by Christopher Grabau, Program Director, Reinert Center
The concept of “learning styles” has persisted for decades, shaping teaching practices and curriculum design. However, a large body of research confirms that the notion of distinct learning styles, such as visual, auditory, or kinesthetic, lacks empirical support and may even be detrimental to effective teaching and learning (Husmann & O’Loughlin, 2015; Riener, & Willingham, 2010; Willingham, Hughes, & Doboli, 2015).
Suggesting that individuals think and learn in different ways is nothing new. The basis of learning styles derives from a body of research supporting the notion that learning is a multi-sensory, contextual experience. However, conflating a learning approach (or style) with academic ability in an attempt to develop an impactful teaching practice undermines effective relationship-based teaching practices that benefit all learners. (Felten, P., & Lambert, 2020; Schwartz, 2019)
While individuals may prefer learning in a specific way, there is no evidence to suggest that delivering instruction according to learning preference will improve learning outcomes (Marshik, 2015). Dr. Daniel Willingham, a renowned cognitive psychologist, and author, summarizes the case against learning styles by stating, “There is no credible evidence that learning styles exist. While people certainly have preferences regarding how they learn, these preferences do not translate into effective teaching strategies (Reiner & Willingham, 2010).”
Another argument against learning styles is that they can oversimplify the complex, dynamic processes involved with perception, memory, and cognition. Scott (2010) points out that rather than considering students as complex, evolving individuals, learning styles limit students into fixed learner categories, perpetuating biases, labels, and stereotypes.
Despite a wide range of criticism, the popularity of learning styles continues. While I do not doubt that the desire to identify learning preferences comes from a genuine desire to connect with students, perhaps a more nuanced conversation about teaching and learning can be encouraged. Shifting focus to help explore how inclusive and person-centered pedagogies offer better learning outcomes and positive learning experiences for all students.
Below are summaries of a few research-supported pedagogical considerations. While far from comprehensive, each of these examples offers inclusive and effective approaches to teaching. I invite you to consider how you may incorporate these practices into your teaching. If you would like to talk about ways to incorporate inclusive learning into your teaching better, please feel free to schedule a confidential conversation with someone from the Reinert Center [Link to the Reinert Center’s Teaching Consultation request form].
1. Differentiated Instruction: Rather than adhering to a one-size-fits-all approach, instructors tailor instruction to meet the diverse needs of students. This may involve a consistent formative assessment plan, incorporating multiple modalities, varied instructional strategies, and opportunities for student choice and autonomy.
2. Universal Design for Learning (UDL): UDL emphasizes the design of flexible learning environments that accommodate individual differences in learning and abilities. By providing multiple means of representation, expression, and engagement, instructors can promote equitable access to learning for all students.
3. Metacognitive Strategies: Encouraging students to reflect on their learning processes and develop metacognitive awareness can enhance their ability to monitor, regulate, and adapt their learning strategies effectively. This metacognitive approach empowers students to take ownership of their learning and become self-directed learners.
4. Culturally Responsive Teaching: Recognizing the cultural backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives of students is essential for creating inclusive and culturally relevant learning experiences. By integrating diverse perspectives and honoring students’ cultural identities, educators can foster a sense of belonging and engagement in the classroom.
5. Mastery Learning: Emphasizing mastery rather than speed or performance can shift the focus from comparing students to supporting their progress and growth. By providing opportunities for revision, feedback, and remediation, educators can cultivate a growth mindset and promote continuous learning.
…
REFERENCES
Felten, P., & Lambert, L. M. (2020). Relationship-rich education: How human connections drive success in college. Jhu Press.
Husmann, P. R., & O’Loughlin, V. D. (2019). Another nail in the coffin for learning styles? Disparities among undergraduate anatomy students’ study strategies, class performance, and reported VARK learning styles. Anatomical sciences education, 12(1), 6-19.
Schwartz, H. L. (2019). Connected teaching. [electronic resource] : relationship, power, and mattering in higher education (First edition.). Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Scott C (2010) The enduring appeal of “learning styles. Australian Journal of Education 54(1): 5–17 (EJ889818).
Willingham, D. T., Hughes, E. M., & Dobolyi, D. G. (2015). The scientific status of learning styles theories. Teaching of Psychology, 42(3), 266-271.
Marshik, T. (2015, April). Learning styles & the importance of critical self-reflection [VIDEO] | TEDxUWLaCrosse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=855Now8h5Rs&t=266s
The Notebook 