COMMENTARY
We’ve Been Lied to About How We Learn
What is your learning style?
Before you answer, let me guess. You’re a visual learner. A few seconds ago, you were probably scrolling through social media, losing track of time, and procrastinating your tasks. Then, you stumbled upon a post entitled “We’ve Been Lied to About How We Learn.” That post led you to an article. You thought it might give you the information you were looking for, or maybe you just felt sorry for the author, so you read it. And now, here we are.
If that’s how it happened, you are most likely a visual learner. Visual learners believe they absorb information better through, well… visuals. A study suggests that 65% of us are visual learners. So, if my guess was wrong, you might be among the remaining 35%.
The VARK Learning Styles Theory
Besides visual learning, there are three other learning styles: aural, reading/writing, and kinesthetic. Together, they form the acronym ‘VARK.’ An aural learner prefers to receive information by listening or talking. Some might refer to this as auditory learning. Reading/writing learners, on the other hand, prefer to read or write to process information. And kinesthetic learners? They prefer to learn by doing things physically.
Most of us are already familiar with the VARK learning styles theory. It’s easy to find numerous articles discussing VARK on the internet. You might have even come across books on this subject. Perhaps a teacher mentioned it when a student struggled to learn in the class and suggested using a study method that matches their learning style. Some educational institutions even administer VARK tests at the beginning of the school year to figure out students’ learning styles and tailor lesson plans accordingly — though, with big class sizes, I’m not sure how effective that really is.
Discovering your learning style isn’t hard. Just do a quick search on your favorite browser, and you’ll find the official site that guides you through a series of questions to determine what learning style works best for you.
So far, the VARK learning styles theory seems straightforward, understandable, and easy to apply. But there is the big question:
Is this theory valid?
The VARK learning styles theory was first proposed by Fleming and Mills in 1992. Their paper, titled “Not Another Inventory, Rather a Catalyst for Reflection”, explores the use of a questionnaire designed to help students reflect on their sensory preferences and adapt their study methods accordingly. The paper discusses the development and implementation of the questionnaire, which aligns with cognitive processing and personality traits and emphasizes the importance of encouraging students to consider their sensory modalities. They highlight how the questionnaire has sparked discussions among students and faculty about learning practices, including note-taking and study strategies, and has led to positive feedback from both groups. They note that while the questionnaire has not been linked to measurable improvements in learning outcomes, it has successfully prompted reflection on teaching and learning practices.
Several subsequent studies have validated the internal consistency of the VARK questionnaire. However, to date, there is no solid evidence that the VARK learning styles theory significantly impacts on students’ learning outcomes.
Many papers discussed this learning styles theory, with most concluding that the VARK theory is merely a ‘myth.’ They assert that “there is no evidence that the VARK learning styles theory benefits learning.” Among these papers is a document written by a group of researchers from the Learning and Skills Development Agency (LSDA) in the UK in 2004. This document, a report on learning styles theory, includes a discussion on VARK. In essence, the document states that there isn’t enough evidence to support the claim that the VARK learning styles theory benefits learning.
Fleming himself responded to these findings in 2014, quoting Donald Rumsfeld: “Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.” Fleming went on to argue that doubts about the benefits of learning styles arise because the definition of learning itself isn’t well established.
Well, it’s clear that this response is biased, given that it was written by the designer of VARK himself. What unbiased is a study from 2006 about learning style. The study involved directing students to choose whether to learn a subject verbally or visually. This created two groups of students — visual and verbal learners. After studying, they were tested on the subject. During the test, some students received help that matched their learning style (visual learners got visual help, verbal learners got verbal help), while others got otherwise (visual learners got verbal help and vice versa). The results showed that students who received help matching their learning style didn’t perform better than those who received help that didn’t match their style. This proves that learning styles don’t necessarily improve learning outcomes.
Not Credible, But Why Are They Still Popular?
Despite the abundance of research highlighting the lack of credibility of the VARK learning styles theory, many people still use it. According to a paper, the reasons people are still drawn to learning styles include (1) the desire for rational control, (2) a sense of fairness, (3) the belief that everyone is unique, and (4) respect for nature.
So, What’s the Right Approach?
At first glance, the idea that each student has their own learning style doesn’t seem bad. It gives us confidence that we’re using the most effective method for our learning. However, on closer inspection, this doesn’t entirely hold up. I mean, I’m not sure I could learn to play basketball merely by listening to a podcast from an NBA player. I need to practice.
Instead, it’s better to focus on the learning material and then adjust your study methods accordingly. Even better, pay attention to what’s happening in your mind while you’re learning. No study method, no matter how great, will work if your brain isn’t engaged in the learning process.
