We have probably all come across the theory of learning styles in one form or another. Visual, auditory, verbal, analytic, holistic — we could go on listing the names of the various categories. These classifications have been part of common knowledge for so long that we may forget to question or check the science behind them. The evidence for this is that if you search for the phrase “learning styles” you will find page after page of tips, descriptions, methodological cheat sheets for teachers and learning-style questionnaires. Not a single piece of writing that examines the scientific basis of the idea. We are trying to fill that gap here.
For anyone without time to read the whole article, let me give it away now — though the title of the post is not exactly coy either: no experiment has ever been able to support the existence of learning styles theory. It would be more accurate to write “theories”, because one study counted no fewer than 71 learning-style categories. The best known and most widespread of these is the VARK model (visual, auditory, reading/writing, kinaesthetic), which groups learners according to the form of bodily stimulus in which the material reaches them.
How could the theory be proved?
If we assume that learning styles exist, then we are claiming that learning can be made more effective by presenting the material in the style that suits the individual. In other words, an auditory learner performs better when they hear the instruction and worse when, say, they read it. Countless studies have tried to find a relationship of this kind, and not one has succeeded.
There really are differences between people in how they learn — but instead of styles, we should speak of learning preferences. That is in fact what self-reported learning-style questionnaires give feedback on. Preferences, however, once again bear no relation to how effective the learning is. A favourite analogy, which appears in much of the writing on the subject, is that how healthy food is and what consumers prefer rarely coincide either. If the choice is left to us, salad will seldom win out over pizza.
What actually determines the method?
The theory appears to fail logically on other points too. How do you explain to an auditory learner what the colour scarlet looks like? Or to a kinaesthetic one the sound of a blackbird’s song? These examples make it clear that it is the content and the learning objectives that must fundamentally determine the methods and tools chosen to work through the material.
So why are these theories so widespread?
This theory has managed to spread so widely for several reasons. We like to think in categories; the books and courses built on it are easy to market and sell; and, not least, it can serve as a convenient excuse for why learning is not working. “I’m a visual learner, I’m afraid I just can’t learn from books.” Sound familiar?
For us e-learning professionals it is an important duty not to swell the ranks of unscientific marketing material any further, and to base our methods on scientifically proven theories — so that myths like that of learning styles can finally sink into merciful obscurity.
Author: Mariann Tóth