorthand for the entire learning styles enterprise.
  • David Kolb, an organizational psychologist at Case Western Reserve University, developed his experiential learning theory and accompanying Learning Style Inventory in the 1970s and 1980s, proposing four learner types derived from a cycle of experience, reflection, conceptualization, and experimentation. Kolb's model was adopted widely in business education and professional training as well as in schools, and it generated a substantial secondary literature. [20] The model's appeal lay partly in its theoretical elegance and partly in the fact that it gave educators a vocabulary for talking about individual differences that felt more sophisticated than simple VAK categories. The empirical support for matching instruction to Kolb types was, like the support for every other matching model, essentially absent.
  • Harold Pashler, a cognitive psychologist at the University of California San Diego, led the most influential single effort to audit the learning styles literature. In 2008, Pashler and colleagues Mark McDaniel, Doug Rohrer, and Robert Bjork published a comprehensive review in Psychological Science in the Public Interest that specified exactly what evidence would be required to validate the meshing hypothesis, surveyed the existing literature against that standard, and concluded that virtually no qualifying studies existed. [7][16][17] The review did not merely argue that the evidence was weak; it described precisely what a valid experiment would look like, making it difficult for proponents to claim the question was still open. The paper was widely cited by subsequent critics but had limited immediate effect on classroom practice or teacher training curricula.
  • Daniel T. Willingham, a professor of cognitive psychology at the University of Virginia, translated the academic critique into language accessible to working teachers. Writing in the American Educator in 2005 and again in 2018, Willingham argued plainly that no evidence supported the existence of visual, auditory, or kinesthetic learners in any sense relevant to instruction, and that the theory persisted because it felt true rather than because it had been tested. [6][13][14] His columns reached a practitioner audience that academic journal articles did not, and his work became a standard reference for educators trying to understand why a theory they had been taught in certification programs had no empirical foundation.
  • Howard Gardner, a psychologist at Harvard, proposed his theory of multiple intelligences in 1983, listing initially seven and eventually around ten distinct types of intelligence including linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, and musical. [21] Gardner claimed each intelligence had dedicated neural networks, a claim that neuroscience subsequently failed to support. [12] The theory was not identical to the learning styles hypothesis, but it reinforced the same underlying intuition: that students differ in fundamental cognitive ways that schools should accommodate, and that general intelligence tests miss what matters most. Gardner's framework was adopted by teacher training programs at rates that dwarfed the evidence for it, with surveys finding 94 percent classroom use in some jurisdictions. [12] Neuroscientist John Geake warned early that no separate brain networks for Gardner's intelligences could be found in frontal lobe studies, and researcher Peter Howard-Jones argued the theory was incompatible with what neuroscience had established about the brain's general processing architecture. Both were largely ignored by the educational establishment. [12]
▶ Supporting Quotes (40)
“The review by Pashler et al. (2008) concluded that there was a lack of empirical evidence to support matching instruction to student’s learning styles that met their criteria for validating the matching hypothesis.”— Is it really a neuromyth? A meta-analysis of the learning styles matching hypothesis
“In contrast, cognitive scientists have argued there is a lack of empirical evidence to support the claims of the matching hypothesis (Kirschner, 2017; Willingham, 2018).”— Is it really a neuromyth? A meta-analysis of the learning styles matching hypothesis
“Mills (1956) developed the Learning Method Test... concluded that his results “showed conclusively that different children learn to recognize words more efficiently by different teaching methods and that no one method is best for all children” (p. 223–224).”— Learning Styles, Preferences, or Strategies? An Explanation for the Resurgence of Styles Across Many Meta-analyses
“Dunn and Dunn (1975) became the major promoters of matching styles to teaching and developed their Learning Style Inventory (LSI)... Their message was clear: teach to the student’s strengths, that is, their preferred mode of learning.”— Learning Styles, Preferences, or Strategies? An Explanation for the Resurgence of Styles Across Many Meta-analyses
“Barbe et al. (1981) have argued that students differ in terms of learning modalities... they were strong advocates for students being taught to their strengths... “it is true that no incontestable evidence has yet been produced to justify modality-based instruction” (Barbe et al., 1981, p. 262).”— Learning Styles, Preferences, or Strategies? An Explanation for the Resurgence of Styles Across Many Meta-analyses
“Fleming and Mills (1992; Fleming & Baume, 2006) created the VARK model of learning styles... “testing for construct validity and reliability was unnecessary and inappropriate” (Fleming & Mills, 1992, p. 140).”— Learning Styles, Preferences, or Strategies? An Explanation for the Resurgence of Styles Across Many Meta-analyses
“after a critical review of the literature Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer, and Bjork (2008) concluded that this hypothesis lacks empirical evidence and subsequently described the experimental design needed to evaluate the meshing hypothesis.”— Matching Learning Style to Instructional Method: Effects on Comprehension
“Dekker, Lee, Howard-Jones, and Jolles (2012) reported that 94% of educators believed that students perform better when they receive information in their preferred learning style”— Matching Learning Style to Instructional Method: Effects on Comprehension
“Journal of Educational Research Dunn, Griggs, Olson, Beasley & Gorman USA A meta-analytic validation of the Dunn and Dunn model of learning-style preferences 1995”— Matching teaching to style of learning
“Exceptional Children Kavale & Forness USA Substance over style: Assessing the efficacy of modality testing and teaching 1987”— Matching teaching to style of learning
“Journal of Research in Science Teaching Tamir Israel Meta-Analysis of Cognitive Preferences and Learning 1985 Cognitive preference 54 0 13 0.02”— Matching teaching to style of learning
“In 2005, you wrote that there was no evidence supporting theories that distinguish between visual, auditory, and kinesthetic learners. ... Research has confirmed the basic summary I offered in 2005; using learning-styles theories in the classroom does not bring an advantage to students.”— Does Tailoring Instruction to “Learning Styles” Help Students Learn?
“In 2008, professor Hal Pashler and his associates reviewed the literature and drew the same conclusion, but they also noted that many of the existing studies didn’t really test for evidence of learning styles in the ideal way.”— Does Tailoring Instruction to “Learning Styles” Help Students Learn?
“The third experiment claimed positive results when testing psychologist Robert Sternberg’s theory of self-government. Sternberg describes some learners as “legislative,” meaning they like to be able to create their own learning experiences without restraints...”— Does Tailoring Instruction to “Learning Styles” Help Students Learn?
“We are cognitive psychologists with an interest both in the basic science of learning and memory and in the ways that science can be developed to be more helpful to teachers and students.”— Learning Styles Concepts and Evidence
““Research has shown that students who understand their learning styles can improve their learning effectiveness in and outside of the classroom” (p. 46). Later in his book he also says, “Try to find an instructor who matches your learning style” (p. 57).”— Advice about the Use of Learning Styles: A Major Myth in Education
“Understanding how you learn best can also improve your concentration. When you’re working in your preferred learning mode, you probably find that you are better able to concentrate on your study tasks. Approaching a task from your preferred style results in a better fit or match—studying feels right. (p. 14)”— Advice about the Use of Learning Styles: A Major Myth in Education
““If you discover that your learning style and the instructor’s model of teaching clash, speak with your instructor about it” (p. 91). He goes further to suggest If you are a left-brain (linear) learner, become an active listener in class. Lectures tend to provide information in the way that most linear learners prefer. If you are a right brain (global) learner, read any assigned material before attending a lecture or ask your instructors for a summary of what they will discuss in the next class (p. 96).”— Advice about the Use of Learning Styles: A Major Myth in Education
“If you approach studies using your preferred learning style(s), you should be able to study for the same amount of time (or less), remember more, get better grades, raise your level of self-confidence, and reduce your anxiety as you tackle classroom life.” (p. 9)”— Advice about the Use of Learning Styles: A Major Myth in Education
“Sprenger (2003) tells her readers that students have a preference for a dominant sensory pathway and “...always learn best if they begin with that strength” (p.33).”— Advice about the Use of Learning Styles: A Major Myth in Education
“Stahl (1999) criticizes forced-choice learning styles inventories because for some of the questions, “people seem to make the same choices. Nearly everybody would prefer a demonstration in a science class to an uninterrupted lecture. This does not mean that such individuals have a visual style, but that good science teaching involves demonstrations” (p. 3).”— Advice about the Use of Learning Styles: A Major Myth in Education
“Acknowledging the lack of empirical support, Pashler et al. (2009) published a comprehensive and influential review of the learning styles literature ... Their review found no empirical evidence to support the meshing hypothesis.”— Providing Instruction Based on Students’ Learning Style Preferences Does Not Improve Learning
“Rogowsky et al. (2015) published the first study following the experimental design prescribed by Pashler et al. ... The current study uses the same design and methodology as its predecessor, but on a school-aged population”— Providing Instruction Based on Students’ Learning Style Preferences Does Not Improve Learning
“In fact, only one factor was found to be a significant predictor of learning style beliefs for educators: the age of the population with whom they work. Specifically, those who worked with younger children were more likely to interpret learning styles in an essentialist way.”— Maybe They’re Born With It, or Maybe It’s Experience: Toward a Deeper Understanding of the Learning Style Myth
“Gardner argued “that the mind/brain consists of many modules/organs/intelligences, each of which operates according to its own rules in relative autonomy from the others” (Gardner, 2011, p. xxiii).”— Why multiple intelligences theory is a neuromyth
“Geake (2008) noted that one neuroscience study found that the frontal lobe governed different forms of cognition. From this Geake argued the intelligences could not have separate brain networks.”— Why multiple intelligences theory is a neuromyth
“Howard-Jones (2014) asserted that the “general processing complexity of the brain makes it unlikely that anything resembling Multiple Intelligences theory can ever be used to describe it” (p. 818).”— Why multiple intelligences theory is a neuromyth
“Some of the more popular learning style theories include: Neil Fleming’s VAK/VARK Model (visual, auditory, reading/writing, and kinesthetic)”— Learning Styles as a Myth
“Honey and Mumford’s Learning Styles (activist, reflector, theorist, and pragmatist)”— Learning Styles as a Myth
“Roger Sperry and Michael Gazzaniga’s Right Brain vs. Left Brain”— Learning Styles as a Myth
“Willingham (2005) and Willingham (2008) emphasize the importance of varied instructional approaches... Learning Styles Don’t Exist- Willingham 2008”— Learning Styles as a Myth
“As a result of meta-analysis, it was determined that the instructional designs based on the learning styles model had a large effect on the academic achievement (d = 1.029), attitude (d = 1.113) and retention (d = 1.290).”— A Meta-Analysis on the Effect of Instructional Designs based on the Learning Styles Models on Academic Achievement, Attitude and Retention
“The authors of the present review were charged with determining whether these practices are supported by scientific evidence.”— Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence
“The report, authored by a team of eminent researchers in the psychology of learning—Hal Pashler (University of San Diego), Mark McDaniel (Washington University in St. Louis), Doug Rohrer (University of South Florida), and Robert Bjork (University of California, Los Angeles)—reviews the existing literature on learning styles and finds that although numerous studies have purported to show the existence of different kinds of learners (such as “auditory learners” and “visual learners”), those studies have not used the type of randomized research designs that would make their findings credible.”— Learning Styles Debunked: There is No Evidence Supporting Auditory and Visual Learning, Psychologists Say
“studies with an appropriate design must then randomize subjects (regardless of their assessed learning style) to receive either instruction tailored to their style or instruction tailored for other learning styles... (crossover-interaction effects; Pashler et al., 2008).”— The Modality-Specific Learning Style Hypothesis: A Mini-Review
“cognitive scientists have argued there is a lack of empirical evidence to support the claims of the matching hypothesis (Kirschner, 2017; Willingham, 2018)”— Is it really a neuromyth? A meta-analysis of the learning styles matching hypothesis
“Kolb (2015) theorized that optimal learning is experiential and that students move through a learning cycle that runs from experience and observation (together called experience grasping) through conceptualization to experimentation (together called experience transforming) and then back to experience.”— The persistence of matching teaching and learning styles: A review of the ubiquity of this neuromyth, predictors of its endorsement, and recommendations to end it
“In a self-published book, Fleming (2001) expanded a learning styles model proposed by Barbe et al. (1979), and claims that specific sensory modalities dominate learning in different individuals.”— The persistence of matching teaching and learning styles: A review of the ubiquity of this neuromyth, predictors of its endorsement, and recommendations to end it
“The concept of sensory learning modalities has been used by Dunn et al. (1989) to develop their Learning Styles Inventory, which can be used by educators to assess students’ learning styles and to design classroom activities that meet all learners’ (multi)sensory needs.”— The persistence of matching teaching and learning styles: A review of the ubiquity of this neuromyth, predictors of its endorsement, and recommendations to end it
“In the 1980s the psychologist Howard Gardner argued that, instead of a general factor of intelligence, there are in fact multiple intelligences. These include ‘linguistic’ intelligence, ‘logical-mathematical’ intelligence, ‘musical’ intelligence, ‘interpersonal’ intelligence and ‘bodily-kinaesthetic’ intelligence. Since then, he has added ‘existential’, ‘laser’ and ‘mental searchlight’ intelligence to the list; there are now around ten in total. He argues that people differ on this whole range of intelligences, and that the intelligences don’t necessarily correlate together.”— Intelligence: All That Matters
Organizations Involved

