by Lewis A. Baker

Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Surrey, United Kingdom

Dr Lewis A. Baker is a Teaching Fellow at the University of Surrey on the Engineering and Physical Sciences foundation year provision. After completing his MPhys and PhD at the University of Warwick, he trained as a secondary school teacher and combined these experiences into his current position. He is a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy and research interests include photochemistry, education, and pedagogy.

The message

As a leading study put it,[1] “there is no adequate evidence base to justify incorporating learning styles assessments into general educational practice” (p. 105). Yet, despite this conclusion of the evidence, as well as subsequent studies which relegate this association to the status of neuromyth,[2–5] it remains a remarkably entrenched mindset of many teachers (and thus students).[6]

Aim of this Guest Blog

Why this neuromyth persists and how we, as teachers and researchers might continue to disseminate the message that matching instruction to a preferred learning style will not raise achievement, is the focus of a recent publication, written specifically for this audience.[7] Along with this Guest Blog, I hope it goes some way to giving teachers (and students) an accessible foundation to contextualise this neuromyth and engage in a firm evidence-base in which to dispel it!

Perhaps a familiar observation to some?

My motivation for embarking on reviewing and synthesising the evidence to better understand why this neuromyth, more specifically, the use of the Visual-Auditory-Kinaesthetic (VAK) learning styles, persisted, was because of two time-removed chance encounters. The first, from when I was a secondary school science teacher, was a simple comment from a Year 9 student as they waited (somewhat) patiently in line for my class. “Are we doing an experiment today?” – a common question many teachers of science face. “Not today”, I replied. Aside from the predictable “sigh” of disappointment, they remarked, “But I have to do an experiment because I can only learn using my hands”. I questioned their assertion a little further and it became clear that the student had been ‘diagnosed’ with a kinaesthetic learning style at their primary school. I explained that they can learn in any ‘learning style’ and in this case, it would be beneficial to work through some theory before we try the experiment. The lesson went on as planned and I did not think any more of it – from my perspective this was an anomaly of what I thought was common shared educational knowledge.

It was the second encounter, perhaps a year or so later after I transitioned into higher education teaching, which made me rethink. I was discussing preparing lecture notes with a colleague, and they went to some length to explain how theirs incorporates aspects for visual and auditory learners, and a short activity would do the same for the kinaesthetic learners. When I explained that matching instruction to preferred learning styles does not raise achievement, it was met with great surprise. This made me think back to the Year 9 student; across different levels of studies, and across different educational roles, the same neuromyth persisted. The issue is not just that it doesn’t have the desired effect, but rather, in each case, time and effort is used to only impose a perceived cognitive limit on the student(s).

So, what is a preferred learning style?

A learning style is a categorisation of a person’s preferred method of receiving information. There is a large number of possible learning styles,[8] the most popular being the VAK model of learning styles (and its derivatives), that is, categorising a learner’s preference to receive information via visual prompts (Visual); through talking and listening (Auditory); through tactility or movement (Kinaesthetic). This categorisation process usually involves the learner agreeing or disagreeing with a series of (subjective) statements – the correlation of which results in a VAK category (or sub-category in some cases).

Now, people may have a preferred learning style, certainly the outcome of such a process is designed to categorise anyone, but the problem resides in suggesting that matching instruction to these preferred styles should raise achievement in the learner. The evidence overwhelmingly finds this notion unfounded.[4]

So why does it persist?

Consider learning to drive a car. I might self-complete a learning styles questionnaire that categories me as an auditory learner. Does this mean that when I learn to drive a car, I would only talk and listen to the instructor? After all, this would match instruction to my preferred learning style. No, of course not. Clearly, if the learning objective is to learn to drive a car, then the instruction is matched to facilitate that outcome. Therefore, my learning involves multiple modes of information processing, perhaps simple sketches of navigating junctions (visual), talking through turning procedures (auditory), and practising manoeuvres (kinaesthetic). Herein lies perhaps the frustratingly strong link to the VAK model, it feels so familiar because these ARE the modes in which we interact with the world around us. This lures people to accept the supposition that matching instruction to a preferred learning style would therefore optimise the learning gains, and yet is not true.

Coupled with commercial opportunities to sell VAK-ready lessons and resources, professional development for teachers in this false pedagogy, and the perpetuation of seeing ‘the right stuff’ by inspectors (many of which are/were teachers), would have amounted to a strong confirmation bias; ‘if I see it everywhere, and everyone else is doing it, then it must work’!

The challenge ahead

Rather than ‘matching instruction to preferred learning’, the message might be instead:[7]

‘a [specific] learning objective could be better suited to a visual, auditory or kinaesthetic learning activity, rather than the student or their preferred learning style’ (pg. 58).

This may encourage those who hold the former view to reframe it into something useful, and importantly, something which is not placing a limit on what a student can or can’t learn. We can dismiss the reference to VAK entirely when we admit that this is just the hallmark of good teaching! Given the vast research to synthesise and evaluate effective pedagogy, many will rely on open-access and purpose written research outcomes for teachers to familiarise themselves with and disseminate. The hope is that this Guest Blog and the article it is based on,[7] goes some way towards achieving this.

References

1. Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence. Psychological Science Public Interest, 9(3), 105–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x

2. Kirschner, P. A. (2017). Stop propagating the learning styles myth. Computers & Education, 106, 166–171. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.006

3. Pasquinelli, E. (2012). Neuromyths: Why Do They Exist and Persist? Mind, Brain, Education, 6(2), 89–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-228X.2012.01141.x

4. Sharp, J. G., Bowker, R., & Byrne, J. (2008). VAK or VAK‐uous? Towards the trivialisation of learning and the death of scholarship. Research Papers Education, 23(3), 293–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671520701755416

5. Willingham, D. T., Hughes, E. M., & Dobolyi, D. G. (2015). The Scientific Status of Learning Styles Theories. Teaching Psychology, 42(3), 266–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628315589505

6. Dekker, S., Lee, N., Howard-Jones, P., & Jolles, J. (2012). Neuromyths in Education: Prevalence and Predictors of Misconceptions among Teachers. Frontiers Psychology, 3(429), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00429

7. Baker, L. A. (2020). Releasing students from the cognitive straitjacket of visual-auditory kinaesthetic learning styles. Impact: Journal Chartered CollegeTeaching, 3(10), 57–60. Also available from: https://impact.chartered.college/article/releasing-students-cognitive-straitjacket-visual-auditory-kinaesthetic-learning-styles/ (Accessed 15 September 2021).

8. Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Should we be using learning styles? What research has to say to practice. London: Learning and skills research centre.