Details

Published: 06 November 2013

Hits: 34319

Dr Kerry Hempenstall, Senior Industry Fellow, School of Education, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.

 First published Dec 6 2012, updated June 2018

All my blogs can be viewed on-line or downloaded as a Word file or PDF at https://www.dropbox.com/sh/olxpifutwcgvg8j/AABU8YNr4ZxiXPXzvHrrirR8a?dl=0

The end of this segment holds the original learning styles document

Why start another document?

I decided to take into account more recent literacy documents, and I’ve selected only research findings provided in the years 2020 to 2025.

The idea was to get some sense of how Learning Styles may have changed. The early document had numerous older documents and practitioners.

The original Styles document is still available at the end of this document.

I decided to take into account more recent documents, and I’ve selected only new research provided in the years 2020 to 2025.

My idea was to get some sense of how the acceptance of Styles may have changed since my early document was rather critical.

Now for the beginning:

Roundup on Research: The Myth of ‘Learning Styles’ (2025)

“If you have been anywhere where teaching is involved, you have probably heard mention of “learning styles.” “I’m a visual learner” vs. “I’m a hands-on learner” or “My instructor didn’t teach in my learning style” are all the types of commentary that are common when some individuals talk about their own learning. Although it is deeply appealing to be able to categorize individuals into easy methods of learning, unfortunately, it is deeply flawed, has little empirical evidence to support it, and might cause more problems than it solves.

What are Learning Styles?

To best understand why learning styles are problematic, it is important to clearly define learning styles. The idea of learning styles is that there are stable, consistent methods that individuals take in, organize, process, and remember information, and by teaching those methods, students learn better. 

One popular concept in learning styles posits that the modality of information is critical – a “visual” learner learns best by seeing versus an “auditory” learner who learns best by having things spoken or described to them. Learning style theory would suggest that by using visual aids, a visual learner would organize and retain information better than say, an auditory learner. The implication is that matching modality information to the modality of learning style is critical to student success.

A note: there are additional and related concepts of “cognitive styles,” “learning strategies,” and “learner preferences” that can sometimes be used interchangeably with “learning styles.” For this article, “learning styles” refers specifically to the theory that there are ways that individuals learn best. In contrast, learning preferences suggest that there are ways people prefer to receive information, but it may not impact learning.

At face value, the concept of learning styles makes sense. Individuals learn differently. Most educational settings are trying to reach large numbers of students in personalized ways.  It would be useful to have an easily applied theory that would help all students learn! As educators, we want to recognize the “uniqueness” of each student and help learners in any way we can. This desire has led educators to look for easier ways to navigate the complexities of teaching. Unfortunately, learning is not that simple.

Do Learning Styles Really Exist?

In general, most learning style theories make two presumptions: 

1. Individuals have a measurable and consistent “style” of learning, and 
2. Teaching to that style of learning will lead to better education outcomes, and conversely, teaching in a contradictory method would decrease achievement. 

In other words, if you are a visual learner, you should learn best if you see things, regardless of the situation. If you are a kinesthetic learner, you will learn best if you can physically manipulate something, regardless of the topic. However, neither of these two assumptions shows any grounding in research. These two propositions are where we can see the concept of learning styles breaking down.

Are Learning Styles Measurable and Consistent?

Did you know that there are actually over 50 different theories of learning styles by various researchers? Researchers have been trying for years to find a correlation between individuals and how to help learning. Some theories suggest the modality of learning matters (like the common VARK theory) while others propose details like time of day and temperature of the room define a learning style. One study that suggested using a cell phone was a learning style (Pursell, 2009).  Just the number of different styles makes it difficult to measure and make sense of an individual style. 

In addition, most learning style inventories rely on a student’s self-report about how they perceive they learn best. These self-reports are generally not validated in any way.  Generally, humans tend to be poor judges of our own learning. Therefore, these surveys are generally measuring “learner preference” rather than “learning style.” You may think you are an auditory learner but until it is validated that you objectively learn better through audio format, it is a preference, not a style. 

