Hi, this is Ray.

I want to open with an honest reframe that will be important for this newsletter. I've written before in this series about the debunked myth of fixed learning styles… the idea that some people are "visual learners" or "kinesthetic learners" and should be taught in their preferred mode. The research is clear that matching instruction to preferred style doesn't actually produce better learning outcomes. This is one of those cases where a popular framing has been genuinely misleading.

So when someone asks me about visual versus hands-on learning, I want to be careful. The question isn't which type of learner you are… that's the wrong question according to the research. But there is a genuinely useful question hiding underneath the popular framing. Different types of content and skills genuinely require different modes of engagement. Some things you learn better by seeing. Some things you learn better by doing. Some things require both. Understanding which mode fits which content is a real and useful skill, even though "matching to your learner type" isn't.

I want to tell you about a specific experience that illustrates this. Years ago I tried to learn a physical skill purely through video watching. Hours of tutorial videos. Detailed observation. Careful analysis of technique. When I finally tried to actually do the thing, I discovered that essentially none of my knowledge translated into ability. I could describe what I was supposed to do in precise detail. I could not do it. The gap between watching and doing was enormous, and no amount of additional watching closed it. I had to actually practice the physical skill to develop capability.

Conversely, I've tried to learn certain conceptual material purely through hands-on experimentation, and hit the opposite failure. I could execute specific procedures I'd figured out through trial and error, but I didn't understand the underlying principles that would let me adapt to new situations. Someone who had studied the concepts visually or through reading could handle novel variations that stumped me. The pure hands-on approach had built specific capability without the conceptual foundation to extend it.

Today's newsletter is about that. What the research actually shows about when visual observation-based learning works best versus when hands-on practical learning works best, why this is about matching mode to content rather than to learner type, and how to actually choose the right mode for whatever you're trying to learn. This is the honest version of what people mean when they talk about "visual versus practical learners." Let's get into it.

Most marketers learn digital marketing by doing it — trial, error, and hoping it sticks. But when your pipeline depends on it, there's no room for guesswork.

HubSpot Academy's Digital Marketing Certification covers everything that moves the needle: SEO that actually gets you found, email strategies that convert, social media and paid ads that reach the right audience, and AI tools that make your team faster without adding headcount.

3 hours and 24 minutes. 10 lessons. 30 videos. Free.

Join 200,000+ certified professionals who have built sharper strategies — and the skills to prove ROI to leadership — with HubSpot Academy.

Get certified today. No cost. No credit card.

Get Certified Free

Let me start with what the science actually shows, because the honest framing is different from the popular one.

According to a 2024 comprehensive review of the research, Kinesthetic learning, also known as tactile or hands-on learning, is an educational approach that emphasizes active participation and physical engagement with materials. Findings show significant correlations between critical thinking skills and math performance, with visual and kinesthetic learning styles positively influencing outcomes. Read this carefully. Both modes (visual and kinesthetic) positively influence learning outcomes. The research isn't saying one is better. It's saying both approaches produce learning gains when appropriately applied.

But here's the more important nuance. According to research from University of Michigan on learning styles, research has suggested that these preferences may be unstable – they may be topic-specific, but they also change over time. That means that although an individual may be a kinesthetic learner in history this week, that person is a visual learner in math when talking about calculus (but not about geometry), or prefers to learn how to ride a bike kinesthetically instead of reading about it in a book. This is the honest picture. The same person needs different modes for different content. Learning to ride a bike is fundamentally kinesthetic. Learning calculus is largely visual and conceptual. Learning history is often best through reading. The content itself dictates the mode, not the learner's supposed fixed preference.

This means the useful framework isn't "am I a visual learner or a kinesthetic learner." The useful framework is "does this specific content require visual observation, hands-on practice, or both?" That question has answers that actually help you learn better. The learner-type question doesn't.

Let me get specific about what visual observation-based learning is good for.