Teacher education programs were the primary institutional mechanism by which the learning styles assumption was transmitted to new generations of educators. Surveys found that more than 70 percent of 39 American institutions included learning styles content in their curricula, and two-thirds of American higher education faculty affirmed that matching instruction to styles enhanced learning. [18] This was not a fringe belief absorbed from popular culture; it was formal doctrine, taught in certification courses and reinforced in methods textbooks. The result was that teachers entered classrooms already committed to a practice that had no empirical basis, and they encountered professional development systems that confirmed rather than questioned that commitment. [2][6][19]

The International Learning Styles Network built a commercial operation on the Dunn and Dunn model, selling assessments for learners from age three to adulthood and claiming the instruments revealed natural tendencies for concentration and retention. [7] The National Association of Secondary School Principals lent institutional credibility to the enterprise by commissioning and distributing a learning styles test to its membership. [7] These organizations did not merely repeat conventional wisdom; they invested in it, sold it, and built professional identities around it. The commercial infrastructure they created gave the assumption a durability that purely academic ideas rarely achieve.

The Association for Psychological Science eventually played a corrective role by publishing the Pashler et al. review in its journal Psychological Science in the Public Interest, providing the most authoritative single statement that the meshing hypothesis lacked empirical support. [17] The American Federation of Teachers published Willingham's critiques in the American Educator, reaching a practitioner audience that academic journals did not. [13] Textbook publisher Pearson issued a white paper acknowledging the myth's popularity and lack of evidence, though educators shaped by decades of Pearson-published teacher training materials continued the practices those materials had promoted. [20] The institutions that had most effectively spread the assumption were not the ones most effectively correcting it.

▶ Supporting Quotes (23)
“Entire industries of educational consultants are built on this claim”— Psychology’s Greatest Misses (Part 2/3)
“Teacher education textbooks often state matching instruction to students’ preferred style will optimize learning outcomes”— Is it really a neuromyth? A meta-analysis of the learning styles matching hypothesis
“The importance of evaluating students’ learning styles and developing instructional methods that teach to specific learning styles has gained considerable support in the field of education, with many organizations and companies offering professional development courses for teachers and educators focused on the topic of learning styles.”— Matching Learning Style to Instructional Method: Effects on Comprehension
“TOTAL/AVERAGE 893 104,812 2,848 0.42”— Matching teaching to style of learning
“newer teachers tell me these theories are part of teacher education.”— Does Tailoring Instruction to “Learning Styles” Help Students Learn?
“the National Association of Secondary School principles commissioned the construction of a learning-styles test that it distributed widely (Keefe, 1988).”— Learning Styles Concepts and Evidence
“the Yale Graduate School of Arts and Sciences (2009) currently maintains a Web site that offers advice for Yale instructors; the site informs visitors that ‘‘college students enter our classrooms with a wide variety of learning styles.’’ The site goes on to recommend that instructors determine their own ‘‘modality of learning’’ as well as assess their students’ learning styles and make their instructional choices accordingly.”— Learning Styles Concepts and Evidence
“Customers visiting the Web site of the International Learning Styles Network (www.learningstyles.net) are advised that Learning style is the way in which each learner begins to concentrate on, process, absorb, and retain new and difficult information (Dunn and Dunn, 1992; 1993; 1999).”— Learning Styles Concepts and Evidence
“Learning styles-based education, specifically targeting auditory and visual learners, is common practice from kindergarten through post-secondary education (Lynch, 2015; Newton, 2015).”— Providing Instruction Based on Students’ Learning Style Preferences Does Not Improve Learning
“Some teacher certification programs incorporate learning styles into training courses, wasting valuable time and resources (Lethaby & Harries, 2015; Tardif et al., 2015).”— Maybe They’re Born With It, or Maybe It’s Experience: Toward a Deeper Understanding of the Learning Style Myth
“Academic support centers at higher-education institutions provide services based on students’ styles (McCabe, 2018)—despite the lack of evidence that assessing learning styles provides any added benefit in these services.”— Maybe They’re Born With It, or Maybe It’s Experience: Toward a Deeper Understanding of the Learning Style Myth
“Powerful generative AI tools are suddenly everywhere, embedded in many of the learning platforms students use daily.”— AI Can't Fix Student Engagement
“Ruhaak and Cook (2018) reported that 90% of teacher trainees surveyed in the United States planned to use MI teaching strategies.”— Why multiple intelligences theory is a neuromyth
“Willingham, D. T. (2005). Ask the Cognitive Scientist: Do visual, auditory, and kinesthetic learners need visual, auditory, and kinesthetic instruction? American Educator, 29(2). American Federation of Teachers.”— Learning Styles as a Myth
“Copyright © 2016 EDAM www.estp.com.tr DOI 10.12738/estp.2016.6.0084  December 2016  16(6)  2057–2086 Research Article KURAM VE UYGULAMADA EĞİTİM BİLİMLERİ EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE”— A Meta-Analysis on the Effect of Instructional Designs based on the Learning Styles Models on Academic Achievement, Attitude and Retention
“Psychological Science in the Public Interest, v. 9, issue 3, 105–119.”— Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence
“according to a major report published in Psychological Science in the Public Interest, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.”— Learning Styles Debunked: There is No Evidence Supporting Auditory and Visual Learning, Psychologists Say
“Meyer and Murrell (2014) found that, across 39 educational institutions in the United States, more than 70% taught “learning style theory” as a topic in teacher education.”— The Modality-Specific Learning Style Hypothesis: A Mini-Review
“Teacher education textbooks often state matching instruction to students’ preferred style will optimize learning outcomes”— Is it really a neuromyth? A meta-analysis of the learning styles matching hypothesis
“This has even led textbook publisher Pearson (2016) to issue a white paper that states that “there is a striking lack of evidence to support the core learning styles claim that customizing instruction based on students’ preferred learning styles produces better learning than effective universal instruction” (p. 3).”— The persistence of matching teaching and learning styles: A review of the ubiquity of this neuromyth, predictors of its endorsement, and recommendations to end it
“Occupational class and SES remain part of the rhetoric of political parties and political activists of the left — although the relationship between them and political preference has reversed in many Western countries (Kitschelt & Rehm, 2022).”— Death of a Paradigm
“From FitBits to WHOOP bracelets to Oura rings to smart glasses, continuous glucose monitors (CGMs), metabolism-tracking patches, and the Apple Watch, everyone in the fitness space seems to be wearing something that tracks their health”— Wearables Mostly Don't Work
“23 New Taxes Since 2003”— GreaterBRCivicAssn SupportingData
The Foundation