Also, when reporting results, many studies will rely on “student satisfaction” as a measure of success, or rely on students’ reflections as a measure of success in a class. For example, many measures of learning styles will ask students how they believe they learn best. Unfortunately, satisfaction with a class or a student’s recollections of success are subjective measures, and generally not accurate (Kirschner & van Merriënboer, 2013, Kirschner, 2017).  While understanding a learner’s preference is useful as is understanding student satisfaction with a lesson, it does not have the same weight as necessitating teaching to that preference. 

Finally, ​​”styles” are unstable and unreliable. The research on learning styles has suggested that these preferences may be unstable – they be topic-specific, but they also change over time (Coffield et al., 2004).  That means that although an individual may be a kinesthetic learner in history this week, that person is a visual learner in math when talking about calculus (but not about geometry), or prefers to learn how to ride a bike kinesthetically instead of reading about it in a book. This questions whether a learning style is a “trait” (or something stable and persisting for a person) or a “state” (something that is temporary and may change). Learning styles as a state of mind are not particularly useful. How can a teacher know the preference of an individual student today in a given subject? 

Does Teaching a Learning Style Result in Better Learning?

Even more importantly, however, is the second assumption – does teaching to an individual’s learning style lead to achievement? Simply put, there is no evidence that supports teaching to a person’s specified learning style results in better learning (Alley, et. al., 2023; Cuevas, 2015; Kirschner & van Merriënboer, 2013; Krätzig & Arbuthnott, 2006; Pashler et al., 2008; Rogowsky et al., 2020). No study has shown that teaching to an identified learning style results in better retention, better learning outcomes or student success. Instead, we see that teaching to a self-identified learning style has no impact on learning in children or adults (Krätzig & Arbuthnott, 2006; Paschler et al., 2008; Rogowsky et al., 2015, Rogowsky et al., 2020). Some research suggests that some students performed better on tasks when taught in a different modality than their self-identified “learning style” (Krätzig & Arbuthnott, 2006, Rogowsky et al., 2020). Most studies of learning styles use a methodology that uses multiple styles to all learners – meaning that there is no way to isolate learning style to teaching method. This leads us to ultimately conclude that while the concept of learning styles is appealing, at this point, it is still a myth.

Alternate Explanations to Learning Styles

Anecdotally, there are many stories about the success of leveraging “learning styles.” If learning styles are not empirically supported, how are these successes explained? There are alternative explanations for why teaching in multiple methods increases achievement that do not prescribe students into style categories. Multi-modal learning explains how learning improves with various methods of teaching.  

Learning requires sustained attention. Therefore, if an educator can capture and maintain students’ attention, students’ learning outcomes likely improve.  Providing engagement with content in multiple forms – be it through hands-on activities, or different modalities – makes students pay attention to content in different ways, and requires learners to integrate knowledge in new ways. If an educator is using multiple methods and modalities, it’s just more interesting, and students pay more attention, which leads to better learning. Mayer and colleagues (2001, 2003) have extensively studied how students learn with visuals and audio, and the interaction of the two. What he and his colleagues suggest is that by providing dual streams of information in multiple methods engages learners to work harder at understanding the material, which leads to better learning. It may be that the research on learning styles is actually showing that teaching with different modalities is just more interesting to students rather than catering to a particular style of learning ​​(Krätzig & Arbuthnott, 2006).

Why Learning Styles are Dangerous

While the intentions of learning styles are good, the implications of learning styles are more destructive than helpful.   On the positive side, reflecting on how one learns is always a lesson. However, by focusing on a style suggests that learners are passive vessels at the whim of the method of teaching. Ultimately, most educators want students to actively engage in their learning. The best learning takes place when an individual can connect and incorporate information into his or her personal experiences and understanding. By focusing on a student’s learning style we reinforce a simplistic view of learning. Learning styles suggest that individuals have one way to learn best. Unfortunately, learning is complex, and not easy. This is hard and takes time! It has very little to do with the way information is handed to a learner, but rather, how the learner processes that knowledge once they have it. It is important to remember – learning is within the control of the learner. 

