© Jazmin Quanor/Unsplash
When I was at school, a fair amount of time was put into determining our "learning styles." Teachers told us that some people learn better visually with pictures, whereas others retained information by reading or making notes. To be honest, I never worked out what mine was.
In a survey, 96% of teachers were found to believe in
learning styles. But it turns out this theory is nonsense.
According to experts on the topic such as Harold Pashler and Doug Rohrer, there is very little scientific evidence that
different methods of learning impact a person's academic results. In fact, a lot of research, such as this study
published in the journal
Learning and Individual Differences, has found that learning styles are probably a myth.
A new paper,
spotted by
BPS Digest and
published in the journal
Anatomical Sciences Education, is what the researchers call the "nail in the coffin" for the theory.
Researchers from the Indiana University School of Medicine recruited hundreds of undergraduate students to take part in the study. It involved them taking one of the most popular online learning style surveys, called
the VARK, which determines whether someone learns visually, by listening, through reading and writing, or by doing practically. Then they were enrolled in an anatomy class.
Students then studied the way that was consistent with their learning style, and the researchers later surveyed them about their methods (to see if they were actually keeping up with their "dominant" methods). At the end of the year, the researchers looked at whether it had any impact on the students' end of year grades.
Results showed that there was no real correlation between the dominant learning style and grade performance. In fact, 67% of students failed to study in the way they were supposed to be best at anyway. Those who did study in line with their learning style didn't achieve better grades than the others.
Overall, regardless of their learning style, practising microscope work or looking at lecture notes were the most effective for the students. Flash cards weren't as helpful.
In the paper, the researchers conclude that the idea that "I can't learn subject X because I am a visual learner" should be put to rest.
"This research provides further evidence that the conventional wisdom about learning styles should be rejected by educators and students alike," they wrote.
Being too simplistic in your approach to learning is probably damaging. If someone dismisses other types of learning because it is not their "dominant" style, they may be doing themselves a disservice in ignoring their weaknesses rather than facing them.
This doesn't mean that the idea of different methods of learning have to be dismissed entirely. Some evidence has
found that novices learn from examples, whereas people experienced in an area get more from problem solving. Also,
combining activities such as drawing alongside studying has been shown to improve learning.
The problem is that people are pretty bad at working out their own learning style, and there are hundreds, perhaps millions, of different methods. It is likely more nuanced than simply saying "I learn visually."
So if, like me, you never really worked out your ideal way of learning, don't worry, because you probably don't have to.
Reader Comments
Authoritarians v Non-Authoritarians. Entire strata of political ideological differences exist as a direct result!
Even in one of the quoted studies above, while it strongly states that the "Learning Styles" approach to education doesn't work, still states... The Problem is that educators and marketers of learning kits and tests, have done a piss-poor job of using this observed condition of humanity to actually provide better teaching methods. The various "Learning Style" approaches to schooling simply don't provide any benefit when you study the final numbers. -This according to the evidence from numerous solid studies.
And yet despite this, people DO learn differently.
Here's my personal thinking on the whole debate:
Providing Audio versus Visual teaching methods is to miss the point, and the endless study of which is better for whom is to study the wrong thing entirely.
Instructing is not what learning is about. Learning happens after the information has been provided, (either through pictures, words or audio tapes, or practical examples, etc.). Learning is based on motivation and on how much the student does which needs to be done in order to commit knowledge to useful memory. That's where what might be called individual learning styles come into effect.
Kung Fu is an excellent example. It can be taught by making students learn long series of patterns (Kick, block, punch, slide, bend, wave at sky, kick, step, Super Punch!), over and over until you can Simon Says the routine with perfection. -Or until you want to strangle the teacher.
The other method is to learn lots of little pieces, repeat those over and over, (block, block, block, block, etc.) and when you have a few dozen of these fixed in muscle memory, explore how you can put them together in an adaptable manner which fits with unfolding, unpredictable events.
Confucianism versus Taoism. (To be very rough about it.)
Some people are young souls with clean slates and they need a lot of direct instructions to follow or they will simply be lost and hopeless. Others have "been there, done that", already know a thing, but need to remember and continue working on a subject. They come with a deep internal compass and an instinctual understanding of what a thing should look and feel like when it is "right". Teachers need to provide the right amount and the right kind of information -and the space to learn- to prod each different person forward.
And students need to know when they are just being pissy and precious and should just buckle down and get to work.
From the quoted study: "Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence ~ Harold Pashler, Mark McDaniel, Doug Rohrer, and Robert Bjork " Identity Politics is a slippery beast.
Or is another 'rats in a cage' study taken outside life as it would be lived?
Joy-learning is completely different from being stuffed or trained to jump through hoops.
Learning takes place in a relationship. taken out of relationship you have a system of processes.
Welcome my son... welcome... to the Machine. . . . . .
Those lyrics brought me back to the mid-late 70's and a precise moment with my best buddy no longer with us.