The learning styles hypothesis rested on an idea so intuitive that questioning it felt almost churlish: different students absorb information differently, so teachers should present material in the mode each student prefers. The visual learner gets diagrams and charts. The auditory learner gets lectures and discussion. The kinesthetic learner gets hands-on activities. Match the method to the child, and learning improves. The theory seemed credible not because the evidence was strong but because the premise felt self-evidently true to anyone who had ever watched a classroom. [1] The specific mechanism at the heart of the hypothesis, what researchers came to call the "meshing hypothesis," required something more precise than general intuition: a crossover interaction, meaning that visual instruction had to benefit visual learners more than auditory learners, while auditory instruction had to benefit auditory learners more than visual ones. Without that crossover, any average benefit from a particular teaching method proved nothing about matching. This statistical requirement was rarely met, but few practitioners knew to ask for it, and the absence of the required evidence was consistently mistaken for a gap in the literature rather than a verdict from it. [2][7]

The proliferation of instruments gave the hypothesis an air of scientific infrastructure it did not deserve. By the time researchers began counting, there were at least 71 distinct learning style models in circulation, each with its own taxonomy, its own inventory, and its own set of claims. [8][17] The most influential included the Dunn and Dunn Learning Style Inventory, developed in 1975, which categorized learners by physiological and perceptual preferences including auditory, visual, and kinesthetic modes. [3] Neil Fleming's VARK model, introduced in 1992, added a "read/write" category and came with a questionnaire Fleming himself acknowledged did not require validity testing, describing it instead as a tool that "stimulates reflection." [3][20] David Kolb's experiential learning model sorted students into four types derived from a cycle of concrete experience and abstract conceptualization. [20] The sheer variety of frameworks created a sub-belief that the field was rich and contested rather than empirically hollow: if so many researchers had developed so many models, surely something real was being measured.

Early meta-analyses appeared to supply the quantitative backbone the theory needed. A 1995 meta-analysis by Dunn, Griggs, Olson, Beasley, and Gorman reported an effect size of 0.76 for interventions matching learning styles to achievement, drawing on 36 studies and 3,181 students. [5] A 1993 dissertation meta-analysis by Sullivan on the Dunn and Dunn model specifically reported an effect size of 0.75 across 42 studies and 3,434 students. [5] These numbers circulated widely in teacher education and professional development, cited as proof that the matching approach worked. What circulated less widely was that the studies underlying these analyses rarely used the crossover designs required to demonstrate matching effects, and that the effect sizes were inflated by methodological problems that later reviewers would spend years untangling. [3][5] A 1985 meta-analysis by Israeli researcher Tamir, drawing on 54 studies, had already returned a near-zero effect size of 0.02, but that finding attracted little attention. [5]

Underpinning the whole enterprise was a confusion between preference and aptitude. Believers in learning styles assumed that because students expressed preferences for certain presentation modes, those preferences reflected genuine cognitive strengths that instruction could exploit. The evidence never supported this. Content type, not learner preference, determines which presentation mode works best: spatial tasks benefit from diagrams regardless of whether the learner calls herself visual, and narrative tasks benefit from verbal presentation regardless of whether the learner calls himself auditory. [1][6] The distinction between style and ability, which proponents treated as a feature of their theory, turned out to be its fatal flaw. Styles were supposed to be preferred processing venues, interchangeable across content; abilities are not interchangeable, and the styles framework provided no mechanism for improving them. [6] A related sub-belief, that learning styles were innate, biologically grounded, and brain-wired, gave the theory an essentialist credibility it had not earned. The idea that a child was simply "a visual learner" the way she might be left-handed seemed to many educators not like a hypothesis to be tested but like an observable fact about human variation. [10]