Thinking Critically About Learning Styles

If learning styles do not impact an individual’s ability to learn, why is there so much talk about them? Articles and books are still being published about learning styles and how to tailor teaching to reach every style. Research on teaching and learning is a complicated discipline, and being able to examine theories and concepts like learning styles critically is important to anyone working in education. The challenge is to keep a skeptical eye when you hear about research supporting learning styles and ask the right questions to make sure you are getting good information.

Evan Ogg Straub?

1. What framework of learning styles are they referring to? Some are more empirically vetted than others. The most popular learning style VARK (Visual-Auditory-Read/Write-Kinesthetic) is also the least validated. Find out more about the learning style being discussed.
2. How are they measuring both learning style and success? Are they self-reported? Are they looking at academic results or a self-report of satisfaction with learning?
3. Is the study carefully controlled? Many studies fail to tailor the learning to a particular style. Rather, the lesson uses all the styles to reach all the students. There is no way to truly measure success.
4. Learning styles can be controversial with some people. They aren’t necessarily harmful if they encourage people to reflect on teaching and learning in different ways. They can be harmful if students believe that their learning is outside their control.

Ogg Straub,E.,  (2025). Roundup on Research: Community of Inquiry. M/Online Teaching.

https://onlineteaching.umich.edu/articles/roundup-on-research-community-of-inquiry/

“Teachers commonly categorize students as visual or auditory learners. Despite a lack of empirical evidence, teaching to a student’s perceived learning style remains common practice in education (Pashler et al., 2009). Having conducted an extensive review of the literature, Pashler et al. (2009) noted, “...very few studies have even used an experimental methodology capable of testing the validity of learning styles applied to education” (p. 105). Rogowsky et al. (2015) published the first study following the experimental design prescribed by Pashler et al. Focusing specifically on the visual/auditory dichotomy, Rogowsky et al. (2015) examined the extent to which learning style predicts comprehension and retention based on mode of instruction. Their study has been noted as “The only study located through the systematic literature search across six different databases and the screening of more than 1000 records that was totally aligned with Pashler’s criteria” (Aslaksen and Loras, 2018, p. 3).

The caveat to the 2015 study is that it was conducted with adult learners. The current study uses the same design and methodology as its predecessor, but on a school-aged population, making it the first of its kind.

Consistent with earlier findings with adults, results failed to find a significant relationship between auditory or visual learning style preference and comprehension. Fifth graders with a visual learning style scored higher than those with an auditory learning style on listening and reading comprehension measures. As such, and counter to current educational beliefs and practices, teachers may actually be doing a disservice to students by using resources to determine their learning style and then tailoring the curriculum to match that learning style.

Introduction

Learning styles-based education, specifically targeting auditory and visual learners, is common practice from kindergarten through post-secondary education (Lynch, 2015; Newton, 2015).

The underlying premise of learning styles is that teaching to a student’s preferred style results in optimal learning. For example, it is hypothesized that students classified as visual learners will recall more when content is presented in a visual format.

Likewise, students classified as auditory learners will recall more when content is presented in an auditory format. Although it makes intuitive sense that students will learn best when taught in their preferred learning style, there have been multiple studies calling this methodology into question (Constantinidou and Baker, 2002; Kratzig and Arbuthnott, 2006; Massa and Mayer, 2006; Kassaian, 2007; Kolloffel, 2012; Hansen and Cottrell, 2013; Rogowsky et al., 2015; Knoll et al., 2017).

Despite the lack of evidence, adherence to learning styles hypotheses is globally pervasive. Dekker et al. (2012) surveyed 242 teachers from the United Kingdom (n = 137) and the Netherlands (n = 105) who were interested in applying neuroscientific findings in their classrooms. Given their high level of interest, it was predicted they would be current in effective research-based practices. Results showed that 93% of teachers from the United Kingdom and 96% of teachers from the Netherlands incorrectly agreed with the statement: “Individuals learn better when they receive information in their preferred learning style (e.g., auditory, visual, kinesthetic).” MacDonald et al. (2017) found similar results when they tested teachers, those with high exposure to neuroscience, and the general public with the same statement in the United States. Taken together, these results reveal the extent to which there continues to be a disconnect between empirical evidence and teaching practice. Misconceptions about learning styles continue to be widely held by teachers around the world.

