The lingering ‘learning styles’ myth

‘Learning styles’ refers to the belief that individuals can be categorised into distinct types of learners such as visual, auditory or kinaesthetic and that individuals learn better when they encounter information through their preferred style. The key word here is preferred. This belief suggests that individuals learn best based on what type of learner they are. There is no concrete or substantial evidence to support this. Despite the lack of evidence, learning styles have become well known amongst educators, students, and parents. Being evidence-based and informed involves promoting and sharing evidence from research—in addition to challenging outdated practices and beliefs that evolve to become myths.

Most myths contain a sense of logic or an element of truth. The truth with this myth is that individuals will have different study techniques they prefer over others. A learner may consider themselves to be a “visual learner” because they like to watch study tutorials on YouTube. Another student may believe they are a “kinaesthetic learner” because they struggle sitting still for a long period of time or prefer to move around. Students do have their own preferences, with approaches they like or dislike, but this does not mean a specific approach will help them learn better.

There is a big difference between a learning preference and a learning style. This must be explicitly explained to students and parents—or even to colleagues if they are an advocate for learning styles. Consider this analogy: a student may prefer to eat pizza over apples, but just because this is their preference it doesn’t mean pizza is better and healthier than an apple! When students focus on their preferred method of learning, they might incorrectly assume they’re using an effective learning strategy.

Learning styles appeared on the surface to be scientific and contains an element of logic. It resonates with us, both as teachers and former students, as something that feels right. For this reason, the myth of learning styles still lingers in the popular consensus. In 2014, Paul A. Howard-Jones asked over 900 teachers from different countries whether they agreed or disagreed (or “didn’t know”) with the following statement:

“Individuals learn better when they receive information in their preferred learning style (for example, visual, auditory or kinaesthetic).”

For these five countries, the following percentages represent what percentage of those asked agreed with the statement.

• United Kingdom – 93%
• Netherlands – 96%
• Turkey – 97%
• Greece – 96%
• China – 97%

This demonstrates how influential learning styles have become across different countries around the world. The results highlight that many classroom teachers are familiar with learning styles; if they believe individuals learn better through this understanding of learning styles, they may be more likely to implement this in their classroom. Even if students may not have heard of learning styles from their teachers, they can equally be exposed to this information from others (e.g., peers, parents, or other education resources).

Howard-Jones refers to learning styles as a neuromyth. Alan Crockard coined this term in the 1980s to refer to unscientific ideas about the brain in a medical capacity. This term was redefined in a report as “a misconception generated by a misunderstanding, a misreading or misquoting of facts scientifically established to make a case for use of brain research in education and other contexts” (Kelly, 2002). The concept of learning styles perfectly fits the bill as a neuromyth.

Author Ed Hirsch writes, “the evidence for individual learning styles is weak to non-existent” (2016). Professor John Hattie conducted a very thorough and extensive survey of 150 factors that affect students’ learning. Hattie stated that matching teaching to the learning styles of students was found to have an insignificant effect of a fraction above zero—that is, essentially not helpful (2012). The authors of Make It Stick: The Science of Successful Learning, discuss learning styles in their popular book; they found very few studies designed to test the validity of learning styles theory in education. Of the few studies they found, virtually none validate it and others even contradict its effectiveness (Brown et al., 2014).

This significant lack of evidence in support of the “theory” of learning styles suggests that teachers should eliminate it from their practice—if not actively seek to dispel the myth. Even if it may seem like a harmless practice, it can actually inhibit learning. For example, regardless of the aforementioned research, encouraging learning styles can promote bad study habits. Additionally, time is one of the most limited resources in education. When we remove time-consuming practices that don’t promote student learning, we free up more time for more evidence-based, effective strategies.

Despite the rigorous debunking, they myth of learning styles continues to linger in education. It is important for educators to not only be aware of the problems associated with learning styles, but they should also work to dispel the myth. When working to do so, it is helpful to suggest practices and strategies that the research suggests do have a positive impact on student learning. The Great Teaching Toolkit: Evidence Review (Coe et al., 2020) summarises such research; it’s a great starting point to understand what teachers can do to support learning, instead of unsubstantiated or unhelpful myths.

References and further reading:

Brown, P. C., Roediger, H. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Make it stick: The science of successful learning. Harvard University Press.

Coe, R., Rauch, C. J., Kime, S., & Singleton, D. (2020). Great teaching toolkit: Evidence Review. Evidence Based Education. https://evidencebased.education/great-teaching-toolkit/

Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review. Learning & Skills Research Centre. http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/69027

Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. Routledge.

Hirsch, E. D. (2019). Why knowledge matters: Rescuing our children from failed educational theories. Harvard Education Press.

Howard-Jones, P. A. (2014). Neuroscience and education: myths and messages. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 15(12), 817–824. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3817

Kelly, A. E. (2002). Learning seen from the neuroscientific approach. In Understanding the Brain. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264174986-en

OECD. Understanding the Brain. (2002). https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264174986-en

Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x