Are you familiar with phlogiston?
In the 1700s, chemists were trying to figure out how and why things burn. They proposed a theory: that flammable objects contained a hypothetical substance called “phlogiston,” whose release from an object was implicated in the combustion process. In the late 1700s, this theory was discarded when oxygen and its role in combustion were identified. The presence and behavior of oxygen explained everything: no hypothetical, imaginary substance necessary.
The point here is that, while phlogiston never actually existed, it played an important role in figuring out something important and useful that does exist.
Learning styles are like that.
Like phlogiston, learning styles don’t actually exist; but the concept that gave rise to them is useful in helping to frame the accurate observation that different instructional materials (text vs. video vs. interactive vs. hands-on practice) are typically more successful than others in any given instructional scenario.
What Are “Learning Styles”—And Why Does Their Myth Persist?
Specific learning style labels have varied over the decades, but some of the most recent include visual, auditory, and kinesthetic (relating to things audiences can see, hear, and touch, respectively).
The broad categories are the key to why the learning style myth is still with us. They seem sensible, and they resonate with audiences. Ask most workshop attendees or trainees what type of learner they are, for example, and most will eagerly tell you they’re “visual learners” (which means they like watching movies) or that they’re kinesthetic or “hands-on” learners (which often means they prefer doing something—anything—other than sitting through a lecture).
This reaction is not surprising, because humans are wired to prefer ease and fun. Passively watching a video is indeed one of the easiest ways to consume information (though, sadly, not often the best way to drive understanding or recall). And hands-on activities do tend to be fun—but aren’t always instructionally useful. (One struggles to imagine a hands-on activity that would effectively drive understanding of pre-Socratic philosophy, for example.)
The Problem with Buying into the “Learning Styles” Myth
The downside to relying on audiences to know how best they can be instructed is the same problem doctors would have if they relied on patients to know how best to treat their illnesses. They’re asking the wrong people. The only things instructional audiences, or patients, are possibly qualified to know are their own preferences and reactions. It’s the job of trained, experienced experts—professional communicators and doctors, respectively—to know how best to handle a given instructional or medical situation.
Not surprisingly, after more than 60 years, there is still virtually no evidence that taking “learning styles” into account has any effect at all on instructional outcomes. This means any time or effort we spend asking audiences about their learning styles, or trying to create instructional materials based on those mythological learning styles, is wasted time we could have put to good use.
The REAL Drivers of Effective Instructional Formats
And here’s the “oxygen” part: Different media formats are, in fact, more effective in different instructional scenarios than others.
Audience preferences notwithstanding, however, the characteristics that actually determine which instructional format(s) are most effective are content type and purpose.
1. Content type
- Visual topics such as art history, biology, and software interfaces require visual materials (videos and annotated images) supported by words (explanations delivered via text callout on images and videos, in-person lecture, or video).
- Note that because high-quality instructional video is more expensive to produce and maintain than live lectures/demos, video is best reserved for non-volatile, “evergreen” topics (topics that don’t require regular updates) and asynchronous instructional delivery.
- Conceptual topics such as English and philosophy require words in the form of written materials (text), interactive lecture, and discussions.
- Performance topics such as following a business process, writing a Python program, or cutting hair require hands-on activities.
2. Purpose
- Getting emotional buy-in can be achieved via any medium (assuming the content is well executed) but is typically easiest to achieve with visual media that present real-life objects and settings via still images, videos, or in-person interactions.
- Demonstrating any skill, task, process, or behavior requires a visual demonstration (in-person demo or video).
- Training any skill, task, process, or behavior requires authentic, hands-on activities.
- Educating (scenarios in which we’re interested in measuring acquisition only of knowledge, not demonstrated skill) requires both:
- Recall of facts and concepts, which is most effectively achieved by flash cards and other simple, often-repeated interactivities that feature text and (if appropriate) images, such as traditional or gamified objective quizzes.
- Reasoning around facts and concepts, which is most effectively measured through words, words, words in the form of written explanations, discussions, and scenario handling instructions (for traditional or gamified activities).
Subtle Shift, Big Potential for Improved Instructional Outcomes
Time is a premium, and the key to success in any field is to use it wisely. Like the discovery of oxygen, the recognition of the true drivers of effective instructional formats allows us to stop chasing myths and, instead, to shift our focus to the proven strategies most likely to produce positive results.
