Why Can't we Let Go of Learning Styles?

Have you ever wondered why so many people, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, still hold onto the belief in learning styles? It’s a concept that claims we each have a preferred way to learn—be it visual, auditory, or kinesthetic—and that tailoring our learning methods to these styles will enhance our understanding. But why does this idea persist when research suggests otherwise?

The notion of learning styles is inherently appealing because it offers a personalised approach to education. People like to think they can optimise their learning by aligning it with their preferred style. This idea fits well with the broader trend of customization in many aspects of life, from diet plans to exercise routines, so it's easy to see why people cling to it.

Take, for example, the explosion of personalised learning apps in the early 2000s. These apps promised to identify your learning style and tailor content accordingly. For many, these tools seemed to offer a shortcut to academic success. However, these apps often oversimplified complex cognitive processes, providing a solution that felt good but lacked scientific backing.

Learning styles are everywhere. From school curricula to professional development courses, the concept is widely endorsed and promoted. This isn’t a recent phenomenon. The idea gained significant traction in the 1980s and 1990s when educational theorists like Howard Gardner introduced the concept of multiple intelligences, which further fueled the belief in individualised learning methods.

Fun Fact: Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences wasn’t actually about learning styles at all. It was a broader framework suggesting that people have different kinds of intelligences—like musical, spatial, and linguistic—not necessarily that they should be taught in different ways based on these intelligences.

For decades, textbooks and teacher training programs included sections on identifying and teaching to different learning styles. When such a pervasive idea is presented as a fundamental truth across various educational platforms, it becomes difficult for people to question its validity. This widespread acceptance in educational materials lends it an air of authority that makes it hard to let go.

The human brain is complex, and categorising learning methods into neat, distinct styles oversimplifies how we actually process information. However, this simplification makes the concept easy to understand and apply, which is part of its appeal.

Historically, education has sought to classify and categorise students to better manage learning. In the early 20th century, intelligence testing was used to segregate students based on perceived ability. Learning styles offered a similar form of categorization, but with a more positive spin—it wasn’t about limiting potential, but supposedly unlocking it. This appeal to simplicity made learning styles an easy sell, even if it didn’t accurately reflect the intricacies of learning.

Cognitive biases, such as confirmation bias, play a significant role in why people continue to believe in learning styles. Once someone subscribes to this belief, they are more likely to notice instances where adapting to their preferred learning method seems to work while disregarding evidence to the contrary.

For example, when participants in professional development seminars are encouraged to identify their learning style, they may selectively remember instances where this identification seemed to enhance their learning experience. This selective attention reinforces the belief, making it resistant to change, even in the face of contradictory evidence.

Fun Fact: The term confirmation bias was coined in 1960 by psychologist Peter Wason. He conducted an experiment where people were more likely to seek out information that confirmed their preconceptions rather than challenging them—a tendency that still shapes how we process information today.

Educators and trainers often endorse learning styles, sometimes out of habit and other times due to a lack of awareness about the latest research. This endorsement gives the concept a stamp of approval that encourages continued belief in its validity.

Believing in learning styles gives people a sense of control over their learning process. It suggests that by identifying and leveraging their preferred style, they can enhance their educational outcomes. This perceived control is empowering and offers a straightforward path to academic or professional success, making it difficult to abandon the idea, even when confronted with evidence that it may not be effective.

Educational systems and institutions are slow to change. Once a concept like learning styles becomes ingrained, it can take decades to shift perspectives. This institutional inertia means that outdated ideas persist long after they’ve been scientifically debunked, simply because changing entrenched practices and beliefs requires significant effort and resources.

A good historical example is the persistence of phrenology in the 19th century, long after it was debunked by scientists. Like learning styles, phrenology offered a simple, seemingly scientific way to categorise and understand people, which made it popular despite its lack of empirical support. Similarly, learning styles persist today, in part because of the inertia of educational practices that have been built around them.

Understanding why people continue to believe in learning styles can help us move toward more effective educational practices. While the idea of learning styles is appealing, it’s important to focus on evidence-based learning methods that recognize the complexity of the human brain.

As we look to the future of education, it’s crucial to move beyond the limitations of learning styles and embrace more dynamic and research-supported approaches. By doing so, we can create learning environments that truly meet the diverse needs of all learners, ensuring that education is as effective and inclusive as possible.