The Surprising Truth about Learning Styles

Remember those pre-smartphone days of yore when you had to ask a stranger for directions whenever you got lost?

I always shied away from doing so. And not just because I was reluctant to publicly let on that I was lost – but also because I was spectacularly inept at actually taking those directions. My brain could handle a turn or two, but beyond the third, my eyes would glaze over and something in my head would shut down. Give me a MapQuest turn-by-turn printout (remember those?) and I’d be good to go – but verbal instructions pretty much fell on deaf ears.

Sound familiar? Or more specifically, have you ever noticed that it’s easier to digest new information when it’s presented to you in a certain way?

As in, perhaps you learn best if a tennis coach shows you how to hit a slice backhand. Or maybe it’s best if the coach explains the mechanics to you verbally. Or maybe you just need to do it yourself, and feel how it’s done?

This is the basic premise of learning styles theory. That a) we all learn in different ways (e.g. visual, verbal, kinesthetic, etc.), and b) we learn better when information is presented to us in a way that meshes with our preferred style.

It’s an incredibly appealing notion, and resonates with our experience. No wonder there are thousands of papers, dozens of books, and a whole range of training programs and products based on this premise. It has even found its way into psychology textbooks.

So imagine my surprise when I learned that there is virtually zero research that supports learning styles theory. Or to put it more bluntly, it appears that learning styles is a myth (cue raised eyebrows of incredulity and gasps of outrage).

What?! But…how can that be?

Two points of clarification

It all starts to make a little more sense when we take a quick moment to clarify two things.

Thing #1: Learning preferences vs. Learning styles hypothesis

It is true that we do have study preferences. When given a choice, most of us will prefer receiving instruction in certain ways (e.g. I’ll always prefer reading something to listening to a lecture of the same material). And research does bears this out.

However, the learning styles hypothesis doesn’t just say that we have preferences for how we receive information. It goes a step further and predicts that our learning will be enhanced if instruction is tailored to our preferred style (or compromised, if we don’t receive instruction in our preferred style). Which takes us to the second thing.

Thing #2: What learning is and isn’t

It’s important to note that there is a fundamental difference between how quickly we pick up things (performance), and how much of those gains actually stick and can be retrieved a day or week later (learning). The learning-performance distinction as it is sometimes called.

Sure, my daughter might be able to spell and recite a list of new French vocabulary words 10 minutes from now if we sit down together and repeat them over and over (performance), but how many will she still remember next week (learning) unless she uses a more sophisticated memory technique like elaboration or retrieval practice?

If information (or a skill) lacks durability, it can’t really be said that it’s been “learned.” So by this measure of learning, it can be very misleading to assume that we’re learning effectively just because we pick up on something quickly. How easily something comes to us, and how permanently that information or skill has been embedded into long-term memory are two very different things.

What does research need to show?

Which takes us to the research on learning styles.

A team of researchers conducted a review of the literature and established some ground rules of what a study would have to show in order to validate the learning styles premise. Specifically, it would have to:

  1. divide learners into different groups (e.g. visual learners and auditory learners),
  2. be randomly assigned to one of two learning methods, so that each group would have a mixture of both kinds of learners (e.g. visual presentation vs. auditory presentation of the same exact material),
  3. then, everyone must take the same exact test (because it would be unfair if the different learners took different tests)
  4. the test results would then have to show a clear difference between the scores of learners who were taught in their preferred style vs. those who were not taught in their preferred style. In other words, the visual learners would have to get higher scores when taught in a visual way (and lower scores when taught with an auditory method), and the auditory learners have to score higher when taught in an auditory manner (and lower when taught with a visual method).

What does the research actually show?

The researchers did an exhaustive search, but found surprisingly few studies which were set up this way. And the few that were…well, let’s take a look.

2006 study compared the performance of verbal and visual learners who were taught a lesson in either a visual-based or verbal-based style. It was a sophisticated, well-designed study, and they undertook a pretty exhaustive statistical analysis in search of some effect, but couldn’t find any difference between the performance of those whose training was matched to their preferred style, and those who were mismatched.

And then there’s a 2009 study of medical residents, where researchers thought that those with a “sensing” learning style might learn more effectively if presented with the problem to be solved before receiving the information or instruction they would need to solve it. Conversely, they hypothesized that those with an “intuitive” style would do better if they received the lesson first, before being presented with the problem. But here too, there was no difference in performance.

There are more studies like these, but you can kind of see where they’re all going…

A caveat – and some takeaways

Grr…so fine. Even if the learning styles theory is more myth than fact, what’s the harm in it?

Well, first off, we should clarify one thing. The researchers who have done comprehensive reviews of the literature aren’t flat-out saying that the learning styles theory is totally bogus. They’re just saying that there isn’t currently any evidence to support the use of learning style assessments and tailoring one’s teaching approach to these styles. Someday perhaps there may be, but not today.

In addition, this isn’t to say that we shouldn’t experiment with a wide range of learning strategies both in our own practice and in our teaching. After all, if a student is more highly engaged by doing something a certain way, that’s fine, and better than trying to force-feed them information in a modality that isn’t working for them.

