Wang 1

The Learning Styles Neuromyth

Arthur Wang
Independent Research GT
6/10/19

Advisor: Dr. Kristin Gagnier

Instructor: E. Leila Chawkat
 Wang 2

Abstract
The study details the flaws about the learning styles theory and provides insight into the
substantive spatial thinking ideology in order to argue for the replacement of the incorporation of
learning styles ideas into lessons with spatial thinking exercises instead. There have been
numerous flaws identified with the learning styles theory by researchers alike, but the myth
persists and subsequently cripples education as a whole. The learning styles theory suggests that
students each have their own learning style and subsequently learn with better comprehension
and are more captivated by lessons when the instructor tailors instruction towards their learning
style. The arguments were made through the use of numerous reputable sources and through the
inclusion of an original data collection, distributed through a questionnaire-style format. The data
collection provides further evidence that the learning styles theory bears no substantive proof.
The paper finishes with suggestions on how change can be made in order to prevent and negate
the growth of the learning styles myth.
 Wang 3

Introduction

Compulsory, that is required by law, formal education has existed since the 1600s and

has been a large part of influencing future generations to come. Over time, different teaching

methods have been developed in order to improve the efficiency of introducing new people to

society and the workforce. Recently, the idea of learning styles was introduced as a powerful

new way for students to improve their comprehension of topics. The learning styles theory

suggested that students each have a mental style and learn with increased comprehension and

captivation when information is presented to students in their specific style. These benefits that

arise from the alignment of mental style between students and the presentation of information is

otherwise known as the meshing hypothesis. The educational community was taken by storm,

and now the practice of tailoring instruction to the majority of students that share the same

learning style has become more and more common. However, contradictory evidence has

suggested that learning styles are not beneficial and are just preferences that students find

benign. The issue with the introduction of learning styles into lessons then, is the massive

perpetration of neuromyths, and the creation of many new companies and programs that falsely

advertise a fit-all theory. Because the learning styles theory has issues that include a lack of solid

evidence in support of it, the fact that there is solid evidence against it, the massive inherent cost

that modifying lessons requires, and the existence of the proven spatial thinking exercises and

benefits, teachers should instead focus on introducing different spatial thinking exercises into

instruction rather than relying on tailoring instruction to students’ learning preferences.

 Wang 4

Review of Literature

The Learning Styles Theory

Learning styles are a “neuromyth”, a common misconception on how the brain operates,

to which attention has been given. The learning styles theory became popular around the 1960s,

stating that each student is unique and will each learn different topics better based on the method

of instruction (Burns). This idea has been perpetrated for years and is a widely held belief by

teachers and students alike. However, this popularized theory has a few issues that need to be

addressed.

The Theory Lacks Solid Evidence

First, the learning styles theory has no solid grounding. Studies that support the benefits

of the learning styles theory have failed to produce methodologically sound results that suggest

that matching learning style to teaching method creates better results, or enough reason to try to

incorporate adaptations to lessons on account of learning styles. A study conducted by Sternberg

and others in 1999 selected 324 high school students who each took a test in order to determine

their mental strengths (mental learning style). Then, the students were randomly assigned to

different groups that each appealed to a different, specific mental strength. The results showed

that “matched subjects reliably outscored mismatched subjects on two of the three kinds of

assessments” (Pashler). Pashler then goes on to explain that the results are strictly tenuous. He

referenced how the evidence was unreliable given that some of the participants within the study

were excluded for unspecified reasons. An unreliable study can not be used as proof of the

learning styles theory. This analysis is corroborated by Coffield, who states that there have been

no proven benefits to tailoring instruction to learning styles, given the methodologically incorrect
 Wang 5

nature of the studies that support the learning styles theory. Furthermore, Rogowsky conducted a

methodologically sound study that adhered to the guidelines of acceptable results on learning

styles determined by Pashler. She found out that, “differences in preferred learning style

(auditory, visual word) were not found to significantly predict differences in learning aptitude

(listening vs. reading comprehension).” Because there is no solid evidence to support the

learning styles theory, whereas evidence against the theory is methodologically solid, support for

the learning styles theory lacks a solid grounding.

