The Learning Styles Myth
We trust that our teachers have our best interests in mind, that they are going to educate us to the best of their ability. However, what we, and they, do not know can and is hurting us. Learning styles has become a very popular way of teaching over the past few decades but the truth of the matter is that while they are used with the best intentions they can actually hurt your education rather than help it.
What are learning styles?
Learning styles is the idea that different people learn in different ways (Pashler, 2008).
Whether your preferred learning style is visual, auditory, or kinesthetic, at some point a teacher has told you that they are going to try and cater to you style so that you can learn better. However, in truth, by doing so they might have been hurting your learning experience instead of helping it.
With all the best intentions, Neil Fleming set out to help better the educational process and came up with the VARK model in 1987 used to categorize learners (Cherry, 2019). Sometimes it is also referred to as VAK, combining the R with V. Each letter refers to a way in which a person can learn, V for visual, A for auditory, R for reading, and K for kinesthetic. Visual learning can be through pictures, videos, and diagrams (Cherry, 2019). Auditory learning is generally through music or discussions (Cherry, 2019). Reading, commonly combined with writing and visual, can be through reading texts, and taking notes (Cherry, 2019). Kinesthetic learning is typically through experiments or hands on activities (Cherry, 2019). Just a simple google search gives you a plethora of questionnaires to help you determine your learning style.
Many teachers use these learning styles in the hopes of enriching students education by tailoring their teaching practices to their students preferred learning style. For example, if his/her students prefer kinesthetic learning he/she can do more experiments or hands on activities in the hopes of helping the students learn better. This is known as the meshing hypothesis, or matching hypothesis, when the learning preference is matched to the teaching style enhances learning (Cuevas, 2016).
While there are numerous versions of learning styles, many are very similar and Fleming’s VARK is the most popular and as such it is usually the primary basis for research and experiments conducted to test the meshing hypothesis.
Does it actually work?
Things get a little tricky when asking this question since you really cannot prove that something this complex does not work. The meshing hypothesis has no real support backing it which is about as close as you can get to saying it does not work in practice.
In the 2000’s Pashler and his team of researchers took it upon themselves to go through the research and experiments that have been done thus far on learning styles and the meshing hypothesis. What the found was surprising and concerning. They came to a few conclusions. Firstly, most studies that had been done on the subject start by assuming the meshing hypothesis actually works (Pashler, 2008). These studies do not actually test the meshing hypothesis, rather they are testing something else based on a claim that is unsubstantiated. Secondly, many of the ones that do not do this were not conducted using the correct experimental methodology that could justify the use of learning styles (Pashler, 2008). The researchers go on to identify the correct experimental methodology that could be used in justifying learning styles. Finally, the ones that were yielded results that did not back the learning styles theory or the meshing hypothesis (Pashler, 2008).
Later a team of researchers had hundreds of students take the VARK questionnaire and gave them study techniques based on their results (Khazan, 2018). If their grades improved it could be evidence that learning styles is a viable option in education. However, they found that many students did not study by the methods they were given, and those that did had no measurable improvement in their academics (Khazan, 2018). It did not seem to matter if they studied based on their learning style or not and this was not the only study that yielded such results.
Another study published in 2014 found surprising results. Using the methodology identified by Pashler and his team, this study took the meshing hypothesis into question. After identifying their learning styles, visual or auditory, over one hundred adults were randomly assigned to one of two groups (Rogowsky, 2014). In one group they learned through an audiobook and the other group through an e-text (Rogowsky, 2014). After they completed their respective books they took a test to determine what they had learned. The study found that there was no strong correlation between the learning style and the amount learned (Rogowsky, 2014). The researchers concluded that there was no evidence to support the meshing hypothesis (Rogowsky, 2014). Furthermore there was even some evidence that suggested that the e-text was better overall at teaching (Rogowsky, 2014). However, this study was conducted in adults so it is also important to look at learning styles and the meshing hypothesis in regards to children.
