Lately, I’ve noticed a troubling resurgence of the learning styles myth—so this post couldn’t be more timely.
Why the Learning Styles Myth Persists
Intuitive appeal: It feels right. People are different, so it seems logical that matching teaching to a learner’s “style” would help. But feeling right isn’t the same as being true.
Commercialization: A lucrative industry thrives on selling “learning style” quizzes, training modules, and classroom materials. When profit drives pedagogy, pseudoscience flourishes.
Confirmation bias: Educators and parents often seek evidence that supports what they already believe. Contradictory research is ignored or dismissed.
Systemic deception: Most critically, this myth persists because it serves the interests of those who benefit from confusion. The dyslexia industry, in particular, leans heavily on learning styles to justify ineffective interventions and maintain its grip on public funding and parental trust.
The Faulty Premises Behind Learning Styles
Most learning style theories rest on two shaky assumptions:
Individuals have a consistent, measurable “style” of learning.
Teaching to that style improves outcomes—and teaching against it harms achievement.
For example, if you’re labeled a “visual learner,” you’re told you’ll learn best by seeing things—regardless of the subject. If you’re “kinesthetic,” you’re told you need to touch and move to learn—regardless of context. But these assumptions collapse under scrutiny.
What the Research Actually Shows
There is no credible scientific evidence that matching instruction to a self-identified learning style improves learning outcomes. Preferences exist, yes—but they don’t translate into better performance. Worse, rigidly adhering to these labels can limit growth, reinforce false identities, and distract from what truly matters: effective, evidence-based teaching.
No comments:
Post a Comment