# What the Evidence Says About Learning Styles

Despite massive global popularity, decades of rigorous cognitive science show that teaching students in their preferred "learning style"—such as visual, auditory, or kinesthetic—does not improve academic outcomes. While individuals absolutely have personal preferences for how they encounter information, tailoring instruction to match these preferences yields an effect size near zero. Educators and students are much better served by abandoning these restrictive labels and adopting evidence-based practices, such as active recall and multimodal instruction, which benefit all learners regardless of their supposed style.

## The Enduring Appeal of a Neuromyth

If you have ever taken a quiz that told you that you are a "visual learner," or heard a teacher say they are adding a hands-on activity specifically for the "kinesthetic learners" in the room, you have encountered the learning styles theory. The most famous framework, the VARK model (Visual, Auditory, Reading/writing, Kinesthetic), suggests that people possess fixed, dominant ways of learning and that educators should match their instruction to these categories [cite: 1, 2, 3]. 

The concept feels highly intuitive. We easily observe that some students gravitate toward diagrams while others prefer podcasts or building physical models. From these observable preferences, it feels like a logical leap to assume that teaching them in these preferred modalities will unlock their academic potential. 

As a result, the idea has become deeply entrenched in global education. A 2020 systematic review involving 15,405 educators across 18 countries found that 89% of teachers believed that matching instruction to learning styles improves student outcomes [cite: 4, 5]. This belief spans the globe: 93% of educators in the United Kingdom, 96% in the Netherlands and Greece, and 97% in Turkey and China endorse the concept [cite: 5, 6]. Furthermore, social media platforms continuously propagate the idea, with educational organizations actively promoting professional development events based on this unsubstantiated theory [cite: 7].

Why does the myth refuse to die? Researchers suggest it offers an "appealing simplicity" [cite: 8]. It caters to a deep-seated desire among parents and teachers to treat every child as a unique individual and to democratize the classroom [cite: 9, 10]. Furthermore, it provides a convenient, guilt-free explanation for academic struggles: if a student is failing, it is less painful to blame a "mismatched learning style" than to address systemic gaps in foundational knowledge, insufficient study habits, or ineffective teaching [cite: 10]. Bolstered by a commercial ecosystem of paid inventories, workshops, and textbooks, the learning styles concept has evolved from a harmless assumption into what cognitive scientists classify as a "neuromyth"—a misconception generated by a misunderstanding of scientifically established facts [cite: 6, 11].

## Tracing the Origins of the Myth

To understand how the myth gained such traction, it is helpful to look at its origins. The concept of identifying individual learner differences is not new; even Aristotle recognized that children possess specific talents and skills [cite: 12]. However, the modern iteration of learning styles began to take shape in the late 20th century, emerging alongside early advancements in cognitive psychology.

In the 1970s and 1980s, theorist David Kolb introduced his Experiential Learning Theory, which posited that learning is a cycle of concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation [cite: 3, 4]. Kolb categorized learners into four types based on how they navigated this cycle: convergers, divergers, assimilators, and accommodators [cite: 4]. Around the same time, researchers like Rita and Kenneth Dunn popularized their own learning style models, heavily advocating that teachers should arrange their instruction methods according to these styles [cite: 13, 14]. 

However, it was Neil Fleming’s introduction of the VARK model in 1992 that truly captured the public's imagination. Due to its simplicity, VARK quickly became the dominant framework in classrooms worldwide [cite: 3, 12]. Students were given self-report questionnaires asking what kind of learning experiences they enjoyed most (e.g., watching a video versus listening to a lecture), and were subsequently diagnosed with a definitive "style" [cite: 13, 15]. 

What began as a catalyst for reflection—a way to encourage students to think about how they study—was swiftly misinterpreted as a rigid neurological reality [cite: 16]. The jump from "students have preferences" to "students learn better when taught exclusively in their preference" was made without empirical backing, setting the stage for decades of misguided educational policy.

## Decoding the "Meshing Hypothesis"

To understand why cognitive scientists reject learning styles, we have to look at what researchers actually test. The core of the learning styles theory rests on what is known as the **meshing hypothesis** (or matching hypothesis). This hypothesis posits that learning is optimized when the instructional method *meshes* with a student's self-reported learning style [cite: 13, 14, 17].

In a seminal 2008 review published in *Psychological Science in the Public Interest*, psychologist Harold Pashler and colleagues established the strict criteria required to prove the meshing hypothesis. For the theory to be scientifically valid, a study must demonstrate a specific statistical phenomenon known as a "crossover interaction" [cite: 15, 18, 19].

Proving a crossover interaction requires a highly specific experimental design:
1. A group of learners must be assessed and divided by their preferred style (e.g., visual vs. auditory).
2. Learners within each group must be randomly assigned to different instructional methods (e.g., half the visual learners get visual instruction, half get auditory instruction; half the auditory learners get visual, half get auditory).
3. All learners must take the exact same objective achievement test.
4. The results must show that visual learners performed significantly better with visual instruction than with auditory instruction, **AND** auditory learners performed significantly better with auditory instruction than with visual instruction [cite: 14, 19, 20].

If visual instruction simply makes *everyone* score higher (perhaps because a diagram clarifies a complex geometric concept better than a verbal description), that is not evidence of learning styles. That is simply evidence that a visual aid was the objectively superior pedagogical tool for that specific subject matter [cite: 14, 19]. Only a full crossover interaction validates the meshing hypothesis.

## What the Latest Meta-Analyses Reveal

When researchers rigorously test the meshing hypothesis using the crossover interaction standard, the theory systematically collapses. 

In a landmark 2025 review published in the *Educational Psychology Review*, researchers John Hattie and Timothy O'Leary analyzed 17 meta-analyses involving over 100,000 students. Their conclusion was definitive: the effect size of matching teaching to students' preferred learning styles was *d* = 0.04, which is statistically negligible [cite: 8, 9, 21]. 

To put this in perspective, an effect size of 0.40 is generally considered the "hinge point" or average impact for standard educational interventions [cite: 20]. Strategies supported by cognitive science yield massive returns, while the learning styles matching hypothesis offers virtually nothing. Data indicates a stark contrast in efficacy: while matching learning styles yields an insignificant *d* = 0.04, providing students with actionable feedback yields an impressive *d* = 0.73, and direct, explicit instruction yields *d* = 0.59 [cite: 8, 9, 22]. 

A separate 2024 meta-analysis by Clinton-Lisell and Litzinger yielded similarly dismal conclusions for the matching hypothesis. Out of 42 learning outcome measures analyzed across 21 eligible studies, only 11 (26%) showed the crossover interaction required to support the theory [cite: 18, 23]. Furthermore, the researchers noted that the few studies that *did* show a crossover interaction generally failed to meet the rigorous quality standards of the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC), frequently suffering from a lack of reliability statistics and poor methodological design [cite: 18, 23]. Hattie and O'Leary echoed this sentiment, noting that learning styles research stands uniquely as the most methodologically flawed area in educational psychology, plagued by calculation errors, low validity, and commercial bias [cite: 8].

