Kirschner (2017) states that there is no scientific basis for the ideas that learners have an optimal learning style, that learners are aware of that particular style or there exists a reliable/valid way to determine that style, and that optimal learning is achieved when the learning style is matched to instruction.

The idea of learning styles being categorical evaluations of how I—or anyone else learns—is unproven, a point on which I agree with Kirschner (2017). He states three predominant issues in the myth of learning styles which include the following: (a) Assigning learning styles pigeon-holes learners; (b) Learning style tests lack validity, reliability, and predictability powers; and (c) The application of learning methods to match learning styles doesn’t result in improvements in learning.

Kirschner (2017) explores a range of instruments used for determining learning styles, and presents his findings which show that only one instrument, the Allinson & Hayes cognitive style indicator, shows reliability and validity. He further notes that this one instrument measures cognitive style as opposed to learning style.

I think the larger issue is more related to semantics than psychology. There have been exhaustive studies and instruments developed to support the concepts of learning styles, but what are these elusive styles? Anyone with a significant degree of metacognitive ability is well aware of how they like to learn things, and I think the only true answer to the question regarding my learning style is that “It depends.” I am going to think and learn one way if I am learning about a place I intend to visit. I am going to think and learn in a very different way if I am teaching myself how to use a table saw.

Kirschner (2013) states, “When designing instruction that takes differences between learners into account, one should assess cognitive abilities rather than preferred learning styles because abilities are better predictors of how people learn most effectively.” (p. 174).

Note: Reading Kirschner’s 2013 myth busters article is well worth your time, and you’ll learn about oddities such as homo zappiens and butterfly defects.

But don’t ignore learning styles just because they aren’t real…

Just one week ago, I retweeted an infographic from the eLearning Industry feed titled, “What Type of Learner are You?” which I have inserted into my post following the references. The infographic provides a flowchart for you to track variables to define the type of learner you are, based on the VARK model¹. It’s an interesting exercise.

What I found even more interesting is the lower portion of the infographic that describe the “types” of learning, when each type isn’t effective, and how to improve learning success. These tips are useful, and I realize I apply some of them on a regular basis. But is that defining my learning style? No, I don’t think so. What it does is illustrate that there are particular types of cognition appropriate for different types of content, and different ways to support cognition.

¹ The VARK ® model stands for Visual/Aural/Read-Write/Kinesthetic learning styles, along with a fifth style, Multimodal. Learning styles is big business. See, for example the home site at www.vark-learn.com.

References

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

Kirschner, P.A., van Merriënboer, J.J.G. (2013). Do learners really know best? Urban legends in education. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 169-183. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2013.804395

Find more education infographics on e-Learning Infographics