Acknowledging the lack of empirical support, Pashler et al. (2009) published a comprehensive and influential review of the learning styles literature, specifically as it pertains to teaching. They called this interaction the meshing hypothesis which states that an individual learns better when taught in a mode of instruction (for example listening versus reading) that aligns with their preferred learning style (auditory, visual, respectively). Their review found no empirical evidence to support the meshing hypothesis. Since Pashler et al.’s (2009) review, a number of reviews have investigated learning styles and educator perceptions of their application. These have ranged from reviews of empirical studies on the effect of learning styles-based instruction on learning (Arbuthnott and Kratzig, 2015; Cuevas, 2015; Kirschner, 2017; Aslaksen and Loras, 2018), to studies on the persistence, prevalence, and disservice learning styles based instruction has had on education (Howard-Jones, 2015; Willingham et al., 2015; Kirschner, 2017). Like Pashler et al., these reviews found no support for learning styles, but no study was conducted with school-aged children.

In our review of the literature, we found two studies on learning styles conducted specifically with K-12 students (Martin, 2010; Mahdjoubi and Akplotsyi, 2012), but neither examined the effect of instructional mode on actual student achievement. Mahdjoubi and Akplotsyi had 151 elementary school students complete a child-friendly learning styles inventory: visual/aural/kinesthetic (VAK). All the children were then observed doing activities focused on different sensory styles (visual = photo safari, auditory = speech frequency, and kinesthetic = Global Positioning Systems). Mahdjoubi and Akplotsyi found that the children exhibited differences in their involvement during visual, auditory, and kinesthetic activities that were consistent with their assessed VAK learning style preference. However, Mahdjoubi and Akplotsyi did not assess student achievement or assess whether learning style differentially affected learning based on different modes of instruction. It is important to note that having learning preferences has never been called into question. What is under debate is whether learning in your preferred style yields greater academic achievement.

Martin (2010) also did not study the effect of learning styles-based instruction on achievement, but instead focused on the reliability of two learning style inventories. Martin administered two learning style inventories to 394 secondary students: Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory-2 (Kolb, 2005) and Honey and Mumford’s Learning Styles Questionnaire (Honey and Mumford, 1992). Despite the similar descriptors for the classifications between the two measures, no correlation between the two measures was found and there was a lack of construct validity for both inventories as well. Martin concluded, “Teachers would have as much information if they assigned the learning styles randomly to students rather than using the Kolb test” (p. 1586).

Given the lack of empirical studies, Pashler et al. described the experiment that would need to be conducted in order to conclude empirically that learning is significantly improved when individuals receive instruction matched to their learning style. First, individuals must be divided into groups on the basis of their learning style. Second, individuals from each group must be randomly assigned to receive one of multiple instructional methods. Finally, individuals must complete an assessment of the material that is the same for everyone. For the meshing hypothesis to be supported, the data analysis must reveal (1) that learning is optimal when individuals receive instruction in their preferred learning style and (2) the instructional method that proves most effective for individuals with one learning style is not the most effective method for individuals with a different learning style.

Using Pashler et al.’s prescribed experimental design and series of data analyses, Rogowsky et al. (2015) was unable to find support for the meshing hypothesis in adults. In their first experiment, adult participants’ auditory and visual learning styles were established based on a standardized adult learning style inventory (Building Excellence® online learning styles assessment inventory for ages 17 and older; Rundle and Dunn, 2010). Participants were then given an aptitude test in both listening and written formats (Gray Oral Reading Test-4th edition; Wiederholt and Blalock, 2000). Results showed no relationship between learning style preference (auditory, visual) and learning aptitude (listening comprehension, reading comprehension). In their second experiment, participants were randomly assigned to one of two instructional groups. The groups were presented with the same content, but in different instructional modes and then completed comprehension tests immediately following instruction and 2 weeks later. Results found no relationship between learning style, instructional method, and performance for either immediate comprehension or 2-week retention. Taken together, these experiments found no evidence to support learning styles-based instruction. However, it was noted that these results with adults may not generalize to children.