### The Conflation of "Preference" and "Strategy"

If the evidence is so poor, why do some correlational studies claim to find a link between learning styles and student success? Hattie and O'Leary (2025) point out a critical flaw in the broader literature: the conflation of *learning styles* with *learning strategies* [cite: 8, 9]. 

When researchers look at correlations (referred to as "r-studies" rather than experimental "d-studies"), they sometimes find moderate relationships (average *r* = 0.24) between a student's self-reported style and their academic achievement [cite: 3, 16, 20]. For example, a review of Turkish experimental theses by Kanadli (2016) found an overall correlation of *r* = 0.46 between learning style scores and academic achievement [cite: 3, 20]. 

However, these correlational studies do not test the matching hypothesis. Instead, they often accidentally measure a student's use of highly effective study strategies [cite: 3, 8]. For instance, a student who identifies as a "reading/writing" learner likely scores high on inventory tests because they regularly take detailed notes, summarize texts, and rewrite concepts. These are evidence-based, deep-processing learning strategies that would help *any* student succeed. The correlational studies mistake the effectiveness of the strategy (note-taking) for an inherent neurological trait (a reading/writing "style") [cite: 3]. 

### Subjective Feelings vs. Objective Reality

Another reason the myth persists is that studying in a preferred modality simply *feels* better to the learner. A study by Knoll et al. (2017) demonstrated that a student's learning style is strongly associated with their "Judgments of Learning" (JOLs)—a subjective measure of how well they *think* they have learned something [cite: 24]. 

In the study, participants with strong "visualizer" preferences reported higher JOLs when studying pictures, while "verbalizers" reported higher JOLs when studying words. However, when the researchers actually tested the participants' recall accuracy, there was absolutely no association between their preferred style and their objective performance [cite: 15, 24]. People consistently feel as though they are learning better in their preferred style, but this subjective comfort does not translate into cognitive acquisition [cite: 15].

### Summary of Learning Concepts

To clarify the debate, it is essential to distinguish between preferences, strategies, and the meshing hypothesis.

| Concept | Definition | Scientific Validity |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **Learning Preference** | An individual's self-reported favorite way to encounter information (e.g., preferring a video over a textbook). | **High.** People universally possess subjective preferences, which can boost initial engagement [cite: 2, 6]. |
| **Learning Strategy** | A specific, actionable method used to process information (e.g., drawing a timeline, self-quizzing, summarizing). | **High.** Deep-processing strategies directly impact memory retention and comprehension [cite: 3, 21, 22]. |
| **Learning Style (Meshing)** | The belief that tailoring instruction to match a student's preference improves objective academic outcomes. | **Near-Zero.** Overwhelmingly debunked by cognitive science and large-scale meta-analyses [cite: 8, 9]. |

## The Dangers of Pigeonholing: Why "Matching" Harms

Believing in learning styles is not just a harmless quirk; it actively damages the educational ecosystem. Cognitive scientist Stephen Chew offers a helpful analogy for parents and educators: children will naturally prefer candy and soft drinks over milk and fruit, but a responsible parent does not feed them a purely sugar-based diet just because it is preferred [cite: 25]. Giving students only what they prefer robs them of the opportunity to develop cognitive adaptability and resilience [cite: 25, 26]. 

The failure of the meshing hypothesis makes sense when viewed through the lens of modern neuroscience. The implicit assumption of the VARK model is that information delivered via one sensory modality (e.g., visual) is processed independently from other modalities in the brain [cite: 17]. However, brain imaging shows massive cross-modal processing and interconnectivity. Input modalities in the brain are always interlinked; it is impossible for a learner to rely strictly on a single sensory pathway to build complex conceptual understanding [cite: 13, 17]. 

Furthermore, memory is rarely tied to the sensory format in which it was learned. When you learn that Paris is the capital of France, your brain stores the semantic *meaning* of that fact, independent of whether you heard a teacher say it, read it in a book, or pointed to it on a map [cite: 26]. 

### Bias and Essentialism in the Classroom

Worse, labeling children creates fixed mindsets and unconscious biases. A 2023 sociological study by Sun et al. revealed that parents and teachers who endorsed the learning styles myth consistently judged children labeled as "visual learners" to be smarter and more capable in core academic subjects (math, language, and social sciences) than children labeled as "hands-on" or kinesthetic learners [cite: 8, 27]. Conversely, they predicted that kinesthetic learners would only excel in non-core subjects like gym, music, or art [cite: 27]. 

These value-laden categories shape expectations, potentially limiting the academic opportunities offered to students deemed "tactile" [cite: 8]. This stems from an "essentialist" view of learning styles—the false belief that a student is biologically hardwired to learn in only one way, severely restricting their perceived potential [cite: 23, 28]. 

### The Opportunity Cost for Educators

The persistence of the learning styles myth also exacts a massive toll on teacher workload. Educators spend countless hours administering unvalidated learning style inventories and subsequently attempting to design four different versions of a single lesson (one visual, one auditory, one reading, one kinesthetic) to accommodate their diverse classrooms [cite: 29]. 

This is a tremendous opportunity cost. Time spent trying to perfectly "mesh" instruction to 30 different students' preferences is time diverted away from evidence-based practices that actually work—such as providing high-quality, actionable feedback, designing formative assessments, or scaffolding difficult material [cite: 29, 30, 31]. 

Surprisingly, there is even evidence that matching instruction to a preferred style can penalize learning. A 2026 study examining digital biology lessons found that for complex subjects, students sometimes performed *better* when the instructional format intentionally mismatched their preferred learning style [cite: 28]. This suggests that a mismatch can act as a "desirable difficulty," forcing the brain out of cognitive autopilot and requiring deeper processing to understand the material [cite: 28, 32].

## Cultural Nuances: Preferences vs. Stereotypes

The debate over learning styles often intersects with cultural dynamics, particularly in international education. Global studies show that cultural factors—such as communication norms, student-teacher power dynamics, and societal values—significantly impact how students *behave* in a classroom [cite: 33, 34]. However, it is vital to separate cultural classroom behaviors from inherent cognitive learning styles.

For example, students from Asian nations with a Confucian Heritage Culture (CHC)—such as China, Vietnam, Korea, and Japan—are frequently stereotyped in Western literature as "passive," rote-memorization learners who rely heavily on reading and writing styles [cite: 35]. They are often characterized as unwilling to ask questions, challenge authority, or engage in active dialogue [cite: 35, 36]. 

However, sociological research reveals this is a misinterpretation of cultural values, not a neurological learning style. The perceived "passiveness" is often a reflection of deep-seated cultural respect for teachers, a collectivist focus on group harmony over individual disruption, and specific assessment structures, rather than an inability to learn dynamically [cite: 35, 36]. When pedagogical structures change—such as in well-designed collaborative projects—students from collectivist cultures often excel in peer-learning and active group problem-solving [cite: 36]. 

