Learning Styles: Myth or Method?

That shiny new coffee maker you bought is just begging for you to brew that first cup of joe. Small problem: you don’t know how to use it yet. How do you learn to operate it?

Say the owner’s manual has both text instructions and visual diagrams. Which do you gravitate toward? Do you learn by doing or by verbal instructions? Does the owner’s manual fit your learning style?

For the past several decades the notion that different people have different learning styles, and that training and other learning environments should be tailored to each person’s style for effective instruction, has been pervasive in the academic world. But recent studies suggest that, though individuals may have different preferences, people do not learn more effectively if instruction matches their preferences. Learning styles may be a myth.

The most commonly-known learning styles are visual, verbal, and kinesthetic (learning by doing). However, these categories are broad, and not clearly defined. Over 70 different types of learning styles have been proposed, but psychological studies have not found that people learn differently in the ways that proponents claim, according to the Association for Psychology Science.

Another problem is that studies that claim proof of different learning styles have not followed proper research design. In a study published in Psychological Science in the Public Interest, researchers Harold Pashler, Doug Rohrer and others found that numerous studies on learning styles did not use randomized research designs to back up their findings. Only a handful of studies used an appropriate technique.

There presently is no empirical justification for tailoring instruction to students’ supposedly-different learning styles,” Pashler and Rohrer wrote in an article about their study. “It does indeed make sense to speak of students who, in comparison with their peers, have poor visual-spatial ability and strong verbal ability, but this does not imply that such students will learn [for example,] anatomy better if their textbook has few diagrams.”

Anatomy was the subject of another study on learning styles published in Anatomical Sciences Education in March 2018. In “Another Nail in the Coffin for Learning Styles?”, researchers sought to determine if students’ VARK (visual, aural, read/write, and kinesthetic) learning styles correlated with course outcomes regardless of study strategies. Most students did not report study strategies that matched their VARK assessment and their performance in anatomy did not match their scores in VARK categories. “This research provides further evidence that the conventional wisdom about learning styles should be rejected by educators and students alike,” the study claims.

Other academics agree. 30 academics from the worlds of neuroscience, education and psychology signed a letter addressed to The Guardian in 2017 presenting their concerns about the popularity of the learning-style approach to education. They point to the lack of evidence and the cost of time and money to educational resources. “Such neuromyths create a false impression of individuals’ abilities, leading to expectations and excuses that are detrimental to learning in general, which is a cost in the long term,” the letter states. Cost was also on the minds of Pashler and Rohrer, who feel the “widespread use of learning-style measures in educational settings is unwise and a wasteful use of limited resources.”

So what would be a more effective way of teaching than tailoring instruction to different learning styles? Cognitive science has come up with a number of methods to enhance learning, according to a Scientific American article from May 2018. The techniques have universal benefit, have been around for decades and have empirical support. Spacing out study sessions over time, experiencing the material in multiple forms, testing oneself on the material as part of studying, and elaborating on the material to make meaningful connections rather than engaging in simple repetition are all methods for more successful learning.

Now what about that coffee maker? The question should be, how does one give instruction on coffee makers as opposed to, say, forklifts? Different methods are best tailored to different subjects rather than different students.ing, the article states.

“Educators should instead focus on developing the most effective and coherent ways to present particular bodies of content, which often involve combining different forms of instruction, such as diagrams and words, in mutually reinforcing ways,” Pashler and Rohrer said. “Given the costs of assessing students’ supposed learning styles and offering differentiated instruction, this should come as good news to educators at all levels, from kindergarten through medical school.”