Until about 10 years ago, I, like far too many educators,
believed in learning styles, multiple intelligence theories and the like.
Several scholarly articles and Daniel Willingham’s Why Students Don’t Like School (2009) enlightened me.
Today I cringe when my well-meaning peers talk about
using—sometimes even paying for—learning style inventories, or developing
lessons to account for students’ different learning styles or creating student
profiles that travel with students from middle school to high school.
So why do so many
educators continue to believe in the notion of learning styles?
We’re surrounded by
“professional” resources
An entire industry has developed around learning styles
instruction. We’ve seen the proliferation of professional articles and books,
including those published by otherwise reputable companies/organizations like
ASCD, Phi Delta Kappan, and Edutopia. Teacher’s
editions of textbooks frequently include strategies to reach visual, auditory,
and/or kinesthetic learners. Finally, we receive mailings inviting us to attend
workshops and trainings guaranteed to improve student learning through learning
styles.
Inherently learning
styles makes sense
After attending one of these workshops about twenty years
ago, I left feeling better prepared to teach. Learning styles seemingly offered
a quick, simple solution. In implementing instruction based on learning styles,
I could increase motivation, improve student attitudes toward learning and thus
improve achievement.
For the next decade, I developed lessons based on learning
styles. Students took learning style inventories. I differentiated instruction
based on student strengths (wait a pain!). Yet, not a single study provides
evidence that understanding students’ learning styles improves learning. How much time and energy did I waste? How much
learning was lost by my naivety?
The idea behind
learning styles makes sense. People are different, so they must learn
differently. Except we don’t.
OK, but what’s the
danger in using learning styles?
This can best be answered with an example. John is a seventh-grader
who struggles with reading and writing, but excels in art. John’s middle school
teachers administer a learning styles inventory and not surprisingly, in
regards to VAK (Visual-Auditory-Kinesthic), John is found to be a
visual/spatial learner. Using this data, John’s teachers create lessons geared
towards his “strength.” In history class, instead of writing, John draws
cartoons. For English, instead of writing a book report, John creates a
diorama. While giving John choices may increase his motivation, John is missing
out on the opportunity to improve his writing skills.
John’s eighth grade teachers go a step further. Students are
grouped according to their learning styles. Like many of his classmates, John
is placed in the Visual/Spatial group. John’s teachers create lessons targeting
his supposed strengths, instead of providing instruction to improve his reading
and writing.
Upon entering high school, John lags behind many peers when
it comes to reading and writing. When John’s English teacher requires him to
write papers, he struggles mightily. Poor grades follow. When his teacher
approaches him about his struggles, John responds, “I’m not verbal/auditory
learner. I do best with visuals.”
John’s well-meaning teachers have labeled him. Now John has
labeled himself. Such labels shape
expectations, lead to exaggerations and perpetuate the notion that a student is
not capable—or not as capable—of success. Labeling students according to
supposed preferred learning styles isn’t just unreliable and ineffective; it’s
downright dangerous.
For more information debunking the use of learning styles:
