When you’re working in adult learning and development, it’s only a matter of time before someone brings up “learning styles” as a methodology.
Otherwise content-rich books and articles fall on their face at the mention of this myth – it’s a clear cringe for those of us that have done the real work – and research.
Many adult learning practitioners know this myth well – and we do our best to stop it from perpetuating. Despite the popularity, there’s no credible evidence to support the concept of learning styles. While people may have preferences for how they like to learn, these preferences don’t often translate into better learning outcomes.
What Are Learning Styles?
If you’re unfamiliar with this term, “learning styles” are defined most often as Visual, Auditory, Read/Write, or Kinesthetic (VARK). The learning styles theory suggests that each person has their own unique “learning style” and will almost always better understand learning content delivered in that style.
What’s the Myth?
The problem with this? It’s all false; not a bit of it is backed by research. Quite contrary, the research shows the opposite: learning styles are simply a myth.
Don’t believe me? I bring sources, of course! This article from the University of Michigan is a great roundup of research, and you can read more research from the American Psychological Association, Nature, Frontiers in Psychology, Computers & Education, and so many more sources with a quick search.
Learning Preferences Sounds… Less Scholarly
People may have different preferences about the modality or format they consume content in, but there is no research to suggest people actually learn more or better based on that preference. Those preferences may be fairly consistent across different topics, or they may shift based on the content being learned. Almost all learning material has some kind of audio/visual and read/write content, and good quality learning material will allow for hands-on (kinesthetic) content too. A well-designed learning course or program includes multiple modalities to reinforce learning across multiple senses.
Students might feel more engaged when instruction aligns with their preferred “learning style,” but this doesn’t necessarily mean they’re learning more effectively. Preferences don’t necessarily translate into better learning outcomes when instruction is tailored to a specific style.
Designing for Disability
And then of course, what if some of your learners’ senses are impaired? Multiple modalities allow your audience – whether you’re speaking or training – to consume your content in the way that is most accessible to them. But none of that means that people have “learning styles” you must accommodate for!
It’s crucial to avoid oversimplifying actual learning differences by attributing them solely to learning styles. While some individuals with learning disabilities may have preferences for how they learn, their challenges are rooted in neurological differences that require specialized support.
| Learning Styles | Learning Disability |
|---|---|
| Preferences | Neurological Differences |
| No Impact on Learning | Significant Impact on Learning |
| Weak Evidence | Strong Evidence |
| No Accommodations | Accommodations Needed |
What To Do Instead?
While it’s natural to want to cater to learners’ individual needs, focus on evidence-based teaching strategies that provide multiple modalities of instruction and support for individual needs. Get rid of the learning styles myth, and be more likely to improve learning outcomes for all involved. Here are some practices backed by evidence you can use instead:
- Active Learning: Engaging learners in activities that require them to think critically and apply knowledge
- Feedback: Providing constructive feedback to help learners improve
- Metacognition: Teaching learners how to learn effectively by monitoring their own understanding and adjusting their strategies accordingly
I’ve spent over 20 years working with adults and how they learn, and it’s a personal goal of mine to keep debunking the myth of learning styles for other practitioners. I may even be passionate enough about this topic to make it part of my next book! (When’s that coming out? Sign up to be the first to know!)