Similarly, research into differentiated instruction in Indonesia demonstrated that when teachers moved away from rigid monolingual lecturing and incorporated varied, multimodal activities (visual, auditory, and kinesthetic elements combined), students' scientific communication skills significantly improved [cite: 16]. The success of these interventions is frequently misattributed to "accommodating learning styles," when in reality, the success is due to transitioning from passive lectures to highly engaging, active learning strategies [cite: 16]. Distinct learning style patterns do not neatly map onto specific cultural, national, or racial groups, and educators must avoid using the learning styles myth to stereotype diverse populations [cite: 34, 37]. 

## Multimodal Learning: A Superior Paradigm

If learning styles do not work, how should educators address the undeniable diversity in their classrooms? The answer lies in **multimodal learning**. 

While learning styles theory categorizes the *student*, multimodal learning diversifies the *instruction*. Research clearly indicates that learners retain more information when words and pictures are presented simultaneously, rather than words alone [cite: 12]. This aligns with "Dual Coding" theory, which posits that your brain stores images and words through separate channels. Pairing a verbal explanation with a visual representation (like sketching a flowchart while explaining a sequence of events) gives the brain two independent, interconnected paths back to the same memory [cite: 32, 38].

To understand the difference for a general audience, consider the analogy of cooking a pasta bolognese [cite: 12]. If the ingredients symbolize the different ways we interact with content (visuals, discussions, physical models, texts), a learning styles approach would force you to serve a bowl of plain crushed tomatoes to one guest, a plate of dry pasta to another, and raw ground beef to a third, simply based on their "favorite ingredient." A multimodal approach combines all the ingredients into a rich, complex sauce, recognizing that the integration of multiple senses creates a vastly superior experience for everyone at the table [cite: 12, 39].

Instructional modalities should be chosen based on the *nature of the content*, not the preference of the learner. You cannot effectively teach the sound a cow makes without an audio clip, just as you cannot effectively teach someone the physical mechanics of swimming purely through a textbook, regardless of whether a student self-identifies as a "reading/writing" learner [cite: 26, 40].

## Evidence-Based Strategies That Actually Work

By abandoning the learning styles myth, educators and students can redirect their time and energy toward evidence-based teaching practices (EBTs) that have proven, massive effects on learning and retention [cite: 29, 41]. These methods capitalize on how the human brain actually encodes and retrieves information.

### Active Recall (The Testing Effect)
Most students rely on passive study methods like re-reading textbooks, highlighting text, or copying notes [cite: 32]. While these activities feel productive, they rely on simple *recognition* rather than recall, making them highly ineffective for long-term memory [cite: 42]. 

**Active recall** involves closing the book and forcing your brain to retrieve the information from memory. Whether through flashcards, practice problems, or blank-page recall, the mental effort required to search your memory physically strengthens the neural pathways associated with that information [cite: 32, 42]. The harder the brain works to retrieve the fact, the stronger the memory becomes.

### Spaced Repetition
Cramming for an exam might work for the next morning, but the information vanishes rapidly. Spaced repetition combats the brain's natural "forgetting curve" by reviewing material at gradually increasing intervals (e.g., one day, three days, one week, one month) [cite: 32, 42, 43]. By strategically spacing out review sessions, you force your memory to work harder just as it is beginning to forget the concept, making the memory highly durable [cite: 42, 43]. 

### Interleaving
Rather than studying one topic in a massive block for hours (massed practice), interleaving involves mixing different but related topics within a single study session [cite: 22, 32]. For example, instead of practicing 20 identical division problems, a student might mix division, multiplication, and subtraction problems. This forces the brain to continuously identify *which* strategy to apply, improving high-level problem-solving abilities and preventing cognitive autopilot [cite: 32, 38].

### Relational Reasoning and Analogies
Instead of trying to match a student's "style," educators should help students build conceptual frameworks using analogies. Analogical reasoning allows learners to map novel, complex concepts onto well-understood systems [cite: 44]. For example, teaching students that "epigenetics is like a Lego set" or that nuclear fission is like "striking pool balls" provides a cognitive framework to understand structural relationships [cite: 44, 45]. This builds higher-order thinking skills that transcend sensory modalities.

### Universal Design for Learning (UDL)
Rather than classifying students into fixed categories, Universal Design for Learning (UDL) advocates for designing flexible instructional environments from the outset. UDL provides students with multiple means of engagement, representation, and action [cite: 31, 46]. It gives learners autonomy to choose how they demonstrate their knowledge—whether through an essay, a presentation, or a project—without assuming their choice is dictated by an immutable biological learning style [cite: 46]. 

## Bottom line

The idea that we learn best when instruction is strictly tailored to a specific "learning style" is a well-meaning illusion. Decades of cognitive science confirm that while we all have personal preferences for how we consume information, matching instruction to those preferences yields an effect size near zero and can inadvertently create harmful, essentialist biases about a student's intelligence. Instead of asking what "type" of learner someone is, educators and students should focus on what the task demands—utilizing multimodal instruction, active recall, dual coding, and spaced repetition to build lasting, adaptable knowledge.