▶ Supporting Quotes (48)
“You’ve probably heard that some people are “visual learners” while others are “auditory” or “kinesthetic.” Entire industries of educational consultants are built on this claim, despite the fact that study after study has shown it to be false: instruction matching a student’s preferred “learning style” does not improve learning outcomes. Worse, catering to these preferences can end up legitimizing avoidance, helping students sidestep the kind of challenges that are prerequisites to growth.”— Psychology’s Greatest Misses (Part 2/3)
“To the extent that differing presentations of material do improve learning, the content, not the learner, is probably the relevant factor. That is, diagrams help with spatial problems, sounds with tonal ones, words with verbal reasoning, and movement with athletic skills.”— Psychology’s Greatest Misses (Part 2/3)
“the concept in learning styles theories that is controversial is the meshing or matching hypothesis in which students learn better when their instruction matches their preferred learning style (Pashler et al., 2008; Cuevas, 2015; Lyle et al., 2023).”— Is it really a neuromyth? A meta-analysis of the learning styles matching hypothesis
“A key aspect of the matching hypothesis is that there is a crossover interaction (Kirschner, 2017), also known as a qualitative interaction, in which a particular treatment ... is effective for at least one subgroup but a different treatment is effective for another subgroup (Qiu and Wang, 2019).”— Is it really a neuromyth? A meta-analysis of the learning styles matching hypothesis
“with 58 students broken into nine groups based on intelligence... and age/grade level, Mills concluded that his results “showed conclusively that different children learn to recognize words more efficiently by different teaching methods".”— Learning Styles, Preferences, or Strategies? An Explanation for the Resurgence of Styles Across Many Meta-analyses
“Originally comprised of eighteen elements across four diverse stimuli, the Dunn and Dunn model... Embedded within these elements are the physiological-perceptual elements focused on auditory, visual, and kinesthetic or tactile learning preferences.”— Learning Styles, Preferences, or Strategies? An Explanation for the Resurgence of Styles Across Many Meta-analyses
“the matching hypothesis, the notion that aligning teaching methods with students’ preferred learning styles enhances achievement... studies testing the matching hypothesis (effect size d = .04).”— Learning Styles, Preferences, or Strategies? An Explanation for the Resurgence of Styles Across Many Meta-analyses
“While it is hypothesized that providing instruction based on individuals’ preferred learning styles improves learning (i.e., reading for visual learners and listening for auditory learners, also referred to as the meshing hypothesis), after a critical review of the literature Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer, and Bjork (2008) concluded that this hypothesis lacks empirical evidence”— Matching Learning Style to Instructional Method: Effects on Comprehension
“Pashler et al. (2008) also pointed out that educators as well as the general public fail to distinguish between learning style preferences and learning aptitude.”— Matching Learning Style to Instructional Method: Effects on Comprehension
“Journal of Educational Research Dunn, Griggs, Olson, Beasley & Gorman USA A meta-analytic validation of the Dunn and Dunn model of learning-style preferences 1995 Interventions to enhance matching learning style on achievement 36 3,181 65 0.76”— Matching teaching to style of learning
“Exceptional Children Kavale & Forness USA Substance over style: Assessing the efficacy of modality testing and teaching 1987 Modality testing and teaching 39 3,087 318 0.75”— Matching teaching to style of learning
“Dissertation Sullivan USA A meta-analysis of experimental research studies based on the Dunn and Dunn Learning Style Model and its relationship to academic achievement and performance 1993 Dunn and Dunn Learning styles matched to achievement 42 3,434 42 0.75”— Matching teaching to style of learning
“Learning-styles theorists think they’ve got one: they believe students vary in the mode of study or instruction from which they benefit most. For example, one theory has it that some students tend to analyze ideas into parts, whereas other students tend to think more holistically. Another theory posits that some students are biased to think verbally, whereas others think visually.”— Does Tailoring Instruction to “Learning Styles” Help Students Learn?
“The critical difference between styles and abilities lies in the idea of style as a venue for processing, a way of thinking that an individual favors. Theories that address abilities hold that abilities are not interchangeable; ... Learning-styles theories, in contrast, predict that catering to the preferred processing mode of a student will lead to improved learning.”— Does Tailoring Instruction to “Learning Styles” Help Students Learn?
“the most common—but not the only—hypothesis about the instructional relevance of learning styles is the meshing hypothesis, according to which instruction is best provided in a format that matches the preferences of the learner (e.g., for a ‘‘visual learner,’’ emphasizing visual presentation of information).”— Learning Styles Concepts and Evidence
“Stahl (1999) criticizes forced-choice learning styles inventories because for some of the questions, “people seem to make the same choices. Nearly everybody would prefer a demonstration in a science class to an uninterrupted lecture. This does not mean that such individuals have a visual style, but that good science teaching involves demonstrations” (p. 3). Stahl (1999) again cites learning style inventory questions that probe for students’ difficulty remembering rules about sounding out words, or whether they mix up letters when attempting to write words. Poor or struggling readers will likely respond in the affirmative for both questions, but this is likely the result of their lack of reading proficiency rather than a learning style.”— Advice about the Use of Learning Styles: A Major Myth in Education
“Coffield et al. (2004a) identified 71 different models of learning styles. The different theoretical perspectives behind the models result in instruments that attempt to measure different attributes, traits, characteristics, and/or preferences. With so many theoretical perspectives and instruments it becomes nonsensical to try to discuss the construct validity of “learning styles” in general”— Advice about the Use of Learning Styles: A Major Myth in Education
“The underlying premise of learning styles is that teaching to a student’s preferred style results in optimal learning. ... Pashler et al. (2009) ... called this interaction the meshing hypothesis which states that an individual learns better when taught in a mode of instruction ... that aligns with their preferred learning style”— Providing Instruction Based on Students’ Learning Style Preferences Does Not Improve Learning
“The learning style myth posits that people learn better when they receive instruction that matches their dominant way of learning (e.g., Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer, & Bjork, 2008), such as visual, auditory, or kinesthetic ways of learning (Coffield, Moseley, Hall, & Ecclestone, 2004). Learning style philosophies are considered a myth because they provide anywhere from inadequate to incorrect portrayals of learning (Dembo & Howard, 2007; Pashler et al., 2008; Scott, 2010).”— Maybe They’re Born With It, or Maybe It’s Experience: Toward a Deeper Understanding of the Learning Style Myth
“An essentialist interpretation of learning styles would lead people to erroneously believe that learning styles emerge early in childhood, have a biological or genetic basis, are instantiated in the brain, mark distinct kinds of learners, predict learning outcomes, and are not open to change.”— Maybe They’re Born With It, or Maybe It’s Experience: Toward a Deeper Understanding of the Learning Style Myth
“AI chatbots promise to reduce the “friction” of learning by teaming up with the student 24/7. But this friction isn’t a flaw that needs to be engineered away, it’s the whole point.”— AI Can't Fix Student Engagement
“teachers and parents often rely on external behavior and outcomes as their gauges. But grades and attendance only tell part of the story — and they lead well-meaning parents to encourage compliance rather than real engagement.”— AI Can't Fix Student Engagement
“Gardner’s MI theory was not a neuromyth initially because it was based on theories of the 1980s of brain modularity for cognition.”— Why multiple intelligences theory is a neuromyth
“McMahon et al. (2004) evaluated the TIMI and discovered that “Reliability analyses for each of the subscales of the TIMI suggested that the instrument does not provide consistent measurement” (p. 48).”— Why multiple intelligences theory is a neuromyth
“Over 70 separate learning-style instruments have been documented in educational literature (Coffield et al. 2004; Pashler 2008)... Learning styles oversimplify the learning process, which is a much more complex phenomenon.”— Learning Styles as a Myth
“Roger Sperry and Michael Gazzaniga’s Right Brain vs. Left Brain”— Learning Styles as a Myth
“As a result of the searching process, 402 studies were assessed according to the inclusion criteria and 30 experimental studies were included in this study. Cohen’s d coefficient was calculated for the effect size in this study. Because there was a high amount of heterogeneity (Q > x2, p < .05) among the effect sizes of the studies, the common effect size was calculated according to the random effect model.”— A Meta-Analysis on the Effect of Instructional Designs based on the Learning Styles Models on Academic Achievement, Attitude and Retention
“Examples of the most popular learning styles models in literature are the Perceptual Model, the Kolb Learning Styles Model, the Dunn and Dunn Learning Styles Model, the 4MAT System, the Honey & Mumford Learning Styles Model and the Grasha and Riechman Learning Styles Model.”— A Meta-Analysis on the Effect of Instructional Designs based on the Learning Styles Models on Academic Achievement, Attitude and Retention
“The most common—but not the only—hypothesis about the instructional relevance of learning styles is the meshing hypothesis, according to which instruction is best provided in a format that matches the preferences of the learner (e.g., for a “visual learner,” emphasizing visual presentation of information).”— Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence
“Assessments of learning style typically ask people to evaluate what sort of information presentation they prefer (e.g., words versus pictures versus speech) and/or what kind of mental activity they find most engaging or congenial (e.g., analysis versus listening), although assessment instruments are extremely diverse.”— Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence
“although numerous studies have purported to show the existence of different kinds of learners (such as “auditory learners” and “visual learners”), those studies have not used the type of randomized research designs that would make their findings credible. Nearly all of the studies that purport to provide evidence for learning styles fail to satisfy key criteria for scientific validity.”— Learning Styles Debunked: There is No Evidence Supporting Auditory and Visual Learning, Psychologists Say
“No less than 71 different models of learning styles have been proposed over the years. Most have no doubt been created with students’ best interests in mind, and to create more suitable environments for learning. But psychological research has not found that people learn differently, at least not in the ways learning-styles proponents claim.”— Learning Styles Debunked: There is No Evidence Supporting Auditory and Visual Learning, Psychologists Say
“Across studies that have applied these methodological criteria, the overall effect sizes were very low and non-significant, indicating that there is still no replicable statistical evidence for enhanced learning outcome by aligning instruction to modality-specific learning styles.”— The Modality-Specific Learning Style Hypothesis: A Mini-Review
“the concept in learning styles theories that is controversial is the meshing or matching hypothesis in which students learn better when their instruction matches their preferred learning style”— Is it really a neuromyth? A meta-analysis of the learning styles matching hypothesis
“Learners are generally categorized through self-reports of preferred modalities (An and Carr, 2017), such as the VAK typology (visual, auditory, and kinesthetic; Fallace, 2023a, b).”— Is it really a neuromyth? A meta-analysis of the learning styles matching hypothesis
“Pashler et al. (2008) have referred to this idea, that matching teaching and learning styles improves learning outcomes while non-matching teaching and learning styles negatively affects learning outcomes, as the meshing hypothesis.”— The persistence of matching teaching and learning styles: A review of the ubiquity of this neuromyth, predictors of its endorsement, and recommendations to end it
“There’s just one problem with this theory: there’s no evidence for it. Gardner just came up with the concept and added the additional intelligences seemingly on a whim. At no point did he gather any data, or design any tests, to support his idea.”— Intelligence: All That Matters
“As you read through the descriptions of the tests, you might have pictured people you know who would, say, zip through the speed measures but would struggle with the puzzles... Cruxially, these people are exceptions to the rule. Contrary to many people’s intuitions, it turns out that, to a great extent, intelligence is general.”— Intelligence: All That Matters
“the popularity of evidence-free but comforting alternative views, like the idea of multiple intelligences (see Chapter 2).”— Intelligence: All That Matters
“SES is the key influence for almost every conceivable educational outcome: test scores, grades, examination results, school differences, school and classroom climate, truancy and student misbehavior. Of course, SES adherents also believe that other factors influence student outcomes, such as schools, teachers, parents, and peers. However, according to the paradigm, SES is the dominant influence, and these factors mainly mediate SES effects.”— Death of a Paradigm
“What’s more, the differences in student outcomes by race, ethnicity, family size and family structure are assumed to be attributable to SES (at least in part).”— Death of a Paradigm
“SES is claimed to be the primary influence on cognitive development among very young and preschool children — exerting its influence through material resources, parental stress and parenting behavior.”— Death of a Paradigm
“The SES paradigm assumes that the effects of SES represent purely sociological processes, such as home, school, economic and cultural resources. In contrast, the IQ + genes paradigm assumes that SES effects include non-sociological processes involving genetic transmission.”— Death of a Paradigm
“It’s intuitive that they might. For example: Wearables can make invisible health markers visible so people can act on them. Wearables can provide immediate feedback on health habits: do more steps, sleep more, eat a slice of pie, and you’ll get numbers back right away so you can know how to adjust your habits.”— Wearables Mostly Don't Work
“Basically every review suggests that there is a small-to-modest effect on physical activity. ... The effects in the literature get even smaller and more statistically dubious when you remember that the analysts are often medical doctors”— Wearables Mostly Don't Work
“though diabetics obviously benefit and are protected by having them, normal people don’t get a whole lot of benefit. ... There is virtually no evidence for changes to hard outcomes.”— Wearables Mostly Don't Work
“Debt Service Costs Have Tripled”— GreaterBRCivicAssn SupportingData
“EBRPSS Continues To Fall In Rankings”— GreaterBRCivicAssn SupportingData
How It Spread

The assumption spread through teacher education with the efficiency of a required course. Newer teachers encountered learning styles in their certification programs; veteran teachers encountered them in professional development workshops. The content was consistent: students have preferred modalities, matching instruction to those modalities improves outcomes, and good teachers differentiate accordingly. [6][7] Surveys conducted across multiple countries found endorsement rates that would be remarkable for any empirical claim: 93 percent of UK teachers, 96 percent of Dutch teachers, and comparable figures in the United States reported believing that students learn better when taught in their preferred style. [9][18] These were not casual opinions. They were professional convictions, reinforced by training, by institutional practice, and by the felt experience of watching students respond differently to different kinds of instruction.