Using the same methodology, yet another study conducted in 2019 and published in February of 2020 took over one hundred fifth graders did a similar experiment (Rogowsky, Calhoun, & Tallal, 2020). They had the fifth graders randomly assigned to either the listening or reading teaching method then take a test to assess the amount learned by the students (Rogowsky, Calhoun, & Tallal, 2020). They found that learning according to their learning style did not result in better test scores (Rogowsky, Calhoun, & Tallal, 2020). In fact this study also found similar evidence that the reading or visual method was in general better at getting students to understand and retain information (Rogowsky, Calhoun, & Tallal, 2020).
So while it is impossible to definitively say that learning styles and the meshing hypothesis does not work, so far there is no evidence to support the use of them.
Are learning styles actually used?
Well, a study found that over seventy percent of US faculty in higher education believe the meshing hypothesis (Newton, 2015). It is not only in the US that these numbers are found. Similarly, over ninety percent of UK schoolteachers believe it as well (Newton, 2015). Furthermore another study conducted on neuro-myths found that in primary and secondary school teachers over eighty percent believed it (Dekker, Howard-Jones, & Jolles, 2012). Believing that the meshing hypothesis is true is different than actually using it in education.
In the US alone learning styles, and in tandem the meshing hypothesis, is used in over seventy percent of higher institutions (Newton, 2015). However, the US is not the only place it is found to be used in education. It is also used extensively in other places including England, Australia, the Middle East, and Asia (Cuevas, 2016). The global use of learning styles and the meshing hypothesis can be attributed to a number of things.
In the 80’s and 90’s when learning styles were first introduced it was in the midst of the self esteem movement (Khazan, 2018). Everyone wanted to be special, individual, so having their own learning styles was implicitly appealing (Khazan, 2018). It is another way of understanding oneself and one’s brain.
Teachers are always looking for better ways to help their student learn and a quick search give them the idea of learning styles and subsequently the meshing hypothesis (Dekker, Howard-Jones, & Jolles, 2012). However the prevalence does not only stem from the desire to help students learn. It also comes from the ability to transfer the blame to somewhere else (Khazan, 2018). For example, a student not doing well in class can easily make the claim that they are not being taught in their correct learning style. The idea of learning styles and the meshing hypothesis makes sense and is so appealing that it has spread and become practice despite not having the proper scientific backing to prove its worth.
Why does it matter?
This is actually a really big deal. Teachers across the world in all levels of academia are applying learning styles and the meshing hypothesis with their students best interests in mind but are actually taking away from their education. In fact it is so important that thirty prominent researchers, neuroscientists, and psychologists wrote a letter discussing their concerns about the use of learning styles in the classroom and the harm they may pose to the education of students (Harvard, 2019).
The implementation of learning styles in the classroom is not just having students take a questionnaire and adjust the way topics are presented. Not only are teachers wasting their valuable time making lesson plans and worksheets but they are also wasting money on an idea that does not pan out. Many teachers go through certification programs that include learning styles and the meshing hypothesis (Nancekivell, & Gelman, 2019). There are tests and teaching guides available for purchase. In addition there are a plethora of different training sessions, books, videos, seminars, and speakers available for pay (Cuevas, 2016). In today’s world everything costs money and schools only have so much. The existence and prevalence of these products and their continued use in school is a waste of the limited amount of money that schools get as they are not proven to actually work. This money can be put to better use in many different ways including spending it on more research backed teaching methods, infrastructure, or even teachers’ salaries.
The implementation of the meshing hypothesis is not only doing a disservice to schools and their teachers but also to the students actual learning. As shown previously there is no evidence that matching instruction with learning style yields positive results. Furthermore by trying to incorporate all learning styles educators might actually be harming those with learning styles other than reading/visual as there is some evidence that shows those who prefer reading score better in general when compared to those who prefer auditory learning (Rogowsky, Calhoun, & Tallal, 2020). It would be more helpful to strengthen reading and comprehension skills in all students to promote learning rather than enable those who have trouble to continue learning in a way that may be preferable to them but in the long run is only hurting their education (Rogowsky, Calhoun, & Tallal, 2020).
If not learning styles and the meshing hypothesis then what?