## Sources

1. [Teaching Strategies Aligned with Learning Styles](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/385896345_Teaching_Strategies_Aligned_with_Learning_Styles)
2. [PMC5366351](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5366351/)
3. [What are evidence-based teaching practices](https://www.everylearnereverywhere.org/blog/what-are-evidence-based-teaching-practices-ebt-and-how-do-they-support-equity-in-higher-ed/)
4. [Teaching and learning strategies: a classroom guide](https://www.structural-learning.com/post/teaching-and-learning-strategies-a-classroom-guide)
5. [REL SE Evidence-based teaching practices](https://ies.ed.gov/sites/default/files/migrated/rel/infographics/pdf/REL_SE_Evidence-based_teaching_practices.pdf)
6. [Study Techniques](https://athenify.io/study-techniques)
7. [How to use dual coding to study](https://schoolhabits.com/how-to-use-dual-coding-to-study-and-why-you-should/)
8. [Ultimate guide: active recall study techniques](https://notescast.app/blog/ultimate-guide-active-recall-study-techniques-learning)
9. [YouTube: Dual Coding](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izW6jnOqOYI)
10. [Best study techniques](https://xmind.com/blog/best-study-techniques)
11. [Frontiers in Psychology: Lyle et al. 2024](https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1428732/full)
12. [PMC11270031](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11270031/)
13. [Is it really a neuromyth? A meta-analysis](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382184703_Is_it_really_a_neuromyth_A_meta-analysis_of_the_learning_styles_matching_hypothesis)
14. [Matching Learning Style to Instructional Format Penalizes Learning](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371116643_Matching_Learning_Style_to_Instructional_Format_Penalizes_Learning)
15. [Learning style judgements of learning](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308093305_Learning_style_judgements_of_learning_and_learning_of_verbal_and_visual_information)
16. [Why is it time to move beyond learning styles](https://www.utwente.nl/en/learning-teaching/news-events/2025/6/351105/why-is-it-time-to-move-beyond-learning-styles)
17. [The learning styles illusion debunking](https://carlhendrick.substack.com/p/the-learning-styles-illusion-debunking)
18. [MDPI 2079-3200](https://www.mdpi.com/2079-3200/13/10/126)
19. [An analysis of three different measures of learning styles](https://www.emerald.com/jwl/article/37/7-8/538/1303017/An-analysis-of-three-different-measures-of)
20. [Theseus: Singh Satpal](https://www.theseus.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/903290/Singh_Satpal.pdf?sequence=2)
21. [Learning style and language learning strategies of students from various ethnics in Indonesia](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342663866_LEARNING_STYLE_AND_LANGUAGE_LEARNING_STRATEGIES_OF_STUDENTS_FROM_VARIOUS_ETHNICS_IN_INDONESIA)
22. [UN Stats: Goal 4](https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2025/goal-04/)
23. [World Bank: Tracing global trends in education](https://datatopics.worldbank.org/world-development-indicators/stories/tracing-global-trends-in-education.html)
24. [UNESCO IESALC Global higher education trends report](https://www.iesalc.unesco.org/en/articles/key-takeaways-unescos-first-global-higher-education-trends-report)
25. [Our World in Data](https://ourworldindata.org/)
26. [The learning styles illusion debunking](https://carlhendrick.substack.com/p/the-learning-styles-illusion-debunking)
27. [IndoJurnal: Education](http://indojurnal.com/index.php/edu/article/download/2551/2216)
28. [CLA Simposio](https://www.cla.cu/simposio/descargar.php?d=2681)
29. [Google Search: Time in Nigeria](https://www.google.com/search?q=time+in+Nigeria)
30. [Google Search: Time in India](https://www.google.com/search?q=time+in+India)
31. [Google Search: Time in Brazil](https://www.google.com/search?q=time+in+Brazil)
32. [Google Search: Time in China](https://www.google.com/search?q=time+in+China)
33. [Google Search: Time in South Africa](https://www.google.com/search?q=time+in+South+Africa)
34. [Teachers still believe in learning styles](https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/teachers-still-believe-in-learning-styles-and-other-myths-about-cognition/2019/09)
35. [The Prevalence of the Learning Styles Myth: A Social Media Analysis](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/399088863_The_Prevalence_of_the_Learning_Styles_Myth_A_Social_Media_Analysis)
36. [Learning styles the myth that fooled the educational world](https://thesciencesurvey.com/features/2026/01/09/learning-styles-the-myth-that-fooled-the-educational-world/)
37. [Why learning styles still won't die](https://theeconomyofmeaning.com/2025/06/20/why-learning-styles-still-wont-die-and-why-thats-a-problem/)
38. [Universal Design Australia](https://universaldesignaustralia.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/acoombs68575-ArticleText-200725-1-11-201912091.pdf)
39. [PMC3475349](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3475349/)
40. [OECD Education policy outlook 2025](https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/education-policy-outlook-2025_c3f402ba-en/full-report/overview_010f1d17.html)
41. [UNESCO action education highlights 2025](https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/unesco-action-education-highlights-2025)
42. [Trends Shaping Education 2025](https://mu.edu.ua/storage/MSU/documents/dok/Trends%20Shaping%20Education%202025.pdf)
43. [YouTube: Trends Shaping Education](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yG-xQGAnWuA)
44. [The Prevalence of the Learning Styles Myth](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/399088863_The_Prevalence_of_the_Learning_Styles_Myth_A_Social_Media_Analysis)
45. [PMC11270031](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11270031/)
46. [OECD TALIS 2024](https://www.oecd.org/en/blogs/2025/10/the-teaching-and-learning-international-survey-2024.html)
47. [TALIS 2024 Country Report](https://www.education.gov.za/Portals/0/Documents/Reports/2025/TALIS%202024%20Country%20Report.pdf?ver=2025-10-27-093543-250)
48. [OECD Teacher Knowledge Survey Chile](https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/results-from-the-teacher-knowledge-survey_7d1c1e60-en/chile_2888003e-en.html)
49. [Google Search: Time in Nigeria](https://www.google.com/search?q=time+in+Nigeria)
50. [Google Search: Time in Chile](https://www.google.com/search?q=time+in+Chile)
51. [Google Search: Time in South Africa](https://www.google.com/search?q=time+in+South+Africa)
52. [PMC6113575](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6113575/)
53. [The problem with learning styles debunking the meshing hypothesis](https://my.chartered.college/impact_article/the-problem-with-learning-styles-debunking-the-meshing-hypothesis-in-english-language-teaching/)
54. [Acceptable and non-acceptable evidence for the meshing hypothesis](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Acceptable-and-non-acceptable-evidence-for-the-meshing-hypothesis-A-Acceptable_fig1_369942709)
