The Learning Styles Myth is Thriving in Higher Education

Abstract

The existence of ‘Learning Styles’ is a common ‘neuromyth’, and their use in all forms of education has been thoroughly and repeatedly discredited in the research literature. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that their use remains widespread. This perspective article is an attempt to understand if and why the myth of Learning Styles persists. I have done this by analyzing the current research literature to capture the picture that an educator would encounter were they to search for “Learning Styles” with the intent of determining whether the research evidence supported their use. The overwhelming majority (89%) of recent research papers, listed in the ERIC and PubMed research databases, implicitly or directly endorse the use of Learning Styles in Higher Education. These papers are dominated by the VAK and Kolb Learning Styles inventories. These presence of these papers in the pedagogical literature demonstrates that an educator, attempting to take an evidence-based approach to education, would be presented with a strong yet misleading message that the use of Learning Styles is endorsed by the current research literature. This has potentially negative consequences for students and for the field of education research.

Evidence-Based Higher Education – Is the Learning Styles ‘Myth’ Important?

“…Participants were then asked “have you ever administered a Learning Styles questionnaire to your students” and were given four specific examples along with the ‘styles’ identified by those examples. The examples chosen were those most commonly found in a recent study of the literature on Learning Styles (Newton, 2015). Participants were also given the option to check ‘other’ and identify any other types of Learning Styles questionnaire that they might have used.…”

“…A study of Higher Education faculty in the USA showed that 64% agreed with the statement “Does teaching to a student’s learning style enhance learning?” (Dandy and Bendersky, 2014). A recent study demonstrated that current research papers ‘about’ Learning Styles, in the higher education research literature, overwhelmingly endorsed their use despite the lack of evidence described above (Newton, 2015). Most of this endorsement was implicit and most of the research did not actually test Learning Styles, rather proceeded on the assumption that their use was a ‘good thing.’ For example, researchers would ask a group of students to complete a Learning Styles questionnaire, and then make recommendations for curriculum reform based upon the results.…”

Pre-registration midwifery education: Do learning styles limit or liberate students?

“…This undermines education as a research field and likely has a negative impact on students.' (Newton, 2015) It is important to point out that the reports by Coffield et al (2004a;2004b) are nuanced, complex and resistant to reductionist soundbites and simplistic conclusions. Nevertheless, Coffield provided a succinct statement on learning styles in an opinion piece for the National Council for School Leadership:…”

Myths and social structure: The unbearable necessity of mythology in medical education

“…As scientists, physicians are trained to “view disease in a similar way to other natural phenomena” and as a result are oriented towards evidence in hierarchical terms in which “that which is most universal in its application or most general in its import, is the most significant” . The labelling of various medical theories, claims, practices or healing traditions as “myths” functions as a marker of senescence and progress in medical education . In the Kuhnian sense, myth busting is a natural operation of knowledge‐generating fields, whereby new scientific discoveries produce enough disjuncture in the current way of thinking to necessitate a paradigm shift to maintain the function of the field and to rid it of erroneous former explanations.…”