Table of Contents

Adrianne opens the episode by sharing how she first met Dr. Nidhi at last year’s ResearchED Toronto conference, held in what she describes as a “Hogwarts-like” building filled with rich ideas, warm educators, and serious conversations about the science of learning.

Their meeting began with a late-night Facebook chat about their mutual passion for cognitive science and education. That connection led Adrianne (Heather and Marilyn included!) to travel to Toronto, where they were welcomed by a vibrant community of research-driven educators.

Nidhi reflects on the previous conference’s strong focus on math: “I care deeply about all learning, but math is very dear to me.”

She notes that while literacy often takes center stage in educational research and programming, numeracy is just as foundational—and deserving of equal attention.

Meet Nidhi Sachdeva

When Adrianne first introduces Dr. Nidhi Sachdeva, it’s clear she is someone at the heart of a powerful movement in education. Adrianne paints a picture of Nidhi not only as a researcher but as a connector, someone who lives at the intersection of science and classroom practice.

Based in Canada, Nidhi teaches at the University of Toronto’s Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, where she brings cognitive science to life through her work on online learning and microlearning. But her influence extends far beyond the classroom. As co-author of the globally read Science of Learning newsletter and Chair of ResearchED Toronto, Nidhi curates conversations that shift how we think about teaching and learning. What makes her work so compelling is not just the depth of her knowledge—it’s her ability to turn research into something real and usable. For educators and parents alike, she’s a trusted guide, showing how evidence-informed practices can make a tangible difference for students.

Debunking the Myth of Learning Styles

Adrianne kicks things off by admitting, “Even I find myself accidentally referencing Learning Styles, even though I know it’s debunked.” And it’s true—this myth is deeply embedded in our collective understanding of education. That’s why Dr. Nidhi helps us take a step back and first asks a more fundamental question: What even is an educational myth?

➡️Educational myths, sometimes called neuromyths or edumyths, are widely held but inaccurate beliefs about how we learn. They often stick around because they feel true, are based on outdated research, or just get repeated so often we stop questioning them. Classic examples? The idea that people are “left-brained” or “right-brained,” that we only use 10% of our brains, or the much-shared but not accurate “learning pyramid” that claims we retain 90% of what we teach others and only 10% of what we read.

➡️Learning styles—perhaps the most famous of these myths—suggest that each person has a preferred way of learning (like visual, auditory, or kinesthetic), and that tailoring instruction to this style will improve learning outcomes. It sounds logical. After all, people have different preferences, right? One child might love diagrams, while another thrives in hands-on activities, but as Dr. Nidhi explains, preference doesn’t equal performance.

The most popular version of the learning styles myth is known as VARK—Visual, Auditory, Reading/Writing, and Kinesthetic. While it’s fine to have personal preferences, there is no scientific evidence that teaching in someone’s preferred style actually improves learning. And that’s the key distinction.

Beyond lacking evidence, this belief also creates real problems in the classroom. If teachers are expected to match each lesson to every student’s supposed “style,” it becomes nearly impossible to design effective, inclusive instruction—especially when class sizes are large and styles multiply into dozens of combinations.

So what’s the takeaway? Dr. Nidhi says it best: “There is no evidence that learning in your preferred style improves learning. Maybe people have preferences—but preferences are not prescriptions.”

Instead of chasing styles, educators should focus on using evidence-based strategies—like retrieval practice, spaced repetition, and clear modeling—that support how all brains learn. That’s good news for teachers and students alike.
 

Letting Go of the Learning Styles Myth (Without the Shame)

As the conversation between Adrianne and Nidhi continued, they dove into the emotional side of letting go of beliefs—especially those that once gave us comfort and confidence as educators and parents.

Adrianne opened up about a feeling many listeners can relate to: shame. “I’ve felt shame around this before,” she shared, referencing the moment when a long-held belief—like the validity of learning styles—is challenged by research. “You believe in something because it sounds right. It gives you that warm, fuzzy feeling. But when you discover there’s no research to support it, and you’ve been repeating it for years… it’s hard not to feel embarrassed.”

Dr. Nidhi responded with compassion and wisdom: “Let’s not have any shame in believing it. Almost all of us have, at some point.” She herself was taught about learning styles during her early teacher training. “It felt right,” she explained. “But learning, and unlearning, is a privilege. ”

Beliefs, Nidhi reminded us, are shaped by what we’re repeatedly told—and sometimes sold. “Just because you were taught something doesn’t mean you have to cling to it forever,” she said. “It’s okay to evolve.”

Why are we so attached to Learning Styles?

This is what makes myths like learning styles so tricky. “You can’t prove a negative,” Nidhi explained. “I can’t show you evidence that learning styles don’t exist—I can only show you that no credible evidence supports them.”

The danger, however, isn’t just in the belief itself—it’s in how it plays out in practice.