55. [Using analogies teaching](https://www.edutopia.org/article/using-analogies-teaching/)
56. [Analogical reasoning in education](https://www.uciscienceoflearning.org/uploads/1/1/7/8/117864006/richland_simms_2015__2_.pdf)
57. [PMC11270031](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11270031/)
58. [IndoJurnal: Education 2](http://indojurnal.com/index.php/edu/article/download/2551/2216)
59. [Learning styles multimodal learning](https://www.teachthought.com/learning-posts/learning-styles-multimodal-learning/)
60. [Multimodal learning vs learning styles](https://classwork.com/multimodal-learning-vs-learning-styles/)
61. [Frontiers in Education: 10.3389/feduc.2020.00040](https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/education/articles/10.3389/feduc.2020.00040/full)
62. [Brightwheel: Learning styles](https://mybrightwheel.com/blog/learning-styles)
63. [Multimodal learning vs learning styles what science says](https://truelearn.com/resource-library/multimodal-learning-vs-learning-styles-what-science-says/)
64. [Google Search: Time in Cañete, PE](https://www.google.com/search?q=time+in+Ca%C3%B1ete,+PE)
65. [Why learning styles still won't die 2](https://theeconomyofmeaning.com/2025/06/20/why-learning-styles-still-wont-die-and-why-thats-a-problem/)
66. [The lingering learning styles myth](https://evidencebased.education/resource/the-lingering-learning-styles-myth/)
67. [Are learning styles a myth](https://ineducationonline.org/2025/07/24/are-learning-styles-a-myth/)
68. [The myth of learning styles](https://onlineteaching.umich.edu/articles/the-myth-of-learning-styles/)
69. [PMC4678182](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4678182/)
70. [PMC10582039](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10582039/)
71. [The Influence of Cultural Factors on Learning Styles](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/386515056_The_Influence_of_Cultural_Factors_on_Learning_Styles)
72. [The Influence of Culture on Learning Styles](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273043298_The_Influence_of_Culture_on_Learning_Styles)
73. [The culture learning style connection](https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/the-culture-learning-style-connection)
74. [How Common Is Belief in the Learning Styles Neuromyth?](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347621232_How_Common_Is_Belief_in_the_Learning_Styles_Neuromyth_and_Does_It_Matter_A_Pragmatic_Systematic_Review)
75. [Neuromyth or neurofact: Children have different learning styles](https://educationalneuroscience.org.uk/wordpress/resources/neuromyth-or-neurofact/children-have-different-learning-styles/)
76. [Strathclyde Blog: Am I a visual learner](https://www.strath.ac.uk/humanities/education/blog/amiavisuallearner/)
77. [OAPub: EJES](https://oapub.org/edu/index.php/ejes/article/download/4688/7323)
78. [EIMJ: Learning Styles](https://eduimed.usm.my/EIMJ20160803/EIMJ20160803_10.pdf)
79. [L is for Learning Styles](https://scottthornbury.wordpress.com/2010/03/21/l-is-for-learning-styles/)
80. [Learning styles vs evidence based practices](https://lucidea.com/blog/learning-styles-vs-evidence-based-practices/)
81. [14 evidence based teaching ideas](https://worlding.org/14-evidence-based-teaching-ideas/)
82. [Teaching and learning strategies: a classroom guide 2](https://www.structural-learning.com/post/teaching-and-learning-strategies-a-classroom-guide)
83. [Learning styles research comparison](https://www.teachertoolkit.co.uk/2025/05/20/learning-styles-research-comparison/)
84. [Six examples of evidence-based teaching practices](https://www.everylearnereverywhere.org/blog/six-examples-of-evidence-based-teaching-practices-and-a-resource-library-with-many-more/)
85. [Why learning styles still won't die 3](https://theeconomyofmeaning.com/2025/06/20/why-learning-styles-still-wont-die-and-why-thats-a-problem/)
86. [The culture learning style connection 2](https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/the-culture-learning-style-connection)
87. [The Myth of Learning Styles](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382060534_The_Myth_of_Learning_Styles_Origins_Misinterpretations_and_Repercussions)
88. [The Influence of Cultural Factors on Learning Styles 2](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/386515056_The_Influence_of_Cultural_Factors_on_Learning_Styles)
89. [Web of Journals](https://webofjournals.com/index.php/1/citationstylelanguage/get/chicago-author-date?submissionId=1605&publicationId=1605&issueId=95)
90. [Is it really a neuromyth? A meta-analysis 2](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382184703_Is_it_really_a_neuromyth_A_meta-analysis_of_the_learning_styles_matching_hypothesis)
91. [Teacher Toolkit: s10648-025-10002-w](https://www.teachertoolkit.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/s10648-025-10002-w.pdf)
92. [PMC12400576](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12400576/)
93. [MDPI 2071-1050](https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/18/6/2862)
94. [Google Search: Time in Turkey](https://www.google.com/search?q=time+in+Turkey)
95. [ERIC EJ1393875](https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1393875.pdf)
96. [Neuromyth or neurofact 2](https://educationalneuroscience.org.uk/wordpress/resources/neuromyth-or-neurofact/children-have-different-learning-styles/)
97. [Reddit: TIL Learning Styles Myth](https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/12dvxx4/til_that_the_widely_accepted_learning_styles/)
98. [L is for Learning Styles 2](https://scottthornbury.wordpress.com/2010/03/21/l-is-for-learning-styles/)
99. [Kinaesthetic learning](https://www.structural-learning.com/post/kinaesthetic-learning)
100. [EJES: Article 2](https://pinnaclepubs.com/index.php/EJES/article/view/2)
101. [Why learning styles still won't die 4](https://theeconomyofmeaning.com/2025/06/20/why-learning-styles-still-wont-die-and-why-thats-a-problem/)
102. [Is the learning approach of students from the Confucian heritage culture problematic](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257560822_Is_the_learning_approach_of_students_from_the_Confucian_heritage_culture_problematic)
103. [The Influence of Cultural Factors on Learning Styles 3](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/386515056_The_Influence_of_Cultural_Factors_on_Learning_Styles)
104. [Cultural Considerations in Asian educational settings](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391484197_Cultural_Considerations_Examine_how_cultural_factors_within_Asian_educational_settings_might_influence_learning_styles_and_their_impact_on_academic_performance)
105. [D-NB 1365116131/34](https://d-nb.info/1365116131/34)
106. [Learning Styles Preferences or Strategies](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/390403474_Learning_Styles_Preferences_or_Strategies_An_Explanation_for_the_Resurgence_of_Styles_Across_Many_Meta-analyses)
107. [IJRISS: Technology and learning styles](https://rsisinternational.org/journals/ijriss/articles/the-use-of-technology-in-instruction-students-learning-styles-and-their-academic-performance-in-english/)