Visual learning excels for content where the learning goal is to understand structure, relationships, or patterns that can be represented spatially. Concepts that have inherent visual structure (like anatomy, geometry, physical systems, network diagrams) benefit enormously from visual representation because the visual is the natural way the content exists in your mind.

Visual learning also excels for observing before attempting. When you're going to do something physical, watching someone else do it competently first gives you a model of what you're trying to produce. Not because watching substitutes for doing, but because it establishes the target. According to research on this, strengths that may be displayed by kinesthetic learners include good hand-eye coordination, quick reaction time, excellent muscle memory, high energy levels, and eagerness for learning through experimentation, but even for these learners, some visual observation typically precedes the doing.

Visual learning is particularly good for:

Understanding complex systems. Diagrams, flowcharts, and visual representations often make relationships between components clearer than verbal description alone.

Learning from expert demonstration. Watching how skilled practitioners do things reveals subtleties that pure descriptions miss.

Grasping spatial relationships. Maps, architectural plans, molecular structures… content that lives in space needs visual engagement to fully understand.

Recognizing patterns. Visual pattern recognition is deeply wired into human cognition. Making patterns visible often makes them memorable.

Comparative analysis. Side-by-side visual comparison reveals differences and similarities that sequential description doesn't.

Initial exposure to abstract concepts. Visual metaphors and diagrams often provide the first foothold for understanding concepts you'd struggle with in pure text.

Hands-on learning excels for content where the learning goal is to develop capability that requires physical or procedural execution. This is dramatically different from understanding.

Consider the difference between knowing how a skill works and being able to do it. In Metroid Prime, you can watch Samus perform every maneuver dozens of times, but until you actually take the controller and do it yourself, you don't develop the coordination and timing that gameplay requires. The watching contributes something (it establishes what you're trying to produce), but the doing is what builds the actual capability.

According to research on kinesthetic learning, this learning style is particularly beneficial for those who might struggle with more passive forms of education, as it caters to their need for active participation. But more fundamentally, hands-on learning is essential for anything that requires physical execution. You can't learn to type by reading about typing. You can't learn to swim by watching videos. You can't learn to play music by studying scores without ever touching an instrument. The doing IS the learning for these skills.

Hands-on learning is particularly good for:

Physical skills. Anything requiring coordination, timing, or motor control develops through practice, not observation.

Procedural knowledge. Multi-step procedures that must be executed in specific order develop through actually running through them.

Debugging your own understanding. When you try to do something and it doesn't work, you discover exactly where your understanding is wrong. This diagnostic information isn't available from pure observation.

Building tacit knowledge. Some knowledge can't be transmitted through language… it lives in your body and reflexes. Only doing develops it.

Applied technical skills. Coding, engineering, medical procedures, cooking… fields where technical knowledge must translate into actual execution require the actual execution to develop.

Confidence in real conditions. Doing something under real conditions produces different confidence than knowing about it in the abstract. This confidence often determines whether you can actually execute when it matters.

Here's the practical reality that pure visual or pure hands-on approaches miss. Most substantial learning requires both modes, often in specific sequences. In Attack on Titan, the recruits don't just watch senior officers demonstrate ODM gear techniques… they observe carefully, then actually practice using the equipment themselves, then get feedback on their execution, then observe more advanced techniques, then practice those. The alternation between observation and practice is what produces the capability. Pure observation without practice produces knowledge without ability. Pure practice without observation produces slow trial-and-error learning that eventually stumbles onto some technique without the informed understanding of why it works.

For most complex learning, the pattern that works is roughly:

Initial visual/conceptual exposure. Understand what you're trying to learn. See how it's done. Grasp the framework.

Guided hands-on practice. Try it yourself with support… instruction, feedback, adjustments. This is where the actual capability starts to develop.

Independent practice. Continue doing the thing, refining through repetition and feedback.

Return to observation with more sophisticated understanding. Once you have some capability, watching skilled practitioners reveals subtleties you couldn't have seen before.

More advanced practice. Extend and refine what you can do based on what you now notice.

