Are learning styles more like learning convictions?

In workplace learning the notion of learning styles has been exploited and revered by many over the last 45 years. In fact it's probable that many learning professionals claimed to be highly effective practitioners because they possessed the ability to "address multiple learning styles". Learning styles have been defined as learning preferences or a innate tendency for learners to prefer a sensory modality over another. The most common model of learning styles is the Visual, Auditory and Kinesthetic or VAK model which is derived from Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) theories. Several peer-reviewed research papers over the years have completely debunked and annihilated the VAK model as a learning theory. However, even today there are many L&D folks who advocate for learning style inventories and uphold the VAK model as an effective methodology. Have learning styles become learning convictions for some? In this post I share some possible root causes for this phenomenon and thoughts to eradicate it.

Marketing and L&D

I'm a strong believer that half of the fads and "effective" learning trends in L&D start from a tiny bit of research and are then exploited by marketing campaigns. This is why VAK became predominant in the 80s and 90s. In Observations Concerning Research Literature on Neuro-Linguistic Programming,(1985) Eric Einspruch and Bruce Forman from the University of Miami, explained that NLP is about how people process information which is mainly by visual, auditory and kinesthetic modes.

Neuro-Linguistic Programming was created in 1975 by Richard Bandler, a mathematician, and John Grinder, a linguist and they claimed that "NLP has been clinically demonstrated as a powerful technology for engendering change."(Grinder & Bandler, 1981). In their studies, Bandler and Grinder attempted to show how interactions between a "modeler" or skilled person can transfer skills to a "modeled" or spectator through VAK sensory modes. Therefore, from a marketing perspective we can assume how vendors offered VAK as an essential tool for corporate training. For example; consider being sold on how not all learners are the same and the a learning style inventory would help you fine tune your training program to all learners' needs.

Nothing Under the Hood

One thing is certain about learning styles, there's no conclusive research nor substantial evidence of their effectiveness. Einspruch and Forman's 1985 review analyzed 39 empirical studies of NLP full of methodological errors and research flaws. In 2004, Coffield, Moseley, Hall and Ecclestone studied 13 models of learning styles and could not find conclusive evidence on the effectiveness of their use. A great quote from Lynn Curry's 1990 critique on the research of learning styles:

Some learning style theorists have conducted repeated small studies that tend to validate the hypotheses derived from their own conceptualizations. However, in general, these studies have not been designed to disconfirm hypotheses, are open to expectation and participation effects, and do not involve wide enough samples to constitute valid tests in educational settings. Even with these built-in biases, no single learner preference pattern unambiguously indicates a specific instructional design.

Each of these researchers include over 20 citations of research supporting their findings. Although is a fancy idea to think that each of us have a style in which we learn, this is just a case of a pretty car with nothing under the hood.

Learning Styles or Learning Convictions?

The biggest threat of the proliferation of learning styles is what I call "learning convictions". This is when a learner is taught by L&D professionals about the gospel of learning styles. The result is learners bragging about their perceived learning style and limiting themselves to one sensory mode i.e. visual, auditory or kinesthetic. For example; an auditory learner could learn as effectively as all others with their eyes closed? After all he or she has an auditory style right? What about visual learners? Could they learn without auditory cues? Can kinesthetic learners learn by just doing something without any visual or auditory cues? The reality is we live in a multimedia world and today's learning experiences are far too rich to limit our focus as learners. Instead we should provide as many learning resources as possible within the learning context at hand.

No More Learning Styles

In summary, learning styles had a good 40+ year run but it's time to put this notion to rest. Neuro-Linguistic Programming gave influence to the visual, auditory and kinesthetic styles in the 80s. L&D vendors and marketers did the rest by exploiting insubstantial research to sell VAK based products and services. L&D professionals should not limit their instructional practices to three sensory modes or "styles". Instructional methodologies should take full advantage of today's learning technologies and resources for significant learning experiences.

What are your thoughts about this topic? If you have research evidence for or against this, please share ; )

.