Everyone loves learning styles, there is just one problem with them: they are a myth

A couple of years ago I gave a talk about learning. Part of the talk touched on learning styles: the idea that we all have a preferred way of learning, such as reading or writing or watching or doing. When I boldly announced, though, that - ‘learning styles are not real’, there was an audible gasp from the audience. The idea that we all have an optimal way of learning and to be an effective learner we, and whoever is teaching us, just needs to find that way and then ‘bingo’ all is good, is highly engrained. I have myself sat through a more than a few presentations advocating the efficacy of learning styles. It is a simple idea that resonates. 

“But”, you will say, “I know I prefer to learn by reading” and you are right. I also prefer to learn by reading, but here is the thing – just because you prefer something does not mean it is right for you. I prefer chocolate to fruit but fruit is better for me, both though will stop me from being hungry.

It is the same with how we learn. You might prefer to find things out by reading, but actually that might not be the best way to learn, say, a skill. It might be better to be reflective or active or visual or one of the many other styles that have been identified. My computer lists eleven styles, including ‘global’, ‘sequential’ and ‘solitary’, although a review by Coffield and colleagues’ (2004) found a staggering 71!

There is no research evidence to back the idea that learning outcomes are linked to preferred individual learning styles. It is a myth. It has been debunked. Sorry.

I wonder whether there are two reasons why learning styles have become such an accepted concept (I have not researched this, so what follows is pure conjecture). Learning something is hard, sometimes very hard, so it is, perhaps, reassuring to find out that we can, at least, ‘do’ learning in a way that we like. Secondly, learning styles are a relatable and straightforward concept that can be easily promoted, more easily, for example, than the situated factors that enable or inhibit the transfer of learning at work. There are still plenty of the internet’s pages taken up with articles promoting some set of styles or another (the fact that there is not a consensus on the actual number of styles should be a red flag that the theory may not stand up to scrutiny).

The good news is that we do know a lot about what makes learning effective including learning linked to work. That, though, is another story and luckily one based on evidence, unlike learning styles.

Reference

Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review. London, UK: Learning and Skills Research Centre.