ArticleNPJ science of learning2023
Beware the myth: learning styles affect parents', children's, and teachers' thinking about children's academic potential.
Article in NPJ science of learning, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Is it really a neuromyth? A meta-analysis of the learning styles matching hypothesis.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Pooled it
- Preferences of health professions learners: a scoping review of the use and role of DCEs in health professions education.Medical education online · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Three experiments examine how providing learning style information (a student learns hands-on or visually) might influence thinking about that student's academic potential. Samples were American and predominately white and middle-class. In Experiment 1, parents (N = 94) and children (N = 73, 6-12 years) judged students who learn visually as more intelligent than hands-on learners. Experiment 2 replicated this pattern with parents and teachers (N = 172). In Experiment 3 (pre-registered), parents and teachers (N = 200) predicted that visual learners are more skilled than hands-on learners at "core" school subjects (math/language/social sciences, except science), whereas, hands-on learners were skilled at non-core subjects (gym/music/art). Together, these studies show that learning style descriptions, resultant of a myth, impact thinking about children's intellectual aptitudes.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.