Trying to teach to a student’s “learning style” is exhausting, inefficient, and doesn’t lead to better outcomes. “It’s extremely time-consuming,” Nidhi said. “It places an unnecessary burden on teachers. And worse—it doesn’t actually help students learn.”

Instead, she advocates for focusing on research-backed strategies that benefit all learners—especially those who struggle. “Retrieval practice, for example, has been around for over 100 years,” she said. “We know it works. When students regularly recall information from memory, they learn more deeply. And the students who benefit most are the ones having the hardest time.”

So while it may feel comforting to categorize ourselves—or our students—as “visual” or “kinesthetic” learners, we’re often doing more harm than good. “It feels good to have an answer for why something is hard,” Nidhi acknowledged. “But sometimes it’s not about preference—it’s about access, instruction, and opportunity.”

Letting go of myths like learning styles opens the door to something far better: teaching practices rooted in real research that support all learners, without putting teachers in an impossible position.

Why Learning Styles Can Do More Harm Than Good

Dr. Nidhi Sachdeva brings the topic of learning styles into sharper focus, not just as a widespread misconception, but as a belief that can unintentionally cause real harm in education.

She explains how something that seems so harmless—identifying students as “visual” or “auditory” learners—can quickly become limiting. Once a child is given that label, it can shape their identity in ways that close doors instead of opening them. A student might begin to believe they’re only capable of learning in one specific way, avoiding anything that falls outside that perceived strength. Suddenly, they’re not just struggling with a subject—they’re convinced they’re simply not wired to do it. And that belief? It sticks.

The implications go deeper than just individual confidence. These labels can set expectations—both for students and the adults supporting them. Some students may have the privilege of a parent who pushes back, challenging the label and encouraging exploration in all kinds of learning environments. But others, particularly those from underserved backgrounds, may not have the same opportunities. Without someone advocating for a broader view of their potential, the label can become a ceiling.

It doesn’t stop there. Teachers, too, can feel the weight of these expectations. When learning styles are treated as best practice, educators may feel pressure to tailor lessons to a long list of supposed learning preferences. The result? Exhaustion, self-doubt, and the false belief that they’re falling short—when, in fact, they’re doing their best in a system built on shaky ground.

Nidhi offered a gentler, more effective alternative: shifting our focus to what does work. Instead of trying to teach to preferences that have no scientific backing, she encourages educators to use evidence-informed practices—like retrieval practice and spaced repetition—that have been shown to support all learners, especially those who struggle.

By moving away from labels and toward research-backed instruction, we can create learning environments that don’t just feel good—they actually help students grow. And that, ultimately, is what matters most.

What To Do Instead: The Power of Dual Coding

After unraveling the myth of learning styles and its unintended harm, Adrianne posed the question that was likely on many listeners’ minds: “Okay, if learning styles aren’t real, then what do we do instead?”

Dr. Nidhi Sachdeva responded with both clarity and compassion. She acknowledged how deeply ingrained the idea of learning styles has become—especially for those of us who went through teacher training in the ’90s or early 2000s. Rather than leave listeners in a fog of “what now?”, she guided them toward research-backed approaches that actually support how the brain learns.

One such approach is dual coding theory, a concept that’s been around since the early 1970s, developed by Canadian psychologist Dr. Allan Paivio. Nidhi explained it simply: our brains have two cognitive systems for processing information—one for verbal content (like words and language) and another for visual content (like images and non-verbal cues). These systems—called logogens and imagens, respectively—work independently but also interact in powerful ways.

When someone hears the word “apple,” for example, both systems activate. You might picture a red, shiny apple and also see the word spelled out in your mind. That’s dual coding at work. It’s not about learning through only visuals or only text—it’s about the brain thriving when the two are presented together in a meaningful way.

This has direct and important implications for teaching. Instruction that combines text and images—what researchers refer to as the multimedia principle—helps all students learn more effectively. It’s not about catering to individual “styles,” but rather leveraging a universal truth about how human cognition works.

Best of all, this approach doesn’t require teachers to design separate lessons for each student. Instead, they can craft instruction that supports everyone—especially those who might otherwise struggle—by aligning with the brain’s natural capacity to process visual and verbal information together.

Dual Coding in Action: How CRA Brings It to Life

At this point in the conversation, Adrianne couldn’t help but connect the dots to her own work at Made for Math. She shared how dual coding theory isn’t just a powerful concept—it’s something their team puts into practice every day through the CRA Framework. CRA stands for Concrete–Representational–Abstract, a structure that helps students move from hands-on understanding to symbolic thinking in a way that sticks.

“When we pair the concrete with the abstract,” Adrianne explained, “that’s where the magic happens. But when students only get one or the other, it just doesn’t click the same way.” In essence, CRA isn’t just good instruction—it’s dual coding theory brought to life.

