By: Evan Ogg Straub
Last Updated: March 5, 2024
Categories: Online Teaching, Educational Research
hands reaching out to type on a tablet keyboard
Introduction
In the realm of education, the concept of “learning styles” is pervasive. You’ve likely encountered phrases like “I’m a visual learner,” “hands-on learning is best for me,” or even criticisms like “the teacher doesn’t cater to my learning style.” The idea that individuals can be neatly categorized into distinct learning methods is intuitively appealing. However, despite its popularity, the theory of learning styles is fundamentally flawed, lacks robust empirical support, and may actually be more detrimental than beneficial to effective education. This article delves into the research to debunk the Learning Styles Myth and explore what evidence-based approaches truly enhance learning.
Understanding Learning Styles
To effectively address the misconceptions surrounding learning styles, it’s crucial to first define what they purport to be. At its core, the learning styles theory suggests that individuals possess specific and consistent approaches to absorbing, organizing, processing, and recalling information. Proponents argue that tailoring instruction to these perceived styles leads to improved learning outcomes.
One of the most widely recognized frameworks centers on the modality of information. This suggests that a “visual learner” learns optimally through visual aids, while an “auditory learner” benefits most from spoken explanations. According to this theory, matching instructional methods to a student’s identified learning style is paramount for academic success. For instance, visual learners are believed to process and retain information more effectively when presented visually compared to auditory methods, and vice versa.
It’s important to distinguish “learning styles” from related concepts like “cognitive styles,” “learning strategies,” and “learner preferences,” which are sometimes used interchangeably. For the purpose of this discussion, “learning styles” specifically refers to the theory that individuals have inherently different and optimal ways of learning. In contrast, “learner preferences” simply indicate preferred ways of receiving information, which may not necessarily correlate with actual learning effectiveness.
The appeal of learning styles is understandable. Educators are constantly seeking ways to personalize learning experiences for diverse student populations. An easily applicable theory promising to unlock every student’s learning potential is highly attractive. Educators are driven by a desire to acknowledge each student’s individuality and provide tailored support. This well-intentioned desire has, unfortunately, led to the embrace of learning styles despite the lack of solid evidence. However, the reality of learning is far more intricate than these simplistic categorizations suggest.
The Core Problem: Lack of Empirical Evidence
Most learning style theories rest on two fundamental assumptions:
- Individuals possess identifiable and consistent “learning styles.”
- Instruction aligned with these styles leads to superior educational results, while mismatched instruction hinders learning.
In essence, the theory posits that a visual learner will always learn best through visual means, irrespective of the subject matter or context. Similarly, a kinesthetic learner is expected to excel when physically engaged, regardless of the learning task. However, neither of these core assumptions is substantiated by credible research. It is precisely these propositions where the learning styles myth begins to unravel.
Are Learning Styles Measurable and Consistent?
The sheer number of learning style theories—over 50 different models proposed by various researchers—itself casts doubt on the validity of the concept. For decades, researchers have attempted to establish definitive links between individual characteristics and optimal learning methods. Some theories emphasize modality (like the popular VARK model: Visual, Auditory, Read/Write, Kinesthetic), while others incorporate factors as varied as time of day or room temperature as determinants of learning style. One particularly questionable study even suggested that using a cell phone constitutes a learning style (Pursell, 2009). The proliferation of such diverse and often contradictory theories makes the very idea of a measurable and consistent individual learning style dubious.
Furthermore, the majority of learning style assessments rely on self-reporting, where students subjectively evaluate how they believe they learn best. These self-assessments are rarely, if ever, objectively validated. Humans are notoriously unreliable judges of their own cognitive processes, including learning. Consequently, these surveys primarily measure “learner preference” rather than actual “learning style.” An individual might identify as an auditory learner, but without objective evidence demonstrating superior learning through auditory formats, it remains a preference, not a style dictating learning efficacy.
Moreover, many studies supporting learning styles often utilize “student satisfaction” or student reflections as metrics of success. For example, assessments might ask students how they feel they learn best. However, satisfaction and subjective recollections are weak and often inaccurate indicators of actual learning (Kirschner & van Merriënboer, 2013, Kirschner, 2017). While understanding learner preferences and student satisfaction is valuable for pedagogical considerations, it doesn’t justify the necessity of tailoring instruction to purported learning styles.
Finally, the stability and reliability of “styles” are questionable. Research suggests that these preferences are not fixed traits. They can be topic-specific and fluctuate over time (Coffield et al., 2004). An individual might favor kinesthetic learning in history one week, but gravitate towards visual learning in calculus (but not geometry), or prefer hands-on learning for bike riding over reading about it. This variability challenges the notion of learning style as a stable “trait” (a consistent, enduring personal characteristic) versus a transient “state” (a temporary and changeable condition). If learning style is merely a state of mind, its practical utility for educators diminishes significantly. How can a teacher accurately ascertain the ever-shifting preferences of each student, across subjects, on any given day?
The Critical Question: Does Matching Instruction to Learning Styles Improve Learning?
Even more critically, the second fundamental assumption—that aligning instruction with an individual’s learning style enhances learning outcomes—is unsupported by evidence. Simply put, there is no credible research demonstrating that teaching to a person’s identified learning style leads to improved learning (Alley, et. al., 2023; Cuevas, 2015; Kirschner & van Merriënboer, 2013; Krätzig & Arbuthnott, 2006; Pashler et al., 2008; Rogowsky et al., 2020). No study has conclusively shown that matching instruction to purported learning styles results in better retention, improved learning outcomes, or enhanced student success. Instead, evidence indicates that teaching to self-identified learning styles has no discernible impact on learning in either children or adults (Krätzig & Arbuthnott, 2006; Paschler et al., 2008; Rogowsky et al., 2015, Rogowsky et al., 2020). Intriguingly, some research even suggests that students perform better on tasks when taught using modalities different from their self-identified “learning style” (Krätzig & Arbuthnott, 2006, Rogowsky et al., 2020). Furthermore, many studies investigating learning styles employ methodologies that expose all learners to multiple styles, making it impossible to isolate the effect of a specific learning style-instruction match. Therefore, the overwhelming conclusion is that while the concept of learning styles may be intuitively appealing, it remains, at present, a myth.
