Inspiration
The Many Faces of Learning: Understanding Different Learning Styles
In the case of learning styles, the belief that one-size-fits-all teaching methods are ineffective is not entirely unfounded
Once upon a time, in a world full of magical educational theories, there existed a belief so powerful that it transformed the way teachers taught and students learned. This belief was known as “learning styles,” and it dictated that every child possessed a unique way of grasping information – some were visual learners, others auditory, and a few even kinesthetic. Like an enchanting potion, it spread across the realm, enchanting educators and infiltrating lesson plans.
But, as with all powerful spells, the time came for learning styles to face the harsh light of scientific scrutiny. Spoiler alert: the magical potion turned out to be nothing more than snake oil. Allow me to unravel the tale of how learning styles were debunked, and how we discovered that the magic was, in fact, a mirage.
Our story begins in the land of academia, where researchers and scholars embarked on a quest to uncover the truth about learning styles. Their journey led them through a labyrinth of studies, experiments, and observations, all in search of evidence to support or debunk the popular theory. Like intrepid explorers, they persevered, determined to separate fact from fiction.
One such group of researchers, led by Harold Pashler, published a paper in 2008 that shook the foundation of learning styles. In their study, they searched for the holy grail of evidence: the presence of a “meshing effect.” This elusive phenomenon would prove that students who were taught in a manner consistent with their learning style would fare better than those who were not. But alas, the researchers found no such evidence. The holy grail remained undiscovered, and the myth of learning styles began to crumble.
Undeterred by this revelation, proponents of learning styles continued to argue that their beliefs held merit. But as the years went by, more and more studies emerged that further debunked the theory. A 2012 review by Paul A. Kirschner and Jeroen J.G. van Merriënboer compiled decades of research on learning styles and concluded that there was no scientific evidence to support the idea that teaching to individual learning styles improved educational outcomes. The once-magical potion was losing its lustre.
But why, you might ask, did learning styles become so popular in the first place? The answer lies in the human tendency to seek out patterns and explanations for complex phenomena. We are drawn to the idea that we can unlock the secrets of learning by simply identifying a person’s preferred style. This allure is akin to the seductive pull of astrology or personality tests – we crave the comfort of neatly labeled boxes that tell us who we are and how we function.
Sadly, this desire for simplicity often leads us astray. In the case of learning styles, the belief that one-size-fits-all teaching methods are ineffective is not entirely unfounded. We do, indeed, possess individual differences in how we process information. However, the leap from this truth to the idea that we should tailor instruction to specific learning styles is misguided. Science simply does not support it.
In reality, effective teaching and learning hinge on far more complex factors. Research has shown that employing a variety of instructional methods, engaging multiple senses, and incorporating active learning strategies are all key ingredients in the recipe for educational success. Instead of pigeonholing students into predefined learning styles, we should focus on cultivating an environment that fosters curiosity, critical thinking, and a love of learning.
As we bid farewell to the mythical realm of learning styles, let us not mourn the loss of a magical potion, but rather celebrate the opportunity to embrace a more nuanced and evidence-based approach to education. The spell may have been broken, but the quest for knowledge continues.
Author – Prashant Bhudwal, Founder, Medal, Bangalore