Discussion

It makes sense that visual learners would perform better when instruction is presented visually rather than auditorily. Likewise, it makes sense that auditory learners would perform better when instruction is presented in an auditory format rather than visually. This hypothesis had never been tested with K-12 students, making this study with 5th graders the first of its kind.

The results of this study add to the mounting evidence that does not support the widespread use of learning styles in the classroom. Most students, 68%, do not even have a clear learning style preference. For the ones who do, receiving instruction in their preferred style did not equate with better learning. Contrary to the expectations predicted by the learning styles hypothesis, we found (1) no significant positive relationship between auditory learning style and listening comprehension, (2) no significant positive relationship between visual learning style and reading comprehension, and (3) no differential effect of learning style on performance on a listening as compared to a reading comprehension test. Overall, matching instruction to meet a student’s auditory or visual learning style had no effect on student achievement. Teachers and schools should not devote time and resources to learning styles-based instruction.

Not only were we unable to support the learning styles hypothesis, we replicated a result with important implications for education. A main effect found that 5th graders with a preferred visual learning style performed significantly better than those with an auditory learning style on both listening and reading comprehension measures. This is similar to the results reported in a previous study with adults (Rogowsky et al. 2015). That is, both 5th graders and adults with a visual learning style had superior comprehension, regardless of instruction, while those with an auditory learning style scored significantly below their peers on both comprehension measures, regardless of instruction.

By 5th grade and beyond, an individual’s preference for auditory learning may reflect difficulty in learning to read or failure to become proficient. This would suggest that to achieve superior comprehension, which is vital for classroom learning, all students need as much opportunity as possible to build strong reading skills. Thus, contrary to the learning style hypothesis, it may be particularly important to focus on strengthening reading skills in all students, especially for auditory learners. That is, auditory learners may actually benefit more from additional instruction in their non-preferred modality. This is opposite to the specific recommendation prescribed by Rundle and Dunn to auditory learners: “Reading manuals, textbooks, articles, or documents is not your strength. You are strongly encouraged to utilize your strengths when learning new and difficult information” (Learning Styles, 2014).

Learning styles-based instruction was based on a theory that gained acceptance despite evidence. With the growing focus on the science of learning, current educational psychology journals and textbooks are making strides in drawing attention to the lack of evidence supporting learning styles-based instruction (Woolfolk, 2014). Unfortunately, many education textbooks continue to advocate for learning styles-based instruction and for teachers to use learning styles inventories and tests before planning instruction (Lynch, 2015). The results of this study add to a growing body of research that refutes the educational value of assessing and accommodating children’s learning style preferences with the goal of improving learning outcomes.”

Rogowsky BA, Calhoun BM and Tallal, P (2020). Providing Instruction Based on Students’ Learning Style Preferences Does Not Improve Learning. Front. Psychol. 11:164. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00164

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00164

“The purpose of this article is to (a) clarify what learning styles theories claim and distinguish them from theories of ability, (b) summarize empirical research pertaining to learning styles, and (c) provide suggestions for practice and implications supported by empirical research.”

The distinction between abilities and styles is important to the authors:

“The two are often confused, but the distinction is important. It is relatively uncontroversial that cognitive ability is multifaceted (e.g., verbal ability and facility with space have distinct cognitive bases), and it is uncontroversial that individuals vary in these abilities. For ‘‘styles’’ to add any value to an account of human cognition and learning, it must mean something other than what ability means. While styles refer to how one does things, abilities concern how well one does them.”

Predictions from learning-styles theory:

“Learning styles theories make two straightforward predictions. First, a learning style is proposed to be a consistent attribute of an individual, thus, a person’s learning style should be constant across situations. Consequently, someone considered an auditory learner would learn best through auditory processes regardless of the subject matter (e.g., science, literature, or mathematics) or setting (e.g., school, sports practice, or work). Second,  cognitive function should be more effective when it is consistent with a person’s preferred style; thus, the visual learner should remember better (or problem-solve better, or attend better) with visual materials than with other materials.”