A thriving commercial industry supplied the infrastructure the belief required. Tests, guidebooks, workshops, and consultant services proliferated throughout the 1980s and 1990s, offering educators the tools to assess their students' styles and design matched instruction. [7][16][17] Study skills textbooks made claims that would not survive a single controlled experiment. Coman and Heavers told students that using their preferred styles allowed them to study the same or less time while remembering more, getting better grades, raising self-confidence, and reducing anxiety. [8] Marilee Sprenger, an education consultant and author, claimed students have a dominant sensory pathway and always learn best starting with that strength. [8] These claims were not qualified or hedged; they were presented as established facts, and they reached students and teachers who had no reason to doubt them.

Academic journals and meta-analyses provided the appearance of a scientific literature. The 1995 Dunn meta-analysis and the 1987 Kavale and Forness analysis in Exceptional Children circulated through teacher education as evidence that the matching approach had been validated. [5] Meta-analytic databases like Visible Learning Meta-X reported average effect sizes around d=0.40, a figure that appeared to confirm modest but real benefits, without distinguishing between studies that actually tested the matching hypothesis and correlational studies that measured something else entirely. [3] The conflation of these two very different kinds of evidence sustained the appearance of a research base long after the specific claim at the heart of the theory had been repeatedly tested and found wanting.

▶ Supporting Quotes (36)
“teachers have spent decades designing lesson plans that were, at best, a complete waste of time.”— Psychology’s Greatest Misses (Part 2/3)
“Teacher education textbooks often state matching instruction to students’ preferred style will optimize learning outcomes (i.e., the matching hypothesis; Cuevas, 2015; Wininger et al., 2019).”— Is it really a neuromyth? A meta-analysis of the learning styles matching hypothesis
“Based on the seventeen studies captured by the Visible Learning MetaX database... the effect of matching teaching strategies with learning styles is not inconsequential (d = 0.40).”— Learning Styles, Preferences, or Strategies? An Explanation for the Resurgence of Styles Across Many Meta-analyses
“we identify eight major confounding factors that contribute to the persistence of the learning styles myth, including the conflation of learning styles with learning strategies, the appeal of individualization, and the influence of commercial and institutional promotion.”— Learning Styles, Preferences, or Strategies? An Explanation for the Resurgence of Styles Across Many Meta-analyses
“In 2012, Dekker, Lee, Howard-Jones, and Jolles reported that 94% of educators believed that students perform better when they receive information in their preferred learning style (e.g., auditory, visual, kinesthetic).”— Matching Learning Style to Instructional Method: Effects on Comprehension
“Not only does the learning styles concept have widespread acceptance among educators (Dekker, Lee, Howard-Jones, & Jolles, 2012) but also it is accepted among the general public (Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer, & Bjork, 2008).”— Matching Learning Style to Instructional Method: Effects on Comprehension
“Dissertation Sullivan USA A meta-analysis of experimental research studies based on the Dunn and Dunn Learning Style Model and its relationship to academic achievement and performance 1993 Dunn and Dunn Learning styles matched to achievement 42 3,434 42 0.75”— Matching teaching to style of learning
“Journal of Educational Research Dunn, Griggs, Olson, Beasley & Gorman USA A meta-analytic validation of the Dunn and Dunn model of learning-style preferences 1995”— Matching teaching to style of learning
“I still attend professional development sessions that feature learning-styles theories, and newer teachers tell me these theories are part of teacher education.”— Does Tailoring Instruction to “Learning Styles” Help Students Learn?
“Omrod (2008) wrote, ‘‘Some cognitive styles and dispositions do seem to influence how and what students learn. . . . Some students seem to learn better when information is presented through words (verbal learners), whereas others seem to learn better when it’s presented through pictures (visual learners)’’ (p. 160, italics in original).”— Learning Styles Concepts and Evidence
“There is a thriving industry devoted to publishing learning-styles tests and guidebooks for teachers, and many organizations offer professional development workshops for teachers and educators built around the concept of learning styles.”— Learning Styles Concepts and Evidence
“We only quote a few textbooks, but could have quoted dozens of textbooks. These statements represent the type of advice given by authors about learning styles and, in part, have been adopted by many instructors of study skills courses.”— Advice about the Use of Learning Styles: A Major Myth in Education
“Based on the advice of such authors, instructors typically either use learning style instruments identified in the literature or sometimes develop their own instruments for students to assess their learning styles. This latter practice is especially used in identifying modality preferences related to visual, auditory, or kinesthetic learners”— Advice about the Use of Learning Styles: A Major Myth in Education
“Dekker et al. (2012) surveyed 242 teachers from the United Kingdom (n = 137) and the Netherlands (n = 105) ... Results showed that 93% of teachers from the United Kingdom and 96% of teachers from the Netherlands incorrectly agreed with the statement: “Individuals learn better when they receive information in their preferred learning style (e.g., auditory, visual, kinesthetic).””— Providing Instruction Based on Students’ Learning Style Preferences Does Not Improve Learning
“Surveys conducted in in the United States, Turkey, Portugal, China, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and Latin America suggest that average rates of learning style myth endorsement among the general public and educators in Western and industrialized countries (Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010) range from 80–95% (Coffield et al., 2004; Dekker, Lee, Howard-Jones, & Jolles, 2012; Dündar & Gündüz, 2016; Gleichgerrcht, Lira Luttges, Salvarezza, & Campos, 2015; Morehead, Rhodes, & Delozier, 2016; Pei, Howard-Jones, Zhang, Liu, & Jin, 2015; Rato, Abreu, & Castro-Caldas, 2013; Scott, 2010; Tardif, Doudin, & Meylan, 2015).”— Maybe They’re Born With It, or Maybe It’s Experience: Toward a Deeper Understanding of the Learning Style Myth
“Industry has capitalized on this desire to use learning style philosophies in the classroom (Coffield et al., 2004; Scott, 2010), resulting in widely available and commonly used assessments such as the Dunn, Dunn, and Price Learning Styles Inventory (Coffield et al., 2004).”— Maybe They’re Born With It, or Maybe It’s Experience: Toward a Deeper Understanding of the Learning Style Myth
“Powerful generative AI tools are suddenly everywhere, embedded in many of the learning platforms students use daily.”— AI Can't Fix Student Engagement
“Blanchette Sarrasin et al. (2019) reported that 94% of teachers surveyed in Quebec stated they used MI theory in the classroom.”— Why multiple intelligences theory is a neuromyth
“Shearer noted that many educators “continue to alter lesson plans, re-envision curriculum and design whole schools inspired by the multiple intelligences” (Shearer, 2020a, p. 49).”— Why multiple intelligences theory is a neuromyth
“Over 70 separate learning-style instruments have been documented in educational literature (Coffield et al. 2004; Pashler 2008)”— Learning Styles as a Myth
“Have you ever heard a student mention they are more of an auditory learner? Have you ever taken a quiz and learned you are more of a left-brainer versus a right-brainer?”— Learning Styles as a Myth
“The studies included in this review were collected from CoHE National Thesis Archive (2015), ULAKBIM (2015), Google Academic (2015), ERIC (2015) and EBSCO (2015) databases.”— A Meta-Analysis on the Effect of Instructional Designs based on the Learning Styles Models on Academic Achievement, Attitude and Retention
“For this purpose, a meta-analytical review method was employed to combine the outcome of the independent experimental studies.”— A Meta-Analysis on the Effect of Instructional Designs based on the Learning Styles Models on Academic Achievement, Attitude and Retention
“There is a thriving industry devoted to publishing learning-styles tests and guidebooks for teachers, and many organizations offer professional development workshops for teachers and educators built around the concept of learning styles.”— Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence
“The learning-styles view has acquired great influence within the education field, and is frequently encountered at levels ranging from kindergarten to graduate school.”— Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence
“for more than 30 years, the notion that teaching methods should match a student’s particular learning style has exerted a powerful influence on education. The long-standing popularity of the learning styles movement has in turn created a thriving commercial market amongst researchers, educators, and the general public. The wide appeal of the idea... is evident in the vast number of learning-style tests and teaching guides available for purchase and used in schools.”— Learning Styles Debunked: There is No Evidence Supporting Auditory and Visual Learning, Psychologists Say
“a survey by Dekker et al. (2012) showed that 93% of United Kingdom primary and secondary school teachers assumed that “individuals learn better when they receive information in their preferred learning style.””— The Modality-Specific Learning Style Hypothesis: A Mini-Review
“Reviewed studies suggest that educators widely believe the veracity of the meshing hypothesis.”— The persistence of matching teaching and learning styles: A review of the ubiquity of this neuromyth, predictors of its endorsement, and recommendations to end it
“The notion of ‘multiple intelligences’ has become very popular among educators, as a kind of wishful thinking: if a child has poor (say) logical-mathematical abilities, the argument goes, they might still be good at another kind of intelligence!”— Intelligence: All That Matters
“What intelligence research (and differential psychology more generally) tells us is that people’s minds are different from one another in measurable ways [...] These seemingly obvious facts are unpalatable to many, and have led not only to interminable debates but also to the popularity of evidence-free but comforting alternative views, like the idea of multiple intelligences”— Intelligence: All That Matters
“Its fundamental contention that societal inequalities can be attributed to socioeconomic origins is largely unquestioned across academia, research institutes, government bureaucracies, international agencies, the commentariat, social media, teacher unions, the political left and even the political right.”— Death of a Paradigm
“In the social sciences, each new cohort of students is exposed to the SES paradigm. Many academics have built successful careers around some aspect of SES — perhaps by becoming an expert in a particular theory or theorist, proposing a slightly different theoretical explanation or resurrecting an old one. Most academic journal editors and referees accept the major tenets of the SES paradigm.”— Death of a Paradigm
“A lot of people in that space also think wearables help to improve health. Naturally, then, many have taken to promoting wearables as a tool for health improvement.”— Wearables Mostly Don't Work
“Source: BRGov.Com”— GreaterBRCivicAssn SupportingData
“across four meta-analyses focused specifically on matching styles to teaching methods, the average effect size is d = 0.04 - essentially zero”— Evidence-Based Higher Education: Is the Learning Styles Myth Important?
“self-reported belief in matching instruction to Learning Styles was high, with a weighted percentage of 89.1%”— Beware the myth: learning styles affect thinking about academic potential
Resulting Policies

