Learning Styles and the Dangers of Oversimplification

What learning style are you? Spatial? Linguistic? My favourite one was kinesthetic mainly because it made you sound so sophisticated, and it was always fun to push people to make learning more of a physical activity. (Yes, I’m that guy.)

But remember when it used to be a thing? Remember how it is still a thing?

Nope, didn't go away. Yup, still a thing.

The Atlantic was the most recent one to bring up our good friend learning styles and the myth behind them. Of course, most of us know that this has been debunked for a while now, but what stood out to me was how they weren’t really sure how this idea originated. No one really knew where it came from, but these ideas prevailed and lingered and became a significant part of our educational system for years to come. And what troubles me most is how long it has taken to debunk this myth.

Of course, hindsight is a beautiful thing. We thought it was the right thing to do, and there’s nothing wrong with that. Yet it was not the idea of learning styles that made it so bad (ok, maybe a little), but rather our reliance on it that made it so dangerous.

The myth of learning styles, for me, is a canary in the coal mine for how easily simple ideas can pervade our L&D worldview. Once out there, as long as it sounds like it could make sense, it becomes part of our collective conscious. And as the article mentions, because we are attracted to things that are “intuitively appealing,” that’s where the danger lies. In this age where information and disinformation share the same stage, where our LinkedIn timeline is just an overstimulation of content, there’s no time for complex and so the semblance of truth is more attractive than the evidence of it. This was the danger of learning styles because it was intuitively appealing, and this is the danger of everything we face in our buzzword-filled L&D universe. Oversimplification is a major challenge to our industry.

We are all guilty of oversimplification, because hey, we all like shiny things. Whether in that client meeting or finally getting the time of your key stakeholder, in a bind, we have to skim the facts and present the most compelling narrative using the buzzwords necessary to make the point. (Toby Harris does a great job here calling out a lot of them and how our industry is way too attached to such concepts.) But it seems like there is no time for complex anymore.

In a world of noise, we are constantly looking for maxims to rely upon. But how often do we take the time to digest what’s actually been said. What is fact? What is fiction? Theory? Myth? Most importantly, what makes sense for your particular situation? Somehow, taking action has taken priority over taking meaningful action and that’s how theory become fact, and fact becomes mantra. But an idea, no matter how attractive, still needs to be closely examined because the details matter.

Here’s a good example: What’s the difference between science, brain science, neuroscience and cognitive psychology? Now here’s the better question: In the eyes of your stakeholder, does it matter? Of course, it should matter, because there are dangerous things to claim if not properly understood. But saying “Here’s what the science says…” is easier to intuit than explaining the different fields of study and what they can (or cannot) contribute to our understanding of how we learn. This is the danger of the “facts” we work with in L&D. It doesn't seem right or wrong in the moment, but an over-reliance on it is what makes it dangerous if not properly understood.

We need to remember that theories are theories. Frameworks are frameworks. There's value in them as long as you also understand their limitations. Because no matter if its learning styles, neuroscience or whatever next year’s buzzword will be, one thing will always be constant:

Learning is messy. The brain is messy. People are complex. There’s no simple science. There are some general rules and also a lot of little exceptions.

We need to stop oversimplifying what we hear, making broad generalizations and then relying on them to dictate our entire learning strategy. It's ok to be informed by them, but don't let them define it. It’s ok to not have the full picture. In fact, it’s better that way. With every trend, with every buzzword, you still need to lead with good design practices. It’s a boring answer, but it works.

Learning styles is a good lesson for us in the dangers of oversimplifying an intuitively appealing idea. Let’s take time to cut through the noise, debate, be right, be wrong and do what’s best for our organizations in the most meaningful way we can.

If anything, it just feels like the right to do.

Maybe that’s because I was always more of a kinesthetic guy myself.