The Learning Styles Theory Is False

The learning styles theory has no solid grounding, but it also perpetuates false

information in general according to recent evidence. Recent experiments have produced results

that reveal a lack of improvement on evaluations when the meshing hypothesis is tested. The

only benefit was that the students felt more comfortable (Willingham). The theory states that

comprehension improves when an alignment between the mental styles of students and the

instruction is achieved, but evidence reveals that these benefits do not result. Even arguments in

support for the existence of learning styles suggest a mixed learning environment that doesn’t

focus on one specific learning style in order for students to more effectively learn (Filipczak). As

stated by Buschkuehl, “Misconceptions about learning styles are also fueled by the knowledge

that different regions of the brain predominately process auditory, visual and kinesthetic

information. While that is true, these areas of the brain interconnect with each other, allowing

information to transfer between those different sensory regions”, which means that presentation

of information needs to be communicated throughout different parts of the brain, rather than one

part of the brain processing a specific type of information. This explains Filipczak’s
 Wang 6

recommendation for a mixed learning environment by revealing the brain’s inner functions when

processing information. Since the brain works by communicating the information between

different sensory regions, no specific one style of instruction would trigger increased

comprehension in a student. All of the information from these sources reveal the flaws in the

learning styles theory and support the dismissal of the theory as a practical method of increasing

student performance.

The Costs of the Learning Styles Theory

Although there is no solid evidence to support the benefits of learning styles,

incorporating them should not be catastrophic. However, according to Willis, there is also an

inherently higher cost and use of resources to implement learning style based instruction. Thus,

since the learning styles theory is so common, huge sums of money have been used to implement

modified instruction into coursework. These sums of money could be utilized on other resources

or practices whereas instead, they are used to adapt lessons to in accordance to a faulty theory.

Additionally, according to Dekker, “The influence of these myths in the classroom is

problematic because it wastes money, time, and effort, which could be better spent on the

development of evidence-based practices.” Neuromyths, including the learning styles theory

utilize enormous amounts of resources in a situation where they should not be.

Now Is Not The Time To Pursue the Learning Styles Theory

There are crippling issues with the learning styles theory that need to be addressed, but

until they are, the learning styles theory should not be taken into account. Put simply by Stahl, “it

is always possible that another study or another measure or another something will find that

matching children to their preferred learning modality will produce results. But in the meantime,
 Wang 7

we have other things that we know will improve children’s reading achievement. We should look

elsewhere for solutions to reading problems.” This means that although some minor benefits

such as comfort are supplied to students when instruction is tailored towards their learning style,

currently, there is not enough solid evidence to warrant the adaptation of instruction when other

factors are known that could be utilized to improve achievement. There is no point in taking the

learning styles theory into account unless new reputable studies indicate clear benefits. Goldhill

references another study, “‘Learning Styles do not work, yet the current research literature is full

of papers which advocate their use. This undermines education as a research field and likely has

a negative impact on students,’” and effectively makes the statement that continuing to follow

the learning styles neuromyth cripples education as a whole. Moreover, the following topic of

spatial thinking has shown to be supported by more substantive evidence and includes coherent

direct benefits when fully taken into account and applied.

What Is Spatial Thinking?

While the learning styles theory is riddled with issues, spatial thinking benefits have been

proven with solid evidence and are easy to directly work towards and achieve. Spatial thinking is

a type of ability that is closely bound with the ability of people to reason with things spatially,

and deserves more attention. Spatial thinking as a topic deserves more attention given that a

methodologically sound study revealed that higher results came about in higher level STEM

classes after intentional spatial thinking exercises when compared with a control group

(Gagnier). According to the Ontario Ministry of Education, spatial ability is a predictor of

success in stem fields and is employed in many of the arts. Given this information, it can be
 Wang 8

inferred that improving spatial ability is important. The task of improving spatial ability is very

achievable.

