R3 1.20 November 9, 2023 My So-Called Learning Style: Perceptions of Intelligence and Aptitude in “Visual” and “Hands-On” Learners
A new study focused on younger K-12 students documents troubling effects of labeling students according to learning style.
This issue of R3 looks at an issue that’s troubled me since I first started teaching cognitive psychology years ago: the amazingly popular idea that people have learning styles tied to a particular sensory-motor modality (visual, auditory, kinesthetic, etc.) and that receiving information via that modality somehow accelerates learning. I’ve written a bit about this issue (here and here, as well as in my book Minds Online: Teaching Effectively with Technology). Many other psychologists have weighed in in the theory through the years, generally focusing on dismantling it as an appealing-but-wrong idea, discussing why it persists, what harm may result from it or any combination of those issues.
Many of us in the field do suspect that learning styles are far from a harmless misconception. In higher education, one big concern is that believing that you have a set learning style leads students to lock themselves in to a type of fixed mindset, one in which they can only succeed in certain styles of course or even in certain fields of study. Mostly, however, this has been a hypothetical discussion, which is where this issue’s article comes in. It looks at one mechanism by which the learning myths style could restrict or hamper student success, with some concerning results. One big caveat, discussed below but worth stressing upfront: This research focuses on younger learners, elementary through middle-school aged children. Generally in this newsletter I focus on older teenagers and adults, populations that are more closely aligned to my expertise. But given just how persistent and widespread the learning styles notion is, I think it's worthwhile for those of us in higher education to look at how it plays out in an earlier stage of development.
I want to credit my colleague John Kane for passing this article along to me. John is a faculty professional development powerhouse; readers of this newsletter might know John’s work best through the useful and thought-provoking Tea for Teaching podcast, which he co-creates with Rebecca Mushtare. Keep an eye on future Tea for Teaching episodes for more on the hazards of the learning styles myth (and fascinating takes on all kinds of issues affecting higher education and those of us who teach in it).
Citation:
Sun, X., Norton, O., & Nancekivell, S. E. (2023). Beware the myth: learning styles affect parents’, children’s, and teachers’ thinking about children’s academic potential. Npj Science of Learning, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-023-00190-x
DOI:
Paywall or Open:
Open
Summary:
Three studies examined the relationship between perceived learning styles and parents’ and teachers’ judgments of the educational aptitudes of elementary school aged children. Children who were described as visual learners were judged as having more aptitude for traditional academic subjects including math and science, while those described as kinesthetic learners were judged as having more aptitude for sports and for art. These patterns demonstrate the potential for the learning styles myth to influence children’s academic performance via the expectations and beliefs of the adults in their lives.
Research Questions:
Does describing a hypothetical student as visual or hands-on (i.e., kinesthetic) learner affect perceptions that that student is “smart” or “sporty,” among parents and children? (Study 1)
Does describing a hypothetical student as visual or hands-on (i.e., kinesthetic) learner affect perceptions that that student is “smart” or “sporty,” among parents and teachers? (Study 2)
Does describing a hypothetical student as visual or hands-on (i.e., kinesthetic) learner affect predicted report card grades in core academic and non-core subjects, among parents and teachers? (Study 3)
Sample:
Study 1: 94 parents and 73 children between the ages of 6 and 12
Study 2: 172 parents and teachers
Study 3: 200 parents and teachers
Participants were recruited mainly from the Greensboro, North Carolina area through a combination of social media ads and the Prolific research participant recruiting platform.
Method/Design:
In Study 1, children participated in a videoconferencing call with the researchers in which they were told that they would hear “about some kids and ask you to make some guesses about them.” In an illustrated slide show presentation, they were told that some kids learn best using their eyes and some by using their hands. Generic silhouettes were used for the people in the illustrations to help eliminate cues as to social identity or gender. Participants were introduced to different hypothetical children who learn by their hands or eyes, and asked to rate them as “sort of smart, smart, or really smart,” using age-appropriate symbols they could point to to indicate an answer. Parents (not the parents of these particular children, but others recruited to participate via Prolific) viewed a similar presentation via Qualtrics, but read rather than listened to the information.
Study 2 was similar, with two major differences. Instead of children and parents, participants included teachers as well as parents. The “teacher” group included both those teaching in K-12 and higher education settings. The ratings were also set up as a forced-choice or comparison question, where participants had to choose which of two hypothetical children were “sportier” or “smarter.”
Study 3 also included parents and teachers. Ratings in this case focused on a hypothetical fifth-grade student, where participants were asked to estimate the student’s grade in math, science, language arts, social studies, art, gym, and music. They also included comparative ratings between pairs of students, but in this case, participants were asked which student was “smarter” and which “works harder.” This was intended to avoid redundancy with the question asking for predicted grades in gym class.
