Stop Styling, Start Learning: The Truth About Learning Styles

As an HR professional, I often hear people talk about adapting training sessions and presentations to employees' "learning styles". The belief is that accounting for different learning styles will improve training outcomes. However, the concept of learning styles is a myth without evidence to support it. Not only is catering to learning styles ineffective, it can actually hinder learning and performance. In this post, I'll explain the origins of the learning styles myth, why it persists despite contradicting evidence, and how it differs from making accommodations for neurodivergent employees.

The Rise of the Learning Styles Myth

The notion of learning styles originated in the 1970s with theories by psychologists like Kolb, who proposed categorising learners into types like active/reflective and sensing/intuitive based on their preferences. Early theories focused on classifying students according to dichotomies like visual/verbal or active/reflective. By 2004, over 70 learning styles models had been proposed with over 30 dichotomies for classification!

Despite the conceptual confusion and lack of empirical evidence, learning styles gained immense popularity in education and training in the 1980s and 1990s. The intuitive appeal of grouping learners into types matched practitioners' desire for simple solutions. Learning styles promised improved outcomes through tailored instruction targeting each individual's style. This promise enabled the myth to persist long after research disproved it.Books such as “Skills for Success: Developing Effective Study Strategies” by C Jenkins state neuro-babel such as-

“If you are a left-brain (linear) learner, become an active listener in class. Lectures tend to provide information in the way that most linear learners prefer. If you are a right brain (global) learner, read any as- signed material before attending a lecture or ask your instructors for a summary of what they will discuss in the next class (p. 96).”

Today, the learning styles myth remains prevalent, fueled by a profitable industry selling assessment tools and training. Presenters often adapt their style to purported visual, auditory and kinesthetic learners in the audience. But research shows no consistent benefit from these practices. After decades of studies, there is no evidence that aligning teaching to learning styles improves outcomes. Why does this myth persist in the face of contradictory evidence?

Why the Myth Persists

Several factors explain the persistence of the learning styles myth:

- Intuitive appeal – Matching instruction to learning preferences seems like common sense despite being false.

- Confirmation bias – People notice examples confirming the myth while ignoring contradicting cases.

- Teacher expectations – The Pygmalion effect means student performance improves when teachers expect it to.

- Financial incentives – Large training industry profits propagate myths through assessments and workshops.

- Ignorance – Many presenters simply don't know the substantial research debunking learning styles.

The myth is profitable, tells people what they want to hear, and spreads through ignorance. That's why ineffective learning styles continue to be promoted across education and organisations.

Pitfalls of Learning Style Practices

Relying on debunked learning styles theories has several concerning downsides:

- Wastes limited resources on ineffective methods unsupported by evidence

- Constrains learner potential by rigidly classifying them into fixed styles

- Fosters unrealistic expectations that tailored instruction automatically improves outcomes

- Undermines credibility of training when touting disproven fads over evidence-based practices

- Enables profiteering by pseudoscience assessment vendors

Even well-intentioned usage of learning styles can be detrimental. As professionals, we must be cognisant of these risks and implement evidence-based, learner-centered strategies instead.

Desirable Difficulties vs. Learning Preferences

Research shows learning is often enhanced through "desirable difficulties" - strategically introducing obstacles to reap greater gains from overcoming them. For instance, varying and interleaving practice on different tasks improves transfer and retention more than repetitive practice. Such evidence-based challenges actually accelerate learning. There is even evidence showing an inverse relationship between student ratings of teachers via happy sheets, and exam performance.

This contradicts learning style theory which assumes learners will benefit most from comfortable instructional formats catering to their stated preferences. But the science is clear - when training feels easier due to alignment with learning preferences, outcomes are often worse. The most growth occurs through wrestling with challenges just outside our comfort zone.

Rather than simplifying training, we should focus on equipping learners with strategies to tackle difficulties. Skills like persisting through confusion, deliberate practice, and metacognition are far more valuable than any particular style of learning.

Accommodating Neurodivergence, Not Learning Styles

While learning styles are invalid, making accommodations for neurodivergent employees remains important. Not accommodating the biodiversity of cognitive profiles like autism, ADHD, dyslexia, and dyscalculia can create real barriers to learning and performance. Accommodations help provide equity of access, not advantage.

Some neurodivergent employees may also have enhanced spatial, visual, or kinesthetic abilities. Harnessing these aptitudes while making appropriate accommodations allows them to fully engage. The key is flexible support based on each person's needs, not rigid styles.

Moving Beyond the Myth

In summary, the learning styles myth persists through confirmation bias, financial incentives, and lack of awareness of contradicting evidence. But catering to learning styles wastes resources, constrains potential, and propagates pseudoscience. As professionals, we must move beyond this myth and equip learners to tackle obstacles, accommodate neurodivergence, and maximise their abilities. With knowledge, flexibility and empathy, we can create truly engaging, effective learning in any style.