By: Evan Ogg Straub
Last Updated: March 5, 2024
Categories:
Introduction
In the world of education, the concept of “learning styles” is pervasive. You’ve likely heard phrases like “I’m a visual learner” or “That teacher doesn’t cater to my learning style.” The idea that individuals can be neatly categorized into distinct learning methods is appealing. However, this notion is not supported by empirical evidence and may actually hinder effective teaching and learning. This article delves into why the concept of learning styles is largely a myth, exploring the research and offering alternative perspectives on how people learn.
Defining Learning Styles: What Are We Talking About?
To understand the problems with learning styles, we first need a clear definition. The learning styles theory suggests that individuals have specific and consistent ways of absorbing, organizing, processing, and remembering information. Proponents argue that tailoring teaching methods to these styles leads to improved learning outcomes.
One common learning style model focuses on modality, proposing categories such as “visual learners” who learn best by seeing, and “auditory learners” who excel when information is spoken or heard. This theory implies that visual learners, for example, would learn and retain information more effectively with visual aids compared to auditory learners. The core idea is that matching teaching modality to a student’s perceived learning style is crucial for their academic success.
It’s important to distinguish “learning styles” from related concepts like “cognitive styles,” “learning strategies,” and “learner preferences.” While these terms are sometimes used interchangeably, this article focuses specifically on “learning styles” as the theory that individuals learn best through specific, predetermined methods. “Learning preferences,” on the other hand, acknowledge that people may prefer to receive information in certain ways, but this preference may not necessarily dictate their learning effectiveness.
The appeal of learning styles is understandable. Educators are constantly seeking ways to personalize learning and address the diverse needs of students. An easily applicable theory that promises to enhance learning for everyone is naturally attractive. We want to acknowledge each student’s uniqueness and support their learning journey. This desire has led many to embrace learning styles as a solution. Unfortunately, the reality of learning is far more complex.
The Reality Check: Do Learning Styles Really Exist?
Most learning style theories are built upon two fundamental assumptions:
- Measurable and Consistent Styles: Individuals possess identifiable and consistent “styles” of learning.
- Style-Based Teaching Enhances Learning: Teaching methods that align with a student’s learning style will improve educational outcomes, while mismatched methods will hinder achievement.
Essentially, if you’re labeled a visual learner, the theory suggests you will always learn best through visual means, regardless of the subject or context. Similarly, a kinesthetic learner is expected to learn best through physical manipulation, irrespective of the topic. However, neither of these assumptions holds up under scrutiny. These two propositions are where the concept of learning styles falters significantly.
Are Learning Styles Measurable and Consistent? The Evidence Says No
Interestingly, there are over 50 different learning style theories proposed by various researchers. These theories vary widely, with some focusing on modality (like the popular VARK model: Visual, Auditory, Read/Write, Kinesthetic), while others consider factors like time of day or even room temperature as determinants of learning style. One study even suggested that using a cell phone constituted a learning style (Pursell, 2009). The sheer number and diversity of these theories make it challenging to define and measure a consistent individual learning style.
Furthermore, most learning style assessments rely on self-reported questionnaires where students describe how they believe they learn best. These self-reports are generally not empirically validated. Humans are often poor judges of their own learning processes. Consequently, these surveys often measure “learner preference” rather than actual “learning style.” You might think you are an auditory learner, but unless it’s objectively proven that you learn more effectively through audio formats, it remains a preference, not a style.
Many studies supporting learning styles also use subjective measures of success, such as “student satisfaction” or student reflections on their learning experience. For example, assessments might ask students how they feel they learn best. While student satisfaction and understanding learner preferences are valuable, they are subjective and don’t carry the same weight as demonstrating improved learning outcomes due to style-based teaching (Kirschner & van Merriënboer, 2013, Kirschner, 2017). Subjective feelings of satisfaction are not reliable indicators of actual learning gains.
Finally, research indicates that “styles,” even if they exist as preferences, are unstable and unreliable. Learning preferences can be topic-specific and change over time (Coffield et al., 2004). Someone might prefer kinesthetic learning for history one week, visual learning for calculus (but not geometry) another week, or prefer hands-on learning for bike riding over reading about it. This raises the question of whether a learning style is a stable “trait” or a temporary “state.” If learning styles are merely states of mind, they become impractical for educators. How can a teacher possibly know each student’s learning preference for every subject, every day?