Incorporating Spatial Thinking

Incorporating spatial thinking exercises would be extremely easy, given that exercises

that can build spatial thinking skills for children span across a wide variety of methods, including

playing with puzzles and blocks, or simply talking about space and spatial relationships (Science

Of Learning Institute). Further studies support the idea that enforcing spatial thinking deserves

more attention than the myth of learning styles. Reinforcing the information given by the Science

Of Learning Institute, a report states that activities such as mental rotation or games such as

Tetris that involve moving and rotating an object help build spatial reasoning (Newcombe).

There are so many ways to exercise spatial thinking and improve spatial ability, which is directly

linked to STEM success. Since exercising spatial thinking is easy and achievable as well as the

benefits being numerous, teachers should take this into account and incorporate more spatial

thinking exercises into lessons. Unsurprisingly, given all of the evidence in support of spatial

thinking, the National Research Council revealed that great scientific breakthroughs such as

Einstein’s theory of relativity resulted from spatial imagery. The National Research Council

stated that, “mathematics and science standards offer a direct connection to spatial thinking and

reasoning and they are fundamental to the process of education and to the idea of a

technologically skilled workforce.” Spatial thinking is a fundamental component of the

workforce, so schools should focus on spatial thinking and reasoning rather than modifying

lessons in accordance with the learning styles theory. Furthermore, criticisms about learning

styles and their lack of relevance as a real concern in education are supported by the following
 Wang 9

data collection that was distributed in a questionnaire format study. The following data reveals

that auditory activities are more prone to having auditory instruction be more effective whereas

visual activities are more prone to favoring visual instruction.

Data Collection

Rationale

The most reasonable data collection design was a questionnaire. In order to be able to

analyze the differences between results of different types of instruction for different activities, a

questionnaire was the most optimal way to collect numerical data that can show a clear cut

correlation or thereby the lack of one. It allows for the finding of opinions and thoughts on a

simple scale. Data from fellow students was also pretty accessible, so meta-analysis was not

necessary. Observation notes and a data collection notebook would not be helpful either as it

would be difficult to tell what people were thinking from external observations. Experiments

would also not benefit the study as a result of the type of data. Opinions would be hard to

measure using an experiment, whereas a questionnaire or survey is tailored towards finding

information like opinions. The questions were designed in a manner in which it would initially

allow participants to reveal their self-proclaimed learning style, and then question the

participants on their comprehension and captivation for two different types of activities that

inherently lend themselves to a specific type of instruction. These types of questions allowed the

results to paint a clear picture about the different levels at which participants rated different types

of instruction for the two activities. This information could be used in comparison to display a

blatant contrast between the ratio of self-proclaimed learning styles of participants and the

“effectiveness” results.
 Wang 10

Data

1. Type Of Learner 75.4% say they are visual, 10.8% say they are

audio, 13.8% say other.

