The lie you were told: Multiple Learning Styles 'theory'

You’re sitting in a conference room in a workshop that promises to “help you teach and learn more effectively” based on the notorious theory of “Learning Styles”. Suddenly, the instructor asks you:

“What is your preferred learning style?”

You look around, and people start mumbling about being visual, auditory, or kinesthetic learners, adopting the so-called ‘VARK model‘. But what if I told you that the concept of learning styles is a lie? It’s nothing more than a myth, a beautifully wrapped gift box with nonsense inside.

Now, while you’re reading this, you may be shouting in rage: “But I’m a visual learner! I need images and graphs to understand something .” Or, “I’m an auditory learner! I remember things better when I hear them.”

Before reading more, ask yourself this:  “Do these preferences really make a difference in learning outcomes?”

---

Let’s travel back in time a bit. The concept of learning styles dates back to the 1970s and 1980s, when it gained popularity among educators and trainers. It was a smart and fascinating idea: If only we could match our teaching methods to how people naturally learned, we could transform education, right?

But like the promise of an oasis in a desert, the evidence supporting learning styles has proven to be disappointingly shallow [1].

… nothing that supports this ‘theory’ to be honest. In fact, Gardner, the father of the ‘Multiple Intelligences’ theory, stated that he has “never been comfortable with the notion of ‘learning styles“.

Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences claims that there are several distinct types of intelligence, such as linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalistic intelligences. While some people may associate certain intelligences with specific learning styles, Gardner’s theory is broader and focuses on different ways individuals can be intelligent rather than how they prefer to learn.

---

Huge, actually.

There’s a surprising lack of substantial empirical evidence to support learning styles. A widely cited research report by Harold Pashler et. al (2008) found that no studies to date have utilised a sufficiently rigorous experimental design to prove the learning styles hypothesis – that is, no evidence that teaching in a student’s preferred style translates into better educational outcomes [2].

Besides not being able to support learning styles theory, numerous other scientific studies have totally debunked the myth of learning styles. These studies have proven that there is little to no evidence supporting the idea that matching teaching methods to learning styles results in better learning outcomes [3]. The idea of “learning styles” is that the concept is ill-defined, and there “is no persuasive evidence that the learning style analysis produces more effective outcomes than a ‘one size fits all approach'” [4].

The distinction between preferred learning styles often gets obscured with the functioning of brain hemispheres, a concept known as “neuromyths”.

“Neuromyth is a misconception generated by a misunderstanding, a misreading, or a misquoting of facts scientifically established (by brain research) to make a case for the use of brain research in education and other contexts” [5]

Many researchers feel these concepts violate neuroscience’s understanding of neuroplasticity, the ability of the brain to adapt and grow with experience, which contradicts the rigid classification of learning styles.

---

While “learning styles theory” may be a myth, the truth is that people do have different strengths and weaknesses when it comes to learning. So, what matters is not to focus on one person’s “preferred learning style” but to use different teaching methods to keep our students interested and challenged.

It involves different parts of your brain working together; you don’t just learn using one style or a specific sense. Learning is affected by many factors, including prior knowledge, motivation, attention, and teaching methods.

Think of it like making a pizza: Would you only use tomato simply because it’s your favourite ingredient? This will be an emphatically failed pizza, for sure. You would also add cheese, meat and other ingredients and seasoning. The same applies to learning. Incorporate different teaching approaches to convey your message and help learners acquire the knowledge or skills you are teaching them.

Check this video, Sponsored by Google, called “The Biggest Myth In Education“, to see a clever way of effortlessly debunking this myth.

References:

1. Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2016). The Learning Styles Myth is Thriving in Higher Education. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 46(3), 252-266. https://doi.org/10.1080/10790195.2016.1084493
2. Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3)
3. Willingham, D. T., Hughes, E. M., & Dobolyi, D. G. (2015). The Scientific Status of Learning Styles Theories. Teaching of Psychology, 42(3), 266–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628315589505
4. Strauss, V. (2013, Oct. 16). Howard Gardner: “Multiple intelligences” are not “learning styles.” The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2013/10/16/howard-gardner-multiple-intelligences-are-not-learning-styles/
5. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2002). Understanding the Brain Towards a New Learning Science. OECD Publishing. [Google Scholar]