Results: Are these learning-styles predictions validated by the research?:

“No. Several reviews that span decades have evaluated the literature on learning styles (e.g., Arter & Jenkins, 1979; Kampwirth & Bates, 1980; Kavale & Forness, 1987; Kavale, Hirshoren, & Forness, 1998; Pashler et al., 2009; Snider, 1992; Stahl, 1999; Tarver & Dawson, 1978), and each has drawn the conclusion that there is no viable evidence to support the theory. Even a recent review intended to be friendly to theories of learning styles (Kozhevnikov, Evans, & Kosslyn, 2014) failed to claim that this prediction of the theory has empirical support. The lack of supporting evidence is especially unsurprising in light of the unreliability of most instruments used to identify learners’ styles (for a review, see Coffield et al., 2004).”

Willingham, D. T., Hughes, E. M., & Dobolyi, D. G. (2015). The scientific status of learning styles theories. Teaching of Psychology, 42(3), 266-271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0098628315589505

Are you a visual, auditory, reading/writing, or kinesthetic learner? For millions of students, this question has become so familiar that they already have an answer ready to go. Some identify as visual learners, which means that, in theory, they learn best by seeing concepts in pictures and diagrams, perhaps on a blackboard or in a video. Others identify as auditory learners, which means they learn best by hearing, or reading/writing learners, which means they learn best by reading books and taking notes. Still others identify as kinesthetic learners, which means they learn best when they can physically engage with things, such as in a chemistry lab.

For most of us, the idea that different people have different learning styles is so obvious that it is simply common knowledge. But there’s a problem here, a big problem. No matter how hard scientists have looked, they haven’t been able to find any good evidence for the learning styles theory. Indeed, many academics who study this for a living consider learning styles to be one of the biggest myths in education.

“There is no credible evidence that learning styles exist,” write psychologists Cedar Riener and Daniel Willingham in a 2010 paper titled The Myth of Learning Styles. “Students may have preferences about how to learn, but no evidence suggests that catering to those preferences will lead to better learning.”

If that sounds far-fetched, well, there’s plenty more where that came from.

In a 2009 review paper entitled Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence, researchers investigated the “meshing hypothesis,” which is the idea that students learn better when instruction is provided in a format that matches their learning style. Their conclusion is a hard pill to swallow. “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,” the researchers wrote. “If classfication of students’ learning styles has practical utility, it remains to be demonstrated.”

A 2006 study looking at multimedia instruction came to a similar conclusion. “There was not strong support for the hypothesis that verbal learners and visual learners should be given different kinds of multimedia instruction,” the authors concluded.

But perhaps this is just a few fringe studies? Perhaps there is still some debate on this within academia? Not so, says the American Psychological Association. “Many people, including educators, believe learning styles are set at birth and predict both academic and career success even though there is no scientific evidence to support this common myth,” the APA wrote in a 2019 press release titled “Belief in Learning Styles Myth May Be Detrimental.” The release goes on to say that “numerous studies have debunked the concept of learning styles,” and that there is a “lack of scientific evidence supporting them.”

This lack of evidence stands in stark contrast to popular opinion. Indeed, surveys show that 80-95 percent of people in the US and other industrialized countries believe in learning styles.

Having said all that, it’s important to be clear about what exactly researchers are criticizing when they talk about the myth of learning styles. They aren’t saying there are no differences between students, or that tailored teaching approaches can never be helpful. There are plenty of individual differences between students, such as talent, background knowledge, and interest in the field, and researchers agree that teaching with these differences in mind can have a positive impact.

There is also evidence that using multiple teaching approaches together (such as words and pictures) tends to improve learning across the board, a phenomenon known as the multimedia effect. Again, researchers don’t take issue with this. What they dispute is the idea that each student has a particular learning style, and that teaching to a student’s preferred learning style will improve their educational outcomes.