The Critical Question: Does Teaching to Learning Styles Improve Learning Outcomes?
Even more crucial than the measurability issue is the second assumption: does tailoring instruction to an individual’s learning style actually lead to better learning? The overwhelming answer from research is no. There is no solid evidence that teaching to a person’s identified learning style results in improved learning outcomes (Alley, et. al., 2023; Cuevas, 2015; Kirschner & van Merriënboer, 2013; Krätzig & Arbuthnott, 2006; Pashler et al., 2008; Rogowsky et al., 2020). No study has definitively shown that matching teaching methods to supposed learning styles leads to better retention, enhanced learning, or greater student success. In fact, studies consistently show that teaching to self-identified learning styles has no significant impact on learning in children or adults (Krätzig & Arbuthnott, 2006; Paschler et al., 2008; Rogowsky et al., 2015, Rogowsky et al., 2020).
Interestingly, some research even suggests that students perform better on tasks when taught using a modality 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 teaching styles, making it impossible to isolate the effect of matching a specific style to a specific learner. The evidence leads to the conclusion that while the idea of learning styles is intuitively appealing, it remains a myth.
Alternative Explanations: Why Multi-Modal Teaching Works (Without Learning Styles)
Despite the lack of empirical support for learning styles, anecdotal evidence often suggests that incorporating diverse teaching methods enhances learning. If learning styles aren’t the reason, what explains these successes? The answer lies in alternative explanations, such as the principles of multi-modal learning.
Effective learning requires sustained attention. When educators use varied teaching methods, they are more likely to capture and maintain student attention, which naturally improves learning outcomes. Engaging with content through multiple forms – hands-on activities, diverse modalities, different sensory experiences – keeps students engaged and requires them to process and integrate knowledge in varied ways. Simply put, multi-modal instruction is more stimulating and interesting, leading to increased student attention and better learning.
Research by Mayer and colleagues (2001, 2003) on multimedia learning highlights the effectiveness of combining visuals and audio. They propose that presenting information through dual streams and multiple methods encourages learners to work harder at understanding the material, resulting in deeper learning. It’s likely that research seemingly supporting learning styles is actually demonstrating that teaching with diverse modalities is simply more engaging for students, rather than catering to specific, mythical learning styles (Krätzig & Arbuthnott, 2006).
The Potential Dangers of Embracing Learning Styles
While the initial intentions behind learning styles are positive – aiming to personalize learning – the implications can be more detrimental than helpful. On the surface, encouraging reflection on one’s learning process is valuable. However, focusing on fixed learning styles can inadvertently suggest that learners are passive recipients, dependent on the “right” teaching method to learn effectively. Ideally, educators want to foster active engagement in learning. True learning happens when individuals actively connect and integrate information with their own experiences and understanding.
Overemphasizing learning styles promotes a simplistic view of learning. It implies that individuals have a singular “best” way to learn. In reality, learning is complex, effortful, and time-consuming. It’s less about how information is delivered and more about how the learner actively processes and makes sense of that knowledge. It’s crucial to emphasize that learning is ultimately within the learner’s control and responsibility.
Critical Thinking About Learning Styles: Asking the Right Questions
If learning styles are not supported by evidence, why are they still so prevalent? Why are articles and books still published promoting them? Research on teaching and learning is complex, and critical evaluation of theories like learning styles is essential for anyone in education. It’s important to maintain a skeptical perspective when encountering claims supporting learning styles and to ask critical questions to ensure you are relying on sound information.
Key Questions to Consider When You Encounter Learning Styles:
- What Framework is Being Used? Identify the specific learning style framework being referenced. Some are less empirically sound than others. The popular VARK model, for instance, is among the least validated. Investigate the specific model being discussed.
- How Are Learning Style and Success Measured? Are measurements based on self-reports? Are they assessing academic outcomes or subjective satisfaction? Look for objective measures of learning gains, not just subjective feelings.
- Is the Study Well-Controlled? Many studies fail to isolate the impact of matching teaching to a specific style. Often, lessons incorporate multiple styles for all students, making it impossible to measure the effectiveness of style-specific teaching.
- Are Learning Styles Necessarily Harmful? While not empirically valid, learning styles can be a starting point for reflecting on teaching and learning. However, they become harmful when students internalize the myth and believe their learning is dictated by external factors rather than their own effort and engagement.
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
