Busting the Learning Style Myth

 This week's article summary is Busting the Learning Style Myth.

Most of us are familiar with the idea that we all have a preferred learning style, the four most common being visual, auditory, reading/writing, kinesthetic.

The belief is that once we identify our preferred learning style, we can  optimize our learning through that style.

The problem with this belief is there is no evidence it works and in fact often hampers the learning process. 

So why does the belief in learning styles remain so popular?  

Because it seems so logical.

But unfortunately some things that make sense aren’t actually true.

I prefer reading and writing more than kinesthetic, hands-on activities. But that doesn’t mean I learn best only by reading and writing. There are many things I learned that I couldn’t have by simply reading about them: throwing a curveball, riding a bike, making bread from scratch.

Learning styles are different from Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences: kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, linguistic, musical, naturalist, logical mathematical, spatial. We typically have some talents we’re naturally better at than others. I have always been good with logical, mathematical thinking yet I have zero musical talent.

Still, as you’ll see in the article while we all have different and unique talents, we all ultimately learn the same way not through a particular learning style!

Joe

----- 

A prevalent neuromyth is that of “learning styles.” 

According to this belief, people can be classified by how they learn best and should concentrate their educational efforts in that mode. If someone is an auditory learner, she’ll master a subject or skill faster and more effectively by listening to lectures than reading books or through first-hand experiences.

The idea of learning styles has sadly infected our education systems and people’s understanding of themselves. And psychologists worry this can have long-term consequences. 

There is a grain of truth to the myth of learning styles. Namely, people do differ in their abilities and preferences. The VARK learning model, for example, classifies people as either visual, auditory, reading/writing, or kinesthetic (hands-on) learners. Each method is part of the learning process, and people will have their favorites.

Many proponents believe learning styles are inheritable, emerge early in childhood, have a physiological basis, predict learning outcomes, and are immutable. For such people, saying “I’m a visual learner” isn’t merely stating preference; it’s stating something fundamental about themselves.

According to a recent study, half of the people who subscribe to the myth hold this view. More worryingly, the study noted, educators who work with younger children are more likely to believe that learning styles are hardwired. And that belief can lead educators to support learning style-based curricula.

Another study found that 71 percent of educators believed the learning styles myth and that 88 percent of the general public accepted the concept, too.

Giving students the message that ‘It’s OK if you’re not good at--insert ‘intelligence’ or ‘learning style’ here--you can still be good at--insert whatever here--can lead students to give up on cultivating key learning skills that can be developed, to an extent, in everyone. By promoting a dominant learning styles mentality, we are actually limiting students with self-fulfilling prophecies despite the best intentions.

A short thought experiment reveals the fundamental problem with the learning styles myth. Imagine a young surgeon being told he’s a reading/writing learner. Taking the idea to heart, she skips lectures, shuns anatomy charts, and doesn’t bother practicing on cadavers. But don’t worry, she says as the anesthesiologist puts you under, they were excellent books.

A seminal analysis reviewed the literature on learning styles and found a wide array of papers discussing the theory but few studies testing the idea through experimentation. Those that did found no supporting evidence that learning was enhanced by a slavish dedication to a student’s learning style.

Why then does the learning styles myth survive despite the evidence? Like all neuromyths, it tells us something we want to believe. The learning styles myth serves a function similar to personality tests, horoscopes, and Cosmo quizzes. That is, it provides a sense of identity, allows us to simplify complexities, and tells us something about our favorite subject (ourselves!). People prefer brain-based accounts of behavior, and they like to categorize people into types. Learning styles allow people to do both of those things.”

It may also tie into common misconceptions of success.

Success is complicated. It requires the right mixture of education, resources, skill, and luck. But as David Epstein notes in his book Range, we tend to streamline this equation into specialization equals success.

The earlier we learn who we are and dedicate ourselves to that path, the thought goes, the greater our chances to succeed. Our cultural obsession with the likes of Tiger Woods, Mark Zuckerberg, and legions of chess prodigies bears this out. To get a head start on success, specialize early and to the exclusion of all else.

But while specialization has its place, Epstein argues, that obsession pollutes the principles that research shows help us learn. Those being: Engage with subjects in as many material ways as possible. Read, converse, seek out examples, get hands-on, and experiment. While we may have preferences, we should also challenge ourselves to try new methods and re-engage with less-favored ones.