Questioning the Unquestionable

For many people, the idea that learning styles don’t have scientific support is likely a bit of a shock. How could we be so wrong about something so fundamental? And how could so many people believe this if it wasn’t true? These are good questions, and they’re worth exploring. But a more unsettling question also comes to mind.

If we could be wrong about this, what else might we be getting wrong about education?

What if there are other things we’re doing in the school system that are also seriously flawed, even though we don’t realize it? What if there are other widely-believed assumptions that would also prove untrue upon closer inspection? We fall so easily into habits and routines that we become slaves to the status quo. Is it really a stretch, then, to suggest that we might have missed something else as well? Is it a stretch to wonder whether we’re even getting this whole education thing right?

What if there are better ways to learn than typical schooling, ways we haven’t even thought of? What if we’ve been duped into thinking that what we have now is the best possible approach, but really the only reason we think that is because it’s all most of us have ever known? What if most of the stuff we think is “common knowledge” about education is actually straight-up wrong? These are questions worth seriously considering.

We’re told that sitting in a classroom 6 hours a day is what kids need. But is it really? We’re told that everyone should learn the same thing at the same age, but is that really best? We’re told that everyone needs at least 12 years of formal schooling, and that this schooling should take place between the ages of 6 and 18, but is that really true? Once you start questioning the fundamental tenets of schooling we all take for granted, you realize there’s a lot we might be getting wrong.

Fortunately, we live in the 21st century, with technology and insights that previous generations simply didn’t have. As such, now is a better time than ever to go back to the drawing board and question the fundamental assumptions that form the bedrock of the education system as we know it.

Change is hard, of course. When we start asking questions that no one has asked for decades, it can be uncomfortable. But in the end, not changing is harder. When we allow myths about education to fester, like the myth of learning styles, we only do a disservice to the next generation. So rather than seeking out validation for our pre-existing views, let’s be courageous and have an open mind about these things. Let’s put our theories about education to the test and see whether they stand up to scrutiny.

The education system has been stagnant for far too long, and the persistence of bad ideas like the learning styles theory is a testament to this fact. So rather than sticking with the status quo, perhaps it’s time to put our old education assumptions aside and seek out a better approach.”

Carroll, P. (2022). Learning Styles Don’t Actually Exist, Studies Show.. Foundation for Economic Education. https://fee.org/articles/learning-styles-don-t-actually-exist-studies-show/

_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

This next segment is a broader document, and includes earlier periods.

Like the three cueing system, the notion of learning styles has continued to evoke surprising enthusiasm among many educators. It has undeniable intuitive appeal – after all don’t we value individual difference? When a concept has social currency it seems churlish to dispute its existence on purely rational or empirical grounds. If it feels right, then one may development an emotional attachment that is difficult to shift even when there's an absence of research to support its usefulness in the classroom. If learning styles were simply a value system that stimulated teachers to provide the best possible teaching to all their charges then there would be little cause for concern. However, there are practical implications that may actually disadvantage some students, either because the method chosen is unhelpful to the concept or operation being taught, or simply because of the opportunity cost of time wasted when an inefficient approach is employed. Struggling students can least afford low quality or inefficient instruction.

 “To be a useful tool in instructional decision making, a theory of individual differences in learners must do the following things well:

(a) Specify the nature of the underlying trait in a way that is convincing and valid.

(b) There needs to be a measure of this trait which meets acceptable psychometric standards.

(c) The theory needs to describe why this trait is relevant to educational contexts, i.e., to specify which salient outcomes are related to which specific levels of the trait.

(d) There must be an information basis, preferably through responsibly executed research, suggesting that education outcomes are attributable to learner-situation interactions rather than task characteristics alone.

When assayed against criteria such as these, it is apparent that, in general terms, the learning styles movement has many deficiencies (Riding & Rayner, 1998). Contrary to the impression gained from net searching, there is not any currently available technology available to the classroom teacher which will enable his or her educational goals to be facilitated through diagnosis of student learning style”.

Read more ...