Ethical Psychologists: A Modern Example
A Modern Example
Have you ever heard someone say, “I’m a visual learner,” or “I learn best when I can be hands-on?” In education, there’s a commonly held belief that teachers should match instruction to students’ preferred way of learning – seeing, listening, or physically engaging in learning activities. This belief persists in education textbooks and on licensing exams. This notion has been widely accepted for decades. But is there solid scientific evidence to support the idea of learning styles? Here, we will dive into this common belief and explore evidence challenging the functionality of learning styles.
The Conundrum
The way we have defined these ‘learning styles’ suggests individuals have specific ideal ways of absorbing and retaining information. Commonly recognized learning styles include visual, auditory, reading-writing, and kinesthetic. The wide-accepted myth of having one of these styles means a learner will thrive the most when they are learning in that modality. This idea seems appealing because they align with our understanding people are unique, and we all have different strengths and preferences. Further, people like to be able to have labels to use to describe themselves (e.g., think of buzzfeed quizzes or popular personality tests). Teachers often embrace this myth, believing if they cater to each student’s learning style, students will display better comprehension and retention of information. But does it really work that way?[14]
Psychologists such as Dan Willingham at the University of Virginia, have studied the validity of learning styles, and have found no convincing evidence that they exist the way we think they do. In one study, participants were categorized as visual or auditory learners. Half of them received visual presentations, while the other half received auditory presentations on the same information. Everyone was then tested on the material. When the researchers compared the group matched with their preferred modality (i.e., visual learners saw a visual presentation) to the groups that were mismatched (i.e., auditory learners saw visual presentations), they found there was no significant difference in learning outcomes between the matched and mismatched groups. In another study examining “visualizers” versus “verbalizers” (instead of visual versus auditory learners), those researchers found similar results. In essence, there was no clear advantage in learning.[15]
The Paradox
One reason this learning styles myth persists is people often perceive a connection between their preferred style and their ability to learn. For example, if a visual learner sees a helpful diagram and experiences an “aha” moment, they might attribute it to their visual learning style. However, the diagram is likely effective for many people, not just visual learners. This can be considered confirmation bias, or interpreting information in a way that supports a pre-existing belief. Instead of cateri