How Common Is Belief in the Learning Styles Neuromyth, and Does It Matter? A Pragmatic Systematic Review

Abstract

A commonly cited use of Learning Styles theory is to use information from self-report questionnaires to assign learners into one or more of a handful of supposed styles (e.g., Visual, Auditory, Converger) and then design teaching materials that match the supposed styles of individual students. A number of reviews, going back to 2004, have concluded that there is currently no empirical evidence that this “matching instruction” improves learning, and it could potentially cause harm. Despite this lack of evidence, survey research and media coverage suggest that belief in this use of Learning Styles theory is high amongst educators. However, it is not clear whether this is a global pattern, or whether belief in Learning Styles is declining as a result of the publicity surrounding the lack of evidence to support it. It is also not clear whether this belief translates into action. Here we undertake a systematic review of research into belief in, and use of, Learning Styles amongst educators. We identified 37 studies representing 15,405 educators from 18 countries around the world, spanning 2009 to early 2020. Self-reported belief in matching instruction to Learning Styles was high, with a weighted percentage of 89.1%, ranging from 58 to 97.6%. There was no evidence that this belief has declined in recent years, for example 95.4% of trainee (pre-service) teachers agreed that matching instruction to Learning Styles is effective. Self-reported use, or planned use, of matching instruction to Learning Styles was similarly high. There was evidence of effectiveness for educational interventions aimed at helping educators understand the lack of evidence for matching in learning styles, with self-reported belief dropping by an average of 37% following such interventions. From a pragmatic perspective, the concerning implications of these results are moderated by a number of methodological aspects of the reported studies. Most used convenience sampling with small samples and did not report critical measures of study quality. It was unclear whether participants fully understood that they were specifically being asked about the matching of instruction to Learning Styles, or whether the questions asked could be interpreted as referring to a broader interpretation of the theory. These findings suggest that the concern expressed about belief in Learning Styles may not be fully supported by current evidence, and highlight the need to undertake further research on the objective use of matching instruction to specific Learning Styles.

Interventions to Dispel Neuromyths in Educational Settings—A Review

“…The authors found no evidence of decline over the eight-year period, suggesting strong persistence of neuromyth beliefs among educators. With regards to the most prevalent, VAK (i.e., visual, auditory, kinesthetic) "learning styles" neuromyth, another recent review (Newton and Salvi, 2020), which targeted 33 articles (containing a total of 37 samples) published in the years 2009-2020, indicates a high prevalence of beliefs in this neuromyth among educators, ranging from 58 to 97.6% (weighted average prevalence = 89.1%), with no evidence of decline over the eleven-year period.…”

The Learning Styles Neuromyth Is Still Thriving in Medical Education

“…Telling educators that the techniques they believe in are ineffective is a painful message, and one that can backfire ( Newton and Miah, 2017 ), but Learning Styles show no sign of going away. The very high belief in Learning Styles demonstrated by educators around the world does not appear to be declining over time ( Newton and Salvi, 2020 ). The bias of research toward Learning Styles is similarly not declining; in 2015 we found that 89% of papers about Learning Styles presented a misleading positive view, and most of those were from medical education ( Newton, 2015 ).…”

“…Belief in neuromyths has been extensively studied. Findings from our recent systematic review suggested that ∼89% of educators believe that matching instruction to Learning Styles will result in improved instruction, although there some methodological concerns about the studies reviewed ( Newton and Salvi, 2020 ).…”

Review on the Prevalence and Persistence of Neuromyths in Education – Where We Stand and What Is Still Needed

“…There is an abundance of theoretical descriptions of the neuromyth on the existence of learning styles (Looß, 2001;Geake, 2008;Pashler et al, 2008;Alferink and Farmer-Dougan, 2010;Lilienfeld et al, 2010;Adey and Dillon, 2012;Lethaby and Harries, 2016;Tokuhama-Espinosa, 2018;Meinhardt, 2019;Newton and Salvi, 2020;Papadatou-Pastou et al, 2020). According to Grospietsch and Mayer (2021b), the kernel of truth behind this neuromyth is that people differ in the mode in which they prefer to receive information (visually or verbally; e.g., Höffler et al, 2017).…”

“…Krammer et al, 2019). Furthermore, Grospietsch and Mayer (2019) and Torrijos-Muelas et al (2021) call for more (qualitative) studies of neuromyths in order to learn more about their genesis and causes and capture their 'actual' and not merely theoretically assumed chains of erroneous conclusions (see Theoretical State of Research) in greater detail (e.g., Newton and Salvi, 2020;Papadatou-Pastou et al, 2020).…”