**Sources:**
1. [researchgate.net](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQGeCBdzkmi5jFdv1jCiShlS-ynmlATYdHDlvYavZeo3crMsZ-tyT-I6smEHUBCPnFn6f9wOlG2-BlTtRxCOhM0ngaJPNzHIKUnJKqoUuD6tFZSPHgdtfjwEkehxWebhzjThtsmYbvvLPue_Dh81qc23-GISkPsu1_DvE8STGv7DbS98IXJ0U8t4bMEkLHhunq3nQme4DqxeAPA=)
2. [ineducationonline.org](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQHK1KuWnAqqTSME_G-nwcmhPsydzjxqbcU4Sn8vSo4gqQ7jbrtnkH_9z6owAdSzjPwCo5jqlkbrmIcmXSZBkPji-xb6Qjwdm_MlyxHcPIH3cXiy8VJQ5sSOh3fF3CYcbtbaabsDeNgdeO4k80MUMFKB9RDTvtduoz_WmA==)
3. [researchgate.net](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQHwqp84G5Hzy8kNSQQw3z8TxY_Oh1MW0U-DuGh796GhNZxA-VhMfXaUpY14fF08cGdPj_gcfjt02IabRmZ7TyPVuwLB3cOn1pEjSTpH50mgoEg4RVN-f_ikF46UdQVOcQM1iZ8tm5t5yOxkATaTp8dT3eULMfsv3241Jyyl5MkjaRCaWr8pfWOVLhnLtm6rL3iyVGhbH6cE8h1e9OHZ_lXVXWR3MClYyYbbisahpB9qddEETDUalNYP5iYecOMDYD3XC9ATkW6qMdMKeeOUFhYrkZEeIoZ4KrW0)
4. [emerald.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQFFcXyZVmkpY9GnOlt_BKxd72B29T7KTomntbBXGMlpNyWmQW6LHNd7dwAw4hl8HMVPMSdZOiVDcJw8Quoqe5ySY8ORjY--RBNkFvAGLKlXB-0ZyQYE4hZ5u9Gs8bdpJEOae9EtGrS6MUcaVIPB-2qE24FLx60-_gLnj8oDc0akn3nMfLCfyWBQyYh-h5jARbnxIkPHLc7V)
5. [researchgate.net](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQEe6EVi4CtCsPueXT0euhUcGBRRpyeZOmR77CsDzoqtKsVQqznbdmLLf2TAHlFZQ0d_f6Oo5o6LsBizHj-Ob1gIdTzYbtLvpuslBKZm5nc-TPNQCTs8k1rT47ZnXsNV8ReP81fmFS17EiVaPF-WQjzY6aqHN1q4y6wvsbh_tKe-9dAHtpfcjMVULj3riLJ9yU_pGe2vYc2QQ_Qg75kM36_xFOf98OG2ViBw-hn4820sa4NmLu9F5QvrC6z9bauhbjvIg3pWrTgUHsn2p6g_0Ny0)
6. [evidencebased.education](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQHwviXbZY2gAwbA-G_hYk3a8VV_FqcaaH99-7FcWzMkZhm8yuXdSC5CHyqOF-zyfG8FuTK-REfhUczI6HZtV-IyTyYtWUOzwwUXlMOl0yJzi6LhAZkOLELz4xnWoyARKloHARaUgiu19NXwwvxEIlfqGiAzYGIospwZq7AMIkQvg9XC)
7. [researchgate.net](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQGeDSd9REfR4Nv5ZcIveO9t6B01q4TttKtdo6rvbjsCyQLFIJMvRaROjAO6PtNUheUFH-gdT9xdWjJ9JQQ4vjrRIPThF4TkNxUruL63rW8a-tu9LuAPbIbVQlt7Dup8ixp9hNl2Wq1vlA7ETX-koN3qrk6k5W9jcZW3QTHlRKqeQK_f3g2jgG9AbH0FbBVK8kB6-S_m6jzRtJfFcCVt_1IGA3mKX4-pzcK5Zis=)
8. [substack.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQHK5HFYCPNvcYxXIUXQIDpbwfQKgKlmy3Z4SLJBet4SS_CW0N1iFymsJMxFalbpPi43bD9u6zkmVgLcAeSKQuG4nM1laHTx7cBtwT8Gx7GxSAbi2Tl91LCLPKynbGwDS72wlElb1dh_y4P0B6yyghFImjlE2q62AU2fbG3HYMwPaQ==)
9. [theeconomyofmeaning.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQHPbjYY2Z-BoiH630y8RqprBiZxOt6ZQtNttI3WdnWdemDj3CI-ckDKnn1Lp_QaQK_jzeSNffluOHL7HZjzMI1onapSxKzWOA2zeUlogBS8fiq4epAcAqbggfY9Vfo4H2XOeKjyBM9G13xnmZOGcjQsu14n6HtffLESaEW3nrBmE15yTykZVYag6jvhKXz-hJBitnzG_Bhh6x8TwJY=)
10. [wordpress.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQGFVfIYYzlt7Qf9uVvKvoIN1gBfuDbYDaANt4pVevEC-IEAj5kAJcJu5OTbR87aE7UxoWYZVNy6TjvZ7ZzyHRCMbDdz8vzzoY67v_mM514EzPOA7BFx82-U90eYJ6JGKr792jjAn6VQYY4_-hq6PKMq5TAf5swbhQWmmQ88PGD6)
11. [nih.gov](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQGt6rhgs4txm3wZxF4PkTARMmzNOE1ck6Ke6Ds0KpThlut_4Xv4IiNQvF0wkwq5qt3NvkcsW07G_B5TDgBa2Eaz41eCDVKPD5IBQ12bxv6RM25qYgDVxrW4z5gKS7QQpU6K__EpZpq7)
12. [teachthought.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQEA6dLRsmIHAMndRH6KVKn6BiBXM4_l1U8Rn0cPLOLsLv5JUqUsdU4qwHgCxyQQySp9WAw_-zzxAYpwynMwxliYH0MocTDb9Y8NT6mdZLpwn_YqHfEh2KoK--vB6f5H5c1KhuGtpFJHy8l4uWC0Qi4hac3_X8cv0w4VfLP4epPIepZXZN93BA==)
13. [chartered.college](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQEKwIHbvakP_WWlAqJe099EewpaucuEgP9XqZJi_kvVguQeNZyi80KAV-IN8Ua82f3ylFivMg5S9JyLBVfBNIxScABW4DTuuyLsQrVfBG2mE8PHQdp3gxrzUG4jg_4snNpsrvl-V9Gdnz1HlTE0A4MPT9c8B-qE_IZTddk09K1XzzKESUG_v12WZ8_mzYpDRZ4lDw8e0ez03c_5Va-LHaJ5AWA4SjVrfa6i496ZxkWeSOjjSmHBU3z1E-3rmqzcLuBFpw==)
14. [oapub.org](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQHFELcRMIAWjhby_wtAKVM104hyiB3_talyhbgZ0MAV_SCjIx6F1GSOoSHjVBQhCk-dPkTWNG9VwejY5xA-aOYDYI33lzELonbpSdh41RGRjbfBK0dUkLjDQqJ0xhrf-R467IpZ5dKfX5xjLjJjt9ssiSL17qQ=)
15. [strath.ac.uk](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQGrKsKTFh4ySstmLANCOU8EH3iSDEzsAipA9uxz10vlMMqvRxfjRBIyi1gwbhzGcIaIk0KoeVy2AJ8uwfc4OatW9X2fzer4ksrD7P1RkjM_C_s8FCkkkCNZmhoEHjdvXurnmhA9DKQekOvDMAEs5r5NOFEWz5hWLWch7uM=)
