At some point in your educational history, you’ve likely received a test to determine your individual learning style. For many students and instructors alike, these inventories are believed to hold the key to maximizing classroom potential. Yet the notion that simple labels encompass the complex process of learning is nothing more than a myth we need to disregard.
Spanning back to the 1970s, researchers have been interested in identifying and classifying differences in individual learning, or learning styles. While several models of learning styles have emerged, the most widespread is Neil Fleming’s model. Fleming identified four primary ways or ‘modalities’ through which people process information — visual, auditory, reading/writing and kinesthetic, or VARK for short.
In the ensuing decades, VARK and other learning models would not only take hold in classrooms everywhere, but would spawn a booming industry dedicated to providing educators with workbooks and seminars on how to tailor instruction to individual learning preferences.
While the concept of learning styles makes intuitive sense, it has failed time and again to stand up to scrutiny. In the mid-2000s, not just one but two extensive reviews of the literature on learning styles concluded there is no evidence to support their use in educational settings.
Furthermore, it’s almost obvious that your learning style can’t apply to every situation. For instance, you can’t learn to drive a car by just hearing or watching someone do it — you have to actually get behind the wheel and drive! The same logic applies to the classroom — mastering geometry is much more difficult when you can’t see the shapes you’re working with.
In fact, research suggests students learn better when they utilize a variety of learning styles at once. In other words, no one learns uniformly, and grouping students into neat categories hinders more than promotes growth.
Despite the lack of evidence, belief in learning styles remains widespread. According to one study, approximately 89% of educators worldwide believe matching instruction to a student’s learning preferences improves academic performance.
While it may seem like a harmless practice, allowing the neuromyth to propagate not only undermines educational research, but it also places an unfair strain on instructors who try to accommodate all their students. In addition, this wastes resources which could be utilized for more substantiated strategies.
Richard E. Mayer — a professor of psychology at the University of California, Santa Barbara — lists four important characteristics educators should look for in research before implementing it into their teaching. According to Mayer, valid science is theory-grounded, evidence-based, relevant and clear.
One evidence-based strategy shown to improve learning outcomes is metacognition, or thinking about thinking. Students grasp material better when given the opportunity to reflect on what they learned in class. Reflecting in this manner also helps students recognize any pitfalls in their thinking and avoid maladaptive studying habits.
Another excellent strategy is to engage in mindfulness. Mindfulness is a practice that aims to avoid unproductive thoughts by drawing attention to the present. In one study, undergrad students who attended a mindfulness seminar for two weeks improved their GRE scores by an average of 16%.
The answer to the question “What type of learner are you?” can’t be answered with one word. Instead of relying on intuition and personal experience, we should all do a better job of ensuring the techniques we utilize inside and outside the classroom actually work. Only then, will we begin to see real results.
