See Neuromyths in Education, Part I: Introduction for an overview and definitions.
What’s the myth?
Myth: Learners will learn better if taught using a method consistent with their learning style, an approach sometimes called “meshing.”
There are many different taxonomies of learning styles; one systematic review identified more than 70!1 In the museum field, one of the most popular is VAK (visual, auditory, kinesthetic), sometimes expanded to VARK (visual, auditory, reader/writer, kinesthetic) or VAKT (visual, auditory, kinesthetic, tactile).2
What’s the reality?
There’s evidence that learners have preferred ways of receiving information. However, there’s no evidence that “meshing” leads to improved educational outcomes.
What’s the evidence?
The Association for Psychological Science commissioned an extensive review.3 (The full text is available online.) The key findings:
Although the literature on learning styles is enormous, very few studies have even used an experimental methodology capable of testing the validity of learning styles applied to education. Moreover, of those that did use an appropriate method, several found results that flatly contradict the popular meshing hypothesis.
[A]t present, there is no adequate evidence base to justify incorporating learning-styles assessments into general educational practice. Thus, limited education resources would better be devoted to adopting other educational practices that have a strong evidence base, of which there are an increasing number.
Why does the myth persist?
- Studies with negative or null results are far less likely to be published than studies with positive or significant results.4 This publication bias has contributed to the longevity and durability of the learning styles myth.
- It “feels” true. Studies have shown that information style preferences are associated with subjective judgements of learning. However, they are not associated with objective measures of learning.5
- See The Tenacity of Learning Styles6 for a more detailed analysis of why this myth persists.
A caveat for museums
As free-choice learning environments, museums (some may argue) need to accommodate preferences: visitors may choose not to engage in an experience that doesn’t align with their preferences, and if they don’t engage, they can’t learn.
This post is not an argument to abandon multi-modal, multi-sensory experiences and accessibility. But let’s not justify them based on an unproven theory from the formal education environment. Findings from research in formal education can inform our practice in informal settings. But it has to be good research, not neuromyths.*
Let’s avoid pigeon-holing visitors. Let’s not think of them as belonging to simplistic—and limiting—categories.
* See Part III of this series for a list of some of my favorite research about what does work in informal environments.
Notes
- Coffield, Frank, Kathryn Ecclestone, Elaine Hall, and David Moseley. “Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review.” (2004). ↩︎
- Davis, Ann, and Kerstin Smeds, eds. Visiting the visitor: An enquiry into the visitor business in museums. Vol. 18. transcript Verlag, 2016. ↩︎
- Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2009). Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105-119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x (Original work published 2008) ↩︎
- Publication bias | Communication and Mass Media | Research Starters. EBSCO Research. 2023. EBSCO. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/communication-and-mass-media/publication-bias ↩︎
- Knoll, Abby R., Hajime Otani, Reid L. Skeel, and K. Roger Van Horn. “Learning style, judgements of learning, and learning of verbal and visual information.” British journal of psychology 108, no. 3 (2017): 544-563. ↩︎
- Hall, Elaine. 2016. “The Tenacity of Learning Styles: A Response to Lodge, Hansen, and Cottrell.” Learning: Research and Practice 2 (1): 18–26. doi:10.1080/23735082.2016.1139856. ↩︎