Key Findings:
Among all three types of participants (parents, children, and teachers), children labeled as “visual learners” were rated as more intelligent. “Hands-on learners” were seen as sportier and harder-working. Parents and teachers predicted that “visual learners” would earn better grades in core academic subjects (e.g., math, language arts) and that “hands-on learners” would earn better grades in art, gym, and music. Ratings for “hands-on learner” grades were particularly elevated, relative to “visual learners,” for gym and music.
Choice Quote from the Article:
The present study investigates an overlooked, but likely serious consequence of the learning style myth: how learning style information may influence parents’, teachers’ and children’s thinking about young students’ potential. Scientists have long argued that the main detriment of the learning style myth is that it leads educators to waste resources on ineffective methods that could be spent on evidence-based ones. However, the pervasiveness of the myth makes it likely that its consequences extend beyond solely wasted resources. The current study addresses this issue by examining whether teachers, parents, and children think those described as having certain learning styles are smarter than others (i.e., learning better with one’s hands as a hands-on vs. learning better with one’s eyes as a visual learner), and similarly, how learning style information affects teachers’ and parents’ thinking about young children’s ability to excel in different school subjects.
Why it Matters:
If you weren’t disturbed by the learning styles myth before, you likely will be after reading this article. It really does drive home the harm done by believing that learners need instruction via specific sensory modalities, and especially, that people can be typed in this way. It’s particularly concerning given that teacher trainings based on learning styles are still going strong in the K-12 space, and that learning styles inventories are still being given to first-year students in the guise of helping them develop study skills. If these findings aren’t reason enough to put an immediate stop to this sort of professional development programming, student success advice and the like – I don’t know what is.
The authors also have an interesting framework for setting up and interpreting the study – that of essentialism in learning. This is similar to the idea of fixed mindset, but more aligned to particular subject areas, so that some people are (supposedly) destined to succeed in some subjects and not others based on some kind of grouping. As the authors describe it, the learning styles myth is of a piece with gendered and racist notions about who excels at which subjects. To me, this is especially problematic in the case of STEM, which seems to be a real minefield of stereotypes and various hangups about who can do what. It may not be the same exact thing as racial and gender stereotyping, nor are these authors saying it’s just as toxic – but it perhaps lies on a continuum with other essentialist ideas.
Lastly, it’s extraordinary to see in a research publication (according to the authors, for the first time) what children themselves believe about learning styles, and about different academic strengths among other kids roughly their own age. I hope there’s more research coming that will dig into how children acquire essentialist views about academic potential.
Most Relevant For: Leaders involved with student success initiatives and related programming; educational psychologists; K-12 instructors; professional development directors
Limitations, Caveats, and Nagging Questions:
To reiterate: This is a study that’s based in K-12 education and will most clearly generalize to learning in elementary and middle school. That said, it still does reinforce the risks of the learning styles myth, and the authors do discuss what the repercussions are farther along the line in a student’s education. They describe and offer at least one example of how university success centers are not only relaying the myth itself, but also steering certain “styles” toward particular fields of study (e.g., chemistry for kinesthetic learners, foreign languages for auditory learners).
It is also important to keep in mind that the children and parents in the study were not related to one another, but were separate participant groups – a detail that’s easy to miss among some densely reported methodology and analysis. I do wonder what would happen if parents were rating their own children, or children they personally knew, instead of hypothetical children they’d never met. It’s possible that the rich landscape of knowledge about one’s own child would wash out the influence of perceived learning style. Or, conversely, perhaps its influence would become amplified over time, through a combination of confirmation bias, self-fulfilling prophecy, and reinforcement of the idea during parent-child conversations. Time and additional research will tell on this one.
If you liked this article, you might also appreciate:
Betts, K., Miller, M., Tokuhama-Espinosa, T., Shewokis, P., Anderson, A., Borja, C., Galoyan, T., Delaney, B., Eigenauer, J., & Dekker, S. (2019). Neuromyths and evidence-based practices in higher education: International report. Online Learning Consortium: Newburyport, MA. OLC.
Dekker, S., Lee, N. C., Howard-Jones, P. & Jolles, J. (2012), Neuromyths in education: Prevalence and predictors of misconceptions among teachers. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00429
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D. & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9, 105–119
Rohrer, D. & Pashler, H. (2012). Learning styles: Where’s the evidence? Medical Education, 46, 634–635.
Tokuhama-Espinosa, T. (2018). Neuromyths: Debunking false ideas about the brain. W.W. Norton & Co.
Willingham, D. T., Hughes, E. M. & Dobolyi, D. G. (2015) The scientific status of learning styles theories. Teaching of Psychology, 42, 266–271.
File under: neuromyths, learning styles, K-12 education, growth mindset, STEM learning