This alternation is what produces expertise. Learners who get stuck on one mode (either endlessly watching without doing, or endlessly practicing without informed guidance) typically underperform learners who move between modes strategically.

Okay, the practical part. When facing new learning material, how do you decide whether to prioritize visual engagement or hands-on practice?

Ask what capability you're trying to develop. If the goal is to understand something, visual learning often works well. If the goal is to do something, hands-on practice is essential. Many learning goals involve both, so both modes will matter.

Consider whether the content is inherently spatial or physical. Anatomy is inherently spatial… visual learning fits. Playing a musical instrument is inherently physical… hands-on practice is essential. Match the mode to the content's nature.

Match to the assessment. If you'll be tested through written explanation, visual/conceptual learning fits. If you'll be tested through actual performance, hands-on practice is what prepares you. Prepare for the specific form your knowledge will need to take.

Notice your specific gaps. If you can describe something but not do it, you need more hands-on practice. If you can do something but don't understand why it works, you need more conceptual study. The gap between what you can describe and what you can do tells you which mode you're missing.

Alternate deliberately. Rather than choosing one mode exclusively, plan alternations. Watch, then try. Try, then watch again. Study, then apply. Apply, then study. The alternation is often more productive than choosing one.

Don't skip either mode when both are needed. The specific failure mode of pure visual learning is knowing about things without being able to do them. The specific failure mode of pure hands-on learning is doing things without understanding them well enough to adapt. Both failures produce specific limitations.

Some honest caveats.

Individual preferences are real but shouldn't determine your approach. Some people genuinely prefer visual content. Some prefer hands-on engagement. These preferences are real, but they shouldn't override the demands of the content. If you prefer visual learning but you're learning to play the piano, pure visual learning won't work. The content requires hands-on practice.

Neither mode is universally superior. The research consistently shows both approaches produce learning gains. The question isn't which is better… it's which fits the current situation.

Multiple modes typically outperform any single mode. For most complex learning, using multiple modes (reading, watching, doing, discussing, teaching) produces better outcomes than any single mode used exclusively. Don't lock into one approach when several would work better together.

Preferences don't determine capability. The research is clear that being "visually oriented" doesn't mean you can only learn visually. You have the capacity for all modes. Preferences may make some modes feel more natural, but you can develop skill in less-natural modes through deliberate practice.

Different subjects at different stages might need different modes. Early stages of learning a new domain often benefit from visual/conceptual exposure. Later stages often shift toward more hands-on application. Match the mode to the stage as well as to the content.

Here's what I want you to take from all this. The popular framing of "visual versus hands-on learners" is misleading in the sense the research consistently rejects… these aren't fixed traits that should determine how you're taught. But the underlying insight it points at is real. Different content and skills genuinely require different modes of engagement. Learners who match their mode to the demands of the specific content they're learning outperform learners who lock into one mode regardless of what the content requires.

If you've been trying to learn something and struggling, please consider that the mode might be wrong for the content. If you're trying to learn a physical or procedural skill purely through reading and watching, and finding your knowledge doesn't translate to ability, you probably need more hands-on practice. If you're trying to learn conceptual material purely through hands-on experimentation and finding you can't adapt to new situations, you probably need more visual and conceptual study.

The specific practical move I'd suggest: for whatever you're currently learning, honestly assess whether the mode you're using matches what the content requires. Then adjust. Add hands-on practice for skills you've been only studying visually. Add visual/conceptual study for skills you've been only practicing without understanding. Notice how the shift affects your progress.

In Persona 5, the Phantom Thieves don't just plan heists visually through their conversation… they actually infiltrate palaces, practice their skills, adjust based on what happens, and return to planning with better understanding. Neither pure planning nor pure action would work. The combination of both, in the right sequence, produces the specific capability they need. Your learning works the same way. Match the mode to the content. Alternate between modes when both are needed. The best learners aren't visual or hands-on… they're flexible.

Keep learning (and keep matching mode to content),

Ray