The most direct institutional expression of the learning styles assumption was the lesson plan. Teachers across the English-speaking world were trained to design instruction that addressed visual, auditory, and kinesthetic learners simultaneously, or to differentiate by providing distinct activities for each group. [1][6] This was not an informal adaptation; it was a formal pedagogical requirement in many schools and districts, embedded in teacher evaluation rubrics and instructional frameworks. Time that might have been spent on evidence-based strategies was spent instead on sorting students into categories and designing modality-specific activities for each. [10][19]

Study skills courses at the secondary and post-secondary level institutionalized the assumption from the student side. Students were assessed using published learning style inventories, told which category they belonged to, and advised to seek out instructors whose teaching style matched their own or to adapt their study habits accordingly. [8] The advice was specific and confident: visual learners should create diagrams and color-coded notes; auditory learners should record lectures and read aloud; kinesthetic learners should use movement and hands-on materials. None of this advice was supported by evidence that it improved learning outcomes, but it was delivered with the authority of institutional practice. [8][9]

Teacher certification programs enacted the assumption as policy by incorporating learning styles into required coursework. [10] Professional development systems reinforced it through workshops that gave teachers practical tools for assessing and matching styles. [7] The National Association of Secondary School Principals distributed a learning styles test to its membership, signaling that style-based instruction was not merely a classroom technique but a professional standard. [7] The cumulative effect was an educational system in which the learning styles assumption was not a hypothesis to be evaluated but a framework to be implemented, with institutional resources, professional norms, and commercial products all aligned behind it.

▶ Supporting Quotes (19)
“teachers have spent decades designing lesson plans that were, at best, a complete waste of time.”— Psychology’s Greatest Misses (Part 2/3)
“Teaching to individuals’ perceived learning styles in hopes that they will achieve greater academic success is common practice within the field of education.”— Matching Learning Style to Instructional Method: Effects on Comprehension
“Teachers’ instructional decisions are based on a mix of theories learned in teacher education... How are they supposed to plan lessons that reach all of these different learners?”— Does Tailoring Instruction to “Learning Styles” Help Students Learn?
“many organizations offer professional development workshops for teachers and educators built around the concept of learning styles.”— Learning Styles Concepts and Evidence
“in part, have been adopted by many instructors of study skills courses.”— Advice about the Use of Learning Styles: A Major Myth in Education
“teachers may actually be doing a disservice to students by using resources to determine their learning style and then tailoring the curriculum to match that learning style.”— Providing Instruction Based on Students’ Learning Style Preferences Does Not Improve Learning
“Some teacher certification programs incorporate learning styles into training courses, wasting valuable time and resources (Lethaby & Harries, 2015; Tardif et al., 2015).”— Maybe They’re Born With It, or Maybe It’s Experience: Toward a Deeper Understanding of the Learning Style Myth
“Schools across the U.S. are scrambling to adapt. Blue books are back. So too are in-class exams and No. 2 pencils. Running student work through anti-AI checkers is standard practice.”— AI Can't Fix Student Engagement
“Despite the lack of empirical support for Gardner’s theory, MI teaching strategies are widely used in classrooms all over the world.”— Why multiple intelligences theory is a neuromyth
“There is no evidence that supports teaching to a person’s specified learning style results in better learning”— Learning Styles as a Myth
“Today’s curriculums focus on students’ individual differences with the influence of the constructivist approach. When teaching a lesson, teachers are also expected to organize learning experiences by paying attention to these students’ individual differences. One of the students’ individual differences is the learning style”— A Meta-Analysis on the Effect of Instructional Designs based on the Learning Styles Models on Academic Achievement, Attitude and Retention
“Proponents of learning-style assessment contend that optimal instruction requires diagnosing individuals' learning style and tailoring instruction accordingly.”— Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence
“the vast number of learning-style tests and teaching guides available for purchase and used in schools... the currently widespread use of learning-style tests and teaching tools”— Learning Styles Debunked: There is No Evidence Supporting Auditory and Visual Learning, Psychologists Say
“Meyer and Murrell (2014) found that, across 39 educational institutions in the United States, more than 70% taught “learning style theory” as a topic in teacher education.”— The Modality-Specific Learning Style Hypothesis: A Mini-Review
“matching instruction to learning styles is more time-consuming as it involves assessing for styles and purposefully assigning modalities”— Is it really a neuromyth? A meta-analysis of the learning styles matching hypothesis
“many educators appear to hold the belief that students have predominant learning styles that optimize their learning outcomes (e.g., Torrijos-Muelas et al., 2021) and these educators may devote considerable resources to classifying their students’ learning styles to optimize their learning”— The persistence of matching teaching and learning styles: A review of the ubiquity of this neuromyth, predictors of its endorsement, and recommendations to end it
“It also explains why parents’ socioeconomic characteristics still matter under socialism and in the Kibbutz (Firkowska et al., 1978; Justman & Gilboa, 2012).”— Death of a Paradigm
“23 New Taxes Since 2003 Source: BRGov.Com”— GreaterBRCivicAssn SupportingData
“Pension Costs Driven By # Employees”— GreaterBRCivicAssn SupportingData
Harm Caused

The most direct harm was the diversion of instructional time and resources from methods that work to methods that do not. Teachers who spent time assessing students' styles, designing modality-specific activities, and differentiating instruction by category were not spending that time on retrieval practice, spaced repetition, interleaving, or the other techniques that cognitive science has consistently shown to improve learning. [7][16] The opportunity cost was real even if it was invisible in any individual classroom, and it accumulated across millions of classrooms over decades.

The assumption also harmed students by legitimizing avoidance. A student who had been told she was a visual learner had institutional permission to treat reading as a poor fit for her learning style rather than a skill to be developed. A student identified as kinesthetic had grounds for disengaging from lectures rather than learning to extract information from them. [1][2] The essentialist framing of learning styles, the belief that styles were innate, fixed, and brain-wired, made this avoidance feel not like laziness but like self-knowledge. Researchers found that students who held essentialist beliefs about their own learning styles were more likely to avoid non-preferred modalities and to perceive certain styles as inherently superior. [2][10] The theory did not merely fail to help; it actively encouraged students to narrow their own capabilities.

