Let's Talk Learning Styles

Let’s talk learning styles for a minute. We’ve all heard the declarations about personal learning styles and perhaps even uttered these declarations ourselves. Words like “I’m a visual learner, so I had a difficult time with that course.” Or “I learn by doing, so traditional instruction was challenging for me.” Or, “I’m an auditory learner. Having to read something makes it difficult for me to learn.”?

These phrases are often uttered in a declaration of the way individuals feel they learn best, indicating that any learning endeavor that does not play to their unique learning style is less effective. Learning professionals are no less guilty of these assumptions. We often find ourselves engaged with other learning professionals on the topic of learning styles as we develop training delivery or learning design strategies. We ask learners about their learning styles and seek to identify ways in which training can be delivered to focus on these styles. The myth of learning styles permeates popular culture and is embedded in our personal learning identities for many of us. It is also deeply embedded in the professional perspectives of learning professionals who utilize this concept to formulate evaluations on the effectiveness of learning design and delivery.?

The term learning styles refers to the concept that individuals differ in the instructional modes or study approaches that facilitate the most effective learning for them. Kolb (1976) developed the theory of learning styles as a means to understand, identify, plan and integrate individual preferences in the learning process. Kolb theorized that by identifying and leveraging an individual’s learning style, learning experiences would be more enjoyable and more effective. Initially, Kolb categorized learners dialectically as doing-watching or thinking-feeling. Later, Kolb would develop the Learning Styles Inventory (LSI), an order ranking assessment tool designed to identify an individual’s learning preferences.?

Since then, many researchers and practitioners have integrated Kolb’s concepts into their work without empirical correlates, evidencing the merits of learning styles theory or the measures developed to identify these styles in individual learners. Learning styles are commonly thought of as four specific types: visual, auditory, kinesthetic and read/write.?

Fast forward 50 years, and we now know that learning styles are more accurately defined as individual expressions of preference and do not correlate directly with how individuals learn. There is insufficient empirical data that correlate learning delivery method to learning outcomes. In fact, the data actually shows that using a variety of learning delivery methods is more beneficial to learning outcomes than focusing specifically on an identified learning preference.?

Turns out that learning styles are more related to content than the individual. Take, for example, learning the art of playing basketball. The auditory learner could not effectively learn to play the game simply by hearing the instructions. A player needs to see the game played, read the rules, actually play the game, and hear coaching corrections to begin mastering the skills of the game. In essence, all learning styles are employed to learn to play the game of basketball. We need to engage all the senses to learn and retain knowledge and skills. Learning styles are simply preferences, and preferences do not correlate to proficiency.?