Ethical Psychologists: A Modern Example

A Modern Example

Have you ever heard someone say, “I’m a visual learner,” or “I learn best when I can be hands-on?” In education, there’s a commonly held belief that teachers should match instruction to students’ preferred way of learning – seeing, listening, or physically engaging in learning activities. This belief persists in education textbooks and on licensing exams. This notion has been widely accepted for decades. But is there solid scientific evidence to support the idea of learning styles? Here, we will dive into this common belief and explore evidence challenging the functionality of learning styles.

The Conundrum

The way we have defined these ‘learning styles’ suggests individuals have specific ideal ways of absorbing and retaining information. Commonly recognized learning styles include visual, auditory, reading-writing, and kinesthetic. The wide-accepted myth of having one of these styles means a learner will thrive the most when they are learning in that modality. This idea seems appealing because they align with our understanding people are unique, and we all have different strengths and preferences. Further, people like to be able to have labels to use to describe themselves (e.g., think of buzzfeed quizzes or popular personality tests). Teachers often embrace this myth, believing if they cater to each student’s learning style, students will display better comprehension and retention of information. But does it really work that way?^[14]

Psychologists such as Dan Willingham at the University of Virginia, have studied the validity of learning styles, and have found no convincing evidence that they exist the way we think they do. In one study, participants were categorized as visual or auditory learners. Half of them received visual presentations, while the other half received auditory presentations on the same information. Everyone was then tested on the material. When the researchers compared the group matched with their preferred modality (i.e., visual learners saw a visual presentation) to the groups that were mismatched (i.e., auditory learners saw visual presentations), they found there was no significant difference in learning outcomes between the matched and mismatched groups. In another study examining “visualizers” versus “verbalizers” (instead of visual versus auditory learners), those researchers found similar results. In essence, there was no clear advantage in learning.^[15]

The Paradox

One reason this learning styles myth persists is people often perceive a connection between their preferred style and their ability to learn. For example, if a visual learner sees a helpful diagram and experiences an “aha” moment, they might attribute it to their visual learning style. However, the diagram is likely effective for many people, not just visual learners. This can be considered confirmation bias, or interpreting information in a way that supports a pre-existing belief. Instead of catering to specific learning styles, research suggests that a more effective approach involves using multimodal teaching and learning methods (also called “dual coding.” These methods combine different ways of learning, such as combining a presentation with a visual or an activity. This style of teaching better engages students’ problem-solving and critical thinking.

Why does it matter?

Yes, we are going to keep talking about the myth of learning styles. Some call it “the myth that won’t die.” Why? Despite the scientific evidence of learning styles not being effective, they are still included in some teacher preparation programs, early college success courses, and taught in schools. Many students find identifying with a learning style useful – so why does it matter if people still believe in them? Why take away something that seems to help?

Using evidence-based teaching and learning strategies in schools can pave the way for more effective and inclusive education systems from early childhood through advanced graduate study. We don’t want our teachers to unquestioningly accept and implement what publishing companies promote, just as we don’t want doctors to blindly accept pharmaceutical representatives’ recommendations for treatment. We also want students to learn the methods most helpful to their overall learning!

Neglecting evidence can have serious consequences. Consider a similar disconnect between research and practice, such as reading instruction in U.S. schools. Because of a lack of exposure to the science of reading, teachers often rely on conventional methods and hearsay when teaching reading in the classroom. Consequently, “whole language”-style instruction, under the guise of “balanced literacy,” remains prevalent, despite substantial research supporting a more effective approach. As a result, one out of every three American 4th graders struggles to read at a basic level.

You might wonder how the belief in learning styles could possibly harm students. After all, don’t prospective teachers need to acknowledge and accommodate individual differences, recognizing the importance of tailored instruction?

On the surface, it may seem harmless. However, when teachers devote time and effort to accommodating learning styles lacking empirical backing, they divert their attention and resources from the instructional strategies we know will work. Rather than focusing on planning instruction based on visual, auditory, and kinesthetic learners, teachers can learn to differentiate instruction based on individual students’ mastery of skills and knowledge—factors that genuinely influence student learning.^[17]

More direct harm can be caused when students try and conform to their assigned learning style label. They might avoid effective learning strategies or subjects they think don’t align with their “learning style” or try to process information in their preferred style, even when not suitable for that specific material. Teachers who attempt to cater to multiple learning styles in a lesson can negatively impact student learning by causing cognitive overload. No teacher can perfectly teach every student, but what they can do is cast aside methods with no evidence in favor of the many strategies with proven effectiveness.