However, I think there is a danger in catering only to a student’s (or our own) preferred styles and strengths. It makes learning feel easier in the short term, but by ignoring weaker or less-preferred modalities, we might be stunting their growth in these areas, which could limit them down the road.

For instance, learning by ear came naturally to me, and for most of my life I learned a piece by listening to it over and over before I even looked at the score or played it on my instrument. So when I had to start learning lots of orchestra rep really quickly, or pieces for which there were no recordings, or I didn’t have time to find a recording (in ye olde pre-YouTube days), I struggled. Far more than I would have, had I not neglected the skill of learning from the score earlier in my training.

And perhaps most importantly, there is pretty solid evidence for other learning strategies that do make a difference (like these), and so our time and efforts are probably better spent by incorporating such strategies into our practice and teaching that are more well-established (yet underutilized).

The problem, of course, is that many of these strategies are not as intuitively appealing as learning styles, and make learning feel harder, not easier.

But maybe that’s kind of the point? As one of my teachers used to say, if practicing feels easy, you’re probably not doing it right!

Videos (for the auditory learner *wink*)

Learning styles & the importance of critical self-reflection , by Tesia Marshik

And for more fun, here’s Ben Ambridge on 10 myths about psychology: Debunked

Additional reading

A 2-min crash course on the learning styles myth: All You Need to Know About the ‘Learning Styles’ Myth, in Two Minutes

Tips and advice for parents and teachers who are bummed by the mythbusting, and want to learn about some more effective alternatives: Letting Go of Learning Styles

The excellent 2009 review of the literature (a.k.a. the roll up your sleeves and geek out option): Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence

Ack! After Countless Hours of Practice...
Why Are Performances Still So Hit or Miss?

It’s not a talent issue. And that rush of adrenaline and emotional roller coaster you experience before performances is totally normal too.

Performing at the upper ranges of your ability under pressure is a unique skill – one that requires specific mental skills, and perhaps a few other tweaks in your approach to practicing too. Elite athletes have been learning these techniques for decades; if nerves and self-doubt have been recurring obstacles in your performances, I’d like to help you do the same.

Click below to learn more about Beyond Practicing – a home-study course where you’ll explore the 6 skills that are characteristic of top performers. And learn how you can develop these into strengths of your own. And begin to see tangible improvements in your playing that transfer to the stage.


4 Responses

  1. I wonder if any of the studies looked at how fast someone learned something. I can see how, over time, the method of delivery wouldn’t have any effect on learning, but it still seems that an auditory learner is going to pick something verbal up the first time they hear it, whereas a visual learner would need to hear the same information several times to get it. Conversely, a visual learner might read something once and retain a lot of it, while the auditory learner might need to read it a few times or discuss it with someone else in order to absorb it quickly.

    I also listened to a TED talk recently that explained how making learning harder actually produced better results. For example, two English lit classes were given a Shakespeare sonnet to write an essay about. One class got the sonnet in a standard font, the other in a hard-to-read font. The hard-to-read font slowed that group down, made them concentrate more on what they were reading, and as a result they wrote more insightful essays than the other group. So maybe there is an advantage when being taught in your less preferred way.

  2. “Learning Styles theory” was foisted on American education (like virtually every other theory of education, including the inane Student Learning Outcomes and Whole Language movements) because of a few charismatic individuals pursuing their feelings (and perhaps their hopes). It’s as valid as Indigo Children and Interdimensional Lizard People as a way of looking at students–maybe it works as a metaphor, but it has no basis in fact.

    I attended a lecture many years ago on multiple intelligences theory, which begat learning styles theory. The proponent of multiple intelligences invented the theory because her son, who she believed was very intelligent, was not doing well in any of his classes. But he was very good at football. She decided this was “kinesthetic intelligence,” then invented other types of “intelligences” (visual, spatial, logical, emotional), and recommended that schools teach and test students based on their particular type of intelligence–eg, instead of writing a paper on a concept of biology, a “kinesthetic” student might demonstrate the idea in gestures. Faculty in the audience were deeply skeptical (one woman mentioned that the state medical licensing board would likely not accept “interpretive dance” in lieu of sitting the exams), but administration were all-in…until the next educational fad appeared (which may have been learning styles.)

    I think the fundamental problem with education theory is that we all wish–students and teachers alike–that learning was easy; that there were Star Trekian fixes out there if only we could find them. (Universal Translator! Transporter beams! Hypnopedia! [okay, that’s from Brave New World, but you get my drift.]) Learning is hard and takes a long time, and that’s not a reality anyone wants.

    I’m grateful that Indigo Children have yet to be legitimized in education theory. But I really, really wish education theory were based on fact rather than on cults of personality. Your site is a rational oasis, and I hope it gets wider recognition (and funding.)

    1. Great comment. It’s also interesting hearing about the story of how the multiple intelligence theory came about. Intuitively I’ve never really liked the idea of either of them. I wasn’t aware of the non-existent research though.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Get the (Free) Practice Hacks Guide

Learn the #1 thing that top practicers do differently, plus 7 other strategies for practice that sticks.

Discover your mental strengths and weaknesses

If performances have been frustratingly inconsistent, try the 3-min Mental Skills Audit. It won't tell you what Harry Potter character you are, but it will point you in the direction of some new practice methods that could help you level up in the practice room and on stage.