The financial costs were diffuse but substantial. Educational institutions spent money on learning style assessments, consultant fees, workshop materials, and differentiated instructional resources, all justified by a hypothesis that had not been validated. [17][20] Academic support centers at colleges and universities provided services organized around students' assessed styles, directing institutional resources toward a framework that reviews had found to be without empirical foundation. [10] The commercial industry built around learning styles, including the tests, the guidebooks, the training programs, and the consultant networks, extracted money from school budgets that could have supported evidence-based interventions. No comprehensive accounting of this expenditure exists, but the scale of the industry over three decades suggests the total was not trivial. [7][8]

▶ Supporting Quotes (27)
“Not only have students been underserved by this confusion, but teachers have spent decades designing lesson plans that were, at best, a complete waste of time.”— Psychology’s Greatest Misses (Part 2/3)
“perpetuating the concept of learning styles could lead to wasting resources (namely, educator time and effort) to match instruction as well as stereotyping students into restrictive categories (Newton and Miah, 2017).”— Is it really a neuromyth? A meta-analysis of the learning styles matching hypothesis
“learners who are told they have a particular style may have a self-fulfilling prophecy in which they believe they can only learn in a particular modality and subsequently do not develop necessary skills in modalities outside of their style (Vasquez, 2009).”— Is it really a neuromyth? A meta-analysis of the learning styles matching hypothesis
“using learning-styles theories in the classroom does not bring an advantage to students.”— Does Tailoring Instruction to “Learning Styles” Help Students Learn?
“limited education resources would better be devoted to adopting other educational practices that have a strong evidence base, of which there are an increasing number.”— Learning Styles Concepts and Evidence
“there is a whole industry that has developed around learning styles that includes books, tapes, and consultants promoting its use in education.”— Advice about the Use of Learning Styles: A Major Myth in Education
“teachers may actually be doing a disservice to students by using resources to determine their learning style and then tailoring the curriculum to match that learning style.”— Providing Instruction Based on Students’ Learning Style Preferences Does Not Improve Learning
“Teachers and instructors spend time and effort matching lessons to students’ perceived learning styles (Newton & Miah, 2017; Scott, 2010; Tardif et al., 2015), even though usually all students would benefit from receiving information in multiple ways (e.g., Lapp, Flood, & Fisher, 1999; Mayer, 2002; Moreno & Mayer, 1999).”— Maybe They’re Born With It, or Maybe It’s Experience: Toward a Deeper Understanding of the Learning Style Myth
“Students choose to study in ways that match their perceived learning style and incorrectly believe it will help them learn better (Husmann et al., 2018; Massa & Mayer, 2006; Morehead et al., 2016).”— Maybe They’re Born With It, or Maybe It’s Experience: Toward a Deeper Understanding of the Learning Style Myth
“recent global Brookings Institution research examining the benefits and risks of AI on student learning found that current use — especially open-ended discussion with AI chatbots and AI “friends”— undermines students’ cognitive development, motivation to learn, and, ultimately, engagement with the material.”— AI Can't Fix Student Engagement
“Our Brookings–Transcend study found that fewer than 4% of students in middle and high school regularly had in-school experiences that supported Explorer mode.”— AI Can't Fix Student Engagement
“Crucially, belief in MI and use of MI in the classroom limit the effort to find evidence-based teaching methods.”— Why multiple intelligences theory is a neuromyth
“learning into the neuromyth (Howard-Jones, 2014) can be more harmful than beneficial to students... The idea that a student has one “fixed” learning style goes against the idea that learning should be flexible and adaptable.”— Learning Styles as a Myth
“Thus, limited education resources would better be devoted to adopting other educational practices that have a strong evidence base, of which there are an increasing number.”— Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence
“Given the lack of scientific evidence, the authors argue that the currently widespread use of learning-style tests and teaching tools is a wasteful use of limited educational resources.”— Learning Styles Debunked: There is No Evidence Supporting Auditory and Visual Learning, Psychologists Say
“The disappointing outcome of all these empirical and theoretical endeavors and efforts is that the modality-specific learning style concept is, as stated by Newton (2015), thriving across all levels of education.”— The Modality-Specific Learning Style Hypothesis: A Mini-Review
“perpetuating the concept of learning styles could lead to wasting resources (namely, educator time and effort) to match instruction as well as stereotyping students into restrictive categories (Newton and Miah, 2017)”— Is it really a neuromyth? A meta-analysis of the learning styles matching hypothesis
“also see Pashler et al., 2008, for some examples of the financial ramifications of this practice”— The persistence of matching teaching and learning styles: A review of the ubiquity of this neuromyth, predictors of its endorsement, and recommendations to end it
“But denying the huge amount of evidence for general intelligence does nobody any favours. Many of Gardner’s ‘intelligences’ can be conceptualized as skills, or even personality traits, but to describe them as ‘intelligences’ makes a mockery of the definition of the word.”— Intelligence: All That Matters
“have led not only to interminable debates but also to the popularity of evidence-free but comforting alternative views”— Intelligence: All That Matters
“The SES paradigm has most of these characteristics. SES effect sizes are only moderate and are much smaller when considering stronger predictors, such as cognitive ability. There is very little replicability, but an overabundance of similar analyses purporting to be novel.”— Death of a Paradigm
“you end up selling people devices that mostly add cognitive load and spiffy dashboards, only rarely resulting in people getting healthier. Telling everyone to use wearables will generate a lot of data but not much health.”— Wearables Mostly Don't Work
“Sleep duration? Sleep staging? SpO₂? Atrial fibrillation? Don’t trust this stuff too much. Calories and energy expenditure? Stress? Cuffless blood pressure? Really don’t trust that.”— Wearables Mostly Don't Work
“2017+18 Homicides - Highest 2 Yr Total On Record”— GreaterBRCivicAssn SupportingData
“Violent Crimes Per 1000 Residents”— GreaterBRCivicAssn SupportingData
“BR Has 5th Largest Funding Gap”— GreaterBRCivicAssn SupportingData
“Parents and children judged students who learn visually as more intelligent than hands-on learners”— Beware the myth: learning styles affect thinking about academic potential
Downfall

The formal unraveling began in 2008, when Harold Pashler and colleagues published their review in Psychological Science in the Public Interest. The review's contribution was not simply to conclude that evidence was lacking; it specified precisely what evidence would be required. A valid test of the meshing hypothesis needed to screen students by learning style, randomly assign them to matched or mismatched instruction, test all students with the same outcome measure, and find a crossover interaction in the results. Studies that did not meet these criteria proved nothing about matching. When the literature was evaluated against this standard, virtually no qualifying studies existed, and the few that did contradicted the hypothesis. [7][16][17] The review was widely cited and largely ignored in practice.

Subsequent experimental work filled the gap the Pashler review had identified. Beth Rogowsky, Barbara Calhoun, and Paula Tallal ran studies using Pashler's design, first with adults and later with fifth-grade children, and found no significant relationship between learning style and instructional method for comprehension. In the study with younger children, visual learners actually scored higher on listening tasks than auditory learners did, a result that was precisely the opposite of what the meshing hypothesis predicted. [4][9] A 2024 meta-analysis by Virginia Clinton-Lisell and Christine Litzinger synthesized 21 studies meeting rigorous criteria and found a small overall effect size of g=0.31, with crossover interactions appearing in only 26 percent of outcome measures and study quality consistently low. The authors concluded that the benefits were too small and too infrequent to justify the implementation costs. [2][19]

A parallel line of analysis exposed the methodological sleight of hand that had sustained the appearance of a research base. A review of 17 meta-analyses found that studies actually testing the matching hypothesis returned an average effect size of d=0.04, while correlational studies that conflated learning styles with learning strategies returned an average correlation of r=0.24. The two types of evidence had been routinely combined in research summaries, making the literature appear more supportive than it was. [3] Coffield and colleagues' 2004 review of 13 major learning style models found 10 of them unreliable and recommended discontinuing their use. [8] Stahl's earlier review of five meta-analyses covering more than 90 studies had found no evidence that matching learning styles improved learning, but that finding had not disrupted the professional development industry that depended on the assumption remaining credible. [8]

By the 2010s, the expert consensus had hardened. The Yale Poorvu Center for Teaching and Learning, the Association for Psychological Science, and multiple peer-reviewed journals had published statements or reviews concluding that the meshing hypothesis was false. [13][17] Surveys continued to find that 80 to 95 percent of educators in Western countries endorsed the belief. [10][20] Teacher certification programs continued to include learning styles content in their curricula. The gap between what the research showed and what the institutions taught remained wide, sustained by the same mechanisms that had spread the assumption in the first place: textbooks, professional development, commercial products, and the intuitive appeal of an idea that felt true regardless of whether it was.