2. Understanding of Visual Instructions for 28/65 have a below moderate understanding

Cupid Shuffle (Visual Activity) 14/65 have a moderate understanding

23/65 have an above moderate understanding

3. Captivation by Visual Instructions for 49/65 have a below moderate interest

Cupid Shuffle 10/65 have a moderate interest

6/65 have an above moderate interest

4. Understanding of Visual Instructions for 18/65 have a below moderate understanding

Spanish Alphabet (Auditory Activity) 7/65 have a moderate understanding

 Wang 11

40/65 have an above moderate understanding

5. Captivation by Visual Instructions for 24/65 have a below moderate interest

Spanish Alphabet 11/65 have a moderate interest

30/65 have a above moderate interest

6. Information Retention from Visual 28/65 correct answer

Instruction 37/65 incorrect answer

7. Understanding of Audio Instructions for 11/65 have a below moderate understanding

Cupid Shuffle 10/65 have a moderate understanding

42/65 have an above moderate understanding

8. Captivation by Audio Instructions for 18/65 have a below moderate interest

Cupid Shuffle 16/65 have a moderate interest

31/65 have an above moderate interest

9. Understanding/Recollection of Audio 13/65 have a below moderate understanding

Instructions for Spanish Alphabet 12/65 have a moderate understanding

40/65 have an above moderate understanding

10. Captivation by Audio Instructions for 19/65 have a below moderate interest

Spanish Alphabet 7/65 have a moderate interest

39/65 have an above moderate interest

11. Full Recollection of Spanish Alphabet 36/65 say yes

 Wang 12

Prediction 29/65 say no

12. Difficulties in Recollection 30/65 say none

35/65 say either bored, confused, or annoyed

with song

13. Type of preferred instruction 35/65 say visual

25/65 say audio

3/65 say kinesthetic

2/65 say a combination

14. Most effective for Cupid Shuffle 36/65 say visual

29/65 say audio

15. Most effective for Spanish Alphabet 41/65 say audio

24/65 say visual

 Wang 13

Analysis

The results seem to show what the experts are saying. The experts have been suggesting

that different activities lend themselves to different methods of instruction and that just matching

the type of instruction to the learning preference does not necessarily lend itself to a higher

effectiveness or understanding of the topic. This is supported by the data, very clearly with the

first question resulting in 75.4% of people saying they are visual learners and 10.8% saying they

are auditory learners, when in conjunction with the last two questions, paints a very clear picture

that tailoring to learning preferences does not automatically increase the effectiveness of a

lesson.

For the Cupid Shuffle, 55.4% said visual instruction was more effective while 44.6% said

audio was more effective. There is already a 20% difference from effectiveness of visual

instruction from people who classify themselves as visual learners. Dancing is already a very

tactile and visual topic. For the Spanish Alphabet, 63.1% of people said that auditory instruction
 Wang 14

was more effective, whereas only 36.9% said visual instruction was more effective. Languages

are largely taught through sounds and syllables, so this makes sense. However, given that 75.4%

of the participants are visual learners, if learning preferences really had a big impact, then visual

instruction should create a majority of people who think the visual instruction was most

effective. In addition, captivation by auditory instruction was shown to be way higher than the

visual instructionary counterparts. The results mean that for the research question, it shows that

tailoring to learning preferences or styles does not account for increased effectiveness or

increased interest for that matter, which suggests that rather than tailoring lessons to learning

preferences of students, focus should be given to other methods or exercises that improve mental

capacities of students overall. These results were not particularly surprising given the established

expert opinion.

Some limitations to the method included the lack of a 100% serious or focused group of

participants, given a few outliers who provided questionably random written answers on written

questions whereas the other participants’ answers were correct to a certain degree. If the data

collection were to be redone, changes that would be made would include changing the survey to

possibly remove some of the questions in order to more effectively retain the focus of the

participants as some of them said they became bored. Some of the questions were not grouped

together, and in the end, resulted in contradicting conclusions, such as the opposite conclusions

that were suggested by questions 1, 7, and 14. Question 7, in conjunction with question 1,

suggested that auditory instruction was more effective for learning the Cupid Shuffle. However,

in question 14, 36/65 participants, the majority still ended up saying that visual instruction was

more effective. By creating sub-questions that could only be answered if a participant answered a
 Wang 15

question in a specific manner, with ways such as the inclusion of phrases such as “If so”, the

results would have been more cohesive and painted a more carefully constructed conclusion.
 Wang 16

Conclusions

The learning styles theory has failed to provide substantive evidence of benefits when

instruction is tailored to learning style, and rather, the evidence and research suggest that

improvements in comprehension in these studies result from the type of activity inherently

lending itself to a certain method of instruction. Research has concluded that studies that explain

benefits of learning styles are methodologically invalid. Additionally, researchers have suggested

that resources should be put toward other more practical modalities since learning styles provide

little to no benefits given current evidence. The learning styles myth has been the cause of

massive sums of money being spent in order to modify lessons. Additionally data was collected

and it suggested that learning styles did not have any effect on comprehension or captivation

levels. In conclusion, readers should not continue to believe the neuromyth of learning styles and

instead put their mental resources towards more practical methods of improvement such as

spatial thinking exercises that include but is not limited to mental rotation. Readers should spread

the word about the falsehoods perpetrated by the learning styles myth and the companies who

say that they provide an end all educational plan or program.