There are many other ways besides learning styles and the meshing hypothesis that are actually backed by research (Harvard, 2019). So instead of learning styles there are learning strategies. These are research backed, meaning proven to work and be effective, and easy to implement in the classroom (Harvard, 2019).
There is retrieval practice, also known as practice testing. This is when you force the brain to retrieve material from one’s memory and can be in the form of quizzes or practice tests either self-given or given by teachers (Dunlosky, 2013).There is distributed practice. This can be done by spreading out one’s study schedule over time rather than cramming right before the test (Dunlosky, 2013).Furthermore there is interleaved practice. For this strategy, instead of only focusing on one thing at a time you go between different topics with different types of problems (Dunlosky, 2013).
Another alternative is called dual coding. This was first introduced by a Professor named Allan Paivio in 1971 (Pappas, 2019). Dual coding is the idea that information can be taken in and stored in two ways, visual and verbal (Pappas, 2019). The idea is that adding meaningful images to words will increase students’ ability to learn and understand the information (Sumeracki, 2019). Basically students can only learn so much from verbal input alone but when visuals are added to the verbal input students increase their capacity to learn. These are just of few of the plethora of different learning strategies that are backed by research that can be used in place of learning styles.
These newer, more complex, research backed theories are hardly used. Rather learning styles continue to be used regularly in the classroom despite being unsubstantiated. The use of outdated theories and the lack of discussion around new ones is truly harming education in many ways. We should push for the discussion of new theories of learning rather then stay in the past and continue education in outdated ways because by doing so we are holding ourselves back rather than pushing forward to new and potentially better things.
Citations
Cherry, Kendra. “Are You a Visual, Auditory, Reading/Writing, or Tactile Learner?” Verywell Mind, Verywell Mind, 24 Sept. 2019, www.verywellmind.com/vark-learning-styles-2795156.
Cuevas, Joshua A. “Is Research-Based Instruction a Reality in Education? The Example of Learning Styles and Dual Coding.” Psych Learning Curve, 11 July 2016, psychlearningcurve.org/learning-styles/?_ga=2.18361342.636616633.1582863839–1185842343.1567689868.
Dekker S, Lee NC, Howard-Jones P and Jolles J (2012) Neuromyths in education: Prevalence and predictors of misconceptions among teachers. Front. Psychology 3:429. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00429
Dunlosky, John, et al. “Improving Students’ Learning With Effective Learning Techniques.” Psychological Science in the Public Interest, vol. 14, no. 1, 2013, pp. 4–58., doi:10.1177/1529100612453266.
Harvard, Blake. “Learning Myths vs. Learning Facts.” Psych Learning Curve, 23 Dec. 2019, psychlearningcurve.org/learning-myths-vs-learning-facts/?_ga=2.75367509.636616633.1582863839–1185842343.1567689868.
Khazan, Olga. “The Myth of ‘Learning Styles’.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 12 Apr. 2018, www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/04/the-myth-of-learning-styles/557687/.
Nancekivell, Shaylene, and Susan A Gelman. “Belief in Learning Styles May Be Detrimental.” American Psychological Association, American Psychological Association, 30 May 2019, www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2019/05/learning-styles-myth.
Newton PM (2015) The Learning Styles Myth is Thriving in Higher Education. Front. Psychol. 6:1908. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01908
Pappas, Christopher. “Instructional Design Models and Theories: Dual Coding Theory.” ELearning Industry, 26 Sept. 2019, elearningindustry.com/dual-coding-theory.
Pashler, Harold, et al. “Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence.” Psychological Science in the Public Interest, vol. 9, no. 3, Dec. 2008, doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x.
Rogowsky, Beth A., et al. “Matching Learning Style to Instructional Method: Effects on Comprehension.” Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 107, no. 1, 2014, pp. 64–78., doi:10.1037/a0037478.
Rogowsky BA, Calhoun BM and Tallal P (2020) Providing Instruction Based on Students’ Learning Style Preferences Does Not Improve Learning. Front. Psychol. 11:164. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00164
Sumeracki, Megan. “Dual Coding and Learning Styles.” The Learning Agency Lab, 6 June 2019, www.the-learning-agency-lab.com/the-learning-curve/why-learning-styles-are-wrong.
