The Persistent Myth of the Learning Styles in Education

What kind of learner are you? Do you learn best by watching or listening? Perhaps you remember things better if you read them and make notes about them or interact with the concepts physically in a lab. For years, we have heard about different learning styles; it is an issue we have discussed before, even here at The Observatory. 

For many, it’s easy to imagine: Because everyone is different, there must be various ways to learn. It is impossible to believe that every student learns identically. However, as much as researchers have tried to find solid evidence to support these views, they have found nothing; in fact, this belief is considered one of the greatest myths of education.

The theory of learning styles has enjoyed extraordinary success over the past 50 years, in and out of the classroom. Not only has it been accepted uncritically in teacher training courses for many years and later in schools, but it has also been widely disseminated by the mainstream media. According to the article Learning Styles Don’t Exist by Carl Hendrick, the term “learning styles” first emerged in the 1950s thanks to Herbert Thelen, who pointed out that “student learning is complicated by the fact that different types of learning require different roles and that the learning experience is complex; it involves thoughts, feelings, actions, emotions, and desires.” However, it was not until 20 years later, in 1970, that educator Walter Burke Barbe developed the famous VARK model (Visual, Aural, Read/Write, Kinesthetic). The article explains that its creation is attributed to Professor Neil Fleming, who popularized the notion that students learn best when using supports that fit their learning style. For example, a student who learns visually is presented with more graphs or images, or a kinesthetic student is involved in physical or tactile activities. Although this concept seems beneficial to learning, it has increased educators’ workloads.

In 2010, psychologists Cedar Riener and Daniel Willingham published an article entitled The Myths of the Learning Styles, asserting that “there is no credible evidence that learning styles exist. Students may have preferences about how to learn, but no evidence suggests that attending to those preferences will lead to better learning.” They were not the first to discuss the subject. One 2006 study analyzed the use of multimedia to support learning and came to a similar conclusion. In addition, in 2009, the authors of an article entitled Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence concluded that “the contrast between the enormous popularity of the learning styles approach in education and the lack of credible evidence of its usefulness is, in our opinion, surprising and worrying.” They noted that it is still necessary to demonstrate whether this classification has an adequate practical application. “It remains to be demonstrated whether the classification of students’ learning styles has practical utility.” Even so, a 2019 survey found that between 80% and 95% of those interviewed believed in this myth.

It is essential to clarify that researchers agree that teaching that considers students’ differences can have positive impacts. They recognize many individual distinctions among them and challenge the idea that each student has a particular learning style and that teaching that accommodates their preferred learning style will improve their educational outcomes. Indeed, different parts of the brain process specific types of information, and each person has different abilities and preferences. Although no evidence exists that tailoring classes to a particular kind of learning helps students internalize it more quickly, the popular idea of “learning styles” persists.

Educators must be trained with accurate knowledge about learning rather than popular myths or trends. However, a 2016 study found that 67% of teacher preparation programs required teachers to incorporate different learning styles into assignments and lesson planning, while 59% of the books they used advised considering these methods. Although this study is almost 10 years old, it shows that, despite scientific evidence, teachers have been required to include learning styles in their work, sending mixed messages about their credibility. For example, the book Educational Psychology: Theory and Practice is frequently used for teacher training in the United States. In it, Robert E. Slavin says, “Teacher certification exams may ask you to design a lesson that suits students’ diverse learning styles.”

So, what should teachers believe?

William Furey, Director of the Department of Education at the University of Manhattan, wrote an article about how teacher training in the United States persists in teaching the myth of learning styles. His research found that of the 50 states and the District of Columbia, 29 require licensing exams for elementary school certification, and official study materials reference learning styles. Furey gives the different Praxis licensing tests, which request aspiring teachers to “describe some activities that can help students with different learning styles understand key concepts better.” In addition, they ask you to “give a specific example from your classroom experience about the effects of different learning styles on how people understand and express what they know.”

Unfortunately, there are few signs this teacher-education situation will change. A 2020 systematic review found that 95.4% of educators agreed with adapting their lessons to learning styles. For this reason, William Furey stresses that it is essential that teachers make instructional decisions based on evidence, not myths. Teacher training programs should be based on responsible research that provides up-to-date knowledge that can be passed on to the students. Besides creating new generations of well-informed teachers, these will reinforce teacher updating and encourage them to think twice before getting carried away by trends not supported by science. Sometimes, more time is wasted adapting lessons according to myths or trends than being applied to more valuable things, like becoming appropriately informed.

The myth of learning styles persists despite the lack of supporting scientific evidence. The intention to personalize education may be commendable, but teaching must be based on sound cognitive principles and proven strategies. Teacher training must be updated to reflect these findings and ensure students receive the best education possible. When millions of students face learning crises, teachers must focus on research-supported methodologies rather than spend time and resources on discredited or questionable theories.

Translation by: Daniel Wetta

Paulette Delgado

Share

This article from Observatory of the Institute for the Future of Education may be shared under the terms of the license CC BY-NC-SA 4.0