16. [indojurnal.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQEhEsPy26JXGwwDBo-MtXLZzmRofv3xz0NiZadJ0B8exapiLk_3KqY-Q3WPDg7jDdQ_4KJ_by-tcTutY8HkRk001YwixlhKGENriOu3HNTGsrNUy5q8FbMlnql5Zv3Ig3PUs2pITE-Zxj_39wOXRkyo2vkLHg==)
17. [nih.gov](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQEGcu3E5RJZHlaM8NOHp1Bk2jl-T4j3ABvgvelaqD1OGMchyNcfv8G8XXMjFIrgrRNhXtZJzkdKqgTKzl_xDHRZfw2FeWYE-HkIGRJ5HMpbYvRuq8CdG8CfIqIxFba5NwiAUHe6rK-W)
18. [frontiersin.org](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQEF9jE2s7wvlvsVl7ywyPTrbPx7shqXnddBi-OB06CaOb5MK4ZT4ANo0snsN826UupwKNaWhqRe2VueJbHExq4eC2lHYXefNuDjzl4WPL_B7TYTeKP8qhJdW80gvRUwueM5FGN9iDuBvYSxfk_b89eQ0x6QSJdTDWmce0ERR0_GyORf5j29KazApGxzg3UZ)
19. [researchgate.net](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQGHCzqzwUkFZ34nio-u3W01kMPiabE6Y-p34IXxc0adDMBFU3LGeBBUf79EIlMh4G-CYIE6zXX2gImwEXPIPNooxJbmbki3Z5NgTKcGV9NOG1OBlK8y9AI6hnQTTZi6yPLoGeU48IfO6Dob0CPWwKabu8yTl26J9nfOW6D6AuvuZ6Fa8SSr5AWUsTFeYt1bVWk9oVqYkZhbArOlz7vsXwHZijeG4DUl1WOlCZMP3TzJ34mw9Vl60Sae)
20. [teachertoolkit.co.uk](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQGZ39NMiyMoe_Ydu_t_8FlX9u9bB98ebUh96p6Av37PsHcb4Ne75NvD43qLDUQ1vMYYvU5lSWX65yxl8_E1dGftnAwBb3pWSesBD-HF2FQgaHarcOyvuSRVuapDJMDpR5iq33iOc3T1WilQ8nuH4f_F5A6B5805R2K5iMEi_T53Gs7WOiQnwnNB)
21. [utwente.nl](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQGyGRIU11f5SFiaLCq_yJNcAg9hvC0rPKvGHTvotR9ohlIT0UQazyb-T6AKm8MoxRf1oIHoMe2KcebYWSy1nbcA0jWyd7xdvuuf-UK6Rb2ZwWjV7P_-pPuQdGFRHQgkctTWIqH5P2KMGQ_XMMhtrGpKLnxbOI1euw3T1F3nyoMeBmyAp6XgRbmoZ7pia0OMAywoMP8YOiP65LstqNY7QvpK7Z6jy1IFAYnx)
22. [structural-learning.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQHVrv9VdiIPjjyr4MMiO8qmcmyvyB1zzPkOaRyBo2i892Ok4NwTgNS3P1v8W8zUKkdX0ROtt-OqqYfVp1IzeL4ky4L90ZaKz48MfWuSu2qYKdAvlMEPpdm_9m4rd21NxVMR-SKvIMKVdErS2yD6YQ9PWk2ukWEf6BsjVuejFnG0kJr5rfay4jos9Cm4f0n059iB)
23. [Link](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQFz8RHSaTWTjaxasqasLTwj1OUoOKgUK0xIan9wLKR75HvbIApQ_sgSP61Ehfer5RnuVeszCuYolWfXrHKzS4h6n9K5aeTX9sGKUNxdgBKC4Fj6N1lGdlRIYB67MU_yaex0Mq4HOhBgZw==)
24. [researchgate.net](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQHExlRTTv78h3tvZ5aadolX8PSNJR8Upf1NNz9NQOTuALJNJ8u1rSdzn6WLWe-d1DOorc_zCCiMGgPp3Gjb14BUB_XB1TXbYfrwb9cLJ3QBMmDbi7LKp1dHVU-xloCOSLoxGVXzjsdB5QNB7I6yc-1CfodCMUWyL7Tkyki6GwBGribHLyz3CronaTr-xPJNUY7-vB7kan7J0DZrhYhBOoMvSh7SFBidsK9Tmgr-cRAbr9oowpoVqvNxlZ7IAXU=)
25. [ed.gov](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQGKmbAuJnv-iYDN5-5fIANMQrcy1XZR_UEVBHzpMHKcU-TRJTcF5UytpjU2PS-W9_JUdyTi4yDYouivehg-QcoXSf9942Dpf_qD7ZQBr3Z-ZK042HGHVxf_V8g7CU_IX5C_GOWxpRA=)
26. [educationalneuroscience.org.uk](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQEnkST6fxCthkLFm_2C_sroJkd2dauvQ5pRnUX7v1hP4l1rCB1oXgDsNQE7Pov6ZHr-818yh9rEfLHbw5E3J1etXtyLLC2Ms_lfHTKo8DJgmeRzm-IONtZHJIzm0q6VRY3OBfFoFkbmT1oFb2wJADh_u8FRaMMb76IPjpauAcSIYeJ12CCBAkRIkUCFwqaAzG3pRwNkPaBqWUXvELeJgC-GPeKycFKqvN8jy6IGYngW9A==)
27. [nih.gov](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQHwe04aVBWrHXP0Vi93iBRty0m3Vr3KFE85Wf1mYYxBj79qSeKVtIbv7RpYttujXIHBWdzMib_sHDEwmEnPbD5-GtjY3nAfGuu0EHlRATG5zo56CvwqHJBqq-kSUrkECtnIvazYMLwxLg==)
28. [researchgate.net](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQH3a444yYsLKHNEGE-U15hw8p5CJBNTquWNZIMOxDjhmoCetXthWUDtkw04vYTwF0-1IRMx_9v_UlmF-CwSWlUz8HhGq-lbOyO6FQLZVvVuK-OCdOFUuJGZmQ7ICMbxsNhpzPQUj87qTNjjIyxN-OcndCX0GYrurvW-IK8JtFKTlTu5MbqTguSqLgWBTVC1O8R-07uYLqlPJVXpuj-llr0JqHVWCwfqPaArM30=)
29. [universaldesignaustralia.net.au](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQE5pUUmkj4nbAjd0Z-EUNE_qi7LifSnPb3BnIbzleCL6Gsc-OXHS7SUZBSrwDbeF3Ao1XQIDIulKWS6iAP5yuW7_OZv3e28AT-zCAZ1Cds2lT1gHvCn1vJ209I8xJcOWixG7mLmvvwNwTYQsfhxEpT6e4xWIg6YmdCBMwYLQwQPdnKOHYtNt6KanB8g0F_qZPIKKljos_ss_yoTKDVzSwdZHYHGeoNh2-WCtkY=)
30. [nih.gov](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQGKqnw-fEeJ8M_MF9ikWXW-ieE8PEo29q2tVzSWLiS5WkaoHROM1BbT0hipnfW8lovVDW9noXGjAqWFcEbYYd-donr7Flzku6AhB2prvf5ehU6PlSJmo8nFSZ6IuLgIhqNMsCUFBUlA)
31. [worlding.org](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQFL66Z4Wi484qyLNNVea6udXZmAY9urwwaYZzpcM-0jVQ7BEazqn7enEUgN5ywZYVKoy_YZWrv3RQlmGNlE9Cjm_SAttUHWybjH0wf2L6VTo-43NBrAPTZ7oWQIUqaYBD2n-YQYYYC8pPNsQvI=)