 Wang 17

References

Burns, J. (2016, January 20). Green & Write. Retrieved from

https://edwp.educ.msu.edu/green-and-write/2016/do-learning-styles-exist/

Buschkuehl, Martin, and Cathy Tran. “Neuromyth: Do Learning Styles Matter?” ​Neuromyth: Do

Learning Styles Matter?,​ Mind Research Institute,

blog.mindresearch.org/blog/learning-styles-myth.

Coffield, F. (n.d.). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning A systematic and critical

review. Retrieved from

https://cdn.vanderbilt.edu/vu-wp0/wp-content/uploads/sites/59/2010/06/11121207/learnin

g-styles.pdf

Dekker, Sanne, Lee, Nikki C, H., Paul, Jolles, & Jelle. (2012, October 01). Neuromyths in

Education: Prevalence and Predictors of Misconceptions among Teachers. Retrieved

from http://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00429/full

Filipczak, B. (1995, March). Different strokes: learning styles in the classroom. ​Training,​ ​32(​ 3),

43+. Retrieved from

http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A16762521/GPS?u=glen20233&sid=GPS&xid=1038

8aea

Gagnier, K., M., and Fisher, K., R. (2016). Spatial Thinking: A Missing Building Block in

STEM Education. Johns Hopkins University Institute for Education Policy Commentary,

July 2016.

http://scienceoflearning.jhu.edu/assets/documents/spatial_thinking_FINAL.pdf
 Wang 18

Goldhill, O. (2016, January 04). The concept of different "learning styles" is one of the greatest

neuroscience myths. Retrieved from

https://qz.com/585143/the-concept-of-different-learning-styles-is-one-of-the-greatest-neu

roscience-myths/

National Research Council. (2006). Learning To Think Spatially. Retrieved from

www.doe.k12.de.us/cms/lib/DE01922744/Centricity/Domain/141/Learning to Think

Spatially.pdf

Newcombe, N. S. (2013). Seeing relationships: Using spatial thinking to teach science,

mathematics, and Social Studies. American Educator, 37(1), 26.

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1006210.pdf

Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles concepts and

evidence. ​Psychological Science in the Public Interest,​ 9(3), 105-119. doi:

10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x

https://www.psychologicalscience.org/journals/pspi/PSPI_9_3.pdf

Ontario Ministry of Education. (n.d.). Paying attention to Spatial Reasoning Support Document

for Paying Attention to Mathematics Education. Retrieved from

www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/lnspayingattention.pdf

Rogowsky, B. A., Calhoun, B. M., & Tallal, P. (2014, July 28). Matching Learning Style to

Instructional Method: Effects on Comprehension. Retrieved from

https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/edu-a0037478.pdf
 Wang 19

Science of Learning Institute. (2016, July 19). Retrieved from

http://scienceoflearning.jhu.edu/science-to-practice/resources/helping-your-child-develop

-skills-for-math-and-science/

Stahl, S. A. (1999). DIFFERENT STROKES FOR DIFFERENT FOLKS? A Critique of

Learning Styles. Retrieved from

https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/DiffStrokes.pdf

Willingham, D. T. (2018, Summer). ASK THE COGNITIVE SCIENTIST: Does Tailoring

Instruction to "Learning Styles" Help Students Learn? ​American Educator​, ​42​(2), 28+.

Retrieved from

http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A543900498/GPS?u=glen20233&sid=GPS&xid=b00

06d92

Willis, J. (2015, January 16). The High Cost of Neuromyths in Education. Retrieved from

https://www.edutopia.org/blog/high-costs-neuromyths-in-education-judy-willis