The myth of "learning styles"

Learning style theory is widely used in the field of education. Have you ever heard someone say they’re a visual learner? What about a kinesthetic learner, someone who learns by doing? Learning style theory posits that everyone has innate inclinations for how they process information. By catering to these preferences, learning style theory suggests that educational outcomes can be improved

The most popular learning style model is VARK. VARK stands for Visual, Auditory, Reading/Writing, and Kinesthetic. While this model is widely accepted and used by educators, students, and parents, there is little scientific evidence to support it’s claims, and and multiple documented adverse effects to be wary of

Note: This post is a follow-up post from our comprehensive guide on how to study for exams

⌛ Origins 🐣

The VARK model of learning styles was first introduced by Neil Fleming in 1987 when observing classrooms as a school inspector in New Zealand (1). Fleming observed students under no scientific context and proposed the VARK framework based on his observations (2). Fleming suggested that people have pre-programmed sensory modalities through which they receive information and learn best. According to this model, visual learners prefer to learn through visual aids such as diagrams and charts, auditory learners prefer to learn through lectures and discussions, reading/writing learners prefer to learn through text-based materials, and kinesthetic learners prefer to learn through hands-on activities and experiences

🧾 Evidence 🕵️‍♀️

The VARK model of learning styles seems intuitive and appealing. After all, we’re all different and have unique skills and talents, so we must therefore learn in unique ways, right?

Unfortunately, there is minimal scientific evidence to support the benefits of segregating individuals into predefined VARK learning styles (3, 4, 5). In fact, research has consistently shown that learning styles do not exist in the way that the VARK model suggests. To date, there has been no evidence to suggest that information matched to a learning style improves outcomes or retention (3, 4, 5). After conducting their review of the literature, Parsher et. al concluded that “The contrast between the enormous popularity of the learning-styles approach within education and the lack of credible evidence for its utility is, in our opinion, striking and disturbing” (4). This sentiment has been echoed by multiple reviewers in the field, such as Reiner and Willingham (5), and Nancekivell et al (3), whose work was also later endorsed in a press release by the American Psychiatric Association (6)

😥 Issues and Consequences 📉

While there is no clear evidence base behind the VARK model, it remains wildly popular among educators, and its precedence may lead to harm (7)

The VARK model of learning styles assumes that people have fixed, innate preferences for learning, regardless of task, activity or domain (4, 5). This is flawed because it fails to acknowledge the complexity of learning and understanding. Learning is a complex and dynamic process that depends on a variety of factors, including the task at hand, the learner’s prior knowledge and experience, and the context in which learning takes place (7). Rather than having fixed preferences for learning, people are able to adapt their learning strategies and styles to the task at hand and the demands of the environment (7). Subjects like Mathematics or Drama cannot be simplified to one learning style, and specific tasks lend themselves more towards specific modalities. For example, visual cues are extremely important to new drivers learning to recognise different road signs, while auditory cues are equally essential to anyone learning an instrument

Learning styles can also lead to a false sense of security and complacency in students (7). Students who believe that they have a certain learning style may be less likely to engage in active learning strategies and may rely on passive learning methods that are not effective. For example, a student who believes that they are a visual learner may spend hours looking at diagrams and charts without actually engaging with the material or practising problem-solving skills. Similarly, a student who believes that they are an auditory learner may spend hours listening to lectures without actively engaging with the material or asking questions. Unfortunately, this can be especially detrimental because active processing of information has demonstrated superior outcomes when compared to passive reading, listening or studying

Finally, the VARK model of learning styles can lead to ineffective studying habits. If students are encouraged to focus only on their preferred learning style, they may neglect other important learning strategies that could be more effective. For example, a student who is encouraged to focus on visual learning may neglect the importance of reading and writing skills, which are crucial for academic success. Similarly, a student who is encouraged to focus on kinesthetic learning may neglect the importance of critical thinking and analytical skills. This can be especially harmful as research suggests that multimodal approaches containing both visual and auditory cues are more effective than either used alone (8)

👌 Recommendations 🚀

Given the lack of scientific evidence to support the VARK model of learning styles, educators and students should be cautious about using this model as a basis for teaching and learning. Instead, educators should promote evidence based approaches that provide a variety of learning experiences. Educators should allocate resources to providing multi-modal content that develops their students’ experiences in different ways. By doing this, they will help their students develop the ability to learn successfully regardless of environment or situation - which will serve them well in any career path

References

1. Fleming ND, Mills C. Not Another Inventory, Rather a Catalyst for Reflection. To Improve the Academy. 1992;11(1):137-55.
2. Fleming N, Baume D. Learning styles again : VARKing up the right tree! HERDSA News; v29 n1 p14-16; April 2007. 2007;29(1):14-6.
3. Nancekivell S, Shah P, Gelman S. Maybe they’re born with it, or maybe it’s experience: Toward a deeper understanding of the learning style myth. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2019;112.
4. Pashler H, McDaniel M, Rohrer D, Bjork R. Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 2008;9:105-19.
5. Riener C, Willingham D. The Myth of Learning Styles. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning. 2010;42:32-5.
6. Belief in learning styles myth may be detrimental [press release]. American Psychological Association, May 29, 2019.
7. Newton PM, Miah M. Evidence-Based Higher Education - Is the Learning Styles ‘Myth’ Important? Frontiers in psychology. 2017;8:444.
8. Moreno R, Mayer R. Interactive Multimodal Learning Environments. Educational Psychology Review. 2007;19(3):309-26.