32. [athenify.io](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQHk2awaUItJ44wK4WVUGuXW1kRGytgHy9JLhuJZfbPTwW_AHvzhhJBehMxFn4AEIvv-QjKHfVkK8GYqEhP-DnPiZlhDEa1TkjCPMOq8vh-5wWHL98XhuDgzNbE=)
33. [researchgate.net](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQH-2TvaktgUSPI26o_Kdp5ykq0b0-Gz3qFFWImvNCmbHkR6JFBHXIOig5kLdZXd8vICNJSJy22JML9Oo3jVzmiq-aAknEuNR0Kybie0T-lVhAmW8rNwudPVfLcCPn9ETOHV1WTUuWjkerxdnwpkuKUXFhg0rJbAK4Rsb8PsNML38NonicxRQxXQQiQU0lD8DNFFBNGFF_0l5Is-edSv)
34. [researchgate.net](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQGTNKGQI42LCveNwCr7UuIZryemPvjSgRpjfBwsR0Zy_MtSdb48yfwGrYBE9MA0c3b0-ljV2AnOWR-_hyTu13eve3E8uEAks6rSFryvDF3imh-8PrcdHdHs0xp9Eif8SbBy6G4Yca77dbccfNAmwJxQqoFfg94kdkxnz044HVu-Pr7pV05c4PBc6URGlGv3lwXM7b1Z)
35. [researchgate.net](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQHJGR-ELvfvUCGzJ86om7hxLT7vxAKt9mzieIlEdBvwSbyCCLl5k2uls-IpEqGpTsX5fIXPYUn-jJ3jgN4LDvVjd4yZOYJcm3hCvgwKyzYgIoUuDk0_G9nOBz_ZrQq6pUAO08icXQkMTR70GWZl-03wl6EB_LyQYqG1YJpRVJqnZHetwlCGVviTOCf6xQ82F_r6usB8fQWQVtusd2I1_I2d1d-N1p7SG4R3lJjwPn-E81RqZfDmYr4lXxXnku09)
36. [researchgate.net](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQFy5vX8ONlvlZ7vml6V7zcNvvtCZWxker043YDrFzsBLQf2OIk-7uB7cnNegPXVJxzQCDIhXke9EMaE2U0JqomP939AJtloz6ThBKV9EqZzG9nYT_OOP3pj8SWGIziwDAu82MrTYLz27qxqN3-Y7tbtQsqmdUu-o2p8NJCq8h5PPmfduNFhcY56SaeL4PM1L4UXdk1_0B70ZG0yBa0Vp4iTYJzZqz11euNPU8csf8N7uZdXVjzB2DLfgtmJO5R-9lFbnS2OSJXIIazXOAcNvhB1AmQE5ogyIhjy_G2s6c0XP2Ne8Eka1mAeJG_RRKOeDOvEdRRKoiDgyjxtaPXM-Og6pIcsbP1uHg20)
37. [ascd.org](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQHmmdv_pwXcW63bMm8g-RhxmDIr0Vkxsfg7dgN6eA74t5erzzyo1B7E3jX0az1cQy4Gs21qKFtAXNs4asZ5sA_DXwJ6OBEiFaBQQo9dqYlpNC6RHWa378UJxzqWALXTWU4MT5RMDFkYyLB-thnukMuAcGP3cz7kbODoqQOZ)
38. [schoolhabits.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQEuKj_-nJRNYO5jPquOY-hmQKzgIH9rwDizuhnD8-sGtUmAcuLHm0b-ixKC5hBCJLUJg1IHoXh_nRIebF1UDrPSTlbOUboa0gtjlEZL2mhKlEtNlyDXOXx0tYIGuRj19_0mXeGvrwg7dJeNWLg1FKhQ4DEBCPKjebjj303urrrW-0wu)
39. [mybrightwheel.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQF2q0FTWQOArGluz2rNGR8FVTvP77kaUV2hJYc1HQJJqiSLQ4PZdouzRzSNehCH2lCkFFiqMSEbmh6mzlYTu7cuheFUGJFZb_eBriW8BOvdaFz4qVhGO_ePEyP0197C78THXTbF)
40. [thesciencesurvey.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQEqAixpcxI5ReAuJ2Kw4Zo2HZeGTwUHIpnp-daqE3hxECAMp4hu4JK8m42KH4rVJyGa0RAboaF2aIY2cS_mGPfw8wfk_r85WCDdKbfJKjUvg5FH2Hhn5Mz2S1ssZUXhyQ65JvsjTtbRwLQdItYUHmHf3ST3J_CA3n_qan6VBnWrvyCFTws2rib2NsPkBnQZiEcZikjvYF_ph_hSybf1ZkJAbbo=)
41. [everylearnereverywhere.org](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQHb9v8mRKWB1YbvjF7zSXirQWUlXnuE0G1rcyj-kfeXZ1lCruswBATJ2L4tuu9IYrNViG97goJqVYnb5usQcIcmddu8p_k306JfN0HP8gtt0RyKM4FI1_ucSmjvvxqXbWLRFZMThFfSQ48nL5jp-K_eLq8zMwaqjpBT-cIlP0ArCro4dnTIKiXb64GVOBsBmQINHxtVp0jZCu8wfDtZjLAuuci3mMi6tRtkImbozc_ELwh6IkOGHM1J1KzrqeLs)
42. [notescast.app](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQGfqX1W9-eIEk_iZN13jh5AdAnewVvB93hR10czHkFEnkPN5rnN_3cv50qUY1neGWP1-Q3ZwxgKUq41aajSc2BtX9pJ8n_U4wXKzngD7jXrUJ43M9y01jAqJA-Kwx1E6y_Jjb0QS5j-8MHBvpN2bvApBgdBNFpeOxoNpsitIxhzxXIAd6a8l_s=)
43. [xmind.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQGPjBu3x4hPSRab_A5Ok7D_Ij2hei9imQMh672d3EIMxhQ1dCgFcf_vjKL0gGvbG5g243O25AZCBFRNMMjK0JG13wz2XHvR1yUiTyAH4kinIhjZdPy_dFVy-szwN_QczKkN3w==)
44. [uciscienceoflearning.org](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQF0KXeFPlbsU21MTrXUtrbc-YPFUJ6-oJDEDWH-pjeFQY_ekcusLkFo27MCl9eOi3DROJO9sEKx2ZEVoyYySnlVKMQxDfL3T3cx1IjwJf9fQrwvxP4PTXKnXaeA7K9dCYfTcw7JgR-L304xCxDPtMkpZFx6ptWInYV-4dlG7SOY-55WWjhet7x0cRc8wEpmmlk=)
45. [edutopia.org](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQG9qYpVFA8LJuP47I39V8MkAHXCJ1zV2iFm4bYmONLBpxDEawFp7__N8_LAKjiUhDApLswVaIfLm4mmmklx1tXC-WHAwKbNqrWMLBR50EGGInAAjOn9ZF_BrHyjs_NE3HmeZeuqEJYurQhyIyz2WMOg)
46. [lucidea.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQHJept5HrPNpfN2oUkwBvphoi11XPINWEhP0uV2I_W_2ujRwuG-5Mh9r54mDk-4poWQB1myz6y-CZbCkQM-z9xaYTn8xxMnkSaHyiNP1lcL1oOP1tVUuzksyL-TYxE_380byD2S9RVQfsr3OX6ayh9YjI7hXwAN40pRzNA=)