▶ Supporting Quotes (38)
“Based on robust variance estimation, there was an overall benefit of matching instruction to learning styles, g = 0.31, SE = 0.12, 95% CI = [0.05, 0.57], p = 0.02. However, only 26% of learning outcome measures indicated matched instruction benefits for at least two styles”— Is it really a neuromyth? A meta-analysis of the learning styles matching hypothesis
“Given the time and financial expenses of implementation coupled with low study quality, the benefits of matching instruction to learning styles are interpreted as too small and too infrequent to warrant widespread adoption.”— Is it really a neuromyth? A meta-analysis of the learning styles matching hypothesis
“we distinguish between studies testing the matching hypothesis (effect size d = .04) and correlational studies (average correlation r = .24), revealing that the latter often conflates learning styles with learning strategies.”— Learning Styles, Preferences, or Strategies? An Explanation for the Resurgence of Styles Across Many Meta-analyses
“We identify eight major confounding factors that contribute to the persistence of the learning styles myth.”— Learning Styles, Preferences, or Strategies? An Explanation for the Resurgence of Styles Across Many Meta-analyses
“Results demonstrated no statistically significant relationship between learning style preference (auditory, visual word) and instructional method (audiobook, e-text) for either immediate or delayed comprehension tests.”— Matching Learning Style to Instructional Method: Effects on Comprehension
“Results failed to show a statistically significant relationship between learning style preference (auditory, visual word) and learning aptitude (listening comprehension, reading comprehension).”— Matching Learning Style to Instructional Method: Effects on Comprehension
“Number of meta-analyses: 18 Number of studies: 893 Number of students: 104,812 Number of effects: 2,848 Weighted mean effect size: 0.39 Robustness index: 5”— Matching teaching to style of learning
“Journal of Classroom Interaction Garlinger & Frank USA Teacher-Student Cognitive Style and Academic Achievement: A Review and Mini-Meta-Analysis 1986 Field independence/dependence on achievement 7 1,531 7 -0.03”— Matching teaching to style of learning
“Enough research had been conducted by the late 1970s that researchers began to write review articles summing up the field, and they concluded that little evidence supported these theories. Research continued into the 1980s, and again... they reported that the evidence supporting learning-styles theories was thin.”— Does Tailoring Instruction to “Learning Styles” Help Students Learn?
“Everyone got more questions right if they performed the imagery task (about 16 questions right), compared with the auditory task (about eight questions right). That result didn’t change at all if the questionnaire classified participants as more of a visual learner or more of an auditory learner.”— Does Tailoring Instruction to “Learning Styles” Help Students Learn?
“we found virtually no evidence for the interaction pattern mentioned above, which was judged to be a precondition for validating the educational applications of learning styles... several found results that flatly contradict the popular meshing hypothesis.”— Learning Styles Concepts and Evidence
“We conclude therefore, that at present, there is no adequate evidence base to justify incorporating learning-styles assessments into general educational practice.”— Learning Styles Concepts and Evidence
“Of the 13 major models subjected to full review by Coffield et al. (2004b), 10 were identified as having problems or questions related to reliability. Some of the best known and widely used instruments have such serious weaknesses (e.g., low reliability, poor validity and negligible impact on pedagogy) that we recommend that their use in research and practice should be discontinued.”— Advice about the Use of Learning Styles: A Major Myth in Education
“One critique of learning styles identified five different reviews on matching learning styles, spanning 14 years and examining over 90 studies (Stahl, 1999), and it failed to find empirical evidence that matching learning styles improves learning.”— Advice about the Use of Learning Styles: A Major Myth in Education
“Consistent with earlier findings with adults, results failed to find a significant relationship between auditory or visual learning style preference and comprehension. Fifth graders with a visual learning style scored higher than those with an auditory learning style on listening and reading comprehension measures.”— Providing Instruction Based on Students’ Learning Style Preferences Does Not Improve Learning
“To date, there has been no evidence that matching or meshing instruction to someone’s self-reported learning style positively affects their ability to learn new information (e.g., Husmann & O’Loughlin, 2018; Knoll, Otani, Skeel, & Van Horn, 2017; Krätzig & Arbuthnott, 2006; Rogowsky, Calhoun, & Tallal, 2015; also see Pashler et al., 2008 for a review).”— Maybe They’re Born With It, or Maybe It’s Experience: Toward a Deeper Understanding of the Learning Style Myth
“Across 35 randomized controlled trials in the U.S. and 17 other countries over three decades, when teachers give students opportunities to engage by having a small say in the flow of instruction — such as choosing among homework options, providing feedback at the end of a lesson, or asking questions about their curiosities — learning, achievement, positive self-concept, prosocial behavior, and numerous other benefits increase.”— AI Can't Fix Student Engagement
“in the past 40 years neuroscience research has shown that the brain is not organized in separate modules dedicated to specific forms of cognition.”— Why multiple intelligences theory is a neuromyth
“studies have shown that the intelligences do not function separately from one another.”— Why multiple intelligences theory is a neuromyth
“to date, no neural correlates of the intelligences have been found (Waterhouse, 2006; Geake, 2008; Dekker et al., 2012; Howard-Jones, 2014; Ruhaak and Cook, 2018; Blanchette Sarrasin et al., 2019; Craig et al., 2021; Rousseau, 2021b).”— Why multiple intelligences theory is a neuromyth
“Research indicates that there is no scientific evidence to support the notion that matching content to learning styles enhances learning outcomes... Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence.”— Learning Styles as a Myth
“Some students performed better on tasks when taught in a different modality than their self-identified “learning style” (Krätzig & Arbuthnott, 2006; Rogowsky et al., 2020).”— Learning Styles as a Myth
“There is no evidence that supports teaching to a person’s specified learning style results in better learning (Alley, et. al., 2023; Cuevas, 2015; Kirschner & van Merriënboer, 2013; Rogowsky et al., 2020)”— Learning Styles as a Myth
“However, we found virtually no evidence for the interaction pattern mentioned above, which was judged to be a precondition for validating the educational applications of learning styles.”— Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence
“Although the literature on learning styles is enormous, very few studies have even used an experimental methodology capable of testing the validity of learning styles applied to education. Moreover, of those that did use an appropriate method, several found results that flatly contradict the popular meshing hypothesis.”— Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence
“according to a major report published in Psychological Science in the Public Interest... Of those that did, some provided evidence flatly contradictory to this meshing hypothesis, and the few findings in line with the meshing idea did not assess popular learning-style schemes.”— Learning Styles Debunked: There is No Evidence Supporting Auditory and Visual Learning, Psychologists Say
“In previous reviews, it has been stated repeatedly that there is a lack of studies that employ this rigorous design and that the few available at the time have, overall, generated no evidence to support the meshing hypothesis (Coffield et al., 2004; Kozhevnikov, 2007; Pashler et al., 2008; Willingham et al., 2015).”— The Modality-Specific Learning Style Hypothesis: A Mini-Review
“Given the time and financial expenses of implementation coupled with low study quality, the benefits of matching instruction to learning styles are interpreted as too small and too infrequent to warrant widespread adoption.”— Is it really a neuromyth? A meta-analysis of the learning styles matching hypothesis
“Since this time, there have been other reviews similarly concluding that there is a lack of empirical support for matching instruction to students’ learning styles (Cuevas, 2015; Klitmøller, 2015; Aslaksen and Lorås, 2018)”— Is it really a neuromyth? A meta-analysis of the learning styles matching hypothesis
“The idea that matching a student’s preferred learning style (e.g., visual) to a corresponding teaching style (e.g., visual to visual; auditory to auditory) would lead to improved educational outcomes and that matching a student’s preferred learning style (e.g., visual) to a non-corresponding teaching style (e.g., visual to auditory) would negatively affect outcomes, is not widely supported empirically (Pashler et al., 2008; Howard-Jones, 2014; Newton et al., 2021).”— The persistence of matching teaching and learning styles: A review of the ubiquity of this neuromyth, predictors of its endorsement, and recommendations to end it
“A comprehensive review by the psychometrician John Carroll (1993) showed that the positive manifold was found in every one of over 460 sets of intelligence testing data.”— Intelligence: All That Matters
“The psychologists Wendy Johnson, Thomas Bouchard and their colleagues (Johnson et al., 2008) have studied large samples of people who had been given several separate ‘batteries’ (or subsets) of IQ tests. ... The correlations were about as high as correlations can be: although found in entirely separate tests, these g-factors were essentially identical. The conclusion was that, regardless of how you test someone’s intelligence, there’s ‘just one g’.”— Intelligence: All That Matters
“evidence-free but comforting alternative views, like the idea of multiple intelligences (see Chapter 2).”— Intelligence: All That Matters
“The SES paradigm is collapsing because the very notion of SES is nebulous. Prominent theoretical concepts, such as economic and human capital, are construed to provide post-hoc justifications. There is no consensus on what SES is, and how to measure it.”— Death of a Paradigm
“For student achievement, educational and occupational attainment, and income and wealth, cognitive ability has greater explanatory power than comprehensive measures of SES. It accounts for a large proportion of the effects of SES, whereas SES only minimally accounts for the effects of cognitive ability (Marks, 2022).”— Death of a Paradigm
“in Ferguson et al.’s 2022 review, they found that meta-analyses—which are usually uncorrected for the issues noted earlier—generally do not show much in the way of physiological benefits”— Wearables Mostly Don't Work
“A new study of the Apple Watch found results that were sometimes good, but for the more advanced stuff it was all over the place ... Reliability is massively heterogeneous, both within and between devices and certain measurements need routine recalibration”— Wearables Mostly Don't Work
“UNPRECEDENTED EXODUS”— GreaterBRCivicAssn SupportingData
Sources
Related False Assumptions
ID: FA-20260209-1918c1e0 · Created: 2026-02-09T21:22:01.208365 · Schema v3

Know of a source that supports or relates to this entry?

Suggest a Source