Dr. Sachdeva smiled in recognition. “Yes, I actually know a bit about CRA,” she responded, recalling a moment from her own home. Her daughter, a first grader, had been exploring fractions using physical fraction towers—stacks of manipulatives that allowed her to literally see and feel what one-fourth or one-half looked like.

“She could look at them, compare them, reason through them,” Nidhi explained. “It was concrete, and it made sense. And only once she really grasped those ideas did she move to drawing pictures of the fractions and later, working with just the numbers themselves.” That gradual shift from real objects to images to abstract symbols is CRA in motion—and exactly what dual coding theory supports.

In this sequence, students start with the concrete (like fraction tiles or base ten blocks), move into representational (drawings, diagrams), and finally into the abstract (equations and algorithms). “It’s such a clear example of how our brains benefit from using both channels—visual and verbal—together,” Nidhi added. “CRA is dual coding theory, practically applied.”

That’s the beauty of this approach. It’s not about matching instruction to a mythical “style.” It’s about building understanding step-by-step, using what we know about how people really learn.

Dive deeper into the CRA Method here.

Microlearning: From Buzzword to Evidence-Informed Instructional Approach

When Nidhi first encountered the term microlearning, she was in the early stages of her doctoral research. The phrase kept popping up in her readings—especially in the context of mobile and corporate learning—and it immediately piqued her curiosity. Everyone seemed to be claiming that microlearning would revolutionize education, but that kind of hyperbole made her pause. Nidhi wasn’t looking for hype. She wanted to know: Is there real science behind this?

The term itself wasn’t new—it had been coined back in 2002 by Dr. Theo Hug, a professor in Austria. Nidhi reached out to him directly and learned how microlearning began as a practical alternative to long, lecture-style training. Instead of three-hour sessions, Hug’s team broke content down into bite-sized, focused lessons. But what struck Nidhi wasn’t just the origin story—it was the lack of scholarly research supporting the buzz. That gap became her mission.

Even so, pitching microlearning as a doctoral research topic was no small feat. In academic circles, the term didn’t carry much weight. “It sounded shallow,” Nidhi recalled. “People thought I was just repackaging clickbait content.” But she pressed on, determined not to prove microlearning was amazing—but simply to find out what it really was, and whether it could be harnessed meaningfully in formal education.

At the heart of her exploration was a deeper question: could microlearning align with what cognitive science already tells us about how people learn?

To test this, Nidhi began creating short instructional videos—each based on a proven learning theory, including dual coding, cognitive load theory, and retrieval practice. She called them midweek micro-lessons, short bursts of content delivered in the middle of the week to reinforce what students were already learning. Rather than overwhelming learners with large chunks of material, these videos offered manageable, focused insights designed to reduce cognitive overload.

The results were encouraging. Students engaged more frequently with the course, retained more information, and reported greater confidence in applying what they’d learned—even months later. The lessons weren’t just short—they were smart, designed around the brain’s natural architecture for processing and remembering information.

That’s when it clicked. Microlearning, Nidhi realized, wasn’t some magical new technique. It was simply good instructional design—the kind that honors what we know from decades of research. It borrows principles from explicit instruction, like breaking down complex ideas into manageable chunks, reviewing prior knowledge, and building in low-stakes opportunities to practice.

“It’s not about hitting the five-minute mark,” Nidhi explained. “It’s about managing mental complexity. It’s about asking: did I keep cognitive load low? Did I build on prior knowledge? Did I give students a way to apply what they learned?”

In math education especially, microlearning has enormous potential. Short, focused lessons can feel less threatening to struggling learners. They’re easier to consume, revisit, and build upon. Whether you’re teaching number sense or algebraic reasoning, microlearning can reinforce concepts in a way that feels achievable—and even enjoyable.

“Just don’t get distracted by the word micro,” Nidhi added with a smile. “Focus on the learning.”

Focus on the Learning, Not the Labels

At the heart of Nidhi’s journey—through debunking learning styles and exploring microlearning—was one driving question: What does the science say about how people learn?

The answer in both cases is clear: good instruction matters. Learning styles may feel intuitive, but there’s no evidence they improve outcomes. Microlearning, when grounded in research, isn’t magic either—it’s just smart, science-aligned design.

Connect with Dr. Nidhi Sachdeva

✅Follow The Science of Learning Newsletter for regular updates on the latest breakthroughs in the learning sciences.

✅Check out Nidhi’s Microlearning Series on YouTube - How Learning Happens.

✅See Nidhi’s video on Dual Coding Theory.

✅Follow Dr. Nidhi on LinkedIn

✅Connect with Dr. Sachdeva on X

Bottom Line

The best instruction reduces mental complexity, builds on what students already know, combines visuals and words thoughtfully, and offers chances to practice.

That’s not a style or magic.

That’s just how learning happens.

MFM Authors