Alternative Explanations for Perceived Success
Anecdotally, many educators recount stories of success attributed to leveraging “learning styles.” If learning styles are not empirically valid, how can these perceived successes be explained? Alternative, evidence-based explanations account for improved learning through varied instructional methods without resorting to the unsupported concept of learning styles. Multi-modal learning theory provides a robust framework for understanding how diverse teaching approaches enhance learning.
Effective learning hinges on sustained attention. Consequently, if educators can capture and maintain students’ attention, learning outcomes are likely to improve. Presenting content through diverse methods—hands-on activities, varied modalities—engages students in multiple ways, requiring them to process and integrate knowledge from different perspectives. Employing multiple methods and modalities simply makes learning more engaging and interesting, thereby capturing student attention, which, in turn, fosters better learning. Mayer and colleagues (2001, 2003) have extensively researched how students learn with visuals and audio, particularly the synergistic interaction between the two. Their research suggests that providing dual streams of information through multiple methods compels learners to exert greater cognitive effort in understanding the material, leading to enhanced learning. It’s plausible that the perceived benefits attributed to catering to learning styles are actually a result of the increased engagement and interest generated by multi-modal teaching, rather than the mythical matching of instruction to a specific style (Krätzig & Arbuthnott, 2006).
The Potential Dangers of Learning Styles
While the initial intentions behind learning styles are often positive—aiming to personalize instruction—the implications can be more detrimental than helpful. While reflecting on one’s learning preferences can be a valuable metacognitive exercise, an excessive focus on fixed learning styles can foster a passive view of learning, suggesting learners are merely recipients dictated by teaching methods. Effective education, however, aims to cultivate active learners who take ownership of their learning process. Optimal learning occurs when individuals actively connect and integrate new information with their existing knowledge and experiences. Overemphasizing learning styles risks reinforcing a simplistic, deterministic view of learning. Learning is inherently complex, effortful, and time-consuming. It is not primarily determined by how information is delivered, but rather by how learners actively process and internalize that knowledge. It is crucial to emphasize that learning is fundamentally within the learner’s control.
Critical Thinking About Learning Styles
If learning styles lack empirical support, why does the myth persist so strongly? Why are articles and books still published promoting learning styles and advocating for tailored instruction? Research in teaching and learning is a complex field. Developing critical evaluation skills for theories and concepts like learning styles is essential for anyone involved in education. It’s crucial to maintain a healthy skepticism when encountering claims supporting learning styles and to ask pertinent questions to discern the quality of the information.
Key Questions to Consider When Encountering Learning Styles
The next time you encounter discussions about learning styles, consider these critical questions:
- What specific framework of learning styles is being referenced? Some models are less empirically sound than others. The widely popular VARK model (Visual-Auditory-Read/Write-Kinesthetic) is among the least validated. Inquire about the specific learning style model being discussed.
- How are learning styles and learning success being measured? Are assessments based on self-reports? Are outcome measures focused on academic performance or subjective satisfaction with learning? Scrutinize the methodologies used to assess both learning styles and learning outcomes.
- Is the research design rigorously controlled? Many studies fail to isolate the effect of matching instruction to a specific learning style. Often, interventions employ multiple styles for all learners, making it impossible to determine the impact of style-matched instruction. Evaluate the rigor of the research design.
- Recognize the controversial nature of learning styles. While not inherently harmful if they prompt reflection on teaching and learning approaches, learning styles become problematic when students internalize the belief that their learning is predetermined and beyond their control. Be aware of the potential negative implications of perpetuating the learning styles myth.
References
Alley, S., Plotnikoff, R. C., Duncan, M. J., Short, C. E., Mummery, K., To, Q. G., Schoeppe, S., Rebar, A., & Vandelanotte, C. (2023). Does matching a personally tailored physical activity intervention to participants’ learning style improve intervention effectiveness and engagement? Journal of Health Psychology, 28(10), 889–899. https://doi.org/10.1177/13591053221137184
Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Should we be using learning styles? What research has to say to practice: Learning & Skills Research Center.
Cuevas, J. (2015). Is learning styles-based instruction effective? A comprehensive analysis of recent research on learning styles. Theory and Research in Education, 13(3), 308–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878515606621
Kirschner, P. A. (2017). Stop propagating the learning styles myth. Computers & Education, 106, 166–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.006
Kirschner, P. A., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2013). Do learners really know best? Urban legends in education. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 169–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.804395
Krätzig, G. P., & Arbuthnott, K. D. (2006). Perceptual learning style and learning proficiency: A test of the hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 238–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.238
Lau, W. & Yuen, A. (2009). Exploring the effects of gender and learning styles on computer programming performance: Implications for programming pedagogy. British Journal of Educational Technology. 40(4), 696-712
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 43-52.
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105-119.
Pursell, D. P. (2009) Adapting to student learning styles: Engaging students with cell phone technology in organic chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education. 86(10), p1219-1222.
Rogowsky, B. A., Calhoun, B. M., & Tallal, P. (2015). Matching learning style to instructional method: Effects on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(1), 64–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037478
Rogowsky, B. A., Calhoun, B. M., & Tallal, P. (2020). Providing Instruction Based on Students’ Learning Style Preferences Does Not Improve Learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00164
